Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Inauthentic Stephen Colbert

For understanding about comedian Stephen Colbert's behavior before Congress, when he adopted his stage persona instead of being himself, read his Wikipedia entry at
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert

Note the description of Colbert's embarrassment at his accent and his upbringing, which he's submerged beneath his alter ego. His dislike of populist Americans and all they stand for is, at its core, a hatred of himself. Or, this is one screwed-up person.

As for his "testimony," it shows the extent to which many on the Left are one-trick ponies. They create a distorted version of a complex issue-- in this case, illegal immigration-- creating a caricature of the opposition which they can then knock down, with accompanying smugness and snarkiness.

SUICIDE OF THE LEFT
The behavior of the Stephen Colberts of the Left weakens their own cause. It reveals the confusion of today's Left. Illegal immigration, after all, hurts no one so much as America's working people-- those the Left feigns to represent-- and benefits no one so much as the very wealthy. The Left, in other words, is warring on the very people who were once their traditional base of support. When they continually insult the bulk of the American public, let them not be surprised at the result!

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Who's Fringe?

HILARIOUS is the way the elite media continually portrays Tea Partiers as "fringe" extremists. This depiction comes from journalists who exist on the fringe of American society, disconnected from the populace-at-large and backing away ever further away from what they consider "those people." You know, from the Christine O'Donnells, who in her ambitions and foibles is typically American; a sincerely good person of a type most of us have known, have grown up with. Of course the Tea Partiers appear fringe when you keep increasing your distance from them, as the media elite do by creeping ever farther away, to the edge of the Hamptons, the farthest point they can go east from their own country, the only place left the ocean, which they and their publications will soon enough tumble into to the rejoicing of all.

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

The People Against the Parties

The media misreads the victory of Christine O’Donnell over establishment-backed Mike Castle for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Delaware. It’s a victory for conservatism, sure, but also for populism. Elites in both parties are aghast that this outsider, this “unqualified” (in their eyes) person has received a major party nomination. They fail to see this as a victory for DEMOCRACY, and for the Republic which embodies it. Unfortunately, the career politicians of the machine and their media mouthpieces have long since lost touch with what America was intended to be about.

Monday, September 6, 2010

The Lessons of History

The rapid political swings in the United States right now, from Right to Left to Right, are similar to the situation in France in the 1930’s. A party is elected and appears completely dominant, giving the illusion that a long-term change has taken place. Within a couple years the dominance is gone.

The way the Obama administration began less than a mere two years ago mimicked in some ways the “Popular Front” victory which occurred in France in 1936.

Author Richard Overy (in The Road to War):

“—the Popular Front parties campaigned on the promise of economic revival and social reform . . . on a promise not to destroy capitalism, but to manage it. On foreign policy there were deep divisions between pacifists, who were mainly socialists, and the other two alliance parties which favored rearmament. . . .”

“The results of the Popular Front, which had aroused such optimism and elan in the summer of 1936, were deeply disillusioning. Social conflict did not go away but intensified. The French economy did not revive, but became plagued by inflation, a mounting deficit and a massive flight of capital. The social programmes could no longer be funded.”

“For the movement elected to restore a sense of unity and social peace, to heal the wounds of post-depression France, produced an almost entirely contrary effect.”

According to Overy, French morale and the French economy only began to revive at the end of the decade under the French nationalist Paul Reynaud. But by then of course it was too late.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

The Dems’ Drawback

The Democratic Party is run by a secular priesthood which retreats further and further into unreal complacencies, assumptions, or outright fantasies such as global warming theory which work against the prospects of the very working people they feign to represent. The problem with the Democrats is that they have nothing in common with the masses of voters they depend upon to win elections. Not culturally, socially, economically, or philosophically. Nothing. The elites who run and finance the party and the unprivileged voters come from opposite worlds. Nowhere is this more marked than with the Democrats’ most dependable bastion of support, the African-American community. The only thing keeping the ill-fitting coalition together is the failure of Republicans to credibly reach out to those who might better fit in their camp. When this occurs the game is over.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Obama and Change

The biggest misconception people had about President Obama when he was elected was that he had anything to do with change. That’s not why he was put in there. He’s a creature of the system. His task was to hold the center—to sustain and strengthen the status quo. Which means, the central institutions of the political status quo, from the pillars of elite media (Obama is their creation) to the ever-growing institutions of the federal government with all the accompanying train of that government, from government contractors to government unions to pseudo-government institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Of course, also the government-sustained Federal Reserve-run banking system. Obama’s task is to keep the whole mess together. He’s not an agent of change—unless you think more state power is change! The irony of the situation is that it’s conservatives who are more comfortable with change, in the sense that they realize this country was created to allow flexibility and change. (Aka freedom.) The freebooting mindset can adapt to—nay, thrives on—change. This may be why the Republican party is being transformed by its populists, while the other major party, progressively elitist, progressively slows, coagulates, bureaucratizes, hardens.