Opposing Viewpoints https://conservativerefocus.com/blogs/index.php?blog=13&tempskin=_atom b2evolution 2021-10-20T19:51:16Z The Rise of the Co-Opticons: A Rebuttal to George Will's "Prepare for the End of GOP if Trump Wins" Barry https://conservativerefocus.com/blogs/index.php/2015/12/28/the-rise-of-the-co-opticons-a-rebuttal-to-george-will-s-prepare-for-the-end-of-gop-if-trump-wins 2015-12-28T23:58:00Z 2016-11-29T20:18:59Z  

 

Conservative Refocus 

By Barry Secrest


The GOP, at long last, has finally found its long-sought-after winner, but there's one monumental problem; he's not in "The Club," and despite numerous invitations by the Elitists, who now find themselves occupying a once and future vacuum, the invitations have gone unanswered-- long filed in Trump's 24kt gold-plated litter bin, unopened.

It's been downright amusing to watch the entire debacle unfold like some bizarre Bohemian dance gone terribly awry, as the fire of the GOP's political alchemy-class grows exponentially out of control.

 

 
The wizened and gnarled old owls of the Republican party can only look on and hoot in bewildered despondence.

Problem is, no one's listening...

Moreover, why should folks listen when these establishment pundits rarely if ever get it right, these days?

Oh, their opinions are often right on the mark, but when it comes down to hammering down the right thing to do or panic, and go with the flow, guys like Krauthammer, Will, Hayes, Goldberg, Brooks and far too many others, to name a few, at least these days, choose the wrong fork in the road and simply give in, especially on things like the debt ceiling, amnesty, deficits, and illegals.

However, the game they routinely play is at least close to now being up, for these political class conjurers, as far as their almighty influence goes

Their morose exclamations in July, when Trump first exploded onto the scene, spoke of a quick decollation from the gleaming azure guillotine controlled by a now corrupt and co-opted media, not fully understanding that their decapitation machine had now lost its gleaming shank.

Their bravado, a hysterical gibbering that the 'MadHatter from Manhatten' would soon be finding his political comeuppance has now gone quiet, replaced by something more akin to a symphony of whining and simpering.

How dare he of the ill-political sect even think to run up the score while utilizing the "pitchfork and torch" unwashed who need only to be chained down, ever more tightly. 

George Will and his cadre of semi-conservative Stuka-scribes, despite bomb-run after bomb-run, just can't seem to put a dent in Trump's political bunker. So, now it's time to declare outright war and go hand-to-hand in a full on frontal character assault, abandoning the flanking attacks, opting for a Gettysburg styled charge, right up the center.

How uncivilized.....and we all know how that ended.

George Will, in this particular case, begins with a  list of character problems in his column "If Trump wins the nomination, prepare for the end of the conservative party" which we have thoughtfully condensed, since Will serially displays a self-important propensity toward unentertaining wordiness.

In this case, Will tries to point out that Trump contains, pretty much every poor character trait known to human & demonkind.

Writes Will "Is there a disagreeable human trait he[Trump] does not have?" 

He calls Trump "Fundamentally sad" which is a state that most traditional Americans now find themselves in, after 8 years of Obama.

We can identify with that.

He points out Trump's "Evidence of insecurity" which is yet another character trait now undeniable in America's distrust of its increasingly authoritarian government; we can't even seem to buy enough guns.

So, it goes without saying that we can also identify with that.

He calls into question Trump's "Eagerness to be petted"--as if most presidential candidates evince a more self-deprecating and self-loathing tone, in order to un-win electioneering votes, apparently.

Hey, if Trump's not convinced he's great, how can he possibly convince us? See George Bush, for this example.

But, as far as an eagerness to be petted, George Will can certainly identify with that, after the scads of angry emails both he and semi-turn-coat Krauthammer have lately received, and by the way, what is it with these guys & their incessant TV appearances? Does that also not evidence a sore need to be petted and approved of ?

Will even contraindicates that Trump "Reveled in the approval of Vladimir Putin, murderer and war criminal."

Er.....now wait a minute, are any of these character flaws even on the seven deadly sins list? Oh, and I only count three, officially, which either speaks to Will's dearth of known character flaws or the fact that he resides firmly in the inner-beltway, where character flaws now, more often than not, count as political medallions.

But, shall we point out any other presidential candidate praised by other world leaders?

Hillary, who appears to be Will's almost-favorite candidate, probably shouldn't be included, since she's apparently used the US State Department to gin up billions in fraudulent donations to her Clinton Foundation slop-fund, that no one wishes to talk about, certainly not, George Will.

We do know that Muslims love Obama, along with other Mideast monarchies, so, should Trump now angle for the Mussie vote too, to gain Will's approval? Don't hold your breath on that one.

Then Will points out what Putin stated of Trump:

"Very . . . talented" Trump’s promise of “closer, deeper relations,”

So, is that now like a bad thing? To somehow achieve peace with the Russians via America's potential future leader, while simultaneously heading off WW3, or does the old political class now find that particular prospect of a world utterly devoid of WW3, with Russia, completely unthinkable? 

George Will then actually channels Obama's MSNBC political hacks as if MSNBC were the be-all-end-all in responsible journalism.

George Will: "Joe Scarborough said Putin “kills journalists, political opponents and invades countries,”

Well, there you go! Then it simply must be true.  Should we now declare war on Putin, George, or can it wait?

Will, it should be noted, points out Putin's unproven killing of Russian journalists, while Will probably doesn't even know of journalists like Michael Hastings, of the Rolling Stone, or maybe Andrew Breitbart, and even Michael Cormier, Breitbart's coroner, among numerous others considered mortal & dangerous enemies of the Obama regime, if not political class, who're now dead under questionable circumstances.

But, it is fascinating how Will pays little if any attention to the suspiciously dead journalists in America, while being quick to bring up those rumored in Russia, or, do things not reported in the mainstream media resound much like trees falling in uninhabited forests?

We won't even go into the invasion of countries, part....none of which Will has ever mentioned, at least not with regard to the US political establishment's culpable invasionary predisposition, anyway.

Will continues:

"Until now, Trump’s ever-more-exotic effusions have had an almost numbing effect. Almost. But by his embrace of Putin, and by postulating a slanderous moral equivalence —Trump has forced conservatives to recognize their immediate priority."

In fact, the truly "mind-numbing issue" we Americans find wholly disagreeable is when our former paper-hanging heroes of the Conservative movement, like George Will, are found out to be mere political pawns in the ongoing power plays of the inner-beltway.

We haven't changed, it's they, that have, or have they?

Will has now officially launched a painfully unwearying attack on Trump, while forever ignoring the ill-suitedness of Hillary Clinton to be commander-in-chief, or maybe Will thinks to wait, to launch his unwithering invective upon her, at some astoundingly distant date?

Maybe post-election, perhaps?

We could even throw in the fact that a large number of Americans, at least, respect authoritarian Putin for being true to his national origins, a thing that has seemingly been deep-sixed by many of our own leaders, here in America.

Will, in dour retrospect, and pundits much like him, appear to now be angling for the sash worn by "UN World Citizens" who have largely eschewed the red, white, and blue exceptionalism of America in her heydaythat being any time before Obama was elected.

They of the elite who simply know better, with their "common core" and "climate change" mumbo-jumbo.

Will continues, now, into an abyss of uninteresting, if not mindless points:

First from Will:

"Conservatives consider it crucial to deny the Democratic Party a third consecutive term controlling the executive branch."

Exactly, which is why we have elected to jettison the opining of a co-opted political & punditry class, which operates in much the same theorizing way as the Democrat party-pundits, of old.

Second, according to Will :

"Conservatives’ highest priority now must be to prevent Trump from winning the Republican nomination in this, the GOP’s third epochal intraparty struggle in 104 years."

Ah yes, there it is, spoken like a true establishment-class stalwart, the one man who, so far, has been voted as the one who could easily win it all, in Trump--much like Gingrich, in 2012-- must not be elected, or else.

Where have we heard this before--folks?

It's not that Trump, who appears to be decidedly more Conservative than Will's last pick, Mitt Romney (you know, the architect of Obamacare, and the guy who actually evinced all of the things that they're now accusing Trump of being) The problem is simply one of being that Trump cannot be bought and is thereby significantly uninfluenceable, a thing that literally scares the pants off the political class.

Trump's not in "the Club."

Third point, from Will:

"A Trump nomination would not just mean another Democratic presidency. It would also mean the loss of  a conservative party as a constant presence in U.S. politics. It is possible Trump will not win any primary, and that by the middle of March our long national embarrassment will be over."

Don't bet on it, our bowtie-wearing little envy-green erudite friend.

How, in the Sam-Hill, could anyone possibly even entertain the fact that the modern-day GOP is even remotely conservative?

We have given everything away, to Barack Hussein Obama, and now, not even that's enough. Now Will wants to give the political class the ideological shirt-off-our-back, as well, it would seem, and all it took was that dinner with Obama, and the usual suspects, at his house? Talk about a cheap date....

When Will, and other mock-Neo-Conservatives wax Reaganesque "now," they seem to always forget what they said back during Reagan's time "then" (in 1974):

"But Reagan is 63, and looks it.

His hair is still remarkably free of gray, but around the mouth and neck he looks like an old man.

He’s never demonstrated substantial national appeal.

His hardcore support today consists primarily of the kamikaze conservatives who thought the 1964 Goldwater campaign was jolly fun.

And there’s a reason to doubt that Reagan is well suited to appeal to the electorate that just produced a Democratic landslide."~ George Will, 1974

My oh my, see what we mean?

But, let's just hypothetically say that Trump does lose and our other last & best hope, in Sen. Ted Cruz, then wins.

Here's what the intellectually floppy, if not ideologically sloppy, George Will had to say of Cruz in early 2015:

“There is no need to nominate Cruz in order to make the GOP conservative. The GOP is conservative, as proved by the disappearance of GOP liberals of the kind that Goldwater himself served with in the Senate."

Will George Will and Herr Krauthammer then wax radiant on the true Conservative headed upon a collision course towards Clinton? Methinks not. You see Cruz is the other candidate that the political class loves to hate, despite the fact that many view Cruz as the second coming of Reagan, both Will and Krauthammer obviously do not.

Will's final point sounds ominously similar to the one he used on Reagan back during the seventies'

"If Trump is the Republican nominee in 2016, there might not be a conservative party in 2020 either."

The funny thing? What in the hell makes George Will actually think that we have a Conservative Republican party in 2015? We've seen old-school Liberals with sunnier conservative dispositions, for Heaven's sake.

Besides, though George Will's "hair is still remarkably free of gray, around the mouth and neck he looks like an old man."

Hmm...I mean seriously, does that extraordinarily shallow argument even sound like an effective point to use on one's political opponent?

Will, it would seem in retrospect, really hasn't changed that much at all. While George Will may not think of himself as the atheistic New World Order Co-opticon that he's somehow made himself into, he plays into the opposition's hands, each and every time.

Will, throughout his writing history, has continually scribed columns in attack after attack of GOP candidates who could win, while offering only piecemeal resistance to the political opposition of the day.

George Will seminally seems to forget that "we go to war with the candidates that we have, rather than the ones that we wish we had," as Donald Rumsfeld, might say.

The only problem being that Will can never seem to settle on anyone, in particular, as president, and most especially since Obama's elevation to the throne.

But, the one other thing that traditional Americans find striking is the very thing that only lends gravity to Trump's attractiveness as a traditional American candidate.

Trump's most virulent attackers, those being the media, the Communist Left, the political class, Progressives, and the globalist elites, all appear to be the same ones that Conservative Americans now loathe with utter contempt, and the feeling seems to be mutual.

The funny thing is, George Will is right in there with all of them, attacking Donald Trump, the supreme frontrunner of the GOP.

Now, isn't that odd?

To most traditional Americans, especially these days, this particular fact makes Trump number one and with a bullet. But, there is that one other thing going towards the intrinsic wisdom of the American voter, who seem to have grown tired of being fooled by grandstanding politicians primarily of the Toastmaster class.

America has now identified the true enemy and that enemy resides in neither the Democrat nor the Republican parties, primarily, rather, the true enemy lies in the political ruling class or what has now become known as "The Establishment" and Trump, as Will and everyone else in the political class has made stridently clear, is not one of them....and that's more than enough for most of us.

 

 

 
]]>
Trump's Shock to The System: A Rebuttal to Peggy Noonan on "Trump's Appeal — and Its Limits" Barry https://conservativerefocus.com/blogs/index.php/a-shock-to-the-system?blog=13 2015-07-14T23:03:00Z 2016-12-25T15:58:21Z

"Sometimes an ill wind feels like a breath of fresh air," writes Establishment GOP columnist Peggy Noonan in the Wall Street Journal on Donald Trump, exhibiting something akin to a fear becoming more and more prevalent among the establishment elites.

It's a thing that we Conservatives find well beyond refreshing....Maybe Trump is "the guy" after all....


Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

He's the man who forced Obama to turn over what amounted to be a highly layered, amateurishly rendered, birth certificate, back during 2011. 

The establishment GOP laughed raucously at Donald Trump's success in that regard, along with most other Progressives; however, Conservatives weren't laughing and still aren't.  

Trump was able to accomplish what no one else was able to do, in politically compelling Obama to give it up, or face the political consequences.

Now--that--ladies and gentlemen, suggests an intrinsic power that belies convention. 

The ( barely) Supreme Court, which has adroitly played the role of cowardly lion in Perpetuum, refused to even touch Obama's birth control case--and not even with your 10-foot pole. This due to their fears of being de-judicialized at the hands of a macro-potent POTUS with a surly attitude.

Obama's birth certificate, as rendered, still proves to be singularly problematic, at best--but now we're past that, with 2016 zooming into the picture, almost fiendishly, and with a constitution that has been battered to the point of easily being mistaken for antique confetti.

Since 2012, Obama has razed the Democrat party to the point that hardly any other serious Democrat wishes to even run for the bully pulpit of presidency, nor is this because they think Hillary is a shoo-in, either. Rather, it's because Obama has effectively cut the heart out of the Democrat party, and yet, no one wishes to admit it. 

With both the House and the Senate and most state governments now being run by Conservatives via various shades of red, the hand-writing is on the wall, for 2016, which also speaks to an extreme over-supply of GOP candidates in the running.

In that vein, one of the establishment GOP's best writers, in Peggy Noonan, with the ever-requisite poor critical thinking skills, has weighed into the mix to confidently smash the Trump-spider, with her delicate little pump.

The only problem being—Donald Trump, at this point, would need a Godzilla-sized stiletto to even put a dent into his undeniably tough hide.

Noonan states of Trump, in her piece at the Wall Street Journal titled "Trump's Appeal--and It's Limits,"  "He has shot up like a rocket since his June announcement but likely has a low ceiling and short staying power."

"He is not as popular with Republicans as Bernie Sanders is with Democrats. Does Mr. Trump ruin the Republican brand? That tends to be the eager question of those who hope he will ruin the Republican brand. But he’s his own brand. He doesn’t call his hotels “Republican Plaza.” He spends much of his time knocking Republicans, setting himself apart from the party and its contenders."

"If he says something stupid and cheap it will reflect on him. If he should say something brilliant and wise it will not redound to the benefit of the GOP. He’ll make things uncomfortable for Republican candidates, who will devise ways of dealing with it. He enjoys disparaging them—they’re “dopes”—and highlighting their weaknesses."

The first problem with Noonan's establishment-escapist mindset might be that fact that she seriously believes that the inner beltway GOP intelligentsia, such as it is, represents the nexus of Republican thought, when it doesn't even come close.

The Establishment Republicans have quickly fallen further and further away from the traditional electorate that put them into their respective posits.  

Under the generous funding of a severely co-opted (pro-illegal alien) US Chamber of Commerce, with its desire for a cheap dilution of US labor in the form of aliens, the GOP leadership has become effectively co-opted.

This, in fact,  is the severe flaw in most of the conventional punditry's thought process--with a leadership consisting off Boehner and McConnell, the base of the party has become just short of enraged at a GOP feudal system that appears to being not much more, now, than Obama's inglorious bastards.

 The GOP leadership has, in effect, become little more than over-compensated waterboys for Obama's leftist diaspora.  Trump is nothing if not a stark contraindication, a dynamic reflection of that part of America still living in reality.

In fact, Trump's telling of the cold hard truth has now become certifiably embarrassing for a GOP which believes that the telling of such truths creates a drag-like effect on the entire party's designs.

"The Republican brand,"( as Noonan calls it) is beginning to look, more and more like those heavily flawed Takata airbags currently under massive recall.

The bags have a tendency to explode in the face of its driving constituents while spewing dangerous shrapnel everywhere.

The faulty airbags are not at all conforming to their intended use, nor are they exhibiting the qualities for which they were initially installed--which sounds almost exactly like the Republican party of today.

Would not the GOP's brand logo be far more accurately represented by an exploding Takata airbag, than anything else, at this point?

The reason Trump sets himself so far apart from the other party contenders belongs merely to the fact that he's unafraid to say what the other contenders are sometimes thinking, assuming at least some few of them actually think for themselves instead of the standard party-think, at sporadic times.

This was made well beyond obvious in a recent exchange between Sean Hannity and former Texas governor Rick Perry.


Hannity was pounding Perry for actually criticizing Trump's illegal alien statements in a recent interview on Hannity's show. The problem with Perry was his attack on Trump, after having stated virtually the same things in 2014, on Hannity's show, before Perry announced his 2016 presidential bid.  

Perry's bid, apparently, necessitated a far less stringent tone, as his more moderate campaign consultants have undoubtedly advised him.

Noonan goes on to state that, "Just by walking into the room he (Trump) lowers the tone.

"His special brand of irresponsibility may prove infectious. Reporters love him because he’s colorful, dramatic, walking-talking clickbait. At the moment, he controls the daily agenda because reporters insist other candidates respond to whatever he says. That will lessen as the novelty diminishes.

On the other hand Mr. Trump will make most of his competitors—certainly all those in the top tier—look, in comparison, measured, thoughtful and mature."

Noonan leaves out a few more needful adjectives for the other candidates--"deceitful, prudish, weak, and ill-suited"--the current crop of candidates, as presented, appear almost foppish, and many reek of the political class, much like cheap strumpets wishing to swath their special bouquet by drenching themselves in Eau de Politico toilette.

The simple fact is that, out of virtually all the GOP candidates, only one had the political grasp to jump to Trump's defense, and that was Ted Cruz, who is currently battling his own personal demons over the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

It appears Cruz was caught in flagrant delicto by his own party base with Obama's cornerstone TPP trade agreement. Cruz remains hidden under Obama's bed --still in complete denial, at least for now, while simultaneously trying to refute his ideology-defying tryst via a latter-day vote of no, to the TPA.

This, after a previously vigorous defense of the TPP that just didn't quite pan out, but, it was a bully effort...

Ted Cruz Joins the Establishment|The Hill

Noonan continues with an acute observation: "None of the candidates will want to take Mr. Trump head-on because he doesn’t play within the margins of traditional political comportment.

"He’s a squid: poke him and get ink all over you. He has the power of the man with nothing to lose. If he won he’d be president. If he loses he’s Donald Trump, only a little more famous. His next show will get even higher ratings. He puts individuals and groups down in a mean and careless way. He has poor impulse control and is never above the fray. He likes to start fights.

See what I mean by a great writer? "He's a squid, poke him and he'll get ink all over you"--now that's just classic.

But, as per usual, Noonan gets it only about half right. Trump's ink is nothing if not the stain of truth, and everybody does indeed know this. It's just that far too many within the political class simply won't say it-- and that's the overall problem with the politics of America, today. 

The vast numbers within America's voter class have grown both sick and tired of being afraid to hurt others’ feelings, which is just another way of being "politically correct." It's what's killing America.  It's free speech, good or bad, wrong or right, and it represents the very core of America's most dynamic liberties.

But just stop for a moment and look at Noonan's word usage: "mean, careless, impulse control, starting fights"--does Noonan think we're still in vacation Bible school, or something? Or, maybe Noonan, much like most of the politics-as-usual crowd, thinks everything is just peachy, and America simply cannot fail, no matter how incompetently she has been led, or is being run.

Mrs. Noonan surely has noted the extraordinary corruption and deep trouble that America currently finds itself within--or does she yet believe, along with her Bilderberger counterparts and Obama, that America needs to be taken down slowly while whispering sweet nothings, in her ear?

That's right, we didn't forget about Noonan's Bilderberger 2012 meeting and it makes pretty much everything Noonan writes suspect, quite frankly. So, it's not surprising the penultimate "innie"--like Peggy Noonan--would outwardly attack Trump, as the classic "outtie," and it will probably make Trump even more attractive to the voting class, quite frankly.

Noonan's logic, faults and all, apparently discounts her own need to start fights, with her attack piece on the top GOP candidate of Donald Trump.  Maybe none of them saw this coming...

Trump does like to start fights, not unlike the other guy who currently holds office, that being Obama.

Maybe the litmus test for presidency should be the one who's unafraid to start a fight. We do want a Conservative who's unafraid to mix it up in a brawl and slug it out, nor do we desire one who wants only to make peace with the other side by longingly reaching across the aisle, to do whatever they want, yet again ala Jeb Bush.

Noonan then goes on to displace her own points, by making one very powerful point for Trump, as if it were a weakness:

"But Donald Trump has a real following, and people make a mistake in assuming his appeal is limited to Republicans. His persona and particular brand of populism have hit a nerve among some independents and moderate Democrats too:

They think he’s real, that he’s under nobody’s thumb, that maybe he’s a big-mouth but he’s a truth-teller. He’s afraid of no one, he’s not politically correct. He’s rich and can’t be bought by some billionaire because he is the billionaire. He’s talking about what people are thinking and don’t feel free to say."

Okay, now we're onto something.

Noonan is essentially conjuring up Reagan, who in the modern-day, she would also be attacking, as being far too plain-spoken and mean, or far too willing to start a fight, as with the Soviets.

Trump does exhibit a broad appeal that selectively minimizes almost every other candidate as being plain and obtrusively boring.

Moreover, not only is Trump Hillary Clinton's easy surpass as a celebrity, Trump's list of achievements massively eclipses Clintons one major accomplishment-- that being her supernatural ability to avoid criminal prosecution after numerous repeat infractions; undoubtedly a must, at least for any serious Democrat candidate.

Noonan continues:

"He can turn the economy around because he made a lot of money, so he probably knows how to make jobs. He is a fighter. People want a fighter. Maybe he’s impolitic but he’s better than some guy who filters everything he says through a screen of political calculation.

Some other things Mr. Trump has going for him the three people I spoke to did not mention but they agreed when I did: Mr. Trump is not a serious man, which is part of his appeal in a country that has grown increasingly unserious. He’s a showman in a country that likes to watch shows—a country that believes all politics is showbiz now, and all politicians are entertainers of varying degrees of competence.

So, here, we find the requisite Noonan anachronism as the very heart of most of her articles.

Noonan sincerely believes that Trump is not a serious man? You see, here is where Noonan's "media world" meets our own "business world." In business, the kiss of death is one of being comprehended as not being serious. It's the absolute suicide-knell of any business --if the leadership is not fully dedicated and fiercely serious about everything conducted, on the client's behalf, the client or consumer will quickly lose respect and go elsewhere.

But, America does not conceptualize business and politics in quite the same way. You see, we know that in politics, lying is accepted and common, just as in the media, spin is everything. In mainstreet business, things are not at all that way. It doesn't take the consumer very long at all, to weed the serious out from the actors, in most cases.

Point being Trump has been a phenomenal success in business by any measure, a thing that no one can deny.  

However, the anti-thesis to this fact might also be why so many poor politicians succeed. In America, as in most countries, we can't quickly find another government, to go to. We are stuck with the government that we have--and the typical politico's message always begins to change, just before election, swindling the voters for yet another trial extension.

It's a common game and it's almost impossible to overcome, almost being the key word.

There is also the brutish counterpoint to those who claim Trump is nothing more than a shill for Hillary Clinton's  outgoing victory. Does anyone truly believe that an ego the size of Trump's would actually subjugate itself to a career politician whose greatest boost to ascendance was one of being married to Bill Clinton?

Seriously? The other side to that particular argument would be one of disclosure which continually hides in plain sight. Folks, any person who runs for President has a titanic-sized allocation of self-worth or ego, or whatever you might wish to call it--it can be no other way.

Trump, in retrospect, represents the very seriousness that has been serially missing amongst all the political candidates. They will typically say one thing and then quickly do another, while wrapping their misadventures in complex maneuvering and legislative complications, far too technical for we, the common voters, to even begin to understand with our outdated pitchforks and low-tech torches.

So, what if we elect someone as President who understands how the game is played without being part of the game?

Noonan continues:

At least Mr. Trump is honest about it. He capitalizes on the fact that no one in America trusts politicians anymore. The thing that has propelled him so high so far—he’s No. 1 among Republicans in one national poll, No. 2 in New Hampshire and tied for No. 2 in Iowa—is his announcement speech on June 16. One part of the speech has been heavily quoted: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” That last—“I assume”—was the cruelest.

Here, Noonan tries to play the guilt game with Trump, in hearkening back to the days of Irish immigrants and what they had to endure in America, long ago:

"My people and my friend’s, the Irish, were not Ireland’s elite when they came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They had nothing back home; that’s why they left. The landed gentry, the high-born, the educated and established — they didn’t come here. They didn’t have to! The wretched refuse did. And the Irish transition to America was not so smooth. There was plenty of poverty, overcrowding, addiction, criminality. We should always remember — and Mr. Trump, as a native New Yorker,s should remember — that our city’s arrest vehicles weren’t known as paddy wagons for nothing."

Noonan tries to emotionally embellish the hardship of Irish immigrants, who were her forebears, along with how hard it must have been for them. Noonan writes as if she weeps inconsolably for her ancient parentage-- as if she were the only American whose forebears had to endure hardship.

To which, my parentage representative of a mixture of Irish, Scotts, Swedish and even native-American, can only laugh heartily.

Noonan exhibits scented crocodile tears at best.

The overall point being, that what Noonan discounts is the fact that the Irish immigrants were LEGAL immigrants--they did not stumble over the borders of this country to gain a handout and spew an endless stream of anchor babies.

Noonan ends her article with her rather veiled Trump assault become stark:

 "Blowhards don’t wear well"

To which we can heartily agree, at least with regard to Noonan, who can now report back to her Bilderberger compatriots among the inner beltway elite, that most traditional Americans aren't biting.

Granted, some on the Right are not yet convinced that Trump will stay in the fight, and their suspicions are well-founded. However, from our particular perch in watching the tailspin that America is currently in, it will take nothing less than a master free market capitalist and a ferociously strong leader, to pull America out of its heart-wrenching dive.

So far, Trump seems the only who has captivated America's passions, and his wealth would seem to transcend the familiar auspices of attracting funding and campaign finance through political office, that being the very thing that co-opts so many of the others.

But then there's also the fact that we have two parties battling intensely over one group of people who came into this country illegally, on the hopes that they will somehow appeal to another group of people who came here legally, on the failed premise that their skin hue is the same.

 Waiter, there appears to be a fly in my soup.....

Trump is the shock to the system that's most needed now in America, and like it or not, Trump is schooling the Republican Party candidates on what has heretofore been missing. So, the also-rans can roll their eyes and sigh in their endless contempt as much as they dare, just as they did with Reagan.

But, what will they do if Trump wins?


Listen:  CR Live 7/15: Jade Helm Begins, Iran Deal, End Times, Trump, Greece and more

Read our follow-up Rebuttal to Noonan from the Eve of the 2016 presidential election:

 Life Under America's Suicide Squad: A Scathing Rebuttal to Peggy Noonan's "Imagine a Sane Donald Trump"


 Follow/Like:  CR News

Listen:  Star of Bethlehem Reappears


 

We recommend

]]>
Point-Counterpoint: Its 'The New World Orders' Henry Kissinger Versus Reverend Franklin Graham on 'Chaos' Barry https://conservativerefocus.com/blogs/index.php/point-counterpoint-its-the-new-world-orders-henry-kissinger-versus-reverend-franklin-graham-on-chaos?blog=13 2014-08-31T19:31:00Z 2015-06-08T19:15:58Z

 

New World Order Conspiracy Becomes Fact: Globalist Kissinger Pens Book Titled "World Order"

or·der

verb \ˈr-dər\
or·deredor·der·ing 
transitive verb
1
:  to put in order :  arrange
2
a :  to give an order to :  commandb :  destineordain <so ordered by the gods>c :  to command to go or come to a specified place <orderedback to the base>d :  to give an order for <order a meal>
intransitive verb
1
:  to bring about order :  regulate
2
a :  to issue orders :  commandb :  to give or place an order
— or·der·able  adjective

 

Refocus Notes:

The New World Order: Only they know when the time is right....and it looks like that time has just arrived....hang on tight

Wall Street Journal

By Henry Kissinger

Libya is in civil war, fundamentalist armies are building a self-declared caliphate across Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan's young democracy is on the verge of paralysis. To these troubles are added a resurgence of tensions with Russia and a relationship with China divided between pledges of cooperation and public recrimination. The concept of order that has underpinned the modern era is in crisis.

The search for world order has long been defined almost exclusively by the concepts of Western societies. In the decades following World War II, the U.S.—strengthened in its economy and national confidence—began to take up the torch of international leadership and added a new dimension. A nation founded explicitly on an idea of free and representative governance, the U.S. identified its own rise with the spread of liberty and democracy and credited these forces with an ability to achieve just and lasting peace.

The traditional European approach to order had viewed peoples and states as inherently competitive; to constrain the effects of their clashing ambitions, it relied on a balance of power and a concert of enlightened statesmen. The prevalent American view considered people inherently reasonable and inclined toward peaceful compromise and common sense; the spread of democracy was therefore the overarching goal for international order. Free markets would uplift individuals, enrich societies and substitute economic interdependence for traditional international rivalries.

New World Order Comes to Fruition

This effort to establish world order has in many ways come to fruition. A plethora of independent sovereign states govern most of the world's territory. The spread of democracy and participatory governance has become a shared aspiration if not a universal reality; global communications and financial networks operate in real time.

The years from perhaps 1948 to the turn of the century marked a brief moment in human history when one could speak of an incipient global world order composed of an amalgam of American idealism and traditional European concepts of statehood and balance of power. But vast regions of the world have never shared and only acquiesced in the Western concept of order. These reservations are now becoming explicit, for example, in the Ukraine crisis and the South China Sea. The order established and proclaimed by the West stands at a turning point.

First, the nature of the state itself—the basic formal unit of international life—has been subjected to a multitude of pressures. Europe has set out to transcend the state and craft a foreign policy based primarily on the principles of soft power. But it is doubtful that claims to legitimacy separated from a concept of strategy can sustain a world order. And Europe has not yet given itself attributes of statehood, tempting a vacuum of authority internally and an imbalance of power along its borders. At the same time, parts of the Middle East have dissolved into sectarian and ethnic components in conflict with each other; religious militias and the powers backing them violate borders and sovereignty at will, producing the phenomenon of failed states not controlling their own territory.

The challenge in Asia is the opposite of Europe's: Balance-of-power principles prevail unrelated to an agreed concept of legitimacy, driving some disagreements to the edge of confrontation.

Common Purpose

The clash between the international economy and the political institutions that ostensibly govern it also weakens the sense of common purpose necessary for world order. The economic system has become global, while the political structure of the world remains based on the nation-state. Economic globalization, in its essence, ignores national frontiers. Foreign policy affirms them, even as it seeks to reconcile conflicting national aims or ideals of world order.

This dynamic has produced decades of sustained economic growth punctuated by periodic financial crises of seemingly escalating intensity: in Latin America in the 1980s; in Asia in 1997; in Russia in 1998; in the U.S. in 2001 and again starting in 2007; in Europe after 2010. The winners have few reservations about the system. But the losers—such as those stuck in structural misdesigns, as has been the case with the European Union's southern tier—seek their remedies by solutions that negate, or at least obstruct, the functioning of the global economic system.

The international order thus faces a paradox: Its prosperity is dependent on the success of globalization, but the process produces a political reaction that often works counter to its aspirations.

Penalty of Failing

A third failing of the current world order, such as it exists, is the absence of an effective mechanism for the great powers to consult and possibly cooperate on the most consequential issues. This may seem an odd criticism in light of the many multilateral forums that exist—more by far than at any other time in history. Yet the nature and frequency of these meetings work against the elaboration of long-range strategy. This process permits little beyond, at best, a discussion of pending tactical issues and, at worst, a new form of summitry as "social media" event. A contemporary structure of international rules and norms, if it is to prove relevant, cannot merely be affirmed by joint declarations; it must be fostered as a matter of common conviction.

The penalty for failing will be not so much a major war between states (though in some regions this remains possible) as an evolution into spheres of influence identified with particular domestic structures and forms of governance. At its edges, each sphere would be tempted to test its strength against other entities deemed illegitimate. A struggle between regions could be even more debilitating than the struggle between nations has been.

The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another. These goals are not necessarily self-reconciling: The triumph of a radical movement might bring order to one region while setting the stage for turmoil in and with all others. The domination of a region by one country militarily, even if it brings the appearance of order, could produce a crisis for the rest of the world.

A world order of states affirming individual dignity and participatory governance, and cooperating internationally in accordance with agreed-upon rules, can be our hope and should be our inspiration. But progress toward it will need to be sustained through a series of intermediary stages.

Deleting Sovereignty

To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

For the U.S., this will require thinking on two seemingly contradictory levels. The celebration of universal principles needs to be paired with recognition of the reality of other regions' histories, cultures and views of their security. Even as the lessons of challenging decades are examined, the affirmation of America's exceptional nature must be sustained. History offers no respite to countries that set aside their sense of identity in favor of a seemingly less arduous course. But nor does it assure success for the most elevated convictions in the absence of a comprehensive geopolitical strategy.

— Dr. Kissinger served as national security adviser and secretary of state under Presidents Nixon and Ford. Adapted from his book "World Order," to be published Sept. 9 by the Penguin Press.

- also a member of Bilderberg, Council on Foreign Relations and Trilateral Commission, among many others

________________________________Vs

 

Franklin Graham: Unfolding World Crisis and Chaos Points to Signs on The Earth

 

BillyGraham.org

By Franklin Graham

A searchlight scans the globe, revealing world crises everywhere from the U.S.-Mexican border to the deadly Ebola virus that terrorizes West Africa.

From Russian attacks on Ukraine to a Malaysian airplane that mysteriously disappears.

Turmoil that has simmered in the Middle East since the beginning of time now escalates.

Iraq and Syria are disintegrating in sectarian violence: Muslims killing Muslims, Muslims killing Christians.

While the world grapples with implications of the Israeli-Gaza conflict, a 6.1 earthquake cracks and rattles the mountainous region of Yunnan province in China, killing 400 and injuring nearly 2,000.

Economic mayhem is causing governments and businesses to crumble. Family values are being assaulted, moral laws torn asunder.

What is the answer to the chaos? Before one crisis can be calmed, another rains down. From coast to coast, continent to continent, terror strikes the nations. News anchors and political personalities often shake their heads and ask, "What in the world is going on?"

Who can save us? From nation to nation, we search for someone to lead us out of the stranglehold. God's Laser Beam points to the truth: "And there will be signs ... on the earth, distress of nations, with perplexity, ... men's hearts failing them from fear and the expectation of those things which are coming on the earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken" (Luke 21:25-26).

Society expects solutions from educators, politicians and cutting-edge technology. The world chases after the latest device that can pump out information faster than it can be downloaded, while ignoring the only answer to why the world is perplexed, unhinged, off course.

The Bible identifies man's trouble from beginning to end—the fall of the human race—and lays out what is to come. We do not have to ask what in the world is going on. God has already told us what is going on in the world. His Word radiates with answers. God is speaking, but few are listening.

The world is caught up in the frenzy of war, natural disaster and man-made chaos. Today's headlines are not much different from ancient times. Earthquakes and flood waters bring havoc; famine and disease kill multitudes; refugees flee homelands; continual wars ravage the nations.

With the passing of time, one would think that the human race would heed the warnings of God. Instead of turning our hearts to Him to acknowledge our sinfulness and inadequacy, we turn on our televisions and mobile devices, only to see the cities of antiquity still headlining the news, from Damascus to Gaza, from Jerusalem to Mosul (ancient Nineveh).

I find myself opening the Bible to read the psalmist's question: "Why do the nations rage against God?" (Psalm 2:1). Throughout Scripture the answer is given: The heart of man is evil and wicked (Jer. 17:9). Turning to the Lord is man's only hope.

This is why the Lord permits events such as we witness to continue—to draw people to Him. He desires His creation to repent of wickedness and rebellion against Him. Out of His great love and grace He says: "Return to Me, with all your heart" (Joel 2:12). The Bible—the operating manual for life—can guide one to always do the right thing in the eyes of God. Instead, God's Word is relegated to the library of antiquity. Why? Political powers vie for dominance. Man's heart wants to triumph over God instead of bowing before Him and doing His will.

"'Behold, the days are coming,' says the Lord God, 'that I will send a famine on the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord. They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, seeking the word of the Lord, but shall not find it'" (Amos 8:11-12).

The Bible tells us what to do when we see these events unfold: "Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near" (Luke 21:28). The return of the Lord Jesus is coming, and those who follow Christ should be in a perpetual state of expectation, obediently declaring that Jesus came to save the world from the dominance of Satan's hold on human hearts. To wring our hands in despair will not lead anyone out of this world's bondage and into the peace that God desires for His people.

While preparing to preach a series of evangelistic meetings in Pittsburgh last month, I read an article
 in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette titled, "If Rockets Rained on Pittsburgh." It reveals that people everywhere live in dread of what is to come. Man's greatest terror is the sin that rages within his own heart. Jesus Christ is the only One who can bring peace to the world, and He will do what He promises.

But we do not have to wait until that time to know God's peace even in the midst of world turmoil. The Bible says, "There is no other God besides Me, a just God and a Savior. There 
is none besides Me. Look to Me, and be saved, all you ends of the earth!" (Is. 45:21-22).

Salvation is offered to every person who will believe by faith that Jesus Christ will save them out of their
 sin and put His Spirit within them. There is hope in times of war, famine and great peril. Don't look to governments for the answers. Don't depend on technology to help you maneuver through life's uncertainties. Look to Jesus, and know that the signs of the times should lead us to Him.

"Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him ... The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He makes the plans of the peoples of no effect. The counsel of the Lord stands forever ... blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" (Ps. 33:8-12).

MORE FROM THIS ISSUE AT BILLYGRAHAM.ORG

Franklin Graham, son of iconic evangelist Billy Graham, is the president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan's Purse.

©2014 BGEA. This article originally appeared on BillyGraham.org.

]]>
Point-Counterpoint: It's TPM Versus Conservative Refocus on Obamacare's "Job Creation Ability" Barry https://conservativerefocus.com/blogs/index.php/point-counterpoint-it-s-tpm-versus-conservative-refocus-on-obamacare-s-job-creation-ability?blog=13 2014-02-09T21:50:27Z 2014-02-25T23:38:38Z

Talking Points Memo's DYLAN SCOTT

Vs Conservative Refocus'  Barry Secrest

This post from TPM, really caught our eye, as we endeavor to completely  burn down this particularly silly talking point  memo, from Dylan Scott:

GOPers Oughta Love Obamacare: It Likely Encourages Entrepreneurship

So, now we have  Statist bureaucratic media stenographers trying to make the case for the White House's latest talking points on the "Greatness of Obamacare."

Enjoy....

Dylan: By offering people an alternative to employer-based insurance, the law could reduce what's known as "job lock," when people stay in a job largely because it's the only way they can get health coverage -- a goal that conservatives, too, have advocated for in the past.

Conservative Refocus: Aye, God....

Dylan, when one starts a business, one in effect becomes "an employer," with all the duties and respectivities associated with that title, including the ability to procure business health insurance, just like any other employer.  Dutifully noted that this fact can easily escape someone who resides firmly with the clutches of Wonderland's blithe embrace.

Dylan: The White House, in its growing effort to combat the GOP spin, forwarded that argument Thursday.

Conservative Refocus: More like the White House's ongoing effort to combat the truth, in that, the implication of the White House knowing about what's best for starting a business reads much like an arsonist knowing what's best in extinguishing structure fires.

Why would an arson care? Ditto the White House....

Dylan: "By increasing workers’ mobility across jobs, secure access to health insurance helps them to find the job that is best for them," Jason Furman, chairman of President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, wrote in a blog post. "Moreover, reducing job lock encourages entrepreneurship, a critical ingredient for growth and job creation."

Conservative Refocus: Well, at least the apparatchiks of Obama's Leftist council on Commie economics got the job mobility part correct, if only partially.

There is, for a certainty, far more more mobility when on has to drive to 2 or even 3 different part-time jobs during the day and night than as opposed to when one is forced to drive to only one job, during the day.

Now that is, indeed, increased mobility.

Dylan: Outside the political realm, evidence does exist that Obamacare could be a catalyst for more entrepreneurship.

Conservative Refocus: Yes, speaking once again towards the real-world realm, the evidence suggests that because many businesses will be forced out of business, due to Obamacare, the vacuum left by missing small businesses could be partially subordinated by some even smaller micro-businesses.

But, we can be of help to the TPM cause, for instance, how does micro-employment opportunities sound, eh... pretty cool and high-tech, while meaning something else, entirely, huh?

You have my permission to use that, guys.....

Dylan: Three economists released an analysis in 2011 that concluded employment-based health insurance had a negative effect on business creation.

Conservative Refocus: Yes,  assuming that health insurance by employers has a negative effect on business creation, then by using equilateral reasoning--probably other employee benefits would  have a negative effect on business creation also, such as employment- based pay-raises, for instance.

Ergo, the more one pays his or her employees, the less apt that employee is to create his or her  own job....

Makes perfect sense in bizarro world.

So, why is the White House trying to raise the minimum wage, if employment gratuities such as health benefits and pay-raises, actually impair new business start-ups?

However, taken a step further, if job benefits have a deletorious effect on business creation, then why does not the White House eliminate all employment benefits for government workers, which , by using stated White House theory, would thereby create boundless employment opportunities in the private sector?

Hmm...?

Dylan: Because people tended to stay in their jobs to keep their health coverage, they were less likely to leave them and start their own businesses.

Conservative Refocus: Ipso facto, job pay-raises would also tend to keep people in their existing jobs making them far less likely to start their own jobs....So, in essence then, anything which an employer might do for the benefit of the employee in order to keep that employee , is creating less opportunity for job start-ups...

Er...right

Isn't this, once again, a lot like stating that "employers creating well-paying jobs actually impairs an employee's impetus to start his or her own job?" Even while we are currently hearing how not having to work for a business in order to get and keep health insurance allows someone a lot more time with their family

(Nevermind the fact of their having to live in a cardboard box, with their family, as a result because they have no job to support themselves...besides, one can tuck their children  in within an armslength away rather than having to go upstairs, and cardboard is easily obtainable and recyclable! Everybody wins!)

Dyan:  By reforming the individual and small-group insurance markets, Obamacare is intended to make the insurance offered there comparable to what large employers offer, giving people a legitimate alternative to employer-based coverage.

Conservative Refocus: Ah yes, and there is the crux of the thing.

Why continue to allow private businesses to help their employees and provide free benefits, when we can come up with a tremendously expensive, tax-payer funded subsidy program, which costs trillions, and which is  driven by forced mandates, which allows a much more beneficient government to take business'  place?

Well, my stars! Why didn't Marx think of that?...Oh, wait!

Dylan: They analyzed various scenarios to reach that conclusion: Do people who had access to insurance through their spouse create more businesses? Do people who turn 65 and enroll in Medicare found more companies than people who are a little younger than 65?

Conservative Refocus: What in the hell are these Progressives on?

Dude! People who turn 65 are mostly looking to retire after a lifetime of hard work, albeit most are not looking to go through the often heart-stopping, extraordinarily risky and stressful business of starting up a brand new enterprise.

There is no greater stress inducement that exists, while further noting that about half of all new businesses fail in the first year, or maybe you folks missed that course, in Alinsky economics 101...

[But, One must point out, has anyone noticed how these pitifully painful arguments seem to bounce all over the place, while simultaneously making little if any actual sense?]

Dylan: In both cases, they found that people without the alternatives -- those who couldn't obtain insurance through their spouse or couldn't enroll in Medicare -- were less likely to start their own business. That led to the following deduction:

Our estimates provide some evidence that “entrepreneurship lock” exists, which raises concerns that the bundling of health insurance and employment may create an inefficient level of business creation.

Conservative Refocus: Entrepreneurship lock? Seriously? Coming from the folks who bought us "You didn't build that, somebody else made that happen? Or my personal favorite "Belief in Capitalism is blind faith?"

Okay, we'll concede the point that people over 65 don't start businesses, but not because of entrepreneurship lock, you blasted fools, it's because starting a business requires enormous amounts of both risk, health, and energy, a thing which is not exactly synonymous with folks who find themselves at medicair age.....and now, by the way, simply desire to spend more time on the shuffleboards of Florida, not that there's anything wrong with that mind you, in fact, those folks have ultimately earned their ultimate vacation.

Dylan: Not many people quit their jobs to start their own companies: about 3 percent, according to the study. But if they had that alternative means of obtaining health insurance, which Obamacare helps provide, up to 4 percent would, the report projected, which would equal a 33 percent increase in the number of people starting their own business.

Conservative Refocus: So, 3 percent of all folks start companies--and-- if they have health insurance,  that number would rise to 4 percent, a 33% increase, right Dylan?

So, On that same note and using the same reasoning, if we know that Obama discontinued the private health insurance of over 5% of the population, by mandate-- And--in as much as we assume that Dylan's report numbers are a fact, it would mean that Obama actually engineered a move which,  by Dylan's report numbers once again, has actually reduced job creation by over 165 percent, and by their insurance coverage having been cancelled,  if we use the study numbers.

Meaning 1 percentage point in increase or decrease is equal to about 33% of job creation or reduction.

Makes perfect sense.....Obama the job-slayer.

Dylan: When asked about what those findings meant for Obamacare, Susan Gates, senior economist at RAND and one of the study's authors, told TPM that the law should lead to more people creating a business.

"Our study would suggest that if people have access to an alternative form of health insurance that is closer to what they could get from an employer," she said, "that they're going to be more likely to make that leap. They're going to be more likely leave a wage-and-salary job to start their own business."

Conservative Refocus: The major catch being that sub-standard insurance, which is defined by high-out-of-pocket co-insurance costs, soaring deductibles, and horrid network access, is not at all synonymous with any employer healthcare plan, of the present day.

So, where does that leave us tomorrow?

]]>
Opposing Viewpoints: Steve Rosenthal's "US Moving Left" Vs. Barry Secrest' "Earthquake of Chaos" Barry https://conservativerefocus.com/blogs/index.php/opposing-viewpoints-steve-rosenthal-s-us-moving-left-vs-barry-secrest-earthquake-of-chaos?blog=13 2014-01-19T14:59:20Z 2014-01-19T14:59:20Z

America is becoming more liberal

Washington Post

 

By Steve Rosenthal

Steve Rosenthal, a longtime Democratic strategist and former political director of the AFL-CIO, is founder and president of the Atlas Project, which provides progressives with research and data. He is also president of the Organizing Group, which creates campaigns for progressive organizations.

Not too long ago, everyone was declaring American politics a lost cause for progressives. The religious right supposedly had a stranglehold on elections. Then it was the tea party that had the political establishment — initially Democrats and Republicans — quaking. The media and the general public took hold of a narrative parroted by conservative candidatesand opinion leaders: The United States was a “center-right” nation.

But after two consecutive elections in which the Democratic candidate for president garnered more than 50 percent of the vote — a one-two punch last achieved by Franklin Roosevelt — it is worth questioning that assumption. The country is getting more diverse, and as the proportion of white voters shrinks, so, too, does the conservative base. As demographics shift, so do political preferences — in this case, toward the left. A close examination of U.S. attitudes in the past decade-plus reveals that the United States is steadily becoming more progressive.

It’s been well publicized how America has “evolved” on marriage equality. Washington Post/ABC News polling last year found that, by a margin of 58 percent to 36 percent , people believe their fellow Americans should be able to marry whomever they choose — something that would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago.

This progressive trend isn’t isolated to this issue. Over the past 10 or so years, national polls have shown that the general public is becoming more liberal on:

● Immigration. The last time the nation considered immigration reform, in 2006, 52 percent of respondents told Gallup that the priority should be halting the flow of illegal immigration. Just 43 percent preferred to deal with the undocumented immigrants already here. When Gallup asked the same question last July, the numbers had flipped:55 percent thought the focus should be on immigrants already here, while 41 percent said the priority should be strengthening U.S. borders.

●Marijuana. In 2000, just 31 percent of Americans believed marijuana should be legalized, Gallup found, and 64 percent were opposed. The pro-legalization number has since tracked steadily upward. InOctober Gallup polling, 58 percent of respondents favored legalization and just 39 percent were opposed.

● Big business. Americans have grown more mistrustful of big business since 2002, when 50 percent of respondents told Gallup they were “very or somewhat satisfied” with the influence of major corporations. This number bottomed out at 29 percent in 2011 and 30 percent in 2012.

Attitudes are shifting in the states as well. In recent elections, states that were once reliably Republican red in presidential elections — including Colorado, North Carolina and Nevada— have become competitive or even solid Democratic blue.

In the November election in Virginia, issues well to the left of the “Old Virginia” (read: conservative) mainstream not only failed to hurt Democrats but might even have helped them. Gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe (D) was vocal about his support forexpanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, while Republican Ken Cuccinelli harped on Obamacare to curry favor with voters unhappy with the law. In the end, of course, McAuliffe won, and there was little evidence that health care hurt him or helped Cuccinelli’s final numbers. In the attorney general’s race, Democrat Mark Herring defied long-standing conventional wisdom and played up his position on gun safety. Herring defeated his opponent by pointing out Republican Mark Obenshain’s weak record on common-sense gun legislation such as comprehensive background checks and closing the gun-show loophole.

In the swing state of Iowa, recent extreme weather has convinced more people that the science behind climate change is real. In an Iowa State University annual poll of farmers — a traditionally conservative set — the share who believed in climate change last year was 74.3 percent, a significant jump from 67.7 percent in 2011, when the question was first asked.

It is more than an interesting observation that America now leans left. This should be a guiding light for politicians. With the knowledge that most Americans are, in fact, behind them, Democrats no longer need to fear running on their beliefs. They should stop letting special interests on the right hold ideas and ideals hostage and start listening to voters.

And what are the American people saying? That they’re fed up with political obstructionism and conservative policies that have left the country at a standstill. They want a new direction.

Progressives have an opportunity not only to come into the mainstream but also to lead — and shape public opinion. President Obama began to do just that last month with a speech decrying income inequality. To feed the vacuum of economic discontent, Democrats ought to argue for populist solutions such as raising the minimum wage, raising taxes on millionaires and corporations, rebuilding infrastructure, investing in education and instituting paid sick leave. Americans crave solutions, and they are moving to the left to find them.

Smart politicians ought to get ahead of them.

Opposing Viewpoint: The Penalty of Hope and Change

 

An Earthquake of Chaos

It's happening tectonically, throughout the entire continental shelf of American politics.

The backlash towards the political left even now has reborn, as Obama has ultimately proved himself to be the long ago predicted Pied Piper of Establishment Progressives, leading to a long overdue inner-beltway exodus.  Indeed, no amount of skullduggery nor media leveraging should be able to separate the Socialist- Democrat party from its grand comeuppance coming in November.

Both US healthcare and finances, by election time, will lie increasingly tangled and bloodied if not mortally wounded, within the nettlesome briars of culpable blame. Unlike in previous legislative agendas which ostensibly affected only those it sought to aid, there can be no gradual improvement in the body politic of US healthcare, especially when the poison of excessive Liberalism finds its full circulatory purchase.

Much like an executioner's cocktail of impending doom, America's healthcare can now only worsen in both severity of cost and decimation of care, and there will be no secondary avenue of blame available for the liable, at least not this time around.

The first article published on our site, and included in our book, spoke to the Media's "holographic reality" when it comes to Obama's now laughably titled "Affordable Healthcare Act," which was eventually passed by every legislative trick in the book, and then some, but only to our extreme amazement.

"Anything but Affordable" should have been the act's more accurately titled legislation. At the time, we were amazed that a bill was written, which actually exceeded the Bible's length by at least half at over 2,500 pages. Little did we know that the accompanying regulations on paper would reach a height of well over seven feet and 20,000 pages making Obamacare a  Statist perversion of mythic proportion rather than legislation.

The second article spoke of the disastrous Wrecking Ball of "Debt, Diversity and Doubt" that would soon find our shores due to the Obama regime's extreme agenda. In that particular article we laid down how stealth inflation would be the wildcard in the stimulus and the racked up debt, and demi- inflation, which has largely remained hidden according to the government, but has raged in ways both seen and felt while not recorded. We spoke of the Left-Wing stimulus spending spree becoming a "US version of Godzilla rampaging through our cities" while five years later many of those same cities now teeter on the extreme edge of both chaos and failure.

The third article spoke of freedom of speech and how Political correctness soon would insinuate virtually every fiber of US being, to which we quoted this:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis

But the tyranny, we would later understand, was just finding its rein...

The fourth article dealt with the dissection of Liberal journalism and the ACORN debacle, which fraudulently aided the President's 2008 victory.  Later, in May of 2010, ACORN was formally disbanded, and yet the President's victory was never questioned. Consequently, Obama repeated his 2008 election victory in 2012 with many of the same techniques, yet sponsored by our own US government this time around.

The fifth article dealt with Obama's penchant for formulating monumental unintended policy redirections. The President had now become the Celebrity in Chief rather than the leader of the free world. We further pointed out that, despite the lies particular to Obamacare, we already had medical care for the poor and disadvantaged through Medicaid and that the President was throwing out the baby with bathwater in order to entirely remake the US healthcare system, and boy, were we ever right, as Obamacare's ruinous installation would eventually prove.

In fact, even then, we were able to accurately point out exactly what happened with regard to the 2008 meltdown, and only shortly thereafter-- it went like this:

How did all of this happen, again?

A) The populace’s dissatisfaction with the costly war effort led by a Republican president over these many years, coupled with a Democratic takeover of Congress in January 2007.

B) The loss of control by conservatives on the spending purse strings, coupled with a Democratic push many years ago, as well as the 2007-2008's Government relaxation of safety nets in lending procedures.

C) Corporate "off balance book" transparent mortgage derivatives going bad as a result of declining mortgage performance, coupled with a lack of regulatory foresight.

D) Unprecedented over-purchase of bad mortgages by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which caused both entities to go in receivership and control by the Federal Government--all of which resulted in the 2008 meltdown.

E) The illusion that this was all Republican-based, which caused the populace to shift to the Democrats in subsequent elections.

F) The Mainstream Media's natural disdain for all things "not Liberal," refusing to properly vet candidates on their true positions, unless of course, they are Conservative.

And that was our view in late 2009, subsequently proven true, by news item after news item, and even a number of books written on the subject.

But then a new and even more alarming paradigm of discouragement began enveloping the nation. The very thing that had made the United States the wealthiest and most benevolently powerful nation to ever exist, saturated in freedom and Liberty, was being repeatedly attacked. Free market Capitalism was under concerted attack by Obama, the media, and many in the political left. The economy was continually sputtering while the millionaire President and his millionaire Congressional leaders were hypocritically attacking the nation's private millionaires.

We described this phenomenon as "overcompensation" for shortcomings or excesses of the very thing that these people secretly hold so dear. We were right. Since that time in 2009 Obama's net worth has soared from $ 1-3 million in 2007 to $12.2 million in 2013. Same for Harry Reid, who in 2007 was worth only $1.5 million. Today Reid is worth $ 5 million. Pelosi? In 2007 Nancy Pelosi was worth $ 18.7 million,  today she is worth $ 35.5 million.

How is it that while most of America suffered hits of up to 50% of their combined net worths, our political leadership doubled their net worths even while villifying these same individuals who lost so much? Occupy that Wall Street Protestors and the media, but whatever you do, please don't ask "why" because that could really obliterate your extraordinarily flawed world view and we can't have that, now can we?

As we move through these articles in sequence, it becomes almost an introduction to what Obama's  8-year agenda would be all about and then it happened.....

The Fourth Estate: The Administration Broadsides Fox News & The Constitution

On Late October of 2009, the Obama regime would broadside Fox News for using "smoke and mirrors" and reporting the news "from a certain perspective"--that not being the President's perspective even while a dynamic duo of first-tier Obama staffers would pledge their admiration for one of the worst communist leader murderers in world history. Anita Dunn, announced in a graduation ceremony that Mao Tse Tung was one of her favorite political philosophers.  In addition, Ron Bloom, who was the "Manufacturing Czar," indicated that he agreed with Mao that "political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun."   The former Premier of China being a mass murderer of more than anywhere from 34 million to 71 million people whom dissented with him.

No wonder they want our guns.

It was also at this time that the President began to cancel the dealerships of now government-controlled GM and Chrysler under the pretense of saving money, while basing the cancellations largely on political affiliation and the quashing of dissension. A practice straight out of the Marxist Saul Alinsky rule book "Rules for radicals,"  it should be noted.

But, even as the President was bringing full  crony power to play in an effort to punish those who politically disagree, The Tea Party was reaching its apex of political power, and that simply would not do. As the government controllers began swinging the IRS at their avowed enemies like a vengeful scythe, many would later be wondering "Where is the Tea Party?"

In 2013 we finally found out:

Obama's IRS Admits Targeting Conservative and Tea Party Groups: Issues Apology

Almost to the day of one year prior to the 2010 elections, we published the article aptly titled article " The Return of the True Conservative." The mainstream media was now referring to the Tea Party as a colossal "non-event" while the "unholy Trinity of Obama, Reid and Pelosi continually used the US Constitution as a trampoline" and the hi-information voters had seen enough. The Tea Party surged into credibility as a bona fide movement and nothing would ever be the same.  Indeed, The Tea Party had become an idea to which America's true  faithful subscribed and a thing we championed from the start. This idea was grounded in its philosophy towards the precepts of Constitutional adherence, complete disavowal of all things redistributional, and individual freedom and determination.

The Republican Party Establishment resultantly quaked in abject terror while the Democrats shrieked in alarmed dismay. Meanwhile the Obama regime began looking for ways, with the help of certain Republican establishment officials, to somehow weaken this idea that threatened the status-quo unlike anything had  since Ronald Reagan.  But by the time their strategy was in full play, it would be too late. The 2010 off-year elections would see state after state transform into a Conservative takeover of epic proportions, the likes of which had not been seen in over 75 years, if not US history.

The Tea Party, Ladies and Gentlemen with impediments mostly removed, is even now roaring back to renewed life.

A Global Warming Meltdown

Heading into 2010, we published a very popular article titled "A Global Warming Meltdown" referring to the cultish crowd of Warmers as being nothing if not a gaggle of "avaricious Chicken Littles." We went on to describe a full range of hoaxes that had occurred in the last 50 years with nothing to show for them but new taxes, expensive non-fixes, and wealth redistributed to but a precious few, as a result, while hacked IPCC emails proved a penetrated hoax of unprecedented scale.

Fast forward to 2013 and as a result, we can see that we have a new set of bitter-clingers, being those who cling to these lies still, despite all evidence to the contrary as the natural solar cycles have produced a temperature drop now of about three degrees, on average.

However, even after the damning revelations regarding the hacked and proven false IPCC research findings, the UN and the Obama regime stubbornly clung to their ideas, and to this day.  Even while the global warming shepherd cultists have lost nearly all of their flock, and most of their legislative agenda.  Meanwhile, the Obama EPA has continued to institute draconian rules outside of legislative process.

Now, why is that?

Also, in December 19th of 2009, we published a lambasting refutation to Ellen Goodman's Liberal rant :

"They Don’t Check Facts Like They Used To"

titled "Facts Are Stubborn Things" in which we spoke of a number of things, but to include the Obamacare "Death Panels and jail-time," which Goodman had earlier lambasted as both completely false and ridiculous.

Goodman retired only weeks after our scathing column went haywire, announcing on Dec. 28th; a "cool" concidence, to say the least. Unfortunately, however, we now find that virtually everything we ranted about in that particular article, have now long since been proven true.

Also moving into 2010, we authored an article titled "The Newest Endangered Species: Al Gore's credibility on Global Warming," which meaningfully exploited Gore's vulnerability to the truth.

Only 12 months later Gore's world could be seen as  crumbling all around him, and for all of the reasons we had postulated over a full year earlier.

Our 21st article would explicitly detail a "Constitutional Onslaught and the Peril of Unchecked Power" in which we detailed a wholeness of illegalities as set forth within the Affordable Healthcare Act:

The simple fact is that the act of living by a citizen in this nation should not then include a fine against said Citizen in the event that his or her health should diminish to the point of being a financial burden to society due to the lack of the financial instrument that is a health insurance policy.

If indeed various financial burdens, in whatever form they might take, impairs a Society--as in the case of health costs--then I would submit that anyone who might require financial assistance from the Government in the form of welfare and other such financial considerations then has now also become the selfsame burden upon Society as the individual who has failed to purchase insurance coverage.  By this reasoning, we now can see where this legislation is so terribly unjudicial.

The Nadir of Redistributional Obamanomics

As we watch Obama's five year mission slowly unfold we can see the cracks in his ideology now becoming fissures

For instance, who sets the range of judgment with regard to who may or may not be a financial burden upon society and who is worthy of public gift? The ones who fail without trying seem to be of greater value and uppermost significance than those who seemingly fail while trying. The government, in an a most amazing display of duplicity, then tenders its judgment based upon its own complex but arbitrarily drawn lines, as to who receives a benefit and who receives a penalty.

The Producers are thusly punished and the Takers are unjustly rewarded.

While one who's hard won gifts to the government may be subject to extreme penalty for not fully giving enough, another who receives an equal amount from the treasury, is held without disregard and even rewarded for their idleness.

This, ladies and gentleman, is not justice, it is a rather unfairly drawn judgment by busybody bureaucrats, at best and it is the keystone of the Obama Regime across virtually every policy.

In the first month of 2010 we published an article which spoke to


"Renewal of Expiration." Within that particular article we described how the policies and procedures which had ill-fatedly been put into play, even then, would eventually turn America's Obama years into a decade of expiration. Now, in 2013 most of America finds itself searching for both the hope and the change that was promised, while not fully understanding that it had already arrived.

The highly touted hope was not inclined to the aspirations of the people but rather it was the hope of an age-old methodology being meaningfully fulfilled. The promised change spoke not to improving lives with the widely lain fruits of prosperity but rather to the equal dispensation of misery to a nation deemed worthy of its penalty.

The truly frightening thing, however, is in the seeing of those events that seem to be just over the next horizon. We are, indeed, living in the most dangerous of times--

However the game is now up....for the Left.

 

]]>
Opposing Viewpoints' at Rockland County Times on Gun Control: Editor Barry Secrest Vs Prof. John Mohn Barry https://conservativerefocus.com/blogs/index.php/opposing-viewpoints-rockland-county-times-on-gun-control-barry-secrest-vs-prof-john-mohn?blog=13 2013-01-27T21:16:08Z 2013-01-27T21:24:24Z Rockland County Times (Rockland's OFFICIAL Newspaper)
Link:

Conservative Voice vs. Liberal Voice

CONSERVATIVE VOICE: Barry Secrest, Editor of Conservative Refocus: "The Liberals approach to gun control appears to be more about command and control of the non-political class, or proletariat, than defeating the actual problem."

 

LIBERAL VOICE: John R. Mohn, Journalism Professor at the University of Kansas, shaper of young minds: "Nothing brings out the nastiness and hatred of Americans more than any kind of article connected to the gun problem we have in the United States."

]]>
Opposing Viewpoints: Krauthammer's "Establishment Mythos" Versus Secrest's "Conservative Ethics" on Romney/Bain Capital Barry https://conservativerefocus.com/blogs/index.php/opposing-viewpoints-krauthammer-s-establishment-mythos-versus-secrest-s-conservative-ethics-on-romney-bain-capital?blog=13 2012-01-22T20:55:50Z 2012-01-22T21:02:14Z

The GOP’s suicide march

“Are you better off today than you were $4 trillion ago?”

 — former presidential candidate Rick Perry

Washington Post

By Charles Krauthammer

It’s the campaign line of the year, and while the author won’t be carrying it into the general election, the eventual nominee will.

The charge is straightforward: President Obama’s reckless spending has dangerously increased the national debt while leaving unemployment high and the economy stagnant. Concurrently, he has vastly increased the scope and reach of government with new entitlements and oppressive regulation, with higher taxes to come (to offset the unprecedented spending).

In 2010, that narrative carried the Republicans to historic electoral success. Through most of 2011, it dominated Washington discourse. The air was filled with debt talk: ceilings, supercommittees, Simpson-Bowles.

What’s the incumbent to do? He admits current conditions are bad. He knows that his major legislative initiatives — Obamacare, the near-trillion-dollar stimulus, (the rejected) cap-and-trade — are unpopular. If you can’t run on stewardship or policy, how do you win reelection?

Create an entirely new narrative. Push an entirely new issue. Change the subject from your record and your ideology, from massive debt and overreaching government, to fairness and inequality. Make the election a referendum on which party really cares about you, which party will stand up to the greedy rich who have pillaged the 99 percent and robbed the middle class of hope.

This charge, too, is straightforward: The Republicans serve as the protectors and enablers of the plutocrats, the exploiters who have profited while America suffers. They put party over nation, fat cat donors over people, political power over everything.

It’s all rather uncomplicated, capturing nicely the Manichaean core of the Occupy movement — blame the rich, then soak them. But the real beauty of this strategy is its adaptability. While its first target was the do-nothing, protect-the-rich Congress, it is perfectly tailored to fit the liabilities of Republican front-runner Mitt Romney — plutocrat, capitalist, 1 percenter.

Obama rolled out this class-war counter-narrative in his Dec. 6 “Teddy Roosevelt” speech and hasn’t governed a day since. Every action, every proposal, every “we can’t wait” circumvention of the Constitution — such as recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess — is designed to fit this reelection narrative.

Hence: Where does Obama ostentatiously introduce the recess-appointed head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? At a rally in swing-state Ohio, a stage prop for the president to declare himself tribune of the little guy, scourge of the big banks and their soulless Republican guardians.

For the first few weeks, the class-envy gambit had some effect, bumping Obama’s numbers slightly. But the story was still lagging, suffering in part from its association with an Occupy rabble that had widely worn out its welcome.

Then came the twist. Then came the most remarkable political surprise since the 2010 midterm: The struggling Democratic class-war narrative is suddenly given life and legitimacy by . . . Republicans! Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry make the case that private equity as practiced by Romney’s Bain Capital is nothing more than vulture capitalism looting companies and sucking them dry while casually destroying the lives of workers.

Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO nods approvingly. Michael Moore wonders aloud whether Gingrich has stolen his staff. The assault on Bain/Romney instantly turns Obama’s class-war campaign from partisan attack into universal complaint.

Suddenly Romney’s wealth, practices and taxes take center stage. And why not? If leading Republicans are denouncing rapacious capitalism that enriches the 1 percent while impoverishing everyone else, should this not be the paramount issue in a campaign occurring at a time of economic distress?

Now, economic inequality is an important issue, but the idea that it is the cause of America’s current economic troubles is absurd. Yet, in a stroke, the Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point — a last-ditch attempt to salvage reelection by distracting from their record — into a central focus of the nation’s political discourse.

How quickly has the zeitgeist changed? Wednesday, the Republican House reconvened to reject Obama’s planned $1.2 trillion debt-ceiling increase. (Lacking Senate concurrence, the debt ceiling will be raised nonetheless.) Barely noticed. All eyes are on South Carolina and Romney’s taxes.

This is no mainstream media conspiracy. This is the GOP maneuvering itself right onto Obama terrain.

The president is a very smart man. But if he wins in November, that won’t be the reason. It will be luck. He could not have chosen more self-destructive adversaries.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 13.
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 28.

___________________________________________________

So, Charles, is it "Pshhhhh....just be quiet about this?"

Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

It was a damningly nefarious quote uttered by a very, very, high level Executive.

One that, in fact, should easily be instituted as the cornerstone of the 2012 GOP Presidential campaign. And yet few actually know of this particular quote.

" Belief in Capitalism is Blind Faith,This philosophy of letting people fend for themselves has failed" ~President Barack Obama, October 2010

The portent of this quote, quite obviously, speaks for itself, but it also additionally speaks to that which  this nation has been forced to economically endure over the prior three years.

However, the outrageous hypocrisy of the Center-Left and beyond apparatchiks, along with some few others within the uninspired Right,  still choose to blissfully ignore this once and future quote, which could easily drive a number of Independents, and even a few of those preciously modulating Moderates, straight into the arms of an affectionately waiting political Right.

Obama's multi-nefarious, anti-Free Market stances  are a fact that both the Media-at-large, and even certain Moderate Presidential Candidates, tremble in dread at mentioning, despite the reams of evidence readily available.  Obama is clearly not a fan of Capitalism and yet, in a bizarre twist of logic, many of his largest contributors and most vocal supporters, tend to be Capitalists Extraordinaire. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, just to name two, count themselves as ensnared Obama supporters. Another, even more extreme supporter, George Soros, who is the multi-billionaire who financed the genesis of Obama's Presidential run, is an ardent anti-American-American and one-world, Global Capitalist, of the first degree. It is also a documented fact, that George Soros will even tell you, that the World financial crisis of 2008:

"Was stimulating and in a way, a culmination of my life's work."

So, all implications aside from that particular quote and its leering grin at economic upheaval, how can it be that a man who makes billions, while using every basic tenet at Capitalism's disposal, appears to vehemently despise America's "Leader of The Free World" brand of Free Market Capitalism as a thing that is dire need of replacement? It is, even further, a well known fact that Soros has used capitalism to break,  by lever of hedge, a number of various countries' currencies, which ultimately led to massive losses of both property and wealth to many innocent civilians. Soros has broken the British pound, the Thai Baht and the Malaysian Ringgit, among others, to the extreme detriment of millions of citizens and businesses. In many cases, Soros will actually utilize Capitalism to negatively effect political and social changes, shifting the political paradigm to the far Left, whenever possible, unless its to his extreme advantage to manipulate the pieces in an opposite direction.

This mis-utilization of Capitalism is a thing which we more and more frequently refer to as Left-Wing Capitalism, which is nothing more than a distant, if not despised cousin, to actual Capitalism as practiced by most adherents. We would define Left-Wing Capitalism in this way: The reverse usage of historical Capitalism against itself to defund, severely weaken or even bring down the practice of Capitalism in a given system. A self-concealing, outward approach, to chaining markets, limiting free market capitalism, and promoting a centralized Keynesian bureaucracy.

Now,  with regard to George Soros, and his many well-documented evils, the vocal, pro-Capitalism, Right-Wing of the United States, along with all of its stars and political celebrities, will, in virtually each case, abysmally denounce and attack Soros as a fierce, Left-Wing tycoon with great indignant Right-Wing fervor, and to their credit. In fact, none will ever say that Soros' brand of Capitalism is a thing to be defended at all. Ergo, none will ever call an attack on Soros as an attack on Capitalism, despite the fact that what Soros practices is an extreme form of illegitimate Capitalism, (also see Crony Capitalism), nor will our Republican establishment ever call a Conservative attack on Soros as unbefitting to the political Right.

However, very interestingly, and in this same Capitalistic vein quite recently,  the already powerfully answered question of what has made America great, in the form of Capitalism, has surfaced once again in what many have deemed to be "an erroneous attack on Capitalism."  This supposed attack on our way of life, by only the two most Conservative of Candidates in the GOP Primary, specifically targeted the question of Mitt Romney's business past.

You see, it was Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry who took the argument of business ethics to Romney in both campaign ads and verbal rejoinders, and have done some very integral "campaign payback damage" on the question of corporate raiding, as can be meaningfully seen in your morning paper everyday since. However, the lashback leveled at our two Don Quixote, as a result, has been an undulating howl of protests from every single corner of the Right-Wing establishment and beyond.

Indeed, from extraordinarily prominent Conservative Radio show hosts, Conservative TV hosts, moderate Senators, Left-Winging  journalists, Republicans, Socialists, Democrats, Communists, Groundhogs, Rinos, Warthogs, gazillionaires, you name it, each has chimed into some kind of attack against Gingrich and Perry, along with anyone else who spoke up and delivered an opinion that perhaps these alleged instances of possible corporate raiding by Romney should be looked at. And this very fact alone should give each of those continually piling on a most great and extraordinarily significant pause, because when everyone's thinking the same way, then no one is actually thinking.

In fact, we have heard some vary caustic, if not extraordinarily bellicose remarks, from each of the aforesaid prominent individuals, as well, aimed at anyone who agreed in principle with Gingrich and Perry's attacks. My personal favorite, of many, was this one, para-phrased:

"Maybe these people, even Conservatives, just don't really understand what Capitalism actually is."

Another quote which became an establishment talking point, was this one:

"These Republicans are using the language of the Left."

The two quotes, used in tandem above,  predictably erupted into a dashboard pounding, vehicular  tantrum of epic proportions from me.  Because, at this point, I knew that my angry, gut-level, initial reaction to all of this was dead-on, not to mention all of those business ethics classes, dutifully required of my vocation on a bi-annual basis. So, are we to understand that the Republican Establishment, along with some others who apparently leave business ethics completely outside of Capitalism, are embossing a sort of group-think mandated censorship onto the entire Right-Wing of the Republican Party?

In fact, my non-conventional side tells me that this entire sequence of events would seem to beg the question, "Is it actually Capitalism that is being attacked by our two Conservatives, or is it something else, altogether?"

Now, maybe some on the Right will still adamantly agree with those who criticize Gingrich and Perry on this same very basis, as their attacks on Romney's possible Raiding as being anathema.  However, I would submit that they who have joined in  have never had to listen to what their Conservative American Grandfathers would think of this sort of protracted nonsense, being laying companies to waste for profit's sake only, and then cheering about it as if it were a grand playoff game. But my point here would also be for each of our howling members on the Conservative side to note which wing of the Party has been the winner, so far, from the peals of outrage emanating from the Republican establishment at Gingrich and Perry. You see, there is only one man who has actually been the establishment's numero uno choice from day-one, that man being, ....politically Moderate Gov. Mitt Romney.

The possible ethical problems with Romney's highly successful career at Bain Capital are just that. They are not at all questions of attacking Capitalism, but rather, they are an assemblage of evidence that might paint Romney as an unethical Raider, in some cases, rather than an inspired job creator, as he has been sold to many of us on the Republican side of the argument.

The charges leveled state that Romney sacrificed workers, and even entire companies, for the reward of an extreme, if not outrageous profit gain, throughout certain periods of his career at Bain. One of the alleged corporate victims, of the cases most recently pushed into the public eye, occurred in South Carolina, according to The Sun News, and was a steel mill located in Georgetown called GS Industries Inc.

Bain Capital spent $24.5 million in initially acquiring the steel mill in 1993, and for a number of years oversaw the operating of the company until the steel mill eventually declared bankruptcy in 2001. Interestingly, and during that time period , an overall net gain or stock profit to Bain Capital was recorded of over $33.9 million dollars in less than ten years, well better than double the initial investment. However in 2001, the bankruptcy proceedings for GS Steel recorded a figure of $ 158.7 million in unsupported debt to assets. Even more interestingly, and during that time period, Bain reported management fees and dividends, outside of the purchase to sell figure, of nearly $ 1 billion dollars. Now, if we go back and revisit the actual debt recorded at the time of the bankruptcy declaration, and then look at the total amount of income derived outside of the stock purchase realized gain, even a non-business person can easily see that these numbers appear outrageous, on the face of it.

So, why was it necessary to essentially vacuum over $ 1 billion dollars out of the company? Had that amount not been so extreme, would not GS Steel have easily survived? The answer to that question is a resounding "yes" according to James Sanderson, who states that the steel mill was doing fine until Bain Capital bought it out. In fact, Sanderson states that the company was "run into bankruptcy" by its mismanaging owner, Bain Capital.

GS Industries,which was combined with several other companies in 1995 and head-quartered in Charlotte, NC,was, at the time, the largest carbon wire rod manufacturer in North America, with sales of over $ 1 billion dollars annually and 3,800 employees. Sanderson states that Romney's firm was obviously more interested in making outrageous profit than making steel, and that the managers knew essentially nothing about successfully operating a steel mill. Now, does this sound kind of familiar, as in putting a Marxist/Community Organizer in charge of the largest economy on the planet, and balefully assessing the ensuing results?

In fact, this was not the only instance of extreme profiteering at the actual company's demise for Bain Capital. Photo album maker Holson Burns, which is located in Gaffney, SC, was also bought for a cool $ 10 million in 1986, and then eventually bankrupted only four years later, entering a total profit to Bain of over double the initial investment at over $ 22 million dollars. Now, is this profiteering, ultimately at a company's demise, a thing that we would call Conservative, or does it better fit in the venue of Soros' specialty and that of the practice of Left-Wing Capitalism?

You see, when we hear the dreaded Socialists and Statists making regulation, after rule, after regulation in ultimately dragging our economy down, they are hampering those of us who actually believe in growing companies rather than wrecking them for pure profit's sake. In fact, it was billionaire, Carl Icahn, who is credited as being the man who inspired more Securities and Exchange regulations than any other single individual or entity. Is this something to be proud of? I don't personally think so, myself. In fact, if anything, if what one does requires a new regulation, then it was probably something that should not have been done in the first place.

But herein lies the rub, because these regulations and laws are actually enabled by those in the business world who do precisely the very things that are written about above by both Soros and, in these cases, Bain Capital.  Should the act of running a company into the ground, seemingly for pure profit, be against the law? Heaven's no, because of the problems of proving intent, but these types of abuses do not help our cause, especially when we are trying to educate the younglings coming up of what capitalism is truly all about. Further, it should be noted that Bain Capital has been instrumental at growing some of the most successful companies on the planet, such as Staples and the Sports Authority, just to name a couple. So, our particular critique cannot at all be taken as examples of what Bain has done incessantly, but rather, we can look to these examples as instances of how not to conduct our own businesses.

It's also a granted that many of us small business Conservatives can only shake our heads ruefully whenever a gaggle of deskbound journalists or politco's, TV types, etc. can only sit around and raise cain at  us about not being true Capitalists because of a dissenting opinion, even after persevering through the early days of Obama's attack on the Free Market. But, it was Thomas Jefferson who stated "of following the crowd blindly," this:

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, that that of blind-folded fear."

Benjamin Franklin, on the subject of Capitalism, wealth and ethics, said this:

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Here, Franklin was quite obviously stating that wealth at any cost was probably not the wisest of choices, but he made a vague connection to this idea in the form of liberty itself. Was Franklin indirectly warning his Countrymen of the connection between the unethical use of Capitalism  and a loss of Liberty, if not exercised wisely? Indeed, we need only look at the suffocating regulation of the Dodd banking bill to establish a meaningful connection for the one, as it approaches the other.

On the proper execution of Capitalism, economics Professor Walter Williams says this:

"One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting, plundering and enslaving one’s fellow man, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing him."

On the subject of blaming the system, i.e. Capitalism, rather than the offending party, President Ronald Reagan said this:

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

Finally, in my earliest days of becoming an Account Executive, the company owner and my business mentor,  taught me, one of the most basic, and yet important, of the precepts of service in industry, that which we call the Golden Rule of Business:

"He who has the gold rules."

Now, when you take that rule and apply it to the other Golden Rule, being:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

You can then understand the Conservative rules of business, that I have seen most of my small business associates utilize on a daily, if not hourly, basis.

Perhaps it's the reason that few of us in business will ever actually become billionaires, but let me assure you that, as it regards Conservatives, the "R" that stands for Republican does not at all also stand for "Ruthless,"  as well.

However, many of those precious Moderates and Independents might be wondering, after all of the bull we have heard spewed about by "some few" Establishment and otherwise Republicans, most recently.

 Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 18.
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: 22.

]]>
Opposing Viewpoints: Kristof Versus Secrest On The Occupy Wall Street Movement Barry https://conservativerefocus.com/blogs/index.php/opposing-viewpoints-kristof-versus-secrest-on-the-occupy-wall-street-movement?blog=13 2011-10-28T20:02:05Z 2011-10-28T20:06:38Z Liberal

Crony Capitalism Comes Home

Whenever I write about Occupy Wall Street, some readers ask me if the protesters really are half-naked Communists aiming to bring down the American economic system when they’re not doing drugs or having sex in public.

The answer is no. That alarmist view of the movement is a credit to the (prurient) imagination of its critics, and voyeurs of Occupy Wall Street will be disappointed. More important, while alarmists seem to think that the movement is a “mob” trying to overthrow capitalism, one can make a case that, on the contrary, it highlights the need to restore basic capitalist principles like accountability.

To put it another way, this is a chance to save capitalism from crony capitalists.

 I’m as passionate a believer in capitalism as anyone. My Krzysztofowicz cousins (who didn’t shorten the family name) lived in Poland, and their experience with Communism taught me that the way to raise living standards is capitalism.

But, in recent years, some financiers have chosen to live in a government-backed featherbed. Their platform seems to be socialism for tycoons and capitalism for the rest of us. They’re not evil at all. But when the system allows you more than your fair share, it’s human to grab. That’s what explains featherbedding by both unions and tycoons, and both are impediments to a well-functioning market economy.

When I lived in Asia and covered the financial crisis there in the late 1990s, American government officials spoke scathingly about “crony capitalism” in the region. As Lawrence Summers, then a deputy Treasury secretary, put it in a speech in August 1998: “In Asia, the problems related to ‘crony capitalism’ are at the heart of this crisis, and that is why structural reforms must be a major part” of the International Monetary Fund’s solution.

The American critique of the Asian crisis was correct. The countries involved were nominally capitalist but needed major reforms to create accountability and competitive markets.

Something similar is true today of the United States.

So I’d like to invite the finance ministers of Thailand, South Korea and Indonesia — whom I and other Americans deemed emblems of crony capitalism in the 1990s — to stand up and denounce American crony capitalism today.

Capitalism is so successful an economic system partly because of an internal discipline that allows for loss and even bankruptcy. It’s the possibility of failure that creates the opportunity for triumph. Yet many of America’s major banks are too big to fail, so they can privatize profits while socializing risk.

The upshot is that financial institutions boost leverage in search of supersize profits and bonuses. Banks pretend that risk is eliminated because it’s securitized. Rating agencies accept money to issue an imprimatur that turns out to be meaningless. The system teeters, and then the taxpayer rushes in to bail bankers out. Where’s the accountability?

It’s not just rabble-rousers at Occupy Wall Street who are seeking to put America’s capitalists on a more capitalist footing.

“Structural change is necessary,” Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, said in an important speech last month that discussed many of these themes. He called for more curbs on big banks, possibly including trimming their size, and he warned that otherwise we’re on a path of “increasingly frequent, complex and dangerous financial breakdowns.”

Likewise, Mohamed El-Erian, another pillar of the financial world who is the chief executive of Pimco, one of the world’s largest money managers, is sympathetic to aspects of the Occupy movement. He told me that the economic system needs to move toward “inclusive capitalism” and embrace broad-based job creation while curbing excessive inequality.

“You cannot be a good house in a rapidly deteriorating neighborhood,” he told me. “The credibility and the fair functioning of the neighborhood matter a great deal. Without that, the integrity of the capitalist system will weaken further.”

Lawrence Katz, a Harvard economist, adds that some inequality is necessary to create incentives in a capitalist economy but that “too much inequality can harm the efficient operation of the economy.” In particular, he says, excessive inequality can have two perverse consequences: first, the very wealthy lobby for favors, contracts and bailouts that distort markets; and, second, growing inequality undermines the ability of the poorest to invest in their own education.

“These factors mean that high inequality can generate further high inequality and eventually poor economic growth,” Professor Katz said.

Does that ring a bell?

So, yes, we face a threat to our capitalist system. But it’s not coming from half-naked anarchists manning the barricades at Occupy Wall Street protests. Rather, it comes from pinstriped apologists for a financial system that glides along without enough of the discipline of failure and that produces soaring inequality, socialist bank bailouts and unaccountable executives.

It’s time to take the crony out of capitalism, right here at home. 

Kristof's blog, On the Ground, Facebook and Google+, YouTube videos ,Twitter.

Conservative

Attack Of The Clones: Occupy Wall Street and "The Me Party"

By Barry Secrest

Has anyone ever stopped to wonder how it is that the brainiacs within our government, not to mention a large number of moderates, and virtually every Democrat on the planet, cannot seem to wrap their collectively singular mindsets around one very glaringly simple truth?

It is, in fact, quite elementary:

Blaming Wall Street and the wealthy for America's severe economic downturn would be no different than trying to blame America's breadbasket and its Farmers for a severe national drought.

And yet, here we have a raucous gaggle of mostly leftist freaks, lugubriously huddling together in the streets of America's largest cities, in order to provide their own personal exclamation point to this commonly held mistruth of class warfare, if not envy, which our President commiserates with, not surprisingly.

Obama seems to continually be making both vague and outright references to the anti-capitalist movement going on in a city near you , once even stating that, MLK, a devout Republican, would have somehow backed this left-leaning zeitgeist movement, which, by a series of cultural connections, seems to complete the burgeoning Star Wars plotlines. You see, the Dark Lord of The Sloth, indeed, must have his Army, and who better to serve than this grouping of  resolutely ill-dedicated Clones within the Occupy Protests.

Granted, when we speak of Obama's new army of  lounging Leftist clones, we are referring to a decidedly un-diverse grouping of extreme left-wing, non-independent thinking, organizations and individuals who have made their presence and their support known at these Occupy demonstrations. From the Nazi Party (National Socialists Party) to the Communist Party USA, the Workers Party, the Working Family Party, the New Party, Left-Wing Labor Unions-- all have come out in support and have, even more remarkably, evidenced  little if any irritation towards the truly culpable in our government, but rather, the reverse. That being even more power to the government to magnitudinally intensify the bankrupting of America under the auspices of redistribution, while vilifying the only ones who can actually aid in extricating America from its hyper-leftist economic disaster.

A Curiously Fawning Media

These Occupy protests, which began on Wall Street and spread throughout the larger US cities, have for a time even  intensified internationally, but have largely transformed into what could only be termed as a vast social anarchy movement geared largely against banks, the wealthy, and free market capitalism itself, for the most part--as violence has become an either threatened or active component of virtually each larger demonstration. The media, in stark but predicable contrast to its past coverage of the Tea Party, has been curiously fawning in its attention to this latest iteration of the materially-offended, along with, of course, the President and the Democrats in charge. In fact the Axis Press' coverage of the Occupy protests, in nine days, exceeded almost an entire of year of Tea Party stories.

It has become quite obvious in what, at present, seems to be a rapidly devolving world, that the dark forces of the Left have finally emerged into the light, and with a considerable vengeance, one might add. It's not just the Occupy protests alone, either.  In fact, what we appear to be witnessing is a self-absorbed tantrum of epic proportions being acted out by an entire bongo-banging generation of the erroneously enabled and the perpetually confused.

However, the one truly astonishing element to all of this, which would have been unthinkable even one decade ago, is that we now have proud cadres of  Socialists, Marxists, Communists  and even Anarchists marching and lounging throughout our streets, bearing hammer and sickle signs, often even proudly garbed in Oktober Red, in both America and Europe, while seeking to rub our patriotic right-wing noses in it to boot. In addition, the common thread which seems to run through this scraggly patchwork quilt of Leftist hegemonials is the Unions of America, the Left-Wing Capitalists and even radical Islamists of the world, all sauteed in antisemitic-think, piously merging and engaging their contrived and ever-present vitriolic disenchantment to bear.

Interestingly, this particular apocalyptic condition was prophetically foretold when Obama, as the consummate Socialist pre-emergent, burst onto the scene back in 2004 at the Democratic National Convention. On that warm day in July of 2004, Obama's speech held neither the noteworthy nor the remarkable, at the time-- for a garden variety, albeit uncharacteristically, patriotic Liberal. However, when we look back  at his words in this present-day, one particular quote stands out.

Obama stated quite eloquently, to an adulating mass of guiltily hyper-ventilating Leftists, the  following words:

Yet even as we speak, there are those who are preparing to divide us, the spin-masters and negative ad Peddlers who embrace the politics of anything goes.

Indeed, little could we have possibly known that Obama was rather incipiently referring to he himself at the time.

So where is all of this going?

Difficult to say at this point. Rush Limbaugh calls these Occupy protests a "boot camp" for the upheaval that's coming. Glenn Beck and this website, among others, have been dreading the day that these mobs would find their left-wing voice, but we have also predicted that this movement would spread from the Mideast and Europe to the US, as conditions worsened. Well, they're here, so now what happens?

Difficult to say.

The simple truth is that this movement is now teetering on either getting bigger or fizzling out, but the one thing that is not happening, so far, is the lack of a true Black involvement, which could put this movement into overdrive, should Blacks care to get involved.

Or perhaps they have had enough of "Change We Can Believe In." We'll see....

Barry's blog Conservative Refocus, Facebook, Twitter

]]>