Category: Politics

The American Pravda media are having a meltdown over Sarah Palin the likes I’ve not ever seen since they destroyed the career of Dan Quayle. From the cover of Newsweek that clearly was seeking to trivialize Palin to David Brooks to Bob Schieffer to Chris Matthews the Fascist media are coming unglued over Palin. It has gotten so bad that one of the major media cable shows had a roving reporter attack a 13 year old Palin fan for not knowing why she supported Palin.

I’ve been turning this over in my head trying to understand why the media markets are turning inside out over Palin. Here is what I’ve come up with so far.

Race (Tribal thing)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJRRjEzK_wo

At the link above at the 45 second mark Chris Matthews picks up on the racial aspect of Palin’s appeal. Matthews observes that the attendance to Palin’s book signing was “monochromatic.” In the mindset of elitist media figures if a political figure has appeal only to white people then there is certainly something wrong with that person. They don’t take the time to ask’ “why does Sarah Palin predominately attract white people?”

If they asked that question the answer would quickly be seen, by looking at election results, that the reason that people of color don’t turn out for Sarah Palin’s book signing tour is that they consistently vote for cultural Marixsts. Palin clearly isn’t a cultural Marxist, therefore very few non-white people attend.

This reality that people of color are voting for cultural Marxists in overwhelming majorities is something that people largely refuse to consider since such a consideration is not politically correct. What has happened is that minorities have, in Cultural Marxism (neo-Marxism if you prefer) largely filled the role that was filled by the proletariat (working class) in classical Marxism. Minorities are being used, the same way the proletariat was used in classical Marxism, to advance the agenda of the Marxist elite — a Marxist elite that includes major white media personalities like Chris Matthews. Sarah Palin is the anti-thesis of both the Marxist elite and of their rank and file and as such neither people of color, nor the white neo-Marxist elite class are interested in her.

So, perhaps in some sense, Matthews is right that Palin’s success is a Tribal thing but this Tribal thing can’t be explained merely by skin color apart from examining why the Tribes are separating the way they are.

Christianity

This is really part of the mix above. One can hardly talk about race without at the same time talking about culture and one can’t talk about race or culture w/o talking about Faith. The reason that this is so is that culture is race (mentioned above) and faith (mentioned here) incarnated.

Some will disagree with this by noting that culture is only theology (faith) incarnated but I believe if one suggests that culture is only theology incarnated one implies that men are a blank slate that don’t come to cultural animation without theology being written on that blank slate. Clearly, our ethnicity along with our theology inclines us to incarnate our culture in a certain distinct way. No one would expect Reformed Hutu Christians to create the same culture as Reformed Japanese Christians. They both would be incarnating their theology into a culture but their cultures would remain distinct because their ethnicity is part of what their Reformed Christian theology would be poured over.

Anyway, Palin’s attraction to white people is an attraction that can be accounted for by the residual effects of the Christian faith that many white American are still influenced by. The major media hates the Christian faith that Sarah Palin, fortunately or unfortunately, (I think unfortunately) has come to represent. Palin believes in God and worse yet to the neo-Marxist media elite she believes in Jesus. Palin is pro-life. Palin has some sort of inkling of Federalism. Palin is seen as pro-family (though for the life of me I don’t know why). All of these are consistent with a Christian world view.

Try to see this in terms of the anti-thesis. Palin is the cultural Marxist anti-Christ, and the media must destroy her.

Now, it bedevils me to no end that Palin is becoming the poster child for Christianity in the public square. From what I’ve gleaned from her background her Christianity is of the Pentecostal variety. I’m not very comfortable with the thought of a President getting a “word from the Lord” about rather she should nuke Iran.

Charisma

Palin has what all politicians desire and that is charisma. There has not been a political figure with the Charisma of Palin since Jack Kennedy. Not even Ronald Reagan had her charisma. She has a presence that defies explanation. A great deal could change between now and 2012 but if Palin’s Charisma holds until then no other Republican should waste his time running against Palin.

This is not to say that I think Palin is the most qualified Republican, though she certainly is as qualified as B. Hussein Obama to be President. There are several Republicans I would prefer over her. I could never vote for Sarah Palin. It is only to say that if her native ability to connect with middle America remains the way it currently is the nomination is hers to lose.

I observe the Palin phenomenon with a strange attachment. On the one hand I say to myself, “anybody who the major media hates this badly must be a good thing,” while on the other hand I say to myself, “whether she succeeds or fails she will largely define Christianity in the political square and I’m convinced that is a bad thing.”

Conservatism is not what it was before FDR and the New Deal. Old line Conservatives like Garet Garret, Albert J. Nock, H. L. Mencken, John T. Flynn, Frank Chodorov, and others like them, were they to walk the earth today, would be considered right wing extreme extremists. FDR and the New Deal succeeded in pulling the continuum of what constitutes liberal vs. conservative to the left so that today’s people can claim to be conservative and still support things like Social Security, Medicare, and other government give away programs.

We are now living in times that represent another lurch leftward in the left vs. right continuum so that if the Obama administration is successful in socializing health care, the way that FDR was successful in socializing old age retirement, today’s liberals will be thought of as tomorrow’s conservatives. This will result in, as an example, tomorrow’s conservatives accepting homosexual marriage as a given but cherishing their conservative pedigree in the fact that they oppose bestiality marriages.

Roosevelt was successful in redefining left vs. right because in his socialism New Deal legislation he bought and created a constituency that would never vote against the money that the Democratic party was committed to giving them. The whole social security scam gave people just enough money to remain dependent upon the government but not so much money that they would ever be anything but dependent. Obama is seeking to do the same thing that FDR did (and LBJ compounded) by creating a constituency that once it gets hooked on the drug of governmental sponsored enterprises (GSE) will never quit voting for the party that got them hooked on GSE. If he is successful in doing this the whole continuum of what constitutes left vs. right will shift once again leftward.

The congressional race in the NY 23rd district is exhibiting why it is not wise for Christians to blindly support the Republican party and why voting third party is a good idea. In that district the Republican party has, by way of a smoke filled room decision amongst party hacks, put forth one Dede Scozzafava as their candidate to fill a seat vacated by the previous Congressman taking the position of Secretary of the Army. The problem with Dede is that she might as well be a Democrat. Her husband has serious ties to ACORN. She is pro baby murder. She is pro buggery marriage. She supports cap-and-trade anti-global warming legislation. She is in favor of the $787 billion Obama stimulus plan. She is a strong supporter of federal “card check” legislation that would force private-sector employers to recognize a union as the sole collective-bargaining agent if a union organizing drive at a given work site generates signatures indicating more than 50 percent of affected workers want to join. In short Dede Scozzafava is a Republican version of Nancy Pelosi.

A funny thing happened on the way to the general election though. Not only is Dede challenged by the expected leftist Democrat (Bill Owens) but the conservative party in New York is running one Doug Hoffman, an accountant by trade with solid conservative credentials. Right now the polls show the Democrat running marginally ahead with Scozzafava and Hoffman splitting the Republican vote.

Now according to the teachings we have seen at various time from those like Gary DeMar, Doug Wilson, Joel McDurmon and others Christians are supposed to hold their noses and vote for Dede Scozzafava simply because she is a Republican and she wouldn’t be as bad as the Democrat Owens. The argument continues that by voting third party we are insuring that the Democrat wins.

Naturally, the response to this is … so what? If we keep supporting the leftist RINO candidates that the leftist in the Republican party keep vomiting forth we are only going to get leftist candidates. If Hoffman and Scozzafava both lose in the NY 23 district race the Republican establishment will have learned (hopefully) to quit running leftist RINO’s. If enough people quit pulling levers for leftist RINO’s they can’t stand eventually some party is going to see that large minority of people and are going to respond to their concerns. But as long as we keep blindly supporting leftist RINO’s like Bush, McCain, Schwarzenegger, Crist, Specter, and Scozzafava, all we are ever going to get is leftist legislation and more leftist candidates.

It’s past time to start questioning any Christian leadership that tells us to get in bed with these leftists by way of supporting them with out vote. Certainly there is no such thing as a perfect candidate but calls in the past to not vote third party and to support McCain were blatantly ridiculous. Similarly, following that same principle that was invoked to support McCain would be equally ridiculous in voting for Scozzafava.

One more thing before I’m finished here. In my estimation Newt Gingrich, in his support for Scozzafava has insured that I will never pull a lever for Newt Gringrich. Gingrich is the preeminent neo-con and his support for this leftist Scozzafava reveals again the Rockefellar Republican instincts he had when he entered into the Republican party circa 1964.

You Don’t Pay Up, I Break Your Leg

The health insurance companies were ready to go along with socialized health care when they thought that they would make bunches of money off of the plan. Health insurance companies had thought that everybody was going to be forced to buy insurance from them and they believed that such a proposal would more than offset the coming requirement that they would be required to insure everybody regardless of pre-existing conditions. However a funny thing happened on the way to socializing health care. The Baucus bill includes the requirement for health insurers to cover all people but it only provides for a small fine for those who refuse to be insured. This means that many people will prefer to pay the small fine as opposed to health insurance premiums. Suddenly the offset between collecting more money from a larger pool of people in order to pay for insuring even sickie people suddenly disappeared. Now healthy people can wait until they get sick to purchase health insurance and the insurance companies won’t be able to say “no.” Of course such a bill means the end of private insurance companies and the institutionalizing of the federal government being the public insurer. Naturally the health care insurance companies are raising a stink. That stink included their commissioning a study that points out that the Baucus bill will increase the cost of insurance to those who already have it.

In response to the health insurance companies decision to fight against “health care reform” the Democrats are threatening to end their protection against anti-trust legislation. This amounts to the mob putting out a hit on somebody because they refuse to pay for protection. What the Democrats are saying is, “since you refuse to play ball on socializing health care we are going to destroy your industry.” The health insurance companies are going to lose either way so they might as well go out with a fight.

Obama & FOX News

Every network and cable “news” agency except one has been ideologically compromised and as such they kiss arse sycophants for Obama. The only news agency that isn’t playing ball is FOX. Nobody should be fooled into thinking that FOX is a conservative network. It isn’t. It simply likes its socialism baked in a nationalist crust as opposed to the international crust that networks like CNN, MSNBC, CBC, NBC, prefer their socialism filling to be baked in.

Obama has decided to try and to isolate the FOX network. Now, the best I can hope for is that the national socialists and the international socialists will beat each other up so badly that something genuinely conservative will be able to rise from the ashes.

Still, having said that something should be said regarding the blatant propaganda that the White House is putting out. The idea that FOX, unlike the other Obama lapdog networks doesn’t really give “news” but only perspective is laughable. Has anyone ever watched the red bias of the news shows of FOX’s competitors?

What Obama is doing here is following Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals.” Alinsky’s rule 12 states “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Obama is trying to get the other networks to ignore FOX. Obama’s problem here though is that the other networks have been ignoring FOX for years. What would be new? Secondly, Obama’s problem is that FOX is wiping the floor in terms of ratings with the other “networks.” If I were FOX I would turn the tables and freeze, personalize, and polarize Obama. FOX doesn’t need Obama.

In the end, I’m no fan of FOX except that it is the only resistance in town. As such, I’m hopeful that Fox and Obama and the other networks will beat the snot out of each other.

At this link I point out how many Marxists are serving in the Marxist Obama administration.

https://ironink.org/index.php?blog=1&title=observations_on_the_regnant_follies&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments

It seems that we can add another one we failed to mention earlier. Recently White House communications director Anita Dunn informed us that one of her favorite political philosophers was Chairman Mao Tse Tung.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/glenn_beck/

LOL … you couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.

Can’t you just envision Anita curling up to a cozy fire with Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book?”

Yep … if you wanted to light up Anita’s arousal quotient all you had to do was whisper a little Mao in her ear. The one that would really get Anita in the mood was,

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

This is not the first time an American Presidential administration has been Marxist. During the Roosevelt administration the White House was crawling with Marxists. One was a gent named Rex Tugwell. Before the days when the current fellow travelers can be instantly exposed by Youtube, Tugwell wrote prolifically about his disdain for capitalism. In his book, “American Economic Life” Tugwell wrote that the Soviet Union’s

“worst enemies are being forced to admit that the system appears to be able to produce goods in greater quantities than the old one and to spread such prosperity as there is over wider areas of the population.’

Tugwell believed that Soviet central planning enabled the Soviets to plan and to carry out their industrial operations in accordance with a completely thought out program.” Tugwell wrote that “the available evidence as to the success of the scheme seems to indicate clearly enough that it (communism) works.”

Now the reason I mention Rex Tugwell in the context of the current White House Director Anita Dunn’s admiration for Chairman Mao is to point out the common thread of admiration between FDR’s “Brain Trust” and Obama’s Czars and staff. Despite the utter failure of Marxism the Obama administration is fascinated with this ideology. Retrospectively speaking we can say that at least FDR’s “Brain Trust” could not be convicted of knowing better. They were true believers and honestly believed that the Soviet project could remake the world. The Obama people live on the other side of the 20th century and ought to be able to see the the graves of 100 million people slaughtered by Marxists, but it seems that to true believers the belief system is indefeasible.