by Austin Hill
“People call this the ‘new normal.’ Let me assure you there is nothing normal about this at all. It’s the new ‘abnormal,’ and it won’t last, because as free people we won’t stand for it…”
With those remarks, business magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes drew thunderous applause from his audience.
It was October of 2012, about 2 weeks before our last presidential election. Forbes was speaking to a crowd of 10,000 in the comforts of a beautiful indoor sporting area (the “Idaho Center”). He was headlining the “Power Up!” business and motivational seminar with Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and Zig Ziglar protégé Krish Dhanam (fyi-we need more native-born Americans to understand American liberty as well as this guy from India named “Krish” understands it).
Forbes had just finished explaining why a confluence of cheap credit, billions of dollars in stimulus spending, lots of new taxes on “rich people,” and a growing-by-the-second government debt have all failed to stimulate our economy. He was confirming with his technical explanation, what many of us instinctively know in our hearts: the reality that no organization- no individual or family, no business, no government – can spend its way out of debt and re-distribute its way to prosperity.
We should all hope that Forbes will be proven right – that, eventually, “as free people, we won’t stand for it.” Because in the election that occurred two weeks after Forbes’ speech, Americans didn’t merely “stand for it” - we asked for more of “it.”
Yet here is our reality: if Americans continue to vote (either blindly or intentionally) for politicians who viciously take expanding portions of wealth away from our society’s producers, and then selfishly redistribute that wealth to the people of their choosing, eventually the producers will stop producing as much wealth, the politicians will run out of other’s people’s money to redistribute, and we will all suffer the consequences.
The social disorder and collapse of Greece and Spain could be our future in the U.S., if, “as free people,” we don’t choose more wisely.
For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, examples abound in this present day of how not to construct a national economy. Greece and Spain qualify, yes, and so does Venezuela. And within the last few months the news from France, another bureaucratic, debt-laden, and not-so-free-anymore part of the world, should be a wake-up call to Americans, as well.
After five years of service from President Nicolas Sarkozy, a leader who sought to reduce government controls of the economy and to stimulate private enterprise, French voters tossed him aside last May in favor of a presidential candidate who was nominated jointly by both the French Socialist Party, and France’s “Radical Left Party.” Francois Hollande campaigned with a set of 60 propositions - referred to as his “manifesto” – which included raising taxes on corporations; raising taxes on banks; raising taxes on “rich” individuals; lowering the official retirement age back down to age 60 from 62; hiring 60,000 new government school teachers; and establishing government subsidized “youth jobs programs” in regions of high unemployment (does any of this sound familiar?).
Today, many French citizens seem horrified that – shock! – President Hollande is doing precisely what he pledged to do. “The situation is very serious” noted Laurence Parisot, head of France’s largest labor union MEDEF in an interview with the London Telegraph. “Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic” he claimed, as the Telegraph reported that “France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown ‘hurricane’ as investors flee rocketing tax rates.”
Within his first six months in office, French President Hollande managed to raise national capital gains taxes from 34.5% to 62.2%, and now the French people are freaking-out. Juxtapose that with the hatred that American Golfer Phil Mickelson experienced when he acknowledged last month that, between federal and California state income taxes, he’s having “62, or 63%” of his earnings taken away each year, and the reality-check is even more striking.
In short, the French apparently now believe that this level of taxation is a dangerous and destructive thing. In America, however, “rich guy” Phil Mickelson is a dangerous and destructive thing.
And consider this: Laurence Parisot, a major, national labor union leader (arguably a counterpart of Teamsters leader James P. Hoffa here in the U.S.) is upset because a Socialist President is taking more money from “the rich” and re-distributing it to others via government employment programs. Such policies would seem like a dream come true for the AFL-CIO, yet the union leader in France seems to understand that the “rich” in his country play a vital role in other people’s livelihoods, and simply seizing more of their money is harmful for everybody – even unionized workers.
The backlash that the Socialist President is enduring suggests that maybe the citizenry is waking up and facing reality. But are Americans facing economic reality yet?
We observed in the so-called “fiscal cliff negotiations” that President Obama’s political abilities to raise income and capital gains taxes are limited. And the suffering among lower and middle income Americans from the infliction of higher payroll taxes, and Obamacare taxes and penalties is so real that last week, even the New York Times had to report on it.
Let’s hope that Steve Forbes is right – that this is not our “new normal;” that we will reject politicians who are vicious with society’s wealth creators. It may, however, have to get much worse in America, before we embrace reality.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Showing posts with label Foreign Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Foreign Affairs. Show all posts
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Anne Romney And The Dogma That Crossed Main Street
By Austin Hill
Dogma – a prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group; a belief system that remains largely unchallenged.
Sometimes dictionary definitions can seem vague or esoteric. But as it pertains to understanding President Obama and his devotees, it’s best to try and understand them through the lenses of left-wing dogma.
And the Anne Romney has “never worked a day in her life” flap is just the latest example of left-wing dogma colliding with mainstream America. Granted the strategic insulting of Mrs. Romney last week originated from Hillary Rosen, a liberal Democrat pundit, and not President Obama himself (although Ms. Rosen claims that she’s received numerous calls from the White House echoing support for her efforts to malign Mitt Romney’s wife). Yet it in the week prior, President Obama noted at a White House forum on women that in the early days of his marriage and career, he and his wife Michelle didn’t “have the luxury for her not to work.”
To those of us in “fly over country,” it may seem far-fetched to believe that two graduates of elite private east coast universities and an Ivy League law school, and who are stalwarts in what they call the “pro choice” political agenda, were left struggling without any economic choices when they started a family. But this is to view matters in overly literal, concrete terms. On the left side of the aisle, dogma comes first; reality is secondary, and one’s perception of reality is always shaped by that dogma.
Thus, the attitude reflected by President Obama and Hillary Rosen is illustrative of at least a couple of those “prescribed doctrines” understood to be “unquestionably true.” For one, women never freely choose to not be on a career track. Male oppression keeps women out of the marketplace, and, therefore, women who are only mothers are actually victims, and are in need of government programs (think affirmative action, “anti-discrimination” laws, etc..) to correct the injustices done to them.
If you live outside the confines of this dogma as I do, you may be thinking “but wait! Some women actually choose motherhood before career, and some husbands make tremendous sacrifices to allow that stay-at-home mom thing to happen.” But this leads us to another item of “unquestionably true” dogma: any woman who was truly being “herself” would never freely choose motherhood above all else.
On the contrary, a woman who thinks this way is being held hostage to ancient, patriarchal, male-dominated ideas – we’ll call it “ideological victimization” that probably happened within the context of an unenlightened religious setting – and she is need of a swift rebuke, if not more government intervention. Left-wing dogma always tells us that mere motherhood is not really working. That may be painful for some women, but such confrontation is really for a woman’s own good, and certainly adds to the “collective good” of the dogmatic community.
Are you beginning to understand how left-wing dogma works? Here’s another example of it: one should always assume the worst about the U.S. military, except when it is being commanded by a Democrat President and when it is participating in a multilateral mission (U.S. troops deployed side-by-side with troops from other countries).
Because of the “unquestionably true” nature of these assumptions, left-wing America was always going to hold a grudge about having troops in Iraq. The mission in Iraq began with Republican President George W. Bush, and while the “troop surge” was implemented by Barack Obama, it nonetheless was George W Bush’s idea (gasp!).
While not-so-dogmatic Americans may be wondering what is happening to American interests in Iraq since the troop draw-down there, left-wing America is satisfied that our foreign policy is more in line with proper dogma – and current conditions in Iraq don’t matter.
And recall from last month the very dogmatic visit to Afghanistan by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Before American military personnel were permitted to enter the room where Secretary Panetta spoke, they were forced to disarm, and leave their weapons outside. The Administration later noted that the reason for this was because there were Afghani troops in the room who were required to disarm, so therefore the U.S. troops needed to be treated equally with the Afghani’s.
The multilateral mission in Afghanistan is, itself, in line with left-wing dogma – Barack Obama said during his first campaign that the mission Afghanistan was the “real war” we needed to be engaged in, rather than Iraq (so it must be true). And by virtue of being “multilateral,” well – suffice it to say that the Afghanistan mission fulfills two dogmatic requirements.
Yet it would violate another component of dogma if U.S. troops were treated as though they were superior, or more trustworthy, than the members of any other military. Thus, the U.S. military was treated exactly the same as the Afghani troops when Mr. Panetta visited, so it was all dogmatically good.
President Obama’s dogma is often met with opposition on main street America. But until we elect a new President, expect the “disconnect” to continue.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Dogma – a prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group; a belief system that remains largely unchallenged.
Sometimes dictionary definitions can seem vague or esoteric. But as it pertains to understanding President Obama and his devotees, it’s best to try and understand them through the lenses of left-wing dogma.
And the Anne Romney has “never worked a day in her life” flap is just the latest example of left-wing dogma colliding with mainstream America. Granted the strategic insulting of Mrs. Romney last week originated from Hillary Rosen, a liberal Democrat pundit, and not President Obama himself (although Ms. Rosen claims that she’s received numerous calls from the White House echoing support for her efforts to malign Mitt Romney’s wife). Yet it in the week prior, President Obama noted at a White House forum on women that in the early days of his marriage and career, he and his wife Michelle didn’t “have the luxury for her not to work.”
To those of us in “fly over country,” it may seem far-fetched to believe that two graduates of elite private east coast universities and an Ivy League law school, and who are stalwarts in what they call the “pro choice” political agenda, were left struggling without any economic choices when they started a family. But this is to view matters in overly literal, concrete terms. On the left side of the aisle, dogma comes first; reality is secondary, and one’s perception of reality is always shaped by that dogma.
Thus, the attitude reflected by President Obama and Hillary Rosen is illustrative of at least a couple of those “prescribed doctrines” understood to be “unquestionably true.” For one, women never freely choose to not be on a career track. Male oppression keeps women out of the marketplace, and, therefore, women who are only mothers are actually victims, and are in need of government programs (think affirmative action, “anti-discrimination” laws, etc..) to correct the injustices done to them.
If you live outside the confines of this dogma as I do, you may be thinking “but wait! Some women actually choose motherhood before career, and some husbands make tremendous sacrifices to allow that stay-at-home mom thing to happen.” But this leads us to another item of “unquestionably true” dogma: any woman who was truly being “herself” would never freely choose motherhood above all else.
On the contrary, a woman who thinks this way is being held hostage to ancient, patriarchal, male-dominated ideas – we’ll call it “ideological victimization” that probably happened within the context of an unenlightened religious setting – and she is need of a swift rebuke, if not more government intervention. Left-wing dogma always tells us that mere motherhood is not really working. That may be painful for some women, but such confrontation is really for a woman’s own good, and certainly adds to the “collective good” of the dogmatic community.
Are you beginning to understand how left-wing dogma works? Here’s another example of it: one should always assume the worst about the U.S. military, except when it is being commanded by a Democrat President and when it is participating in a multilateral mission (U.S. troops deployed side-by-side with troops from other countries).
Because of the “unquestionably true” nature of these assumptions, left-wing America was always going to hold a grudge about having troops in Iraq. The mission in Iraq began with Republican President George W. Bush, and while the “troop surge” was implemented by Barack Obama, it nonetheless was George W Bush’s idea (gasp!).
While not-so-dogmatic Americans may be wondering what is happening to American interests in Iraq since the troop draw-down there, left-wing America is satisfied that our foreign policy is more in line with proper dogma – and current conditions in Iraq don’t matter.
And recall from last month the very dogmatic visit to Afghanistan by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Before American military personnel were permitted to enter the room where Secretary Panetta spoke, they were forced to disarm, and leave their weapons outside. The Administration later noted that the reason for this was because there were Afghani troops in the room who were required to disarm, so therefore the U.S. troops needed to be treated equally with the Afghani’s.
The multilateral mission in Afghanistan is, itself, in line with left-wing dogma – Barack Obama said during his first campaign that the mission Afghanistan was the “real war” we needed to be engaged in, rather than Iraq (so it must be true). And by virtue of being “multilateral,” well – suffice it to say that the Afghanistan mission fulfills two dogmatic requirements.
Yet it would violate another component of dogma if U.S. troops were treated as though they were superior, or more trustworthy, than the members of any other military. Thus, the U.S. military was treated exactly the same as the Afghani troops when Mr. Panetta visited, so it was all dogmatically good.
President Obama’s dogma is often met with opposition on main street America. But until we elect a new President, expect the “disconnect” to continue.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
