…Armendariz said: “It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere; they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they’d crucify them. Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. … It’s a deterrent factor.” This man should be fired — yesterday. White House press secretary Jay Carney risibly says Armendariz wasn’t articulating the attitude of the administration. Sadly, that’s precisely what he was articulating. Indeed, we’ve seen this attitude by the administration in countless examples, from Obama’s handling of the Obamacare legislation and restructuring of the GM loans to the administration’s New Black Panther voter intimidation case to Solyndra to Fast and Furious to — oh, never mind; I have to keep this to less than 20,000 words. None of this should surprise us. Obama is the quintessential liberal, and his These liberals are sure not only that their ideas and policies are more effective but also that they are morally imperative — and that conservative ideas and policies are not just ineffective but also woefully immoral. administration’s recurring abuses are simply the logical extension of liberal hubris born of a self-righteous certainty of the superiority of leftist ideas. This inevitably leads to dictatorial usurpation and lawlessness from the liberal ruling class. These liberals are sure not only that their ideas and policies are more effective but also that they are morally imperative — and that conservative ideas and policies are not just ineffective but also woefully immoral. I don’t deny that, to a point, the same could be said of many conservatives, but there are major differences, …
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “Liberal” defined:
1 a: of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic: of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a: marked by generosity :openhanded<a <a liberal giver> b: given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a <a liberalmeal> c :ample, full
4:not literal or strict :loose<a <a liberal translation>
6 a: of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalismb capitalized: of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially :of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.
According to the “Free Dictionary” …
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.
a. Archaic Permissible or appropriate for a person of free birth; befitting a lady or gentleman.
b. Obsolete Morally unrestrained; licentious.
Neither of these two definitions describe the so-called “liberals” that Barack H. Obama and those like him promote in operating our government. Let’s call them “progressive socialists” or “democratic socialists” – but certainly not liberal in the true sense of the word; just as there are members in Congress who profess to be “conservative” or further define themselves as “moderate conservative”. It is all a farce.
What we should be hearing and seeing is constitutionalism – by constitutionalists. It is the rule of law, not rule of the mob that makes a democratic republic. Descriptive wording like “democratic socialist” is also contradictory. What we need to do is return to implementing the Jeffersonian republic – the government or type of government that was created at the birth of our nation.
It is not “outdated” (and if it was, there ARE amendments to consider) – nor the fact that our founders were wig-wearing “white” men matter either. If you sit down and read about how and why the founders came up with our type of government, one cannot help to be amazed. They didn’t really have a current model to go by, but luckily they were educated in “classical education” – meaning they knew about Greek philosophy and the ancient Greek origination of the concept of democracy; as well as the fundamentals of ancient Roman laws. One may not think this is important, but it is. They gleaned the best parts of those ideologies and matched them to modern circumstances. For example, the experience they had under British rule as a colonized America. They were also familiar with British law, which helped them glean the best from that and tailor it into an entity that became the law of our land – the Constitution of the United States. And then they created the amendments because it was found that the Constitution dealt with limitations of government, but did not address or put into writing the fundamental rights and liberties of the People for which the government was created, and who is supposed to be the ones who indirectly govern through the power of those rights and liberties and the ability to vote.
|Marxism, created by German philosophers, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is an economic and sociopolitical view and method that is against capitalism and free economic organization, as well as the development of a society in the throes of class struggle. Marxism is a socialist system and Karl Marx viewed it as an historical necessity.
Socialismis the first step towards communism, which is:
…a classless, stateless system based on common ownership and free-access, superabundance and maximum freedom for individuals to develop their own capacities and talents. As a political movement, Marxism advocates the creation of such a society.
…it is evident that Marx deduces the inevitability of the transformation of capitalist society [into a socialist society] wholly and exclusively from the economic law of motion of contemporary society.
The socialization of production is bound to lead to the conversion of the means of production into the property of society… This conversion will directly result in an immense increase in productivity of labour, a reduction of working hours, and the replacement of the remnants, the ruins of small-scale, primitive, disunited production by collective and improved labour.
The American Democratic Party applies in terms of ideology, actions, and political philosophy, as well as using its implemented tools of operation that describes Marxist socialism. Recently members of the Democratic Party have chose to call themselves “progressive” – and it is obvious they are progressing towards socialism within the key factors of what Karl Marx had implemented. But we have not progressed toward that level of socialism – yet.
Socialists believe that what Karl Marxcalled capitalism, is a concentration of power and wealth within a small portion of society that controls production and exploits it at the expense of the populace. Socialism serves the needs of the many at the expense of the few. And, although the socialists states that their goal is equal opportunity and “fairness” – distributing wealth based upon how much one contributes to society. It promotes the philosophy of social equality, along with distribution of wealth. In America it is also distribution of income, where the top 5% of the wealthy pay in taxes for that part of the population that either does not pay taxes or pays less. It is what I call the “Robin Hood” concept, in which the poor rob the rich in order to sustain the poor.
Socialism endeavors to achieve that government must manage the private economical sector for the benefit of all. Government plans or puts in place policy concerning economics; superseding that of the private sector – in the extreme, those industries become state-controlled – like the government (and union) takeover of GMC.
A state-directed economy is a system where either the state or worker cooperatives own the means of production, but economic activity is directed to some degree by a government agency or planning ministry through coordinating mechanisms such as indicative planning and dirigisme.
Socialists believe that a utopian society can be created, as described by Friedrich Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific. Those that believe that a utopia can be created also believe that the ideals of socialism can be successfully intertwined within a democratic system, for the “benefit of the people” as an economic democracywhere the working class is the central focus. Democratic socialism is already in effect in Europe and political leaders, as well as members of the American judiciary, wish to emulate this concept and political ideology that would replace the Jeffersonian republic that worked so well up to the last fifty years – and it is failing not because of the created system but because We the People have allowed those in government to redirect and transform our government system into a democratic socialist government.
American politicians have come out more openly on their long-term agenda of this sort; but have been pushing for this for some decades now. In the course of this progress, it has been easier to convince the masses that this is best for America because it is the government that controls the educational system – much like political correctness and unsound scientific hypothesis like global warming can be readily accepted as truth.
Most global socialist movements or political parties are named with “workers” being used within its definition. The movement pits the workers of a nation against those that employ them, demonizing the corporate entity as well as those that make up less than 5% of the population in terms of economic success. It is always in the name of warfare against poverty, which can never be totally erased or avoided in any society – just reduced as much as possible, and certainly not through adopting socialism.
Much of this philosophy has been implemented through the “environmental protection” organization within our government backed by a group of utopians who do not use common sense when dealing with the importance of our environment. When the region administrator makes this statement, we wonder just what the agenda of those We the People have voted for in a majority basis (Al Armendariz):
It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere; they’d find the first five guys they saw, and they’d crucify them. Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. … It’s a deterrent factor.
What has happened is literally the government is using racketeering methods to get industries and the People to do what they want – and the goal is NOT a cleaner environment. This government czar was only representing the political mentality that has permeated our government – a rash statement, but it was a true statement.
The BP incident in 2010 was certainly caused by BP’s failure to address safety issues; however, those safety concerns had already been recorded by the US government, and yet they were allowed to continue operating. BP’s safety issues were far worse than any in the entire Gulf region where oil drilling is taking place. The end result was that czar secretary Ken Salazar personally caused the job-killing and industry destruction by denying any further drilling. In another case, a senior government research analyst was stricken by government government power because the government was pushing for imposing greenhouse gas rules, despite the true scientific facts were not there to condone it. Consensus was more important than scientific facts, just like global warming.
The Gibson Guitar factory is knee deep in legal costs because three years ago an endangered species of wood was used.
Microsoft had to split itself up and thus became a less competent entity because of false allegations of monopoly. After the dust settled from that court nonsense, the companies that were pursuing the legal circus against MS went bankrupt anyway. Why? Due to their own internal problems that had nothing to do with competition with Microsoft – and besides from the consumer point of view, after one purchases the software from Microsoft, updates are free; while those companies complaining charged a fee. Microsoft acted upon the concept of customer satisfaction while the other companies worked on greed. The major loser in that political game was the consumer. Bill Gates retired shortly after in disgust after the Clinton administration ruined his corporation that started in a garage and became one of the largest in the world. No one mentioned how much free stuff was given to schools to help kids learn about computers; just that he was successful – and to American progressive socialists, that is a bad thing.
Forbesrecently reported that the EPA (a government entity that needs to be dissolved or at least minimized) was found to penalized drilling companies before a scientific report was submitted concerning the well in question.
Obama, like others of his ideology, uses the power of government to screw up the very lives they say they are protecting, when in fact they are paying heed to special interest groups and profiting from that power. They war against American industry while aiding enemies that want to see America fall.
It is all just too incredible to imagine that this is the same nation that the founders created through hard work and putting their lives, liberty and prosperity on the line in order to achieve that freedom and rights that today we are allowing a minority (growing) to take away.