American Debauchery: Even the Washington Post Sees It

Here's a great article by Dana Milbank entitled, "Debauchery:  An American Speciality," and published in the Washington Post, of all places:

"We are, after all, the land of Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan and Snooki."  What a sad spectacle the United States has become in the eyes of the world.   And don't blame the teachings of Jesus or New Testament Christianity!!

From Yahoo News:  "The U.S. Secret Service is investigating faded '70s rock star Ted Nugent for his recent insistence he'll be 'dead or in jail' in a year's time if President Barack Obama is re-elected in November."

Yes.  As one person so aptly put it, "Secret Service looking into Ted Nugent's violent anti-Obama rant... from the underside of a Colombian hooker...."

Cultural Rot and (Surprise!) Liberals Who Spoke the Truth

Rush asked a great question yesterday: "After years of cultural rot, why are we surprised by the Secret Service scandal?"  But, of course, it is the Southern, backwoods, hayseed, ignorant, God-fearing Christian hicks that are causing all the problems in America today....        
And here’s from the "ha-ha-ha" department. A Democrat finally tells the truth, though the Obama administration says it was an accident. Well, that’s probably true. Democrats are such congenital liars that when they do speak the truth, they don’t do it intentionally. Anyway, David Axelrod was asked about the "choice in the coming election." Here’s what he said: "The choice in this election is between an economy that produces a -- a growing middle class and that gives people a chance to get ahead and their kids a chance to get ahead. Uh, and an economy that continues down the road, uh, we're on where fewer and fewer number of people do very well and everybody else is running faster and faster just to keep pace."

"An economy that continues down the road we’re on where fewer and fewer number of people do very well".   Nicely put.

Who’s been in charge of the economy for the last three  years—the "road we’re on"?

But, of course, it's all George Bush's fault.

And it was also funny to watch the liberals scramble to save their political hides after Hilary Rosen's contemptuous comment last week about Ann Romney--"she never worked a day in her life."  Rosen, of course, let the cat out of the bag about what liberals truly think about the family and stay-at-home mothers.  As I have written many times on this blog, liberalism hates the family and the church, two institutions that can operate independently of the state and don't need liberals controlling and directing their lives.  But most Americans still have a great respect for motherhood and those women who stay at home and raise their children.  So, the left was immediate and at pains to deny Rosen's remarks, even at the cost of their ideology.  But then, to liberals, anything can be sacrificed--for a time--in order to secure power.  Rosen spoke what liberals truly believe, and was told, in no uncertain terms, to "shut up."  Liberals depend greatly upon the ignorance of the masses to stay in power, and so statements like Rosen's, which revealed some of the true doctrine of modern leftism, caused great angst and massive panic among the secular elite.  

It will be interesting to see if Mitt Romney can make any hay out of it.  Probably not.

This Pretty Well Nails It

This quote is attributed to somebody in the Czech Republic.  I don't know who said it, or when, and it really doesn't matter.  It sums up, very nicely, the current problem in the United States.  It's a brilliant statement:

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting an inexperienced man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their President."


What happened to America? How could such a once-great nation sink to such depraved depths as to elect people like Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Edward Kennedy, Barack Obama--and a multitude of others, on both sides of the aisle--to the highest offices in the land? Where are the Washingtons, the Jeffersons, the Madisons, the Henrys, the Adams'...? They don't exist any more, or at least, are hidden from public view. And it is because the Washingtons, Jeffersons, etc., no longer exist, that we shouldn't be giving excessive power to the people who are elected!! It is Washington, D.C., that is destroying the United States, and that is simply and only because the people of the country are electing incompetents and entrusting them with power the Founders never intended politicians to have. If Madison and Jefferson didn't even trust themselves with power, they certainly wouldn't trust buffoons like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

What do you do?  Elect Mitt Romney?  That might delay the train wreck.  But not for long.  Because, again, as our friend from the Czech Republic so wisely points out, it's not the politicians; they are just being what they are--fallible, limited human beings.  The problem is the people who elect them.  And then expect the fallible, limited humans they elect to do things that no human being is capable of doing, that government, inherently, by the very nature of government, is unable to do.

What America needs, but will never have, are political leaders who will stand up and say, "People, get off your lazy butts, get to work, and rebuild your country. We can't help you any more.  We're going home." 

Obama Knows Best

In a recent speech, President Obama made this attack on the views of his opponents:  "[They say] if we would just convert these investments that we're making throughout government in education, research and healthcare. If we just turn those into tax cuts, especially for the wealthy, then somehow the economy is going to grow stronger. That's the theory."  In other words, that's what the opposition believes.  Let's examine this a moment.

The only time cutting taxes--i.e., letting the people keep the money they have earned--is wrong is if it leaves the people in such a position that government cannot sufficiently protect their property rights.  Otherwise, cutting taxes is always good.  So yes, there should be tax cuts for the wealthy, and every other American who is paying taxes now.  Of course, government spending should be brought into line with what government is supposed to do, and that is, again, to protect people's property.

But there's something even more insidious in Obama's statement above, and it's this nonsense about government "investing" in "education, research, and healthcare."  I wonder what makes him think, except the narcissism and love for government that is so much a part of his being, that government knows better how to invest people's money than the people do themselves!   This is arrogance gone to seed, the power-mad tyrant that thinks businesses (and the people) are too stupid to know how to spend their own money, that he can do it better, and more wisely, than they can.  Barack Obama and most people in his government have never run a business in their lives.  They've proven, conclusively, for three years, that know nothing about how to balance a budget, and many of their "investments" have gone bankrupt.  His ignorance of "investing" is matched only by his over-inflated ego.  Obama's whole economic theory is to put a gun to people's heads, take away their money, and invest it where he thinks it ought to be invested.  That is not what government is for, and it is the main reason that the United States government is in such a tremendously precarious financial position right now.

He goes on to say in this speech, "Here is the news. We tried this for eight years before I took office. We tried it. It is not like we did not try it. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans got two huge tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003. Meanwhile, insurance companies, financial institutions, there were all allowed to write their own rules, find their way around the rules. We were told the same thing we're being told now -- this is going to lead to faster job growth, it's going to lead to greater prosperity for everybody. Guess what? It didn't."  I'm sorry to disappoint you, Mr. President, but there was well over four years of solid job growth under George Bush, almost 6 million jobs created, so it did work (and compare especially the 1980s), and it wasn't until the Democrat/government-caused recession of 2008 hit that the economy went into a tailspin that Barack Obama has done nothing but extend and make worse.

His statement is, frankly, utterly ridiculous.  This nonsense about insurance companies, etc. writing their own rules is pure demagoguery.  Liberals have been trying to blame the current recession on the free market, on capitalism, on "laissez-faire," as if there were no government regulations on business at all.   Mr. President, in case you don't know, there are at least 9 Cabinet departments, spending untold billions of dollars every year, that regulate various aspects of the U.S. economy. They are the Departments of: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Energy, Labor, Agriculture, Commerce, and Interior. In addition, there is the alphabet soup cluster of federal agencies such as: the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, and NASA.  And that is just a small, small, small representation.  As Walter Williams wrote, "Tell me what a businessman, or for that matter you, can do that does not involve some kind of government regulation. A businessman must seek government approval for the minutest detail of his operation or face the wrath of some government agency, whether it's at the federal, state or local level. Just about everything we buy or use has some kind of government dictate involved whether it's package labeling, how many gallons of water to flush toilets or what pharmaceuticals can be prescribed" ("Capitalism and the Financial Crisis," 11/5/2008).  And whether or not these regulations are good is not the issue here.  The point is, they DO exist, in massive numbers, and for anybody to try to say America has a "free market capitalistic" economy today is a full indication that said person has no idea what a free market or capitalism is.  But Obama intends to demagogue as best he can to get four more years in the White House.  How, when what he says is so far from the truth, how can another four years of him be good for the country?

Barack Obama is either wilfully lying or he is wilfully stupid.  Either way, he has absolutely no business being President of the United States.

Quotes from Booker T. Washington

Debbie sent me the first quote below from Booker T. Washington.  I've added a few more as well from that great American.  Of course, the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright would say that Washington was "worshipping another god."

This first statement, with the exception of the (politically incorrect?) references to "colored people" and "Negros" could have been written today (and about people like Jeremiah Wright):

"There is another class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. I am afraid that there is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public."

This second quote is rather sad, frankly, because it hasn't happened:

"I want to see my race live such high and useful lives that they will not be merely tolerated, but they shall actually be needed and wanted because of their usefulness to the community." 

I don't necessarily agree with his statement about not "waiting for the heaven of the future," but there is no doubt his reference to how to get heaven closer to earth is the absolute truth--and, of course, would be utterly repulsive to headonistic liberals (a redundancy, I know):

"I do not believe in waiting for the heaven of the future.  If we imitate the life of Christ as nearly as possible, heaven will come about more and more right here on earth."

And, yes, this final statement is certainly true:

"A whining, crying race may be pitied but seldom respected."

Why can't liberals see what they have done to the black community of America?  Well, they can see it, but why are they are so power mad as to keep American blacks in a continual condition of servitude?  Well, I know the answer to that, too, but I won't go into it now.

The Democratic Party was the party of slavery.  And it still is.

Some Obama Economic Data

Here is some economic information:

--As of this writing, the average price of gasoline in America is $3.94 per gallon ($4.29 in California); on the last day of George W. Bush's presidency, the average price was $1.84;
--20% of American men are out of work;
--Only 56.9% of black men over the age of 20 are working; even Maxine Waters is saying that black unemployment is 16%;
--One out of seven Americans (14%) receives food stamps;
--In 2006 and 2007, 90% of college graduates found a job; under Obama, only 56% of college graduates have found work;
--87,897,000 Americans are no longer in the labor force;
--Obama has added more to the national debt in three years than Bush did in eight;
--The United States now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.  And yet people wonder why American corporations are moving overseas, supplying jobs for foreigners;
--And almost half the people in America pay no income tax at all.

In spite of being an absolutely atrocious leader who is perhaps the most divisive President the country has ever had, Barack Obama is very likely to win re-election in November.  Why?  Well, there are basically three classes of people who (largely) will vote for him.  One, he will get the dependent-vote, i.e., those who are getting some kind of government assitance.  Two, minorities will vote for him simply because he is black, and three, he will get the "reprobate" vote, those who hate God and Christianity and anything to do with virtue, decency, and morality. 

Do those three groups now represent a majority of the American people, enough to put Obama back in the White House?  I'm not sure, but it's very, very close.  We'll see, this November, if America has passed the point of no return.  There is no way, in a country ruled by decency, honor, integrity, industry, thrift, self-control, and virtue, that a man like Barack Obama could be elected President, much less re-elected.  The United States is in absolutely horrible condition right now, and Obama has done nothing, for three years, but make things worse.  I don't believe, like some people, that Obama is deliberately trying to destroy America.  But ideas and especially policies have consequences.  He is not sufficiently intelligent, or well-versed enough in history, to understand the devastaing results that the policies he propogates are bound to have. 

But yet...

...the people on the dole, the minorities who simply have shown no ability to think for themselves, and the increasing number of people who believe "freedom" means they should be as licentious as they want to be, with no responsibility and no consequences to their actions....might just re-elect Obama. 

Barring a major catastrophe, it will be very, very difficult for the country to ever recover from another four years of Barack Obama.

A Boatload of Un-Coerced Money

Here is a statement by Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan during last week’s hearings on the health care bill: 

“Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying: We're giving you a boatload of money. There are no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it. It's just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people's health care. It doesn't sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.”

Is this woman stupid or is this woman stupid? 

Number one, forcing people to do anything is coercive, and when the federal government tells people they must buy health insurance or be punished, that is coercion.  Now, for those “poor people” who are being given a “boatload of money”…sigh…Justice Kagan, is it so hard for you liberals to understand that the money has to come from somewhere, and when the federal government gives money to one group of people it first has to take it—by force or the threat thereof—from somebody else.  What is that, if it isn’t coercion? 

I love her language.  A "gift" from the federal government.  Put a gun to somebody's head, take their money, and give it to somebody else.  And that becomes a "gift."

No, it is coercion, and coercion is exactly what government is--the nationalization of force!  In some instances, it's necessary and has a legitimate purpose--to protect property from criminals and foreign invaders.  But, it's still force.  Everything government does is does by force, or by threatening to use it.  That isn't difficult to understand.

Elena Kagan, of course, isn’t on the Supreme Court to think, or to apply the Constitution.  She is there for one reason and one reason only—to push a liberal agenda for more and bigger government.  To legally steal money from those who have earned it and give it to liberal power brokers to distribute as they see fit (i.e., to buy votes).  She’s Obama’s puppet and that’s all she was ever intended to be.  She doesn’t have to think, she just obeys.

Is Obamacare unconstitutional?  Of course it is, and it only takes a law school education to decide that it isn’t.  All one has to do is read the Constitution, a document intended to be understood by everyone.  I challenge anybody, anywhere to find the exact clause in Article One, Section 8, that gives the federal government any authority in health care whatsoever.  And please don’t try to twist the “commerce” clause past me.  The men who wrote the document would be appalled at the way Congress and the courts have utterly butchered the intended meaning of that statement.  The Supreme Court was never intended to have the kind of power it has today.  Read what the Constitution says about the Court, too, and see if it makes the Supreme Court--nine unelected, unaccountable people who, realistically, cannot be removed except by retirement or death--the final arbiter on what is lawful in the United States.

And, speaking of the men who wrote the document and the federal government’s authority to give “boatloads” of money to “poor people”…Here is a quote from James Madison, the man who is called the “father of the Constitution.”  If anybody ought to know what it means, it’s Madison.  After all, he wrote it.  Madison:  “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”  And they even had boats around back then, too.

But, of course, Elena Kagan knows more about what the Constitution means than the fellow who authored it.