We are being bombarded with extravagant praise by the popular media for Barrack Hussein Obama. They carefully neglect using his middle name for fear of arousing “unfounded” concerns by the fascistic, homophobic, ignoramuses called “Republicans”. These paeans to the new JFK seem to be based on his “blackness’, his youth, and his charming way of saying nothing at all while making it sound really really important. His platform seems to consist of one plank called change, but precisely what he intends to change or how he intends to change it goes unreported. We are told by the media that 86% of blacks voted for Obama but none of the press or media view this as racist. Insead it is announced with pride that the blacks are clearly voting for the best man, not the black man, although the voting pattern among blacks has consistently been racially based (think Marion Barry among others) and independent of qualifications or even past criminal records. The only solid thing coming from Obama is his determination to end the war in Iraq – not by victory but by surrender – surrender to the Muslims – but we are assured that he is not a Muslim or at least not one of those radical Muslims and that surrender is really not surrender but simply wise policy. Wise policy for who seems to go unreported, but we are told that the youth of American are solidly behind Obama. The assumption here is that these youths are capable of critical thinking and have carefully considered Obama as well as the other Democratic and Republican candidates. Of course this is unlikely because the college campuses from which these youths spring are heavily weighted to the left and any critical discourse is discouraged if not outright forbidden.
The press in the US has continued to drift left as the colleges graduate more and more students who have been thoroughly indoctrinated in the politics of the left. The highly acclaimed Katie Couric in her visit to Cuba in 1992 announced to the world that the standard of living in Cuba was “very high for a third world country”. Of course this oxymoronic observation was duly reported with no critical comment or comparison. In fact Cuba had been among the wealthiest Latin American nations when Castro obtained power by force but now it ranks among the poorest with even the Dominican Republic having a higher standard. Of course the left leaning media do not criticize Marxist regimes that have taken over by force, criticism is aimed only at those brutal dictators that are not Marxists. In fact even as the USSR was disintegrating before the eyes of the world and the evils of Marxism were becoming clear, Peter Jennings continued to laud Cuba and their Marxist paradise – of course ignoring the hundreds – if not thousands of Cubans risking their lives in leaky boats in their desperate flight to the US. So is it any wonder that the media cannot bring themselves to critically examine the leftist politics of a young black man who promises change without specifying what changes. It is worth noting that this was the mantra of Hugo Chavez when he took over Venezuela and who is now admitting to his Marxist beliefs.
It is also worth noting that Robert Frost once said that “A liberal is a man too broad minded to take his own side in a quarrel”. This quote really sums up the liberal position in most situations, especially when it comes to the US. These are the people who will automatically assume that anything the US wants to do is automatically wrong. These are the people who “blame America first” and certainly never give America credit and blame Republicans for everything that they see as being wrong in the world. It was Ronald Reagan who revived the American economy, restored the vitality of NATO, restored America’s domination of the world stage, and forced the USSR to abandon its drive toward world domination and ended the cold war. All of these are enormous achievements but at the conclusion of this Time magazine made Gorbachev “Man of the Year” and to this day the liberal establishment denies that Reagan won the cold war or that he accomplished anything significant – other than to arm the Contras and crush the incipient Marxists for which he was castigated by the press then and now. Any attack on any Marxist government is roundly condemned by the leftist press in America.
Of course the very foundation to the current Democratic platform – if indeed there is one beyond “we aren’t George Bush” is that we need to withdraw from Iraq. The rationale for this position is a little vague other than American Troops are getting killed and we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place. The critical scrutiny of this seems to be restricted to the basis for the decision which is generally believed by the press to be an invasion to support President Bush’s oil interests. Any strategic thinking or examination of the long range effect and impact is missing. Why there is no critical examination of the global situation and the necessity of removing Hussein can only be attributed to a lack of critical thinking, an inability to think strategically, ignorance of geopolitics, or a burning desire to discredit a Republican President – take your pick. Now this same band of geniuses is supporting a very junior senator who has no military experience, no business experience, no administrative experience, very little experience in government, who belongs to a racist and possibly anti-Semitic church and whose only qualification as a candidate seems to be he is black and inexperienced. It would seem that even the media – who are not noted for their high IQ’s – would recognize that the Presidency of the United States is too important of a job to be filled by a candidate who has no experience whatsoever.
The supreme irony here is that the Democrats had a very strong and viable candidate in Governor Richardson. A man whose resume was very strong and who was amply qualified to lead the country. Unfortunately Governor Richardson wasn’t black, wasn’t young, and lacked charisma – all he had were the qualifications necessary to effectively lead the country. Instead the Democrats and the media once again opted for veneers and flash with no substance.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Common Good and Marxism
Recently we are hearing the term “The Common Good” being bandied about by various politicians and public figures – almost always left leaning people who would describe themselves as “progressive”. However, the term “progressive” is in reality simply a code word for “socialist” or in the more extreme cases “Marxist”, but precisely what is meant by the common good? This is a term that has a long history but really has no specific definition because it is situational. Generally this is a term that describes a specific “good” that is shared and beneficial for all members of a community but just on the face of it, this is a definition that clearly does not work because not everyone would agree that a specific good was good for everyone. If a good is common between persons A and B may not be viewed as “good” to persons C and D. But in general it is agreed that water, food, and shelter are “common goods” and shared by all people.
Of course while these are indeed common goods, they are relative because the quality of food and shelter are not universally the same, indeed some people are homeless and others indigent. And at this point the Progressives enter with their agenda for the common good. In the interest of the common good the progressives have outlawed smoking, not on the basis of empirical science but on the basis of social engineering – it is bad for you and we are going to force you to stop smoking. They have outlawed free speech, on the basis that no one in society should be offended by anyone else. So we have hate speech and forbidden words but accept low class behavior, profanity, and blatant public sexuality on the basis of free speech and free expression, because to suppress these is not in the common good.
Increasingly the progressives are using the rhetoric of common good to advance their socialist agenda, hence we are being told that universal health care is in the common good. The failure of government sponsored universal healthcare everywhere it has been tried is ignored as is the cost. The corollary here is that the government needs to “tax the rich” to pay for these social programs espoused by the progressives. In the progressive world private businesses are inherently evil and should be taxed out of existence. The means of production belong to the “people” and everyone is entitled to a job regardless of their qualifications. This was the basis of communism in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, all of Eastern Europe, and is currently underway in Venezuela. The clear and obvious failure of these progressive philosophies is simply ignored by the leftist intelligentsia on the basis that the implementation was flawed and in the right hands, it would work. Of course the question immediately rises as to “whose hands” we should entrust our government. So who falls into this camp of enlightened progressives who feel they should control the rest of us – well we find, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Barbra Streisand, and a whole bevy of similar intellectual giants. The reality is that these people are actually trying to establish an Oligarchy where they run everything and the rest of us are reduced to servants and serfs who must work to support them while they confiscate our earnings in the name of the common good.
If we allow these progressives into power they will do everything they can to implement their agenda in the name of the common good. This will include a suppression of the constitutional right to bear arms; after all, guns kill people (the empty headedness of that statement totally escapes these intellectual giants). Smoking is already criminalized but then we can be assured that Marijuana will be legalized and the convoluted logic of that will be rationalized on the basis that most of the liberal smoke marijuana but would never smoke a cigarette. Illegal immigrants will be permitted to take advantage of all social services on the basis that they provide services for the common good. Of course universal health care would be high on their agenda because it isn’t fair that health services should be paid for or offered as charity. Of course every effort will be made to suppress capitalism via heavy taxes, onerous restrictions, environmental protection, and anything else they can dream up to keep businesses from making a profit because any profit is obscene. Without doubt they will take a leaf from Hugo Chavez and attempt to socialize the oil companies because they are making way too much money. Hillary Clinton has already stated that among her first actions as president will be to take the profits from the oil companies and invest them in other energy programs.
So when you hear the liberal media talk about progressive ideas and ideals, remember these are actually the people who view themselves as smarter than everyone else and thus are entitled to rule you, to take your money, to restrict your lives, and to govern what you eat and how you live in the name of the common good.
Of course while these are indeed common goods, they are relative because the quality of food and shelter are not universally the same, indeed some people are homeless and others indigent. And at this point the Progressives enter with their agenda for the common good. In the interest of the common good the progressives have outlawed smoking, not on the basis of empirical science but on the basis of social engineering – it is bad for you and we are going to force you to stop smoking. They have outlawed free speech, on the basis that no one in society should be offended by anyone else. So we have hate speech and forbidden words but accept low class behavior, profanity, and blatant public sexuality on the basis of free speech and free expression, because to suppress these is not in the common good.
Increasingly the progressives are using the rhetoric of common good to advance their socialist agenda, hence we are being told that universal health care is in the common good. The failure of government sponsored universal healthcare everywhere it has been tried is ignored as is the cost. The corollary here is that the government needs to “tax the rich” to pay for these social programs espoused by the progressives. In the progressive world private businesses are inherently evil and should be taxed out of existence. The means of production belong to the “people” and everyone is entitled to a job regardless of their qualifications. This was the basis of communism in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, all of Eastern Europe, and is currently underway in Venezuela. The clear and obvious failure of these progressive philosophies is simply ignored by the leftist intelligentsia on the basis that the implementation was flawed and in the right hands, it would work. Of course the question immediately rises as to “whose hands” we should entrust our government. So who falls into this camp of enlightened progressives who feel they should control the rest of us – well we find, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Barrack Hussein Obama, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Barbra Streisand, and a whole bevy of similar intellectual giants. The reality is that these people are actually trying to establish an Oligarchy where they run everything and the rest of us are reduced to servants and serfs who must work to support them while they confiscate our earnings in the name of the common good.
If we allow these progressives into power they will do everything they can to implement their agenda in the name of the common good. This will include a suppression of the constitutional right to bear arms; after all, guns kill people (the empty headedness of that statement totally escapes these intellectual giants). Smoking is already criminalized but then we can be assured that Marijuana will be legalized and the convoluted logic of that will be rationalized on the basis that most of the liberal smoke marijuana but would never smoke a cigarette. Illegal immigrants will be permitted to take advantage of all social services on the basis that they provide services for the common good. Of course universal health care would be high on their agenda because it isn’t fair that health services should be paid for or offered as charity. Of course every effort will be made to suppress capitalism via heavy taxes, onerous restrictions, environmental protection, and anything else they can dream up to keep businesses from making a profit because any profit is obscene. Without doubt they will take a leaf from Hugo Chavez and attempt to socialize the oil companies because they are making way too much money. Hillary Clinton has already stated that among her first actions as president will be to take the profits from the oil companies and invest them in other energy programs.
So when you hear the liberal media talk about progressive ideas and ideals, remember these are actually the people who view themselves as smarter than everyone else and thus are entitled to rule you, to take your money, to restrict your lives, and to govern what you eat and how you live in the name of the common good.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Obama
It seems the party of white guilt has caught Obama Fever – apparently in the vain hope this is a remedy for the Bush Disorder Syndrome, which is characterized by irrational thinking and sometimes by hallucinations regarding facts. Dan Rather succumbed to BDS, so clearly the remainder of the Democratic Party is attempting to recover their sanity by pushing Obama – the fact that he has virtually no qualifications other than his race, seems to be lost in the rush for a cure to BDS.
From the time of his announcement that he was a candidate for President the media has showered him with fulsome praise to the point that one would think he was the second coming of Jesus, but then the radical left doesn’t believe in God much less Jesus, so Obama must be viewed as simply the hero of the hour. Of course hero here is a relative term because the Presidential wannabe has no military experience and is calling for a complete surrender to Al Qaeda, so his heroism seems to be restricted to waving the white flag. So what precisely makes Obama so popular with the left – other than his color and Muslim roots?
Well the media fawn over Obama because of his eloquence, but eloquence really only describes the quality of the delivery not the content, and Obama is certainly slick in his delivery. In his announcement speech Obama stated without hesitation that he firmly believes in “the basic decency of the American People”. Very heady and controversial stuff which certainly sets him apart from most of the Liberals who are rushing to prove how tolerant they are by supporting a black (semi) Muslim.. Unfortunately, while this controversial stand regarding the decency of the American people may distinguish him from the other Democratic candidates, it sort of places him right in the middle of the Republicans, who generally – and I’m not making this up—believe America and Americans are good and decent people.
But Senator Obama went on to condemn the “smallness” in our politics, but precisely what he meant by that isn’t clear. Perhaps this was his eloquent way of saying those people who believe in “small government” shouldn’t vote for me because I am firmly convinced that government should be big and the bigger the better. Of course, he may have meant that there is a certain “pettiness” in contemporary politics, which is certainly true but since most of his Liberal constituency is directly responsible for all of the sniping and mud slinging, he prudently left this a little vague. Courage requires honesty, nevertheless Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" -- deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")
Continuing in his forthright and controversial vein, he took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary! But he didn’t stop there, no-siree bob – he underscored his courageous stand by continuing with "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this -- a certain audacity -- to this announcement." Naturally this was a stunning statement that truly impressed the media who are hungry for any controversial morsel, but those of us who are harder to impress were also stunned by Obama’s courageous stand in favor of hope. What stunned the less gullible was what is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president and many do. Dennis Kucinich is perpetually running for president as is Ralph Nader. Even John Kerry ran for president and Al Gore aka the Goreacle actually got elected Vice President, proving that anyone can be elected. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters, who were mostly the reporters. However, to be fair one or two of these reporters actually attended Mitt Romney’s announcement, but they were more interested in seeing a live Mormon and interviewing his wives, who unfortunately turned out be just one wife. But Mormonism lacks the cachet that the controversial Barrack Hussein Obama brings with his Muslim roots, his blackness, and his penchant for saying penetrating and moving statements as he endorses the American People and takes a firm stand in favor of decency. He electrifies the crowd of adoring reporters and other Democratic loyalists by telling us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president and if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. However, to prove that he is really a serious candidate and in an effort to turn his inexperience into an asset, he went on to say: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." The reporters all swooned at this so they missed the great tagline delivered by Jesse Jackson “What did he say?”
From the time of his announcement that he was a candidate for President the media has showered him with fulsome praise to the point that one would think he was the second coming of Jesus, but then the radical left doesn’t believe in God much less Jesus, so Obama must be viewed as simply the hero of the hour. Of course hero here is a relative term because the Presidential wannabe has no military experience and is calling for a complete surrender to Al Qaeda, so his heroism seems to be restricted to waving the white flag. So what precisely makes Obama so popular with the left – other than his color and Muslim roots?
Well the media fawn over Obama because of his eloquence, but eloquence really only describes the quality of the delivery not the content, and Obama is certainly slick in his delivery. In his announcement speech Obama stated without hesitation that he firmly believes in “the basic decency of the American People”. Very heady and controversial stuff which certainly sets him apart from most of the Liberals who are rushing to prove how tolerant they are by supporting a black (semi) Muslim.. Unfortunately, while this controversial stand regarding the decency of the American people may distinguish him from the other Democratic candidates, it sort of places him right in the middle of the Republicans, who generally – and I’m not making this up—believe America and Americans are good and decent people.
But Senator Obama went on to condemn the “smallness” in our politics, but precisely what he meant by that isn’t clear. Perhaps this was his eloquent way of saying those people who believe in “small government” shouldn’t vote for me because I am firmly convinced that government should be big and the bigger the better. Of course, he may have meant that there is a certain “pettiness” in contemporary politics, which is certainly true but since most of his Liberal constituency is directly responsible for all of the sniping and mud slinging, he prudently left this a little vague. Courage requires honesty, nevertheless Obama forthrightly decried "a smallness of our politics" -- deftly slipping a sword into the sides of the smallness-in-politics advocates. (To his credit, he somehow avoided saying, "My fellow Americans, size does matter.")
Continuing in his forthright and controversial vein, he took a strong stand against the anti-hope crowd, saying: "There are those who don't believe in talking about hope." Take that, Hillary! But he didn’t stop there, no-siree bob – he underscored his courageous stand by continuing with "I recognize there is a certain presumptuousness in this -- a certain audacity -- to this announcement." Naturally this was a stunning statement that truly impressed the media who are hungry for any controversial morsel, but those of us who are harder to impress were also stunned by Obama’s courageous stand in favor of hope. What stunned the less gullible was what is so audacious about announcing that you're running for president? Any idiot can run for president and many do. Dennis Kucinich is perpetually running for president as is Ralph Nader. Even John Kerry ran for president and Al Gore aka the Goreacle actually got elected Vice President, proving that anyone can be elected. Today, all you have to do is suggest a date by which U.S. forces in Iraq should surrender, and you're officially a Democratic candidate for president.
Obama made his announcement surrounded by hundreds of adoring Democratic voters, who were mostly the reporters. However, to be fair one or two of these reporters actually attended Mitt Romney’s announcement, but they were more interested in seeing a live Mormon and interviewing his wives, who unfortunately turned out be just one wife. But Mormonism lacks the cachet that the controversial Barrack Hussein Obama brings with his Muslim roots, his blackness, and his penchant for saying penetrating and moving statements as he endorses the American People and takes a firm stand in favor of decency. He electrifies the crowd of adoring reporters and other Democratic loyalists by telling us he's brave for announcing that he's running for president and if life gives you lemons, make lemonade. However, to prove that he is really a serious candidate and in an effort to turn his inexperience into an asset, he went on to say: "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." The reporters all swooned at this so they missed the great tagline delivered by Jesse Jackson “What did he say?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)