AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Debra L A W wrote:

Your vague "boogey man is scary" routine was rejected by the electorate. When are you going to come up with new material? Please try to present something that contains substance.

*******************************************************************

I know that Debra L A W is one of the most brilliant feminist lawyers in the country who gave up a career in Big Law which would have given her Millions each year so she could instruct the peasants on Able2Know.

But since Debra Law does nothing but read lawbooks( I said read, not understand) she did not see the foll0wing from Rassmussen Reports today.



Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 Email to a Friend ShareThisAdvertisement
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 33% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-three percent (33%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of 0

*********************************************************************Maybe people do think he is the Boogey Man.

And, Debra L A W probably doesn' t know that after only five months in office, The Messiah has slipped downwards precipitously.

Obama's Job Approval Slips in Gallup Poll‎ - 4 days ago
Gallup just announced that the President's job approval has slipped to 58%, an all time low for him in Gallup's daily tracking poll. Obama's approval rating ...

****************************************************************

By December, when the Unemployment Rate is still above 10%, the American Public will blame Obama and his rating will be clearly below 50%.

But Debra L A W doesn't know this.

CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday that he and Cuban ally Fidel Castro risk being more conservative than U.S. President Barack Obama as Washington prepares to take control of General Motors Corp.

During one of Chavez's customary lectures on the "curse" of capitalism and the bonanzas of socialism, the Venezuelan leader made reference to GM's bankruptcy filing, which is expected to give the U.S. government a 60 percent stake in the 100-year-old former symbol of American might.

"Hey, Obama has just nationalized nothing more and nothing less than General Motors. Comrade Obama! Fidel, careful or we are going to end up to his right," Chavez joked on a live television broadcast.

During a decade in government, Chavez has nationalized most of Venezuela's key economic sectors, including multibillion dollar oil projects, often via joint ventures with the private sector that give the state a 60 percent controlling stake.

Obama has vowed to quickly sell off General Motors once the auto giant is back on its feet, but the government will initially control the company after a $30 billion injection of taxpayer funds.

Chavez, a vehement critic of the U.S. "empire," has toned down his rhetoric since Obama took office in January and the two men shook hands during a summit in Trinidad and Tobago in April

Does Debra L A W know this?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Obama a socialist?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 18, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

Socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: The end justifies the means.

For more than half a century, capitalism in the United States has taken a beating from the socialist revolution. Despite the best efforts of conservatives since the Roosevelt era, socialists have made great strides toward converting the nation to socialism. Apparently, the majority of Americans either fail to recognize the transition, or welcome it. The enthusiastic support for Barack Obama, especially among young people, is abundant evidence.

Obama has declared that he believes every person has a "right" to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a "right" to health care.

Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. (Hear Obama's words here.)

The Socialist Party USA recognizes the "right" of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home-financing industries.

(Column continues below)




The Socialist Party USA believes that "capitalism is fundamentally incompatible" with socialism. For years, Obama worked in Chicago through the Annenberg Challenge, along with Bill Ayers, to funnel more than $50 million to anti-capitalist education projects. In November 2006, Ayers traveled to Venezuela to speak at Hugo Chavez's Education Forum where he railed against "the failings of capitalist education," and praised the "Bolivarian Revolution and the profound reforms in education made by Hugo Chavez."

The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six-months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of "comprehensive" immigration reform. Listen to Obama's promises to La Raza in 2007.

The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says, "I will end this war," with never a reference to "winning" or "victory."

The Socialist Party USA calls for the "unconditional disarmament" by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending. Listen to his words here.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "livable guaranteed annual income." Obama trained ACORN members to conduct "Living Wage" campaigns in cities around the country.

The Socialist Party USA calls for a "steeply graduated" tax policy to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor. He revealed his philosophy when answering a question from Joe the plumber, who complained that he was being taxed for his success. Obama said:

It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
This list of comparisons could be quite long. This is sufficient to reveal an unmistakable similarity between Obama's political beliefs and the beliefs of the Socialist Party USA. The tragedy is that Obama's supporters don't care. In fact, many of his supporters are delighted that he promises to usher in a new era of socialism, and push the memory of capitalism further into history.

Socialists, who are in perpetual revolution, who believe that the end justifies the means, have worked through educational institutions, non-government organizations such as ACORN and by electing socialists to public office to silence teaching the virtues of free enterprise, capitalism, private property, individual responsibility and personal achievement. For nearly two generations, students have been fed a steady diet of socialism under a variety of disguises, including Outcome Based Education, No Child Left Behind, School-to-Work and a host of other "feel good" slogans.

Students and young adults no longer know why capitalism is better than socialism. Like Obama, young people really believe that when government redistributes wealth, "it's good for everybody." They do not realize that wealth redistribution is no substitute for wealth creation. They are never taught that the only way to create wealth is for an individual to combine his energy and intellect with resources to produce a product that improves his life, or for which someone else is willing to pay.

Private property, the accumulation of personal prosperity and individual achievement are anathema to socialism. Socialism sees the individual as nothing more than a cog in a government-run machine designed to ensure equity for all.

Capitalism seeks prosperity; socialism seeks equity. Freedom increases as prosperity increases. In a socialist system, there can be neither.

Cyclop and Parados took issue with some comments in Dr. Sowell's most recent column I posted earlier today, and rather than me attempting to speak for him, I went to the horse and asked him with the understanding that I would use his clarification. He responded:

Re this:



It should have read deficit, not debt. The proofreader didn't catch it. He once mused that the death penalty was a deterrent as evidenced by the fact that he had never murdered an editor. Perhaps he would include proofreaders in that too? Anyhow, he did intend to say deficit, not debt.

And the Sharia law one has to be taken in its entire context of pandering to militant dictators. He was using an illustration in the extreme, of course, but was painting the metaphor of what it would mean to not recognize a danger such as a nuclear Iran. In other words the paragraph re Sharia Law illustrated the observation in the paragraph just preceding it:



To that in his note to me, he clarified thusly:

". . . .once you have surrendered, you have surrendered. No one may have expected, when France surrendered in 1940, that it would have to turn its own civilian citizens who were Jewish over to the Nazis to be sent to concentration camps."

Appealing to extremes is a Logical Fallacy. It doesn't show any point at all, other than the fact that Williams can construct arguments which do not reflect our actual situation in the slightest.

Our current situation is so different than the WW2 threat, that it's really ridiculous to compare them. Even if terrorists shot a few nukes off - the prospects of which are pretty doubtful - who exactly would the US be surrendering to? How would the other side take over? It's a shitty metaphor.

Cycloptichorn

It is a logical fallacy only if presented as evidence. It is not a logical fallacy to exaggerate a metaphor as an illustration which is what he did. And what difference does it make whether situations are the same if the results would be unacceptable? Japan's surrender was accomplished by very different means than Germany's surrender was accomplished. But both were unconditional surrenders with ultimately similar results.

It is not similarities that he was going for. It was the outcome that can result when free people choose capitulation and pandering and ingratiation to appease or pacify ruthless regimes/dictators/etc., both at home and abroad, rather than recognizing them for what they are and what they are capable of. Once you surrender and find yourself at the mercy of an unpleasant conquerer, it doesn't really matter what happened in between or how different one scenario looks from another. Once you surrender, you lose your ability for self determination and you are unlikely to have any power to get it back.

Sowell was warning us to not allow ourselves to be put in such peril on several different levels.

What peril? The US is the strongest militarily bar none! As a matter of fact, we still have too much military hardware compared to the world.

We represent only five percent of the world's population; we are not the world's policeman or defender. Going it alone is the most stupid idea Bush ever had; this is a different world from WWII. There is no reliable lesson between the two periods.

We should never start any war, and only respond if attacked. Those stupid enough to provoke us into war will only create havoc in their own country.

Wrong again, as usual. For ci, I will quote Obama himself, again. This has been one of my favorites this week, since the Iran debacle:

I quote Obama: "We gotta have a civilian national security force thats just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded" (as the military).



Maybe someday, ci will venture to explain to us all why his idol, Barack Obama needs this civilian force. I have yet to hear a reporter ask him that question. We have such a great media these days you know, they are so inquisitive.

But ci did admit that Obama did lie to him. If he lied to him once, what would make ci think he would not lie to him all the time? Only ci knows the answer I suppose, or does he?

Why do you think, Okie? Anyone in the civilian force will be beholden to Obama for his job. That translates into votes for Obama from the member of the "force" and from the member's family.

I think Obama has a deep simmering hate for whites. It was displayed in his own autobiograpy when he resented his own grandmother's instinctive reaction to an action of a black person.

The "why" I don't know, genoves. I honestly don't know. What I do know is that I think his idea is not only very bizarre, but unbelievable, and obviously highly politically charged and dangerous, yet nobody questions him on it, nobody cared.

We have county law enforcement, city police, FBI, to take care of crimes. Why a national security force? All I can say is its weird. But this is not the only weird idea bouncing around in Obama's mind, apparently. The problem is the man is coy, evasive, and very careful not to tell us everything he is thinking. He is not an open person, no way. He has perfected the art of talking in "uh, ah, uuh, ah, uhh, I think, that, uh, that, uh".....on and on, the man takes forever to say anything, and then when its said, you realize he said nothing or something nobody can figure out, or an outright lie.

Okie wrote:

Why a national security force?

*****************************

Why, Okie? The Ayatollah has a national security force. I think Obama has delusions of grandeur.

Great cartoons!!

So then you would support the removal of ALL US troops from any foreign country?
All peacekeeping opoerations that we support, all US troops building roads, hospitals, and other infractructure, etc?

What about those troops involved in humanitarian operations?



So its ok to destroy a country that attacks us?
What about all the innocent people of that country?
They didnt attack us, their govt did.

Of all the bullshit excuses, this ranks as one of the bullshittiest. Proofreaders don't check for errors in content. Sowell initially wrote "debt" instead of "deficit" because he doesn't understand the difference, and the proofreader didn't change it because that's not the proofreader's job. If Sowell depends on his proofreader being smarter than he is, maybe the proofreader should be writing the column instead of Sowell.

How naive again for you to suggest that the so called sorry state of our union is the fault of "conservatives".

YOUTHFUL IGNORANCE.

Take a look back at the history of the great nation and if you can be objective, you will find that the economic crisis, is NOT NEAR catastrophic, as you might suggest.

These wars you think we are involved in are mere police actions that we have no business being engaged in. Both parties support this disastrous effort in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This President has some bold initiatives on his plate and my direct question to you, is he capable of convincing the public his agenda is a worthy cause, can be passed by this dysfunctional Congress, and somehow will it benefit this society.

You answer will obviously be YES to all but he has so far convinced few others of that.

Sowell is making even less sense now..

Sowell wrote "debt" but meant "deficit"? I can understand if he wrote it quickly as a response on the web but this is a column that was proof read and published. That means HE should have proof read his column before he submitted it to anyone else. An economist should have known the difference and easily spotted his error on rereading.

So.. leaving Iraq is the same as France surrendering to the conquering Nazis? What kind of nonsense is that? If that is the best defense Sowell can come up with then he is a complete idiot since it means his surrendering to blaming others for his mistakes means that Sowell, and by extension MACs in general, never accepts personal responsibility but always blames others. After all once you have surrendered, you have surrendered.

Parasite is looking for Mr. Goodbar...

I can assure you that Dr. Sowell knows the difference between 'debt' and 'deficit'. And having worked as both editor and proofreader, I can assure you that content is considered when both editing and proofreading. This was just one of those inadvertent common errors that was overlooked by everybody. I also know that proofreading one's own work is far more difficult than proofreading somebody else's.

Dr. Sowell is a PhD economist who has written much on these subjects over the years. I suppose you have never said or written one word when you intended another? Please forgive me as I sometimes forget that liberals are perfect in everything and incapable of errors like that, but I am not an ideological liberal so I too am imperfect. But I can forcus on the point of the content and forgive an inadvertent error. I wonder if ideological liberals and numbnuts can do that?. Or do most completely miss the point of the content or rewrite it as Parados just did?