A Not-So-Private Conversation

It's stupid. It's hateful. Donald Sterling's remarks have proven to disgust many people and rightfully so. But, there's an aspect to this story that most people are not talking about. His privacy. These were conversations that took place between two people in the privacy of a home. Not on the job, not in public.

So, it begs the question. Since when is it a problem to express opinions, even racist ones, privately? According to his girlfriend, V. Stiviano, he asked her to record conversations because he kept forgetting what he said. Did he also ask her to leak them to the world? Doubtful. Evidently, she is seeking revenge, some say, due to his public approval of his ex-wife's lawsuit against Stiviano, claiming she stole money from Sterling.

Question is:  if she so despised his prejudices, (as a minority herself), why was she with him? It seems there is more than one loathsome aspect to think about here; aside from his racism, it was her exploitative tactics of revealing it to the world, and turning private conversations into very public ones. Now that's very troubling.

Censoring Our Speech

For over 200 years now, freedom of speech has been one of our most valued liberties. This inalienable right has become so embedded into our national character, that we don't know life without it.  But we're starting to get a glimpse into what it might be like to have others want to silence us; and some of these examples are not just coming from our government, but from private citizens demonstrating their lack of tolerance.

Probably the most well-known example of infringement on free speech is the IRS targeting of conservative groups.  The special scrutiny, excessive questioning, and unfair demands on information went to groups such as the Tea Party, which were seeking tax-exempt status. In recent findings, House Ways and Means Chairman, Dave Camp, said it was Washington, D.C. which gave the directive to audit conservative groups, not merely a Cincinnati office as originally stated.

Last week was the case with famous women's rights activist and outspoken critic of oppressive practices under Sharia law, Aayan Hirsi Ali, who was due to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University. After pressure from faculty, students and some Muslim organizations, most notably the Council on Islamic-American Relations (CAIR), Brandeis caved, and withdrew the award. Why? Due to her past comments in opposition to Islam;  the president of Brandeis felt it wasn't in keeping with the values of the university. Ali herself was raised a Muslim and survived some of the very offensive and violent treatment she speaks about now - female genital mutilation, beatings, and an arranged marriage.  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/09/brandeis-university-withdraws-planned-honorary-degree-for-islam-critic-ayaan/

Related to this was the banning of the film "Honor Diaries", a documentary about the violence imposed on women in Islamic societies. After CAIR started a campaign calling the film Islamophobic, The University of Michigan agreed not to show the film.  http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/31/islamophobia-in-action-honor-diaries-screening-shut-down-by-cair/

Mark Steyn, best-selling author and radio host, is now defending himself in a defamation lawsuit when he commented that climate scientist Michael Mann's 'hockey stick' theory was fraudulent. Steyn maintains that this is a free speech issue and that Mann was trying to silence those who oppose climate change theories by taking Steyn, and National Review magazine to court. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/31/climate-scientist-case-against-national-review-go-/

When Charles Krauthammer, in a Washington Post column, challenged the notion that the science on climate change is settled, environmental activists launched a petition to have the newspaper refrain from publishing his column.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/24/heating-up-climate-change-advocates-try-to-silence-krauthammer/

The University of Hawaii is being sued by two students who were not allowed to distribute the U.S. Constitution on campus at a school event. They were told they could only distribute at a 'free speech zone', which was described as "a small, muddy, frequently-flooded area on the edge of campus." This is in addition to another incident when, on Constitution Day, a student at Modesto Junior College in California, was prevented from handing out the Constitution. He sued the school for violating his rights.  http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/24/another-university-stops-students-from-handing-out-constitution/

During the recent incident in which many people rallied to the defense of a Nevada rancher against an excessive show of force by the government over cattle grazing fees, the government had set up a 'free speech zone' for those who wanted to protest. By cordoning off a small area for free speech, they were restricting much of the larger area to no speech. "Regardless of the purpose, advocates say such zones are an inappropriate infringement of free speech."  http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/free-speech-zones-blm-cattle-roundup-put-controversial-areas-spotlight

The recent forced resignation of Mozilla Firefox CEO Brendan Eich, was due to his political donation for Proposition 8 (anti-gay marriage) in California six years ago. Some of the employees, as well as members of the board, couldn't tolerate his position on this issue, and consequently, his right to exercise free speech. Read The Thought Police Strike Again.

Several months ago, it was reported that insurance companies were getting pressure from the White House to keep quiet with criticism of Obamacare. In a CNN report, "the White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations, to keep quiet. Sources telling us they fear White House retribution."  https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/wh-intimidates-insurance-companies-not-publicly-criticize-obamacare_765582.html

These are several of the many examples of how our highly valued freedom of speech is being infringed upon. As Charles Krauthammer said recently, "when it comes to free speech, they don't even hide it anymore. Now they proudly want certain arguments banished from discourse. The next step is book burning. So the question of the day is: Can you light a Kindle?"

Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 10

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008

CONCLUSION
In this 10-part series, "Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation", readers were taken through the many ways in which Barack Obama has been working to greatly expand the authority and control of the Federal government, while undermining the Founding principles which made this country great. Here is a recap of the last nine parts:
In Part 1 of the "Fundamental Transformation" series, I spoke about healthcare, and the intent to scrap the system and rebuild it, via Obamacare (2700 page bill and 20,000 pages of new regulations); all of it designed to redistribute the wealth and move us into a single payer, government-controlled health plan. Common Core, the nationalizing of education standards and curriculum, and the collection of student data, illustrates the overstepping role of the Federal government. Immigration reform is currently being debated; the administration is looking to grant amnesty for illegals to secure a future voting bloc, while failing to secure the borders. 

Part 2  deals with the First Amendment and how our freedoms in that Amendment are routinely being trampled on by this administration. 

Part 3  The politics of division is the subject here. This speaks to the division by class, race, gender and political beliefs, as accelerated and  promoted by this President and his administration.

Part 4  Aspects of the economy are addressed in this part of the series - redistribution, government dependency, unemployment, the shrinking middle class, national debt and minimum wage. When looking at the big picture, it's easy to see that the economy is not growing, and will not grow under this administration...but then, of course, it's not supposed to.

Part 5 Our foreign policy and our military are at very weak points now - this post delineates some reasons why.

Part 6 Besides the First Amendment being trampled on, as discussed in the second part of the series, here are examples of how our Second, Fourth and Tenth Amendments are being ignored as well. From gun rights, to privacy rights to states rights, our freedoms are not being protected by this government.

Part 7 Environmental and energy policies are being crafted to extend control over businesses and private citizens, whether further regulations and taxes are factually necessary or not. Another means with which to redistribute the wealth and grow the Federal government.

Part 8 takes a look into the how of Obama; through the tactics of Saul Alinsky and the strategies of Cloward and Piven, we see how his vision of revolution is happening in front of us.

Part 9 deals with the why of Obama. Once we take a look into the life of Obama and his influences throughout, we learn why he's executing his Presidency the way he is.

Part 10:  CONCLUSION:
To many Americans, Obama's style of governing is puzzling. He is constantly dividing our country's citizens on every level; by class, gender, race, ideology. His enemies are not found in oppressive regimes, rather they are his political opponents and the conservative electorate. He has created an atmosphere of intimidation in his administration to squelch opposing views. He appears to have contempt for the wealthy, yet he freely takes their money to fuel his campaigns. He has consistently defied the Constitution by ignoring laws on the books he doesn't like, or, bypassing Congress to change existing laws, or, signing executive orders to get things done as he sees fit.  He continues to grow the Federal government via bureaucracies, regulations, taxes and spending. He is presiding over the transformation of institutions such as health care, education, marriage, and the military. His policies on the economy, the environment and energy seek to primarily control lives and redistribute wealth. He encourages government dependency and seeks to amass power from an ever increasing welfare state, knowing that the people who depend on the government will vote for those who are providing for them. 

We've heard the argument that this President is incompetent and bungling things. On the other hand, we've heard for years now how smart, even brilliant, this man is. You can't have it both ways.  He's either smart or incompetent. I say, he's smart. His 'bungling' is not bungling at all. It's deliberative. He is accomplishing exactly what he set out to do. He's trying to collapse the system so that he can rebuild it as he sees fit. He is reducing American power around the globe, dismantling friendly alliances, and allowing unfriendly and dangerous governments to become emboldened and powerful. Why? Because he believes that the United States of America is an oppressive colonial power which uses up much of the world's resources and exerts too much influence upon other nations. We have no business being exceptional, he believes. And he has been working to level the playing field, both domestically and internationally for over five years now.

I am sorry to say, he is accomplishing his objectives. For those who saw this coming in 2008, it is our nightmare scenario happening before our eyes. For those who may be awakening to this reality, it's time to help and turn this ship around. We can all do our part to become part of the solution. First it starts with getting educated (and educating our children) about our Founding documents and why it's important for this country to preserve and stay true to its principles. Then, staying informed about the news and political landscape (an uninformed public is a dangerous one); there are numerous websites you can explore to get information (that is, before we lose control of the internet to Russia or China as is the debate now - more in a future post). Engaging can be as simple as signing petitions or making phonecalls during election time. It can be donating to campaigns of liberty-minded people. It can be writing blogs, and using social media to re-tweet blogs (like this one!) and articles, posting important news links on Facebook, and talking to people to make them aware. Step it up to attend Tea Party meetings, or any of the other patriot groups that exist. And, if you're so inclined, run for elected office - we need good people to get involved in the community - school board, town and county offices...remember, all politics start at the local level. 

America is on the brink. Our exceptional Founding principles of  limited government, individual liberty, inalienable rights, free market capitalism, and strong national defense are fading. Let's not let that happen. Let's not allow Barack Obama to fundamentally transform this nation anymore!

The Thought Police Strike Again

Again, political correctness rears its ugly head. The CEO of Mozilla, Brendan Eich, just resigned after essentially being bullied into it.  What did he do, you ask? Six years ago, he supported Prop 8 in California, by way of a donation (Prop 8 was an anti-gay marriage proposition on the ballot). But the gay activists would have none of this. When this 'horror' was recently leaked, some employees of Mozilla decided it was more important to sacrifice liberty for political correctness. It didn't matter that his belief in traditional marriage wasn't, in any way, imposed on any employee or subscriber; he was not in lockstep with the thinking on the Left, and for that, he should be punished. So, they (some employees and board members) forced him to step down. He was not only the CEO of Mozilla Firefox, but one of its founders.

This is just another in a long string of oppressive and intolerant behavior coming from the radical Left. But, we cannot let the Left dictate to us what we are to think, what we are to believe, or how we exercise our First Amendment right to free speech. This is not a debate about gay marriage, or anything else. It is a debate about freedom. Freedom to think and express those thoughts, whether in writing, speaking or in supporting causes we believe in. It's about the right to keep your job because you have an opinion that may be politically incorrect (and how ironic that standing up for traditional marriage is looked upon as radical now). We must not let the tyrants have their way or we will lose our liberty. Today it is about one topic. Tomorrow it will be another topic. The only real issue is, will we have the freedom to express our beliefs without the 'thought police' controlling them? There should be no victories here for the Left.  Fascism is never correct. I, for one, have dropped Mozilla Firefox as my internet browser. Mozilla should not ever think they can control anybody's First Amendment rights.

UPDATE: As it happens, the CEO of OKCupid, who started this controversy by recommending that his customers not use Mozilla software to access their website and brought Eich's opinions to light, actually donated money himself (!) in 2004 to a Congressman who voted for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. The hypocrisy is never-ending.

Just as an aside, it didn't seem to matter to the Left that in 2008 their beloved leader Barack Obama was a supporter of traditional marriage.

To understand how political correctness has its roots in Marxism, go to the following links:
political correctness defined, see: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/pc.htm
or origins of, see:  http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html

Witnessing the Fundamental Transformation Pt. 9

"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
Barack Obama, 5 days before Election Day, November 2008
 
THE WHY OF OBAMA
Barack Hussein Obama comes from a complex network of influences, all of which seem to have impacted on his ideals growing up and ultimately on his achievement goals for his Presidency.  On the one hand, he had Marxist influences from his mother's side. On the other hand, he had anti-colonialist influences from his father's side. Together the combination would create one of the most consequential political leaders in our country's history; one who would be intent on dismantling the very institutions which helped create the world's superpower.

Peering into Barack Obama's past, we learn he was born to an unusual mother, Stanley Ann Dunham (named for the son her parents never had), a white atheist woman raised in midwest America, whose parents specifically moved to Washington state so that their daughter may attend Mercer Island High School, a school known at the time for teaching a radical curriculum. Included were philosophy courses that emphasized Marxism; in fact, the school employed several pro-Marxist teachers; two of whom taught "a critical theory curriculum to students which included rejection of societal norms, attacks on Christianity, the traditional family, and assigned readings by Karl Marx."  http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Mercer_Island_High_School   Dunham would soon embrace the ideas of cultural Marxism. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html Her parents were members of the Unitarian Church near Seattle, aka the 'little red church' for its communist leanings.

Dunham ultimately married and divorced two foreign men, one from Kenya, the other from Indonesia, both Muslim.  She studied economic anthropology and rural development.  After Dunham divorced from Barack Sr., she met Lolo Soetero at the University of Hawaii and got re-married. When Jr. was a little boy they all went to live in Indonesia, where he spent the next several years of his life. Returning to Hawaii, he lived with his maternal grandparents, who introduced the young Barack to Frank Marshall Davis, card-carrying and well known member of the Communist Party, and therein began a seven year mentorship that Barack's maternal grandfather set up.

Barack's birth father, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., was born in Kenya, strongly influenced by his own father with strong anti-colonialist ideals. In fact, father and grandfather were both very active politically, in a country that was struggling to gain independence from its colonial powers. Although the relationship with his biological father was short lived, long after his father was gone, Barack was left with a legacy of  'dreams from his father', and wrote a book of the same title. These dreams included a deep rage against the Western colonial powers of his father's native country, where he was an important figure in the struggle against Western oppression.

Keen insight into part of the thinking of where Barack Obama 'comes from' ideologically is illustrated in the best selling book by Dinesh D'Souza, The Roots of Obama's Rage, which became the basis for the movie "2016 Obama's America."  In this book, D'Souza describes Barack's  'education' about his paternal family's disdain for the Western dominance in the world. He writes about the tenets of anti-colonialism: 1) "empires are produced by murderous conquest and sustained by unceasing terror and violence" 2) "colonial regimes are racist - they systematically produce the dehumanization of the colonized" 3) "colonialism is a system of piracy in which the wealth of the colonized countries is systematically stolen by the colonizers" and 4) "the colonial powers have a new leader; the United States."  These ideas seem to have been adopted and internalized by this President. How do I know? Look at how he governs. Look at how, at every turn, he tries to divide and weaken this country, on both the domestic and foreign fronts. Look at how redistribution of wealth is at the cornerstone of his policies.  Is America exceptional? Not if Barack Obama could help it.

It's not hard to understand why Obama does what he does when one looks into his formative years. The confluence of beliefs from all primary influences in his life all lead to the same road; bring down America's power in the world.  Transform this nation from a superpower to a powerless one. Is he accomplishing what he set out to do? Yes. And he is doing this systematically; he is doing this economically, militarily, and culturally. Are we weaker now as a nation than we were when he took office? Yes. On all fronts. Soon, I imagine, he hopes to claim "Mission Accomplished."  It is, after all, the fundamental transformation of the United States of America we are witnessing.


P.S. There is an abundance of information on Obama, his life, his influences, his associates, etc. Look up some of it, including his college years and his early years in Chicago, which were not addressed here. When you understand where he comes from, you'll understand where he's going.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/what_barack_obama_learned_from.html
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/15/in-harvard-essay-young-michelle-obama-argued-for-race-based-faculty-hiring/
http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/03/americas-race-to-the-bottom-barack-obama-and-critical-theory/
http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/the-roots-of-obamas-rage/

Minimum Wage, Minimum Benefit

In an eye-opening segment on TheBlazeTV, Glenn Beck and Stu Burguiere broke down the truth behind minimum wages.

Little Known Facts:
-1% of the U.S. labor force earns minimum wage
-Of the 1%, teens make up the largest age group; these are not people trying to support a family
-32% of minimum wage workers are full time workers
-In 2014, a full time minimum wage worker earns $3,410 more than the federal poverty limit

Little Known Facts:  When minimum wages are hiked, union wages are also hiked.  This is often built into union contracts; a raise in the minimum wage triggers a wage hike for union members. When union wages are hiked, more dues money is available to go into the Democrats' campaign coffers, giving them the incentive to push for minimum wage hikes.  An increase also means more security for the workers, because it restricts businesses from hiring low skilled workers who would otherwise gladly take less pay for experience.What a convenient circle of events.  http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/02/13/americans-love-the-minimum-wage-unless-you-tell-them-the-truth-about-it/

The sad truth: The Congressional Budget Office projects that if the minimum wage is increased to $10.10, there will be a loss of 500,000 jobs.  Although this issue has been championed by the left, I wonder if  they see the irony in the net effect of this mandate: the very people they speak about helping (the poor, the minorities, the youth) are the very people that will be negatively impacted by increases in the minimum wage. 

When employers are forced to pay a higher wage for unskilled or low skilled labor, they will then outsource that work because they can't afford to pay a higher wage for it. Hence, the loss of jobs for low level workers. In this case, the majority of these workers are young people. Additionally, when a business incurs more expense, often that expense is passed on to the consumer. Again, a more expensive product hurts those for whom this act is looking to help.

In sum, a fraction of 1% of the country works for minimum wage and is already above the poverty line. When Americans were polled, the vast majority (75%) supported an increase in minimum wage. When told that it meant the loss of jobs, only 37% favored it. Minimum wage, minimum benefit.

Stay Out of Our Business!

Clearly this President never worked in private industry. Obama's new decree, is to have employers of salaried employees (not hourly employees) pay them for their overtime. Now, on the surface this may sound 'fair', but just scratch with a thumbnail and see the unfairness in this.

If Barack Obama had worked in private industry, he would know that working late and putting in extra hours was something you did if you wanted to get promoted, earn a bonus, get a salary increase, or all of the above. It's how you stood out from the other employees, it's how you demonstrated your work ethic, it's how you proved you could handle more work, it's how you showed your boss you were dedicated to your job. And you did this voluntarily. Maybe, one could argue, there was an unwritten expectation...to an extent this was true. But it was your option to take. And if you took it, it was usually acknowledged at the next job evaluation.

So where does this President get off dictating to employers that they must pay extra to salaried employees who work overtime? As if intruding on private businesses with Obamacare wasn't enough of a hit for employers, now they must compensate for work which previously was done voluntarily by workers to get ahead? The consequence? The boss will now just tell you to go home. How then, do we demonstrate our willingness to climb the ladder? How then, does one distinguish themselves from the other employees?

Obama's objective to equalize income is absurd and un-American on so many levels. And like he does so often, he says one thing and does another. "If you work hard, you can get ahead," he tells young people. Well, Mr. President, you just took that option away. And like so many things this man does, he just added another disincentive to work harder.