A Previous Subtle Effort By The Same Obama Propagandists

How symbolic, the red and blue spheres merge and the resultant color is a deeper shade of blue. Propaganda is considered effective if it is subtle and delivers a covert or subliminal message without the subject being aware of the intent. In this image, the profile of Obama was superimposed over the merging of Conservatism and Socialism with the profile of Obama and the result is a deeper shade of blue; picturesque and convenient, Obama brings the country together and we are united under a deeper shade of Marxism. It was created by the same team that made the Chrysler commercial; it hasn’t achieved fruition, but not for a lack of effort by Obama and his lackeys.

Our public school systems have been infiltrated with the Leftist Part Line for decades. At first the message was so vague, we thought it was merely coincidences, teachers and text writers surely couldn’t be so blatant and obvious with their political agenda; oh, but think back, while we refused to call liars and Socialists as such, they increased their efforts and relied on terrorists like Bill Ayers, confidant to our president, for the Leftist message now in our children’s text books.

Now, either Eastwood has allowed himself to be duped like a moron or he is a part of the deception; regardless of his intent, he has been used as a key element in the Leftist propaganda movement. Unfortunately, we have all been played for dupes by the creative schemers of the Left for while Eastwood tells America we are at the halftime of the recovery, during the halftime of the largest event in television history, the insidious message is implied that America needs to give Obama four more years to complete his anemic recovery, that seems to elude everyone but billionaires, bankers, and others on the dole.

The fact that Chrysler is staging a fart, stumble, fall type recovery based mainly on enriching Obama cronies and unions with our taxpayer money is pushed from our consciousness; since, we receive the subliminal message to equate the auto maker’s efforts with our fight against terrorism, the struggle of Obama to win reelection, and the struggle of the two athletic teams. In the excitement of the neo-gladitorial struggle portrayed on the boob tube, we are supposed to lose ourselves in the excitement and intellectual numbness of the game, much like the games in Rome that staged to entertain the masses or the mob in Rome to keep them content and less likely to riot. Thus in a similar way, we are played for fools by the people who stage our games; no they aren’t staged to prevent us from rioting, but what an excellent time to exploit our self-imposed stupor to insinuate a covert message to reelect our failed president by one of his corporate acquisitions, with a percentage of Obama’s funny stash money, more commonly known as tax payer money.

Oh, but you say the message is vague and imprecise, how can you make the connection: sorry people, the message is supposed to be vague and imprecise, it is supposed to leave a subliminal impression that will encourage the mobs of unthinking drones to vote for Obama once again; after all, hasn’t he struggled valiantly to repay his contributors and unions with taxpayer money, at least when he can find time between golf games and vacations. The fact that the connection is obvious to those who are alert and cognizant means the message is there. If you want to deny it, like Eastwood who so gallantly gave his check to charity, but also willingly gave his image and voice to the Marxism of Obama, means you either endorse the Socialist cause or you are to dense to notice the ever deepening pool of Obama Socialism.

Excellent article adapted from a speech given by Charles Murray regarding the need for the Department of Education:

THE CASE FOR the Department of Education could rest on one or more of three legs: its constitutional appropriateness, the existence of serious problems in education that could be solved only at the federal level, and/or its track record since it came into being. Let us consider these in order.

(1) Is the Department of Education constitutional?

At the time the Constitution was written, education was not even considered a function of local government, let alone the federal government. But the shakiness of the Department of Education’s constitutionality goes beyond that. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution enumerates the things over which Congress has the power to legislate. Not only does the list not include education, there is no plausible rationale for squeezing education in under the commerce clause. I’m sure the Supreme Court found a rationale, but it cannot have been plausible.

On a more philosophical level, the framers of America’s limited government had a broad allegiance to what Catholics call the principle of subsidiarity. In the secular world, the principle of subsidiarity means that local government should do only those things that individuals cannot do for themselves, state government should do only those things that local governments cannot do, and the federal government should do only those things that the individual states cannot do. Education is something that individuals acting alone and cooperatively can do, let alone something local or state governments can do.

I should be explicit about my own animus in this regard. I don’t think the Department of Education is constitutionally legitimate, let alone appropriate. I would favor abolishing it even if, on a pragmatic level, it had improved American education. But I am in a small minority on that point, so let’s move on to the pragmatic questions.

(2) Are there serious problems in education that can be solved only at the federal level?

The first major federal spending on education was triggered by the launch of the first space satellite, Sputnik, in the fall of 1957, which created a perception that the United States had fallen behind the Soviet Union in science and technology. The legislation was specifically designed to encourage more students to go into math and science, and its motivation is indicated by its title: The National Defense Education Act of 1958. But what really ensnared the federal government in education in the 1960s had its origins elsewhere—in civil rights. The Supreme Court declared segregation of the schools unconstitutional in 1954, but—notwithstanding a few highly publicized episodes such as the integration of Central High School in Little Rock and James Meredith’s admission to the University of Mississippi—the pace of change in the next decade was glacial.

Was it necessary for the federal government to act? There is a strong argument for “yes,” especially in the case of K-12 education. Southern resistance to desegregation proved to be both stubborn and effective in the years following Brown v. Board of Education. Segregation of the schools had been declared unconstitutional, and constitutional rights were being violated on a massive scale. But the question at hand is whether we need a Department of Education now, and we have seen a typical evolution of policy. What could have been justified as a one-time, forceful effort to end violations of constitutional rights, lasting until the constitutional wrongs had been righted, was transmuted into a permanent government establishment. Subsequently, this establishment became more and more deeply involved in American education for purposes that have nothing to do with constitutional rights, but instead with a broader goal of improving education.

The reason this came about is also intimately related to the civil rights movement. Over the same years that school segregation became a national issue, the disparities between black and white educational attainment and test scores came to public attention. When the push for President Johnson’s Great Society programs began in the mid-1960s, it was inevitable that the federal government would attempt to reduce black-white disparities, and it did so in 1965 with the passage of two landmark bills—the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Higher Education Act. The Department of Education didn’t come into being until 1980, but large-scale involvement of the federal government in education dates from 1965.

(3) So what is the federal government’s track record in education?

The most obvious way to look at the track record is the long-term trend data of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Consider, for instance, the results for the math test for students in fourth, eighth and twelfth grades from 1978 through 2004. The good news is that the scores for fourth graders showed significant improvement in both reading and math—although those gains diminished slightly as the children got older. The bad news is that the baseline year of 1978 represents the nadir of the test score decline from the mid-1960s through the 1970s. Probably we are today about where we were in math achievement in the 1960s. For reading, the story is even bleaker. The small gains among fourth graders diminish by eighth grade and vanish by the twelfth grade. And once again, the baseline tests in the 1970s represent a nadir.

From 1942 through the 1990s, the state of Iowa administered a consistent and comprehensive test to all of its public school students in grade school, middle school, and high school—making it, to my knowledge, the only state in the union to have good longitudinal data that go back that far. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills offers not a sample, but an entire state population of students. What can we learn from a single state? Not much, if we are mainly interested in the education of minorities—Iowa from 1942 through 1970 was 97 percent white, and even in the 2010 census was 91 percent white. But, paradoxically, that racial homogeneity is also an advantage, because it sidesteps all the complications associated with changing ethnic populations.

Since retention through high school has changed greatly over the last 70 years, I will consider here only the data for ninth graders. What the data show is that when the federal government decided to get involved on a large scale in K-12 education in 1965, Iowa’s education had been improving substantially since the first test was administered in 1942. There is reason to think that the same thing had been happening throughout the country. As I documented in my book, Real Education, collateral data from other sources are not as detailed, nor do they go back to the 1940s, but they tell a consistent story. American education had been improving since World War II. Then, when the federal government began to get involved, it got worse.

There is absolutely no need for the federal government to be involved in education anymore. This should be left up to the states. But ever since the unions became heavily involved in teaching we have seen ever increasing educational disasters. How could it not be a disaster when the education system is separated between unions who are only interested in their own needs and students/parents who want a better education for children.

And now we have fallen behind most of the world in almost all areas of education. The only successes? Privately run schools. One example is Illinois. 9 of the 10 best schools for graduation rates in that state are charter schools.

Another example:

In 2010, the South Carolina Department of Education privatized four schools that were 98% black in enrollment. In the space of one year, math scores on the Palmetto Assessment of State Standardized test (PASS) increased on average by 11%.

But woe to anyone who attempts to bring choice into education, or attempts to reform their State’s education system. Just look at Wisconsin and the recall effort underway by the unions against a democratically elected Governor who dared to go up against them.

Charles Murray also brought up post-secondary education:

…The bachelor of arts degree as it has evolved over the last half-century has become the work of the devil. It is now a substantively meaningless piece of paper—genuinely meaningless, if you don’t know where the degree was obtained and what courses were taken. It is expensive, too, as documented by the College Board: Public four-year colleges average about $7,000 per year in tuition, not including transportation, housing, and food. Tuition at the average private four-year college is more than $27,000 per year. And yet the B.A. has become the minimum requirement for getting a job interview for millions of jobs, a cost-free way for employers to screen for a certain amount of IQ and perseverance. Employers seldom even bother to check grades or courses, being able to tell enough about a graduate just by knowing the institution that he or she got into as an 18-year-old.

So what happens when a paper credential is essential for securing a job interview, but that credential can be obtained by taking the easiest courses and doing the minimum amount of work? The result is hundreds of thousands of college students who go to college not to get an education, but to get a piece of paper. When the dean of one East Coast college is asked how many students are in his institution, he likes to answer, “Oh, maybe six or seven.” The situation at his college is not unusual. The degradation of American college education is not a matter of a few parents horrified at stories of silly courses, trivial study requirements, and campus binge drinking. It has been documented in detail, affects a large proportion of the students in colleges, and is a disgrace.

The Department of Education, with decades of student loans and scholarships for university education, has not just been complicit in this evolution of the B.A. It has been its enabler. The size of these programs is immense. In 2010, the federal government issued new loans totaling $125 billion. It handed out more than eight million Pell Grants totaling more than $32 billion dollars. Absent this level of intervention, the last three decades would have seen a much healthier evolution of post-secondary education that focused on concrete job credentials and courses of studies not constricted by the traditional model of the four-year residential college. The absence of this artificial subsidy would also have let market forces hold down costs. Defenders of the Department of Education can unquestionably make the case that its policies have increased the number of people going to four-year residential colleges. But I view that as part of the Department of Education’s indictment, not its defense.

In short, the Department of Education, while maybe needed to help in desegregation is no longer needed, has made education worsen, and it is not Constitutional.

Exit video’s:

Watch these two short videos of Juan Williams and Michael Medved being interviewed by Warner Todd Huston on the state of our schools and the Department of Education:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As a country boy with six years of formal schooling, I am hardly the one to question the role of intellectuals in politics; however, after reading an article by Gary Gutting in the New York Times, I am reminded of a university professor who asked me to help him with a mule problem.

I love mules, but you must be careful with a mule, they can kick with lethal force if they feel they have been offended. Since most of my career with horses has been directed more toward sorting out human problems, rather than equine problems, I was a little apprehensive at the prospect of trying to help this professor and his mule. To be honest, professors tend to be among the least capable in matters dealing with animals and simple everyday problems. Problems that men of humble origins and trades can often solve with little or no deliberation, often baffle learned men, who tend to struggle with theory and morality rather than simple and obvious solutions.

In my youth, I helped several professors who wanted to be closer to the past and nature by owning and riding a horse. Fair enough, everyone needs an excuse for owning these expensive beasts, and seeking some elemental force of nature, makes as much sense as the rest of the excuses. However, mules often have a proclivity for exacting revenge on the human race for perceived injustices of a past life; therefore, I believe, mules are best handled by bona fide mule men, not university professors living in nineteenth century log houses, who want to get in touch with their roots (human not tree), but I heard a calling to help my fellow man and I saw an opportunity to make a few bucks.

I rode my Triumph motorcycle out through the country and enjoyed the colors of fall. I marveled at the beauty of the hardwood leaves after the frosts had killed them, and arrived at the professor’s farm with more than a little trepidation for what might lay ahead, hoping I wouldn’t end up like the colorful leaves.

The professor was glad to see me and dropped the standard pretensions of a tenured professor with condescension for all those who speak with country accents and wear cowboy boots. He seemed to be almost childlike in his excitement at my presence. He was proud of his farm, a former homestead, it was over 150 years old. Some poor homesteader had put his whole life into this 160 acres, a quarter section that at best, could barely yield forty bushels of topsoil an acre, it had never grown a decent crop and today it was a struggle to grow a garden, but it had once again, grown another crop of hard wood trees. But the professor owned it now, and it was a beautiful farm, despite not having crops or pasture.

He showed me, his log barn, his fine harness carriage, his buckboard, and his mule Emily. It was a match made in heaven; he loved the mule and the mule loved him. Emily was a mule that had never been abused by cruel hands and she was a model citizen. I had worried over problems that didn’t exist.

While the professor gushed over his mule and his farm, I began to wonder why I had been summoned to this farm. Everything seemed perfect, far better than most equine situations I am called to visit. The professor finally had to take a break in his speech to catch his wind and I asked why he needed me.

He apologized and said,”I need you to raise the front door of the barn.”

I was once known as a guy who could or at least try to do anything around a farm or ranch, but this seemed like ann odd request. It was an old square log barn and had large blocks of limestone located in strategic spots for a foundation. It was a good system, but not really designed to last a 150 years; the blocks had settled a little deeper every spring during the rains, and now the barn was a little lower than normal, but still high enough to function well. I tried to tell the professor the height of the lintel was well within the realm of reason, but he was agitated that I couldn’t grasp the seriousness of the problem.

He said I would need to see the problem myself, and put a halter with a lead shank on Emily and led her through the front door of the barn. I’ve only worked with thirty or forty mules, so I don’t really know if this is typical mule behavior, but when she walked through the door, she carried her ears straight up and rubbed them against the oak lintel of the door. As a horseman, I have been asked to deal with some bizarre problems, but this didn’t really seem to be a serious problem.

When I told the professor my feelings, he was incredulous, “Don’t you realize, she will wear the hair off her ears.” He showed me a vague strip of wear on the front of her ears. I wasn’t totally convinced that the perceived wear of the mule’s ears and the lintel were related, but some arguments aren’t really worth getting started.

I explained that the lintel over the door of the well made dove tailed barn was a special log, chosen for its strength, grain, and straightness. If I sawed into the log, we might be inviting trouble by compromising strength at a critical spot, that spot being the span over the door.

He was lost in deep thought over this information being added and causing complications to this unique predicament. I broke the silence by saying, “There is a much easier solution.”

With a look of incredulous exasperation, he twisted his lips to the side of his face, to hear my solution, “I can dig a trench about eight inches deep in the dirt beneath the door.”

He looked at me like I was an idiot and said, “It’s not her damn feet I’m worried about, it’s her ears.”

This professor considered himself an intellectual, and to him, I was but a mere tradesman of mortal lineage. True to the myopia of philosophy, his only concern was the ears of the mare, and he was determined to reach a conclusion by employing critical thinking: I was limited, by nature of an inferior intellect to solutions not based in theory and critical thinking, but to those related to real and practical solutions.

Mr Gutting is a professor of philosophy at Notre Dame; and is convinced of the superiority of critical thinking, but fails to mention the utter failure of the Obama Administration, an administration made up exclusively of critical thinkers from academia. Yet, after this stark demonstration of dismal failure by critical thinkers, we are supposed to be reassured by Mr Gutting’s self-serving arrogance, that seeks to legitimize a personal image of importance, after all, he writes for The Stone, “A forum for contemporary philosophers on issues both timely and timeless.”

With unabashed arrogance, Gary assures us of his intelligence, by informing us that he is among the most august of critical thinkers, “I’m an intellectual myself”; it’s just possible, that within this particular oxymoronic phrase, may be a clue to this deviant personality that is currently running amuck in government and in a permanent state of denial as to the charges of incompetence and corruption. Denial has become more than a river in Egypt, it is an endemic example of hubris among the not so bright intellectuals, currently in serving in the Obama Administration, who are teetering above the abyss of failure and humiliation.

From the nimble but dull fingers of Gutting and the pages of the NYT:

What is an intellectual? In general, someone seriously devoted to what used to be called the “life of the mind”: thinking pursued not instrumentally, for the sake of practical goals, but simply for the sake of knowing and understanding. Nowadays, universities are the most congenial spots for intellectuals, although even there corporatism and careerism are increasing threats.

It is such a joy, to read of someone describing himself as an intellectual, who writes with such finesse and precision. I am reminded of a cowardly man doing battle with a bed of rattle snakes while armed with a grub hoe. After reading this pregnant phrase of many vectors, “someone seriously devoted to what used to be called the” it’s obvious that intellectuals aren’t required or expected to write well. For reference, we know Hemingway was the master of the simple and concise sentence, and Melville was a genius with the complex double and triple entente; may we assume Gary Gutting is the champion of lost and bewildered adverbial phrases.

It would be easy enough to eviscerate Gary Gutting on the merits of his writing ability and embarrass him in front of his peers and anyone else who can read, but it is his message we seek. For if there is a protasis within this fart, stumble, fall style of writing, it evades the reader. For while his prose delights the ear of those who crave the mundane and boring, his adverbs assault our dignity in a relentless pursuit of relevance, but like the dog chasing its tail, his periphrasis becomes his catharsis. Relating to Aristotle, in Chapter VI of Poetics, “Tragedy through pity and fear effects a purgation of such emotions.”

Gary Gutting is primarily concerned with Newt or more precisely, fear of Newt. Newt is a bit of a problem for Leftists; oh fear not, they have excess baggage charges and they are ready to confront and dun him for back payments, but that is not the strategic issue. The prospect of an empty suit engaging Newt in debate is the terrifying issue. Oh dear, it brings to mind the great defeats of history, Stalingrad, Waterloo, The Little Big Horn. There is always the excitement of the contest beforehand, and the first few minutes when hope still springs eternal, before that same hope becomes a forlorn hope, but it is only a matter of time, before they are faced with the inevitable prospect of annihilation and utter defeat.

How best to neutralize the prospect of a witless pseudo-intellectual champion being embarrassed in the arena of ideas and indirectly casting aspersions toward all those who say with arrogance and condescension, “I’m an intellectual myself”; there is a simple solution, impress upon everyone, that intellectualism is a collective team effort of critical thought and that is how ignorance must be defeated. One man can’t be expected to lead a country; he needs a gaggle clueless intellectuals.

Unfortunately, Newt doesn’t need a team for a debate or a teleprompter, and pitting him against a fool who seems to be bewildered without his faithful teleprompter, will be like slaughtering lambs in an abattoir. A scene that doubtless will cause even the most cold blooded Socialist to admit the futility of resisting the epiplexis of a Newt/Hussein comedic tragedy.

Poor Gary, in an attempt to establish credibility as an intellectual and advance his vague aphorisms, he tries to use the obligatory and token reference to poor Plato, a man who understood the inherent weakness of adverbs and relied as little as possible on the ancients for guidance. We can assume that Gary not only understands the Cliff Notes version of Plato, but he is not afraid or reluctant to employ a deluge of adverbs.

In his “Republic,” Plato put forward the ideal of a state ruled by intellectuals who combined comprehensive theoretical knowledge with the practical capacity for applying it to concrete problems. In reality, no one has theoretical expertise in more than a few specialized subjects, and there is no strong correlation between having such knowledge and being able to use it to resolve complex social and political problems. Even more important, our theoretical knowledge is often highly limited, so that even the best available expert advice may be of little practical value. An experienced and informed non-expert may well have a better sense of these limits than experts strongly invested in their disciplines. This analysis supports the traditional American distrust of intellectuals: they are not in general highly suited for political office.

We now know that in a politically correct world, we need intellectuals to prescribe correct thinking and appreciation; otherwise, we might lose ourselves in original thought processes.

Intellectuals tell us things we need to know: how nature and society work, what happened in our past, how to analyze concepts, how to appreciate art and literature. They also keep us in conversation with the great minds of our past. This conversation may not, as some hope, tap into a source of enduring wisdom, but it at least provides a critical standpoint for assessing the limits of our current cultural assumptions.

Read his entire article if you must, but be prepared to ask yourself why tuition must continue to rise for your children and grandchildren, and will this dubious degree they seek at such expense, teach them to write with the clarity of Gary Gutting or will they be able to maintain the skills they acquired in high school.

But it does not support the anti-intellectualism that tolerates or even applauds candidates who disdain or are incapable of serious engagement with intellectuals. Good politicians need not be intellectuals, but they should have intellectual lives. Concretely, they should have an ability and interest in reading the sorts of articles that appear in, for example, Scientific American, The New York Review of Books, and the science, culture and op-ed sections of major national newspapers — as well as the books discussed in such articles.

It’s often said that what our leaders need is common sense, not fancy theories. But common-sense ideas that work in individuals’ everyday lives are often useless for dealing with complex problems of society as a whole. For example, it’s common sense that government payments to the unemployed will lead to more jobs because those receiving the payments will spend the money, thereby increasing demand, which will lead businesses to hire more workers. But it’s also common sense that if people are paid for not working, they will have less incentive to work, which will increase unemployment. The trick is to find the amount of unemployment benefits that will strike the most effective balance between stimulating demand and discouraging employment. This is where our leaders need to talk to economists.

Knowing how to talk to economists and other experts is an essential skill of good political leaders. This in turn requires a basic understanding of how experts in various fields think and what they might have to offer for resolving a given problem. Leaders need to be intelligent “consumers” of expert opinions.

According to Gary Gutting the intellectual philosopher, our leaders should now, not only be intelligent consumers of intellectual thought but must read the Leftist dogma of Scientific American, the New York Review of Books, and effete pseudo-intellectual rags like the New York Times, but they must also have the ability to listen to monotonous circumlocution and derive a pretense of meaning from gibberish. Intellectuals are now to be elevated to a higher standing, not only in the community, but more importantly in government and leadership. For now, they will advise and direct our leadership so they can make intelligent decisions and we are left with the story of Emily’s ears.

Come and play
Everything’s A-OK
Friendly neighbors there
That’s where we meet

Can you tell me how to get
How to get to Entitlement Street

Absolutely nothing is sacred

A “food insecure” Muppet is helping to promote a national “Food for Thought” campaign that teaches poor families to seek out nutritious food and to eat on the taxpayers’ tab.

At the National Press Club on Thursday, Lily the Muppet – who worries about her family not having enough money to feed her properly — pitched free food at school:

“Sometimes we can’t always afford to buy all the food that we need,” Lily said. “I mean, but we’ve been finding lots of ways that we can get help…Yeah, for example, at school I get a free breakfast and a lunch…part of the meal plan.”

Lily’s message is being circulated through schools, hospitals and food assistance programs as part of Sesame Street’s “Food for Thought” multi-media campaign, which includes DVDs and a booklet listing “services that can assist your family” as well as “referrals to social service agencies.”

Organizers say they have produced a million of the kits.

At the National Press Club on Thursday, the Rev. Douglas Greenaway of the National WIC (Women, Infants and Children) Association lauded Sesame Street’s ‘Food For Thought’ campaign – even linking it to federal deficit-reduction.

“What ‘Food For Thought’ does is remind people that eating healthy now gives them a good health outcome in the long term. So the folks you’re looking at up here, the programs that they represent, what ‘Food For Thought’ does is really a deficit reduction strategy, and we hope policymakers will take notice of that,” Greenaway said.

Greenaway didn’t elaborate further on how this would work towards deficit reduction.

An aside:

Bert and Ernie derive from characters in the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life.” Bert was the cop and Ernie was the cab driver.

The original Bert and Ernie

The following video offers a bit more context than the video clip that’s gone viral:

Click here to view the embedded video.

At least in this clip you can see a bit of what was going on prior to the police using oc sprays to try and disperse the students.

So what other alternative recourse should the UC police have taken? The students were certainly given fair warning.

HuffPo:

Charles J. Kelly, a former Baltimore Police Department lieutenant who wrote the department’s use of force guidelines, said pepper spray is a “compliance tool” that can be used on subjects who do not resist, and is preferable to simply lifting protesters.

“When you start picking up human bodies, you risk hurting them,” Kelly said. “Bodies don’t have handles on them.”

After reviewing the video, Kelly said he observed at least two cases of “active resistance” from protesters. In one instance, a woman pulls her arm back from an officer. In the second instance, a protester curls into a ball. Each of those actions could have warranted more force, including baton strikes and pressure-point techniques.

“What I’m looking at is fairly standard police procedure,” Kelly said.

What I find to be ridiculous is any comparison of “brave” students and supporters of the Occupy movements to brave protesters of the so-called “Arab Spring” uprisings; and also to how those in authority deal with the protests. I bet Syrians and Iranians would have much preferred OC sprays to what they’ve been experiencing at the hands of their government’s police and military.

Did the students have a more preferable means of being forcefully removed than what they experienced?

The OWS Is A Celebration Of The Ongoing Train Wreck Of The Obama Presidency

In a cartoonish caricature of himself, columnist Paul Krugman, of the NYT, has written a rambling and unfocused apology for the incoherence of the Occupy Wall Street comedy, in a lame attempt to steal the energy of the mindless mob. Borrowing the first two lines from a popular 1967 song, by Stills of Buffalo Springfield, Krugman begins his clownish attempt of a unifying message for the mob by clumsily injecting his personal prejudices in a vague but obvious method, thereby parroting a nonexistent voice of leadership to the rebellion without direction, by offering some helpful if flaccid finger pointing.

There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.

By employing the first line of the first verse, as his opening sentence, Krugman accomplished considerably more than in the entirety of his uninspiring article. The first sentence reads, “There’s something happening here”; indeed, there is the potential for a mob, a mob without direction or intellect to guide it in a particular direction. A point illustrated by the second line of the song and this phrase of the second sentence, “What it is ain’t exactly clear,” this was the high watermark of Krugman’s article and with a nice closing sentence, it could have been considered a great article. For the true purpose of the OWS movement and of Krugman “ain’t exactly clear” isn’t exactly clear, except for the efforts of the Left to co-opt a movement without a message as a populist movement of their own to counter the concise and effective message of the TEA Party.

Paranoia strikes deep and it is hard to counter a message that resonates clearly with the public and cuts dangerously close to the corrupt and incompetent heart of the Democrat movement like a razor sharp blade between the ribs working ever closer to that same heart.

If we analyze that first verse further, we see why Krugman pulled up early with his metaphor: “I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound? Everybody look what’s going down.” While the first two lines were an alliteration of Krugman’s covert premise, the last two lines illustrate the pathetic and impotent nature of a movement without direction.

There’s something happening here.
What it is ain’t exactly clear.
There’s a man with a gun over there,
Telling me I got to beware.
I think it’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down.

The most glaring inconsistency of the OWS mob is not that they fail to note the corruption and greed of Wall Street, no they are obviously upset with the corruption of Wall Street, but they fail to note the symbiotic relationship of that same greed and corruption of Wall Street with Obama, the messiah of Socialism. Of course Obama campaigned on a platform of ending this corruption and of correcting the injustices inflicted upon the common man, but remember, he sends young people text messages when the elections are on the horizon, a real reason to vote for the man.

The second verse could have been used more effectively by Krugman, but we are here to bury him not to help him. For “There’s battle lines being drawn;” unfortunately, when we look at the overwhelming whining of the young protesters, the common complaint of oppressive student loans comes through quite clearly.

Now why are there problems with student loans? Sympathy from a man who worked as a welder at night and a horse shoer on weekends to go to college during the week won’t be forthcoming, for he who has seen the carefree attitude of the non-disciplined college student who wasted time and money on degrees that benefited no one in particular and can be contemptuous of those who have time and resources to attend protests during college as if they were rock concerts.

Yet, people stand in line to attend college, partially to avoid responsibility, adulthood, and that ever looming dark cloud called work; all justified by the Peter Pan syndrome of avoidance of work and a mature life. To what purpose do they attend these colleges, the observer is bound to ask, oh, but to prepare them for some non-dirtying of the hands type job that will allow them to repay their student loans quickly and join that same society they are now condemning. To acquire a home, a mate, two SUVs or tin cans on wheels according to their moral compass, these are the goals, but because of this damned economy and the fact that Obama can’t manage to transform us into a Socialist Utopia, their dreams seem unobtainable.

Yes, “Young people speaking their minds,” right after having the last parental diapers of protection pulled is at the heart of the matter, they are quick to bemoan their woes while reaching out to commiserate their misery in a mournful dirge of despair, “Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.” The collective grief and anguish pleas find little sympathy among those with forty years of work behind them, who now face the loss of everything. Many of whom have never had the opportunity to gambol about on one of the country clubs of senseless and impractical learning, in a magical time warp of leisure and social excess; being faced with that ever nagging force of increasing principles on student loans and the inevitable hopelessness of a job search during an Obama Economy and the very real possibility that potential employers might not regard them with the same esteem they feel they deserve for working so hard at a degree that is considered by many employers to be of dubious value in the mean world of reality. Therefore, the whole country should, “look what’s going down,” the world is being mean to them; mommy and daddy didn’t prepare them for this life, not the cold hard realities of this life. The realities of actually holding down a job instead of the hedonism of a continual search for improvement and self-awareness are not exactly why they attended these expensive universities.

There’s battle lines being drawn.
Nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.
Young people speaking their minds,
Getting so much resistance from behind.
It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down.

Krugman’s liberalism needs virtuous zealots to carry forth the banners of Socialism, so what if they are nonsensical and witless poets in rags; they are taking a stand and God knows there are precious few willing to stand with Obama these days.

From Krugman’s feeble attempt at subversion, he uses the classic three part play to illustrate his anemic and pathetic plea:

In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending. In the second act, the bubbles burst — but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the bankers’ sins. And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had saved them, throwing their support — and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts — behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations erected in the aftermath of the crisis.

I seem to remember Obama bailing out the bankers with obscene amounts of taxpayer dollars, Krugman must have run short of ink or he would have mentioned that inconvenient fact. Is it convenient to leave out how Rubin rewrote the bank rules and of Obama’s declaration that the banks were too big to fail? Let’s not mention that Cuomo made predatory lending legal. It is awkward to mention that Clinton opted not to regulate derivatives. The Occupy Wall Street group will become confused if they know that Democrats securitized the bogus loans at Fannie and Freddy. That Goldman and Sachs, Obama’s main corporate supported and one of the beneficiaries of obscene amounts of Obama’s stimulus, packaged and sold worthless debt as high value securities. All made possible, because they own Obama. No these are inconvenient facts, it is far better not let the crowd suffer from Aristotle’s anagnorisis described so well in “Poetic’s” as the instant when ignorance gives way to truth. No Krugman is perfectly willing to pimp for the Democrat Party and lie to the mob, telling them what he thinks they want to hear while the potential for rage over perceived social injustice increases. Little do these people of little cerebral capacity or experience realize that all of middle class America is suffering under the imposition of the Socialist Regime of Obama; they may rightly feel they have no future, the overwhelming majority is watching their lifetime investments of work and money eroding away into oblivion. Krugman implores them to jump on board and complete the transformation of America into a Socialist Dystopia and guarantee they will never have a chance of success, but an opportunity of collective mediocrity.

Krugman tries to soothe the savage beast that resides within the heart of every mob and expresses the oft-repeated premise of the Elite that guides every Useful Idiot and mindless lemming hiding within the collective of the faithful.

A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to see enacted. But we shouldn’t make too much of the lack of specifics. It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.

How reassuring to those who sleep on the side walks, intellectuals and politicians will show the way just trust in us: “It’s clear what kinds of things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it’s really the job of policy intellectuals and politicians to fill in the details.”

For the witless Useful Idiots who were laughed at by Stalin, theirs is not to think, but to follow the whims of intellectuals and politicians, forget those ridiculous attempts at eduction and knowledge, lest you suffer a crippling attack of anagnorisis and be of little or no use to the movement, for if ignorance gives way to truth the movement will be doomed. Remember the words to the song:

What a field day for the heat.
A thousand people in the street,
Singing songs and carrying signs,
Mostly say, “Hooray for our side.”
It’s time we stop, hey, what’s that sound?
Everybody look what’s going down.

“A thousand people in the street, Singing songs and carrying signs, Mostly say ‘Hooray for our side’.” This is all you need to do, trust in the Elites and we will grant you a life and guide you through the dark scary forest of life.

Fortunately, the Left and the New York Times has intellectual lightweights like Krugman for guidance; otherwise, the country could be in far worse shape with the mounting anger of our worsening economic situation being directed at the party that has controlled approximately one fourth of the legislative government, for nine months, rather the party that controls the Executive and the Senate and controlled it all for two years of this debacle. Yes rather than ridicule our opposition we should be thankful they are so clueless in the arena of ideas.

NASA scientists are hoping a bus sized satellite will disintegrate on reentry and people won’t be run down by their dead climate satellite that they presumably used to contribute to the Anthropomorphic Global Warming hysteria. It will land today, but by using the same mathematical skills they employed in the Left’s political ploy to weaken the US and redistribute its’ wealth among developing countries like China, they don’t have a clue as to where to reserve a parking space for their dead orbiting climate change bus.

NASA gained valuable insight and a sense of relief into the parking issue on Thursday, when they decided the bus sized satellite would miss the Western Hemisphere, saving them the hassles of litigation in an LA or NY civil law court. The prospect of a confrontation in a Liberal court that has no tort reform must be frightening to the wizards at NASA.

NASA maintains that predicting a returning satellite’s return, is unlike future climate and weather predictions, in that it is an imprecise science; but like the weather, it will be much easier to predict just before it happens.

The bus sized satellite is expected to disintegrate into 26 pieces of metal scrap; only the largest pieces, in the 300 pound category, will be expected to survive reentry temperatures caused by friction. Since three fourths of the world is water, the odds are in their favor as far as causing injuries and death.

The odds of a human being hit by a piece of space junk is 3,200 to one, considerably better odds than Americans bet against to win lotteries. If you are worried about your own ass and not the rest of the world, the odds improve dramatically to 1 in 21 trillion. Still those old bomb shelters from the 50′s could become useful once again.

NASA takes on the responsibilities of a nanny by warning us not to touch the pieces of a downed satellite, because they could be sharp. See how an ever thoughtful government agency can watch out for its’ people like a benevolent dictator.

Modern satellites are equipped with steering mechanisms and a reserve fuel cell that can put them into a different orbit or careening into the infinite of space or into one of our oceans.

There are approximately 22,000 pieces of junk and satellites orbiting the earth and the possibilities of human injury are much less than a short ride on one of our highways. Reentry predictions are like a government space exploration agency becoming involved in the Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam, they are laughable, unless you are one of the hysterical heavy breathers of the Left. There have been two Russian satellites reenter the atmosphere this year and no one noticed, but NASA in an effort to encourage people to take due diligence and to make headlines, issued a press release. LOL

There is an old proverb in the country that is used to describe a man who wastes time and can’t get any thing done. It is said, “He runs around like a man in a silo looking for a corner to piss in.” Our president often reminds me of such a man; although it can be argued he flaunts our traditional system by making the EPA regulations into his own form of tyranny.

President Obama has just sent an email to his supporters, a group growing smaller and consequently requiring less cyber ink with the passage of time.

Obama claims to have a plan to get America back to work and he is asking for a joint session of congress to explain the plan.

He explains that it is ultimately up to congress to implement his plan and do what they were elected to do; apparently, in his opinion they were elected to be his rubber stamp.

Friend –

Today I asked for a joint session of Congress where I will lay out a clear plan to get Americans back to work.

Next week, I will deliver the details of the plan and call on lawmakers to pass it. Whether they will do the job they were elected to do is ultimately up to them.

But both you and I can pressure them to do the right thing. We can send the message that the American people are playing by the rules and meeting their responsibilities—and it’s time for our leaders in Congress to meet theirs. And we must hold them accountable if they don’t.

So I’m asking you to stand with me in calling on Congress to step up and take action on jobs:

http://my.barackobama.com/Time-To-Act

No matter how things go in the weeks and months ahead, this will be an important challenge for our organization.

It’s been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on. I know that you’re frustrated by that. I am, too. That’s why I’m putting forward a set of bipartisan proposals to help grow the economy and create jobs—that means strengthening our small businesses, giving needed breaks to middle-class families, while taking responsible steps to bring down our deficit. I’m asking lawmakers to look past short-term politics and take action on that plan. But we’ve got to do this together.

I will deliver this message to Congress next week, but I’m asking you to stand alongside me today:

http://my.barackobama.com/Time-To-Act

More to come,

Barack

I am sure the witless hordes are waiting breathlessly for marching orders from Dear Reader and I am sure they are impressed with the personal message that was written by one of his erudite saps he keeps around for the trivial and mundane tasks, like writing a note that people can read and understand.

He is on the ropes. He wasted two years with a health care plan that is a debacle and will hopefully be rewritten or thrown down the outhouse hole, and while he tied his useless and fiscally ruinous dream around the neck of the American public, he ignored the job crisis. Now he takes a public relations nightmare of an elitist vacation in a $50,000 a week resort, expecting America to pick up the tab and with total arrogance he and his wife fly out on separate jets spaced three hours apart, but in all fairness, he was concentrating on a plan to put America to work and his golf game. After giving our Affirmative Action President the benefit of the doubt for two years, it is time to unload on this dilettante who lives the life of luxury while unemployment edges closer to double digits.

He is blaming congress for his own inability to do something constructive, after he had control of both houses for two years.

He can run in circles for the next 14 months, but there are no magic corners in that silo of stupidity and arrogance.

The rhetoric is starting to boil and Liberal Maxine Waters is more than willing to take the lead. With wit and candor, she displays the intellect and syntax she is known for, during a speech in Inglewood, California.

The object of her criticism and scorn was the Tea Party. Her speech is trying to light the fires of racism and class warfare.

Maxine is not enjoying the ehics investigation.

Click here to view the embedded video.

“I’m not afraid of anybody,”

Click here to view the embedded video.

The California congresswoman stands as an example of independence of thought and action after she scolded President Obama for touring White communities in his bus, while Blacks were suffering from high rates of unemployment. She is obviously not backing down from her criticism. She told President Obama the Black community is tired and there was an implied threat that Blacks were not necessarily going to vote for him if he doesn’t come through for them.

“This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned — the tea party can go straight to hell.”

The speech was prompted with cheers from the audience, many of whom were wearing the purple SEIU T-shirts.

Maxine may be having problems with her knickers because of other issues. Her delayed ethics trial is not over, the fat lady may yet get a chance to sing.

In the mean time, her ideological leader is courting Whites in hay fields and driving her to distraction.

She has power and yet, her boss allowing this investigation to continue.

She and her voters need money and lots of it or there will be Hell to pay. The message is clear, but is the arrogant Narcissist listening?

Click here to view the embedded video.

There are problems in Liberal Land and the Loony Tunes are on edge; it’s going to be fun watching the Democrats implode.

Captain America Dreams Of Power

Senator John Kerry, “Captain America” Democrat from MA, has validated the Liberal Media’s one sided coverage of political debate. On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday Kerry insisted that the media has a moral obligation not to give equal time or credence to TEA Party philosophy.

With a blatant call for tyranny, Captain America, AKA John Kerry seems oblivious of his call for suspension of fundamental liberties.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: “And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it’s exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual.”

“It doesn’t deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what’s real, of who’s accountable, of who is not accountable, of who’s real, who isn’t, who’s serious, who isn’t?”

After the TEa Party representatives have been called terrorists and hostage takers, many americans are left wondering what Democrat leadership has in store for the TEA party through its propaganda outlets.

Sadly, it is probably not so much of a coordinated movement, but merely an act of desperation and fear by politicians who worry that they may have a short lease of their careers.