Posts Tagged ‘progressivism’

“I Am Not A Dictator!”

March 1, 2013 2 comments

“O Duck Luck, ” says Hen Pen, “the sky is falling!”
“Why, how do you know it?” says Duck Luck.
Obama Chicken Little told me.”

And so goes the story of another famous alarmist, Chicken Little. President Obama has attempted for the past few weeks to raise alarm about the awful “cuts” that would affect everything. The economy will be hurt and crippled for years, other results include millions of furloughed federal employees, and a non-functioning military. All because those darned Republicans would not agree with him to further increase spending.

 The rights so valued and inherent in each of us has slowly continued to erode away, and with a president such as Obama, it will be a long four years.

Read the whole article at Conservative Daily News, here:

“I am not a dictator!”


Why The Left Doesn’t Want Safe Schools

December 22, 2012 5 comments

Who would have a problem with police in schools?

The recent rampage in Newport, Connecticut has the entire country talking about gun rights, safety, and the protection of young, innocent schoolchildren. Fixing the woeful measures of school protection, is a commonly held belief, across politics of all stripes.  How best to protect those schoolchildren, however, has any number of suggestions, and just as many critics.

Many centrists and most Republicans support the placing of armed police, either active or retired, in schools.  The reasoning goes, as police, they have received plenty of training, both with firearms, and with person-to-person interactions. Met with a threat, police’s first instinct is surely not carelessly to open fire – that is the last option, when talking and negotiating have proven ineffective. Trained to use words first, and lethal force last, is how the police operate.

While thinking about that, and attempting to find problems and flaws with police in schools, I may have inadvertently found a reason why some progressives do not want cops in schools. Much progressive rhetoric relies on the belief that authority is inherently bad, and it should always be questioned, and sometimes engaged physically.

I think here lies the crux of their problem with police in schools. How on earth could police officers who provide safe learning environments be a bad thing? While there are some progressives who actually fear the inanimate object that is a firearm, seeing a mature, responsible authority figure at school with that firearm, would tear down tenets of the progressive orthodoxy.

Students would see and interact with a policeman everyday, learning that police are not the overbearing monsters that many on the left would have the public believe. Add to that the effect of a sidearm tucked safely away in a holster, and the child learns that the gun is not the randomly-firing, crazy-tool-with-a-mind of its own, either. Opposing police in schools also creates a problem with many progressives’ claim that only highly-trained, responsible, licensed people should be allowed to have firearms at all.

If you allow children to see this same responsibility daily, and the children also grow to respect the policemen as more than just an authority (as someone who has sworn to place his own life in between the children’s’ lives and any threat) and you would cause all sorts of short-circuiting with liberal narratives. The schoolchildren will experience cognitive dissonance between the media who love to show the most atrocious police stories possible, and the friendly school protector. The children will also be able to ask the policeman questions and learn from him.

Once that sort of erosion of progressive dogma starts – where would it end? The progressives, already outnumbered, might be forced to defend more of their often illogical and baseless claims, in futile attempt to remain relevant. Why it could be the end of the entire progressive false reality. To me, the positives far outweigh the imagined negatives, and the course is clear – show the children we care enough to protect them from both evil threats, and the misguided progressive claim that guns are inherently evil, and that people should not be able to protect themselves.

The Progressive “Reality”

December 11, 2012 2 comments

Ministry of Propaganda

“Doublespeak” is a term inspired by “double-think” in Orwell’s famous dystopian novel, “1984”. According to, it means “deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language”. I would say it means, “saying something to say nothing”. Regardless, no one group of people has done more to further the spread of doublespeak than the American left.

Left-wing author, George Lakoff calls it “framing”, and advocates its use to regain rhetorical ground that the left lost to Republicans. By changing terms like “partial-birth abortion” and “tax-relief”, Lakoff claims that progressive ideas would be more pleasing to the ear, and therefore more readily adopted by Americans. It is not the idea that is the problem, it is the description of the idea, he would have us believe. Never mind that the actual actions are as morally corrupt as ever, it should sound good.

The moments when progressives actually deviate from their politically correct speech, can be disastrous for them. Just this week, a Michigan state Congressman, Doug Geiss, threatened that there, “would be blood” if right-to-work measures became law in the state. President Obama himself uttered the infamous line to Joe Wurzelbacher, about spreading the wealth around, in response to Wurzelbacher’s candid question.

Democrats and progressives use four of the same tactics, over and over again, either to create their desired environment, or to change one that they do not like.

  • Create divisions were there are none, or there are none necessary. There was no reason to creating animus and promote class hatred when Obama took office. His huge spending plans and burgeoning deficits meant someone had to pay though – so enter the “filthy 1%”, said to have not earned their money honestly, or who are like robber barons (so go the hackneyed talking points). Another attempt at this, that ended in a conservative barrage of rebuttals, was the left’s “War on Women”. That attempt to create a narrative met with limited success.
  • Simply call something other than what it is. “Taxes” and “tax increases” are not so anymore – they are “paying one’s ‘fair share'”, and “revenue increases”. People understand and hate taxes, so to sell them to Americans, the left has to call them something that they are not. It has gotten so out of hand with tax-related issues, “tax cuts” are occasionally called “subsidies”.
  • Utilizing projection and shifting blame to look like the left is innocent of the problems that they have caused. We see the left gin up crowds of angry unions and other supporters, and when those same groups act out, violently, the left tries to claim the right provoked it. As the Obama spending grew exponentially, the left was all too happy to parrot the messages that “Bush was every bit as bad” and “Obama inherited the mess”. We have seen a little less of the shifting as Obama’s spending blew past any Bush spending, and continued upward. Another quashed point of the left was the tie between Bush and Cheney and various corporations. This was largely due to Obama’s hiring numerous people for his administration, who were close with corporations, coupled with Obama’s multi-million dollar loans to failed energy companies, headed by campaign bundlers.
    Just as I am writing this, MSNBC is trying to create doubt that it was union members who tore down an Americans For Prosperity tent in Lansing, Michigan.
  • Using the lap-dog media to carry the left’s messages. The media serve as both a bullhorn and magnifying glass for whatever claims the left wants to proffer. Media will both “investigate” negative claims, smearing through implications while doing it, and give the left a soapbox to stand on as they promulgate slurs and lies. News personalities will happily promote a false narrative, sharing what they consider correct information, rather than legitimately correct information. Soledad O’Brien famously tried to lecture Joel Pollack about liberation theology, and failed miserably. At the latest presidential debate, Candy Crowley attempted to correct Mitt Romney’s point that Obama never called the Benghazi attack, a “terror attack”. Of course Obama did not, but Crowley making the incorrect point led many people to take it as gospel from the debate moderator.

The left has done this for so long now, I fear that there are actually some people on the right who may think it is already too late to turn back the fake, fallacious claims of the left. The left has had so much time to invent, spew, and support their dogma, the American people now believe in that brand of reality.  Some in Congress seem to take a resigned, “oh well” view of the whole fiasco, and for their parts, become willing sacrificial lambs and scapegoats to the stories. More shockingly, some in Congress seem to look at the left’s success with these measures, and begin to think, “Hey – to get our messages out, maybe we should try that too!”

So, how do you oppose this? How are you supposed to fight so many marshalled sources of false information? Creating your own medium to offer your own narrative is too costly and laborious. Do you appear on the left’s favored programs, and pick fights with the bogus-information dealers? Possibly, but you would only have one chance to do that. A first step is to illustrate as much as possible the divergence between the reality of the country, and what the left claims the reality is. Aim for the issues and places with the biggest divergence. And do not do it without expecting numerous excuses, and be prepared to defend your own claims. It is very much a “parry-and-thrust” exercise, but there is no reason not to expect to win always – after all, the truth is on our side.

Tuesday’s Gone (or Why the Left Will Lose)

November 4, 2012 2 comments

Tuesday the nation goes to their polling places, and makes the most important decision they have ever made. If that sounds hyperbolic, it should not. The current president has shown himself more than willing to accrue bills and pass them on to future generations than any other president. This president has shown more wanton disregard for American life and liberty than any other as well. Obama, more than any other president, has sought to insert differences were there are none, incite hatred where there was none, and prevent the normal activities of Americans from occurring.

Stephanie Cutter

Obama campaign manager, Stephanie Cutter

The left wasted any chances that they had winning a presidential re-election a few years ago. The people represented by Democrats, took a backseat to the left’s dream of massive healthcare overhaul, and the passing of Obamacare, with numerous legislative tricks, near-bribes, and threats. After the Democrat-controlled Congress forced Obamacare through, they held “town hall” meetings that scared them, as many of the taxpayers slowly began to learn of the implications of Obamacare: new, massive government oversight, huge new tax bills, mandatory compliance, just to name a few.

As if ignoring some of their most loyal voters was not enough, Democrats seemed to find all new special interests to kowtow to, with the Obama inauguration. The country saw massive amounts of money given to unstable businesses under the guise of support of “green energy”. Later the country learned of the owners’ and CEOs’ ties to the Obama administration. Big campaign bundlers saw money thrown at their businesses, even after it was known that the business models were completely unfeasible.

Seeing the old supporters’ devotion die away, Obama seems to have decided to build new coalitions – all with their own price tags, of course, but none  paid by Obama, himself. Why would he spend his own capital when he has a massive taxpayer base to draw from? The green lobby, the illegal immigrant communities, and the newly built (and reliant) throngs of welfare and food stamp recipients. Threaten them with the loss of their goodies, and you have a reliant, reliable, voting base. If you can create more of them, than supporters that you have lost as a result of the welfare costs, it works out – it is a wonderful, government, pyramid scheme.

The left’s standard-bearers are often surly, abrasive, and falsely aggrieved. Harry Reid is happy to share rumors from nameless sources to smear Mitt Romney. Nancy Pelosi sponsors and supports legislation with unknown contents. Asked tough questions, both Stephanie Cutter and Debbie Wasserman-Shultz keep straight faces while spewing lies and feigning ignorance. Jay Carney parrots the same talking points he is given, usually not even attempting to answer the questions asked of him.

The president formerly campaigned on the transparency he would usher in – the most transparent administration ever, he promised. Asked questions about the most recent scandals, Obama tells us frequently, “It’s being investigated, and I cannot speak on it…” Then he sends proxies, like Jay Carney, out to the podium to say nothing to the press pool. The president has repeatedly balked at providing details on scandals, like Fast & Furious and the Benghazi slaughter. Instead of telling the American people any details, everything is an ongoing investigation, or that the records are “sensitive.”

If the country had a true, fourth estate, instead of a complicit puppet of the administration, we might expect some forced answers. Instead, many reporters seem perfectly happy to tow a party line for Obama, asking the lightest and most worthless of questions. The reporters want to retain their access to the White House, so it is best not to ask any tough questions that may endanger that (worthless) access.

Finally, the left plays a dangerous game with Americans when it comes to disaster relief. Obama visited Joplin, Missouri, but it was after a trip to Europe, six days later. When the BP oil disaster occurred, it showed the administration’s true colors. We saw the Obama response, finally, after 14 days of nothing. Just in the last week, we have seen the president’s response to hurricane Sandy. FEMA runs out of water, citizens are using hallways and stairwells as latrines, others in New York are rummaging through garbage for food, and Obama campaigns. For a president that espouses and so willfully uses the power of the federal government, to NOT do so in this situation is inexcusable.

David Axelrod

Senior Adviser to the President, David Axelrod

If it is still unclear, my point is this: the American left is morally, and monetarily bankrupt. In their hurry to jump over each another to make their sound-bytes, and to score points against their “enemies” on the right, the left either sold or lost their souls. To gain the support of their new, special-interest friends, they abandoned their old supporters, the people who made up their fathers’ Democratic Party. The new, more progressive left, clashes with a pragmatic America, that would rather have jobs and income than welfare and hand-outs. The new left abandoned their old ideals, and seemed to become a fully Keynesian, tax-and-spend monster, whose appetite for “goodies” could never be sated. The left is now more excuse, than execution.

After Tuesday’s landslide, the left will face two choices: continue with their big government planning and spending (which they have attempted and seen wholly rejected by Americans, since 2010), or reject the past few years, and once again embrace some sort of pragmatic and realistic reforms that help the country as a whole, not just their friends and sycophants. Given THIS sort of rhetoric, I fear the left still has not learned its lesson.

Are You Tired Of Standing For Something?

March 29, 2012 Leave a comment
Progressive Evolution

The "evolution" of the progressive

…then become a progressive Democrat. It is such a simple solution to the trying problems of our times. Imagine being able to revert to a near-childhood state of mind, and a juvenile sense of responsibility! Oh, if only we could – but, those mean old Republicans, with their responsibility, and reality…Darn those buzzkills!

Having a shrinking ability to determine reality from fantasy, the progressive movement has made the most of its past few years in positions of power in the United States government. From the time Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ran rough-shod over the country in the U.S. Congress, along with Barack Obama’s continuing “leadership”,  to the on-going fantastical, fanatical stories reported in the mainstream media, there has not been a story that they have not tried to spin wildly to their own benefits. Even when the progressive politicians have sought to relay a legitimate story, or seemingly valid concern, they seem to be guilty of sins of omission or finger pointing. I am honestly beginning to wonder if progressives either cannot deal with the truth, or if we have reached a point where they are now simply refusing to deal with the truth.

In just the last few years, we have seen a “surprise” healthcare bill. Liberals passed it through various tricks and legislative maneuvers. Giddy with the outcome, Nancy Pelosi, admitted she herself did not know exactly what the bill contained, and that we would find out soon enough. In short order, Americans everywhere tore through the legislation, and found the many problems and sketchy funding mechanisms employed within. The best things that have come from the entire mess are; the humongous amount of political capital wasted by Congressional Democrats and Obama, and how many seats that they lost in the 2010 election, and last, but certainly not least – the creation of a reinvigorated American political force – the Tea Party.

In just the last few months, we have seen a woman, paraded in front of cameras for a hearing in Washington, to gin up support for women’s healthcare. After faulting her Catholic University (Georgetown) for not covering her prophylactics, the mainstream media changed to try to claim she wanted other woman’s reproductive issues and medications covered (despite her repeated testimony referring to “birth control”). More details came out, and it was revealed that she was not the poor, struggling college student that she was billed as by the media, but was in fact, a 30 year old law student, with a long history of activism. Progressives looking for some sympathy, were forced to change their narratives.

In just the last few weeks, we have seen a young man, now in hiding, due to threats on his life, and another associated young man having lost his life. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were quick to arrive on the scene, and point toward what they were positive were the problems with the case – racist, shoddy police work, and a sociopathic, racist killer. The first stories from the media were that the white man (George Zimmerman) killed the other young man (Trayvon Martin) simply because he was black. They would have us believe it was a simply cut-and-dried case of racism rearing its ugly head. Except, again, the media got it horribly wrong. The white man was actually a Hispanic, and he may have been defending himself – not seeking a certain target to murder, based solely on their race. To try and keep the manufactured narrative alive a little longer, we have seen in the past few days, the explanation that Trayvon may have lost his life because he wore a hoodie, and a Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson explained Trayvon was “executed for WWB in a GC”. Slowly but surely, progressives seeking to cash in on the tragedy are being forced again, to change their narratives.


Geraldo Rivera blames hoodies for the Trayvon tragedy

We have seen GOP legislators chased out of their offices by both their own party, as well as by an opposition, who smelled blood in the water, and thought they could make some political points from the mess – capturing a “soft” seat, or illustrating how terrible the other party is. Not having to follow a pesky code of conduct or code of honor, or not holding many ethical considerations, and barely meeting any legal requirements, must be a very freeing life for progressives. Having media that seeks to exonerate you, rather than hold you responsible for anything you have done, must be nice too.

Why The “Occupation” Will Fail

October 6, 2011 2 comments

By now, most people have gotten wind of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, and has been affected by its polarizing actions and beliefs. The protesters and their signs scream out at their collective outrage, and list their many grievances. While the movement is seen as something noble and worthwhile by some, by others, it is seen as a group of spoiled, petulant young people, intent on obtaining entitlements. Whatever the case may be, I feel as though there are enough fundamental problems with the “movement” that it lacks any chance to secure any of the real changes it seeks.

Too much diversity

Yes, there can be such a thing as too much diversity. In the case of Occupy Wall Street, signs and grievances run from: criticism of greedy, corrupt money makers, to the redistribution of wealth, to the high unemployment rate among young people, the elimination of capitalism, and finally, to the effects of lobbyists in Washington D.C.. Some media sources have even shown people dressed up in greasepaint and with torn clothing to resemble zombies. I am unsure what message that is supposed to represent – perhaps it has something to do with Halloween? To maximize their efforts, the group needs to focus on one or two main messages, and drive those home. As it is, the fractured, myriad concerns of protesters are doing more damage than any good. They must coalesce into fewer, more well defined issues to maximize their effort. As the movement appears now, it is unclear whether the protesters are anarchists (as some have claimed in the television media), socialists (as some in the television media have claimed), or just disgruntled young people, seeking a solution to the many problems the nation has run headlong into.

Pre-emption of the movement

The Occupation of Wall Street

While the original message may have started out of an on-line organizing force, in the last week, the protest crowds in New York have seen various other groups and “sympathizers” lend their support. During this spring and summer, unions saw governors and legislatures force their members to pay for more of their own benefits and retirement packages. In a well-publicized series of recall elections in Wisconsin, the unions were again rebuffed. The support for various unions may have never been lower, and along comes a popular movement of self-described disenfranchised citizens. The unions saw a golden opportunity to attach themselves to this movement and possibly earn back some support. Celebrities too, have seen fit to make appearances, and lend their support as well. These stars who “feel the pain” of the broke protesters, show up, and bring the cameras along. Suddenly, a photo op. breaks out, the stars swear that they know how the protesters feel, and the protesters are made to believe like these multi-millionaires and they have something in common. Cheap appearances for celebs threatens to undermine any messages.

The movement doesn’t have a leader

For a movement such as this, it strikes me as a disjointed group of people, in search of someone to lead them. Now, I am not talking about some fire-brand, urging the protesters to start chucking bricks through store fronts, but someone who can lead the throngs and either accept or reject support from those seeking to take over the movement. There have been a few scattered whispers that the protests are supposed to be modeled upon the Tea Party movement – which has no leaders, but is just loose nationwide groups – however, the Tea Party groups began growing and coalescing around the idea that taxes and spending were too high. There is the single issue that laid the foundation for a movement. It sounds as though many of the protesters are asking for more oversight any way — but government oversight is not what anyone needs at this point. Indeed, if people would stop and consider for a moment, government “oversight” lead to much of the current financial and economic mess the country finds itself in at the moment.

The Little Man In The Big Office

July 27, 2011 1 comment

For the mythical beginnings of a presidency, fully invested in the election rhetoric of “Hope and Change”, the current realities are far short of the promises.  A massively increased deficit, an additional war (yes, I know, it’s not a war – it is a “kinetic military action“), and a highly polarized American public, are some of the things that have been changed, and the hope looks farther and farther away as his term in office rolls onward.  Regular bouts of inaction, frequently follow up by mercurial rhetoric, have also become expected by this president.  It’s almost as though at the exact times he should do nothing, he acts (usually wrongly), and at the times he should act, he does nothing.


If what he does is "progress", would it really be that bad to be left behind?

Proof of the inaction-when-action should be the order?  A few examples come to mind.  First, when the Green Revolution in Iran tried to topple one of the world’s most threatening regimes, in the Middle East, that of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  He could have decried the stolen election itself, or when the electoral opponents claimed widespread vote-fraud, the Iranian government’s violent crackdown.  While protesters were marching in the streets, and shouting at any media that they could find, requesting assistance and aid from the United States or other western powers, our president did nothing.  Perhaps he thought his presidency was too young to risk going to war to help a people struggling for some measure of freedom?  Perhaps he was afraid of unintentionally helping nefarious elements hiding in the Iranian freedom movement?  I doubt that was the case, since a year later, he was faced with a similar situation in Egypt.  Again, the order of the day was nothing.  Even the main stream media began to wonder if the president would even mention the ongoing plight of the thousands in Tahrir (“Liberation”) Square in Cairo.  Eventually, he did speak, and strongly urged the despot-for-life, Hosni Mubarak to step down.  No shots fired, and he can still take credit for “helping” the situation.  Since, he has tried to open diplomatic channels with what appears to be the new Egyptian government, consisting of the Muslim Brotherhood, among others.  Currently, while Syrians march, and face their own military’s live firing at them, the president is wholly silent on the escalating slaughter.

The Green Revolution

A (beautiful) participant in Iran's "Green Revolution"

For whatever reason, his actions seem to come with either little point, or at a major expense of some sort.  I suspect because of his formerly mentioned neglecting to act against a threat that may have been “tough”, he is now overcompensating.  While previously arguing against military actions in Iraq and escalation in Afghanistan, he has opened a new war front in Libya, via NATO.  As it stands, the world now faces a hardened and angry Muammar Gaddafi.  He has already threatened to blow up Tripoli to spite our NATO allies.  This entire military action required a complete “go around” of the United States Congress, but whatever – he’s trying to show the world he carries a big stick, I suppose.  I doubt that casts him in a good light anywhere, especially in the Middle East.

I find it ironic that the little man in the Oval Office seems far more likely to use a heavy hand with his own people than against outside threats.  You should remember his retort to American concerns about his spending, and the legislation happily passed by Congress, that he then signed – “We won”.  This is the same president who had referred to the Republicans as the “party of no”.  This is also the same guy who has rejected every plan that the Republican House has offered to try to rein in run-away spending.  This is the same president who looks into a camera and claims to Americans that he is trying to negotiate “in good faith”.  I for one do not buy it.  I have seen far too much in this still young presidency, to take anything he says at face value.  I caught a show this afternoon that raised the possibility of a Republican landslide in 2012.  Most opinion polls show his approval ratings sliding downward consistently (if you do not count the bump he got for ordering a SEAL Team Six to take out public enemy number one, Osama Bin Laden).  Senator Bernie Sanders has even raised the question of having someone primary the president.  I am heartened to find out I am not the only one who sees this political neophyte and clueless organizer for what he is.  At the same time I realize, we only have two more years of this incompetence, I think, we still have two more years of this incompetence!