I am currently reading a very interesting book, Mad as Hell, by Scott Rasmussen of the polling services that bears his name. He is outlining in his opinion what the Tea Party movement is all about. He is outlining that people in the “mainstream” really don’t understand what is going on.

As evidence of the cluelessness of the “mainstream” I offer two entries in the contest. As usual, I seek to boil my blood using the New York Times opinion section. Interesting timing, for me, in reading this book and these op-ed pieces on the same day.

Paul Krugman here

Thomas Friedman here

The “mainstream” view of what is wrong with America is that we are not unified enough, that we are just not centralized enough and that the efficiency of our government and our society is better served by more focused attention through governmental regulation and control over how we live our lives.

Per his typical mantra, Krugman argues that taxation of the “rich” is a no brainer solution to our problems. That the “rich” are guilty of “self-pity among the privileged.” This implies that wealth is equivalent to “privilege,” not equivalent to hard work. This is a common understanding by people on the Left in this country and it underpins the absolute blindness concerning what the Tea Party people are pissed about.

Friedman was attending an Economic Forum in China and marvels at “China’s impressive growth engine” with their construction and fresh paint. He harkens back to the day in America in the past where we “took on big projects.” He laments that we have lost our ability to get these things done anymore. He praises their government because, “China also has regular rotations of power at the top and a strong record of promoting on merit, so the average senior official is quite competent.” This presumably is in opposition to what we have in our society within government AND the private sector. Maybe THAT’S our problem???

The “solution” that both men propose is a stronger democratic movement here. Their “solution” is a democratic movement that would expropriate the “privilege” of the rich and redistribute it to the “legitimate” public projects that have been sorely ignored by our undemocratic society. I’ll call this the new Democratic Nationalism. This is the worldview of the American Democratic Party along with a substantial portion of the American populace.

In contrast, the Tea Party movement is diametrically opposed to this. The Tea Party is directly and indirectly representing the other American citizens who believe that we are endowed by our creator with inalienable rights. These natural rights belong to us before government. We do not believe that government is the entity that bestows the endowment. Progressives in the Left cannot hold this principle to be true. Their belief and actions represent the principle that the community endows these rights (usually manifested by the government).

Our Secretary of Labor produced THIS VIDEO (watch it now because I’ll bet it gets pulled from YouTube) where she wants to ensure that all workers “whether documented or undocumented” get the highest pay possible. Undocumented?!? Really?!?

And at the same time, our Attorney General is planning to sue Arizona for attempting to enforce immigration laws that the Fed Govt won’t. CLICK HERE.

Have we landed in bizzaro land? I’m in full support of open immigration, but make it the law of the land. When the Government openly and flagrantly ignores the law, what does that tell you about their respect for the law itself? And how long until they ignore the law in other areas?

We plan to fundamentally transform the United States of America

— Barack H. Obama

I have watched with some degree of disdain (but not surprise) that the Liberals are attempting to assassinate Dr. Rand Paul, the runaway winner of the Kentucky Republican Senate Primary. He has been dragged through the Liberal media’s mud for his strong and consistent libertarian views. Specifically, they are attempting to corner him on his statements that Federal Law should not be used to bind private associations, private contracts, and private property–or else we give up our concept of private property altogether. They are attempting to get him to say that he supports repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Laws. (more…)

I’m struck by the tone of Obama’s speech at the recent Commencement at the University of Michigan, especially in light of his own record on (in)toleration of dissent. As the perfect politician, he takes a middle stance publicly, but then destroys dissent by any means necessary in private.

(more…)

I fear the road ahead to a large degree. My fear is rooted from simple observation of an increasing polarity of worldviews in our country combined with the reality of our financial situation as a culture.

April 15th represents our responsibility to our government to cover the costs of her operation. Few will argue the necessity of her existence and few argue that she has potential to be good. Many argue to what degree she should impose herself on the labor and liberty of her citizens. But, this is nothing new.

(more…)