That's right. Whenever there are financial difficulties the Jews are behind it, just like they were in the 1930s. Just ask David Duke, who recently endorsed Occupy Wall Street.
The Occupy Wall Street movement is essentially a re-boot of the Tea Party, but the Occupiers don’t know it. Were the Occupiers savvier and more educated about economics, politics, history and the Constitution they would echo the cry of the Tea Party, which is to limit the federal government.
The Occupiers have become tools, or useful idiots, of the rich and powerful left, which manipulates markets and benefits from the cozy relationship between Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.
Barack Obama’s top donors list from the 2008 presidential campaign is a Who’s Who of Wall Street financial giants (Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase & Co., Citigroup), over-priced educational institutions gouging families with their tuition (Harvard, UC Berkeley) and big corporations (Google, Microsoft).
The left’s biggest money man, George Soros, owns Soros Fund Management LLC (hmmmm… I wonder if it’s related to Wall Street at all?) and is a notorious currency and stock market manipulator. In other words, Soros has repeatedly gamed the system to enrich himself, which is exactly what irks (or I guess is supposed to irk) the Occupiers.
Soros also funds and agitates for left-wing causes, understanding that as the people’s individual power recedes, he and others of his ilk will become more powerful. It’s exactly what happened in the Soviet Union: The Russian people were relegated to a drab life of bare subsistence, while their betters in the bureaucracy enjoyed the spoils of the proletariat’s toil.
This is what happens when people become dependent on the state. America’s unrivaled success was built on individual self-reliance, not a reliance on the state to provide for our every need. If America had been built on the latter, we’d all be speaking German right now.
But the Occupiers seem to have the whole thing backwards, at least as far as one can tell what the hell they’re protesting… The whole thing is such an odd mish-mash of anarchists, communists, neo-Nazis, confused students, baby-talking thirtysomethings, professional protesters ginned up and paid by unions and community organizers, anti-Semites, baby Baby Boomers who missed out on Woodstock, and a smattering of well-meaning liberals.
When the Occupiers went to march on the mansions of the powerful, they studiously avoided left-wing barons who are knee-deep in Wall Street funny business and went to protest at the mansions of right-wingers (Rupert Murdoch, Fox News Corp., and David Koch, Koch Industries) who have little to do with Wall Street.
As one of my favorite pundits put it recently: “Even assuming, for purposes of argument, that Koch and Murdoch are as evil as these morons seems to think, the protesters call their demonstration ‘Occupy Wall Street,’ not ‘Occupy Businesses Whose Products We Disapprove Of.’ This would be like protesting the Holocaust by walking past Adolf Hitler’s house and protesting at O.J. Simpson’s house.”
Wall Street is an excellent target for protest. The financial giants contribute to campaigns, wheeling and dealing their way to immunity when all hell breaks loose, as it did in 2008. A government with the power to pick winners and losers during a crisis is far too powerful, and this is where we need reform.
I’m not talking about campaign finance reform, which restricts free speech and is merely a symptom of far worse disease, but reigning in government per the Constitution so that it does not have the power to reward cronies as it did with TARP and all the other stimulus, bail-out, green jobs BS perpetrated on the American taxpayer. How many more Solyndras will it take before we figure out that we’re being taken for a ride?
There’s a simple truth about economics: Market forces could care less about your skin color, your sex, your sexual preferences, your ethnicity, or anything else that superficially divides us as human beings. Did it matter much that the Soviet Union incorporated a rainbow of ethnic groups in its national mix? No. The economic system sucked, and still sucks. The same goes for Cuba, Venezuela, Greece and any other wannabe spread-the-wealth worker’s paradise.
This is one of many reasons I can’t comprehend the left’s fascination with race, ethnicity and identity in general. I figured the election of someone with a mixed racial background would finally end the nonsense, but it’s gotten worse.
America is not a racist nation. It was a racist nation, but systemic racism has been all but eradicated. Sure, there’s still racism (now mostly found on the left; more on that below), and there always will be. As long as there are people there will be hatred and strife. It’s just a fact of life, but if you live in a Utopian dream world filled with rainbows and unicorns, I suggest you bring yourself back to earth and read some history.
Free market capitalism turns humanity’s weakness – its overriding selfishness – into a strength. Economic central planning does the exact opposite; it exploits humanity’s weakness to reward the select few.
Let's send someone to the White House who is less likely to favor cronies and identity groups and more likely to allow Americans to exercise their liberties.
What does this have to do with race and identity politics? Two words: Herman Cain. I am endorsing Mr. Cain for President. Am I supporting Mr. Cain because he’s black, or because I’m excited about someone who’s not part of the traditional political structure and who actually speaks truth to power?
I’m exhausted by career politicians with degrees from Yale and Harvard who tell us they’re going to fix everything for us because they’re so damn smart. They may be “smart,” but they’re also arrogant, and the combination is toxic (see Enron, see also the Financial Meltdown of 2008).
Cain is smart, but he also has common sense, something you find in short supply in the rarefied air of Harvard, Yale, Lehman Brothers and the Beltway. He believes in limited government, personal responsibility and that all people are created equal, which is the only sensible way to govern a free people. Free people expect little from their government. Free people prefer to be treated based on the common denominator of their humanity rather than the vagaries of whatever identity group into which they may fit.
Our government was instituted to protect citizens from foreign and domestic enemies so they can pursue life, liberty and happiness. It was not instituted to provide life, liberty and happiness. Cain understands this, and the concept that the larger the government, the smaller the citizen.
The left, however, sneers at Cain and his accomplishments. They call him an “Oreo” and an “Uncle Tom”; he is a traitor to his race and not authentically black. Remember, these are people who call themselves “progressive.”
What of Dr. King’s dream? “I have a dream my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Progressives, however, prefer to live in a nation where we are judged by the color of our skin, not the content of our character. This is progress?
Unlike the left, I judge Herman Cain, and Barack Obama for that matter, by the content of their character. I can’t stand Obama’s politics, but I have nothing against him personally. And again, I could care less if he’s black, white, purple or blue. Note that the left demonizes its opponents, labeling them as evil, stupid or both. Rather than debate policy positions, the left personalizes and polarizes.
The difference between the two men – Cain and Obama – has nothing to do with race, and everything to do with philosophy. Two divergent backgrounds produced two opposing philosophies. Obama worked hard and succeeded through academia and politics. He lived a life of social theory and never had any practical experience in the real world.
Cain also worked hard, but excelled in business, despite rising in the ranks during a time when racism was much more prevalent. Cain has practical experience. He’s met a payroll, as the pundits like to put it. In other words, he’s more likely to understand how big government impacts the average person negatively because he’s been there. People like Barack Obama have never been there and are far less likely to understand basic, real-world economics.
But because Cain’s real-world view that government’s coddling of victim groups, which leads to dependency and poverty (you can look it up; Google “poverty black family since war on poverty”), he’s a racist traitor, according to the left. Back in the real world, Cain is exactly right that just because white liberals and big government treat you like you’re stupid and lazy, doesn’t mean you are.
The left seeks to divide. By dividing, they conquer. And when they conquer, they destroy. E Unum Pluribus!
Imagine all the people... buying into this crap.
Barack Obama is arguably the most enigmatic president in the history of the United States, right behind William Henry Harrison. I think I know what’s going on with Mr. Obama, but apparently a majority of my fellow citizens don’t. In a recent and now-infamous poll, 61 percent of Americans either don’t know Mr. Obama’s religious affiliation or think he’s a Muslim.
Unlike Mr. Obama’s rhetoric, the cumulative record of his climb to the presidency, his associations, his voting record and the millions of words he’s written about himself whilst staring at his reflection in a pool make his beliefs and vision very clear indeed.
Most Americans are confused about Mr. Obama because they haven’t bothered to look very closely at his history. They’ve been told by those who police the information disseminated to the public, the fake-but-accurate “mainstream” media, “Nothing to see here. Move along, please.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Obama obfuscates even the simplest of issues. His catch phrase – “let me be clear” – has become one of the great presidential paradoxes of all time as it signals that a riddle will be explained with an enigma. This approach is not due to Mr. Obama’s inability to ‘splain himself, but is intended to shield the true nature and intent of his policymaking from the public at large.
This is the culmination of an entire career outside the mainstream and immersed in the Marxist, multicultural, atheistic, relativistic, grievance-mongering world of left-wing politics, which is really what “community organizing” is all about. Mr. Obama has never held a real job. He has no clue about what average people struggle with and how the heavy hand of government affects their lives.
Mr. Obama’s entire career has been one of theory and abstractions. Obama and his peers have busied themselves envisioning a Utopia created by a benign and all-knowing government. This is quite easy to do when you don’t have to live with the consequences of the various social engineering projects you’re planning to foist on the unwashed masses. They are part of a noble experiment that will one day yield the fully evolved society where all live in peace and harmony. It’s taking the premise of John Lennon’s Imagine and bringing it to life.
The problem, however, lies in the very title of the song, Imagine. Sure, you can imagine it, but that’s about it. Reality tends to get in the way. Still, that doesn’t stop ambitious youngsters, like the idealistic Barry Obama, who climbed quickly from obscurity as an undergrad at Columbia to being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. Suddenly, he was the media’s anointed one, christened as the “rising star” of his party after the Democratic National Convention in 2004.
Mr. Obama’s ascendency has been largely based on hiding his ideology. There was a jarring disconnect, noticeable at least to those who were paying attention, between Mr. Obama’s rhetoric during the presidential campaign and his actual beliefs. Americans heard a radically leftist message wrapped up in non-descript-everyone-agrees-with-what-I’m-saying packaging.
Behind the façade lies Mr. Obama’s ladder to success, each successive rung riddled with the names of his far-left mentors and ideological fellow travelers, from Saul Alinsky to the good Rev. Wright. Not one of these would be considered “mainstream” or even moderate.
For those scoring at home if ObamaCare doesn’t pass it’s because the Democrats in Washington insisted on making taxpayers pay for abortion. That’s right. There’s not one good thing you can say about a party committed to making taxpayers pay for the most divisive issue in the nation since slavery.
The party of “choice” doesn’t believe Americans should have a choice on guns, education or health care. The only real choice the left believes in is letting the State choose what to do with our lives.
There’s no new ground to make on abortion so I’m not going to delve into that topic; however, everyone agrees it’s a passionate subject. The American taxpayer shouldn’t have to pay for the procedure, but the Democrats have other ideas. If ObamaCare passes every Democrat running for election in a non-gerrymandered district is going to answer for this travesty.
According to a poll by Zogby 70% of Americans are against taxpayer-funded abortion. Republicans will be using this in elections for the next four years. What will the Democrats have to show for this partisan bill if they win? Obama has already endorsed infanticide, so I’m sure he’s not concerned, but the prospects for his reelection and his party are getting worse every day.
They're coming to take Obama away...
Win or lose the President has lost face during the health care debate. In a year of economic woe the President has been on a crusade to strengthen the grip of government on the citizens through a health care takeover. With an approving nod he has sat and watched his party make backroom deals and shut out the minority. This is the President and party that promised transparency. This is the president that opposed a “50-plus-one approach to governance.” Wow, how whatever happened to Hope and Change? Now with health care in its eleventh hour President Obama has supposedly made his last ditch pitch to pass a bill, a bill that everyone agrees is terrible.
President Barack Obama urged Congress Wednesday to vote “up or down” on sweeping health care legislation in the next few weeks, endorsing a plan that denies Senate Republicans the right to kill the bill by stalling with a filibuster. “I don’t see how another year of negotiations would help. Moreover, the insurance companies aren’t starting over,” Obama said, rejecting Republican calls to begin anew on an effort to remake the health care system.
There’s a real chance a bipartisan reform could pass, but the President is too “progressive” and too partisan for it to ever happen. Obama loves to remind everyone the “he won” the election and “his time doesn’t count.” People used to called this type of behavior by Bush as arrogant. What is it when Obama does it? Obama’s idea of bipartisanship is to shut up and agree with the White House. If Obama doesn’t change his attitude the American people won’t forget come 2012. Americans are growing tired of the arrogant faux intellectual who promised to be president of the United States, not only the progressive left.
Government work is good if you can get it. Carpe Diem has a nice looking graph that shows that government employees makes 45% more on average than private sector employees.
As I was saying a few days ago. There’s a lot of fat in government than can be cut but no one in Washington is serious about it. I’m not exactly sure what the President is doing. I’m starting to fear that Obama is just completely in over his head. Presidents can either lead or they can’t. For all their faults Bush and Clinton were able to get things done. Americans are growing weary of Obama’s long speeches and inability to accomplish anything popular.
Obama’s biggest problem is that his ideas are not popular. The President must realize that he was elected because people were fed up with Bush, not because we were ready for big government solutions. Many on the left haven’t learned this lesson. Have the Republicans learned anything after being tossed out? I won’t hold my breath.
Recent Comments