Skip to comments.FREEPER INPUT REQUESTED
Posted on 01/19/2013 12:29:33 PM PST by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
This is a draft of something I am planning for a wider distribution.
Please take a look at it.
In the past you have given me great feedback on typos and grammar corrections which I am thankful for, but I can also take feedback on concepts or things that need clarification.
The group this is intended for I assume knows how to google so I am not going to document anything as everything in here should be common knowledge or easily web searched.
Thank you in advance.
All the best...
Why Obama is Different
On the eve of the inauguration, I think it is important to access where we are.
The media is bending over backwards to present the economy as typical and Obama as a regular but gifted presidential leader.
But we have never seen deficits like we have now.
We have never seen the growth of entitlements like we have now.
We have never had unemployment like we do now.
We have never lost workers like we have now.
We have never had the top corporate tax rates in the world like we do now.
A lot of months during 2012 more people were going on social security disability than there were finding jobs!
In light of this, things are arguably worse now than in the great depression.
Keep in mind, it is easier to incapacitate a sick man than one who is at the peak of his health.
Because of this, Obamas economic policies will have a much harder impact on the economy than they did during his first term. The media, who is cheerleading the so called economic recovery, touts a GDP growth rate that trails most 3rd world countries.
The two things that cause the greatest negative economic impact, which are increased taxes and regulations are just now being implemented. He has already said he is not done raising taxes on the job creators.
Secondly, great presidents in the past have worked with political opponents and worked against national enemies. Obama is doing exactly the opposite. Every word, every speech is aimed at taking out his political opponents. Every terrorist act is not called that and justified. Benghazi and Fort Hood are two examples of that. This comes at a time when his policies have caused a breakdown of order in the Middle East. Terrorism and anarchy are definitely the beneficiaries. The Muslim Brotherhood and the Iranian nuclear program are both progressing rapidly and unimpeded by this administration.
Historically we have seen civilization be attacked by anarchy in the past. This is not always the same as good vs. evil as there has been good and bad on both sides. But anarchy has taken a toll on civilization in the past. The fall of Rome and the Dark Ages are the triumphs of barbarians and Islam in our history.
While the media bends over backwards to present Obama as a normal president, he is a different kind of leader than weve ever had in the past.
There are of course outward differences but the ones below the surface are the ones we need to be mindful of. All of his mentors growing up were dedicated Marxists which includes his father, his mother, his grandparents who actually raised him and his adopted mentor Frank Davis.
While the media attacks like junkyard dogs anyone who calls Obama a socialist, a Marxist, a communist, or a statist lets not look at the trivial differences between the meanings of these words.
What they all have in common is their goal which is the destruction of capitalism. In all of these approaches, the governments main role is to protect the people from greedy money hoarders, whose main goal is to prevent anyone from getting their money, the consequences of which are starving children.
I maintain that this is a non-existent boogie man.
As long as rich people pledge support for bigger taxes and regulations, they are immune from criticism by the left. George Soros, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are examples. But if any rich person proclaims support for limited government, then they become a target, Bill Koch, Mitt Romney and Republicans are examples.
Because of the condition of the economy and world which are both largely due to Obamas policies, this second term represents a term which will have major consequences to the US and the World.
I leave it to you the reader to extrapolate what these might be, but my advice is be aware and be prepared.
“assess” not “access”.
“highest corporate tax rate” not “top”.
“media are” not “media is” (”media” is plural, correct in other places.
On the eve of the inauguration, I think it is important to access where we are. The media is bending over backwards to present the economy as typical and Obama as a regular but gifted presidential leader.
I think the word you're looking for is "assess" and the media is bending over "backward", not the plural, backwards.
I'll keep reading and followup later. Hope this helps!
And very long essays come across as rants (not that yours is). So sometimes less is more!
Just my two cents.
Good thing I know I’m a dope and didn’t just send this out!
We are in the final stages of a Marxist takeover. The wave of human emotion, the zeitgeist if you will, is unstoppable until it runs its inevitably disastrous course and that certainly won’t happen in our lifetime. Our once successful republic has atrophied as they all do. The later inhabitants weren’t alive to appreciate the freedoms that were fought for. We are fat and happy without a clue as to the value of the freedoms we happily give up in the name of societal fairness. It is human nature. Buckle up, it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
We have never lost workers like we have now. —> We have never lost workers like we have LOST now.
In your list, universally replace the work “like” with “as”, it reads better, IMHO
btw, great tagline. Simple and to the point.
The word “Secondly” is illogical as there is no “Firstly” - remove it.
I have great difficulty with the term, the media. While it is true that fictional movies and TV shows do tend to come from a socialist perspective, there is IMHO no conceivable way of retaining the freedom of speech, or of the press while in any way censoring nonfiction. So the only thing of which you might have a legitimate complaint is nonfiction - and in nonfiction books we have at the very least a level playing field.
So what you are actually complaining about is topical nonfiction - journalism. And if you are unable to stand on your hind legs and call out your opponent by name as being your opponent, you need not wonder why it is that you are losing the argument.
To the response that, journalism consists of many different and competitive journalists, there is an answer which is IMHO entirely defensible - wire service journalism functions as a single entity. As Adam Smith famously wrote in 1776,"People of the same trade seldom meet together even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or some contrivance to raise prices.. . . and what group of people of the same trade meet together as much as journalists do??? The Associated Press newswire is a continual virtual meeting of all the major competitors in journalism - a meeting" which has been going on continuously since the middle of the Nineteenth Century. If there is any case that any nominal competitors coordinate their actions for their own benefit, certainly that case must exist for members of the Associated Press.
But do journalists actually have motives which are distinct from the public good and the national interest? Isnt journalism objective? Quite simply, the interest of the journalist is to promote itself and to interest the public. To that end, journalism cries Wolf! whether or not an actual wolf is in view. If there is no actual wolf in sight, journalists will latch onto the thinest rationale for labeling the most unoffending sheep - or, even more titillating, shepherd - as a wolf in disguise.Why do journalists align themselves with Democrats? The question is wrongly put. The real question is, Why wouldnt a political party align itself with journalism? And why wouldnt journalists reward members of that party with positive labels such as moderate, progressive, or liberal?"