The Modern Leftist Progressive Politician And His Propensity For Arrogance

Obama Presidential Seal Podium Speech SC 780x1024 The Modern Leftist Progressive Politician and His Propensity for Arrogance

As a nation, we are faced with a moral dilemma of our collective conscious, which we have never seen before as our politicians continue to serve up ever more unsavory bits of tyranny in bite size pieces for the sake of security.  In the not-too-distant past, all American children were given an identity of belonging to a moral society comprised of individuals that were shaped by their own desires unencumbered by societal rank or privilege other than what one’s own wealth or aspiration could acquire for themselves or their family.  We accomplished this through public education and pride of purpose as demonstrated to each of us in a practical manner in our own families as we conducted the mundane duties of life on a daily basis.

This simple belief has been corrupted by the purveyors of liberal and progressive thought, particularly the wholesale abrogation of the concept of “American Exceptionalism” which had been our guiding “moral imperative” prior to the modern era.  The modern era started after WWII, and with it began the process of the diluting our national character which allowed the encroachment of other philosophies into our national identity as a free and able people.  As a nation, we have always corrected ourselves when we strayed too far from our founding principles.

The abolition of slavery and civil rights legislation speaks volumes to this self correcting course programmed into our government and identity based upon our founding principles, as enumerated in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence and practiced by our citizens.

Prior to this gradual change in philosophy, we described ourselves with the concept of a “Melting Pot”,  symbolized by the Latin phrase E Pluribus Unum (“Out of Many–One”.)  We believe so wholeheartedly in this principle that we print this motto on our currency; it gives credence and support to our identity as a free and able people.  We are now faced with a re-definition of our identity as a deliberate and cruel hoax perpetrated by the progressive liberal left described as a “rainbow coalition” as they fully embrace the separatism of multiculturalism.

This definition is accepted at face value without question by many in our society as a modern symbol of this corrupt reinterpretation and ultimate rejection of the melting pot concept.  Rainbows are nothing more than light that has been broken down into their individual wavelengths separated by the various colors of the visible light spectrum.  These colors never mix with distinct boundaries; rainbows are anything but harmonious and represent separatism on a physical level for visible light.  This is in direct contradiction to our founding societal concept of “out of many–one” and only further divides us as a distinct and exceptional people since the “melting pot” is homogenous, and rainbows as symbols are the very definition of separatism and exclusion.  This interferes with the absorption of émigrés into our national identity and the homogenizing force that the melting pot creates.  We are simply an American collective identity or “Brand” of a free and able people that believe in self-rule and rule of law.

We have now set the stage for the introduction of the Demopath, described below:

Demopaths are people who use democratic language and invoke human rights only when it serves their interests, and not when it calls for self-criticism or self-restraint. Demopaths demand stringent levels of human “rights” but do not apply these basic standards for the “other” to their own behavior. The most lethal demopaths use democratic rights to destroy democracy.

Demopaths are a product of democratic governments; if one were to draw a corollary to their existence in modern times, it would be Adolph Hitler as an extremely capable practitioner.  If I were to choose one all-encompassing entity or group in our nation that typifies this definition, it would be the progressive left that has infiltrated the current Democratic Party membership; they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

This also explains the left’s fascination with multiculturalism as just another way to keep the people in this nation divided and more easily controlled.  The Roman Empire’s axiom of “Divide and Conquer” exemplified by the conquests of Julius Caesar is never more true than as practiced by today’s Democrats as they collect and separate their constituents by sex, race, income, creed, religion, and sexual preference.  Another concept we need to bring forth and explore is Moral Egocentrism courtesy of Wikipedia which is described below:

An egocentric person cannot fully empathize, i.e. “put himself in other peoples’ shoes”. Egocentrics believe everyone should see what they see or that what they see, in some way, exceeds what most other people can see, i.e. “how I see the world now is how the world is”. To them, any different perception than their own is either considered false or non existent.

This is a predicate definition before we move on to our next concept and attempts to understand and quantify the enigma of the prevalent liberal progressive thought that pervades Washington and the nation these days.  Their beliefs primarily encompass the concept of “fairness” that they see as lacking in the governance of our society and unjust regardless of how the world or our free market capitalist system actually operates and the unequal outcomes it produces.  Also look at the arrogance and vitriol exhibited towards their opponents.  Everyone is not a winner, so the system is labeled as unfair!  While we are at it, we need to define the concept of Liberal Cognitive Egocentrism, another component that is needed to understand the current state of dissonance of the progressive left and is shown below:

The projection of good faith and fair-mindedness onto others, the assumption that “other” shares the same human values, that everyone prefers positive sum interactions. In a slightly more redemptive mode, LCE holds that all people are good, and if only we treat them right, they will respond well. This is a form of empathy that projects onto rather than detects what the “other” feels.

Using this as a working definition explains how most liberals are able to continue in their mistaken belief that if we appease and enter into a dialog with entities that wish our destruction, they will change their perspective(s) towards us.  This certainly takes us farther down the road to explain the progressive liberal’s thought process and conversely the beliefs and actions of Obama and his administration’ss constant petting and preening of Islam, Palestinians in Gaza, Iran, China, and North Korea.  It is their belief that they can be assuaged if we only try and believe enough to the detriment of our Allies like Israel and Great Britain, who are pushed to the side.

This will be perceived as weakness and a corruption of our moral center and will only harden and embolden their posture and stance towards us. It also will be used to justify whatever action they may take against us now or in the future, more so for Muslim nations.

This leads to confusion on the part of their opponents (and most Americans as well), as they have a difficult time reconciling their behavior that is contradictory to their speech about what they profess to actually believe.

This phenomenon is exemplified by Obama calling for a cessation of inflammatory rhetoric after Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting last year.  The reality of countless deaths due to the illegal acts of the ATF and the DOJ in Fast & Furious is of no consequence to him or his administration.  These deaths simply do not matter, are another manifestation of Demopathy, and are simply chocked up to collateral damage by their practitioner(s).  This has the effect of creating a vacuum in the “moral imperative” for just thought, deed, and action in this nation (as well as the world in general.)

Whether Obama and his supporters realize this or not, the developing nations and people of this world look to America for guidance. However, this does not mean that we need to directly support them with monetary contributions. When America as a nation no longer outwardly supports our founding principles, this leads to instability in the world whether our politicians like it or not. Regardless of whether they even understand or want this role, it has been cast for us by our founders.

Obama is a Demopath in the truest sense of the word with his continued unbridled spending without end. He lacks fiscal responsibility, given the precipitous drop in collection of tax revenues in this economic “Depression”; this is self defeating as well as destabilizing.  It is also prima facie evidence for this behavior since it leads to our own destruction, bringing us ever closer to absolute tyranny and dictatorship.  Obama also manifests traits of moral egocentrism with his intolerance of other viewpoints, which are dismissed out of hand since they do not fit his view of the world for himself or our nation.  However, for me, it is his recent declaration that he can order the summary execution of Citizens without Due Process of law that is the clincher.  Never before has any President ever declared that they had the right to order and summarily execute any citizen, secret panels, and whatever legal artifice he proposes and employed!

It is simply an abrogation of our 4th and 5th Amendment rights to due process of law and it is rotting the very foundation of our moral imperative and national identity.  Obama’s brazen disregard for our founding documents and principles only bolsters his propensity to allow and condone lawlessness as our nation’s chief executive.  If we were to also factor in Justiagate, election fraud in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Fast & Furious, and the sequestering of all documents that provide Obama’s bona fides, we have the complete picture of a modern “Progressive Demopath.“  The rule of law only applies to the other guy, not to him as a true practitioner of demopathy!

While it may never be proven that Obama was responsible for these high crimes and misdemeanors, he certainly has been the benefactor of their outcomes and should in all good conscious resign if he has even an infinitesimal amount or an iota of integrity.  I will not hold my breath for that day and hour to arrive.

These actions by our liberal progressive friends are simply due to errors of perception and critical and cognitive thinking.  They are also heavily influenced by emotional connotations and arguments which are gamed to distort the facts and push the progressive left’s faulty agenda. This agenda lacks any moral premise consistent with our collective moral imperative or national identity as defined in our founding principles.

As a Nation of free and able people, it is imperative that we collectively decide to reject the progressive liberal’s redefinition of our identity and restore the concept of “E Pluribus Unum” once again.  This will allow us to willingly take our rightful place to stand as a truly noble nation, a beacon for liberty, freedom, and justice for the world to emulate and quite frankly envy!

 

Related posts:

  1. Why Progressive Socialist Ideas Continue To Fail Have you had enough of the politics of Hope and…
  2. PATRIOT OR POLITICIAN? Give Us Liberty AN OPEN LETTER TO SARAH PALIN Dear…

State Dept. Stalls Release Of Human Rights Report

Hillary Clinton speech 11 SC 300x274 State Dept. Stalls Release of Human Rights Report

(CNSNews.com) – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in China on Wednesday, knee-deep in human rights issues.

Clinton, along with Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Michael Posner and other top State Department officials, met with Chinese officials about human rights activist Chen Guangcheng, who is now believed to be under U.S. protection in Beijing.

Diplomats are scrambling to resolve the thorny issue presented by the blind legal activist, who made a daring escape from house arrest.

Ironically, Clinton, who is in the position of having to choose whether to defend the human rights of a human rights activist, is now 67 days late in sending to Congress the latest State Department reports on Human Rights conditions in China and other countries.

Chen was prominently mentioned in the last human rights report on China — the 2010 report — which was released by the State Department last year, and covers activities in the year 2009.

Read More at CNS News. By Pete Winn.

Photo Credit: Aaron Webb Creative Commons

Related posts:

  1. Internal Report Raps State Dept Media Shop An internal State Department report says the agency’s work in…
  2. Arizona Fights Back Over UN Human Rights Report Arizona is fighting back against the Obama administration’s decision to…

Video: Blind Chinese Activist Leaves US Embassy

A blind Chinese activist left the US embassy and went into a Beijing hospital after China gave officials promises about his safety. But a friend of Chen Guangcheng says he was pressured, and agreed to stay in China to protect his family.

Related posts:

  1. Mitt’s Blind Trust: How Blind Is Blind? Newt’s team is digging into the finances of Mitt Romney…
  2. With Friends Like These… Union Names Chinese Premier ‘Best Friend Of American Worker’ At the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s regular press conference last week,…

Obama Abusing Power In Re-Election Bid

obama crowd1 300x195 Obama Abusing Power In Re Election Bid

There he goes again.

We’ve all grown accustomed to President Barack Obama spending our money like water but most of the time it is for his communist … I mean liberal … political agenda of creating a single class — poor. Because that is what happens when government try to make everyone have the same amount of stuff. Look at China, Cuba or the former Soviet Union if you want real-world examples.

Now, though, he has taken his spending to a new level. He is spending our money to enrich himself.

On a recent trip to three battleground states, Obama, spending more than $179,000 an hour to make the trip, attended campaign-like rallies trying to drum up support for a faux battle over student loan interest rates. There was no dispute, mind you. Republicans and Democrats alike were not going to allow the rates to spike and were working on a solution in the Congress, without controversy, to prevent that from happening.

In fact, his chief rival for the White House, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, also supported a plan to keep the rates from spiking, as did GOP and Democratic leadership in the Congress.

That, however, did not stop Obama from visiting these three battleground states and pretend there was some issue at stake.

However, Obama looking like a fool is not what concerns me. He does that all the time.

The problem is his complete disregard from the laws of this nations in doing so. The taxpayers footed the bill for this campaign trip, when it really should have been paid for by his re-election campaign.

His trip to college campuses in North Carolina, Iowa and Colorado was clearly not government business. It was obviously a campaign-related trip.

Apparently this is nothing new for Obama.

As a candidate, Obama pledged to strengthen the Federal Election Commission. Nearly four years later, he has not done so and, in fact, five of the six commissioners are serving on expired terms.

That’s because a strong elections law regimen would stand in the way of his blatantly skirting those laws.

Only in one case has he complained about campaign laws and that is the Supreme Court’s rightly decided decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which found that the First Amendment still matters.

He complains about the decision because it is going to make it harder for him to win re-election because corporations will be able to donate money to political action committees that will report on his activities. This would not be necessary if the media today did their jobs, but they don’t so it is incumbent on others to showcase the record, or lack thereof, of this clown in the White House.

As for Obama’s trips, he is claiming they are official travel.

But that doesn’t pass the smell test.

Or, as Speaker John Boehner said, “The president traveled across the country on taxpayers’ dime at a cost of $179,000 an hour insisting the Congress fix a problem that we were already working on. Frankly, I think this is beneath the dignity of the White House.”

What Boehner didn’t say, but probably knows, is that much of Obama’s official travel these days is taking place in swing states. CBS’s Mark Knoller reported that Obama has visited Ohio 20 times, Florida 16 times, Pennsylvania 15 times, Michigan 11 times, and North Carolina 10 times since filing for re-election.

Obama’s “official” travel has become so obviously campaigning that the Republican National Committee has filed a formal complaint, accusing his administration of potentially committing fraud by combining campaign and official business.

For presidents, there has always been mixing of official business with campaigning. It is probably unavoidable.

As former Republican National Committee Chairman Rich Bond told The Associated Press in 2004 when George W. Bush was under fire for the very same thing: “Using federal government assets is unavoidable in terms of having contact with everyday people and it’s a topic that White House lawyers from Ford to Carter to Reagan to Bush to Clinton and now to Bush have all struggled with to make sure that you don’t break the law.”

However, it appears Obama is taking it to a new level.

 

Related posts:

  1. Revealed By WikiLeaks: Obama Team Stole Election, Bribed Jesse Jackson And Took Russian Money In 2008 According to internal Emails circulated among the staff at Stratfor, an Austin…
  2. Karl Rove: If Election Were Held Today, Obama Would Win Mitt Romney has just clinched the Republican nomination, and according…

Environmentalism: Less About Hugging Trees, More About Bringing America To Her Knees

obama green face e1331313863689 Environmentalism: Less About Hugging Trees, More About Bringing America To Her KneesDespite his speechmaking touting an “all of the above” energy strategy, President Obama’s reelection could depend his willingness to stand in the way of developing America’s resources.

Back in November, at the time of the original Keystone XL pipeline decision, environmental groups threatened to pull their backing for Obama if he approved the pipeline. Michael Brune, executive director of America’s largest environmental group, the Sierra Club, is on record as saying that the President’s decision on Keystone would have “a very big impact” on how they funnel their resources—with the obvious implication being that they would not support the President if he didn’t do their bidding.

Other environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Defense Fund took a different tack but with the same goal. A press release from the Rainforest Action Network promised the President that if he denied Keystone, he would see a “surge of enthusiasm from the green base that supported you so strongly in the last election.”

Environmental groups clearly understand they have the ability to influence the President’s decisions based on their claims to support—or not support—his bid for a second term. So far, they must be pleased with his administration’s efforts. On Wednesday, April 18, leading environmental groups came out with their official endorsement of President Obama—“the earliest” the groups “have ever endorsed in a presidential election cycle.” According to The Hill, “The groups are planning a mix of advertising and on-the-ground work on Obama’s behalf.” However, Glenn Hurowitz, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, thinks the groups should have waited longer before endorsing the President. He believes the early endorsement removes the “greens’ leverage.”

Most pundits agree that the 2012 presidential election will be a hard fought, close race. In order to win, President Obama needs the four million votes from “greens” the groups represent—and they do not want increased domestic resource extraction.  According to BusinessWeek, funding from environmental groups is currently less than 50% of what it was through the same period in the 2008 campaign—one of the reasons cited: “renewing offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Though receiving little press, the Obama administration is working hard to convince the “greens” that he is one of them.

The NRDC (one of the groups promising support if Obama does the right thing) has launched a major fundraising effort—aided by the actor Robert Redford, to block a proposed mine that would provide America with access to one of the largest known deposits of copper in the world. Copper is essential for electric transmission and America’s industrial future—and highly sought after by developing economies such as China. The land—already designated for mineral exploration and development—also contains gold, silver and molybdenum. Despite the fact that the Native Alaskans living near the proposed Pebble Mine site want the infrastructure and jobs the mine would provide, rich sport-fishermen and out of state environmental groups (NRDC is based in New York City) are claiming to “pressure the Obama administration to reject any permits that could allow Pebble Mine to move forward. And if necessary, we will challenge this disastrous project in federal court.” The fund raising letter states: “Only NRDC combines grassroots power with the legal clout of more than 400 attorneys.”

To date, there is no detailed plan or application submitted for a mine. The companies involved have already invested more than $400 million in research, studies, and field work but have not yet applied for federal approval. Pebble Limited Partnership’s CEO John Shively said, “I think in terms of the environmental side, I am relatively convinced that the technology is there for us to do what we need to do. Combining the technology with the economics, we have not gotten that far, and we have not finished designing.”

There are more than 65 different types of state and federal permits, certifications, and reviews that must take place before the Pebble project can move forward. Yet, the EPA is entertaining a “preemptive veto petition” which would prevent “due process,” deprive America of much needed resources and Alaskans of the economic security the project could bring to the remote region.

Test drilling for core samples at the mine site have been found to be nontoxic and up to municipal standards. The actual location of the mineral resource is farther away from the waters of Bristol Bay than Los Angeles is from San Diego. The EPA is currently conducting a watershed assessment on the potential impact of a large development project on the region that could easily have the effect of blocking any and all future development proposal, including construction of a community airport. The EPA’s assessment is expected to be released in a matter of weeks.

The EPA study, that pales in comparison to a multiyear $120 million environmental baseline review conducted by Pebble, is being used as a precursor for the agency to skip the established environmental review process and preemptively deny a 404 C Clean Water Act permit before the Pebble project has even applied for a permit. EPA preemptive action would be a first of its kind and would constitute a massive and devastating expansion of the administration’s environmental power.

In an April 18 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Senator Lisa Murkowski said, “I have encouraged all stakeholders to withhold judgment until 1) a detailed development plan is released for review and 2) all relevant analyses of that plan are completed. A preemptive veto, just like a preemptive approval, would be based purely upon speculation and conjecture. It would deprive relevant government agencies and all stakeholders of the specifics needed to take an informed position.” She concludes: “As the people of my state work to attract investment and create jobs, regulatory uncertainty is hampering those efforts and they need answers to questions about actions the EPA is considering.”

Opponents of the Pebble Mine project have asked, “Can science and engineering eliminate the risks posed by the Pebble Mine to Alaska’s economy? If the answer is yes, the backers should show how in a clear and unquestionable manner.” Yet, before the designs and plans are even complete, environmental groups like the NRDC have called for the project to be rejected—not based on science, but on emotional hyperbole and an anti-development agenda. Would the Pebble Partnership have invested more than $400 million if they didn’t think the technology was there to do what they need to do to meet the state and federal requirements?

The EPA’s preemptive actions in Alaska are just one example of the Obama administration’s attempts to prove to the greens that he is on their side. Another is the National Ocean Policy created through an executive order.

The order was signed nearly two years ago, but is only coming to light now because of the “potential this far-reaching policy has to hinder job creation because of the uncertainty it creates due to increased regulation.” Lawmakers, in an April 2 letter, are asking “to put the brakes on the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy.” The letter, to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY), asks the committee to “specifically prohibit the use of funds for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy.”

On April 3, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) explained the new policy as “a complicated bureaucratic scheme which includes a 27-member national ocean council; an 18-member governance coordinating committee; 10 national policies; nine regional planning bodies—each involving as many as 27 federal agencies as well as states and tribes; nine national priority objectives; nine strategic action plans; seven national goals for coastal marine spatial planning; and 12 guiding principles for coastal marine spatial planning. The administration claims that this whole National Ocean Policy is nothing more than an attempt to coordinate federal agencies and make better permitting decisions. Forgive me if I am a little suspicious when the federal government—through an executive order—decides to create a new bureaucracy that will ‘help’ us plan where activities can or cannot take place in our waters and inland.”

In an April 17 article written by award-winning investigative journalist Audrey Hudson and published in Human Events, Hudson opens: “President Barack Obama has an ambitious plan for Washington bureaucrats to take command of the oceans—and with it control over much of the nation’s energy, fisheries, even recreation in a move described by lawmakers as the ultimate power grab to zone the seas.” She continues, “The ocean policy has already impacted oil and gas development in the Mid and South Atlantic, where more environmental analysis is now required to determine whether new studies must also be conducted to determine its safety, according to Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar.”

Not surprisingly, environmental groups support the policy. The Sierra Club hosts an “Activist Network” that includes the National Ocean Policy: “This project is to promote implementation of the National Ocean Policy through recruitment, education and engagement of Sierra Club Activists throughout the nation.” The NRDC “Switchboard” blog states: “The National Ocean Policy is a landmark policy that calls on us to evaluate all of the uses of the ocean—fishing, tourism, industry, military, energy—and identify how to manage these uses more sustainably.”

Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) comments: “If you look at the catalyst for the entire initiative, it comes from the playbook of environmental groups that think the ocean ought to be controlled by the federal government.” Senator David Vitter (R-LA) adds, “This has largely been completely under the radar. And that is exactly the way the administration and their environmental allies want to do it—announce the administrative fiat is complete and that we have this new way of life that nobody knew was coming.”

Pebble Mine and the National Ocean Policy are just two of myriad possible examples of how the environmental organizations and the Obama administration are working together to change America. When you think of the environmental movement, realize they have gone way beyond hugging trees. They now want to bring America to its knees.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Related posts:

  1. Brits Warn America Of Obama’s Green Tyranny by Sharon Sebastian Obama’s duplicity is renowned. Obama’s long-hyped “shovel…
  2. New Year’s Resolution: Take Back America From Obama And The RINOs Barack Hussein Obama-Soetoro is a sociopathic liar. He says what…