Word that the Obama Administration may have used its power over Chrysler's restructuring process to shut down dealerships whose owners donated to Republican candidates, while leaving open dealerships that donated to Obama is spreading across conservative blogs. But while this kind of abuse of government power is shocking, it really shouldn't be. (I really hope that this isn't true. Will we ever know? If it is true, how do you Obama supporters feel about that? Is corruption OK as long as it's Barack Obama...you know, retribution for all of the foulness of white politicians throughout the annals of time?)
Government is an engine of wealth redistribution, and when it gains control of businesses, it redistributes wealth in a way that benefits its supporters. That is what government always does, no matter how it disguises it.
That is why despite all the leftist wishful thinking in the world, centrally planned economies are corrupt, inept and inefficient. (Wishful thinking or just plain "back-azzward" thinking?)
The free market operates based on profit motive. A store owner's goal is to sell products in order to earn a profit. If he provides discounts, he has to do it based on an economic incentive, for example selling at a lower cost per unit to a purchaser who buys large quantities. A store owner who sells products at a lower price to Democrats and at a higher price to Republicans, or who sells at a lower price to whites and at a higher price to blacks... is hurting his own profit margins and so is really hurting himself. The profit motive "purifies" economic behavior in the free market to a degree. By contrast within government there is no "purifier", except the legal system, which is also controlled by the government.(Well, that's as it should be according to Obama and Sotomayor)
A government's economic behavior is controlled by politicians who have only one goal, Patronage. Politicians gain control of resources in order to reward their supporters. This takes the form of providing government contracts or jobs to the individual supporters. It also takes the form of providing general forms of aid targeted at their base, e.g. welfare, union jobs. (Most people understand this and acknowledge the truthfulness of this statement-- but fail to take it to it's logical conclusion as described in the next paragraph)
When government gains control of businesses, it naturally goes into wealth redistribution mode and begins providing patronage to the supporters of the ruling party. Communist countries are a example of the system taken to its limits, with the entire economy controlled by the ruling party and wealth distributed to supporters of the party, based on their level of support and affiliation. (I've concluded that while Obama supporters will acknowledge that most politicians are panderers and beholden in some form or another to some group or organization, they fail to acknowledge that the "love-child" of pandering/beholdeness and expanding government is soft tyranny. They seem incapable of connecting the dots when it comes to Obama)
The more wealth the Federal government took in and gave out, the more it got into the patronage business. And that corrupted the free market and the national economy. Where individual businesses have economic disincentives for practicing discrimination or handing out wasteful contracts, the government has none.
Where individual free market profit is economic in nature, governments spend money in order to reward supporters and expand their base of support. Everything the Obama regime has done is textbook Machiavelli, but it is also the inevitable result of letting the same government that has treated the national budget as a pork barrel take holds of banks and the auto industry.(Yet, Obama supporters are perplexed and wondering why "wingnuts" like yours truly won't get off of Obama's case. Makes you wonder who the real "wingnuts" are doesn't it?)
No doubt there is a long list of industries that Obama will be happy to "bail out", and by bail out, we mean of course spend billions in taxpayer owned debt to take over, carve up and hand out to their supporters.
The rape of the American auto industry by Obama and his henchmen was a classic case of a gang of politicians robbing the country blind in order to provide patronage to their backers, both at the union and the dealership level. But that is par for the course.
Obama promised to fix the capitalist arrogance of the free market with some wealth redistribution, which is a lot like a mugger telling you that he can cure your credit card debt by taking all your money. Now we're seeing just how far that mugging went and how many victims it's leaving behind. And we're not done yet.
If the initial phase was the mugging, the next phase is that the beating the mugger dished out transmitted a disease which is now in the veins of his victim. When government takes control of an industry, it immediately promotes rent seeking behavior in order to increase its own wealth and power. This naturally drives up the cost of everything, produces inferior products and adds layers on bureaucracy on top of everything. (Oh Joy! Hope and Change is Mother.....isn't it?)
CAFE and a big package of regulations will insure that Chrysler and GM produce cars that meet the standards of the left, and that no one will actually want to buy or drive. The government naturally will buy the cars, both for itself, and subsidize their purchase for the "disadvantaged." Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac will have an auto buddy who exists to insure the "right" of everyone to own a car, with loans to people who can't pay them, for cars they can't afford. (Obama supporter: What's the matter with that?)
If Obama gets his way, the US auto industry will wind up looking like its Soviet counterpart, a government subsidized white elephant that will benefit no one but politicians and their supporters. And it will once again serve as a textbook example of what's wrong with wealth redistribution, and how absolute government power over the free market, corrupts it absolutely into patronage. (Source)-emphasis added
Bob Parks of Black And Right uploaded these videos on Youtube in 2006 with the permission of the producer Nina May. Every black person who is a Democrat party loyalist with an express disdain for all things Republican and an acute contempt for the Black Conservative should watch these short video excerpts.
Emancipation Revelation Revolution:: Part 1
Emancipation Revelation Revolution:: Part 2
Emancipation Revelation Revolution:: Part 3
I'm not sure if I'm more saddened or amazed as I am asked almost weekly "how could you as a black woman think this way or that?" My answer--because I'm free to stand on my principles. I'm not shackled by "group think". Shelby Steele aptly describes The Black Conservative as the "Free-est people in the United States". It's a beautiful thing.
H/T to Job at Jesus Christology who posted this series this evening. John MacArthur is one of my favorite preacher/teachers and once again in this series Pastor MacArthur "unleashes God's truth one verse at a time" as he answers these questions: "How do we contend for the truth? How do we preserve the truth? How do we protect the church and the people that are coming to the church desiring to know the truth? How do we protect ourselves? How do we survive in increasingly apostate times? And Paul, of course, told Timothy at the end of his life that evil men will grow worse and worse. And Paul indicated in his letter to the Thessalonians that the apostasy would escalate as you got closer to the end. How do we survive? How do we protect the truth? How do we engage in a triumphant battle in the midst of apostasy?
He discusses the lack of discernment within the church:"Why is there such a lack of discernment? Reason number one, because there's a weakening of doctrinal clarity and conviction. A cheap gospel, as it's called, easy believism, tolerance, unity, openness, there is a negative attitude toward being narrowed toward being doctrinal. There's even a negative attitude towards saying this is a true interpretation and that is not. It seems like everybody is entitled to his own spin on everything. The church has been invaded with liberalism, psychology, charismaticism, politicism. It's forced its way into the church and, of course, whenever error wants to find a place in the church, it has to find a way to get rid of dogmatism. The only way that error can be accepted in the church is if people are no longer going to hold a doctrinal standard. And so that's what happens.These forces that are outside the Bible demand acceptance, demand a place in the church and so they push dogmatism aside. The emphasis in the church then goes from preaching doctrine to the mind for the purpose of people giving greater glory to God through His Word, to inducing pleasant emotion, pleasant feeling, good feeling, fun, personal comfort, etc. Worship descends from singing truths about God, lyric-centered music full of theology, to that Seven-Eleven music, seven words repeated eleven times which is dominated by volume, rhythm, harmony, to induce warm, fuzzy and sensual moods. So you have a weakening of doctrinal clarity and conviction. People don't know what doctrines they believe, they're not clear on them and they don't have convictions about them. (this is why so many in the body of Christ support Barack Obama-CBW's words not John MacArthur's)
Pastor MacArthur aptly describes this as "Spiritual Terrorism" he says: "Failure to confront spiritual terrorists destroyed the church at Pergamos, they allowed some who held the teaching of Balaam, they allowed some who held the teaching of the Nicolaitans and it destroyed the church and the Lord says, "If you don't repent, I'm going to come quickly and make war against you with the sword out of My mouth." It destroyed the church at Thyatira because they tolerated the woman Jezebel who taught the people to commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. As I told you, it destroyed the church at Sardis and soiled their garments. And on the other hand, there was the church of Smyrna in Revelation 2 that maintained its purity and the church at Philadelphia that maintained its purity and God promised them a blessing. Churches that stop spiritual terrorism at its border by profiling them, understanding who they are, protect themselves and then face the incredible responsibility to give those same terrorists the gospel. To this we are called, to this great challenge."
What a powerful message. What are you going to do? Pick up your cross and follow Christ or mind your business as you strive for tolerance and political correctness?
Charles Krauthammer Reacts To Sotomayor Pick for the Supreme Court:
Charles Krauthammer has hit the nail on the proverbial head yet again as he suggests that identity politics is the mother's milk of the far left. This couldn't be more clearly illustrated with President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I personally find it very difficult to get behind the nomination of a judge who is heralded as an intellectual sharp-shooter but who in my opinion has allowed her alleged above average intellect to be overruled by her obvious propensity towards grievance or identity politics.
In 2003, the city [of New Haven, Connecticut] gave promotion exams--prepared by a firm specializing in employment tests, and approved, as federal law requires, by independent experts--to 118 candidates, 27 of them black. None of the blacks did well enough to qualify for the 15 immediately available promotions. After a rabble-rousing minister with close ties to the mayor disrupted meetings and warned of dire political consequences if the city promoted persons from the list generated by the exams, the city said: No one will be promoted. Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters, a decision that her colleague and fellow Clinton appointee Judge Jose Cabranes, writes The New Republic's Jeffery Rosen, denounced as containing "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (source)
This trend of "sticking it to the man" in order to "even the playing field" is going to prove detrimental to all minorities in the long run. Principle matters. Allowing personal prejudices to impede our decision to stand on that which is right is a recipe for civil unrest. Things are going to get very ugly.
There is absolutely nothing new under the sun. The Statist, Socialist, Collectivist call them whatever you'd like have been trying to usurp the liberty this country provides for years. I keep stumbling upon more and more historical evidence to support this fact. Ronald Reagan delivered this speech in 1961 when he was still a private citizen decrying the dangers of socialized medicine. I don't know what is will take to convince these imbecilic Obama acolytes to look past their paranoia that people are coming against The Black Man and consider how the Obama Plan is disastrous. The effect of the "changes" he is implementing will linger long after his time in office.
I love the way he says "guvment".
Transcript:
Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people would adopt every fragment of the socialist program. There are many ways in which our government has invaded the free precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to 1/5th of the total industrial capacity of the United States. (Sort of like the Chrysler, GM take over last week)
But at the moment I would like to talk about another one because this threat is with us, and at the moment, more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We have an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this. (Unfortunately, Mr. Reagan American are quite a bit stupider in 2009 than in 1961 and they don't let facts get in the way of their emotions)
So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of social security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. This would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.
Now Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, "If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can extend the program after that. Walter Ruth said, it’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance. And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American. (Yep, that about sums up the unholy alliance of our Statist-in-Chief and the unions he is beholden to)
Now let us see what the socialist themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can't say we haven't been warned. (Nope, we surely can't say that we haven't been, but again Mr. Reagan--Some folks are too invested in the success of Barack Obama and other are just too damn dumb to consider history...they are incapable of digesting information unless it's in 45 second sound byte form)
Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in the particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance. (Yes, much like today's liberals would have you believe that people go without health care when in reality some people between the ages of 22-40 choose not to carry insurance because they are healthy, the poor are covered under medicaid and it's against the law for an emergency room to deny critical care due to lack of insurance. They tout this propaganda because the general populous accepts and recapitulates it.)
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis and say,” What would you do?" "Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?"
That's ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mill bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is the frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the states to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless if they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings.
I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time; socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” (Well of course, but again we are not working with extremely thoughtful people at this point in time.They have abandoned all sensibilty for the prospect of "Hope & Change" -- poor dopes)
They want to attach this bill to social security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Let's take a look at social security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, social security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries. (Many Americans didn't get this memo)
Now in our country under our free enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to another.
But let's also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. A doctor begins to lose his freedom, it's like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can't live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go. (Are you kidding me Mr. Reagan, who cares about RICH doctors losing their freedom?)
This is a freedom I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I'd feel if you my fellow citizens, that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theatre. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man's working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it is a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won't decide when he's in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do. (Established precedents? What's that? Who has the energy or inclination to find out? Not many, especially if they are liberal democratic drones)
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world's history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution just exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man's relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves, the God given right and ability, to determine our own destiny. This freedom is built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rules all that is needed. The majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minority. ("The minority"? Racist. How dare you say "minority" Mr. Reagan! It doesn't matter what else you say, Black folks will not hear it because you had the unadulterated gall to say "minority". Of course I'm being sarcastic but I know how black folks think as a matter of fact I have volumes of documentation entombed in the comment section of this site)
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking. Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, "When the American people wants" something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want. So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don't let him get away with it. Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments don't tax to get the moneys the need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he is on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from his constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now and call your friends and them to write. If you don't, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other government programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don't do this and I don't do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free. (Bingo! That time is now)
Rush Limbaugh discusses Barack Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame on his show yesterday. He pointed out that Barack Obama is a master at the "Low Art of Political Seduction" Mark Levin describes Obama as a charismatic demagogue. They are right....
Rush goes on to say:
"This is not about abortion. This is about the low art of political seduction. This is about Newspeak. This is about turning what is immoral into the moral. This is about Barack Obama persuading the people of this country to vote against their own very interests all the time. This abortion discussion today is just an illustration, is just an example of it. It's the most recent one since it happened yesterday. We're not debating abortion. Now, you might think so because I'm asking some questions about what Obama said. If there's nothing wrong with it, then why all this confusion, if there's nothing wrong with abortion, why all this stress, why all this tension? And where do you compromise here? I don't know where the moderate, middle ground is on life and death. I just don't know where it is. I don't know where you compromise on victory and defeat. I don't know where you compromise on good and bad, good and evil, I don't know where you compromise on it. But see, we're supposed to compromise on everything, and for that to happen, notice Obama is not changing his position. We have to change ours, because of his successful practice of the low art of political seduction."
I think it is simply amazing that we are witnessing 1984, and Animal Farm. Was George Orwell some sort of prophet or what? But the ideology of the left is exactly as Rush contends that which is moral is immoral because it isn't politically correct to offend. The positively astonishing part about this in my humble opinion is how easily Christians have accepted this "Orwellian morality" and just like Obama they cherry pick the message of Jesus Christ to accommodate anything and everyone. In fact, why isn't the left up in arms? He invoked Jesus Christ in his speech. He invoked the name of Christ. Where's separation of church and state? The president of the United States at a commencement speech went out and talked about Jesus Christ and detailed how he was delivered to Christ(ahem, really?). Now, you let George Bush or somebody go to Notre Dame and make this speech, I guarantee you that's what they're going to be focusing on, how the Republican president should not enforce and impose his religious views on people. What did we get but Obama imposing his religious views, or attempting to have us justify or accept his? It's the low art of political seduction.
Rush goes on to say: (I couldn't get all of this in the video clip I'm new to movie maker):
"I'm illustrating the low art of political seduction practiced by President Obama, how he just made a speech advocating a point of view or suggesting that we peacefully co-exist here, but he didn't detail his position here. I want you to know what his position is in his own words. This is in the Illinois state Senate, April of 2002." (Then he plays an audio clip of Barack Obama from 2002:)
OBAMA: And that essentially adding an additional doctor, who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.
RUSH: Now, here he is talking about the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act and why he was going to vote against it. And he voted against it three times, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, because it would be a burden to bring in another doctor, okay, the abortion doctor botches it, so you gotta bring in a third doctor to save the baby. That's a burden on the first doctor. It's a burden on the second doctor; it's a burden on the mother, who intended to abort. Here's Obama, August 16, 2008. This is Lake Forest, California, after the Saddleback Civil Forum with Rick Warren, the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody talked to Obama, said, "Real quick, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill."
OBAMA: Here is a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely and fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported, which was to say that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born, even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe v. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill -- a law already in place in Illinois that ensured lifesaving treatment was given to infants. So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois Medical Society, so Illinois' doctors, were somehow in favor of withholding lifesaving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous.
RUSH: Well, play number nine real quick again. He says ridiculous? Well, let's listen to number nine again. (He played the soundbyte below)
OBAMA: And that essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion.
RUSH: Now, if he's going to start calling people liars, we're going to have to ignore what he said on three different occasions in order not to call him[self] one.
Bear who blogs at The Absurd Report compiled the following satirical list of reasons for voting Democrat:
I voted Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I’ve decided to marry my horse. I voted Democrat because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene but the government taxing the same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t. I voted Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would. I voted Democrat because freedom of speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it. I voted Democrat because when we pull out of Iraq I trust that the bad guys will stop what they’re doing because they now think we’re good people. I voted Democrat because I’m way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I voted Democrat because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius. I voted Democrat because I’m not concerned about the slaughter of millions of babies so long as we keep all death row inmates alive. I voted Democrat because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as THEY see fit. I voted Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters. I voted Democrat because my head is so firmly planted up my ass that it is unlikely that I’ll ever have another point of view.
Those who vote Democrat clearly have not followed their platforms through to the logic conclusions.
Oh my Lord...Yes, you have read this right. It seems the chronically aggrieved homosexuals at Defense of Gay Marriage Association (DOGMA) are angry with heterosexual women for being all skankie and whatnot and popping out babies without the benefit of marriage. Who could make this stuff up?!? Seriously, proponents of GAY MARRIAGE are getting all moral, sanctimonious and downright persnickety. Yes, this is very bizarre "dogma" indeed. Whatever happened to live and let live? I just can't understand how two women who bump coochies and two men who....I shudder to think what they do have the unmitigated impudence to talk about that which is sanctified? I picked up this little snippet below from Scott Ott over at ScrappleFace:
"(2009-05-14) — The boom in childbirth by unwed mothers has some American homosexuals concerned about the sanctity of their newly-minted marriages, according to a spokesman for the Defense of Gay Marriage Association (DOGMA). Some 40 percent of all children are now born to unwed mothers, according to National Center for Health Statistics. Among minority groups, the news is even more stunning. Black single Moms give birth at twice the White rate, and Hispanic solo mothers bear babies at triple the rate. “All of this is bad news for the institution of traditional gay marriage,” said the unnamed source at DOGMA. “It’s hard not to see this as another example of homophobia. Gays finally start getting the right to marry, and what happens? We see straights abandoning the practice. Heterosexual bigots are looking at marriage and apparently saying, ‘That’s so gay!’” The advocacy group claims that no society has survived the collapse of the institution of marriage, and it backs a Constitutional amendment forcing cohabiting couples to wed." (Source) - Emphasis added
I'm not saying that all gay people are liberal but these DOGMA people must be because this is some twisted, Orwellian, Bizzarro world business here. Yet another example of liberal hypocrisy -- where is their tolerance? Aren't they "judging" these unwed mothers? Who are they to say that "marriage" is better for children or for humanity than singleness? Not that I disagree with the basic premise but I'm an evil, narrow-minded, self-hating, black conservative -- naturally I'd feel that way. But not the enlightened ones? Say it isn't so?
Update: Well, This was a parody---thank God! But, it fooled the heck out of me because it's soooo believable. Thanks daddyquatro for clearing this up. -- Sincerely Boo-Boo the fool aka CBW.
I read this bit of satire below I had a good chuckle but the more I think about it....I'm not sure I shouldn't have been crying.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one Messiah to dissolve the historic bonds that have connected his subjects with the fundamental beliefs of a bunch of dead white guys, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Marx entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that I should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, womyn, transgendered and questioning individuals deserve equal division of goods, that they are endowed by Me with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to abort life, servitude to the state, and the pursuit of taxpayer-supported benefits. That to secure these rights, government is instituted in Me, deriving my just powers from the consent of a Democrat Congress, ACORN, and Universal Voluntary Public Service. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of Me to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Big Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing (with the help of the groups previously named) My powers in such form, as to Me shall seem most likely to effect My subjects' safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that My government short established should be changed for causes I deem appropriate; and accordingly all my inexperience hath shown that personkind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the oppressive regime instituted by dead white men to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce my subjects under absolute Evil Capitalism, it is My right, it is My duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future Social Security. - Such has been the patient sufferance of these downtrodden victims of Evil Capitalists; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. This history of the present Representative Republic is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute freedom for these victims. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a slavering mainstream media.
This Representative Republic was founded on the principles of limited government, and does not allow Me to make all decisions without impunity.
This Representative Republic allows for too many States' rights.
This Representative Republic allows Me to serve only two terms in the highest office in the land.
This Representative Republic allows for too much personal freedom, assuming that individuals know best how to spend the money that they earn and how best to live their lives.
This Representative Republic allows for the free market, not all-knowing bureaucrats, to right any wrongs in the economy.
This Representative Republic expects judges to uphold, not enact, law.
This Representative Republic allows private citizens to own firearms, thus allowing them to protect themselves and their family from all intrusions (including those from government).
This Representative Republic does not guarantee electoral outcomes for any one particular party - namely, My party.
This Representative Republic guarantees citizens equality before the law - not social justice as defined by activist judges and legislators.
In every stage of these oppressions, I have petitioned for redress in the least humble terms: My repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Representative Republic, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define oppressive Evil Capitalism, is unfit to be the government of a people yearning for Hope and Change.
Nor have I been wanting in attention to my Global Citizen brethren. I have warned them from time to time of their attempts by their elected leaders to follow in the footsteps of the United States. I have reminded them of the circumstances of America's many mistakes. I have appealed to their systems of justice and social programs, which I hope to emulate. I have also appealed to our enemies, as I have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow the usurpations of America, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. I must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces America's sovereignty, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, superiors in war, in peace superiors.
I, therefore, the Messiah of the United States of America, acting of my own volition, appealing to Myself for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of Myself, solemnly publish and declare that the United States ought to be dependent states; that they are absolved from the Tenth Amendment, and that all political connection between them and the Federal Government, is and ought to be of a dependent nature; and that as subservient and dependent states and citizens thereof, they have no power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, or do any other acts and things without express permission from Federal Government thus represented by Me. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Nanny State, I pledge to oversee your lives, your fortunes, and what is left of your sacred honor.
s I readily admit that my thinking is not clear when it comes to Historically Black Colleges & Universities. I actually feel terribly guilty about the fact that I feel they are obsolete, their admission standard are too low and I am utterly heartbroken that my daughter has decided to attend one. Now before you all start beating me up...save your wrath because I am beating myself up about it. But, hey at least I'm honest about it and I have four years to work through my angst...I guess. Unless she transfers (one can only hope).
On the heels of destroying the DC voucher program, the Obama administration is now reportedly planning to cut $85 million of federal dollar which HBCU's have relied on since 2007. The White House notes, however, that HBCUs would benefit in the long run from other direct government funding, which would mean a hike of about $12 million – raising the amount of federal dollars to $250 million. But, as Black-college leaders point out, the cessation of the specific fund would mean a $73 million reduction. Here is the kicker, which really illustrates Barack Obama's incredible hubris or stupidity I'm not sure which but,"Obama contends that under his education plan, Black colleges would be able to better serve Black students because of a $200increase in the maximum Pell Grant – taking the total allowance to $5,550...." On second thought Obama just thinks black folks are stupid. Well, I guess 96% of us are --that is the 96% of ya'll that voted for his monkey azz.
Hey Kanye, judging from this it isn't President Bush who DOESN'T CARE ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE, is it? It's America's first Black President in the person of Barack Obama who doesn't appear to give a tinker's damn about black people and in approximately 114 days has managed to inflict harm on black children TWICE.
I hope this opens up the eyes of the blind. Neither the democrat party, liberals, or Barack Obama give two shades left of a good G**damn about black people. It's all about power for politicians-- the acquistion and perservation of power. Black folks have it twisted and until we stop expecting politicians to "care" about us and seeing ourselves as some sort of inferior beings who need to be coddled then they will continue to take our votes for granted. I get so angry when I hear grown men complain that Republicans don't cares about us . Why should anyone care about us when we consistently make uninformed decisions based solely on whether or not someone is Black or White, Democrat or Republican? Aren't we really telling the world that we don't care about ourselves? So why should someone care more for you than you care for yourself? How many Democrats will it take to poop (like Obama has done -- TWICE) on us to prove that they are just USING US?
This Alphacat dude is certainly no Zo...clearly he has no grasp on reality politically speaking (he is probably a democrat) but this was pretty darn funny nonetheless.
The woman playing Shelly O really does bear a striking resemblance to Mrs. Obama.
It occurred to me this weekend as I hosted a debate on gay marriage that I don't believe marriage is a civil right. Let me just say, I believe that gay people should have the same legal and financial rights as any unmarried couple in a de facto relationship. However, I am opposed to the "redefinition" of marriage.
I don't think marriage is a civil right. When I was single and dyyyyying to be married (yes, I hated being single) were my "civil" rights violated by boyfriend because he didn't want to marry me ? I mean can I go back and sue him because he violated my RIGHT to be a married lady? What about the 70% of black women who are single? Can they sue all the brothers who want to be "ballers" for keeping them single....no, I know they can sue liberal white men for not "crossing over" and marrying them. If marriage is a civil rights, then the liberals have a new set of victims -- single people who want to be married but are not, right? Yes, I am aware that this is ridiculous just as ridiculous as gay people saying that marriage is a civil right.
Some heterosexual people who want to be married will never marry for a myriad of reasons and they just have to live with it. So, I believe that rather than redefining marriage, gay people should just live with it. Just like the 70% of black women who want to be married but AREN'T. Since the beginning of time, I am sure they have been gay people and they didn't cause a stink about not being married -- or they just married the opposite sex (yikes!). What's next? Are their descendants going to ask for reparations for civil rights violations?
This is really JUST about the radical left wing agenda to cleanse our society of religious dogma and what they consider to be antiquated traditions like marriage.
In an interview with Terry Jeffrey's CNSNews.com, Mark Levin discussed why he believes President Obama’s vision of “change” is destructive and contrary to America’s founding principles and why conservatives must reacquaint themselves with those principles and recommit themselves to the cause of individual liberty. The video is about 27 minutes long. I posted the transcript below which I couldn't abridge because it was just too compelling.
Here is the transcript (emphasis added):
Jeffrey: “For Edmund Burke, change as reform was intended to preserve and improve the basic institutions of the state. Change as innovation was destructive as a radical departure from the past and the substitution of existing institutions of the state with potentially dangerous experiments. … The Conservative believes, as Burke and the Founders did, that prudence must be exercised in assessing change. Prudence is the highest virtue for it is judgment drawn on wisdom. The proposed change should be informed by the experience, knowledge, and traditions of society, tailored for a specific purpose, and accomplished through a constitutional construct that ensures thoughtful deliberation by the community.”
Now, President Obama was elected more or less on a platform of change, and it’s become one of the catch phrases of his administration. Do you see the major proposals of the Obama administration for change in the Burkean tradition of reform or in the radical tradition of innovation?
Levin: I see them in the Marxist tradition of innovation, quote unquote. And Burke would be disgusted, and Adam Smith would be disgusted, and the Founding Fathers would be disgusted because what Burke rejected was the French Revolution, which was an assault on the institutions of French society as opposed to a righteous revolution, he felt.
Jeffrey: Quite different from our own.
Levin: Quite different from our own. He supported the American Revolution, which was tough for him because he was also a royalist. But no, we conservatives don’t oppose change. I mean, after all there’s a lot in this society we’d like to change, given what the statists have been doing to it.
Jeffrey: But that kind of change would be moving us back closer to our original principles.
Levin: Exactly. The goal is to preserve and improve our society, not to destroy it, not to transform it into something that’s foreign, not to spread misery, not to address the grievance of every malcontent. No, the purpose is to improve our society. So we support change as reform as opposed to change as innovation or change as destruction.
Jeffrey: Right, and you believe Obama is actually trying to effect a little mini-French Revolution right here in the United States?
Levin: Well, they can’t have it both ways, the Obama administration. Aren’t they telling us that? They want to change the way the automobile industry works. They want to change the way the energy industry works. They want to change the way the health care system works. They want to decide who gets paid what. They want to decide who gets rewarded, who gets punished, who gets rights, who doesn’t get rights. I’m accepting them at face value and putting a label on it.
Jeffrey: All of this out of the centralized government here in Washington, D.C.
Levin: Of course.
Jeffrey: Now, you talk in this book about an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, Mark. You say, “The Conservative is an originalist, for he believes that much like a contract, the Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions for governing that hold the same meaning today as they did yesterday and should tomorrow. It connects one generation to the next by restraining the present generation from societal experimentation and government excess. There really is no other standard by which the Constitution can be interpreted without abandoning its underlying principles altogether.”
Now, in “Men in Black,” you talked about how the Supreme Court has basically been destroying the Constitution by interpreting it in a way that is not at all connected to the original interpretation.
But isn’t it true that the legislative branches and the executive branch do the exact same thing, and it’s been done not just by Democrats but also by Republicans? For example, President Bush, when he was in office, he pushed for the Medicare Prescription Drug Program. Can that in any way be justified in terms of the originalist interpretation of the Constitution?
Levin: No, it can’t. But, you know, at least we, the people, can do something about it by the next election cycle--changing our government, the representative part of our government. The problem with the judiciary is you have people that serve for life and act like politicians. And since it’s turned out that they have the final say, not that the Constitution gives them the final say, but they have seized the final say in our system, that’s the problem.
So if you have nine justices, really if you have five justices who decide that terrorists have due process rights for the first time in American history, reversing a decision they made in 1950 in another case, when these terrorists are held overseas, well, how do you change that? You can’t change that anymore under our system. So what’s happened is the judiciary seized authority that does not belong to it, the other branches have acquiesced to this authority.
But there’s no question, the federal government as a whole violates the Constitution on a regular basis. They conspire--and I don’t mean this in a devious way, I mean it out in the open, brazenly--against the individual, they conspire against the states, they conspire to skirt their constitutional limits.
And I also say in the book that the statist, or the leftist, likes it that way. He likes the court being as powerful as it is, or the bureaucracy being as powerful as it is, because it institutionalizes their philosophy and no election can reverse it.
Jeffrey: Right, and moves it away from the representative process.
Levin: From the people, yeah.
Jeffrey: It’s interesting, I interviewed Judge Bork a few months ago and I asked him: Did he believe Medicare and Social Security were constitutional? And he said, no, they’re not constitutional. But he argued that it’s politically impossible to go back and reverse that now, even though they were created by the legislature with the president. They’ve been in place so long that it’s just practically impossible to reverse them.
Levin: Well, they’re going to be reversed, because they’re going to collapse. We’re talking Medicare, Medicaid and Society Security, over $50 trillion in unfunded obligations that are growing by several trillion dollars every year. On top of that, it appears we’re going to get national health care. So they’re going to get reversed. It may not be done politically, but it will be done economically because the laws of economics speak to a higher authority.
Jeffrey: So you talk in “Liberty & Tyranny” about this $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities we have in these welfare-state dependency programs that President Bush added to with Medicare Prescription Drug Plan. President Obama wants to add to it in form some sort of national health care plan.
Levin: Right.
Jeffrey: So you say we have an electorate, Mark, that doesn’t want to reform these things or get rid of them. I mean, don’t we face a very big crisis that’s political as well as fiscal?
Levin: Here’s the problem. You know, Ronald Reagan built a pretty darn good foundation with conservative principles. Was it perfect? No. But it was the most perfect in my lifetime. And you would expect the next Republican president and Republican presidents subsequent to them to build on that foundation.
They didn’t. They lurched back to FDR New Dealism and Great Society. And for some reason, Republicans seem to think they don’t have the ability to slowly explain things to the American people and reverse course. They do, but they won’t because it’s hard work. It’s easier to go along.
Of course you can’t abolish Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid even though they will be abolished one day by their own weight. There’s no question about it in my mind. But what you can do is introduce some real reforms that slowly unravel them in the sense that people who really don’t need them shouldn’t get them. There should be limits on them. There should be private aspects to them.
Look, the statist knows exactly what he’s doing. I explain in the book why Social Security was created the way it was created. As opposed to a welfare program for poor people, FDR wanted to imprison everybody in the system. Lyndon Johnson wanted to use that trust fund for general obligations. This is all intended to build a political base, so if anybody dares to question these entitlements, they’ll be defeated. What we have to do is explain to the next generation: Do you understand that these programs are broke? Do you understand that you owe all this money? And explain it in a way that’s understandable.
Jeffrey: Right, in Social Security they created a welfare-state program that goes to middle-class people.
Levin: And that’s the purpose of national health care, is to suck everybody in, to make them to believe they’re getting something for nothing, when in fact what they’re getting is rationing.
Jeffrey: You get national health care--you already have Social Security which makes retired people, elderly people, dependent on the government. You have national health care that gets everybody, not just people on Medicare/Medicaid, dependent on the government for health care. And, essentially, a government-run school system for the majority of people. The sectors of our life that are controlled and dominated by the government are growing.
Levin: This is intentional. And that’s why, at this point, if we’re not going to stand up to it as conservatives, we’re not going to be confident in our principles, if we’re not going to do the things we have to do, which includes speaking out about our principles--You know, I’m constantly told, “Well, we can’t win that way.” You know, the last president to win landslides was Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president in my lifetime. And they said he couldn’t win either, and he actually did take a chunk out of Social Security even though--
Jeffrey: The liberal media said he couldn’t win.
Levin: The liberal media said he couldn’t win. Even a lot of Republicans said he couldn’t win.
Jeffrey: One of the things I find unique about your book, and also about your radio program, is you’ re one of the few conservatives who will directly attack FDR and the New Deal, and describe exactly what it was that FDR--Why have so many Republicans basically made peace with FDR and the New Deal?
Levin: Well, even the books that criticize FDR are careful not to criticize him too hard. Because it’s harder to step back and discuss with your constituents, if you’re a politician, why certain programs they like and may think they benefit from but which will undermine our society in the long run, are not the greatest programs ever created.
There is no Social Security program. There is no trust fund. It is a hoax. Milton Friedman spoke about it and wrote about it at length. Many people have. There is no trust fund. As a matter of fact, as of February, even the fake trust fund that they say exists just went negative. So, even the illusion is an illusion. And that’s intentional. And Medicare is a hybrid of a phony insurance program and a welfare program. Medicaid now consumes over 20 percent of every state’s budget, so states have very little room to operate as well.
Jeffrey: So we’re looking at a situation 10, 15 years down the road, when the deficit driven by sustaining these programs, Medicare and Social Security not to mention a possible national health care plan that Obama may create, is so big it’s impossible for the government not to deal with it.
Levin: My fear is the way the government will deal with it is to claim more private property and liberty. And in some ways, when I say enslave, I don’t mean in terms of a Gulag, but enslave the next generation by limiting their freedom and limiting their opportunities.
Jeffrey: Well, this is something that I think conservatives have to think through strategically, that Americans have to start thinking about. There’s this $53 trillion already that the government has promised to pay people in benefits, that we don’t have the tax revenue under the current system to pay for.
Levin: And never will.
Jeffrey: It’s fiscally impossible to maintain an economy. But when this crisis hits, the government is going to want to go and get revenue to cover that as it progresses. Where are they going to get it?
Levin: They’re not going to have any revenue to get. And they can print all the money they want and create a Weimar Republic if they want. Every avenue they take is anti-liberty, anti-constitutional. They’re going to become more and more desperate. And what’s really going to happen is they’re going to seize much more authority and ration wealth, and the people who think Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are so great, there will be no Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid.
Jeffrey: Because the real-life situation is, you’ll have Baby Boom Generation on Social Security and Medicare, sucking in the government revenue, and the government will not be able to pay the benefits that it has promised to these folks unless they take 40, 50 percent of the income of middle-class, middle-aged people to cover those benefits.
Levin: What the government will do is break all of its promises. What the government will do is say, “We’re changing age limits, we’re changing benefits, we’re changing how this thing is funded.”
Jeffrey: We’re taking away your health-care benefits when you’re 70 years old.
Levin: We’re taking away whatever we have to take away. This is how authoritarianism works. If you look in Britain today--and I wish we would more often--or Canada for that matter, they have a complete rationing system in their health care. And the costly drugs and the costly procedures are delayed and delayed and delayed because they’re hoping a significant portion of the population will die before they have to pay for them, or go somewhere else.
I try to explain in this book in many ways that it’s conservatism that is compassionate, that it’s conservatism that nurtures liberty, that it’s conservatism that is the only anecdote to tyranny--whether it’s a soft tyranny or a hard tyranny--that what these other people are preaching is something that cannot work, has never worked in human history, and relies on a lie about some kind of a utopianism that can be created on Earth which simply can’t be.
Jeffrey: Is the question when we get to the tipping point? If the conservative vision of America is individuals and their families taking care of themselves. They earn their own money. They educate their own kids. They pay for their own housing. They pay for their own food. They pay for their own retirement. They’re self-sufficient.The liberal vision is the government takes care of many of those things, and, as you said, that’s fiscally unsustainable.
Levin: The liberal vision is, to be even more precise, that the individual needs to be controlled, that his aspirations need to be limited, that he has to learn to get along and go along. And that if that means dispiriting the individual, if that means economic or other forms or repression, then so be it for the good of the general society. And that a handful of individuals, self-appointed, who assume power one way or another, they will make the decisions for all the rest of us. In one form or another, that’s what the statist believes.
Now, they may unwittingly advance the case of tyranny in some cases, but at this point, given human history, given all we know about it, given all we know about statism, I have to question that.
Jeffrey: Well, Mark, if there’s theoretically a tipping point, where a number of people in the population are so dependent on the government that they are essentially a captive electorate for the left, for the liberals, how do conservatives reach out and persuade those folks on the margin to come back into the land of individual responsibility and self-reliance?
Levin: It’s the folks on the margins we need to go after.
Jeffrey: How do we do it?
Levin: The others are a hopeless case. The one-third, the 35 or 40 percent, we’re never going to get them. Well first of all, we, the conservative, need to be confident in who we are. We need to understand our philosophy beyond the superficial.
When I started this book, “Liberty & Tyranny,” I could have written one of these talking-point books, but I said, “You know, let me challenge myself. Why do I think the way I think? Why am I a conservative? What does it mean to be a conservative? And I went back, again, and I read the classics. I went into Plato and Aristotle and Cicero and Montesquieu and Locke, and more forward, Burke, and Adam Smith, and then the Founding Fathers. When you do that, which most people won’t do because they don’t have the time or the inclination to it, you come to an obvious conclusion that the only humane system that can possibly work is one that’s based on the conservative philosophy.
And what is the conservative philosophy? That’s the point of the book. The conservative philosophy, generally speaking, is the creation of a civil society with the focus on the individual, but not exclusively. Where the individual is responsible for his family and himself, where he has a duty to his community, where what he earns through his own labor--because remember, we’re only here so long on the face of the Earth, and that labor, whether it’s intellectual or physical or both, if somebody takes it from you, they’re enslaving you, it’s for an illegitimate purpose.
And there is a moral order. You know, it’s interesting. Adam Smith, who’s the hero of libertarians and one of my heroes, believed in a moral order, was a religious man. He and Edmund Burke, considered the father of modern conservatism--Burke, the conservative today, Smith, the libertarian today--they were friends and they didn’t think they disagreed on anything, these two guys. You know, they had an overlapping philosophy.
We conservatives wake up every morning and we thank God we’re in America. We thank God for our system of government. We thank God for this society. It is a magnificent place where we are. History has never seen this before. It is a contribution to mankind. We Americans, when we do what we do. We need to instill this spirit, this view of America, in the population or the population that may be receptive to it, because the other side has as their goal to dispirit, to demoralize, to tear down, to trash.
Jeffrey: Now, you do an excellent job in “Liberty & Tyranny,” Mark, in explaining these basic founding principles of the United States and how they articulate themselves in various different issue areas that we talked about. And your book is doing tremendously well: Four weeks at the top of the New York Times Bestseller list. I think you told me more than 900,000 copies--
Levin: Printed, half of a million sold, and we’re still pressing ahead, baby.
Jeffrey: But obviously these are adults who are buying your book.
Levin: We don’t know who is. They’re not children, we know that.
Jeffrey: We know they’re not kids. But is it--our schools are not teaching the founding principles of the United States to kids in kindergarten, first and second grade, let alone in high school or college. Do you think the liberals, the left in America, does not want young people coming up in America to learn these principles and to embrace them as they grow?
Levin: Here’s the thing. First of all, it’s my responsibility and your responsibility as fathers to make sure our children know why this is a great country. There’s no teacher, there’s no union member, there’s no administrator in any government school system who can do a better job of explaining it than you and me to our own kids at the breakfast table, the dinner table, when we put them to sleep, when we take them somewhere. This we must do, because if we do it there are tens of millions of us, and we are a bigger army than ACORN and the NEA.
Now, as to your question: The motives? We’ve litigated against the NEA now here in Landmark Legal Foundation for over a decade. They are a far-left, power-hungry organization. And that’s what comes first, second and third for them. Okay. If they cared about the children, they wouldn’t be promoting what they promote. For instance, you have teacher strikes in the states that allow them and cities that allow them. It’s absolutely outrageous. So, and I’m talking about the rule, not the exception, because of course we know that there are many good teachers. My wife was a teacher, my mother was a teacher. That’s quite beside the point.
Jeffrey: But they have a vision for what they want your child to grow up to be.
Levin: They want our children to be good soldiers of the bureaucracy.
Jeffrey: Right. It’s one thing for you and me to raise our kids to have our understanding of what the American founding principles are like. And if they are in one of those schools to fight some of their teachers, to fight the school bureaucracy, to fight the overall agenda of the school. Isn’t it quite another thing for immigrant kids, or kids coming out of families where their parents may not be as well-educated or not as focused on teaching those things, to ever in fact come in contact with these principles?
Levin: It’s a disaster. It’s a disaster, because first of all, if we are not insisting on immigrant kids learning English, they can’t possibly understand the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. We have people who understand English who don’t understand them today and refuse to understand them because they talk about living and breathing documents. When we say originalism--look at the words and try and relate them back to our history--if you don’t understand English, where the words can be debated, and you’re speaking in Spanish or something, you’re never going to get it. And the other problem is, how do you enter into contracts, how do you make something of yourself? And, of course, the Balkanization issue is real and it is a huge problem.
Look, here’s the problem. You and I know that at every level we’re under attack. We know the next shoe to drop is to create citizenship for illegal aliens and to open the borders to more because they want to change the demography and they want to change the electorate. We know this.
We know what they want to do with national health care. It’s not about making sure people have health care. You know, just because you have a health care policy, doesn’t mean you actually get health care, timely and in quality. No, it’s to secure as many drone-like citizens as you possibly can.
We know what they’re up to, and at bottom, what I’m saying is, we have to reacquaint ourselves with why we are a great nation, with who we are, with our founding, with our history, and what it is that makes humanity prosper and flourish. Everything Obama does counteracts that. Everything that this Congress is doing counteracts that. And people will be motivated and they’ll have a desire to really change things if they can really connect with it, and that’s the point of the book.
Jeffrey: Mark, in your book you point to a uniting principle that has been an American principle since the beginning. You say, “If man is ‘endowed by [the] Creator with certain inalienable rights,’ he is endowed with these rights no matter his religion or whether he has allegiance to any religion. It is Natural Law, divined by God and discoverable by reason, that prescribes the inalienability of the most fundamental and eternal human rights—rights that are not conferred on man by man and, therefore, cannot legitimately be denied to man by man. It is the divine nature of Natural Law that makes permanent man’s right to ‘Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’”
Doesn’t this principle, and that fact that it is in fact true, give us an opportunity to reach out and proselytize to the immigrant community that’s come into the United States, to some of the people that are on the margin of wondering whether they’re going to go into the dependent class or into the class of self-reliant people?
Levin: I think it is. The problem we have now, though, is assimilation rarely happens. We have a government that’s opposed to it, that promotes the opposite: multiculturalism, bilingualism, dual citizenship. We now have corporations that promote both English and Spanish and we have a government school system that does the same thing. So we’re basically a bilingual nation now.
Jeffrey: And this principle can’t be taught in our public schools.
Levin: This principle can be taught in our public schools not as it is meant to be, but as sort of an arcane thought that the founders may have had--and of course they were slave owners so why pay attention to them anyway?
Jeffrey: If, ultimately, the reason the state cannot deprive us of our rights is because the state didn’t give us those rights, God gave us those rights, and a public school cannot even teach a child that there is a God from whom he got those rights, then a public school cannot teach the basic founding principle of the United States.
Levin: No. You have to do it, and I have to do it, and every parent and grandparent have to do it. Look, we are not going to change these government schools overnight. This I know as a matter of personal experience in litigation. We have to take it upon ourselves. We’ve had a counterrevolution in this country--a very successful counterrevolution, the intellectual basis of which goes back to the early 1900s, the effectuating of it started with FDR and the New Deal. It’s a counterrevolution to the American Revolution. Now we need a counter-counterrevolution, and one of the things I say is that we conservatives have to increase our numbers. That’s the purpose of a book like this, and hopefully other books that follow, and parents and grandparents talking to their children, and getting serious about the country and the future for the next generation.
Politics has consequences. It’s not just a sport to observe. People need to realize that right now we have a runaway government--and I mean every branch of it, the elected and the unelected--and the only way we’re going to stop this is if the next generation understands and is informed. And you’re not going to get it from an NEA member in a school system. If you do, it’ll be the rare, tenured teacher who does it. It’s going to have to come from you, and we can do this.
I mean, there’s still tens of millions of us who understand how wonderful this country is and believe in free markets, private property, faith and these other things. We can do this. You know, everybody can’t home school their kids, but there is a form of home schooling everybody can do. Those kids do come home, and they belong to us, and let’s do it.
Jeffrey: And they can read “Liberty & Tyranny,” the No. 1 New York Times Best-seller by Mark Levin. Mark, thank you very much.
Congressman Steve King (R-IA) introduced an amendment to H.R. 1913 Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill to remove Pedophiles as a protected class under the law and Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL) offered an amendment to include veterans as a class protected . Look at how the Democrats voted:
Every single Democrat voted it down. Does this mean that because I find pedophilia repugnant that I am breaking the law if I say so out loud because that would be "hate speech"? Ok, I have to ask again....Those of you who profess Christ how can you continue to support politicians who are in favor of protecting pedophiles? Are the special interest of pedophiles more important to you than your very own special interest which is your right to express your spiritual convictions?
This bill presupposes that because one finds a lifestyle, sexual act or sexual orientation personally distasteful, repugnant or even repulsive that merely by harboring such feelings leads to the action of inflicting bodily harm. If I happen to have a physical altercation with a homosexual or a pedophile person (which would never happen) and I whoop their azz (which is equally unlikely since I don't know how to fight) then I could receive an "extra" penalty for "preconceived hatred" as well has whooping their azz. Of course it would be a foregone conclusion that I must "hate" homosexuals because I believe what the Bible says about homosexuality. Actually homosexuals should be outraged that they are placed in the same category as pedophiles and necrophiliacs.
H.R. 1913 is yet another brainchild of political correctness advocates aka liberal democrats who are teetering dangerously close fascism. What else do you call this sort of thought policing? This bill is the government's attempt to infringe on our conscience and demand that we believe only that which is deemed as politically correct. So, as Christians we are facing big trouble because the Bible is not politically correct. But on second thought many Christian don't let their faith hinder their political sensibilities.
Update: It has been suggested by our resident liberal contrarian UptownSteve that the right is just making this up and that pedophiles are not a protected class under HR 1913. So I have found the video of Alcee Hasting reading the amendment to HR 1913 which outlines what sexual orientiations "isms" are to be protected:
Yuri Bezmenov a former KGB agent and expert on ideological subversion discusses the slow process of demoralization that transformed America from a conservative and mostly homogeneous country into a socially-marxist and egalitarian one.
Here's the transcript: (You will find my comments in red)
YURI BEZMENOV: But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.
It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism... (Well, isn't that the truth, our schools are veritable indoctrination centers for modern liberalism)
The result? The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern . You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.
In other words [for] these people the process of demoralization is complete and irreversible. To rid society of these people you need another 15 or 20 years to educate a new generation of patriotically minded and common sense people who would be acting in favor and in the interests of United States society. (This is exactly what Manning Johnson, a 1940'sCommunist describes in his bookColor, Communism and Common Sense. Mission accomplished in the Black America. We have fallen for their devices hook, line, and sinker)
ED: And yet these people who have been programmed and as you say [are] in place and who are favorable to an opening with the Soviet concept - these are the very people who would be marked for extermination in this country?
YURI: Most of them, yes. Simply because the psychological shock when they will see in [the] future what the beautiful society of EQUALITY and social justice means in practice, obviously they will revolt. They will be very unhappy [and] frustrated people, and Marxist-Leninist regime does not tolerate these people. Obviously they will join the [ranks] of dissenters; dissidents. Unlike the present United States there will be no place for dissent in future Marxist-Leninist America. [Now] you can get popular like Daniel Elsburg and filthy rich like Jane Fonda for being a dissident [and] for criticizing your Pentagon. In [the] future these people will simply be [he makes a squishy noise] squashed like cockroaches for criticizing the government. Nobody is going to pay them nothing for their beautiful [and] noble ideas of EQUALITY. This they don't understand and it will be the greatest shock for them, of course. (Social justices sounds good but it's really code which expresses the idea that America is an inherently oppressive society that is systemically racist, sexist and classist. Therefore America discriminates institutionally against women, nonwhites, working Americans, and the poor. The solution is for "community organizers" to rally the poor and minorities to demonstrate and demand political power so they will be given that which the government is "duty-bound" to give them since they have been "oppressed".)
The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it's over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. ...he will refuse to believe it.... That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization. (Just look at all of the facts about Barack Obama that "demoralized" Americans refuse to acknowledge or give even the slightest consideration)
