I say its curious, because most of the garbage he pushes for the United States are the very same things that exist in North Korea. At the same time, for his own country he condems the things that made South Korea (modeled on the priciples of the US pre 1965) great.

What is it with Libs? They seem to want all the world to enjoy what we have while insisting we give it up as evil and exploitive. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

http://jobsanger.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-north-korea-marching-to-war.html

I’ll lay it out bluntly for you; either the American people—not extremists, but good and decent patriots like your neighbors and yourselves—will revolt and destroy the ruling class and reform our government based upon first principles, or the United States we know as our forefather conceived it is dead.

I do not state this as hyperbole. I do not state this to incite violence. I state this as nothing more or less than an observation of both history and current events. While we are a relatively young nation, our government is the oldest on the planet. Since our founders met in Philadelphia, the French have gone through five republics. Every nation in Europe, Africa, Asia, South America and North America has seen governments rise and fall, but our resilient democratic republic, the “Great Experiment,” has soldiered on.

All cultures and governments, however, rot. This inevitably comes from inside, as a cancer. Our politicians view the people as rubes and subjects, and treat them as such. They imagine themselves a ruling class that exists for their own edification, at the expense of the nation as a whole.

When nations reach this point, they either collapse, or the people reform or replace their governments.

We have arrived at that time. Reform increasingly seems to be a fleeting option. Republicans and Democrats differ only in how they plan to loot the public coffers. Our present Congress and Administration are merely more transparent in their corruption and disdain than their predecessors.

Our would-be ruling class has abandoned the principles that founded this nation. They are attempting to establish a state of affairs where the people serve the government and the government determines your success or failure. Corruption no longer matters. Sovereignty no longer matters. The rule of law no longer matters.

They have won in a bloodless coup.

Or so they would like you to think.

Whether they actually win or not depends upon how much you love your family and your nation and the principles that made this nation great. Our founders themselves believed in the right of revolt, and knew better than any of us that governments must be replaced from time to time. They were wise enough to provide us with a constitutional framework that will outlast any government, including this one. We can dispose of this government, and restore the Constitution that has served us and the rest of the world so well for so long.

We stand at the brink.

We are on the right side of history. Our would-be rulers, fat on self-appointed largesse and drunk on their own purloined power, imagine us subjects, not free men and women.

Revolution is a brutish, nasty business. Innocents will fall along with patriots and the corrupt, and success is not assured.

In a letter to James Warren in 1789, Samuel Adams foresaw our current state.

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.
The question for you, my fellow Americans, is simple.

Will you fight, or will you surrender your liberties?

I pray for peace.

But I prepare for war.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/542171/201007301830/Will-Washingtons-Failures-Lead-To-Second-American-Revolution-.aspx

When the election results began coming in from around the country on the evening of June 8, 2010, there were a number of surprises.  But the biggest upset occurred in the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate in South Carolina.  Political neophyte Alvin M. Greene defeated former state legislator and retired circuit court judge Vic Rawl.

The initial reaction among Democrats was “Alvin who?”, but as more became known about Greene, confusion turned to outrage.  It seems that last November, Mr. Greene was arrested for showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student.  Although charged, Greene has not yet been indicted, nor has he entered a plea.  As the nominee started doing media interviews, it became painfully obvious that Alvin Greene is “not ready for prime time.”

Theories began to emerge about how an unemployed veteran living with his elderly father could defeat a seasoned politican with a distinguished legal background, especially considering that Greene apparently gave no speeches, made no public appearences and generally did nothing to win the nomination.

Some of these theories involved the candidate’s name.  “Al”vin “Green”e was said to remind voters of the singer Al Green.  The spelling of his last name (Green with a final silent E) was supposedly more typical of blacks than whites, as was the first name of Alvin.  The fact that names were listed alphabetically on the ballot was also said to give Greene an advantage over Rawl.

Other explanations were far more nefarious in nature.  Conspiracy theories abounded, most of which revolved around Republican dirty tricks.  Someone  must have fronted the $10,400 filing fee for the hapless Greene.  Perhaps he was paid off by the GOP to wreak havoc with the Democratic primary.  The name of notorious South Carolina Republican operative Rod Shealy was bantered about as a possible mastermind behind this political cabal.

Myself being a believer in Occam’s Razor (which essentially states that the simplest solution is usually the correct one), I have a much less convoluted explanation of why Alvin Greene, and not Vic Rawl, won the senatorial nomination.  I call it the “Putney Swope Effect.”

Putney Swope is the protagonist of the 1969 film of the same name.  In the film, Swope is the “token Black” on the board of directors of an advertising agency.  When the chairman of the board dies unexpectedly, the board members are forced to elect a successor.  Since the agency bylaws prohibit any member from voting for himself, the safest bet seems to be to vote for the one board member least likely win – Putney Swope.  Whether out of sympathy or to block any serious candidate from gaining a majority, every one of the board members votes for Putney, and he’s elected chairman by an overwhelming margin.

Could it be that South Carolina primary voters looked upon Alvin Greene as the Putney Swope of 2010?  His opponent, Vic Rawl, appeared to be the odds on favorite for the nomination.  His legislative and judicial experience was much more impressive than Greene’s, which was nonexistant.  But primaries are the time to send a message, to let the party leadership know that  fresh new faces shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.  There would be plenty of opportunity to vote for Rawl in the general election in November.  But what harm would it do to cast a protest vote in an election that really didn’t matter all that much anyway?

Am I reading too much into the thought processes of the primary voters?  Wasn’t Greene a stealth candidate, a mystery man about whom absolutely nothing was known?  Not as much as some would have you believe.  Although Greene did little or nothing to put himself out to the electorate, he wasn’t totally ignored by the media prior to the election. 

In at least two pre-election articles comparing the Senate hopefuls appearing in the South Carolina media (May 15 and May 25), Greene came across much as more impressive than he has in post-election coverage.  A thirty-two-year- old African-American with military service as an intelligence specialist and a Bachelor’s degree in political science from the University of South Carolina, Greene must have seemed to many a viable alternative to the older (64-year-old) Rawl.  Add to this the anti-incumbent (read anti-traditionalist) sentiment among voters, and the Greene victory doesn’t seem that unlikely anymore.

In the movie “Putney Swope,” the board of directors live to regret having elected good old Putney, I’m sure there are more than a few Democrats in South Carolina who are experiencing buyer’s remorse over their vote for Alvin Greene.

It’s a mid-term election year, and a famous investigative reporter is writing a book about a charismatic young presidential hopeful, looking for skeletons in the politician’s closet.  The reporter has already demonstrated his obsession with the politician by bidding over $60,000 on eBay for a dinner with the politician (barely losing out to a higher bidder) and has already written an article in which he opined, “There is a considerable gap between the image [this politician] tries to project and the reality that underlies it.”

Not content to be merely be in the same town, interviewing  neighbors and digging up dirt, the reporter decides to rent a house next door to the politician as a constant reminder that his scrutiny is relentless and even the politician’s children and spouse are not exempt from his watchful eye.  In the words of Martha and the Vandellas:  “Nowhere to run to; nowhere to hide.”

But the year isn’t 2010.  Let’s imagine for a moment it’s 2006 and the house in question isn’t in Wassilla, Alaska, but Chicago, Illinois.  And the charismatic young presidential hopeful is that state’s junior senator.  How would the press have reacted to this degree of intrusion into Barack Obama’s privacy or that of his wife and two young daughters?  Would there be cries of intimidation?  Would the race card have be played and images of burning crosses and hooded klansmen been evoked?  One can only imagine.

Looking at the photo of the Obama residence above, I’m reminded that much of the plot of land to the left of the house was purchased at a considerable discount from then Senator Obama’s old friend, Tony Rezko.  Could the President have been thinking ahead to a time when prying reporters might be pitching their tents on the land next to his house?

If you look at the Google satellite map of the neighborhood surrounding the Obama estate, you’ll notice that there wouldn’t have been very many opportunities for any Joe McGuinness wannabes to set up shop.  Aside from the Rezko addition, there’s a synagogue across the street – not much of an outpost for spying.  There does appear to be a building directly to the north of the Obama home (to the right of the photo above); perhaps some enterprising property owner could have rented it out if there had been any investigative reporters willing to go after the Obamas with the kind of dogged pursuit that McGuinness is currently going after the Palins.

But the odds of that ever happening are pretty slim.

Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America

The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States . He said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America . It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that “An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.’”

“Here is how they do it,” Lamm said:

” First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada , Belgium , Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims.”

Lamm went on:

” Second, to destroy America , invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.

” Third, we could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentriy and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’ Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”

“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”

” My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority plation.”

” My sixth plan for America ’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precet. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E. Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will ” Balkanize ” America as surely as Kosovo. ‘

” Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-cultum, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”

In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said, “Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book ‘Mexifornia.’ His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”

There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate ‘diversity.’ American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America Take note of California and other states. To date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell’s book “1984.” In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: “War is peace,” “Freedom is slavery,” and “Ignorance is strength.”

Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don’t get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

Rockefeller made his remarks during a hearing last week where astronauts Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, and Eugene Cernan, the last man on the moon, testified against President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget because it would cancel NASA’s Constellation manned space program.

“I am not a huge, but I am a substantial, skeptic of human spaceflight,” Rockefeller told Armstrong, Cernan, and Norman R. Augustine, the chairman of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee.

“We’re approximately the same generation, but that’s where I am,” Rockefeller said. “I cannot support going into space as an end in and of itself. I agree with the president that we need a measured, nationally, globally relevant and sustainable human space flight program–not one solely bound by place and time in space.”

Chairman Rockefeller then said to the astronauts, “I want to understand the value of human space flight.”

Cernan responded to Rockefeller by saying that today’s communications technology was born from space exploration.

“The technology that I have in my iPhone today is technology that was given birth to 30, 40, 50 years ago,” said Cernan.

“Exploration drives technology, innovation, not the reverse,” he said. “You can’t lock a group of the most smartest young men and women in the world in a room — engineers, scientists, technicians — and say, ‘go develop technology,’ for what? There has to be a purpose, just like there has to be a purpose in life.”

Wasn’t the freak in the White house now, the one who while campaining said he would return science to its rightful place?

The essay is entitled, “How ‘The Karate Kid’ Ruined The Modern World” and the author is David Wong, Senior Editor of cracked.com, the website of Cracked, the satirical magazine that many of us read as kids.

The message of the title is that movies like “The Karate Kid” and “Rocky” instill in people the false security that if you just give it your best shot, you can achieve anything in a relatively short period of time.

Wong takes issue with this conventional wisdom, introducing the concept of “Effort Shock”:

It seems so obvious that it actually feels insulting to point it out. But it’s not obvious. Every adult I know–or at least the ones who are depressed–continually suffers from something like sticker shock (that is, when you go shopping for something for the first time and are shocked to find it costs way, way more than you thought). Only it’s with effort. It’s Effort Shock.

Like sticker shock, Effort Shock is that rude awakening that the “price” a person needs to pay (in terms of discipline, hard work and self-sacrifice) for accomplishing something worthwhile far exceeds what’s anticipated at the outset. And like the consumer who’s unwilling to pay what he perceives to be an inflated price, many, if not most, people faced with a higher than expected price for success simply walk away.

Effort Shock goes a long ways in explaining the subprime mortgage crisis, reality television, and the “American Idol” phenomenon. Whether it’s owning a home that’s clearly beyond your means, being “famous” rather than accomplished, or taking the fast track to stardom, society’s obsession with “self-esteem” dictates that we’re all “special” and have a birthright to have whatever we want without having to pay our dues. When the first bill comes due, we’re stunned. It can’t possibly cost that much!

Politics is not immune from Effort Shock. Back in April 2007, when the junior senator from Illinois was being heralded as the great hope of the Democratic Party for winning back the White House the next year, I wrote a post on this blog entitled Coincidence? – I think not!, in which I jokingly implied that the resemblences between “Barrack” Obama (few people could spell his first name back then) and American Idol flash-in-the-pan Sanjaya Malakar were so great that they might very well be the same person.

Fast forward three years. Aside from a brief run on the reality show “Survivor,” Sanjaya has faded into obscurity, either unwilling or incapable of paying the price needed to succeed. And what became of Sanjaya’s “twin”? Like the rest of us, I think he may be reeling from Effort Shock.

It can’t possibly cost that much to be Leader of the Free World!

Can it?