Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
Make Mine Freedom (1948) is a post WWII cartoon that is alarmingly relevant given the political climate of today. This little gem really sums up the evils of “ism,” a generic term used to represent Communism, Marxism and Progressivism.
Another ironic point in the cartoon is the idea of drinking the KoolAid, because the “ism” in the film is represented by a tonic being peddled by a “Dr. Yoo-Topia.”
Do yourself a favor and take 10 minutes to watch this film. Then forward it to as many people as you can.
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
President Barack Obama’s advisers will remove religious terms such as “Islamic extremism” from the central document outlining the U.S. national security strategy and will use the rewritten document to emphasize that the United States does not view Muslim nations through the lens of terror, counterterrorism officials said.
The change is a significant shift in the National Security Strategy, a document that previously outlined the Bush Doctrine of preventative war and currently states: “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”
The officials described the changes on condition of anonymity because the document still was being written, and the White House would not discuss it. However, Robert Gibbs broke ranks with the rest of the White House officials and was quoted as saying, “President Obama feels that, uh, um, that, um by not saying Islamic extremism and war on terror that those in the, um other countries that have a lot of um, sand in them would, um, uh view the United States more favorably and therefore we could have a dialog with, um, them.”
“The President also feels that this process can be utilized in, um, uh other areas of the political spectrum. For example, we will no longer be using the words, jobs, unemployment, gasoline prices or nuclear weapons. By dissecting these words and phrases from the lexicon, then the American public will not focus so much on these areas, thereby allowing us to have a, um, uh dialog with them.”
When pressed on this development, anonymous White House sources said that the President is also considering removing the words and phrases Republican, GOP and Mid Term elections from the English language. However, the administration will be leaving the phrase, “all Bush’s fault” in the English language.
Please go to the plugin admin page to Paste your ad code OR Suppress this ad slot.
MoveOn, the George Soros funded astroturf army of the left, is making an interesting threat. First, this from FOX News.
Moveon.org has reportedly raised $3,578,117 in contributions to fund primary challenges against ‘any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option,’ according to an e-mail sent to group members on Thursday
A civil war is threatening to erupt within the Democratic Party as liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org looks to punish moderate Democrats opposed to the sweeping health care overhaul proposed by party leaders.
MoveOn has reportedly raised more than $3.5 million in contributions to fund primary challenges against “any Democratic senator who blocks an up-or-down vote on health care reform with a public option,” according to an e-mail sent to group members on Thursday.
The e-mail warned that any Democratic House member who joins Republicans to filibuster the health care reform measure will “face an enormous backlash from the grassroots.”
There’s a lot to cover here.
First, the goons have been unleashed. The SEIU and ACORN will not be far behind. It’s no mystery as to why this email became public. It is meant as a warning to Democratic lawmakers. Let’s translate that idea.
CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION:“Ehh, the Don wants this legislation for his legacy. He knows most of yous, as well as himself, will be voted out in the next few years, so he wants this done! Once it’s passed, no one will ever get rid of it, and Democrats can say every election, “Those evil Republicans want to take yous’s health care away so yous’ll DIIIIIIIE!!!!” If yous don’t cooperate with the Don, our respectable community organizers will make sure unfortunate things happen to yous…yeah “unfortunate,” that’s it.”
“Enormous backlash from the grassroots.” OK, we know what the Democratic grassroots are all about. They’ll show up with in buses, be paid, and wearing identically printed shirts and signs. They’ll spout off the scripts they’ve been given, and “speakers” claiming to be “doctors” at town halls will be Democratic plants. Sound familiar? It was done all this summer in response to the Tea Parties.
3.5 million?? Come on Mr. Soros, you have billions. Get your minions at the DNC to put in more. Or, better yet, throw in a 100 million of your own. It’s for your socialist agenda, isn’t it? You have enough of a tangled web to launder all of that money so it doesn’t appear to be from you! Come on now, go all in! 3.5 million is a pittance, only enough to damage one blue dog, if that.
OK, sarcastic ranting aside, Why am I obviously happy with this? Well, the nation is against ObamaCare, PelosiCare, KilloffGrannyCare, or whatever you want to call it. The public option is a big reason why. If the left knocks of Democratic moderates, and puts socialists up against Republicans, Conservatives, and Independents, they will get annihilated at the polls. The left, the MSM, and pretty much anyone outside of the “alternative media” haven’t a clue that there is a change going on out in flyover country. And yes, it IS a change that we can believe in.
Oh I just remembered…
Isn’t the “extreme” wing of a party attacking nice moderates very, very bad? I guess it’s only bad when Conservatives do it.
ATR, has this list of all the taxes in Pelosi-Care…
Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).
Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.
So, the government will again force you to get insurance. How very American? This will, or course, raise some constitutional questions regarding the ability of the federal government to dictate that a citizen purchase something. Many are stating that the government does not have a legal leg to stand on. It might be interesting to see how that develops.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.
Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).
Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)
The last three are of particular interest to me. HSAs and the other types of re-imbursement programs have the function of allowing people greater independence with their health care, as they are paying their bills with their own money. Hence, the consumer controls what they purchase. HSAs are bundled with a high deductible insurance plan, which is relatively inexpensive, to cover catastrophic illness and severe injuries. Also, the ability to use these accounts for OTC medications, as well as other wellness activities, allows people to meet many of the government goals for health care…but without the loving hand of big brother to guide it. It is my opinion that the government dislikes these plans due to this independence. I believe that these restrictions are the first of many to be placed on savings type plans. Over time, they will be phased out, or made to be too expensive and limited to be desirable. Too much freedom there!
Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.
Private Medicare plans represent choice and, in many cases, increased access to care via private companies. Since government control is the goal, they have to be progressively limited, then eliminated. This will have the effect of returning Medicare to the sole control of the government.
Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.
Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.
Let’s make medical devises more expensive! Yes, it doesn’t count for retail, but will it make your hospital bill go up? We all have to remember that the end user pays all taxes, so it’s predictable that we’ll be paying for this tax.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.
Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act
Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.
Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.
Let’s put more people out of work! Naturally, if you increase costs for businesses, one of four things happens.
The business moves away
The business goes out of business
The business raises prices
The business either lays off workers, or doesn’t replace departed workers.
None of these are obviously good for business, or jobs.
Also note the fact that this is terribly open to interpretation. The IRS can say, and probably will, that almost any deduction is not primarily business related. Of course, any company that has disagreed with the POTUS and this plan will suddenly find their deductions to be non-deductible. Remember this, Humana!
Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.
It would seem that the government desires more control of the health care system. We‘ve already established that the government option, now renamed the “consumer option,” is meant to be phase one of a single payer plan. See posts here, and here to review that development. Considering all the new taxes and restrictions that make people more dependent on the government, it is logical to conclude that the complete takeover of healthcare is again being attempted. Again, this goal is not openly stated. In fact, they use kind sounding words like “consumer option,” to lull the public into thinking that they will have control. However, when you look at the legislation and the tax increases, as well as what the tax increases target, one can see that the plan penalizes private insurance, and would force more people into the “consumer option.” We might as well call it the “consumer not-an-option.”
OK, we on the right know this, and have for some time. The well known videos have been in circulation for some time now. The administration, of course, have said that these are all taken out of context.
Here’s a screencap of Obama’s website from 2003. Let’s see them try to explain this away…
Click for a full view in my photobucket.
To show the item of interest, here is a closer look…
So, the POTUS and his minions are caught again. Let’s see what they have to say about this, if anything.
Interestingly, the site changed the language a bit in 2004. Take a look here…
Again, you can click for the full sized image. The original, for now, is here.
Here is the closeup.
So, apparently, a change in language was in order. I guess they wanted to fool people into thinking that universal care isn’t single payer? Or, was it some polling that said folks don’t like the term “single payer?” At any rate, they did tone down the language.
Note: Go here and screencapture as much as humanly possible. It won’t be there for much longer, I’m afraid. I’ve retrieved as much of the 2002 and 2003 information that I could.
When people “wake up,” or are questioning the differences between what they see, and what they have been taught, they frequently ask, “How did this happen?”
People see others being rewarded for failure, or penalized for success. Politicians lie, and lie egregiously. People that tell the truth are vilified. Professors and public school teachers consistently and persistently teach against our nation and heritage, and penalize those who do not “go along.” Too many of our citizens believe that it is appropriate to confiscate the wealth of another to subsidize their own failed lifestyles. Our president apologizes for our nation’s defending freedom, and others blame us for terrorist attacks that take the lives of thousands of innocent people. Our children are not educated-they are indoctrinated. Our children are over sexualized, by their schools, by their peers, and by the entertainment industry. They know little of our nation and government, but they know how to put a condom on a banana. The list could go on and on. One thing is clear, our nation has changed, and it continues on a frightening course.
To describe what has happened to our nation, and more importantly, our culture, we have to look at the architects of that change. The fact is that our culture has been targeted for decades, and most Americans are completely unaware of the nature of this attack. It has been incremental, and has impacted all of our institutions. To examine all of this, I will be quoting “The Culture-wise Family: Upholding Christian Values in a Mass Media World.”
First, we have to look at the term “Cultural Marxism.”
Before World War I, Marxist theory said that if Europe ever erupted in war, the working classes in every European country would rise in revolt, overthrow their governments and create a new Communist Europe. But when war broke out in the summer of 1914, that didn’t happen. Instead, the workers in every European country lined up by the millions to fight their country’s enemies. Finally, in 1917, a Communist revolution did occur, in Russia. But attempts to spread that revolution to other countries failed because the workers did not support it.
After World War I ended in 1918, Marxist theorists had to ask themselves the question: What went wrong? As good Marxists, they could not admit Marxist theory had been incorrect. Instead, two leading Marxist intellectuals, Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukacs in Hungary (Lukacs was considered the most brilliant Marxist thinker since Marx himself) independently came up with the same answer. They said that Western culture and the Christian religion had so blinded the working class to its true, Marxist class interests, that a Communist revolution was impossible in the West, until both could be destroyed. That objective, established as cultural Marxism’s goal right at the beginning, has never changed.
Now, the meaning of the term “Western Culture” is not made explicit here. To elaborate, here is a definition:
Western culture is a body of knowledge derived from reason.
This foundation of reason has made possible a vast accumulation of understanding related to reality or nature, including human nature.
This understanding is represented in several core ideals and values, which include individualism, happiness, rights, capitalism, science and technology.
Western culture can also be referred to as advanced culture; this is because its ideas and values promote the development and sustainment of advanced civilization.
So, when offered Communism, the workers rejected it. Western Culture interfered. The ideas of individuality, self reliance, success, work, owning property, the ability to rise above one’s origins, all give hope to the people, especially when the people can act upon and achieve these hopes. The ability to earn, and keep what you earn; all lead to resistance to Communism. After all, why would you give up the ability to earn and be successful to join a de-humanizing collective?
Christianity has another powerful role on resistance to Marxism. Marxism is “Godless,” by it’s own description, however, I have often postulated that this is an incorrect. I believe that in a Marxist state, God is replaced by the state as the giver of life and all things material. Religion, and its reliance on a higher power creates a situation in which loyalty to the state is secondary to the loyalty to God. This is intolerable to the Marxist.
Gramsci famously laid out a strategy for destroying Christianity and Western culture, one that has proven all too successful. Instead of calling for a Communist revolution up front, as in Russia, he said Marxists in the West should take political power last, after a “long march through the institutions” – the schools, the media, even the churches, every institution that could influence the culture. That “long march through the institutions” is what America has experienced, especially since the 1960s. Fortunately, Mussolini recognized the danger Gramsci posed and jailed him. His influence remained small until the 1960s, when his works, especially the “Prison Notebooks,” were rediscovered.
Georg Lukacs proved more influential. In 1918, he became deputy commissar for culture in the short-lived Bela Kun Bolshevik regime in Hungary. There, asking, “Who will save us from Western civilization?” he instituted what he called “cultural terrorism.” One of its main components was introducing sex education into Hungarian schools. Lukacs realized that if he could destroy the country’s traditional sexual morals, he would have taken a giant step toward destroying its traditional culture and Christian faith.
Please realize that Mussolini was not a good guy. The fascists, particularly Hitler, viewed Marxism as a related, but inferior system to fascism. Mussolini was simply imprisoning another political opponent, one from a related, but competing ideology.
I think it’s easy to see that the long march through the institutions has been largely completed, and the steps to taking political power are well underway. They have education, law, media, and many other related fields. Considering that they want to do away with alternative media, ban home schooling, and use law to accomplish both, the intent becomes clear.
Also, what conclusions can we make regarding the sexual revolution? Is it about “liberating people,” or was it just about getting people away from religion? After all, most religions teach sexual restraint. This is taught in the home and at church. However, if the media, and later the schools, teach the opposite, and literally encourage sexual experimentation, a disconnect with the religious instruction and belief is created. This worked incredibly well in Communist states.
P. Blanchard, in ‘The Humanist” 1983, continues: “I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is 16 tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”
As time wore on, these men formed what was to be called the Institute for Marxism. Realizing that people would be alarmed by that name, they instead called it the “Institute for Social Research.” Colloquially, it was referred to as the “Frankfort School.” I guess that this is the first example of “CALLING IT SOMETHING ELSE?”
With the help of this new blood, Horkheimer made three major advances in the development of cultural Marxism. First, he broke with Marx’s view that culture was merely part of society’s “superstructure,” which was determined by economic factors. He said that on the contrary, culture was an independent and very important factor in shaping a society.
Second, again contrary to Marx, he announced that in the future, the working class would not be the agent of revolution. He left open the question of who would play that role – a question Marcuse answered in the 1950s.
Today, when Hollywood’s cultural Marxists want to “normalize” something like homosexuality (thus “liberating” us from “repression”), they put on television show after television show where the only normal-seeming white male is a homosexual. That is how psychological conditioning works; people absorb the lessons the cultural Marxists want them to learn without even knowing they are being taught.
Brainwashing, pure and simple. Denigrate the culture, and make this denigration appear everywhere. Schools, media, even some churches, all promote Cultural Marxism. The sad thing is-they don’t even know they’re doing it! Of course, we know, because they said what they were going to do, and it’s being done!
To serve its purpose of “negating” Western culture, the Frankfurt School developed a powerful tool it called “Critical Theory.” What was the theory? The theory was to criticize. By subjecting every traditional institution, starting with family, to endless, unremitting criticism (the Frankfurt School was careful never to define what it was for, only what it was against), it hoped to bring them down. Critical Theory is the basis for the “studies” departments that now inhabit American colleges and universities. Not surprisingly, those departments are the home turf of academic political correctness.
Studies in prejudice
The Frankfurt School sought to define traditional attitudes on every issue as “prejudice” in a series of academic studies that culminated in Adorno’s immensely influential book, “The Authoritarian Personality,” published in 1950. They invented a bogus “F-scale” that purported to tie traditional beliefs on sexual morals, relations between men and women and questions touching on the family to support for fascism. Today, the favorite term the politically correct use for anyone who disagrees with them is “fascist.”
This is one of the big lies of the left. Anyone who believes in freedom is a “fascist.” Anyone who believes in doing what the Marxists or Fascists actually did, are progressives! This doesn’t actually present a way of thinking and doing that might be better, it’s about silencing and discrediting dissent. If you can discredit a person, than you discredit their ideas. The progressives have to avoid discussing ideas, especially when the ideas are superior to what they are trying to do.
The Frankfurt School again departed from orthodox Marxism, which argued that all of history was determined by who owned the means of production. Instead, they said history was determined by which groups, defined as men, women, races, religions, etc., had power or “dominance” over other groups. Certain groups, especially white males, were labeled “oppressors,” while other groups were defined as “victims.” Victims were automatically good, oppressors bad, just by what group they came from, regardless of individual behavior.
I remember having a discussion with a group of people that claimed that I have had some level of success in my life due to “white privilege.” Now, this claim intends to do a few things:
It attempts to negate the influence the actual effort and work. This is a part of Western Culture. I actually made a great effort to get educated, and then I worked hard at my career. However, this is contrary to Marxism, so it must be discredited by claiming that anything I have came about because of my race. Frankly, I don’t particularly like my efforts being discredited.
The ability to succeed gives hope to others. To keep their victim classes on the “plantation,” the progressives must convince the “victims” that they are kept at a low level due to others having this “privilege.” Victim classes can only be kept victims if they are thoroughly convinced that they cannot succeed. What better way to do that than to convince them that successful people are only successful because of “special advantages?” They also claim that any minorities that achieve success have “sold out.” Remember Clarence Thomas’s confirmation?
Many people are prompted to feel guilt when they are brought to the understanding of their “privilege.” Don’t laugh! I’ve literally heard people say this! After all, if you are feeling guilty about having things because the culture is so totally in your favor, you might not feel very bad about giving up some things to make it all right, like, for example, your freedom?
In the end, I didn’t cave in to the Marxism, so I was accused of being a racist. In typical progressive fashion, I had to be discredited. Facts were irrelevant, and what I said had to be discounted. The smear is the last defense of the progressives.
Though Marxists, the members of the Frankfurt School also drew from Nietzsche (someone else they admired for his defiance of traditional morals was the Marquis de Sade). They incorporated into their cultural Marxism what Nietzsche called the “transvaluation of all values.” What that means, in plain English, is that all the old sins become virtues, and all the old virtues become sins. Homosexuality is a fine and good thing, but anyone who thinks men and women should have different social roles is an evil “fascist.” That is what political correctness now teaches children in public schools all across America. (The Frankfurt School wrote about American public education. It said it did not matter if school children learned any skills or any facts. All that mattered was that they graduate from the schools with the right “attitudes” on certain questions.)
Well, it had to bring us to education eventually. This is what we have been talking about for years now. Scores are down, graduation rates are down, and illiteracy is up. But this is acceptable, as most of the children reject God, and embrace Marxist teachings!
Marcuse also widened the Frankfurt School’s intellectual work. In the early 1930s, Horkheimer had left open the question of who would replace the working class as the agent of Marxist revolution. In the 1950s, Marcuse answered the question, saying it would be a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women and homosexuals – the core of the student rebellion of the 1960s, and the sacred “victims groups” of political correctness today. Marcuse further took one of political correctness’s favorite words, “tolerance,” and gave it a new meaning. He defined “liberating tolerance” as tolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the left, and intolerance for all ideas and movements coming from the right. When you hear the cultural Marxists today call for “tolerance,” they mean Marcuse’s “liberating tolerance” (just as when they call for “diversity,” they mean uniformity of belief in their ideology).
The student rebellion of the 1960s, driven largely by opposition to the draft for the Vietnam War, gave Marcuse a historic opportunity. As perhaps its most famous “guru,” he injected the Frankfurt School’s cultural Marxism into the baby boom generation. Of course, they did not understand what it really was. As was true from the Institute’s beginning, Marcuse and the few other people “in the know” did not advertise that political correctness and multi-culturalism were a form of Marxism. But the effect was devastating: a whole generation of Americans, especially the university-educated elite, absorbed cultural Marxism as their own, accepting a poisonous ideology that sought to destroy America’s traditional culture and Christian faith. That generation, which runs every elite institution in America, now wages a ceaseless war on all traditional beliefs and institutions. They have largely won that war. Most of America’s traditional culture lies in ruins.
So, when we are referred to as racists for questioning Obama’s policies, we know why. When there is no outrage when Van Jones is an avowed Communist, we see through the ignorance. When an untold number of protesters swarm Washington DC, and the MSM minimizes it, we see the cause. When our children are indoctrinated, we see the purpose.
They infiltrated the institutions, just as they said they would. They have since trained/indoctrinated generations of people. Think for a moment… why are so many in the MSM are ignoring Obama’s lies, his czars, and the ACORN story? They were indoctrinated! They went to the universities! The Cultural Marxists occupied them first! Why are so many public school teachers towing the line? Same thing! They went to the universities! The list is virtually endless. They have turned education into a leftist indoctrination machine, allowing them to then infiltrate every other institution in our nation.
This ties together with other topics that we have discussed. For example, the Alinsky Method seems to be nothing more than a playbook for Critical Theory and tolerant repression. It is a method to achieve the end. The media’s ignorance and lies serve as well. All of the indoctrinated institutions seem to act in the same way to work towards the goals, and circles the wagons for defense.
Where does this leave us? We are in a precarious situation. Our institutions are in the possession of people that would fundamentally change our republic. The vast majority of them have no clue that they are working towards Marxist goals. That is the evil brilliance of cultural Marxism. The minions work towards the end goal, one of which they unaware. But, we are aware, and that is a start.
For more, here is a video from the author of the book I quoted for much of this post.
I ran into this on YouTube. This health care debate has happened before. Here is Reagan’s take on it from 1961, and then from later in the decade.
The attempt is taking the same course and approach. Reagan’s analysis closely matches many of our own. Just as it happened in the past, leftist politicians have slipped and said that a small program for a targeted population will grow into a larger one.
Many of us have been talking of incrementalism. I hadn’t seen this video until today, and I was not familiar with these early attempts to take over health care. It does show that incrementalism has been the approach for decades, and this will likely continue. This is why there can be no compromise with the left on “public options” or expansion of government programs. They are meant to be expanded, and expanded, and expanded-until there is nothing left to private control.
The kiddo has a birthday today, so time is short. Here are some brief thoughts…
ObamaCare: The “public option” might be sacrificed. DON’T BE DECEIVED!! They’re now talking co-ops. This is just a re-branding of public option. It will have the same powers and faults of the original plan. It’ll just sound “nicer.” It will lead to the same thing-single payer. The messiah will hail this as a bi-partisan “compromise” in an effort to save face and salvage his presidency. Same BS-different wrapper!
Barney Frank: Tells a town hall audience to NOT trust the government, but we’re supposed to trust them with our health care?
AARP: 60,000 have left since July 1. LOL! I guess all the Nazi seniors have put on their Klan hoods and walked out! That’s how the left will portray it, if they even acknowledge it.
Conservatives Now Outnumber Libs in all 50 States: Thanks Barry! I bet they’re all going to vote too! ACORN drones will have to re-double their efforts and sign up 40 fake voters or be fired! 2010 will be a reckoning!
Glenn Beck: Lefty group started by one of the messiah’s commissars is boycotting him. Beck’s response-go on vacation! Having a few MILLION viewers kind of makes that boycott thingy irrelevant. The only cable channel that outdoes Beck in his time slot is Nickelodeon!
Hurricane Bill: If this thing causes one house to fall over, the left and media will say in unison, “OMG GLOBAL WARMING!”
African American Guy With “Ugly Gun” at Protest: The Second Amendment is really cool, isn’t it? The MSM will freak out about it, but the guy broke no laws. Reminds me of a great comment about the Second:
“The Constitution has no off button. However, it does have a reset button. That button is called the Second Amendment.”
“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is Liberty.”
Goofy Thought of the Day: Apply a heavy tax on professionally printed signs. At the rate ACORN, (Dis)Organizing for Amerika, and the SEIU goons are using them, we can start paying down the messiah’s debt!
I think that in taking a good look at current health care plan; we need to look at it in its entirety. A great place to start is with the rationale for the program.
The left likes to create or exploit a “crisis” in order to move forward with the plans. They use a real or invented crisis to justify their plans, which are nothing more than attempts to gain and maintain power. I do believe that the current health care “crisis” is an artificial one, which is why looking at the rationale for installing a single payer system is so important.
However, the Census Bureau report “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005,” puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.
A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are “not a citizen.” Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.
It is speculated that there are approximately 20,000,000 illegals in the US. So they mean to say that 10,000,000 of them HAVE insurance? If so, how many are receiving Medicaid?
But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. That’s roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to “afford” health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.
Hmmm, perhaps people that do not CHOOSE to have health insurance. BTW, that is to be illegal under the single payer plan, punishable by a $1000 fine, in fact!
The Census “underreported” the number of people covered by health insurance – meaning that more people have insurance than the report suggests. The Census also underreported the number of people covered by Medicare and Medicaid.
Subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left – less than 7 percent of the population.
Dr. Grace-Marie Turner, a BMI adviser and president of the Galen Institute, agreed that “the number [on uninsured] is inflated and affects the debate.”
Turner also pointed out that “45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months [according to the Congressional Budget Office],” because many are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers.
So, the left, in absence of a real crisis, has inflated numbers to create one. This is fully consistent with their typical deceit, as well as their use of an artificial crisis in order to justify a power grab. Their goal is a single payer plan. They clearly state it. What If there is no real justification? No problem! They’ll just invent one!
The following has been played repeatedly in the MSM. It was released by the DNC. Since they can’t argue anything based on facts, they have to try to discredit their detractors.
Here is the Conservative Hideout response.
We’ll have to see how they respond to this.
Update: I usually don’t ask for support on the videos, but if you agree with it, view it, vote on it, comment on it. If it get’s enough hits, it might help counter some of the baseless propaganda being put out by the left.
Additionally, many Representatives and Senators are returning home, only to met by very angry constituents. As reported at CNS News, Arlen Specter had some angry words for his own constituents.
Booed, jeered and occasionally cheered in a raucous session with the public, a Democratic senator said Monday that other lawmakers can expect the same as they face voters on the divisive issue of overhauling health care.
“I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s the harbinger of things to come,” Pennsylvania’s Sen. Arlen Specter said a day after facing the rowdy crowd in Philadelphia. A House member who was surrounded by protesters shouting “Just say no!” to Democrats’ health plans in Texas over the weekend accused Republicans of organizing the opposition.
“This mob … did not come just to be heard, but to deny others the right to be heard. And this appears to be part of a coordinated, nationwide effort,” Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, said in a statement. “What could be more appropriate for the ‘party of no’ than having its stalwarts drowning out the voices of their neighbors by screaming ‘Just say no!'”
Did you notice how Rep. Doggett attempts to link the Tea Parties to the Republican Party, when the Tea Parties are, for one, non partisan, and two, against Republicans that vote for bailouts, single payer, and Cap and Trade? This is part of the “big lie,” as I will explore a bit later.
Here are some videos that show the “warm” receptions that many Democrats and Moderate Republicans are receiving at home.
This is clearly an “unruly mob” they question the messiah and applaud!!
Another questioning mob!
OMG! They’re pointing out failures of the government! How dare they!
Of course, the left is decrying this activity. They are complaining that they are being shouted down. It is interesting that they should complain of this, because shouting down opponents is a common tool of the left. The left regularly shouts down anyone that has an opposing viewpoint. I guess it’s appropriate for the left to do it, just not anyone else. For examples, here are some more videos featuring the left shouting down anyone who disagrees with them.
Liberals disrupt a speech…It’s ALL RIGHT!
I guess freedom of speech just applies to liberals?
Ahh, Tolerance and Diversity!
So, this reminds me of the Conservative Hideout unwritten rules of politics…
If conservatives do it, it’s bad, very, very bad.
If the left does it, it’s all right!
Let’s elaborate on this comparison between the left and right. When paid “community organizers” block businesses, occupy offices, threaten and intimidate bankers into making sub prime loans, threaten bankers over predatory lending (making the loans they were threatened into making in the first place), and shows up on cue for leftist politicians and their causes, it’s OK, well, and good. However, when private citizens that are NOT paid organizers, show up to protest policies that they do not want, they are, disruptive and unruly, mobs! How ironic that the POTUS, who was himself a “community organizer,” is being confronted by his own tactics?
In all honesty, we have the facts on our side; we don’t have to shout people down. I’d just go to a town hall with a copy of the house bill and ask the politician to explain their support for the sections that counter the lies of the left, but that’s me. On the other hand, it is amusing to see the left confronted with their own tactics, especially given the fact that the POTUS used to teach others how to use them.
So now, the desperation sets in. Faced with plummeting poll numbers, rejection of policies, and a growing grassroots protests, the POTUS and his minions are charging the Democratic smear machine to deal with the protestors. It seems that for the Democrats; when all else fails, tell bigger and bigger lies! Here are some of the talking points that will be seen and heard in the coming weeks:
The protestors are paid by the RNC.
The protestors are paid by the insurance companies.
The protestors are being funded by lobbyists.
The protestors are un-American and are afraid of “Change.” (Of course, they should be fearful since Change=Socialism)
They are terrorists!
Ironically, the left is, yet again, accusing the right of doing what they themselves do. Aren’t ACORN, MoveON, and many of the other “community organizations” at least partially funded by George Soros, the billionaire Marxist, via his various organizations? I guess that’s all right for the left, but then again, the truth has little importance to them. The objective for them is to smear the right. As long as that is achieved, the truth matters little. For the left, the end always justifies the means. They present no evidence to this effect; they just make the claim, have it repeated multiple times, and wait for it to stick. Soon, the MSM will get into the act, echoing these statements.
Another sign, in my opinion, of the desperation is this from the White House, courtesy of Redstate:
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to email@example.com.
So, when we quote, or show videos of the POTUS, Barney Frank, John Kerry, and others stating that the “public option” will lead to single payer, it’s a rumor? After all, we just show what they themselves said! When we quote the legislation itself and show that it eventually will outlaw private insurance, it’s disinformation? When bloggers quote Rahm Emanuel’s brother, (who is a government health care adviser) that talks about cutting off care to the elderly, and that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath “too seriously,” it’s somehow a crime? Let’s face it, “facts are stubborn things,”as the White House site says. They are especially stubborn when the right has them, and won’t stop talking about them.
So, faced with growing opposition to their “change,” the Democrats are raising the possibility ramming the legislation through as described here:
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the third-ranking Senate Democrat, raised the prospect of the leadership crafting a bill to Democratic specifications and using a rare legislative procedure to expedite it.
“We will have contingencies in place,” Schumer told reporters on a conference call. “These plans will likely be considered as a last resort, but they are on the table.” He would not elaborate.
After numerous delays, three Democrats and three Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee are facing a Sept. 15 deadline to wrap up secretive talks and come up with a plan.
“If we cannot produce a bipartisan solution by then, you have to wonder if the Republicans will ever to be willing to agree to anything,” Schumer said.
Schumer said Democratic leaders continue to look at invoking a procedural maneuver that would allow them to pass the health bill with 51 votes instead of 60. That route is viewed as a last resort, in part because it would probably limit the breadth of policy initiatives.
On the same call, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., accused Republican leaders of trying to hinder bipartisan progress to deny Obama a political victory.
Note the accusatory tone. They conveniently forget that the resistance is due to the nature of a single payer plan. This switches the focus to the POTUS, and away from what is actually in the bill. Let’s face it, the Democrats would probably prefer the public not pay attention to the bill. Otherwise, they might know about all of the things that the White House is referring to as “rumors.”
In the end, the tide is turning against the left. They are losing traction on this issue. And what is their response to this? To increase the rhetoric, to deny the facts, and to ignore the public; pushing though legislation that the people do not want. However, in their desperation, they are showing more and more of their true agenda, as well as how they think of the people. They know that the right is growing in influence, and the people are starting to see through the lies of the POTUS. They are also probably aware that is things don’t change significantly, they will likely lose their majorities in 2010. Their only choice then, is to try to get this passed and hope that even if they lose, the program will remain. It then gives them a permanent political football to use against the right, as they will use it to do what they are accusing us of…”fear-mongering.”
So, we are left with the gyrations of a desperate regime. However, the more shrill and accusatory they become, the more people they “wake up.” The more they get their friends in the media to lie for them, the more credibility both lose. If the Republicans can establish and effectively communicate a real agenda to deal with the issues at hand, they can use this desperation to their advantage, and carry it to victory in 2010.
This also shows the true nature of the left, and how they view the people. We are sheep to be managed. We cannot possibly take care of our health care on our own, so the government must do it for us. They know what’s best, so we must be compliant little sheep and go along with the socialist herd. When we point out the facts, we are spreading rumors. When we discuss the consequences, we are un-American. When we resist and refuse to be cowed by the celebrity of the POTUS, we are terrorists. None of these are true, but the left, in growing desperation, will try to convince the people that they are.
When one remembers that the left is often indirect in working toward their goals, one can take a look at a wide range of their actions, and see their statements put into action. I think “Cash for Clunkers” may be such an example. It’s a plan that looks good to many, and is obviously popular, but there are consequences that seem to fit some of their other goals. Let’s take a look. My first observation is a bit unrelated to the premise, but I think it’s important all it’s own.
They planned to have this program for four months. It ran out of cash in four days! And this is the same government that KNOWS how much their single payer plan will cost? They can’t even estimate how to fund a four-month plan, but they can plan for decades of health care expenditures? This is laughable. Again, the cheerleaders at the MSM are simply saying that the program is “SOOOOO SUCCESSFUL!”
The cars traded in on the program are to be destroyed. Now, in normal situations, a trade in will either go on the dealer lot, go to auction, or go to the junkyard. In any of those situations, others will have the opportunity to benefit from this car, either by driving it, or by purchasing the usable parts from it. When the car is destroyed, there is little benefit. Or is there? I wrote here about how the new Secretary of Transportation wants to “coerce” people out of their cars and onto public transportation. Here are some quotes…
The moderator of the press club event asked LaHood: “Some in the highway-supporters motorist groups have been concerned by your livability initiative. Is this an effort to make driving more torturous and to coerce people out of their cars?”
LaHood answered: “It is a way to coerce people out of their cars.
And some more…
Lahood then made a joke about the fact that some conservatives believe that the way he wants to use the Department of Transportation represents an increased government intrusion in people’s lives.
“Some conservative groups are wary of the livable communities program, saying it’s an example of government intrusion into people’s lives,” said the moderator. “How do you respond?”
“About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people’s lives,” said LaHood. “So have at it.”
“So have at it.” Pretty cavalier attitude regarding manipulating the public into a pre-arranged goal, isn’t it?
In the “Cash for Clunkers” plan, how many cars will be taken out of the market? How many fewer Americans will be able to own a used car due to this? New cars that are to be made to the messiah’s specifications will be more and more expensive. To reach the mileage and emissions goals, more, newer technology will have to go in, increasing the cost. With so many used cars sent to the crusher, where will people go for a car when they cannot afford the newer ones? Funded with $1,000,000,000, the initial plan was to scrap 250,000 cars. The congress wants to add another $2,000,000,000 to the plan, does that mean a total of 750,000 cars? How many people will that “coerce” onto public transportation?
Am I reaching here? Quite possibly, however, if we look at what the left says, and compare it to what they do, some interesting patterns emerge.
When you peel away rhetoric, false promises, and claims of “transparency,” one is left observing behavior. No matter what is said, the ACTIONS of an group or organization will show you their true thoughts and intentions.
Let’s apply this theory to the Democratic leadership in the Congress. According to Human Events:
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), the secretary of the House Republican Conference and a former District Court Judge, is having his messages to constituents censored by Democrats on the Franking Commission. Republicans are no longer allowed to use the words “government run health care” in the communications to their constituents.
“What we proposed as language was as follows, ‘House Democrats unveiled a government-run health care plan,’” Carter said. “Our response from Franking was, ‘You cannot use that language. You must use, ‘The House majority unveiled a public option health care plan,’ which is Pelosi-speak or ‘just last week the House majority unveiled a health care plan which I believe will cost taxpayers…’”
“I would submit to you this is a free speech issue, guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States,” Carter said. A highly-placed Hill staff source tells HUMAN EVENTS this is the new policy being enforced by Democrats. Republicans will be forced to use the Democrats’ version of language describing their attempted government takeover of healthcare on their official communications with their constituents or they will have to pay for the postage personally.
So, the Democrats speak of “bi-partisanship.” They claim “transparency.” But what does this behavior tell us? In the spirit of CALLING IT SOMETHING ELSE, the Democratic leadership is censoring the fact that health care system WILL be run by the government. Instead, they use the euphemism “public option.” Of course, the public option, over time, will turn into “no option,” as indicated by this video:
This is a prime example of CALLING IT SOMETHING ELSE. It disguises the nature and intent of an act in a way designed to deceive the reader. They hope that a person who isn’t aware of the issues will look at the phrase “public option” and think, “Aww, that’s nice, taking care of those poor folks and all!’ Unfortunately, this happens far too often. They count on Americans to be misinformed and distracted. They also count on the MSM to NOT tell the public what is really happening. These are common tools of the left. They use an euphemism instead of a policy statement, and count on you to be dumb enough to fall for it. Then, when elected officials want to actually “call it what it is,” the left censors it as “inaccurate!”
Handy Tip: If the left proclaims that a statement is:
4. Being divisive
5. Being obstructionist
…it’s more than likely true.
Luckily for us, talk radio, the internet, and Fox News are around to point this out. This, of course, explains why the left has floated ideas on regulating broadcasting and the internet in order to silence us.
”The mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in a person is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: the person rejects, explains away, or avoids the new information, persuades himself that no conflict really exists, reconciles the differences, or resorts to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in his conception of the world and of himself.”
My recent post on kids defying the ACLU brought me back to a point I have been making for several years. Socialism collapses in the presence of doubt. In the examples of the fallen Soviet Bloc dictatorships, we see that once the people no longer “believed in” the state, and that their doubt overcame the fear of the state, the state collapsed. When rhetoric and propaganda were completely disconnected from what the people could observe, they lost faith in the system. This is instructive because it shows us the path towards defeating the POTUS and his socialist policies.
By my estimation, socialist states rely on three methods to control their populations. The first is indoctrination. In the US, they took over the public schools some time ago. At each stage, children are exposed to, tested on, and pressured to exhibit, liberal ideology. As many examples have shown, via lawsuits, students have been ridiculed, threatened with failing grades, and otherwise degraded if they deviate from the liberal mantra. Eventually, the children themselves are turned into a self-monitoring mob that reports, belittles, or attacks dissenters. Using the peer pressure that makes children so susceptible, the left is very effective in “brainwashing” our youth. These minions then go to the university, where they are further inculcated into socialism, and are then sent out to convert more minions. If you wish to explore this further, look into how public school teachers and social workers are educated. I believe that the idea here is to create an environment of “no resort.” Either the child/student accepts and regurgitates the liberal mantra at every turn, or punishment will be swift and sure. Those that have different ideas, or can see through the liberal point of view, are effectively silenced and rendered ineffective.
Additionally, the liberals have sought to expand their educational efforts to children at increasingly younger ages. Their goal seems to be the indoctrination of children. To illustrate, let’s look at some quotes by prominent educators and others…
“The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.”
–Paul Haubner, specialist for the N.E.A.
“Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are…[a] National Department of Education…the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.”
–William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, 1932 National Chairman of the American Communist Party (1933-44, 1945-57)
“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”
The effort here is to control, from the earliest possible age, the beliefs and thoughts of the child. Education is a secondary concern, if it is even a concern at all. Knowledge and facts are secondary to the ideology. If knowledge is indeed the currency of freedom, socialists must therefore carefully control what is taught, and competing opinions should be banished, and their proponents punished. Therefore, in any socialist or fascist state, education was among the first institutions to receive a complete conversion. Curriculum was changed to reflect the new order, home schooling was banned, and private schools were either co-opted, or closed. This is meant to achieve a “monopoly of ideology,” nothing more, nothing less. Control the child and carefully monitor what they see and hear, and the end result (the socialists hope) is a complaint and brainwashed minion who will not question the state, as they will know nothing more than what they learned from the state.
To prevent their newly minted minions from hearing anything contrary to state approved messages, the elimination of dissent becomes necessary. Outlets and individuals that discuss “competing ideologies” are to be silenced. In socialist and fascist states, strong-arm tactics usually accomplished this. In the current age, regulation, ridicule, and punishment are used. A bit softer to be sure, but the results are much the same. One needs to look no further than Hugo Chavez to see this in operation in the 21st century, or, for that matter, the actions of the left in this country.
The fairness doctrine, the effort to implement it and call it something else is a case in point. As covered here, a board was appointed and given the task of making recommendation for broadcast regulations. The board is stacked with leftist organizations. Administration officials have been quoted as stating that the goal is…
It also was reported when a think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama’s transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on conservative talk radio by requiring stations to be operated by female and minority owners, which the report showed were statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.
That report found the best strategy for getting equal time for “progressives” on radio lies in mandating “diversity of ownership” without ever needing to mention the former FCC policy of requiring airtime for liberal viewpoints, known as the “Fairness Doctrine,” a plan thrown out in the 1980s.
Knowing that the ‘Fairness Doctrine” is a loaded term, the liberals resort to “slight of hand” and calling it something else. The desired result, however, is the same.
Going along with banning dissent is the control of the media. The most convenient way to manage the people is to control the flow of information available to the public. In totalitarian states, movies, music, print, radio, television, and even the Internet (with varying levels of success) are tightly controlled. Everything that is read, heard, and seen is carefully presented to not only convey what the government wants the public to believe, but to also ridicule the opposition, and discredit any other ideas. Information that might “confuse” or “discourage” (ie, the truth) the public is not permitted.
In the more openly totalitarian states, this is accomplished by direct ownership and control. In the US, it has been achieved ideologically, by the same educational indoctrination scheme I described earlier. As so many of us have observed, the MSM often ignores gaffes, crimes, inconsistent statements, lies, and failures of the left. If the story is reported, it will often be minimized or misrepresented. Many times, a person exposing a story or whistle blowing will be attacked, causing their character or motivations to be called into question. Other times, individuals on the right will be outright ridiculed. The idea, of course, is to marginalize dissenters, and at the same time, their messages. It is apparent that the left slants media coverage to favor one ideology.
A significant effect of banning dissent is to cause the individual to become discouraged, and eventually “give up,” reluctantly joining the “new order.” The validation that one receives from knowing that others believe as they do cannot be underestimated. A group with shared beliefs is more powerful than an isolated individual. Fear not friends, I am not talking about collectivism here. This is simple psychology. Besides the obvious benefits of “strength in numbers,” groups validate and empower their individual members. This is, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons for the left’s attempts to silence the right. If they can stop people from receiving the validation of the larger group, the right can be reduced into smaller groups that are easily ostracized, or into isolated individuals that will be no “threat” to the socialist state. They want you to give up and become silent. They know that if they can indoctrinate the next generation in the absence of dissenting opinions that have more worth, they will win. They want us to be silent and discouraged.
The third technique(s) are the simple thug tactics used by the left. As I, and others, have discussed. The left uses intimidation to silence dissent, attack other ideologies, and to punish those that speak out. People are threatened, their employers are threatened (unless they terminate the target), and “protesters” show up at the schools of the children of those that have “sinned” against the left. As Alinski put it, the plan is to identify, isolate, freeze and escalate activities towards the target. Frivolous lawsuits will be filed; false allegations made, private documents will be made public, all in an attempt to punish the target. This is harassment and intimidation, as well as an attempt to ruin the lives and reputations of the targeted individuals.
This intimidation is also meant to send a message to anyone else that might speak out or otherwise resist. “Unless you want this to happen to you and your family, you best keep your mouth shut!”
So, where does Cognitive Dissonance come into this? It goes back to my first paragraph. Many of the people in the middle – those that perhaps pay little attention to the news or current political situation – are about to experience the socialism of the POTUS. At the very least, we will experience two tax increases in 2010 that will cause additional damage to the economy. This will cause people to lose jobs and prices to increase. If either Cap and Trade or the Single Payor plan passes, the economy will be devastated. Individuals that voted for the POTUS without examining his actual motivations, or people on the left that still have the ability to think (there are some), will experience a great deal of Cognitive Dissonance. Also, kids and college students that have been spoon-fed the liberal mantra will experience discomfort when the plans that they have supported cascade the economy into failure. This is the time that we, as Conservatives or Libertarians, will need to capitalize on this “theory colliding headlong into reality.”
How do we do this?
Continue blogging, and share your blog with others. This is why I have started making more serious posts. I want to be able to show people facts. I know that sarcasm puts some people off.
Contact friends and family that may have voted for the POTUS. Show them the evidence.
Collect evidence by download to show others. I recently showed a liberal co-worker the video montage made by Verum Serum on the Single Payor plan. I thought the person’s jaw would hit the floor. Then, I showed her Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsberg quotes. Shel became upset. If this continues, she will eventually question her beliefs. All it takes is enough evidence.
Download and store videos and articles that make our points. If the POTUS ever does manage to control Internet content, a lot of the evidence against him will disappear. Unless, that is, we save it!
I wrote this because I became a Conservative in this fashion. I came out of grad school with a brain full of liberal ideology. When I started working, I noticed that much of what I was taught simply didn’t match reality. As time wore on, I became discouraged. When some friends started introducing me to Conservatism, I initially resisted. After all, Conservatives are all fascists! I started to read, and listened to talk radio. As time wore on, I educated myself. No coercion, threats, intimidation, or indoctrination were required. I simply saw that Conservatism matches reality. If we can help others when Cognitive Dissonance hits, and it WILL, we can help defeat the left. I find it ironic that the billions that the left spends on public and college education can be undone by simple truths.
There are many people on the left that will never see reality. While that is unfortunate, there is nothing that will convince them. Either that, or they are “higher – ups” in the left that know that the policies are meant to cause a crisis. I humbly suggest that they be left alone. Their shrill and increasingly irrational reactions to the truth will serve our purpose well.
Well, the move must have caused less of a voter turnout for Useful Idiot of the Month, but ACORN won it!
They got caught registering people multiple times. I know, it’s an “isolated” thing. After all, it happened in only A DOZEN STATES OR SO! Some of them are going on trial in Pittsburgh, but, you know, there is no pattern of wrong-doing, amirite?
Wait, there’s more. When on former member of their board pointed out some irregularities in funding, they sued her for a few million. Can’t have anyone talking about “inconvenient” facts, can we?
Did I mention that MILLIONS of dollars of money goes through one office that is a former funeral home? And there are just a few staff there? Where does that money all go? Who knows! Seems they don’t to be “transparent” do they?
And finally, they changed their name to cover their fail. That’s not fooling anyone. Same old fraud, same old thuggery, same old liberal fail! I guess they’re trying to CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE!
Congrats, you earned it!
NOTE: The pic is from a purveyor of fine merchandise. The product is available here!
I had the pleasure of attending a great block party to coincide with a local fireworks display. Using the CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE Translation Matrix and the MIAC & DHS reports, here are some pics, with the (semi)official government interpretation.
CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION:Obvious Dangerous Terrorists listening to potentially racist, homophobic, or patriotic messages.
CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: Note the use of red, white, and blue in the bunting. This is clearly a patriotic display, indicating that the participants are likely Dangerous Terrorists.
CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: This exuberant display in honor of a patriotic holiday indicated that these individuals may not agree with the liberal agenda. They are not showing guilt for being American, or for having so much due to the hated capitalist system. They are potential terrorists to be sure!
CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE TRANSLATION: This is indicative of paramilitary training. These children a being trained to be “frogmen” to act against the government!
Well, there you have it. SW PA is obviously a hotbed of dangerous terrorist activity.
On a serious note. It was a great party. Lots of excellent food courtesy of Carol B. Excellent hospitality courtesy of Jimmy & Cheryl B. and Brian and family. The music was excellent, and was performed by Black Dog Hollow, and friends. BTW, there were MANY people with conservative ideas there!
When Dr. Dave mentioned bulldozing cities, a light bulb went off. Sustainable Development! You know, that plan that herds us all into government managed utopias with vastly reduced standards of living? Won’t it be great? I mean the government will tell you where to live, where to work, how much you’ll be paid, if you can drive, (if you’re lucky enough) what you can drive, what you can eat, you’re heating and cooling settings, your medical care, in other words…
THE COMPLETE CONTROL OF ALL HUMAN LIFE!
Now, the libtards would never admit to this, and, as usual, they are implementing their plans incrementally. A little here, a “shared sacrifice” there, a “hard decision” a few years from now, and low and behold, you’re on the government plantation, and there is NO escape.
Yeah, I know “LOL, yer a kook!” But look it up. The information is out there. Also, I can always reference my favorite Sustainable Stupidity quote…
Canadian oil billionaire Maurice Strong, Secretary General at the Rio de Janeiro United Nations 1992 Conference on Environment and Development, expressed the goal of Sustainable Development by declaring a partial list of what is not sustainable:
“…current life-styles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class [e.g. Americans]-involving high meat intake [e.g. cattle production], use of fossil fuels [e.g. air and auto travel], industrial and consumer products, appliances [e.g. refrigeration] home and work air-conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable.” (emphasis added)
So, even if you don’t believe my rant, will you believe Mr. Strong?
Now, it’s the incrementalism that we have to look out for. That’s why Dr. Dave’s comments hit me. To illustrate, take a look at this.
The US government is looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.
The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.
Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.
“Concentrating the dwindling population into a more viable area.” How exactly do you plan to do that? How are you going to ‘”coerce” people into moving where you want them to be? What gives you the right to decide where, or even if, the population should be concentrated?
Most are former industrial cities in the “rust belt” of America’s Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.
In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.
“The real question is not whether these cities shrink – we’re all shrinking – but whether we let it happen in a destructive or sustainable way,” said Mr Kildee. “Decline is a fact of life in Flint. Resisting it is like resisting gravity.” (Emphasis added)
Where to start? First, the decline is due to liberal policies; from the labor unions that chased the auto industry out, to environmental regulations that harmed the auto industry as a whole. Finally, tax policy, failing schools, high crime, and the usual Demonrat thug machine probably did the rest.
Also, they use the term sustainable. While that, in and of itself, is relatively harmless-it’s one of the new buzz words, after all! The idea to form small, self contained residential areas is part of the overall Sustainable Stupidity plan. The idea is to centralize population, government services, and business into a self contained, centrally controlled gulag for the sheeple. In these areas will be your government schools, government health care, government jobs, and infrastructure. All of it will be centrally planned, managed and controlled. This, clearly, is a step in that direction.
Flint, sixty miles north of Detroit, was the original home of General Motors. The car giant once employed 79,000 local people but that figure has shrunk to around 8,000.
Unemployment is now approaching 20 per cent and the total population has almost halved to 110,000.
The exodus – particularly of young people – coupled with the consequent collapse in property prices, has left street after street in sections of the city almost entirely abandoned.
Again, liberal policies and activities destroyed the area. Young people leave for places where there are JOBS and OPPORTUNITY. If you doubt the deserted nature of the area, Google Earth is an eye-opener.
Regarded as a model city in the motor industry’s boom years, Flint may once again be emulated, though for very different reasons.
But Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that “big is good” and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.
He said: “The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there’s an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful. If they’re shrinking, they’re failing.”
“If they’re shrinking, they’re failing.” This is TRUE! Development and expansion ARE signs of success you twit! If these areas were actually successful, why did so many people leave? Notice the attempt to redefine failure as success. Liberals destroy an economy and cause most of the population to leave, and they try to define this as success? If they spun any faster, they’d break the sound barrier!
UPDATE: I forgot something here. The liberals create crises, then exploit them for their own gain. They destroy something, blame capitalism and/or conservatives and use it as a justification to expand their own power-at our expense, of course.
Flint’s recovery efforts have been helped by a new state law passed a few years ago which allowed local governments to buy up empty properties very cheaply.
They could then knock them down or sell them on to owners who will occupy them. The city wants to specialise in health and education services, both areas which cannot easily be relocated abroad.
Much of the Sustainable Stupidity plans are being implemented at the local level. To enable this, zoning laws have been changed in many parts of the US, and laws that allow local governments to take property more easily are part of that. To redefine where people live, work, and travel, you need to give governments at all levels the ability to “herd” the people, incrementally, to where you want them to be. It starts by either restricting building, or making it so expensive or difficult, that almost no one will want to try. Then, they create “incentives” to abandon personal transportation, like high fuel prices, making cars too expensive, and so on. To follow up, they create plans like the one described here – destroy neighborhoods in order to ensure that people move where the authorities want.
The specialization in certain services or industries is one of the hallmarks of Sustainable Stupidity. As with this particular plan, there are to be communities that are self contained and government controlled. They are to be connected by public transportation. Eventually, cars and roads will be things of the past-too much freedom of mobility there. People will be “assigned” by government officials, to jobs, services, and the like.
The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish. Nobody will be forced to move, said Mr Kildee.
Did you work for years to work towards a nice home? Did you pick a neighborhood that was safe, and had good schools? Don’t worry, the government will move the crime to you! In the socialist future, there will be only two classes; government minions, and YOU! Best to break up that whole “success” thing by ruining the few remaining good neighborhoods!
People won’t be forced to move. That’s true, at least at first. Initially, the program will proceed by restricting building, and cutting off services to selected areas. If you want to live in an area that is to be returned to nature, you can. Just don’t expect roads, schools, utilities, police and fire coverage, and the like. Most people will “choose” to move into the lovely “sustainable villages” set up by the government. Remember the minion that talked about “coercing” people? Do you see what I mean?
Remember, the liberals don’t always ban things out of hand. They restrict, reduce, regulate, and coerce. They do all of these, and do them a little at a time. They hope is that you don’t realize it until it’s too late. Of course, they have the Legion of Doom to sell it to the sheeple.
For more information on Sustainable Stupidity, kindly look here, or here.
Also, take a look at this article where a minion admits that coersion is a part of the government’s playbook.