Politics & Reason

Message to Wall Street Protesters

2011-10-31T22:46:00.001-04:00

If you hate Wall Street that much, then take all of your money out of your 401(k) plan or commercial bank and invest it into something local! If people on Wall Street and in large corporations work hard and make lots of money, then just let them be! They aren't hurting you, unless you place your money and trust in their hands. If you went to an expensive college and spent $80,000 on a sociology or liberal arts degree, why would you expect to make the same kind of money as someone who got an MBA or a law degree and probably works 75 hours per week? If you don't like your current financial situation, then maybe you need to develop some skills that the marketplace will really value!! Jealousy and spite are both petty and pathetic!

The End of Bipartisanship

2009-01-24T08:49:00.001-05:00

PREZ ZINGS GOP FOE IN A $TIMULATING TALK

By CHARLES HURT, BUREAU CHIEF - New York Post

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about according to aides briefed on the meeting.

"I will trump you on that."

Not that Obama was gloating. He was just explaining that he aims to get his way on stimulus package and all other legislation, sources said, noting his unrivaled one-party control of both congressional chambers.

"We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly," Obama said during the meeting.

Republicans say the $825 billion price tag is too big a burden for a nation crippled by debt and that it doesn't do enough to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

"You know, I'm concerned about the size of the package. And I'm concerned about some of the spending that's in there, [about] ... how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives," House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said.

"How does that stimulate the economy?"

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: "There was a lot of agreement in that room about the notion that we're facing an economic crisis unlike we've seen in quite some time ... that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people's pockets."

Gibbs disagreed with those who called the meeting window dressing.

"The president is certainly going to listen to any ideas," he said.

"He will also go to Capitol Hill the beginning of next week to talk to Republican caucuses and solicit their input and their ideas."

With Post Wires

churt@nypost.com

For all of his talk on bipartisanship, Obama is no different than other liberal Dems when it comes to the GOP. In his mind, his ideas and ideals transcend anything that the GOP could ever come up with, especially when it comes to the likes of Limbaugh & Hannity. To Obama, bipartisanship does not mean that he gives any serious consideration to the concerns of conservatives. In his mind, it means that he will, for but a few moments, condescend from his lofty peak to the level of us mere mortals, to generously bestow upon us the essence of his greatness (which we have somehow failed to comprehend at this stage). If we are unable to bow down upon receiving this revelation, then to Obama it means that we are not worthy or unable to become enlightened, which then means we are a threat to his kingship. McCain became one of his disciples, and assuming he doesn't stray from Obama's plantation, he will receive occasional scraps from Obama's table. It will be interesting to see what steps Obama will take to silence Limbaugh & Hannity, as well as any other media figures who dare to question Obama's intentions. The recent annoyances caused by the White House press have irritated Obama to the point where I suspect he look for ways to cut off access for some. The question I have is, at what point will the Obama worshippers in the media (Chris Matthews, Tom Brokaw, Keith Olbermann, etc.) begin to see the true Obama, and develop some healthy criticism for this Administration? And at what point will Obama kick FOXNEWS out of the White House press room?

The Cult of Obama

2009-01-23T23:15:00.002-05:00

I was intrigued by the discussion held by Newsweek's Jon Meacham & Evan Thomas with Charlie Rose back in November. Here are some excerpts:

Meacham stated that he was "very struck watching the stagecraft" of Obama and pointed out how Obama gave his victory speech by himself: "...[H]ave you ever seen a victory speech where there was no one else on stage? No adoring wife, no cute kid -- he is the message." Thomas went one step further in this vein: "There is a slightly creepy cult of personality about all of this." Rose confronted him on his use of this phrase, and he explained that it made him "a little uneasy that he's so singular. He's clearly managing his own spectacle. He knows how to do it. He's a -- I think, a deeply manipulative guy..." Later, all three marveled about how it was "amazing" that Obama "watches us watching him."

Rose then comments, "You know? And that they're walking from -- and his is a much more -- he finishes, and he sort of -- it’s almost like he then ascends to look at the circumstance."

Is this not the wierdest thing?? What planet did Barack Obama come from? Given his manipulative personality, I find myself extremely concerned about the future of our country in this man's hands. How is it that the majority of the national media, as well as the majority of the voting members of our population are so captivated by this man? Has this country been so dumbed-down that we can no longer think rationally? I feel like I'm witnessing first-hand the fulfillment of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged novel, wherein American falls so far away from where we once were as a people that we let collectivists like Obama destroy us from within. This man seems very dangerous to me, and I fear that many Americans can't even see it.

The Coming Breakup of the United States?

2008-11-30T15:21:00.003-05:00

Recently Russian Political Science Professor Igor Panarin has been in the news for his predictions regarding a future civil war in the United States, and to an ultimate division of the U.S. into multiple components (http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/33836).

Here is a recent interview that Russia Today held with Professor Panarin:

We present a new version of the event’s development through the eyes of the scientist, even though it may seem disputable and even scandalous.

In his interview with Izvestia, professor Panarin shares his opinion on the following issues: why the United States decided on monetary reform; who Obama is working for; and why it is better for Russia to be friends with China.

Question: Mr. Panarin, where did this idea of the breakup of the US come from back in 1998, when this country was prospering and when it was an unconditional world leader?

Answer: In September 1998 an international conference called the Informational War was held in Austria. I presented my analytical research there. 150 out of 400 participants were from the USA. There was outrageous shouting in the audience when I was talking about the division of America in my presentation. However my reasons were well-grounded. Back then it was obvious that finance and economy would be the main destructive power for the USA. The dollar was not secured by anything. The external debt of the country was growing like an avalanche in spite of the fact that it was non-existent at the beginning of the 1980s. In 1998, when I was making my forecast, it had reached 2 trillion dollars. Today it’s more than 11 trillion. This is a pyramid which is bound to collapse.

Q: Will the entire American economy collapse?

A: It is collapsing now. Three out of the five largest and oldest banks on Wall Street ceased to exist because of the financial crisis; and the other two are on the verge of surviving. Their losses are the largest in history. Now we are talking about replacing the regulation system in the world: America will no longer be the world regulator.

Q: Which country will replace it?

A: Two countries are making a claim for this role: China with its large reserves, and Russia as a country which could play the role of a regulator on the Eurasian territory. A rather remarkable event took place at the G20 summit which has just taken place in Washington. Participants put forward the new architectonics of the international affairs where a key role would belong to the International Monetary Fund. But the International Monetary Fund needs funds. Thus the participants addressed China and Japan with a request to provide money. The gold reserves of China come to more than 2 trillion dollars. It is the largest creditor to the USA. Now it will definitely affect the policy of the fund. By the way, it is not accidental that Mr. Hu Jintao met two leaders at the summit: the Russian President and the leader of the UK. There are plans to hold the spring G20 meeting in England. And the meeting with Russia as a country which is putting forward the basic principles of reconstructing the world financial system also clearly fits the vision of the Chinese reformation process.

“Skeleton which keeps the USA together is fragile”

Q: We are clear about the world leaders. But let’s go back to the USA. What makes you believe in the possible division of the country?

A: There are a number of reasons. First, the financial problems of the USA will increase. Millions of citizens have already lost their savings. Prices and unemployment keep growing. General Motors and Ford are on the verge of collapse which means that entire towns will end up unemployed. The governors are now harshly demanding money from the federal center. Complaints are growing. They’ve been restrained so far by the presidential election and by hope that Obama could perform a miracle. However, by spring it will become clear that a miracle will not happen.

The second factor is the vulnerability of the political mechanism in the USA. There is no uniform legislation on the territory of the country. There aren’t even general uniform traffic rules. The skeleton which keeps the USA together is fragile. Even the armed forces in Iraq are represented by the non-citizens of the United States to a large extent. They fight for the promise of American citizenship. Thus the army, as a melting pot has stopped fulfilling a consolidating function for the American state. And finally, the split of the elite has made itself especially clear under the conditions of the crisis.

“Hundred dollar notes may get frozen”

Q: How will the country be divided? Mexico is obviously in the south. What else?

A: There are six parts altogether. The first one is the Pacific Ocean coast of the USA. I can give you an example: 53% of San Francisco’s population is Chinese. The Governor of Washington state was an ethnic Chinese; its capital, Seattle, is called the gate of the Chinese emigration to the USA. It is obvious that the Pacific Ocean coast has been gradually influenced by China. The second part in the south is definitely the Mexicans. In some areas, Spanish has become the official language already. Then comes Texas which has been openly fighting for independence. The Atlantic coast has a totally different ethnos and mentality. It could be split into two parts as well. And we are left with two central depressive areas. May I remind you that five central states where the Indians live had announced their independence. It was perceived as a joke or a kind of a political show. But the fact remains the same. Canada is making a strong influence in the North. By the way, Russia may require returning Alaska, as it had been rented out…

Q: What will happen to the dollar then?

A: In 2006 a secret agreement was made between Canada, Mexico and the USA on preparing to implement the Amero as a new currency unit. This may mean replacement of the dollar. At the same time 100-dollar notes which have flooded the world may just get “frozen”. An excuse may be used, for example, that terrorists have made false notes which need to be checked.

"Confrontation between the clans has become open”

Q: Could you tell us about the division of the elite. Are these the democrats and the republicans?

A: No, that is not right. There are two groups in the US authorities. The first one may be called the globalists, or the Trotskyites. Leon Trotsky had already formulated their idea in the past: it’s not Russia that we need, but a world revolution. Soviet Russia was viewed by them as a base for control over the world. The second group is the statists which want prosperity for their country. Representatives of these two clans are present in both Democratic and Republican Parties. Take voting for the anti-crisis plan of Paulson, which was suggested by the Republican administration, for example. It was voted down in the Congress by the Republicans first of all.

Q: Who is in charge of the clans?

A: The key persons of the globalists are Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney. The key persons of the statists are Robert Gates, Defense Secretary; Michael Hayden, CIA Director; and Admiral Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence. Globalists are mainly the financial elite, and statists are the armed forces, special services and military and industrial complex. Recently the confrontation between these two clans has become open. In December last year the statists presented a report which completely denied the existence of the nuclear program in Iran. It directly contradicted conclusions made by Condoleezza Rice and Dick Cheney. The second important event took place at the hearings of the US Congress concerning the 5-day war in the Caucasus. The globalists represented by Condoleezza Rice insisted that Russia had started the war and that it would be punished for it. Georgia was the project of Condoleezza. And representatives of the intelligence community presented a diametrically opposite statement: that Georgia had started the war. We see an open confrontation between very outstanding political figures.

Q: And who’s Obama’s company?

A: The statists with Gates in charge were the key players who had enabled Obama to win. They are demanding that he change the general line in return. In this light, a very interesting factor is that Gates the Republican is viewed as the most important candidate as to whether he remains the US Defense Secretary or becomes the Secretary of State. This is the influence of the statists on the President. By the way, the first session which Obama held was with the American intelligence community.

“We have to cut the ropes tying us to Titanic.”

Q: What does the victory of the statists mean for Russia?

A: It’s a rather good chance for us, as they acted on our side in the conflict in the Caucasus. According to President Medvedev’s visit to the USA we see that he was not subject to any obstruction in relation to the events in the Caucasus. The atmosphere in Washington was rather calm and friendly.

Q: What should Russia do in order to avoid shocks in relation to a possible economic collapse of the United States?

A: It should develop the rouble as the regional currency. It should form an efficient petroleum exchange which would sell oil for roubles. Several days ago an agreement was signed between Russia and Belarus on transferring payments for oil and gas to roubles. This is the beginning of establishing the ruble as the regional currency as well. We’ve been receiving our currency from Kazakhstan and Belarus for electricity already. Now our task is to try to make as many rouble contracts as possible for the year 2009 before the end of this year. In this case Russia will be able to escape the growing global crisis. We have to cut the ropes tying us to the financial “Titanic” which, in my opinion, will drown in the nearest future.

Courtesy of Izvestia daily.
Translated by RT.

Is This Real Change?

2008-11-23T17:49:00.002-05:00

Barack Obama ran his entire presidential campaign on the promise that he would bring real change to the American political process. But is it real change when you put many of the same political appointees that served in the Clinton Administration in your cabinet? Is it real change when you choose a U.S. Senator who has been in Washington, DC for 35 years to be your running mate? I suppose it is better that Obama is choosing well-known people from the Clinton Administration to serve in his cabinet, since many of the people that he closely associated with while in Chicago would probably make many DC Democrats and even his supporters in the mainstream media very nervous, were he to appoint them to positions of responsibility.

The biggest surprise to me is that Barack seemingly intends to name Hillary Clinton to serve as his Secretary of State. This position is one of the most important positions in a president's cabinet, and to hand it over to someone who just recently questioned your ability to be president is ludicrous. I suspect that Obama is trying to appear to be above petty politics, but much like his naive statements about being willing to meet with Iranian or Venezuelan leaders who are openly anti-American, I think that it is likely that this move is more a reflection of Obama's inexperience or poor judgment. These people that he is getting in bed with, politically speaking, are some of the most narcissistic, self-absorbed individuals in Washington, DC. Perhaps he believes that he can use his natural charm to ensure that these people stay true to his interests? I'm much more skeptical, and wouldn't be surprised to see the Obama Administration turn out much like the Carter years.

Relax, You're Not President Yet

2008-11-08T22:15:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama gave the Democratic Party's weekly radio address today, and in it, he said, "I want to ensure that we hit the ground running on Jan. 20 because we don't have a moment to lose." He also said that the $700 billion rescue plan signed into law Oct. 3 needs to protect taxpayers, help homeowners without, "unduly rewarding the management of financial firms that are receiving government assistance.''

I'm wondering what he thinks he can actually do on Jan. 20th that President Bush can't do now, if the survival of civilization as we know it is really at stake, as he implies. I get the impression that Obama is feeling the pressure to live up to the hype that he and the mainstream media have created about his emergence onto the national political scene? Is President Bush really so out of touch that he can't do what it takes to reverse the current economic difficulties that this country is facing? This messianic complex that Obama has created about himself would be amusing, if the likely consequences of his presidency weren't so potentially dangerous for this country.

If I could get two minutes privately with Obama, I would say to him, "Relax Barack. You've already won the election to run this country for the next four years. Sit back, take a few deep breaths, and start putting the pieces in place regarding your cabinet. Have Michelle check out the schools in the D.C. area, and also the local drapery stores for the latest trends. Let President Bush deal with the current issues in the economy, since he still is the President of this country for the next 2+ months. You'll have plenty of time to do your thing, so just ease off on the messianic pronouncements about what you're going to do to save our country from devastation once you're inaugurated. It's all really unsettling, and you're just making yourself look foolish."

Obama Meets the Press

2008-11-07T20:20:00.000-05:00

After watching Obama's first post-election press conference, I couldn't help but think that he is actually going to be very annoying to listen to for the next four years. His constant pausing between phrases (ah's & um's) is extremely annoying after listening to him for any length of time. Initially, Obama sounds like he is carefully thinking through his statements--but the more I hear from him, the more annoyed I become. Now Bush certainly was an annoying speaker at times, using "nukular" and other butchered phrases that often made him seem less intelligent than he really is. But I'm now finding Obama's speech pattern to be even worse, so hopefully his handlers will find a way to correct this habit that he has.

In his press conference today, I was amused to see the lineup of economic advisers that were rolled out today prior to his appearance to serve as his backdrop. I couldn't help but think of the Greek Columns that were placed behind him at his convention speech. As for his actual speech and response to media questions, I would have to say that he is not as smooth a communicator as I expected him to be, at least when the teleprompter is not in front of him. Perhaps he needs some time to develop the depth of knowledge that will enable him to answer questions in an intelligent way, especially when he's in an impromptu setting. I did sense an arrogance in him when asked questions about how he's going to "fix" the economy, suggesting that he is the only one who has the ability to do so. I suspect that within a few weeks, he will fully drop his "bipartisan" fascade and renew his attacks on the Bush Administration. Fortunately, for the Conservatives who still remain engaged in this country's political debate, in a few months Obama will have no one to blame for the country's problems except himself, or, his fellow democrats in congress. Once this period of time passes, Conservatives will lick their wounds and begin to gain some traction in the political discourse taking place in this country.

What Republicans Need to Do Now!

2008-11-05T20:52:00.000-05:00

1) Don't nominate any long-serving U.S. Senators for President. Years spent in the Senate result in a public record which is much more likely to be exploited in a national campaign. Senators don't usually win the Presidency--Obama was the exception because he wasn't there long enough to generate a track record. Governors are good, Congressmen are bad candidates.
2) Nominate Educated, Well-Spoken Candidates. George Bush graduated from Yale & Harvard, but apparently didn't spend much time studying while he was there. His lack of proper grammar skills was annoying, and made him a popular target for comics and the media. If a candidate thinks nuclear is pronounced nukular, steer clear of him!
3) Nominate Candidates who are between 45 & 60 years old. Among today's voting population, appearance and vibrancy mean everything. Bob Dole & John McCain, war heroes that they both truly were, did not compare to the youthful Bill Clinton & Barack Obama. Today, style is much more important than substance, unfortunately.
4) Nominate Candidates who will Represent a Return to Classic Conservatism.
- The "New Tone" expressed by Bush is defeatist, and a losing strategy.
- "Compassionate Conservatism" is another name for Neocon on Foreign Policy, Liberal on Domestic Policy.
- Balanced Budgets are good. Deficit Spending is bad. Period. Don't accept big spending candidates.
5) Nominate Fighters, not Mealy-Mouthed Apologists. The left-wing and the liberal media are going to disagree with everything you say, so confront them head-on and their naturally-inbred doubt in their own ideas will eventually get the best of them. Stand up to them strongly and they will be easily defeated by your conservative ideals and logic. Politics is war. It's a battle of competing principles that has consequences resulting in life or death.
6) Don't Nominate Graduates of Yale, Harvard, or Columbia. If you're a Republican who went to one of these schools, you'll be labeled a rich, privileged kid who doesn't understand the middle-class. If you're a Democrat, it's ok because you overcame the odds and made it at one of the nation's finest educational institutions.

Election Night

2008-11-04T21:52:00.000-05:00

May God Help Us All!!

Is America Ready for Socialism?

2008-10-27T21:03:00.000-04:00

With the latest polls showing Barack Obama leading John McCain in the 2008 Presidential race, America seems poised to elect Obama to lead it for the next four years. And given today's conviction of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, it is more likely that the Democrats may capture the 60 Senate seats that they would need to hold a filibuster-proof majority. What does this mean for the frustrated Americans who seem willing to effect this change in governance?

One recent study listed Barack Obama as the most liberal Senator in 2007, even more liberal than Socialist Bernie Sanders from Vermont. If Sanders is a proclaimed Socialist, and Obama is even more in favor of a controlling federal government than the Socialist Senator, what prevents this fact from enabling honest Americans from assuming that Obama is, in effect, a Socialist as well?

Perhaps a large number of Americans have, in fact, lost their minds? Or, they've become so disenchanted with the Bush Administration that they're willing to elect whomever is the exact opposite of Bush? Whatever the case may be, it is clear that Americans, in general, are thinking emotionally, rather than intelligently. This frustration level is running so deep that, in the State of Minnesota, nutjob Al Franken is actually leading Republican Norm Coleman in the race for the U.S. Senate. If Franken wins this Senate seat, how long will it take for Minnesotans to wake up from their binge moment and realize who they've allowed into their bed? Do Minnesotans actually realize that a Senate term lasts for 6 years? Perhaps not.

Thinking adults will one day wake from this apparent nightmare in waiting and see their fellow American citizenry reverse this trend towards a European-style Socialist government (or at least we can hope that they will)! Will Obama, Pelosi, and Reid overreach? Undoubtedly, just as the Republican neocons overreached when they interpreted the ease of victory in Afghanistan as transferrable to the decade-long headache known as Iraq. The question that remains is, will the Socialist gains in American civilization be so embedded by the time that paleo-conservatives reassume majority rule that it will be impossible to reverse them? Just look at the longevity of the Roe vs. Wade decision. Freedom-loving Americans can only hope that this period of coming Socialism will be short-lived, and that a Reagan-like Revolution will be the end result!

Timing is Everything

2008-10-21T21:28:00.000-04:00

Two weeks out from the 2008 elections, it appears as if Democrats are poised to recapture the White House and to bolster their grip on majority rule in both chambers of Congress. If history repeats itself, it is highly likely that the Democrats will misconstrue their forthcoming victories as a mandate for the establishment of higher taxes and increased government regulation of the American economic engine. Do most Americans want to pay higher taxes? Unlikely. Do most Americans want the government to establish tighter controls on private industry? Perhaps. Do most Americans want to see a European-style socialist economy? Very unlikely.

I predict that Obama will win the election in two weeks with a 3% margin of victory, and that the Democrats will have 58 Senators, just shy of a filibuster-proof majority. This may be just enough of a Republican presence to slow down the efforts of Obama, Reid and Pelosi to radically change the landscape of American society toward one which looks far more like Europe than the historical American culture. This shift to a more liberal power center will, however, result in a more hostile environment for Corporate entities, as they will likely face restrictions on executive pay and bonuses. In addition, I predict that corporations will be forced to pick up much more of the burden of their employees' healthcare costs and retirement benefits. Some of these changes may actually be good, as the Bush Administration (and to a large degree the Clinton Administration) were both more beholden to Corporate interests than they were to the interests of small businesses and individual citizens. So in this sense, an Obama Administration may result in some improvements for individual Americans, at the expense of Corporate executives.

What may ultimately doom Obama and his popularity is foreign policy--given the high likelihood that a number of very difficult international crises will develop early on in the Obama Presidency. Joe Biden has even brought this to the forefront in recent days. Russia and Venezuela, as well as the Islamic fundamentalists, are all very interested in testing the new Administration's resolve in maintaining the lead position in world affairs. Iran's taking of the American hostages served to cripple the Carter Administration, along with the difficult economic situation of the late 1970's. I predict that a similar set of circumstances will take place next year, and the honeymoon that Obama will enjoy for the first few weeks will quickly turn sour. How Obama will respond is yet to be seen, but his naive comments with respect to Iran and other potentially dangerous regimes leave me with significant doubt that Obama will respond in a decisive and appropriate way. In the case of George Bush, it was foreign policy (specifically Iraq) that served to destroy his Presidency, and due to the timing of the 9/11 attacks, it became necessary for Bush to become a wartime President, instead of the social/economically-oriented President that Bush sought to be when he first ran for the office in 2000. Without the Iraq War, it is more likely that Bush would have maintained the popularity that he had in the beginning of his Presidency, and Republicans as a whole would be in a much better position going into the 2008 elections than they currently are.

Intellectual Elitism

2008-10-20T22:16:00.000-04:00

This Presidential campaign has revealed an unfortunate element of our current political arena--which is, extreme intellectual elitism in the beltway of America. John McCain, arguably the most heroic of individuals to run for the U.S. Presidency in recent generations, has received some of the most disrespectful treatment by members of the Ivy League class who now run the major media channels in this country. Furthermore, Governor Sarah Palin has been essentially destroyed by the media elites of both political extremes, given her lack of time spent within the beltway. This is very unfortunate for our country, because Sarah Palin represents what was once good and right about this country. She didn't attend Harvard or Yale or Columbia, and she hasn't spent years in Washington, D.C. as a member of the House or Senate, in full view of the major media outlets. It was predictable that the liberal media elitists would attempt to destroy her character, especially given the obvious popularity that she immediately demonstrated upon her nomination to be Vice President. What was less predictable, and equally unfortunate, is the level of disdain that she received from members of the conservative movement. This reveals how far we've come as a country from our small town roots and ideals, and signifies how powerful the elite media has become, whether it be liberal or conservative elements of this privileged group. Sure, it may be true that Sarah Palin uses some common language that reveals her small town background. She does, however, speak more intelligently than George Bush does most of the time, in spite of the fact that Bush attended both Yale and Harvard. But Bush carries the famous elite Republican last name that leaves beltway insiders assured that their stranglehold on American power still perseveres. Obama, as a graduate of Harvard, assures beltway insiders that their status as primary power-brokers in American society will continue for at least the next four years. If McCain and Palin were elected, it would be seen as a threat to the majority of our society's elite elements, so many in this group has chosen to overlook their political ideals in favor of protecting their ruling status in contemporary society. I am left wondering, in the face of what appears to be a likely Obama Administration, what will be the response of small town Americans in two years, when the elite media can no longer blame the highly-likely economic and international troubles that we will experience as a result of Obama's policies upon the Bush Administration. Will we see another Gingrich Revolution, as we did in response to Clinton's disastrous first two years in office in 1994? Or will Americans fail to recognize that Barack Obama's socialist policies are what caused the future turmoil that we will likely see in the next few years? I can no longer predict this with any certainty, given that Americans seem to be getting more and more stupid with each generation that passes. Who is John Galt?

President Obama?

2008-10-12T22:39:00.000-04:00

Well Barack Obama currently enjoys a 4 to 7% lead over John McCain in the 2008 Presidential race, depending upon which poll you're looking at. Apparently Americans have decided to cast aside any thought of making an intelligent decision on which candidate is best qualified to lead this country, and have instead decided to vote for the younger, more eloquent candidate. Am I underestimating the ability of American citizens to make an intelligent decision about the determining the leadership of their country? Perhaps, but I have said for the past few Presidential elections that the more personable, attractive candidate tends to be the winner. Certainly Obama is more personable and attractive than McCain, at least in the physical sense. Bush was certainly more personable than either Kerry or Gore. Clinton was more personable than Dole or the first Bush. The first Bush was more personable (marginally) than Dukakis, but who wouldn't be? Reagan was more personable than Mondale or Carter. Carter was more personable than Ford. So for the past 30 years, at least, I would argue personality traits mean more than a solid political resume or other qualifications.

So if we end up with an Obama Administration, how will the things change for Americans? Time will tell, but I can only hope that Obama gets an education on reality pretty quickly. Hopefully he'll come to understand that there are some people in this world who don't care about his grandiose speeches and flowery words--they hate all Americans and will make every effort to destroy our free market, democratic way of life. My hope is that Obama's naive statements about Iran and Iraq are just political calculations to firm up his liberal base of support during the Democratic Party primaries, and that he really isn't as stupid as he seemed at the time. Because we can't afford four years of on-the-job training when it comes to the top leadership of this country.

Reporters and Other Non-Productive Elements in Society

2008-10-06T20:42:00.000-04:00

One of the most over-rated occupations in the mind of many rational, productive people is the news reporter. At the national level, the major network news reporter offers very little, if any, original thought on any subject, but is given the same respect that is given to some of the great minds and producers that exist in society. With respect to politics, it is not uncommon to hear different reporters using the identical terminology to describe an important political event, even among reporters at competing networks. This suggests to me that many well-known reporters must not really do any original investigation work to uncover the news that they report, but rather rely upon commentary provided by colleagues and inside political operatives for the message that they convey to their audience. What makes the modern news reporter even more counterproductive is the notion that most tend to operate on the basis of being independent-minded, or apolitical. In earlier years, most would agree that reporters did a better job at concealing their true political persuasions, and honestly tried to report the news objectively. But since the Nixon Presidency, many in the news media have elevated themselves to a plane that they consider to be equal to, or even greater than, the people that they are reporting on.

Commentators, by comparison, tend to openly espouse a particular ideology, and are often not afforded the same level of respect that reporters receive. This has always seemed backwards to me. Why should someone who takes the time to formulate original ideas not stand far above those who purportedly just report the news, when it comes to occupational respect and prestige? Reporters, in my mind, should be thought of as little more than second-handers, given that their primary aim in life is not to create or formulate anything which is original or new, but instead to simply talk about what other productive people are doing. And given that most of today's reporters are politically slanted in their reporting, albeit without acknowledging this fact, most of today's reporters are also blatantly dishonest. This is truly a shame, because the reporting profession is an important one to the extent that it was originally conceived.

Collectivism, Obama & the National Media

2008-10-03T22:24:00.000-04:00

The current political campaign for the U.S. Presidency has demonstrated the extent to which the national media has embraced collectivism as the ideal of the future. Before I explain my rationale for making this statement, let me first define collectivism:

"Collectivism is defined as the theory and practice that makes some sort of group rather than the individual the fundamental unit of political, social, and economic concern. In theory, collectivists insist that the claims of groups, associations, or the state must normally supersede the claims of individuals." -- Stephen Grabill and Gregory M. A. Gronbacher

"Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group -- whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called 'the common good'." -- Ayn Rand

Senator Barack Obama has a long history of supporting and promoting collectivist thought. Here are some of his published beliefs which reveal his leanings toward collectivist, rather than individualistic thought:

"In America, we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations." -- Barack Obama

“My individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.” -- Barack Obama

Throughout this political campaign, the national media has largely given Barack Obama a pass as to his past associations with individuals and organizations of questionable repute. Whether it be Obama's relationship with terrorist William Ayers, or Obama's 20-year membership in the Trinity Church of Christ (wherein Black Liberation Theology was often the focus of the church's teachings), the national media has largely ignored Obama's past dealings with these groups that would have been considered as too radical for any serious presidential candidate in previous campaigns. So what is so different about this campaign compared to presidential campaigns of the recent past, wherein the media has decided to overlook a major candidate's questionable history in order to prop him up as the best candidate to lead the United States in the next four years?

Much of this media favoritism can be attributed to white guilt. Although Hillary Clinton was seen by many to be the obvious candidate to win the 2008 Democrat Party nomination for the U.S. Presidency (given that she would be the first female U.S. President), the surprising rise to prominence of a young, largely inexperienced black Senator from Chicago was seen by the liberal collectivists to be the more appropriate bridge to cross in the 2008 Presidential election. In other words, the level of white guilt in the Democrat Party exceeded the degree to which Democrats would desire to produce the first female U.S. President. Given that the year 2008 was seen by most political experts to be the Democrats' year to win back the White House (given the impact of the Iraq War on public opinion), Democrats collectively decided that it would be more advantageous for them to produce the first black President, than it would be to produce the first female President. As a result, the Democrat Party nominated Senator Barack Obama to represent their interests in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, in spite of the fact that Obama had very few of the qualifications that had typified past candidates for the highest office in the United States.

So what has the national media had to do with all of this? Given that 90% of the national media has admitted to supporting liberal candidates for national office, this same group has essentially cast aside any affinity that they may have had in the past toward political objectivity for the more "noble" desire to elect the first black President of the United States. In spite of the obvious fact the Barack Obama has had hardly enough experience to be an effective Senator, much less to be an effective Commander in Chief, the Democrats have invested in this long shot of a candidate to represent their party in the 2008 Presidential election, and the media has enlisted themselves in the effort to get him elected.

Since the election is only one month away from the day that I'm writing this, time will tell whether this "risk" will pay off for the Democrats, or if McCain will come back to ultimately win the Presidency again for the Republicans.