"NOBODY IN THIS COUNTRY GOT RICH ON THEIR OWN" Updated

Progressive Elizabeth Warren is in the running for Republican Scott Brown's Senate seat in Massachusetts.  There's no mushy middle ground for this lady, so it should be an interesting race.  At a recent campaign stop, Ms. Warren said this:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever. No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody.


“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

First of all, companies aren't like sourdough bread, where you reserve some of the yeast for the next batch.  Business owners already "pay it forward" in many ways - by providing intern programs, scholarships or mentoring, to name a few.  Second, the "big hunk" government allows companies to keep doesn't go right in the owner's bank account.  It makes payroll, buys materials and machinery, advertising, shipping, and myriad other things.  Most small business owners don't see a profit for the first five years.  Most businesses operate with a lean 2-5% profit margin.  Every new tax, fee and license the State demands cuts into that.  People aren't in business for philanthropy, they're in it for success and money.  Profits are NOT evil -  if nothing else, without them who would be footing bills like this?

The Boston Globe actually tries to spin her comments as conservative, if you can believe it.  It's an interesting take, but what author Ben Jacobs misses is that for conservatives, a good faith 'social contract' between the factory owner and the taxpayers who pay for the infrastructure upon which he is dependent isn't about an unspecified increase in taxes (how much is fair? when is it enough?) or punishing regulation.  The factory owner fulfills his obligations by giving the homeowner whose property taxes paid for the infrastructure a silly little thing called....a job.  You know, the thing people do to earn the money to pay the property taxes to keep the road that they themselves use every day to get to work at the factory or one of the many other businesses that crop up around manufacturing centers like restaurants, shops, hotels, apartment complexes, car dealerships - need I go on?

By the way, isn't it interesting how greedy old business owners apparently don't pay any taxes at all?  At least, that's how progressives make it seem lately.  (Maybe it's because so many of the progressive cronies business owners they know don't)  So we're to believe there are no property taxes on the building housing the factory - no permits, fees or licenses needed, at the very least?  What about business taxes?  Payroll taxes?  Or don't those count?  Some go into the federal piggy bank, others to state and local.  But make no mistake, everybody gets a slice - including the workers who take their portion as paychecks, perks and bonuses.

Yes, there is a social contract between a large business and the community that supports it.  It is a symbiotic relationship that, when done right, nurtures and supports both parties.  Many businesses even participate in community outreach such as Target, who partnered with Oprah Winfrey to give my daughters' school a new library in appreciation for their dedication to promoting reading.  Just think of it as private sector voluntary redistribution of wealth from Target to the kids of Ocoee Middle School.  But when government steps in and begins punishing businesses for their success through excessive regulation and confiscatory taxation, they are not only sabotaging the businesses, but the communities with whom they are so closely tied by taking the resources that would have gone into the local community and redirecting it to Washington. 

As of now, Warren is the front runner in her race against Brown for the Senate.  It will be interesting to see how her comments are taken by the Massachusetts public.  We truly are at a crossroads with the 2012 election.  Which will we choose - a further slide into the floundering European model of high unemployment, high taxes, excessive regulation and low productivity or a return to the founding principles of smaller federal government, more power to the states and, above all, fiscal sanity.  If Warren remains the front runner, it will be clear that there really is a desire to punish the private sector and grow the public as the press has been claiming.  There was certainly no ambiguity in her statement to confuse voters about where she stands.  She has pinned her hopes on class warfare and redistributionism.  If Brown retakes the lead, well...if even uber-liberal Massachusetts gets it, there's hope for the rest of the country.

UPDATE:  Oh dear God in Heaven.  Looney old Paul Krugman is calling Warren a "financial reformer" whose "eloquent" comments have spoken truth to power.  If by "financial reform" you mean more of the same tax and spend policies that the democrats have been shoving down our throats for decades (and really put on steroids since 2007) then sure, she's a real "reformer". 

Read more...

"NOBODY IN THIS COUNTRY GOT RICH ON THEIR OWN" Updated

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 REVISION OF PRIDE

North Carolina public schools are proposing a new lesson plan for American history.  They are not the first state to do this, and they unfortunately probably won't be the last.  Under the proposed plan, high school students would no longer be taught American history before 1877. 

No Declaration of Independence.  No Revolutionary War.  No Constitution.  No War of 1812.  No Civil War or Reconstruction.  No Founding Fathers, and no Abe Lincoln.

Why are they proposing this?  They feel that the things that happened in this country prior to 1877 are irrelevant to todays students.

According to Rebecca Garland, the chief academic officer for North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, the goal of this change is to teach what students will feel connected to, “where they see the big idea, where they are able to make connections and draw relationships between parts of our history and the present day.”

Wow.  So, apparently, an entirely new system of governance, a war to impliment it, a war to cement it and a war to make all men truly free in this country are not "big ideas".

According to The Heritage Foundation, the reason for this is simply a Progressive agenda to promote government as the answer:

The Progressives sought to remake America, so that the Declaration’s Founding Principles, the Constitution’s institutional structures, and the Civil War’s meaning as a victory for Founding principles would no longer ring true. The progressives argued that equal, natural rights were non-existent; government creates rights. They replaced representative government with the administrative, bureaucratic state.

I have another take on it. 

I'm not saying that the remaking of America by Progressives isn't the cause - it certainly is.  But I think there is more to it than that. 

I think that is it just not possible to learn about our history and not fall in love with this country.  Sure, there's the bad stuff, like slavery, but there is also the Civil War, which certain (Republican) factors fought in order to right that wrong.  It's no wonder Progressives don't want to teach the Civil War, since their Democrat brethren were most definitely on the wrong side of that one!  The decade after the Civil War, called the Reconstruction, ran from 1865 to, interestingly enough, 1877.  Why wouldn't the Progressives want to teach about that?  Well, the Reconstruction was marred by the creation of the KKK and the many attempts by southern white democrats to oppress the black (republican) community.   Suddenly that 1877 or earlier date makes a lot of sense, huh?

To learn about our country's Founding, from the Declaration of Independence, through the Revolutionary War and on to the creation of the Constitution is to learn what men of honor, integrity and moral standing were capable of.  Is it possible to learn those things and not foster a deep sense of pride that you are descended from that?  Is it possible to learn those things, those freedoms, those rights, without yearning to have them, nurture them and pass them on?

And therein lies the dilemma of the Progressives.  The objective for them is ultimately a nanny state that is subservient to a global community.  When there were attempts to add the U.K. to the European Union and have them forfeit their pound in favor the the euro, there was a hue and cry that was quite unexpected.  The British were proud of their long history and did not want to lose their national identity in the European collective.  One would imagine the other countries were not as concerned about the amalgamation of the European states into one union because they were used to the highly elastic boundaries of their countries throughout the centuries.  But the island nation of Great Britain has always stood apart, both literally and figuratively.

The United States is cut from the same cloth.  We are more of an amalgam of races and creeds than the EU,  but we have, in the peerless melting pot that is our country, created something new.  Something different.  Something special.  American exceptionalism is real.  Our love of freedom is ingrained in us from birth - it above all else, is our birthright.  It is that exceptionalism  and freedom that makes us a country, it is what binds the many different factions into We the People.  No where on Earth is like us, and, as long as we know our history, we will never give that up.

The Progressives know this.  They have revised their own history, but have found it difficult to revise ours, so instead have decided to ignore it.

The whole scheme has caused such an uproar that it is currently being "revisited" - for what that's worth.  Let's hope sanity (and concerned parents) prevails.

There is cause to hope, too, in Texas.  They are in the midst of battling textbook companies over the pronounced leftist tilt of the publications.  Texas is the largest consumer of textbooks in the country which means:

Textbook publishers will have to follow Texas guidelines if they wish to continue to sell textbooks in Texas.

In other words, as Texas goes, so goes the nation.  This battle could potentially affect all of our children's education across the country.  I don't know about you, but I'm damn glad this battle is being fought in Texas instead of California! 

The proposed changes will be voted on in May.

Considering the Battle of the Alamo occurred in 1836, I feel a tiny little spark of hope.....

Read more...

THE REVISION OF PRIDE

THE SILVER LINING OF ANGER

There are some interesting polls out today from Rasmussen.  I have mentioned before that I like Rasmussen because they poll likely voters, instead of just adults.  It gives a more accurate snapshot of electorate leanings.

According to Rasmussen,75% of Americans are somewhat angry with the current government policies.    Out of that 75%, 45% are very angry.  Just 19% are not very (11%) or not at all angry (8%).  I have to admit I'm a little surprised that there are even 8% not at all angry.   Considering those people are likely to vote, it makes requiring current events tests before voting seem more imperative than ever....

Broken down by party, 89% of Republicans, 61% of Democrats and a jaw-dropping 78% of independents are ticked off.   That's right, sisters, you are definitely not alone!

These numbers represent an overall anger at Washington in general; it is not party specific at all.  There is great discontent will any incumbent.  Agendas and voting records will be sharply scrutinized this election cycle.  If you have been fiscally irresponsible with taxpayer money, your days are most likely numbered, whether there is a D or an R after your name.

The question is how it will happen - primary challenges, D's turning to R's and vice versa, or Independent (TEA) party surprise wins. 

And therein lies the silver lining.  The American people, after decades of allowing our politicians to ride roughshod over us and our Constitution, are going to be set straight.  Americans are rediscovering their country, their roots, their heritage and their pride.  We are throwing off the Progressive yoke we have been harnessed to and returning to the core beliefs that have helped make this country the greatest superpower in history.

The more polls I see with results like this, the more I realize we are in for an exciting, surprising, potentially revolutionary election cycle.  The American people have woken up and are getting ready to flex their long dormant muscles and remind the elitist career politicians entrenched in Washington who is really boss.

I can't wait!

Read more...

THE SILVER LINING OF ANGER

THOUGHT POLICE

The past year under Progressive rule has been quite an eye opener for me. I am of the generation that was required to read George Orwell's 1984 in high school (it being, conveniently enough, 1984), and have been uneasy about all of the correlations between that book and our current government. Not that I'm saying things are that bad already - far from it - but I can see the ideas and plans being planted today that will eventually produce Orwellian fruit.


During the Bush administration, the biggest threat to personal liberty, in the eyes of Progressives, was the Patriot Act, which authorized surveillance of the American people's electronic communications for security reasons. Ironically enough, some actually cited 1984 in their arguments. Big Brother! Big Brother! they screamed in protest. How dare you listen to our phone calls - you are invading my free speech!

But the most obvious change is the gargantuan nanny state the Progressives under Obama are trying desperately to foist upon the American people. Their brazen determination in passing the highly unpopular health care bill is exhibit number one. That bill would give the government control over our own bodies. Interesting how they have conniptions about Big Brother listening in on a phone call, but Big Brother making very personal decisions on their physical well-being is a-okay. One can only imagine that if Obama had proposed the Patriot Act, it would have passed with little objection.

If that isn't enough, now they are talking about controlling our thoughts.

I know, I know, crazy right? Unfortunately, toes have already been dipped into that particular bath, and the water seems just fine. NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd has already broken ground on the Thought Police 'thinkcrime' concept with her article on the unspoken but still, apparently, thought addition of 'boy' to Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" Those on the right dismissed her accusation as crazy talk, and rightly so, but the left embraced her hypothesis, happy to put words not just in someone else's mouth, but in their minds, thus opening them up to castigation and derision.

A recent report from CNS News on President Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission nominee, Chai Feldblum, highlighted this mindset. Her views are actually a twofer for the progressives - attacking the right to think your own thoughts in the privacy of your own mind, and attacking religion at the same time!

In an article, titled "Moral Conflict and Liberty: Gay Rights and Religion", which was published in the Brooklyn Law Review in 2006 she writes:

“Just as we do not tolerate private racial beliefs that adversely affect African-Americans in the commercial arena, even if such beliefs are based on religious views, we should similarly not tolerate private beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity that adversely affect LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender] people,” the Georgetown law professor argued.

I beg your pardon, Ms. Feldblum, but we do tolerate people's private beliefs, even if they are racial in nature, provided those beliefs do not enter into a public forum and discriminate as a result. If I want to hate, say, smurfs because their blue skin reminds me of democrats, that is my own business. I probably should go into therapy, but that's a private matter, because those are my private thoughts. If I were to then refuse to hire or serve smurfs at my business because of their liberal blue tint, well, then Ms. Feldblum can take issue with me.

Reading 1984 in high school was a revelation for me. In the Cold War era that I grew up in, there really were places like George Orwell described in his books (Animal Farm was based on Stalin's Soviet Russia). The irony of it all is that the man was a socialist, but he abhored the totalitarian state, as his books Animal Farm and 1984 illustrated so profoundly.

These books need to be required reading again in our schools, because the totalitarianism Orwell so opposed is coming to fruition under the careful nurturing of the Progressive Agenda.

Progressives know full well that knowledge is power, and so they have been making sure for decades that We the People, under their Progressive-controlled academia, are powerless. Perhaps it's time that parents have their own required reading list for their teenaged children, with books like 1984 and Animal Farm at the top of the list.

I know I will., so that when my kids go to college and are fully immersed in the liberal doctrine, they will recognize Big Brother when they see it.  I hope to God I'm not alone.

Read more...

THOUGHT POLICE