PUTTING TWO AND TWO TOGETHER

My last post poked a little fun at the Occupy movement.  What can I say?  I just can't resist such low hanging fruit!  Seriously though, aside from hygiene and a disturbing number of anarchists, anti-semites and commies, at the heart of it, it could be argued that Occupy is sort of following in the Tea Party's footsteps.  Both want to end the FED, both are vehemently against bank bailouts, and both see crony capitalism as the disease that is crippling this great nation.  Unfortunately, the most glaring difference between the two groups is that the Tea Party holds government responsible, and Occupiers think government is the solution.

At least, until now.

In an interesting series of events, it came to light that the Mayor of Richmond, apparently an Occupy sympathizer, has been passing on the costs of the occupation to the taxpayer, instead of requiring the Occupiers to foot the bill as the Tea Party was.  Over the past three years, the local Tea Party chapter has held Tax Day rallies and were required to pay for permits and other fees, to the tune of about $8,500.  When the Tea Party realized the Occupiers were getting a free ride, they submitted an invoice to City Hall for reimbursement of the fees they have paid, citing fair treatment under the law.

The city's response?  Why, an audit, of course.

The Tea Party isn't going down fighting, and is preparing a lawsuit.  What is really surprising is the group that is standing with the Tea Party against the democrat-led City Hall.  This weekend Occupy Richmond voiced their solidarity (via Fox News):

“Occupy Richmond believes in absolute free speech, including the right to criticize the government without fear of retribution," Occupy Richmond said in a statement posted Thursday on its website. "Given the duplicitous and violent manner in which the city government chose to raid our peaceful occupation, it would not surprise us if the recently announced city audit of the Richmond Tea Party were retaliation for their criticism of the mayor.”

The statement also called audits "bureaucratic harassment" and "one weapon oppressive regimes use to silence dissent."

"Not only do we call on the city to drop the audit, but we also demand the immediate refund of any money paid specifically to secure the Tea Party's free speech and assembly privileges,” the Occupiers said.

 
Okay, so there's still a little room for improvement.  Apparently the Occupy spokesperson doesn't understand that the charges don't just disappear.  Those fees cover the cost of cleanup or damage to facilities incurred during the exercise of free speech.  The magical creatures who pick up the tab for the mess are not social justice fairies flitting from camp to camp, happy to spend their stardust for the cause.  In reality, the people who pay are fellow Americans who have been busy working, not camping, and will see their taxes go up as a result of the shenanigans in cities across the land.  Tea Party spokeswoman Colleen Owens was happy to have the moral support, but commented that they don't  want the taxpayer to foot the bill - that isn't the point of the suit:
 

“But this has never been about the money. It was about the principal," Owens said. "A public official should not be able to pick and choose which groups are charged."

It is a refreshing change to see the Occupiers starting to identify the government - and not just republicans, but majority party democrats, too - as a major player in the ills of the day.  It was almost heartwarming to see them actually protesting President Obama on one of his many, many, many trips to Wall Street for fundraising cash.  They grow up so fast, don't they?  Gee, perhaps if the Occupiers went home and sat down and talked to their Tea Party parents, maybe common ground could be established.  And maybe, after that, common sense. 

Two things to remember about these angry, disillusioned kids:  First, as Churchill said, show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.  Second, sometimes a conservative is just a liberal who was mugged by reality.  There has been a mass mugging (sometimes literally) in parks and plazas across the country over the past few months as those who were once embraced and celebrated became those who were being either co-opted or ignored (Tea Partiers can definitely empathize with that).  Some poor souls have even been traumatized by it all.

All we can hope is that the rest open their ears (and minds) and start thinking.  Many of our centers for higher education, where we send our children to learn how to think, have become indoctrination centers where they are taught what to think.  Perhaps the disillusionment of their failed experiment in commune-ism will get them thinking.  If Richmond is any indication, the worm may be turning. 

Could it be that the spring might bring a new crop of protests featuring not just Occupiers, but Tea Partiers, too, standing together as one against the banks and politicians?  Now there's a thought.

And if that doesn't work?  Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em!  (or become a competitor!)

Read more...

PUTTING TWO AND TWO TOGETHER

TO PLEDGE OR NOT TO PLEDGE

San Francisco's District Six Supervisor Jane Kim, a newly elected Board of Supervisors member is stirring up controversy because of her refusal to pledge allegiance to the American flag:

"I don't think our flag represents a nation where there's liberty and justice for all," argued Kim.

"And I reserve my right to disagree or to even protest when I think our government isn't representing the best of our ideals or principles."

For a private citizen, this is a non-issue - if you want to 'protest' that way, knock yourself out.  However, Kim is an elected official who represents the government of the United States, even in the limited capacity of the Board of Supervisors.  As such, it is distasteful in the extreme that she refused to pledge allegiance to the nation that she has been elected to serve.  The question inevitably arises that if you refuse to include yourself in the country, should you really be representing it and, more importantly, do you have the best interests of the nation at heart, or your own, or even someone else's?

There is no law that compels her to say the pledge, of course, but there is an expectation of it from government employees.  One wonders how the administration of the oath of office went - after all, she has to pledge to uphold the laws of the land, doesn't she?  Did she cross her fingers behind her back?  Or is she planning to continue in the liberal fashion and just ignore the things she doesn't agree with?

In the grand scheme of things, it is probably more notable that her conduct is causing controversy at all.  This is, after all, San Francisco we're talking about.  Honestly, isn't it more surprising that they actually say the pledge before beginning than that she refuses to participate?  It's nice to know there are a few people willing to admit they still consider themselves to be part of America there.  But, then, the city does boast it's own Bay Area Tea Party chapter, believe it or not, so all hope is not lost.  I'm still expecting the city to officially secede from the union any day now, a la the Conch Republic.

As for the possibility that Kim will change her behavior, don't hold your breath:

Kim said it's a personal decision of how to honor the flag and country.

 
  "How to honor the flag and country" - by snubbing it.  Talk about mental gymnastics.  At least she's not completely disrespectful - she does stand up for the pledge, even if she doesn't repeat it.  But still, one just sort of expects one's elected officials to at least like the country for whom they work.  Or am I out of line here?

Read more...

TO PLEDGE OR NOT TO PLEDGE

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

The far left in this country have been waging a war of words for decades, and their favorite tactic is changing meanings of words to suit their needs.  They are also fond of assigning labels, whether they are applicable or not.  They love to disparage their opponents by using the "scary words" - racist, fascist, extremist.  They know that people back down when they are called certain names, whether they apply to the situation or not. 

The most common example is, of course, the claims that the Tea Parties are racist.  There is no proof of this, but repetition brings on a sense of truth.  If they scream it loud enough and long enough, people will believe it.  Alan Colmes said today that just because there wasn't video of the alleged racial and homophobic slurs doesn't mean they didn't happen.  Actually, Mr. Colmes, that's exactly what it means.  With hundreds of cameras, several in the hands of the alleged "victims" themselves, the fact that there is no video proof whatsoever is in reality proof that the incident never occurred.  And yet the narrative continues.

Today on Fox and Friends, actress Aisha Tyler was part of a panel discussing political topics.  She is obviously an intelligent, informed woman (she has a degree in political science), but she said something that really irritated me, and it's something that definitely needs to be addressed.

One of the other guests commented that the current administration was fascistic.  Ms. Tyler took offense to that term, and stated that fascism is a strictly right-wing policy and so cannot be used to describe the current left-wing administration.

Let's take a look at what Merriam Webster has to say about the definition of  "fascism":

1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition


2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I have checked other dictionaries, but have not seen a single entry that states that fascism is a right-wing only term. The premise that the Nazi's were right-wingers has sprung up in acedemic circles and is being taught in our universities - Ms. Tyler's thought process is most likely due to her poli-sci degree.  Why has fascism (and nazism) been assigned to the right?  (via Free Republic):

According to a popular misconception, the Nazis must have been on the political right because they persecuted communists and fought a war with the communists in Russia. This specious logic has gone largely unchallenged because it serves as useful propaganda for the left, which needs ``right-wing'' atrocities to divert attention from the horrific communist atrocities of the past century. Hence, communist atrocities have received much less publicity than Nazi war crimes, even though they were greater in magnitude by any objective measure.

One also wonders if this attempt to demonize Nazism and make it a right-wing contrivance is because, unlike the atrocities perpetrated in the name of communism, the effects of nazism were photographed and documented for posterity.  It is difficult to whitewash the horrors of the Nazi socialist state because the entire world was inundated with those horrific images.  If that photographic evidence had not existed, would fascism still be considered a bad thing today?  Communism, on the other hand, has remained in the shadows, because the communist dictatorships never allowed such information to be disseminated.  Western cameras were not allowed into the gulags and firing lines.  Documentation was destroyed, redacted or remains classified to this day.

But the history of the past century has been grossly distorted by the predominantly left-wing media and academic elite. The Nazis have been universally condemned -- as they obviously should be -- but they have also been repositioned clear across the political spectrum and propped up as false representatives of the far right -- even though Hitler railed frantically against capitalism in his infamous demagogic speeches. At the same time, heinous crimes of larger magnitude by communist regimes have been ignored or downplayed, and the general public is largely unaware of them. Hence, communism is still widely regarded as a fundamentally good idea that has just not yet been properly ``implemented.'' Santayana said, ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.'' God help us if we forget the horrors of communism and get the historical lessons of Nazism backwards.

The left is revising history yet again in their attempt to portray the Nazis as right-wingers, but if you check out the real history, you will find that they were socialists - the term "nazi" stands for National Socialist Workers Party.  Socialism is most definitely NOT a right-wing ideology.  The Nazis ruled from a strong central government that regulated both the economy and society with an iron fist, and they were assuredly in firm control of the press.  One need look no further than the death camps and all of the accounts of dissenters disappearing in the night to verify the "forcible suppression of opposition", and Hitler easily comes to mind when the topic of brutal dictators comes up.

The left also uses corporatism in their argument that the Nazis and Mussolini were right-wingers, but, again, this doesn't fly.  Our past few administrations are perfect examples of corporations benefitting from both sides of the political spectrum, but with this administration there might be a little buyer's remorse happening.  The left is just as arm-in-arm with corporations as the right, but there are one or two major differences between them.  The republicans are pro free market capitalism, and aren't really interested in government control of corporations - Bush-era bailouts didn't come with the strings of governmental control.   The left's bailouts come with strings so thick and unbreakable that they could be used as cables on the Golden Gate bridge.  Under Obama, Pelosi and Reid, the federal government is becoming more and more entwined with and calling the shots more and more often for corporate America.  The left also has something the right does not - the "power of persuasion" of it's union minions.  Power they have been wielding quite effectively over the past year or so.

Hitler was vehemently anti-capitalism, because he felt that the capitalist system favored the Jews.  Our current administration is anti-capitalism because of their quest for the perfect socialist utopia.  The reasons may be different, but the end result is the same - the destruction of the free market economy and the slide into socialism.

For those who scoff at the socialist label, I offer this definition of state socialism, which could also be considered "european-style" socialism:

an economic system with limited socialist characteristics that is effected by gradual state action and typically includes public ownership of major industries and remedial measures to benefit the working class

We have allowed the left to hijack our history and turn it on it's head.  Up is down, left is right, and disinformation rules.  We must take back the narrative and set the record straight.  So the next time you hear someone call you a fascist because you lean right, set them straight.    Keeping silent allows their version to become the accepted reality.  Standing up to them will be a hard fight, but it's one worth winning, and it's one that most definitely CAN be won. 

Our quest over the next few years isn't just to take our country back politically, it's to restore our history, and teach it to our kids.  We must restore the true meaning of names and labels and thus strip the liberals of their power.  Always remember - "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Read more...

WHAT'S IN A NAME?

THE REALITY ALARM GOES CHA-CHING!

Our esteemed President and his Congressional minions have reached yet another milestone (via ABC's Jake Tapper):

The government racked up a record-high monthly budget deficit of $220.9 billion in February, the Treasury Department announced today.


The latest flood of red ink brings the total deficit for the first five months of the current fiscal year to $651 billion, far exceeding the $589 billion shortfall for the same timeframe in the last fiscal year.

The government ended the 2009 fiscal year with a record $1.4 trillion shortfall. The Obama administration has forecast a $1.56 trillion deficit for this year.

Is it any wonder the young adults of America are losing hope?
 

Fewer than half said they believe they will be better off than their parents when they reach their parents' age.

 
Is it possible that this administration is going to end up being more Nixonian than Kennedy-esque or FDR-ish?  Not to say that President Obama will have to resign or face impeachment - it's more about the effect he and his administration's actions have  had on the psyche of the country.  The generation that came of age in the 1960's and '70's had their faith in government dashed in the face of the corrupt reality, and the gradual decline in trustworthyness really hit the skids.  After Nixon, there was a sense of disillusionment and distrust of government that permeated rank and file American's views of politics.  This caused a backlash of suspicion that took a few decades to dull.  There was a small uptick in the Reagan years, but that short period of faith was put back into its downward rut in the scandal-plagued Clinton years and beyond.
 
Then, suddenly, there was an abrupt, out of the blue 180 that occured the day Obama won the primary.  Suddenly, government was the answer to a whole new generation, and all that good will was poured into the empty suit  at the top of the ticket.  He was a blank canvas on to which they painted their hopes and dreams, a beautiful, lush utopia in jewel colors, and they transferred their dependency from their parents to their government, which was embodied in one man.
 
Obama was elected on a wave of goodwill.  He was lifted up as a shining example of what government could be.  Unfortunately, as often happens, the reality just hasn't lived up to the hype.  All of those college students and 20-somethings who supported him and looked up to him and his vision of a new utopia are now waking up to a harsh reality.  He is just another politician out to spend their future just like all the rest.
 

With the country in the midst of a slow economic recovery with nearly 10 percent unemployment, the data finds a deep sense of gloom among 18-29 year olds. The grim mood could have immediate political consequences, and it could also shape that generation's long-term faith in government and in its ability to improve their daily lives.

 
This particular generation has much farther to fall, too, because at no other time in our history has there been such a pampered, coddled youth; nor has there been so many who saw the government, parent-like, as the answer to all the problems.
 
There seems to be a delicious irony in all of this. 
 
After all, it was the hippy culture of the 1960's and '70's that gave birth to the whole 'never trust the government or anyone over 30' mentality.  Now those same people are well beyond their 30's and in positions of power in our government.  They are demanding, incredibly enough, absolute trust in government.  Even more incredibly, they apparently have received it from the younger generations who have been gradually indoctrinated into acceptance of government as the answer to everything.  Our youth have been taught that the nanny state is only out to serve them and take care of them, and they believed it, these priviledged children of overindulgent parents who took care of everything - they bought it hook, line and sinker.  Until their beloved government went hog wild, pillaged their futures, and taught them the hard way that nothing in life is free.  This seems to have created a suspicion backlash against those in power.  Again. That whole "what goes around, comes around" thing is a real pain, isn't it?
 
Hopefully those kids who have had a sad wake-up call will realize that there is cause to hope, and that it resides in them.  They are the hope for the future, not some politician or government entity.
 
This is a country built on dreams, and they are the dreamers.  The people of this country got through the Great Depression and came out stronger for it.  We can get through this - hopefully stronger and wiser.  Our pampered youth are learning the hard way that nothing comes for free, and that a politician's promise of utopia comes with a hefty pricetag.  But hopefully they will also learn that hard work, dedication and determination can deliver many wonderful things to those who dare.
 
Yes, our government has been frittering away their inheritance for decades, but that doesn't mean it can't be replaced.   In order to do that, though, the first thing that needs to be replaced is those currently in power.
 
There are literally trillions of reasons why.
 

Read more...

THE REALITY ALARM GOES CHA-CHING!