Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Democrats’

Yeah, I know I’ve detached myself from politics for over a year, but a certain league of individuals has recently admonished me for not having posted here in so long. So while I won’t discuss topical political issues in this post, I still have points concerning politics I’d like to address… mostly points concerning my distancing from politics.

1. The forums in which we debate politics (media sources, the floors of congress, the dinner table) have welcomed discussions fueled by almost only emotions, rather than rationale and the search for truth. The core tenet behind the multiple party system in America was the idea that through thorough and earnest debate, the truth will seep through as through a strainer. The problem is that the majority of debates don’t let the truth through because either side is looking to merely win, lockstep with a laundry list of ideals written by a party, as opposed to coming to the best solution for our nation.  Members from opposite parties will brandish the others moronic, only because they were unsuccessful in changing your mind to think as they do. How do they rationalize this? “They are simply too stupid to understand that what I espouse is the only correct/just/effective way.” Pride does not equal truth, and many are too scared of the hypocrisy tag to be able to say “I believe in this point my party believes in, but I don’t believe in that other thing it believes in.”

Possible Solution? Go into debates not looking to change the other person’s mind, but only with the goal to most honestly and clearly express your beliefs and opinions. If they don’t agree… so what? You walk away happy that you stood on your beliefs with integrity. And who knows… they might have gone away disagreeing with every word you said, but you planted a small seed that may grow into the deep-rooted memory that you were a sincere and amicable representative of your party, beliefs, whatever. Just remember, the second you tell someone they’re wrong, is the second before they stop listening to you.

I have to go to work, but I’ll continue the observations from my political hiatus… which I’m still happily engaged in.

– Julian

Read Full Post »

“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other…..It is between two kinds of deficits- a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted results of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy- or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, produce revenues, and achieve a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness- the second reflect an investment in the future.”

– John F. Kennedy, 1962

(additional reading… http://www.heritage.org/research/taxes/bg161.cfm )

Read Full Post »

A Perfect Storm

by Thomas Sowell

(reposted from original source link here)

“Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic– and catastrophic.

Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.

Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies that he proposes under the banner of “change” are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries– and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That’s been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of “change.”

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to “spread the well around,” as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being “a small country,” as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.

Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy– and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.

Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?

If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.

In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn’t have nuclear weapons to back up that threat– yet.

America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.

Do you think our leaders wouldn’t do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn’t bet my life on that.

What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.

None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions– none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.”

– reposted by Julian

Read Full Post »

From Townhall.com – October 14, 2008 … (source link)

Negative Advertising
by Thomas Sowell

“One of the oldest phenomena of American elections– criticism of one’s opponent– has in recent times been stigmatized by much of the media as “negative advertising.”

Is this because the criticism has gotten more vicious or more personal? You might think so, if you were totally ignorant of history, as so many of the graduates of even our elite universities are.

Although Grover Cleveland was elected President twice, he had to overcome a major scandal that he had fathered a child out of wedlock, which was considered more of a disgrace then than today. Even giants like Lincoln and Jefferson were called names that neither McCain nor Obama has been called.

Why then is “negative advertising” such a big deal these days? The dirty little secret is this: Liberal candidates have needed to escape their past and pretend that they are not liberals, because so many voters have had it with liberals.

In 1988, Governor Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts called himself a “technocrat,” a pragmatic solver of problems, despite a classic liberal track record of big spending, big taxes, and policies that were anti-business and pro-criminal.

When the truth about what he actually did as governor was brought out during the Presidential election campaign, the media were duly shocked– not by Dukakis’ record, but by the Republicans’ exposing his record.

John Kerry, with a very similar ultra-liberal record, topped off by inflammatory and unsubstantiated attacks on American military men in Vietnam, disdained the whole process of labeling as something unworthy. And the mainstream media closed ranks around him as well, deploring those who labeled Kerry a liberal.

Barack Obama is much smoother. Instead of issuing explicit denials, he gives speeches that sound so moderate, so nuanced and so lofty that even some conservative Republicans go for them. How could anyone believe that such a man is the very opposite of what he claims to be– unless they check out the record of what he has actually done?

In words, Obama is a uniter instead of a divider. In deeds, he has spent years promoting polarization. That is what a “community organizer” does, creating a sense of grievance, envy and resentment, in order to mobilize political action to get more of the taxpayers’ money or to force banks to lend to people they don’t consider good risks, as the community organizing group ACORN did.

After Barack Obama moved beyond the role of a community organizer, he promoted the same polarization in his other roles.

That is what he did when he spent the money of the Woods Fund bankrolling programs to spread the politics of grievance and resentment into the schools. That is what he did when he spent the taxpayers’ money bankrolling the grievance and resentment ideology of Michael Pfleger.

When Barack Obama donated $20,000 to Jeremiah Wright, does anyone imagine that he was unaware that Wright was the epitome of grievance, envy and resentment hype? Or were Wright’s sermons too subtle for Obama to pick up that message?

How subtle is “Goddamn America!”?

Yet those in the media who deplore “negative advertising” regard it as unseemly to dig up ugly facts instead of sticking to the beautiful rhetoric of an election year. The oft-repeated mantra is that we should trick to the “real issues.”

What are called “the real issues” are election-year talking points, while the actual track record of the candidates is treated as a distraction– and somehow an unworthy distraction.

Does anyone in real life put more faith in what people say than in what they do? A few gullible people do– and they often get deceived and defrauded big time.

Barack Obama has carried election-year makeovers to a new high, presenting himself a uniter of people, someone reaching across the partisan divide and the racial divide– after decades of promoting polarization in each of his successive roles and each of his choices of political allies.

Yet the media treat exposing a fraudulent election-year image as far worse than letting someone acquire the powers of the highest office in the land through sheer deception.”

– Link posted by Julian

Read Full Post »

Visit www.hypemovie.com

Read Full Post »

I would have never believed this unless I saw it for myself. Remember earlier this year when Fox News broadcasted an image that showed one of Obama’s campaign offices with a Cuban flag and a sketch of Che Guevara? That’s what started me thinking, “Obama sounds a lot like Fidel Castro did in the 80’s”.

I started digging and, low and behold, similarities started to surface, i.e., “This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many; and gains from economic growth “skew heavily” toward the rich” (Obama). i.e., “We know how money is distributed and how money is collected. We know how to distribute the wealth and to make it as just as possible … The wealth the country produces has to be like oxygen. It has to reach everyone.” (Fidel Castro)

Following that I decided to look for similarities between Obama and the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) and again I found very startling revelations. Obama’s platform of change is almost identical to the CPUSA platform as published by their website. “We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can’t afford a doctor when their children get sick,” Obama said. This is unarguably an endorsement of the distribution of wealth ideas that are very popular in communist rhetoric. I believe that someone should remind Obama of this old saying, “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he’ll eat forever.”

“They’re telling us we’re better off if we dismantle government – if we divvy it up into individual tax breaks, hand ‘em out, and encourage everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement security, your own child care, their own schools.” (Obama) This goes to show you that Obama just doesn’t get it. He believes that government should control what we buy, when we buy it and where our kids should go to school… and basically ask permission to step outside and get some fresh air. He goes on to say “We’re gonna need to tell the country what our plan is for the 21st century worker,” Obama. The workers’ party. Well doesn’t that ring a bell? Sort of like the communist workers party, huh? Well, that’s the sort of change I don’t want. “At a time when businesses are facing increased competition and workers rarely stay with one company throughout their lives, we also have to ask if the employer-based system of health care itself is still the best for providing insurance to all Americans,” Obama. This proves that he believes that America’s capitalist system just doesn’t work and that a socialist system should be adopted.

Now, you may be asking why he thinks that socialism is so great for America. Well, we need not look further than the people that surround him. My mother always said a common Cuban phrase, “Tell me who your friends are and I’ll tell you who you are”. I believe this to be true. One’s character is defined and molded by one’s experience, and if you are surrounded by certain ideas you begin to believe they are true. “Communist activists in the late 50s and early 60s choosing to marry cross-race as an attack on bourgeois society. It’s not implausible, as Barack’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was a radical activist at the University of Hawaii, having been stimulated in high school by two teachers who were reputed to have been Communists.” This was taken from an article about Obama’s background and it explains that from his very conception he was being raised with these ideas. Later in life he goes on to say that he “spent his college days hanging around radical activists” (this from Obama’s own book). Again he surrounded himself with those who think America should be socialist.

Frank Marshall Davis, identified as a member of the CPUSA by the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii, appears to have mentored young Obama from 1971 to 1979, when he left Hawaii for college. I guess the question we should be asking is “when was he not surrounded by communists”. Obama then goes on to be called “the most liberal in the US Senate”.

Mind you, he was only there for less than two years.

Obama is a great speaker. Mike Kruglic, admiring Obama’s skill at this sort of manipulation: “He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.” Let me list just a couple of other great and influential speakers: Fidel Castro, Adolf Hitler.

“His employer was the Gamaliel Foundation. Gamaliel, an activist organization strangely merging the teachings of Marxist strategist Saul Alinsky with those of the Apostle Paul, operates with that same sense of religious destiny that we’ve noticed in both Barack and Michelle Obama’s speeches.” (http://www.plumbbobblog.com/?p=215) Obama speeches are directed toward the poor and middle class. He is quoted as saying that he is the candidate that will protect the middle class and grow it. A much smarter man said recently of his plan, “His will likely do for the world’s poor what Johnson’s War on Poverty did for the poor of the US — enslave them to the dole, enrich the bureaucrats who administer the programs, and waste an unimaginable amount of money, making the problem worse while driving taxation through the roof.” Obama’s tutelage would lead us to this frightening future, “We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: The stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”(Ayn Rand)

Many have supported Obama because they are either blinded by the economic troubles brought on by the socialist principle that everyone should own a home regardless of their income, or because they don’t see the danger of going down a path of socialism. This quote will leave you breathless,

“Senator, I will say this. I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, that society is structured on as a whole, is an attempt to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name it is democratic; in other it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist.” (John Kerry)

So it does not surprise me at all that John Kerry would be such a strong supporter of Barack Obama. I leave you with this warning: beware for the next thing we will hear from Obama is “Elections? What for? The people have already chosen”. (Fidel Castro).

Joel Mesa

Read Full Post »

The last 10 seconds are pure gold.

– Julian

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »