During Mr. Obama’s speech last Tuesday I had had an internal debate with myself; I could not reconcile which was worse, the state of the union or the State of the Union Address. I witnessed the gesticulating, pontificating, banging on the podium, and the little street-posture shimmy that not only was undignified but utterly embarrassing given the stature of his office. We were spared another display of tasteless fist bumps when Mr. Obama greeted Speaker Boehner and woke up Joe Biden, yet the event was akin to watching a second-rate comedian trying to warm up a crowd before the headliner hit the stage.
Conveniently, there was no mention about our country drowning in a sea of red ink, his desire to have the debt ceiling raised again, plans for a workable and cogent solution for unemployment, or how exactly his token references to the economy will make it “built to last.”
The behavior of the most powerful man in the world is pathological and duplicitous, and while his pitch likely appealed to the intractably idealistic and goggle-wearing Left, it did nothing with respect to unifying a country, provided no comfort or direction to our allies, and demonstrated that there really is no plan, but rather, a plot that he intends to hatch on the fly contingent on the political winds upon which he rides. All artifice is gone, there will be no more sleight of hand or code words: his vision for the country is a communist state, and the manner in which he intends to centralize power is to ignore Constitutional boundaries, debilitate industry by insisting upon pro-union preferences, trample on civil liberties, and try to curry favor among our enemies by weakening our defense to level the playing field, which is a less than subtle means of negotiating with terrorists and a fundamentally misguided stab at establishing an egalitarian world.
If his intent was to unify he would not lecture the half of the country that works and attempt to placate those who will not. If there was a sincere interest in addressing unemployment and energy dependency he would have signed the pipeline bill without so much as a second thought and very well might have secured another term as president. If he understood the tenets and benefits of capitalism, he would not have demagogued the concept of fairness, of everybody playing by the same rules, and then had a predictable Tourette’s moment when it came to taxing high income earners . Despite his smug assurance, penalizing successful individuals is not common sense; it is the very salvo often fired to further fan the flames of class envy.
Such ruminations do not speak of a workable design but instead of a gambit and of deviousness. It does not speak of stewardship or have statesmanlike qualities but exposes the intent to rule instead of govern. It shows no respect or understanding for our democracy and instead seeks unilateral power. There is no successful template for the centralized government espoused by Marx, so success is clearly not the goal and omnipotency is.
He is motivated by an ideology and ignores that philosophy’s wretched failures. A unified Germany stands today as an example of fiscal responsibility and a standard for economic growth while a divided Germany and fractured Berlin offered a poignant example of why capitalism benefited people and communism starved them. South Korea thrives and North Koreans live in poverty. Eastern bloc countries such as Hungary, The Czech Republic, and Poland are experiencing a renaissance since the oppressive rule of Russia was lifted, and Cubans exist as a primitive enclave while exploitation of people and resources have served to make Castro one of the world’s richest men. With such undeniable facts and such abysmal failures as historical references, what could possibly motivate someone to emulate them?
Had Mr. Obama been forthright in his first (and seemingly never-ending) campaign and shouted to the world that he embraced Marxist principles, he would not have been elected but he would have been difficult to fault for his candor. Instead he cleverly hid his proclivities, mesmerized a populace and a feckless media with oratorical pizzazz, and hoodwinked a nation.
The rhetoric hasn’t changed in four years; it finally has been objectively analyzed for what it is: regurgitated bromides from the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx, and polished by Frederich Engels. If that is a little too tart for your taste buds, let me provide a quick primer: Marx was adamant about a progressive tax for he theorized the gains of achievers came at the expense of others. He wanted to eliminate inheritance and direct proceeds to the state, demanded centralization of all communication, banking, and industry, and to extend free health care and education with the proviso that all learning was done under the auspices of the state.
It is no small coincidence that Marx never had a job, either.
He was content to live off stipends from Engels, whose family, ironically, derived its fortune from textiles in the very capitalistic system Marx spent his life vilifying. Marx was content to quite literally sit by a window and dream, write, and sermonize to others about the perils of capitalism while his family lived in abject poverty. He was a malcontent, anti-social loner and underachieving dreamer who codified his musings, cleverly couching them under the veil of “science”, and played upon the most base emotions of mankind by preying on the two-headed monster of envy and jealousy. Clever, indeed, but completely impractical in its cloyingly maudlin premises, and the manifesto’s complete and total lack of sustainability has been proven again and again and again.
Marx himself admitted he did not have nor did he ever contemplate the sustainability of his avaricious plan. He was obviously maladjusted and timid, unable to interact in society and frightened at the smallest specter of competition. He had no intention of ever working but harbored visions of becoming part of the ruling elite. He tore apart a society in which he could not cope, of that which he himself was envious and jealous. The punch line, of course, is his flaccid and uninspired “struggle” is the ultimate hustle, the consummate misdirection, and the penultimate swindle, for it plays sweet music in the ears of those who wish to rationalize their lack of inner fortitude and lay blame on their neighbor’s doorstep. Such mental masturbation indulges pity and enables sloth while running completely contrary to the foundation and fundamentals upon which this nation was built.
In essence, his message was that too much wealth was concentrated in the bourgeois, that productivity enjoyed by the bourgeois came DIRECTLY from the labor of the working class or proletariat, and the only way equilibrium and “fairness” could be obtained would be to concentrate all power in the hands of the State. Translation? Let’s remove this mythical power from a minority of achievers, and concentrate that power and money in a ruling minority, or the State’s elite. Sound familiar?
There is no intention to create equality, but just the opposite. It is a power grab con, with decades of regimes laid to waste by its unsubstantive and emotional bilge.
An argument could be made that there is a class struggle today, but it is not what Mssrs. Marx and Obama had in mind. Instead, the class struggle results from hard working people who are frustrated with government intrusion and watching a growing percentage of what they earn snipped from their non-governmental paychecks to pay for the generationally lazy and alien invaders. Mr. Obama does not seek to challenge parasites to assimilate and contribute nor does he preach personal accountability, but instead is content to watch the number of people who pay no tax swell to a number which exceeds 50%. How would he suggest the spoils be divided? If you live in an home with an even numbered address are you required to work while those with odd numbered houses get to lie around all day?
Mr. Romney does not excite me as a candidate, but with the debauchery and decadence and abdication of fiduciary license that exists in Washington today I will settle for a Republican-Lite in order to begin a reversal of the tide. Much will be made of Romney’s wealth and it will be misrepresented by a complicit media as the result of a zero-sum game, in other words that every dollar made came at the expense of someone else. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Private equity companies perform in a manner diametrically opposed to that of government. They are entrusted to make a profit for their investors and partners, and, therefore, perform arduous due- diligence before committing capital to a project, unlike dispensing money indiscriminately for pipe dream projects like Solyndra. Most target companies are stripped of unproductive union infestation, revamped and streamlined, and reintroduced to the marketplace in a form that fosters growth and profitability, and that growth and profitability results in new job creation through the natural cycle of capitalism, once again dispelling the concept that companies exist at the behest of unions and not the other way around————–or did I miss something recently with regard to the unions crippling Hostess Twinkies and American Airlines, just to name two?
The reality is that the union mentality has resisted evolution at every turn and still clings to the mantra of the Marxian “struggle”, led by men who still abide by the three-cheeseburger lunch and are fond of shouting, though in the interest of clarity I am not referencing Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton at this particular time. I, along with my father and grandfathers all belonged to unions at one time, and there was, indeed, a time when union representation and organization served a purpose. Old business practices dissolved not only as a function of unions but because of ever-evolving cycles of capitalism. Successful businesses today are leaner, more flexible, adaptive to change, focused on profitability which will lead to expansion, and are ever-presently mindful that their competition is looking to gain an advantage, unlike cement-headed union leaders who remain fixed points in an ever-changing world.
Would Bill Gates have been successful without the competition of Steven Jobs? Perhaps, but the competition drove each company to heights neither could have imagined when they began. Mr. Jobs’ incredible vision and innovation resulted in sales of $17 million for each Apple Store last year, and those profits are not going into the coffers of his estate but are reinvested constantly in order to seek greater innovation and creating products and markets five and ten years into the future that nobody can possibly envision today.
Imagine what Mr. Jobs did. A company with $13 Billion in profit, creating jobs, expanding markets and remaining nimble enough to anticipate the future without so much as a union concession or government hand out. It frustrates those trapped inside the web of socialism and communist thinking, but Microsoft and Apple succeeded not by exploiting markets but instead by creating markets that heretofore did not exist, which is the very essence of capitalism. If the slovenly occupiers, the great unbathed, the rebels without a clue, and professional activists could put down their I-phones or PC’s long enough, they would see the hypocrisy in their blind attacks.
Judgment Day comes this November, though it isn’t the Judgment Day about which I was taught as a youth.
Then again, maybe it is after all.
Dan Bubalo: I loved your opening paragraph…great piece…keep them coming…
DID YOU NOT THINK IT STRANGE THAT THE MEDIA WAS CROWING ABOUT ROMNEY WINNING THE DEBATE OVER GINGRICH? ROMNEY GETS TOO FLUSTERED AND AGITATED WHEN CHALLENGED ON THE TRUTH THEREFORE IN MY OPINION, HE COULDN’T POSSIBLY WIN ANY TYPE OF DEBATE WITH THE “SEDUCER” IN CHIEF. I WONDER IF HE IS BEING COACHED FOR THAT RIGHT NOW???
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO RESEARCH THIS ISSUE AND SHARING IT WITH THE READERS.I WAS WONDERING WHY BOTH SIDES WERE CONSPICOUSLY AVOIDING THIS ISSUE IN THE DEBATES AS WELL AS IN THE PRESS. NOW I UNDERSTAND.
Dan, you are 100% right. I was in that position in the 90′s when I unexpectedly got laid off from a job 10 mo after my father passed away. I know first hand how it feels to have the rug pulled out from under one’s feet & that loss of income is scary! But, with the support from my family, I pulled myself up & hit the pavement the old-fashioned way & put in applications all over town. I never collected 1 unemploymemt check – I was too busy searching for gainful employment. Unfortunately, the children of these lifestyles are the ones affected the most & their perspective is bleak that they will not break the cycle, when in fact they can if they stop depending on the government!!
Thank you, Theresa. Let’s keep the drum beat going.
My pleasure, Dewayne. So glad we’re on the same team.
Dan: For much of my Air Force career I studied the Soviet Union because we were convinced we would someday have to try to stop their armored hoards on the North German Plain or in the Fulda Gap. I can recognize a Marxist at 200 paces. It is now very obvious that you can as well. Thanks for a brilliant analysis of our Marxist in Chief.
He never fooled me, but he fooled a lot of people. Fine.
Everybody makes mistakes, but what has taken everyone so long to admit they’d been had?
“Mess” is a great four-letter-word to describe what he’s tried to pass off as leadership.
Dan, Well written! I fully agree! My analogy of Obama is a would be artist. The fool who dumps oils of all colors on a large canvas then wallows around in it naked and calls it “Abstract Art.” When, indeed, the fool has created nothing more than a mess of smeared colors, signifying nothing.
Thanks, Chris. You bring up a great point, for there are those in need of a variety of social services and that is why “safety nets” were developed——to help those who have fallen on hard times or cannot provide for themselves.
Now, those programs are a generational lifestyle for some, and an ATM for new arrivals.
Happy to be on the same side as you, John.
Thank you.
Great article Dan! I’d like to hear the taxpayers rise up & demand the non-taxpayers (i.e.the maggots living off the government carcass) start paying Their ‘fair share’. Always have to snicker everytime I hear megaphone-mouth Obama using this line. Let’s turn the tables! It grinds me to see at this time of year those ‘Section 8 sluts’ as I call them who work the system get tax returns of 6-8k back from the govt & blow the money on worthless crap. Sure it pays them to stay single, have their boyfriends live with them & keep having kids. I sometimes wonder, ” Did I do something wrong with my life?” I realize there are people who have truly fallen on hard times & are really trying to recover what they’ve lost, but then there are those who are really gaming the system. That makes my blood boil! I suggest we call BHO out & Demand the slackers start paying their fair share. Keep up the fantastic work!
Absolutely great commentary, brilliant exposure of truth to the light of day, and the examples well chosen to prove beyond any doubt, the absolute validity of the argument.
The analysis done by “caveman” is right on target as well, and shows another side of the same debacle. Even if the pipeline were run, it would be to a port for export, rather than to our refineries, for our work, paid back by our own consumption, cycling our own money in our own Nation, instead of the nations of those ready for Jihad.
The real reason the Constitution only provides eighteen duties and purposes for the federal government is because governments always grow if not restrained, and they grow in the direction thought of by politicians, not to the “needs of The People”, which is its only legitimate function.
If those people knew anything they could do and earn money, they wouldn’t be politicians, but be working hard trying to be the next Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.
Note Herman Cain, a proper businessman, made the offer to run for office, and try to apply some business acumen to the job, but they ran him off, because he probably would have succeeded, and made the rest of government look like the fools they are.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
Vanceboro, NC
Mychael,
I look forward to your “Rants” and am impressed with your insight on what is really going on in our Great “Corrupted” Governing Machine. I want to thank you for sharing this insight, thus: I share your site with my friends to get on board and enjoy/support you and your cause. Keep the pressure on, being relentless is the order of the day. Complacency has gotten us into this mess and we discovered in 2009 that it was more serious than we were led to believe by our past administrations. We now must Unite as a country and become a “Union” again because I share your idea about the true state of our divided union, controversial in a statement but we have become divided and the So-called 2 party system are not doing anything to better life in this Country, there are ulterior motives in wanting to become POTUS and they concern 1. Control, 2. Money in their pockets 3. A blatant disregard for the US Constitution (which incidentally they “all” swore to uphold and defend against all enemies both foreign and “Domestic”)
Thank You Mychael again and please keep it going.
TopDrifter
Unfortunately, it seems so, and the Dems can barely keep a straight face.
The Republicans have a long history of nominating the ‘safest person that is next in line’.
Mitt is a ‘safe’ candidate who won’t say or do something stupid. He will maintain the status quo.
Newt is the anti-Mitt. He is scary and unpredictable. In fact, Newt doesn’t know from moment to moment what will come out of his own mouth.
Is this battle simply an establishment Republicans vs anti-establishment Republicans in the fight for control of the party?
Seems to me that the Republican establishment is trying its dead level best to rocket Obama back into office for another term. I greatly fear they will get their way.
Obviously they believe Newt is the only candidate who can win against Obama. If Romney is nominated, I am dying to see him out-debate the master illusionist and narcissist-in-chief. Obama will crush him. Maybe that is what they are thinking. They simply do not want to see a candidate nominated who will lose to Obama. Fact of the matter is, Romney is no debater. Period. Gingrich is. Candidates can lay out the flowery-sounding plans and programs if they wish, but they gotta get to the W.H. first…and that is through the national debates.
Yes! I was not just surprised, but very disappointed when Cain endorsed Newt! – I cannot for the life of me understand why he would do such a thing. -If you find out the answer, please let us know as I’m sure others are just as perplexed.
The turmoil is between the candidates and the “king-makers” like Karl Rove and the hierarchy of the Republican party. It’s clear the “higher-ups” made a determination a long time ago that Romney was the man, and systematically have sought to marginalize anyone who might get in the way of their plans.
While I resent the preconceived notion as to whom would be the best candidate in advance of the primaries and polls, Newt would not be my choice. His past is suspect to say the least, and he is in dire need of a charisma transplant.
Totally fantastic and right on the mark rant. Now broadcast this across the nation to everyone hear. Thank you! (Shout this into the nearly deaf ears of those pathetic protesters who insist on following such nonsense that Obama constantly verbalizes,)
An event, even worse than the SOFTU address happened over the weekend; Herman Cain has endorsed Newt.
while it is clear that Mitt is the establishment Republican candidate and not to be trusted to represent Tea Party Republicans, but Newt is unstable.
I have following Newt’s career for more than 20 years and there is not much that I like about him. He is a ‘feel good’ politician. He does and says whatever feels good at the moment. He is fiscally and morally undisciplined. He has been for and against the individual mandate in health care. He has been for and against TARP. He has been for and against creating carbon taxes to curb global warming. He has been critical of capitalism. And his personal life has been a disaster.
I can’t imagine why Cain and Palin would support him. Do they know something that I don’t?
Thank you for reading, and keep on sharing.
I’m flattered by your kind words.
Thank you.
Excellent commentary, Dan. Thanx, Mychal, for your ‘site’, and the outreach. Challenging and informative, as always.
An observation, if i may. The business of ‘parasite politics’ is alive and well. What’s new? What we, the American public (you know, like in Republic) find ourselves in a vacuum of honest information. Republicans (that reads parasite politicians) and Democrats (that reads parasite politicians, too) have morphed into a beast that now has the ability, and motivation, to try to garner our votes by feeding us with lying soundbites, and little or no truth. Example: The ‘Pipeline’ issue. I am finding no information, either from our elected parasites, or the bought and paid for news media that will report only what they are told and how they are told, concerning the necessity or urgency of ‘The Pipeline’. i am, admittedly, finding out a great deal about the urgency and necessity of the pipeline, but not what Barry or Mitt or Newt or Pelocci talk about. Somehow, all of the parasites seem to have been given a script to argue over while not touching any ‘facts’ about the whys and wherefores of the pipeline. i won’t go into a lot of detail here ’cause there is info on the net to feed your curiosity if you seek truth. However, i now know the pipeline is not to supply petrol to the U.S., but to sell overseas where the price is better, and the controls on production are more relaxed. And why are we having to pipe crude from Canada south across the U.S. to send out on tankers to China and India, who have no such regulations? Well, it seems Canada does have some regulations, and no one in Canada wants the crude piped across Canada, or refined in Canada. Why? Don’t Canucks need jobs as well as Yanks? The urgency is that China and India, as well as other potential markets, are putting pressure on the oil conglomerates to commit to an availability timeline, and the hold up on pipelines is fanning the flames of buying petrol from the Russkies, etc. instead of from the Canadian shale pits. Hell, i thought this issue was about making jobs for Americans. Seems like there will be few, precious few, long term jobs for Americans from this project, but massive oil sales for BP, Shell, and whoever the ‘others’ are. But our news media and politicians seem to think this issue is about providing jobs, or choosing to not provide jobs. Why can’t we just get the truth to the American public about this issue, or any issue for that matter, and let the Americans support or kill an idea or agenda based on factual information? Ahhhh! Therein seems to be a clue to what might be going on behind the scenes from the Unseen Hands that manipulate and coerce by deception. If parasite politicians told the truth on any issue, the deceiving coercers that pay those puppets to say what they are told to say would then lose the manipulative control that gives them their ‘power’. Some power. Wake up, Neo. They are almost to your door. Get up, Neo. There’s still time to act. But you need to wake up now. Quit listening to the liars, and start investigating for yourself. Its not too late.
Father God, open our eyes and ears, and show us how to heal our land. Individually, and corporately. Shalom, Ya’ll!
Dan, thank you so much. This blew me away, to the point that I can say, it is w/o doubt the best thing I have read in many years.Like a light going on, click! I only hope and pray that those I will share it with will read it, and grasp it like I did. Prayers of support highly appreciated for one so dear to me, and so dangerously drunk on the left’s koolaid in the last couple of years. Thank you.
Excellent!
Excellent commentary, Mychal…Thank you!!!
Most excellent brother. Sharing on Facebook.
In Christ,
Dennis McCutcheon