Posts Tagged ‘Muck’

Better or Worse?

by Daniel Greenfield on Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013

This is article 95 of 145 in the topic History

All politics are the politics of the future. The one cause that we all champion, regardless of our political orientation, is the cause of the future. All that we fight for is the ability to shape the future.

The fundamental political question is, “Do you believe things are getting better or worse?” Ruling parties tend to answer, “Better”, opposition parties tend to answer, “Worse”. The deeper answer to that question though lies in our perceptions of the past and the future.

The left tends to view the past negatively and future shock positively. It wants change to disrupt the old order of things in order to make way for a new order. It hews to a progressive understanding of history in which we have been getting better with the advance of time, the march of progress mimics evolution as a means of lifting humanity out of the muck and raising it up on ivory towers of reason through a ceaseless process of change.

The right often views the past positively, it sees change as a destroyer that undermines civilization’s accomplishments and threatens to usher in anarchy. It fights to conserve that which is threatened by the entropic winds of change. The conservative worldview is progressive in its own way, but it is the progress of the established order. It sees progress emerging from the accretion of civilization, rather than from the disruption of revolution.

Where the left tends to be unrealistically optimistic about the future, acting like a child running to the edge and jumping off, without remembering all the bumps and bruises before, the right tends to be pessimistic about the future. It tends to be wary of change because it is all too aware of how dangerous change can be.

Youth who do not understand the value of what is around them rush to the left. As they achieve a sense of worth, of the world around them and of their labors, they drift slowly to the right. Age also brings with it a sense of vulnerability. Knowing how you can be hurt, how fragile the thin skin of the body, the fleshy connections and organs dangling within, brings with it a different view of the world. Once you understand that you can lose and that you will lose, then you also understand how important it is to defend what you have left.

The vital mantra of the left is do something for the sake of doing something. Change for the sake of novelty. Action for the sake of action. This carnival drumbeat loses its appeal when you come to understand how dangerous change can be. Personal history becomes national history becomes personal history again as you live through it. Seeing what a mistake change can be as you watch politicians disgraced, causes revealed as fool’s errands and crusades fall apart, is a great teacher of the folly of change for the sake of change.

Reagan’s question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” is the fundamental challenge of the conservative that asks whether the change was really worth it. It is the question at the heart of the struggle between the right and the left.

Are you better off than you were twenty years ago or forty years ago?

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

America’s Economy Is Stuck

by John Myers on Wednesday, December 5th, 2012

This is article 321 of 392 in the topic economy
America’s Economy Is Stuck

PHOTOS.COM

Upon his re-election, President Barack Obama pledged to get America’s economy moving again. It is troubling that the President made this same promise four years ago, yet America’s economy is still stuck.

The Federal government and the Federal Reserve have injected trillions of dollars into the economy and reduced interest rates to their lowest levels in history, yet America’s economy is still stuck. And reckless attempts by Obama and the Fed to drag it forward will eventually destroy it.

I grew up in the country, and I saw a lot of things get stuck in snow and mud: trucks, tractors, even a snowmobile. What I remember most clearly is that when I was 10, my dad’s 1966 Lincoln became immobile. It was a white, four-door Continental with the signature rear suicide doors (they opened backward, making it an easy car to jump from if you were in the back).

In the mid-1960s, my father built a log cabin beside Lake McGregor in Southern Alberta. The lake runs along a thin valley he lived above as a boy in the early 1900s, when his parents were homesteaders.

The equipment that built the cabin had come and gone, as had the permafrost. When he took our family to see the finished cabin, the spring thaw was in full force. We drove beside the lake on a cow trail — not a road.

It didn’t take long for the big Ford to sink right up to its fenders. Loaded down with building materials and people, not even the Lincoln’s massive 460 cubic inch engine could pull us free, despite my dad’s heavy-footed attempts to get it rolling.  It turned out to be a car that could pass anything except a gas station or a mud trail.

Eventually, two big tractors towed the car onto dry land. Unfortunately, the car’s transmission remained in the mud and muck. That beautiful car was a write-off.

That car was built during the high-level mark for Detroit. In 1966, U.S. auto companies were building one out of every two cars sold in the world.

A decade after that Lincoln slipped deep into the mud, Detroit was also slipping toward failure. In the 1970s came the Chrysler bailout. In the late 1980s, President George H.W. Bush instituted protectionism for all U.S. automakers. And just four years ago this month, President George W. Bush kept America’s auto industry afloat by giving a $17.4 billion bailout to General Motors Co. and Chrysler.

Just like my dad did that day on the cow trail, the Federal government and the Fed keep flooring the gas pedal. Rather than pumping gasoline into an immovable vehicle they are pumping money into an immovable economy.

Policymakers simply will not accept that the U.S. economy is permanently stuck.

It hasn’t always been that way. Starting with Lincoln (the President, not the car), U.S. gross domestic product grew by more than 3 percent per year. The growth continued until I was a kid. That was 100 years of consistent growth, a record untouched by any nation in history.

But America’s economic growth rates have fallen significantly in the past two decades. America is getting weaker, not stronger.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Defying the Red Muck That Smothers Hollywood, Clint Eastwood Advocates on Behalf of America!

by John Lillpop on Tuesday, August 7th, 2012

This is article 821 of 1300 in the topic 2012 Elections

Most of Hollywood, and the super-wealthy cinema “stars” and starlets who congregate there, have, like trained animals, “heeled” behind leftist tyrants committed to the utter decimation of the most prosperous society in human history and the concurrent obliteration of the greatest system ever devised for self-governance.

That is, Hollywood’s freakish left is, for the most part, aligned behind Marxist Barack Obama and what will surely be the end of America, should the electorate repeat the tragic mistake of 2008!

There is, however, a notable, praiseworthy exception to the mind-numbing myopia and dumbing down that has gripped Tinseltown: That would be the gracious conservative known as Clint Eastwood.

As reported:

LOS ANGELES – Clint Eastwood made quite a splash when he starred in a Super Bowl commercial that talked about “halftime in America.” For those who saw it as a sign of backing for President Obama, his weekend endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney might be seen as reversing his field.

Saying that he believed “the country needs a boost,” the 82-year-old actor and director endorsed Romney in Sun Valley, Idaho, on Friday night. The setting was fundraiser that brought in more than $2 million for the Victory Fund, a joint effort between the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee.

Eastwood said at the gathering that he became aware of Romney when he was filming the 2003 movie “Mystic River” in Massachusetts.

“And at that time Gov. Romney was running for governor and I kept seeing him appear on television all the time and I said ‘God this guy, he’s too handsome to be governor, but he does look like he could be president,’” he said.

Eastwood cited tax reform as one reason he was backing Romney, telling the crowd that former Massachusetts governor was “going to restore, hopefully, a decent tax system that we need badly…so that there’s a fairness and people are not pitted against one another as to who’s paying taxes and who isn’t.”

Romney, demonstrating he knows a cue when he gets one, said that Eastwood’s backing “made my day.”

Eastwood also made the day for millions of other common-sense Americans who want America taken back from left-wing tyrants, those “intellectuals” who neither respect nor understand what it means to be an American!

Bravo, Clint Eastwood: Finally a small streak of light breaks through the red muck that is Hollywood!

Go straight to Post

Better or Worse?

by Daniel Greenfield on Thursday, April 12th, 2012

All politics are the politics of the future. The one cause that we all champion, regardless of our political orientation, is the cause of the future. All that we fight for is the ability to shape the future.

The fundamental political question is, “Do you believe things are getting better or worse?” Ruling parties tend to answer, “Better”, opposition parties tend to answer, “Worse”. The deeper answer to that question though lies in our perceptions of the past and the future.

The left tends to view the past negatively and future shock positively. It wants change to disrupt the old order of things in order to make way for a new order. It hews to a progressive understanding of history in which we have been getting better with the advance of time, the march of progress mimics evolution as a means of lifting humanity out of the muck and raising it up on ivory towers of reason through a ceaseless process of change.

The right often views the past positively, it sees change as a destroyer that undermines civilization’s accomplishments and threatens to usher in anarchy. It fights to conserve that which is threatened by the entropic winds of change. The conservative worldview is progressive in its own way, but it is the progress of the established order. It sees progress emerging from the accretion of civilization, rather than from the disruption of revolution.

Where the left tends to be unrealistically optimistic about the future, acting like a child running to the edge and jumping off, without remembering all the bumps and bruises before, the right tends to be pessimistic about the future. It tends to be wary of change because it is all too aware of how dangerous change can be.

Youth who do not understand the value of what is around them rush to the left. As they achieve a sense of worth, of the world around them and of their labors, they drift slowly to the right. Age also brings with it a sense of vulnerability. Knowing how you can be hurt, how fragile the thin skin of the body, the fleshy connections and organs dangling within, brings with it a different view of the world. Once you understand that you can lose and that you will lose, then you also understand how important it is to defend what you have left.

The vital mantra of the left is do something for the sake of doing something. Change for the sake of novelty. Action for the sake of action. This carnival drumbeat loses its appeal when you come to understand how dangerous change can be. Personal history becomes national history becomes personal history again as you live through it. Seeing what a mistake change can be as you watch politicians disgraced, causes revealed as fool’s errands and crusades fall apart, is a great teacher of the folly of change for the sake of change.

Reagan’s question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” is the fundamental challenge of the conservative that asks whether the change was really worth it. It is the question at the heart of the struggle between the right and the left.

Are you better off than you were twenty years ago or forty years ago?

1 2 3 4
Go straight to Post

Fighting TSA Thugocracy

by Bob Livingston on Tuesday, November 16th, 2010

This is article 37 of 191 in the topic Government Regulations

Fighting TSA Thugocracy

There is growing resistance to the Transportation Security Administration’s airport porn show /grope fest, where TSA agents give airline passengers a choice of being irradiated while having nude photographs taken or being sexually assaulted in order to fly. And there are a few signs Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano may be backing down in the face of the growing resistance.

Already, talks are underway with pilots unions over pilot screening, and the TSA has decided that children under 12 should not receive the pat down.

But this is not enough, and airline passengers need to continue fighting the totalitarian thugocracy that is the TSA. For an example of how the TSA works, watch the video of Meg McLain, or go here to learn what happened to John Tyner, who is now being investigated by the TSA for refusing to be scanned or groped.

National Opt-Out Day is scheduled for Nov. 24, and travelers are being encouraged to declare they opt of the naked body scanners and submit to the enhanced pat down. This will muck up the system and allow the traveling public to see how innocent Americans are treated by TSA goons. But this should only be the beginning.

We encourage anyone going through airport security to record the experience. Video and audio of the TSA thugs at work is one of the best tools we have against the growing totalitarianism. And if you do make a recording, please send it to freedomwatch@personalliberty.com. We’ll post any we receive on the site, and we guarantee your anonymity.

Airports actually have the right to their own opt-out. The 2001 law that created the TSA gave airports the right to opt out of the TSA program in favor of private screeners after a two-year period. Representative John Mica (R-Fla.), who will chair the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the new Congress, reminds airports they have that choice.

It’s time for Americans to remind the airports, the airlines and the government that the choice actually belongs to the American people — and we choose freedom.

Go straight to Post

Charles Rangel: Man Who Escaped Nancy Pelosi’s “House Cleaning” Fury

by John Lillpop on Sunday, July 25th, 2010

This is article 34 of 469 in the topic Government Corruption

San Francisco’s very own Nancy Pelosi was at the forefront of the liberal overthrow of the U.S. House of Representatives four years ago with her silly rhetoric to “Drain the Swamp,” shut down the “Culture of Corruption,” and other mindless slogans.

In a historic misreading of voter sentiment, once the 2006 election was final, Madam Speaker immediately impounded the Speaker’s Gavel and boldly trumpeted the emergence of a “New Day in America.”

Less than four years later, it is clear that Pelosi’s much- ballyhooed swamp cleaner needs a major overhaul so as to ferret out the worst manner of muck feeding at the very bottom of the swamp.

Specifically, Pelosi needs to reboot her sleaze screen to catch the likes of alleged tax fraud Rep. Charles Rangel whose protestations of innocence will be put to the test after a House investigative panel announced that Rangel would face a public ethics trial over findings that he had violated a range of ethics rules.

For the record, Rangel is a liberal Democrat. Apparently, Pelosi’s draining of the swamp was designed to catch corrupt Republicans, and only Republicans!

Which causes one to challenge another goofy Pelosism, the one in which she declared, “Perhaps it will take a woman to clean the U.S. House.”

That may be true, but in view of Pelosi’s awful record, it is clear that just being a woman is not nearly enough.

Indeed, when it comes to the Speaker of the U.S. House, the American people deserve a competent and ethical leader, regardless of gender.

Shipping Pelosi back to San Francisco come November with her wonky swamp cleaner in tow will truly bring about a “New Day in America,” and one worthy of mass celebration!

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin