July 26, 2010

The Baby with the Bathwater

Difficult times, like middle age, often cause one to reflect on their life. These are certainly difficult times, and I am, just as certainly, standing out on that damnable precipice of middle age. At this point, my reflections have less to do with warm nostalgia than wondering just what the hell I did with all my time. So far, the answer to that question has eluded me - but I do recall associating with a supposedly diverse crowd. There were lots of musicians, artists, an aspiring filmmaker or two, a few writers, maybe an occasional person with a ‘real’ job (and many more without).

When I consider what it was that we all had in common, certain values and attitudes come to mind. Most of my peers prided themselves on maintaining an 'outsider' status. I liked that. We also shared a passion for individualism. We were tolerant (although I’m learning that may have been a fa├žade for many). We were disgusted with hypocrisy. We admired those who went ‘against the grain’ and had contempt for convention in both art and life.

While no one would have labeled themselves part of any cultural movement - we did have a kind of ‘punk rock’ ethos. I had always understood those values to be the belief in free self-expression and the perpetual questioning of authority. While the 'hippie' thing was centered on communality, this was based on individuality. In retrospect, there was actually a lot of good in our youthful ideology.

But then something happened. We got older. We may have had a child - or four… and we all had to make our separate peace with “Society”. I certainly stand accused of this, but few people are the same at 35 as they were at 25. The tragedy is, however, many of my peers have discarded what was actually good about the beliefs of our youth.

The current political and economic crisis in America has really made this tragedy all the more apparent. Many of my friends and associates, who should have been immune to manipulation ‘from above’, seem to have fallen for the Obama illusion. Forget the nitty gritty of politics – anything with the flash and glitz of the Obama campaign would have prompted profuse vomiting from all of them in the past.

The universal acceptance of Obama by the media should have been warning enough, let alone the slick demagoguery. Now, many support an establishment which is far more the polar opposite of our ‘punk rock’ ideology than any conservative politician like Rand Paul. Conscious of it or not, they have accepted new rules which mock diversity, individuality, and especially commonsense.

The rules seem to be like this:

1) Do not “kill” your television! The Mainstream Media, once suspect, is now to be trusted. The majority of the news and entertainment media openly supports the Obama Regime without question. Alternative news sources - one network news channel, a few satellite channels, and a couple of AM radio programs – should be avoided.

2) Protest and dissension is neither acceptable nor patriotic as of January 20, 2009.
The establishment is the good guy. The anti - establishment should be deemed obstructionist, if not racist, or tools of phantom corporate interests.
(Now, it would seem, invisible forces control the people and not the government!)

3) War is no longer immoral or evil. As long as the president in office is a liberal, war protesting should cease… until a Republican is back in office, of course.

4) Learning about, referring to, or discussing the Constitution are endeavors which should be mocked.
If Bill Maher or Jon Stewart mocks it – so should we. The mass of Americans should be considered sheeple – however, they should also be criticized for trying to change this condition (especially if they draw conclusions which differ from liberal orthodoxy).

5) Civil libertarians should no longer be concerned with, nor argue against, the expansion of Executive Branch powers – so long as a Democrat is in office. The Patriot Act and other constitutionally sketchy laws are no longer relevant threats.
6) In regards to entertainment, the “bad guy” shall now be typecast as anti-government zealots as opposed to government groups such as the Department of Homeland Security. Remember how, during the Bush era, the Feds were constantly foiling justice in shows like Law and Order and CSI? Watch militia, survivalist, and other anti - fed stereotypes become the "bad guy". And Islamic terrorists are completely off limits - it upsets them.

7) Grassroots (regular people) political movements should be scorned - unless, of course, they have approval of the liberal Hollywood elite and other non-regular people. This is another example of how the invisible forces of evil, who, until Obama, supposedly controlled the government, are now supposedly controlling the anti - government movements! You know that old lady at the town-hall meeting concerned about her grandchild's future? She's clearly a tool of the corporate oppressors!

8) We will put our narrow interest above the good of the nation. Public school teachers, for instance, supports whomever puts more taxpayer money in their pocket, the aspiring bureaucrat supports whomever promises a cushy government job, and an African - American casts a vote for a candidate “just because he’s black”… and all is hunky dory.

9) Our politics are now thoroughly in agreement with people we previously despised as “sell-outs” or mainstream hacks such as Barbara Streisand or Madonna.

10) Although we decry consumption and large corporations, we gladly consume the best American enterprise has to offer: we buy computers, video game machines, use Blackberries, Droids, and all the latest in telecommunications; we enjoy plane trips, use fossil fuels, and petroleum products; we drive Japanese cars with “Save the Whales” bumper stickers.

Tax dollars at work buying Chuck Rangel a nice place to kick back and hide assets from the IRS
11) We don’t fear the redistribution of wealth (so long as it isn't ours). Our Vice President Biden even claimed that ‘paying taxes was patriotic’. Yet we use accountants to find tax loopholes, we hide income from the Government, and the wealthiest among us even shelter money offshore. Worst of all, we do not expect our own lawmakers and officials to redistribute their own income (ie. Tom Daschle, Charles Rangel, Tim Geitner).

12) Individuality is no longer sacrosanct. Rather than protecting the rights of individuals in society, we support laws based on racial identity and sexual orientation. The use of discrimination to end discrimination is acceptable. (Perceived) social justice now takes precedent over individual liberty. We feel the need for a "Nanny State" to help decide what is best for us.

So, there you have it – just a few of the rules to which many of my friends and peers have acquiesced in this Age of Obama. Perhaps if they had not professed such radically different values all those years ago, I would not be so utterly surprised. By discarding the reasonable and worthwhile beliefs we held in our younger days – it seems many have gotten older but not necessarily wiser…

Stay tuned. Get radical (again).

May 27, 2010

Sending Liberals to Their Happy Place

I promised my readers I would cover this topic as part of my recent entries about American Liberalism and here it is:

I have learned that conversing with a liberal is a fairly predictable event. Though they rarely admit to being Socialists (the Marxist variety), the subtext of their argument is always the belief that socialism is the answer to America's problems. My argument against socialism is equally predictable: The laboratory of history has shown this experiment to have the same failed and tragic result - under a variety of circumstances. Even in our own country, is it not the socialistic programs which are perpetually broken and hemorrhaging tax money with little result?

At this point liberals will usually retort that it is America's 'lack of commitment to socio-economic justice (meaning socialism)' which is to blame for its less than desirable condition. They believe that 'if only taxpayers and industry were made to give more' or 'if the right person (like Obama) was allowed to lead the nation without impediment' then things would be different. To which I respond: It is in those very nations, whose leadership had total commitment to socialism and devoted all political energies towards those ends, where history's most gruesome atrocities occurred. Even with all of the means of the nation mobilized and effective opposition neutralized - Socialism still ultimately failed.

so long sucker

While there are still some examples of committed socialist nations, such as North Korea or Cuba, their oppressive governments and miserable standard of living do not make for an attractive model of something better than life in America. And a nation like China, which has survived by implementing reform in such a way as to create a type of 'vulgar' socialism and capitalism, is hardly an alternative either.

So what is a liberal to say?

They inevitably respond, "That is not our socialism. Our socialism is the successful one we see in Europe. I read a study by _______ that ________ is one of the best places to live in the world! They have Socialism."

This, my friends, is their proverbial ace-in-the hole. This is the one pillar on which rank and file liberals stand and behind which neo-marxists shield themselves.

And there could not be a weaker defense of Socialism than this.

Apples and Oranges

The conclusion that the people of Europe are "happier" or "better off" than we are - as a direct result of their incorporation of socialism - requires one to make multiple leaps of faith and logic. Furthermore, assuming we can accept the validity of dubious studies, which claim to measure often subjective things, to accept that European models can be applied to the United States is equally far fetched. Let me show you:


Consider Norway, a Scandinavian nation often lionized by American liberals. This constitutional monarchy (that's right - a monarchy) has a total population numbering little more than half of New York City. In fact, with a population of only 4,676,305 Norwegians, you could fit their population into the United States 66 times over! With what childlike simplicity do liberals think that the same bureaucracy that administers the heath care system in Norway could function in the same manner, or even remotely resemble itself, in our nation of over 310 million?

Consider that there are, according to some figures, three times the number of Illegal immigrants in the United States than the total number of people in Norway. The number of illegal immigrants entering into Norway is by comparison a statistical zero. Could this be a factor in the perceived happiness in that country? Could it be the reason social programs allegedly work there?

There are also extreme cultural differences between the United States and Norway. This country, like others liberals love, is striking in its utter lack of diversity. This is a country of 94% Norwegians... meaning white people. This is also a country where 85.7% of the population are members of the Church of Norway (Lutheranism). Catholics are 1% and Jews are statistically non-existent. I am not condemning Norway - there are reasons why they are this way - but that is not how America is, and it creates consequences for both nations.

Should I continue with other incongruities such as international financial and humanitarian commitments, we would be here all day...

So, this is the liberal Mecca? A country of nearly all one race and religion, the approximate population size of Alabama. Could it be proven that their socialism is anymore responsible for their supposed happiness than say cultural, traditional, or even genetic factors?

Post War Europe

The sacred cow of liberals continues to implode when one considers general European history. American liberals cannot point to a long tradition of European socialism. The first half of the twentieth century was marked by chaos and destruction from two World Wars (the last involving two major socialist regimes). In 1945, devastated Europe had nowhere to go but up. Then, Europe had the benefit of the Marshall Plan (American money) and the Cold War (more American money). The key here is that any serious study of European style socialism is bound to be sharply skewed.

That is not to say that Socialism thus far is even worth the price that Europe's citizens pay. The fact remains that the people are taxed heavily to provide for priorities decided upon by a comparative few. Our example nation of Norway is the 5th most expensive country in which to live. It is interesting to note that as many European nations become increasingly diverse, there is growing dissatisfaction with socialist policies by citizens. France is an excellent example of this trend. Today, we are watching a growing economic crisis where many European nations are paying the price for their social entitlements. Greece being a prime example (unfortunately for us, the American taxpayer via the IMF will prop up their socialism).

And finally, the type of socialism that American liberals are so enamored with is in fact a type of National Socialism. The socialism in Europe is defined and confined by their respective nation-states; the elements of socialism in each country are subject to the unique characteristics of each country. There is no class solidarity across borders, brotherhood of the proletariat, or any such nonsense. This brings up all kinds of complications, not the least of which is the fact that liberals are supposedly against nationalism.

Ultimately, none of this matters. Most liberals won't listen to more than a few of these points before they get that glassy stare. It's a stare that says, "Don't confuse me with your facts. I am going to my happy place now..." The fact that liberals have been using this argument, weak as it may be, for so long is actually a good thing... it makes my job easy - if not predictable.

Note: You can find the statistics I use in several places. A user-friendly website is: The CIA World Factbook. My number of illegal immigrants in the US come from a report by the Pew Hispanic Center, a non-partisan research organization. Let it be known, I love Norway and its people - horned Vikings hats, fjords, and all.


May 20, 2010

I was wrong?

I am not above admitting when I am wrong- and I was wrong. Well, maybe more fooled than wrong...Okay, I was wrong to be fooled. Regardless, I usually try to avoid regional and local issues in my blogs, but in order to come clean, I must briefly stray from my modus operandi. So with out further ado... my "mea culpa":

I once supported Florida's Governor Charlie Crist.


Halfhearted as my support was, I thought I saw enough in Crist to give him a chance - and my vote. He seemed to be at least a young, sharp, and energetic Republican. He wasn't exactly conservative... he was the typical middle-of-the-road 'McCain-type' Republican... but mostly he was the lesser of two evils (running against Jim Davis, endorsed by then Illinois Senator Barack Obama).

There were warning signs which I won't recount here, but sufficed to say, they predictably ended with Crist switching to the Independent 'unparty' (you know, like an 'unbirthday') just weeks ago. His departure from the Republican party was seen by many as an act of political self-preservation... whatever. He received votes and money from Floridians by promising to uphold certain values and govern in a certain manner. Crist failed on both promises.


In my estimation, he is exactly what was wrong with the Republican politicians these past few years. He threw his conservative constituents enough bones to satisfy them and then promptly threw us under the bus on important issues. We - Conservatives - were used to that kind of measured disappointment, weren't we? We could at least take solace in the fact that the only thing worse than a "big government Republican" is a Democrat. The difference being the latter has compromised small government and free market ideals while the other one never had them at all.

The fact is that I... we... conservatives, had come to expect little from our own politicians. We tolerated far too much Progressiveness- and the election of Crist was just as much proof of this as the candidacy of John McCain.The 'lesser of two evils' theory may be pragmatic but it still is wrong. We allowed the party to make electability a priority over conservative values and paid in spades for it.

As the Obama Regime grinds on, it seems that Conservatism may be coming to terms with its own complacency, particularly in regards to the shenanigans of the Republican party. The end of 'big government' Republicans may hopefully be at hand and perhaps the party will be a home for conservatives again. And while America is quickly getting on board, the only sad thing about ship-jumpers like Specter and Crist is that we tolerated them for so long...


May 19, 2010

The Great Divide(r)

It was not too long ago that candidate Obama spoke with great concern about the unnecessary partisanship and unproductive bickering in Washington. He used words like "healing", "unity", and "working together". The story was that George Bush had divided this country, and when elected, Obama would be charged with unifying this great nation... Remember?

In my thirty seven years of life, I have never before witnessed the kind of divisiveness we have in America today. I make it a point to get out and speak with as many people as I can from all walks of life. Quite simply, people are angry. They feel they are worse off today than they were prior to January, 20 2009. I have personally witnessed people who have never mentioned politics before in pitch battles with co-workers and neighbors. In my own life, there have been sad episodes where politics has gotten in the way of continuing friendships - something I have never experienced before.


History tells us the sixties were rough and maybe so... but to quote a wiseguy on the Sopranos, "We stand... on the precipice... of a crossroads" (Say it with a NY accent and it is double plus good).

Anyways, during my drive home this evening I started making a quick mental list of how president Obama and his Regime has, in a staggeringly short time, divided this nation. See if you can add a few I have missed...

Let's start with the first and most obvious folks alienated:

Libertarians, Republicans of all varieties (both conservative and centrist), Constitutionalists, conservative and religious blacks, people who believe in the right to bear arms (with or without bibles), and the millions of Limbaugh, Beck, and other talk radio fans.

Then we have:

The mentally challenged and their parents, policemen and women (did he ever have that beer over the Gates affair?), survivalists and homesteaders, white male construction workers (No Stimulus for you!), the military and veterans, the entire city of Las Vegas, and now the state of Arizona.


Against expectation, the Regime moving sharply leftward has alienated:

Reagan, Blue dog, and Southern Democrats (ie. fiscally and/or socially conservative Dems.) who are voting for non-Democrats and leaving the party en masse. Many of them echoing the classic Reagan line: "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the party left me!"

Humorously enough Obama has managed to upset:

Both the Anti-war camp and those who support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (in case you forgot- there is still a war going on), people who are both for and against offshore oil drilling, and LEGAL immigrants who have to jump through hoops to do the right thing.

And under the Obama watch:

Los Angeles and San Francisco are threatening to boycott the State of Arizona... imagine cities bickering with states! Somehow, the Regime has made being Hispanic and being an illegal immigrant one-in-the-same thereby pitting general Hispanic groups against non-Hispanic Americans. Racial tensions between white and black have risen to new heights as criticism of Obama is labeled racism. The regime has done nothing to dispel those charges nor have they criticized the escalating use of the "Race Card" by surrogates.

As a direct result of Obama's actions:

We experienced the 'Town Hall' phenomenon where normally docile citizens voiced their frustrations and were labeled an "angry mob" by Obama's surrogates for their troubles. We saw the birth of the Birthers, heard oaths from the Oathkeepers, as well as the formation of the grassroots Tea Party movement - which is made up of a cross-section of Americans from different political parties. The lackey media has been alienating itself from these and other Americans by heaping abuse and humiliation on those who dare organize and speak up in opposition to the Obama Regime.

What has Obama done to ease any of these tensions or to address concerns?

Still pulling for Obama and his regime:

Socialists, Communists, the Hollywood A and B lists, illegal immigrants, black people who support Obama only because he says he is black, the mainstream media, the entire nation of Kenya, chronic welfare abusers, federal bureaucrats, Hugo Chavez, tax cheats, and most recently artist and musician types (who can now spend their extra cash on dope and quit their day jobs! See the clip below).

Now that I think about it, perhaps Obama is a force for unification. His presidency and Regime have caused groups, normally at odds with each other, to build bridges - albeit in opposition to him. He has energized average Americans to form grassroots movements and speak up - albeit against his policies. He has single-handedly done more to inspire folks to learn about the Constitution - albeit out of fear of the Regime's intentions.

Of all these unintended consequences, perhaps the most galling to the Democrats is the flight of moderate and conservative elements from their own party and a growing anti-incumbency sentiment - all at a time Democrats hold a majority and - all consequences of their handpicked golden boy in action. You have to love that!

Keep up the good work Obama... soon enough we will all be Libertarians and Conservatives.