Mike Cornelison June 27, 2012
Today, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling on the constituionality of Obamacare, so in my second post in the Obama vs. Obama series, I will compare and contrast Obama the exaulted teleprompter reader with Obama the sociopathic sellout and demonstrate how the president’s split personalities have manifested themselves in his “signature achievement.”
From the moment Obama took office, while the economy grew worse and worse and the job picture for Americans bleaker by the day, instead of addressing the economy, his Democrat-controlled Congress was completely consumed with trying to invent Obamacare and then pass it. While Congress was stuck in the mire of the health care swamp, most Americans were angry, saying, “Forget all that and get this economy turned around!”
By the time the fourteen-month ordeal was finally over, any hopes supporters may have had for a national celebration over Obamacare’s passage were dashed. The widespread unpopularity of the bill was undeniable, as shown in this list of all the major polls from March 2010:
And over two years later, Obamacare is still unpopular by a wide margin to this very day: Read rest of article here
America was born as a refuge from tyranny: Pilgrims traveled here to escape religious tyranny; protesters challenged the tyranny of the British Parliament at the Boston Tea Party; the Declaration of Independence was a poetic derision of the tyranny of King George of Great Britain over the states. It declared that God had endowed every person with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our National Anthem proclaims we are the land of the free and the home of the brave, and our Constitution was crafted to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” Abraham Lincoln stated in the Gettysburg address: “..that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
One of the great differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives will freely admit that they have an ideology. We’re kind of dorks that way, squabbling over old texts like Dungeons and Dragons geeks, wearing ties with pictures of Adam Smith and Edmund Burke on them.
But mainstream liberals from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama — and the intellectuals and journalists who love them — often assert that they are simply dispassionate slaves to the facts; they are realists, pragmatists, empiricists. Liberals insist that they live right downtown in the “reality-based community,” and if only their Republican opponents weren’t so blinded by ideology and stupidity, then they could work with them.
This has been a theme of Obama’s presidency from the start. A couple of days before his inauguration,Obama proclaimed: “What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation, but in our own lives — from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry” (an odd pronouncement, given that “bigoted” America had just elected its first black president).
In his inaugural address, he explained that “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.”
Whether the president who had to learn, in his own words, that there’s “no such thing” as shovel-ready projects — after blowing billions of stimulus dollars on them — is truly focused on “what works” is a subject for another day. But the phrase is a perfect example of the way liberals speak in code when they want to make an ideological argument without conceding that that is what they are doing. They hide ideological claims in rhetorical Trojan horses, hoping to conquer terrain unearned by real debate.
Of course, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats when it comes to reducing arguments to bumper stickers. (Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has written that “the president’s economic experiment has failed. It is time to get back to what we know works.”) But the vast majority of Republicans, Ryan included, will at least acknowledge their ideological first principles — free markets, limited government, property rights. Liberals are terribly reluctant to do likewise. Instead, they often speak in seemingly harmless cliches that they hope will penetrate our mental defenses.
Here are some of the most egregious examples:
‘Diversity is strength’
Affirmative action used to be defended on the grounds that certain groups, particularly African Americans, are entitled to extra help because of the horrible legacy of slavery and institutionalized racism. Whatever objections opponents may raise to that claim, it’s a legitimate moral argument.
But that argument has been abandoned in recent years and replaced with a far less plausible and far more ideological claim: that enforced diversity is a permanent necessity. Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, famously declared: “Diversity is not merely a desirable addition to a well-run education. It is as essential as the study of the Middle Ages, of international politics and of Shakespeare.”
It’s a nice thought. But consider some of the great minds of human history, and it’s striking how few were educated in a diverse environment. Newton, Galileo and Einstein had little exposure to Asians or Africans. The genius of Aristotle, Socrates and Plato cannot be easily correlated with the number of non-Greeks with whom they chatted in the town square. If diversity is essential to education, let us get to work dismantling historically black and women’s colleges. When I visit campuses, it’s common to see black and white students eating, studying and socializing separately. This is rounding out everyone’s education?
Order Jonah Goldberg’s book The Tyranny Of Cliches
I can’t copy the Scribd doc so here is the link: http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf?document_id=92091782&access_key=key-1lsdofly6c178wdldrt4&page=1&viewMode=list
From the site: ChristianProfile
I was reading through the website of what I think is the most disgusting pro-abortion organization out there, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and found this:
“The pro-life position is really a pro-fetus position, and the pro-choice position is really pro-woman. Those who take the pro-fetus position define the woman in relation to the fetus. They assert the rights of the fetus over the right of the woman to be a moral agent or decision maker with respect to her life, health, and family security.”
So, apparently in choosing to be either pro-life or pro-abortion, we have to choose between the woman and the child.
My question is, why does being pro-life and wanting to save unborn children’s lives make us anti-woman? What could we possibly have against women? Apparently it is because we are “anti-choice” and want to “take women’s choices away and control them.” Why, as a woman, would I be anti-woman or want to control women? And, if pro-life is “pro-fetus” and “anti-woman,” does that mean that pro-abortion is “pro-woman,” but “anti-unborn baby?”
I am all for women making decisions about their own body. But abortion affects not just a woman’s body, but TWO SEPARATE BODIES. Abortion damages women and kills unborn children. I support a woman’s right to kill her baby as much as I support murderers being able to choose whether to kidnap and kill someone else.
Apparently we do not trust women, either. We don’t “trust them to make their own choices.” However, after having an abortion: Read rest of article here
For those who have never heard of Zerohedge I highly recommend it as a superior source of information, usually data coupled with some contrarian deconstructive explanation, to counter the official pablum the government feeds the lazy masses through the adoring media (just saying.)
Occasionally Zerohedge also posts guest articles of interest and the following is one I find quite telling on the state of our federal government for as we all know (or should) when a nation won’t let you chose not to participate, tyranny is at the door.
Submitted by Simon Black of Sovereign Man
I was approached recently by a member of our Sovereign Man community who filed the paperwork to relinquish US citizenship some time ago. Long story short, after an incomprehensibly long wait, the US government finally sent him a reply: Application DENIED.
Absolutely shocking. That you even have to ‘apply’ to relinquish what you never signed up for is intellectually insulting. That you cannot do so freely, and immediately, is nothing short of totalitarian.
It’s still an embryonic movement, though more and more US citizens are being driven to divorce their country. Last year nearly 1,600 people gave up US citizenship, up from 1,485 in 2010, 731 in 2009, and 226 in 2008.
While some renunciants have philosophical misgivings about being American, most do it for tax reasons. There’s a growing number of expats who, despite living abroad for years, are still paying huge portions of their income to Uncle Sam.
What’s more, the filing requirements are getting more and more onerous. US citizens living overseas have to keep up with all sorts of changes to the tax code that they may not be privy to, and the penalties for noncompliance are severe.
I can’t tell you how many friends I have who are US citizens living abroad that had no idea they were supposed to file the Report of Foreign Bank Account (FBAR) form every year; or the new FATCA form 8938; or those with businesses that must file form 8858 or 5471.
Usually these things come with pretty nasty penalties, possibly up to $10,000 per instance of failure to file.
Then there’s the latest, greatest tax target: accidental US citizens. This group consists of foreigners who happen to be dual nationals because they were born in the US or have an American parent.
These foreigners have spent their entire lives outside the US. They know absolutely nothing about US tax code. Now they’re getting Dear John letters from the US government saying-
“I see you are a US citizen but have never filed your taxes. Please enclose a check for the following absurd amount of money, which includes interest and penalties for the last 20-years…”
Such tactics smack of desperation… typical of the same sorts of cannibalistic moves that failing, bankrupt governments throughout history have exacted upon their people.
Citizenship is nothing more than accident of birth. Yet in the modern nation-state paradigm, governments lay claim to citizens from the time they’re born as if we’re property.
Children are saddled with obligations that they never signed up for– taxes, compulsory military service, a debilitating national debt, etc.
Most countries at least have procedures to voluntarily surrender citizenship for those who choose to opt out of the system; in the United States, it is contained in section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The process usually takes place overseas at a US consulate– you have to fill out a series of forms, swear an oath in front of a government official, and eventually file a final tax return. Some people even have to pay a steep ‘exit tax’ on the value of their assets.
I know dozens who have done this, and from what my friends tell me, many of the consular officials attempt to impugn, insult, or otherwise intimidate people looking to surrender their citizenship. It’s their last-ditch effort to keep the milk cows from escaping the dairy farm.
For example, one official tried terrorizing a friend of mine last year in South Africa, saying, “This smells like TAX EVASION to me!”
Despite all the forms, the bureaucracy, and the intimidation tactics, I had never heard of a case where someone’s properly submitted ’application’ to surrender citizenship has been denied (bar Ken O’Keefe). Until now.
But in what may be the most distinguishing mark of a totalitarian state, the US government has now officially prevented someone from freely leaving the system. The Soviet Union comes to mind.
It certainly does make one wonder to what desperate lows they will sink to next.