As a 33-year card-carrying member of the news media, I don’t mind telling you that the media are failing this country. Miserably. Perhaps fatally.
Forget for a moment the fact that the line between reporting and advocacy has been almost completely erased, at least on national TV. Set aside any double standard or political bias you perceive.
These are valid concerns, but the biggest problem with today’s news media is their horrible vision: They can’t see more than a couple of 24-hour news cycles ahead, and can’t focus for long on matters of major importance.
While they’re running from sensational story to sensational story, they’ve almost universally dropped any reporting on the continued major changes – and challenges – to health care. They never talk about the looming debt crisis and the effect it might have on our already-crippled economy.
Most media outlets never question, for a minute, one red cent the government is spending. When the government claims it needs more money, the media not only don’t question it, they cheerlead for the government.
And that brings us to the No. 1 failing of the media: They simply are ignoring the unmitigated immorality of leaving future generations with perhaps $117 trillion in debt or more — $17 trillion in accumulated deficits, growing by the second, and as much as $100 trillion or more in future unfunded debts for Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare.
They’re not telling you that minor repairs to entitlement spending could be done rather easily now, but that we will crush our children and grandchildren with interest-laden debt, and impoverish our senior years, if something isn’t done soon.
Why aren’t Americans being told this every day? Why isn’t the immorality of racking up massive debt on our children’s credit cards being discussed every week?
Why aren’t young people being told by their teachers, their elected leaders and all the movie and music celebrities they worship that their parents are taking loans from their future paychecks – loans that will be left for the young and future-born to repay?
Why are the media allowing all this to go on with nary a comment?
I don’t know who’s right in the case of the Nevada rancher vs. the federal government. But I do know that the government is losing the public relations battle, and for good reason.
When the government moved to seize Cliven Bundy’s cattle for his failure to pay grazing fees on public land, a growing group of supporters came to his defense – literally. On April 12, after a tense and heated standoff with them, heavily armed federal agents released the cattle back and retreated.
The situation was eerily reminiscent of past ill-fated federal standoffs, such as Ruby Ridge and Waco, where federal agents raided the Branch Davidian compound and 76 people died.
This situation is different, though.
Whether right or wrong in their actions, the Bundy family can’t be caricatured as a cult or a danger to anyone. And the family’s predicament has ignited a firestorm of anti-government fervor, particularly in the West. Bundy backers traveled miles to show their support and face down the feds. Conservative locales in cyberspace and on the radio dial crackled with anti-government rhetoric.
The thing is, I suspect the government and media elites, if they’re paying any attention to this powder keg at all, likely don’t get it.
The West, thanks to geographic and ideological distances, has always had an arm’s length relationship with both government and media. But the flashpoint in Nevada can’t be dismissed as cowboy rebelliousness. There’s plenty of sympathy for their position around the country.
The Eastern elites probably have no clue why, either.
They doubtless have no idea how poorly the federal government is viewed today – despite all the evidence in polls and surveys. After being spied on by the NSA and targeted by the IRS and having jackbooted federal agents show up to tell them how it’s going to be, folks – good, hardworking, taxpaying, God-fearing people – are tired of being abused.
As a practical matter, whether the Bundy family is in the right has ceased to matter. Like any other civil rights hotspot, all it needed was a spark.
Nor does it help that the Obama administration is so loath to deal with illegal immigrants in such a manner as it has the Bundy family. The government can’t secure the border – and is even insisting on amnesty for the illegals already here. But they send armed officers to crack down on American ranchers? Outrageous.
And the manner in which they’ve done it is just as galling. As The Las Vegas Review-Journal noted in a recent editorial, to tamp down protests, government officials “closed off hundreds of square miles of public land. They’ve closed roads. And they prohibited protected assembly and expression across huge areas of Clark County. They even took the step of creating ‘First Amendment areas’ – where no federal official or contractor directly involved in the roundup would ever have to see protesters.
“You see, even peaceful protests can be intimidating to government types. If government types feel slightly threatened, they arm themselves to the teeth. When they arm themselves to the teeth, they’re far more likely to view a peaceful protest as cover for an attack on the government. And if they believe someone holding a sign or a camera might also have a gun, agents are more likely to hurt someone. Thus, the government suspends the First Amendment as a public safety measure: Citizens are denied their rights to peacefully assemble and engage in political speech because the content of that expression might be ‘intimidating’ enough to make government agents overreact and hurt them.”
The problem is, inside the government it is impossible to consider the possibility that the government can ever do any wrong.
I don’t know if the Bundy family is the best rallying point. But the support they’ve gotten from angry citizens is evidence that the government has a much bigger problem on its hands than a few head of hungry cattle.
Sarah Palin brought down the house – and the wrath of liberal haters – at the Conservative Political Action Conference March 8.
Palin will ever be regarded as an empty skirt to liberals who arrogantly seem to think they’ve got the market cornered on intellect. Indeed, the UrbanDictionary.com definition of “empty skirt” uses Palin as an example of one.
Yet, no fair observer could come away thinking her performance at CPAC burst forth from anyone but a savvy, sure-footed superstar. She was eloquent, hilarious, pointed and fearless – eruditely savaging not only President Obama, but “establishment” Republican leaders who look down on, and even wage war with, their conservative colleagues.
Speaking directly to them, Palin cited the 2010 Tea Party electoral tidal wave that helped put many of those same Republicans in office, and said, “You didn’t build that!”
The massive audience at the premier conservative gathering of the year showed lots of love to a diverse roster of speakers. But the crowd didn’t just love Sarah Palin – they exploded with enthusiasm for her.
The left, in all their blind and contented condescension, will never understand why, because to do so would be to come face-to-face with a most inconvenient truth: She speaks for a good bit of us.
She’s also right about a lot – including, astonishingly, the fact that Russia would invade Ukraine if Obama were elected, which she predicted before he was, in 2008. Typically, she was mocked for having done so.
Yes, Sarah Palin has had a few gaffes – but truthfully, no more than the sitting president and vice president. The president once referred to visiting 57 of the United States – and only recently misspelled “respect” while talking about Aretha Franklin. He once pronounced Navy corpsman “corpse-man.” The commander in chief!
Now, honestly: Is there any doubt a Palin or Quayle would be excoriated within an inch of their political lives for such mistakes? Democrats get a pass; Gaffemaster Joe Biden has a lifetime pass. Yet, (Insert Name of Any Republican) is dumb, and they’re not.
All that aside, what the left either doesn’t understand or perhaps fears is that Sarah Palin gives voice to what used to be a Moral Majority, and what now might be termed a Principled Plurality: the 40-plus percent of Americans who describe themselves as conservative (compared to the 20-something percent who say they’re liberal), as well as moderates and even open-minded liberals.
She talks about what used to be mainstream American values: honor, duty, rugged individualism, family, faith, strength, American exceptionalism and more. Today, such things are openly mocked by what she calls the “lamestream” media. Today, such words are, in the words of the movie A Few Good Men, used as a punch line.
In contrast, in flyover country such words are, to quote the movie again, “the backbone of a life spent defending something.” To conservatives, such words define America – or at least the America we thought we knew.
But one major thing that makes Sarah Palin as beloved and powerful as she is – she’s helped get a number of people elected, including Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas – is the very fact that the media love to hate her. They disdain her, while tripping over themselves to cover her.
And while their attacks on her may have made her unelectable, since so many voters are so easily swayed by the latest Saturday Night Live skit, paradoxically, they’ve also made her a more potent force.
Sarah Palin is the fetching face of the media’s unrelenting oppression of conservatives and conservative thought. Whatever the self-anointed “cool kids” in the media want to think, not everybody is snickering at their contemptuous cracks. A lot of us are on her side.
Palin has found her footing and is reaching her stride. They don’t get it, they’re afraid of it and they hate it. That only makes a lot of folks love her more.
Many of us can see America from our house. And it looks a lot like Sarah Palin.
One of the young lions I met at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., last week was stunned by what he heard there.
So stunned, in fact, that it may have changed his life.
“I came in a liberal, really,” he told me. “I think I’m a Republican now.”
He was at a loss to explain his epiphany, except to say that the speakers at the largest conservative gathering of the year made so much sense.
I offered him another possible explanation: that for the first time in his life, he’d been exposed to passionate exhortations of traditional American values – individual liberty, property rights, personal responsibility, limited government, faith in a higher power and more – without the distorting filter of an unabashedly liberal media. Or perhaps a teacher with his or her own political bent.
This was conservatism, pure and unfiltered. And it spoke to him.
I have a theory: Many of us never left high school. And even as otherwise thinking, rational adults, we’re still letting the “cool kids” tell us how it is and whom to pick on. The cool kids in the media – both news and entertainment – are liberal and desperately want to be accepted by the other cool kids. So they beat up on conservatives (especially women), and give fellow liberals sanction and succor and a lifetime hall pass.
Just one example: The media can’t let go of “Bridgegate,” in which aides to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (a Republican) purposely impeded rush-hour traffic to punish a political foil. A contemptible act, for which they’re being punished. Yet, many in the media can’t let go of it – meanwhile not only excusing Democrat Hillary Clinton’s role in the Benghazi scandal, in which four Americans under Clinton’s care were killed savagely, and which the administration repeatedly lied about and covered up, but also simultaneously beating the drums to make her our next president.
That’s just one example of the nakedly partisan treatment in the media. They’re hardly going to give conservative values a fair and respectful shake.
And that’s why such values, which used to be celebrated, are now mocked and vilified and diluted in the media (see: Tea Party). And it’s why conservatism unplugged and unfettered speaks loudly to open minds.
Indeed, one of the speakers at CPAC was Erika Harold – a young attorney who fights for religious freedom, a congressional candidate from Illinois and, incidentally, Miss America 2003. She described how she came to conservatism from a largely apolitical upbringing.
“I was studying political science and American history” in college, she said. “And I had the opportunity to study our nation’s foundational documents for myself. I began to compare our country and our freedoms with countries where the government has more centralized power. And it quickly became apparent to me that those countries where government has centralized power – they are less prosperous, and the people’s civil liberties are not protected.
“I began to marvel at the genius of our Constitution.
“I wasn’t seeking to find a political philosophy. But all of a sudden, I realized I had one. I was a conservative – a constitutional conservative.”
My young friend has come to a similar conclusion – by going to a conference, rather than college. I believe that’s because of the power of those ideas and ideals embodied in the conservative movement.
I’ve often described my own evolution in thinking to audiences who ask me. I, too, started out fairly moderate to liberal. Two things changed that: having children, and writing editorials. The former made me more protective and forward-looking; the latter required me to think things through more. I found myself persuaded more and more by conservative arguments, which, it seemed to me, relied on logic, while finding the arguments of my liberal colleagues and friends, while emotional, less and less supportable.
Contrary to the dismissive messages coming out of the national media, which flow through a largely liberal sieve, I find the conservative, constitutional position vastly more compelling. And while conservatism’s messengers have not always been the best, and have rightly been criticized for being too white and too male, the up-and-comers in the conservative movement represent the rich tapestry that we know America to be.
Harold herself is of mixed race. Then there’s retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, former congressman Col. Allen West, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal – and Marilinda Garcia, a New Hampshire legislator running for Congress.
When you add in the fact that half the 10,000-plus at CPAC were under 30, the conservative bench is clearly strong and growing.
How can Republicans have such a terrific product – freedom, capitalism, limited government, growth and prosperity – and yet have such an awful brand?
Republicans in Congress have a worse approval rating than the man who brought you Obamacare: A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll showed only 37 percent of Americans have confidence in President Obama’s decision-making, but just 19 percent do for congressional Republicans.
There’s no doubt that that lack of confidence in Republicans is coming from many Republicans themselves. They’re spitting out their own product!
Again, we ask: How can Republicans have such a terrific product and such a horrible brand?
The likely reasons are many.
For one thing, and conservative Republicans will tell you this, congressional Republicans often aren’t all that committed to what they claim to represent – the above-stated principles – particularly limited government.
But even if they were committed and courageous, they’ve got some purely awful salesmen for the product. House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell – who, in the absence of a Republican president, are the face of the party – aren’t all that telegenic or charismatic. Sorry, but in today’s world, that matters.
Another problem with the Republican brand is, more broadly, a problem with the conservative brand: Conservatives often come off sounding and looking dour and negative.
It’s a problem for any party that is in the minority at any given time: How do you provide opposition to the ruling party and its policies without being perceived as the proverbial “party of no”?
And much of what conservatives are selling – and what made America great – can easily be packaged and perceived in today’s “Just Do It” anything-goes society as dreary, mean and boring: Responsibility. Restraint. Work. Patience. Temperance. Delayed gratification. Discipline. Self-reliance. A lack of envy.
When you’ve got dour faces sounding like angry parents, that’s not a very marketable brand.
Yet, it doesn’t have to be that way.
When opposition groups sought to oust Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet in a 1988 plebiscite – and were offered free television time to make their case – their natural inclination was to show how awful he was. That campaign, while accurate, could have been quite grim. Instead, the “No” campaign seeking his ouster took on an incredibly surprising joyous tone, even featuring a jingle that “happiness is coming” post-Pinochet.
It worked. To nearly everyone’s surprise.
Today’s American conservatives and Republicans – in politics and in the media – could take a lesson from that. Why be so glum and angry, constantly focusing on the negative consequences of the other party’s destructive approaches? Take note of them, certainly. But don’t let that be what you’re about. Don’t allow yourselves to be defined (with the help of a hostile media) by negativity. That’s no way to win hearts and minds. Or elections.
Instead, why not offer real hope, not just the stuff of posters? Why not celebrate the fruits of traditional American values – those listed above, and more? Why not exhibit and extol the successes of freedom, free markets and individual liberty?
Their message this election year should be that happiness is coming – in the form of more freedom, lower taxes, growth, prosperity, jobs and more.
Enough with the gloom and doom. Let’s hear some boom.
We had but a clue what was coming at the time. Otherwise, we might have used stronger language.
But when President Obama recently threatened to use more “executive orders” (a nice word for decrees) to circumvent lawmakers – declaring ominously that “I’ve got a pen” – we were reminded of an editorial we wrote at The Augusta Chronicle on the eve of his first inauguration in 2009.
Schoolchildren across the nation had been encouraged to write letters to the incoming president. We were inspired to write our own letter to the president-elect, in the form of an editorial. See if you think what we wrote in January 2009 has added relevance and resonance today:
Dear Mr. President-elect,
Across the country, thousands of students are being encouraged to write letters to you about their concerns, hopes and dreams for America. That includes Augusta, where some 400 students have sent letters for you in care of the Chronicle . …
This outpouring might have happened otherwise, but we have to think the letter writers are more numerous and enthusiastic due to your newness on the world stage and the hope you engender in your words and your background. If you could read them all, you’d obviously be touched by their innocence and humanity and their worries.
Of course, school children have overblown ideas about what a president can or even should do. It’s reassuring to young minds to know someone’s in charge.
But we suspect if the students knew better — had more experience in the ways of the world, more information on the goings-on in Washington — they’d be writing quite different letters.
They may not be as familiar with the Constitution as they should be, for instance. They may want you to do things — with guns, with the economy, with tax money — that are unconstitutional. One thing you could do to help would be to encourage schools to do a better job of teaching our constitutional heritage — the limits on the government, the freedoms of the individual.
We found a particularly apt quote for the top of today’s page from George Washington: “Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
Our students may be too young to grasp that. But sadly, it’s lost on many adults these days too. There will be plenty of them descending on Washington to ask you and your friends in Congress to do entirely too much (with money we don’t have). Things we should do for ourselves. We hope you’ll resist. That would bring a welcome change to Washington.
If our students were truly tuned in, they’d realize that the biggest government problem they face — the main thing the next president could and should do something about — is the national debt, now nearly $11 trillion and growing. It will be their problem, not ours. It will be today’s youths and their children who must pay it off, not us. And they’ll have to pay it off while supporting us in our old age.
If they knew all this, and the size of the burden the adults in Washington will be leaving them, their letters would be about asking you to do less for us, not more.
AUGUSTA, Ga. - We have a special announcement for fans and friends of Robert Ringer and his “A Voice of Sanity” website:
We’re about to raise the volume of your voice. To a roar.
Morris Communications, a national multimedia company that shares your love of this country and its timeless values of liberty and responsibility, has acquired avos.robertringer.com from our good friend Robert Ringer. (This will not in any way affect your subscription to RobertRinger.com.)
Our goal is to preserve and renew the endangered system of American self-governance by helping create more informed and involved citizens – new generations of Americans who understand and appreciate our precious and rare birthright of freedom.
In short, we want to help create a renaissance of responsibility in America.
And we would like your help.
In the months to come, we will be designing a unique, vibrant, engaging website – as well as other media platforms – built around this nation’s foundational principles of free markets, individual liberty, responsibility, property rights, limited government and civic involvement.
We want your ideas and input. We need your ideas and input. And we’d like you to stay with us as we embark on this journey together.
Please send us your ideas, wisdom or just your encouragement for this mission to save American self-governance. Write to me, Executive Editor Michael Ryan, at Michael.Ryan@avos.robertringer.com.
Morris Communications Company LLC is part of a privately held media company with diversified holdings that include newspaper, magazine and book publishing, radio broadcasting and cable television. We have 12 daily newspapers, numerous nondaily and free community papers, 36 radio stations, and numerous magazines, specialized publications and travel and tourism publications.
The phony government shutdown, NSA’s spying on U.S. citizens, ever-higher taxes to fund egregious actions like abortion and foreign aid to countries that hate America — not to mention forcing Obamacare on Americans via “reconciliation” after it was voted down by the Senate — are just a handful of grim reminders that freedom, at best, is ephemeral. At worst, it’s a myth.
In fact, true freedom — like true capitalism — has never existed on Planet Earth. And you can rest assured that those with an insatiable lust for power will never allow either pure freedom or pure capitalism to happen.
Among leading Republicans, all the talk is about how foolish the Ted Cruz-led “extremists in the Republican Party” are to be playing right into Barack Obama’s hands and jeopardizing the party’s prospects for the 2014 elections. That’s right, to hell with principle, just follow RINO Rule No. 1 and cast the vote you think has the best chance of helping you (and other Republicans) get reelected.
You can be sure that RINOs read far-left publications like The Huffington Post, so it’s no wonder they’re becoming panicked over the possibility of being thrown out and having to get a real job. No doubt they were unnerved reading a recent article in The Huff Post that said the government shutdown has “[forced] about 800,000 federal workers off the job and suspended most nonessential federal programs and services.”
Like everything else that goes on in Washington, the perpetual reruns of the government-shutdown circus are nothing more than diversions. But to anyone addicted to phony drama, “debates” over “stopgap funding measures” and raising the debt ceiling to avoid government shutdowns are like watching the Super Bowl.
What’s good about these theatrical debates is that they shine the spotlight on just how weak-kneed and unprincipled politicians are as a result of their insatiable thirst to hang on to the good life that membership in the Capitol Hill Mafia affords them.
We’ve seen this spinelessness on display in issue after issue — Roe vs. Wade, the Iraq War, global warming (now known as “climate change”), gay marriage, amnesty for illegal aliens … the list goes on and on.
Between 2000 and 2012, the number of people receiving Social Security disability benefits in Penobscot County, Maine rose from 4,475 to 7,955. That’s right, nearly one in every twelve adults between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four in that county is now collecting Social Security disability benefits. How depressing it must be to live in a county where one out of every twelve adults is disabled.
But let’s not pick on some poor little county in Maine. Nationally, the number of workers receiving disability benefits rose from about 5 million to 8.8 million between 2000 and 2012. In addition, 2.1 million dependent children and spouses also receive disability benefits.
Slavery has been around since the beginning of recorded history. Many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners, most notably George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. So when Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, one has to wonder what he was thinking when he wrote that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
It makes you wonder how many times throughout human history generations of people have suffered because men in power — even good men — were not willing, for myriad reasons, to step up to the plate and insist on justice for all. In the case of our Founding Fathers, nearly a century of misery for African-Americans could have been avoided had they been willing to do so.
It’s not exactly a revelation to say that liberal myths have been ingrained in the minds of the general public for decades, and one of the greatest of those myths is that Republicans are war mongers and Democrats are doves. Don’t get me wrong. A couple of Republicans have also taken us to war during the past hundred years, the latest being George W. Bush.
But, while revenge (for his father’s failure to take out Saddam Hussein) or a naive sense of world justice are among possible motives for Bush’s ill-advised forays into Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t believe he invaded those countries to increase his personal power over the citizenry. (Calm down — I am not saying that Bush does not believe in big government; he does.)
One of the most famous of Hilla the Hun’s idiotic remarks was her assertion that Bashar Assad is a “reformer.” Yet, in an odd sort of way, she was right. After all, millions of people thought Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and Mao Zedong were reformers. (The dictionary says that reform is “the improvement of what is wrong, corrupt, or unsatisfactory.”)
Hitler thought the Jews were wrong, corrupt, and unsatisfactory, so he took bold steps to “reform” them. And most others in the reform crowd — from Mao to Fidel, from Uncle Joe to Hugo C. — have all believed that “the rich” were “wrong, corrupt, and unsatisfactory.”
With the racial conflict that has become increasingly prevalent since Barack Obama first took office in 2009, one is tempted to wonder if Charles Manson, the most famous mass murderer of the last half century, might have been onto something when he predicted the inevitability of an all-out race war between blacks and whites. He referred to it as “Helter Skelter,” and was convinced that certain Beatles songs supported his prophecy.
With the race-division merchants’ failure to turn the Trayvon Martin self-defense case into the equivalent of the torture killing of fourteen-year-old Emmett Till in Mississippi in 1955, followed by a rash of black on white beatings and murders — the most recent being the cold-blooded murder of Australian Chris Lane while jogging in Duncan, Oklahoma — Helter Skelter is beginning to seem like a real possibility to a lot of nervous folks.
Last Friday I did the unthinkable and watched Sean Hannity’s show because I knew he was going to have Mark Levin on for the whole hour. The subject of the program was Levin’s new book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic.
Notwithstanding Levin’s cozy relationship with McCain-loving, Graham-loving, Austan Goolsby-loving Hannity, notwithstanding his inability to understand that libertarianism (as his former boss and idol Ronald Reagan once said) is the heart and soul of conservatism, and notwithstanding his childish rudeness to guests who try to make points with which he disagrees, Levin is still in a class by himself when it comes to making an unyielding case for liberty.
While it irritates me no end when someone of Levin’s intellect displays unbridled ignorance in badmouthing good men like Ron Paul and Grover Norquist, it does not change the fact that he has the courage to say things that no one else on radio or television would dare to say — and says them with an in-your-face passion that lets the enemy know the gloves are off.
I wrote last week that a laissez-faire marketplace is the only acceptable replacement for Obamacare. But, of course, we all know that’s not going to happen.
Obama and his Obamaviks know full well that Obamacare is going to collapse under its own weight. They know, because they understand what’s on the horizon — doctors closing their practices, fewer young people becoming doctors, Medicare recipients being hit with copays they can’t afford, everyone’s insurance rates increasing dramatically … the list goes on and on.
With January 1 looming on the horizon, Republicans and conservative talking heads in the media have heated up the debate over Obamacare. On the surface, it would be appear to be a debate between good and evil — between compassionate Democrats, who want to alleviate human suffering, and evil Republicans, who want to push granny’s pain-ridden body over the edge of the Grand Canyon.
But hysteria notwithstanding, let’s back up a step and take a closer look at this good-guys-versus-bad-guys debate. It’s a feather in the cap of Americans that we have reached a stage in our development where a majority of people cannot bear to see others suffer. From a moral and civilized point of view, this is most definitely a good thing. But it brings to the fore the great question of our time: What is the best way to alleviate human suffering?
As the Detroitization of America continues with the official bankruptcy of Detroit itself, many conservative economists, like my friend Steve Moore, believe that it might be the best thing that could ever happen to the Motor City. The thinking is that Detroit’s corrupt politicians and public employee piggies may finally be forced to realize that reality yields to no one.
Lots of luck. The sad fact is that the greed and avarice of the public sector is insatiable, which is why it never learns anything. Just as the federal government committed a crime by stealing from shareholders and handing over a big chunk of General Motors stock to the very workers who bankrupted the company in the first place, then took your money to make sure that those same workers could continue living the good life, so, too, will the federal government not hesitate to take your money to bail out the entire city of Detroit.
I’d like to believe that every thinking person to the right of Hillary Clinton realizes that progressives are in a permanent social-engineering mode, but even the most galling progressives are not dumb enough to actually talk about it openly. It’s one of those stealth things — you know, like slipping an ineligible presidential candidate into the White House by working with the media to make his past vanish into thin air.
So it created quite a stir when an obscure civil rights attorney by the name of Jasmine Rand said to Greta Van Susteren, “I have a greater duty beyond being an attorney, and that’s to be a social engineer.” With that statement, she made history by becoming the first far-left individual to let the social-engineering cat out of the bag. That’s right, she actually said the words: social engineering! Many on the left must have been thinking, “Who in the hell allowed this twit to go on a national television show? She’s a bigger disaster than Susan Rice!”
Now that virtually everyone understands what Barack Obama meant when he said he was going to fundamentally transform America, before they are distracted again when the NFL season begins, they would be wise to do some serious soul searching about a subject that few bother to talk about anymore: freedom.
The way the socialist crowd that now controls the power levers in Washington throw around words like freedom and liberty, you’d think they were descendents of the Founding Fathers. And, the truth be known, they’re sincere when they use such words.
In an effort to continue to provide readers with the highest quality information about the workings of freedom and free markets as well as my insights into day-to-day life, I have recently made some significant changes that I wanted you to know about.
The Web address of A Voice of Sanity has been changed to the more appropriate avos.robertringer.com. (NOT voiceofsanity.com) The content, however, will remain the same. I will continue to write about the political state of America and the world, with an emphasis on liberty, laissez-faire capitalism, and the ideals of libertarian-centered conservatism.
I will also continue to interview top political, social, and economic leaders for the Liberty Education Interview Series and provide you with columns written by such top political commentators as Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, and Judge Andrew Napolitano.
The web address RobertRinger.com will now be solely devoted to my insights into life — both business and personal — with an emphasis on philosophy, reality, and action. As has always been the case, my objective is to motivate readers to take bold action in an effort to transform their dreams into reality. RobertRinger.com will also be the home for my books and other Robert Ringer products.
If you are currently a subscriber to A Voice of Sanity, your service will not be disrupted. In addition, however, you will also receive daily e-mail updates from RobertRinger.com.
Finally, I am excited to announce that the completely revised and updated edition my New York Times #1bestseller, Looking Out for #1, is now available as a FREEeBook (Kindle, Nook, or PDF format) on robertringer.com. As it has done for millions of others worldwide, I believe this book will help get you from where you are now to where you want to be in life.
It is my hope that you will find both of my websites to be invaluable tools that will help you successfully navigate the rough waters that lie ahead. As always, I welcome your feedback and look forward to reading your comments.
Recently, a friend and I were discussing the expansion of criminality in the ranks of Washington’s power elite, which prompted him to ask, “With the dramatic increase in the purchase of firearms and ammunition by private citizens since Obama took office, when will the general populace say ‘Enough!’ and resort to violence to overthrow the oligarchy in Washington?”
The answer, I told him, is never. Forget about it. It’s not going happen. There will be no violent revolution in the United States, for a number of reasons.
With Independence Day coming up this week, it got me to thinking about the contrast between where we are today and where we were when it all started 237 years ago.
If you’ve ever wondered why that 555-foot monolith on the National Mall in Washington, D.C. is named after the first president of the United States, read a good book on George Washington. Let me tell you, the guy was one tough dude. I believe he honestly thought he was invincible … and he was, at least until an illness, generally believed to have been acute laryngitis, took him down in 1799, just three years after his retirement to his beloved Mount Vernon estate.
Millions of Americans are frustrated and perplexed watching bureaucrats party it up on their tax dollars, even those who work for the very agency that takes their money in the first place. More and more people are at a loss to understand “why somebody doesn’t do something about it.” Day in and day out, they watch thieves flaunting their ill-gotten gains on television, while at the same time using their power to try to punish those who would question their authority.
How did America evolve from a constitutional republic to a dictatorial nation where the ruling class is far more powerful and brutal than King George was back in the good old days of English rule? The intent of the Founders was that representative government would reduce government’s involvement in people’s lives. They believed, somewhat naïvely, that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government would hold each other in check. Instead, what we have today is ever-increasing government power over the lives of individuals, so much so that the government now spies on its own supposed employers, the citizenry, beyond anything the Gestapo in Nazi Germany could have imagined.
Last week, I inadvertently hit the dreaded Fox Channel button on the remote, and there he was, that creepy little Issa fellow, the one who’s been working on the Fast and Furious scandal for what seems like most of my life. I watched just long enough to hear him say that Eric Holder should resign. Wow! What a bold guy Issa is.
No mention of indicting serial liar Holder for lying under oath, of course. Just insist that he resign. And you wonder why progressives laugh at conservatives? Issa’s wimpy remark reminded me yet again why I no longer get my news from television. These days, most of my information comes from the Internet and books, two sources from which I can pick and choose what I want to read.
Is there a connection between the destruction of the free market and the serial scandals that have shined the spotlight on America’s criminal, out-of-control government? I believe so, and here’s why:
For more than a hundred years, governments around the world have worked hard at trying to destroy the free market — through credit expansion and easy money policies, trade barriers, subsidies, taxation, and stifling regulations, among other things. Even war has been used as an excuse for interfering in the natural flow of the marketplace.
As I watch the masses buying into the recovery scam, I wonder what the next distraction is that the Obamaviks and their socialist media allies will come up with to make it possible for them to continue feeding the fake flames of hope even while the real flames of disaster can be heard crackling in the background.
One thing of which you can be certain is that these nefarious wealth destroyers will continue to push for more central planning — and, increasingly, “world planning” — as the salvation to our economic woes. After all, unrestricted sovereignty leads to nationalism, which in turn leads to conflict. To deny this is to be a right-wing extremist or, at a minimum, naïve.
The newest Obama scandal, the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups, has been in the news a lot lately. Like Benghazi, Fast and Furious, ACORN, members of the New Black Panther Party not being prosecuted for threatening voters with nightsticks, and the refusal to give nary an encouraging word to anti-government protestors in Iran, it’s unlikely to result in tarnishing Barack Obama’s reputation, let alone leading to his impeachment or indictment.
Even so, to the roughly half of the population that actually thinks about serious matters now and then, it’s a reminder of the truth in the title of Frank Chodorov’s classic, The Income Tax: Root of all Evil. The income tax (federal and state) is the root of all evil because without the power to take people’s incomes by force, government would be impotent, which is precisely what the Founders wanted. They were well aware that government itself is inherently evil, and thus, by its very nature, attracted to evil ideas and schemes.
For as long as I can remember, there has been talk of America, like ancient Rome, destroying itself from within. Little wonder, considering that most Americans, like their Roman predecessors, show little concern for their country’s demise. They are simply too busy enjoying the good life to think about it.
In addition, politicians and the media keep them distracted with a steady stream of manure-coated “news” — from the Benghazi cover-up to North Korea’s incessant huffing and puffing … from Weiner’s wiener to Iran’s nuclear ambitions … from Fast and Furious to immigration “reform” (i.e., amnesty) … from the record Powerball lottery jackpot to the IRS’ targeting policies … the stream of manure-coated “news” has no end.
We keep hearing that the Benghazi scandal is only in its early stages, and that when all the facts come out, it could bring down the Obama administration. Scary stuff, eh? Well, I have news for you: It doesn’t matter how much more information comes out — including information that leads directly to Barack Obama — there will be no serious consequences to the biggest political cover-up in modern American history. Please quote me on that.
Darrell Issa made this clear when he recently said that it was important to find out exactly what happened in Benghazi “so policies can be put in place that will prevent it from ever happening again.” Wow! That Darrel fellow sure is tough: “Put policies in place that will prevent it from ever happening again?”
It seems like just yesterday that liberty lovers were doggedly trying to get the attention of low-information voters who were oblivious to the horrors on the Obamacare horizon. But now, as the long-concealed facts about Obamacare are surfacing at an accelerating rate, more and more free-ride fools are starting to get it: Obamacare has nothing to do with healthcare and everything to do with increasing the power of politicians over their subjects.
Obamacare accomplishes this by being a massive redistribution-of-wealth scheme. Political hack Donald Berwick, whom Obama named as the Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2010, made this clear to the sleepwalking public back in 2008 when he said, “Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane must — must — redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional.” Nasty, but honest.