Posts Tagged ‘Neal Boortz’
April 30, 2013
Going to start a new blog very soon that will be dedicated to spotlighting the growing culture of predatory violence in America. Every day that goes by we hear report after report of young urban thugs, young black mobs, attacking, killing, and robbing people at random. It’s not about race, it’s about culture.
Every excuse imaginable has been given for reasons why these punks continue to hurt and kill. “Oh it’s because of poverty.” Bullshit! How about having a respectable employed father in the house. How about keeping your baby mamma’s legs closed and your baby daddy’s penis in his pants. How about getting an education and stop listening to your boyz when they say being educated is being white. How about sterilizing some of those damn brood mares that keep unloading future young thugs on society at taxpayer expense. That, in and of itself is a goddamn crisis in America.
How about the fact that Rap music lyrics encourage these young black thugs to rob and kill because it’s cool. How many times have you seen a news report where an expensive car or SUV was found on the side of a road full of bullet holes with a dead black guy slumped over the steering wheel? Do you remember your first thought? “It was probably a rapper.” It’s an easy bet you can take that one to the bank.
Recently here in my home town of Atlanta, news reports came in about someone driving a $400,000 Maybach that was shot and killed while driving thru the city on Interstate 20. Well, @Talkmaster, Neal Boortz, nailed it in a Tweet as soon as the news broke that morning.
Guessing a rapper. http://shar.es/JXcMR
Most of us already knew, just from news report experience that Neal was correct, and he was.
I know that when we have a culture with no father figure or family structure these inner city kids wander into the streets looking for someone to bond with. It’s easy pickins for the older gang leaders to indoctrinate young lonely children. You have young black kids looking to gang bangers to be their role models and being part of a family structure. Gangs come in all races, but I’m talking about an urban nightmare right now that primarily affects a certain culture in our inner cities that just happens to be black. Look at the statistics before you start calling me a racist. Oh and it would help if you learned the true definition of the word before you tossed it around every time you got pissed at a white person. It doesn’t help you at all when you use words that you cannot define. It makes you ignorant and nobody takes you seriously.
Today I tweeted my Twitter pal, Neal Boortz, for an idea on a title for my newest blog, and like the @Talkmaster, he came through with a rather catchy title. Neal is also pretty sick of the predatory violence in America and has no problem laying it all out on the who and why, so I’ve decided to join in by putting the spotlight what the media refuses to.
Want a good idea of what I’m talking about? Just go and check out what reporter Colin Flaherty wrote in his article about the violence in Detroit.
Why doesn’t someone in the black community speak out about the obvious? Where are all the so called black leaders, and Hollywood celebrities at while this crisis is building? They seem to be very quick to judge George Zimmerman but what about when the obvious occurs? Not a word. Total silence on the matter.
I won’t be holding back, and I will not let the PC police get in my way. You’ll be seeing videos and whatever the hell else I can find that highlights the culture of predatory violence. It’s high time this subject came out of the hoody closet. I’ll take the abuse that I know is going to come. It will be nothing new to me. Like others before me, I’ve been called a racist. I am not. I just happen to be a white guy that speaks the cold hard truth, and nothing you say or do will stop me. -JRoycroft
Special thanks to Neal for giving me a catchy title for my new weekly topic.
@J_Roycroft “Yo! Imma Kick Yo Ass! Knowhutamsayin?”
By Neal Boortz
The people directly responsible for the bombings in Boston are either dead, in the case of the older bomber, or shot all to hell and in custody, in the case of the younger bomber. (I don’t particularly like giving these people the publicity they want by naming them). So, is it over? With the death of one, and the arrest of the other brother, is this case pretty much closed? If they acted alone and absent outside coaching or influence, yes. If not … no. It is most certainly not over.
So there we have the Mayor of Boston yesterday telling America that these two bombers acted alone. That’s it. It’s over. We killed on, the other is in custody. Case closed. Nobody else was involved We have them, and there’s nothing more to see here.
Here’s an oddity for you to consider. When there is a violent incident; a mass shooting, a bombing, a political assassination; the media seems to be instantly posed to blame it on right wingers. This happened all the way back with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I lived in Texas at the time, and immediately the national media was blaming right wing elements for Kennedy’s death. In some areas of the country offices of right wing organizations such as The John Birch Society were being vandalized. In California cars with Texas license plates were being vandalized as well. Then … well what do you know? … the assassin turned out to be a communist? Don’t you just hate it when that happens?
- The man show shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and killed several people? That was Sarah Palin’s fault, you know. In no time at all DailyKos and Think Progress, left wing websites, were blaming this on Palin because she posted a map “targeting” certain congressmen for defeat in the upcoming election. It was shown that the “targets” she used on that map were really surveyors marks obtained from the Internet – marks used to indicate geographic locations, like congressional districts – but to the left they were telescopic sights – Palin’s message that these people needed to be shot. The shooter turned out to be a complete lunatic with no discernable political leanings.
- The man who killed those folks in the Aurora, Colorado theater? In no time at all he was identified as a Tea Party member because Brian Ross at ABC, operating under an assumption that the shooter simply must be a conservative, found a Colorado Tea Party member with the same (quite common) name.
This is common behavior for the left and the 0bamaMedia. There’s been an act of violence. Blame the right. After the Boston bombings CNN’s Wolf Blitzer was saying that due to the fact it was Patriot’s Day, and Tax Day, perhaps anti-government right wing groups are to blame. Looney old Chris Matthews was also blaming the right, saying that normally domestic terrorism comes from the right. We had a Salon Magazine columnist begging for the bombes to be white males. CNN had a so-called counter-terrorism expert on the air who said that pressure cooker bombs were a signature of the right wing, though there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for that statement. MSNBC puts a Harvard Professor on the air to suggest that the “far right” might be responsible. An NPR “journalist” said that the attack could have been right-wingers celebrating Columbine or Hitler’s birthday. Can you believe this stuff? Well, believe it. It’s the normal course of conduct after an incident such as this … right up until the time when it’s discovered that the perps aren’t right-wingers, as is normally the case.
So then did you see the Mayor of Boston yesterday? After the identity and political and religious leanings fo the bombers became known the whole incident suddenly morphed from being caused by some evil right-wing political movement to two men out on their own..Sure enough the Boston mayor, a Democrat (of course) was telling America that the bombers acted alone. It was just them. Case pretty much closed.
The needs of political correctness dictate the “acted alone” conclusion. If government, particularly the Feds and Homeland Security, do not use the “acted alone” approach then the follow-up question will naturally be: “Well, what are you doing to find out who was involved with the bombers? Who influenced them? What happened on that trip to Russia? What about the Mosques the brothers attended? Are there other known radicals involved with that Mosque? Have known radicals who could have had influence on the members visited Mosque? You cannot address these questions without focusing on Muslims – on the wonderful, serene, peaceful, loving religion of Islam. And of course as soon as you start focusing on Muslims, on Mosques, and on the associates of the two bombing brothers — you’re then engaging in the hideous, horrible practice of profiling! OMG! It might even be racial profiling! After all, the vast majority of Muslim radicals are from the Middle East!
Of course as long as you think that right wing militias committed some heinous act, or the Tea (Taxed Enough Already) Party or white supremacists – you can blame groups and movements and investigate to your heart’s content. After all … these people are perceived as predominantly white, and to make things worse, they’re largely believed to be white (ugh) males! But if a protected religious or racial minority might have been involved … be careful! You don’t want to profile!
February 23, 2013 – Well here I am, over two years into this blog thing spewing my disdain about those moochers, looters, and parasites slithering around among us led by that insipid jerk they put in our White House. But what do I have to show for it all? Just some satisfaction knowing that I haven’t sat around on my capitalist ass complaining without cause or effect. I take comfort in being able to look into my families eyes and saying that I did something positive for their futures. I did everything in my power to try and stop that enemy of the United States from being elected and then re-elected. Like so many others who love America, my money and support went to those who shared my values as a responsible citizen. I have no regrets.
So now I just wait for the storm to blow over, the moochers to realize that there is no free ride, the looters to have no one left to steal from. By the end of Obama’s last term, hopefully the entire country will understand what has happened and what his intentions really were. They will know that we were right all along. There is no free health care for anyone. Jobs are still not there. 2nd amendment rights are being violated. Our freedoms and liberties continue to be infringed upon.
Is there any good news to come from my rantings about those leeches among us? Did anything really positive come from this blog? Well hell yes. I was mentioned in someones book. Today I would like to close by giving thanks to Mr. Geoffrey Nunberg for giving mention of me and my blog in his book titled, “The Ascent of the A-Word: Assholism, the First Sixty Years.”
Apparently my quote in an article of May 9, 2011 caught Nunberg’s eye, “Next time you’re in line waiting behind that welfare moocher, don’t forget to yell out “You’re Welcomed” as they walk away from the register with all that crap you just bought for them. Trust me, the look they will give you is worth it. If your lucky, they’ll smart off at you which will be your invitation to further humiliate their sorry ass. Yea, I know, I’m being insensitive. Cry me a freakin river.”
I am deeply honored to be listed and referenced along with people like Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Hank Williams Jr., and of course the asshole of all assholes, Bill O’Reilly.
Even though I’ve been quoted by the great @Talkmaster, Neal Boortz, in his own “Nealz Nuze,” this mention brings new light and hope for the future of The Roycroft Report and has inspired me to continue to strive for greatness among the ranks of all those other great assholes of the world. I am truly honored.
From my Gonzo journalist hero, the late Hunter S. Thompson, I leave you this quote which still holds true to this very day: “In a nation ruled by swine, all pigs are upwardly mobile—and the rest of us are fucked until we can put our acts together: not necessarily to win, but mainly to keep from losing completely. We owe that to ourselves and our crippled self-image as something better than a nation of panicked sheep.”
So here’s to sticking it in the face of liberals and their candy ass politically correct ideas. -JRoycroft
- “Ascent of the A-Word ” Geoffrey Nunberg’s Masterpeice (bobsutton.typepad.com)
- On Assholes (3quarksdaily.com)
- White House Petition: Sign It For America (theroycroftreport.com)
January 9, 2013 - On January 18, 2013, Neal Boortz, one of America’s most popular Libertarian talk radio hosts will be retiring, and living one of his dreams, to travel the world with his Queen.
Neal Boortz has started a petition to get a one on one sit down meeting with Barack Obama. He needs 25,000 signatures to make this petition valid. http://wh.gov/P596
What a great idea! Please join me in signing the petition and lets see if Obama has the nads to meet with Neal Boortz. It’s possible that Obama could take the bait. Like Boortz said, “Lightening could strike.”
There’s nothing to be afraid of by signing the White House petition. Yes, you have to give up some information about yourself, but it’s nothing the government doesn’t already know about you anyway. So go for it. Support Neal in his effort to explain the FairTax to our dear Ruler. After all, who better to explain to Obama than the guy who wrote the book on the FairTax? (along with John Linder)
This from Erick Erickson at RedState :
As a parting gift from America, please consider signing this White House petition. Neal wants an hour of the President’s time to talk tax policy, particularly the FairTax. The White House says Neal’s petition must get to 25,000 signatures before February 7th to get a White House response.
Go here now. Sign the petition. Let’s make it happen. It would be staggeringly awesome.
So let’s get this petition moving and give Neal his opportunity to convince Obama that the FairTax is the best answer we have right now to get a start on moving our economy in the right direction. -JRoycroft
December 12, 2012 -Yesterday I was a little bored, and posted a bit of humor for a change about Obama. Trust me, there really is nothing funny about him. The man scares the hell out of me.
It comes to no great surprise to me that someone other than myself believes the man is dangerous, and not thinking clearly about anything he is doing. The man is on a path of trying to systematically destroy the very people who built this great country. Within the next four years we are going to see the collapse of what was once the greatest, most powerful nation on this earth. Please read what Neal has to say about this man who has dedicated his life to destroying the top producers in America – And he is doing it with the full support of a classless group of followers. We are the majority in this equation, yet the minority is winning the fight.
Neal Boortz makes an expertly crafted observation about the mental capacity of Barack Obama. This man is dangerous, and his objectives are very clear. The problem is with his capacity to think rationally. -JRoycroft
We Have A Problem — A Real Problem
By Neal Boortz
No .. I’m not talking about the fiscal cliff, nor am I talking about the almost $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities we face as a nation. Iran and a nuke? Yeah .. that’s serious all right, but I’m told that we are messin’ with Iran right now in ways that you couldn’t even imagine – ways that could derail their nuclear plans for some time to come. Is the real problem our sagging economy? An oncoming second recession? The growth of government dependency? Sure … all of those are problems and all are difficult to deal with … but they pale to insignificance to the problem I’m bringing up here.
I think that it is truly time for us – those of us capable of thinking clearly and, perhaps, just a bit outside the box – to consider the possibility that somehow we have found ourselves with a president who is not all there. Yes. I mean that. This president was never vetted by the media; that would have been racist. He is a man with an admitted history of drug use. Those portions of his past that he has not chosen to write about are shrouded in dark mystery. And — now think about this — for perhaps the first time since they started issuing security clearances, we have a president who simply could not qualify for one. If Obama were being hired to work in the White House, instead of occupying it, the FBI would simply recommend against a security clearance and the job would go away. Isn’t it funny how a history with drug abuse and associations with known and convicted domestic terrorists and crime figures can screw up a good day?
The work, I think, that I’m looking for here is “psychosis.” In this case I believe we have a man – a president – with an obsession bordering on psychosis for punishing wealthy people for what he sees as the crime of becoming wealthy.
I could go into detail here on the influences Obama’s father, his mother, and his communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis had on Obama during his formative years. I could then follow up with the influences of Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and those Marxist professors and student groups he says he liked to hand around in college. What we should concern ourselves with, however, is where these influences led Obama, and the answer is clear. Obama has a deep, ingrained and very powerful hatred of the rich. He believes that people with wealth acquired their riches by exploiting and oppressing others. He makes exceptions, of course, for the fabulously rich athletes and entertainers, who surround him, fawn over him, worship him, and defend him. Bread and circuses have always been a part of the leftist methodology. The left will excuse any accumulation of wealth if it serves the end of distracting the public from matters that really might have an affect on their lives.
Back, though, to Obama’s obsession with punishing the wealth; and that’s his primary goal – punishment. Raising revenues is only secondary in his mind.
I’ve gone through this before, but just start collecting some rhetorical gems from Dear Ruler over the years. It bears repeating …
- Obama’s statement to Joe the Plumber that we need to spread the wealth around. He did not say we needed to raise taxes to fund government. The purpose was to take from those who had earned the excess wealth and then give it to those who had not.
- Obama’s statement to Charlie Gibson that even though increasing capital gains taxes would not lead to more revenue, it needed to be done “out of fairness.” Again — increased revenue to fund government or pay down the debt was not the issue.
- Obama’s admonition to high-achievers that at some point they needed to admit that they’ve made enough money. Again – no drive for increased government revenues here.
Do you get the picture here? This is an obsession for punishing the rich, not an attempt to develop sound economic policy. To really track the path of Obama’s obsession with punishing just take a look at the changes in rhetoric as the arguments mounted against his beloved tax increase on the wealthy.
In the beginning Obama tells the people that the rich “need to pay their fair share.” The “fair share” line comes right out of Democrat focus groups. We’re taught from infancy that fairness is good … everyone and everything should be fair … and that includes what we pay in taxes. And if Obama is saying that the rich “need to” pay their fair share, well then that must mean that they’re not paying their fair share now and something should be done about it.
Then Obama and the Democrats gradually change the rhetoric. It goes from the rich “need” or “should” pay their fair share to the rich “aren’t” paying their fair share and their taxes must be increased.
The Republicans respond with an offer to revise the tax code by eliminating some deductions. Now even though we have a spending problem, not a tax revenue problem, this offer made much better sense than just raising the tax rates. Why? Because Obama’s tax increase would hit small businesses. Now Obama was right when he said that over 95% of small businesses would not be hit with the tax increase. What he didn’t say is that the three percent or so of the businesses that WOULD be nailed are the businesses that employ 70% of all Americans and are right now are providing over 50% of all new private sector jobs. The changes in tax deductions the Republicans were proposing would not affect these businesses and their tax burdens would not increase.
Obama knew that if the people actually started paying attention they would realize that the GOP proposal to modify tax deductions would produce the revenue increases Dear Ruler says he wants while protecting small businesses. This meant he had to change his rhetoric again. So now we have Obama largely abandoning his “raise taxes on the rich” rhetoric to “raise tax RATES on the rich.” Referencing tax RATES suppresses GOP arguments for other ways to raise revenues.
All of this shows that Obama’s concern is not so much with increasing tax revenues as it is with punishing high-achievers whom Obama feels obtained their wealth through dishonesty, exploitation and oppression. If you follow the news as closely as I do you will see that many low-information Americans out there will echo this sentiment. Obama is probably aware that increases in tax rates seldom result in the revenues wished for. He cares not. It’s about retribution and punishment, not dealing with our deficit and spending problem.
December 11, 2012 – KCBS 5 spoke to a viewer and was told about a video which captured a series of lights flying in formation above the city before appearing to take a diamond shape and eventually disappearing. This early on Sunday morning in San Francisco’s Mission District. This also coincides with the Air Force launching their secret mystery shuttle X-37B back into space.
Unidentified sources have told me that the mystery lights are in fact spacecraft from another world. The light formation is believed by some in the intel community to be alien spacecraft sent here on a mission to gather information relevant to which citizens will be selected for removal.
California will play a key role in “thinning out” the population. This is where the majority of our nations warped citizens thrive, and the state in the most financial trouble. Not a very good sign for some on the left coast.
Each state will be scanned by the alien crews, taking inventory of human life and animals. There is a fear that many will be left behind. In fact, all the moochers will be left behind. It’s in the great plan. Only those with work ethic will survive the end of the world.
Rumors in the circle of the super rich are stirring up stories of corporations already prepared to move to a secret location many light years away, where they will be safe from the sticky fingers of the moocher class. Sources tell me that there will be no corporate taxes on the secret planet which is drawing the interest of several key individuals who’s combined wealth keeps the economy alive here on planet earth. Great news for the worlds entrepreneurs and small business owners trying to survive and grow.
Here’s the real kicker in this unfolding event- Barack Obama is a key player in this. Obama has apparently been working with the alien crowd as a neighborhood organizer here on earth. He has very successfully managed to single out each and every moocher here. It was in the plan all along to weed them all out prior to the so called end of the world. So now we know that Obama is actually an alien himself, which explains why no one has been able to prove who he is or where he really came from.
Among other key data used to identify moochers are the voting results in the last presidential election. Those results will play a key role in identifying which citizens will be allowed to leave earth before it’s end. It is unknown who, or how other areas of earth will be selecting their citizens. We do believe there will be a large Mexican presence on our new planet because of their strong work ethic. I for one, plan to open a chain of Taco stands on the new planet.
There is also a rumor that syndicated radio talk show host, Neal Boortz, may be taking a lead role in the development of the new government which will be established on our new home planet. This may explain the meaning behind Neal’s retirement, and “Happy Ending” events being held in selected states. Big coincidence, huh? Maybe there is more behind the phrase “Happy Ending” than we know.
Barack Obama- Community organizer, black president, bowing to world leaders, eating junk food and never gaining weight. It all makes complete sense now. Who the hell would have ever guessed Obama would be the hero behind the end of the world? Yes Johnny, there is a Baracka Claus! -JRoycroft
To media: Under no circumstances will I expose my source. Please note that none of the information shared with me involved drugs or the consumption of adult beverages. Although there may have been a Guinness Black Lager consumed during the writing of this article.
NOVEMBER 29, 2012 – Our friend, Neal Boortz, gives some good advice in the event you infect a home invader with a dose of lead poisoning. Be sure to order Neal’s new book, “MAYBE I SHOULD JUST SHUT UP AND GO AWAY.” Available soon.
By Neal Boortz
Did you see the news that gun sales on Black Friday set an all-time record? As someone in the gun industry put it, Barack Obama is their greatest salesman. There is a very real fear that Obama will attack the Second Amendment. My best guess is that he’ll use the United Nations as a primary tool, and will pursue any regulatory trick or gimmick he can find domestically to chip away at our right to keep and bear arms. He will have the left (for the most part) behind him on this.
The left totally believes in the concept of majority rule – as long as they have the majority. The rule of law means nothing to them. You’ve heard they calling for higher taxes on the evil rich. Why? Because the majority voted for Obama and that means the majority wants higher taxes on the rich. So there. So .. if the Obama wants to restrict gun rights, and the majority voted for Obama, then that means the majority wants gun control so that should be it
Now because gun sales are at an all-time high, sooner or later one of my listeners or readers is going to have to use their gun to protect their life or the life of a loved one. Someone is going to break into your house and you are going to have to shoot that person and kill them in self defense. When this occurs, you need to know what to do after you’ve pulled the trigger.
The perp is laying DRT on your foyer floor. Now what?
Step #1: Tell your wife (or anyone else in your house) to get into the bathroom or a back bedroom and stay there until either you or the police come to get you.
Step #2: Call 911 and tell them the following, “Someone has been shot in my house. I am going to perform CPR.” Then set the phone down next to the body. DO NOT HANG UP. Proceed to do CPR with 911 listening and recording. Make it audibly clear that you are performing CPR, “C’mon buddy, breathe.”
Step #3: As soon as the police arrive, they will tell you to come out of the house. Tell them that you are performing CPR and cannot leave until you are relieved. Once a medical professional relieves you, stand up and let them take care of the debris.
Step #4: When the police come into your house they will most likely ask you “What happened here?” The first words out of your mouth should be “I was afraid for my life.” When they ask if anyone else is in the house, tell them “Yes, my wife is in the bathroom. I was afraid he would attack her, so I told her to hide there until you came.”
Step #5: The police will then ask you more questions. Don’t answer. The next words out of your mouth should be, “I don’t feel good. I feel nauseous. I need medical attention.” At that point, the questioning should be over as the ambulance hauls you to the hospital.
Step #6: Once you arrive at the hospital, call your lawyer. Say nothing more to the police.
Why the instructions? Because there is surely going to be someone out there who is going to start whining and moaning about their dead boyfriend, husband, son, buddy, whatever. You are going to be painted as a gun-happy violent killer who needlessly took another life. If you take the steps above it will be clear that you did only what you had to do to protect yourself and your property. Remember — there will be an audio recording for the police and the prosecutors to listen to, and for your attorney to present as evidence if need be, which will show you desperately trying to save the predator’s life after you found it necessary to shoot him to save yours.
I hope this never happens to you .. but in this era of class warfare, when people in the highest positions figuratively encourage violence against high-achievers .. you need to be prepared to defend yourself.
By Neal Boortz
Good morning! Actually feeling human today …. So let’s get started:
A quote for you to muse over today .. one from Joe Biden. I found it on a Tweet from @JamesPethokoukis from the American Enterprise Institute … and upon stealing his material, I started writing. Now think about this when Biden is on the stage with GOP vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan tonight. This I something that Biden said in 2008:
“For too long in this society we have celebrated
unrestrained individualism over the common community.”
Before we move ahead with this, I just must point out to you that this “common community” phrase is the core idea behind the word “communism.” No … I’m not one who screams communist at everyone with a (D) after their name, but I do recognize that the philosophy exists and I have a rather good understanding of the underpinnings of Lenin and Marx. One thing is clear … communism cannot co-exist with a society that values the individual.
Now … since I have now presented you with a quote from Joe Biden, let’s try a few more quotes. See if you can figure out who uttered these lovely phrases. This will mean a lot more to those of you who actually value your worth as an individual rather than as merely another cog in the gears of society:
Quote 1. “We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.”
Quote 2. “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what’s best for society.”
Any guesses? The surprise comes later. You need to hold on a few more moments while we discuss the war against individuality.
Yes, a war – a war against the individual. A war that has been waged by the American left for decades.
Why, you might ask, would anyone want to fight the concept of individuality? Good question. Simple answer. Individualism must be fought and suppressed because the concept of the individual is completely incompatible with basic liberal doctrine.
Here’s the rub. If you recognize the existence of the individual, it then follows that you must also recognize the concept of individual rights. Among those individual rights are such pesky little nuances as – dare we say it – property rights! Among those property rights would be what our founding fathers might call the right to the fruit of your labors, or what we in our less flowery age would call the money you earn by busting your buns 60 hours a week.
If, then, there is any recognition that you, as a real flesh and blood individual human being, have any right to the money you work for, what sort of excuse can the left come up with to seize those earnings for their wonderful vote-buying income redistribution schemes?
So, you think I’m going a bit overboard here? Well, while you sit down and grip the arms of your chair for stability, let me tell you that a California congresswoman (Democrat, natch!) said back in the early 2000s that all wages really belong to the federal government. How’s that for individual property rights?
Not convinced? You still don’t believe that there’s a full-blown war on individuality raging around you? Well then, allow me to invoke the name of one of Washington’s premier class warlords, none other than the Senate’s Prince of Bloviation, the late Ted Kennedy. The unlikely event that brought forth this Kennedy gem was the New England Patriots’ Super Bowl win in (I think) 2002. Naturally, Kennedy wanted a part in the celebration, so he pushed his way to the television cameras to extol the value of teamwork. Amazingly, Kennedy tells the nation that the Patriots set a wonderful example for us all to follow at a time when we, in America, are engaged in a “war against the individual.” His words, not mine. Go plow through The Boston Globe on the Monday following that Super Bowl win to find out for yourself. Do it! You need the research practice.
Driving the point home just a bit more, what do you think this whole “diversity” thing is all about? Diversity committees – diversity seminars – diversity directors. What’s behind this love of “diversity”? Why was the University of Texas (liberal institution, in case you didn’t know) pushing “diversity” as an excuse for racial discrimination in student admissions? Easy enough. Diversity identity is group identity. Attention paid to diversity is attention paid to someone’s group status, not his or her individual identity. When you are identified according to group status, any claim to individual rights, or worth, for that matter, fade into meaninglessness.
Let’s go back through history to see, other than Teddy Kennedy, just who we have out there blasting the concept of the individual. It’s a rough ride. Hold on.
“There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State, which demands, and the individual, who attempts to evade such demands.”
That gem is from our friend, Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.
“The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood.”
The National Socialist bit should be your clue. Nazi was the acronym for Germany’s national socialist party. That quote is from Adolf Hitler. I’m reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich right now … you would not believe the hatred of individualism present in the Nazi regime.
Now for the two quotes at the beginning of this Nuze bit:
“We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.”
I left out the first word of this quote. That word is “Comrades!” This from the lips of none other than Nikita Khrushchev.
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
Ahh. The best for last. The person who uttered those words is none other than Hillary Clinton back in 2003 when she was pushing her version of government controlled medical care.
One more quote. A quickie from Ayn Rand:
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”
Are you ready to give up – to surrender – your individuality to the state? That is the essence of liberalism. You exist to serve the state. Remember the video at the Democrat National Convention? “The government is the only thing we all belong to.” What’s your take? Do you belong to the government? Or do you belong to yourself. That’s another choice you’ll be making on November 6th.
September 24, 2012 – Here some highly recommended reading from Neal Boortz’s column in Townhall.com today.
Excuse me for a minute here, but someone straighten me out on something. Are we trying to put together a golf foursome here, or are we trying to hire a new president that can get our economy smokin’ and our country on a path to prosperity and greatness again. I mean, seriously? What’s with all this “likeability” nonsense?
Here’s a question for you. Let’s say you work for a company. You like your job, but the company is on the ropes. By the end of the year you could be trying to squeeze some Christmas presents and holiday cheer out of an unemployment check. They’re going to bring in a new CEO to try to turn things around, and you get to help them choose. So here you go … chose the new CEO:
A)Candidate 1 is a man with a wonderful personality — a regular good guy with a friendly smile. He’s a bit narcissistic, but seems genuinely likeable. Likeability aside, he has a record of abject failure in the business world and seems to have a rather severe problem being honest. Pretty much every business venture he has started or invested in over the past few years have collapsed or is on the verge of doing so: His resume shows names like Solyndra, Fisker Beacon Power, Solar Trust, Nevada Geothermal, LightSquared and Tesla. But all of this is secondary, because he’s likeable.B) Candidate 2 seems bit stiff … stuffy even. He’s not real quick with a quip or a genuinely warm smile, and he’s been seen wearing mom jeans. Candidate 2 does not seem like someone you would want to meet after work for a beer or a poker game Thursday night. You’ve looked at his resume, though, and all you see that he has a reputation for scrupulous honesty and business success after business success. He has shown a particular talent for taking companies or ventures on the edge of failure, or just weeks away from shutting down entirely and turning them into raging marketplace successes. The Salt Lake City Olympics, for instance. You’re concerned, though, because some say he’s not likeable.
Even a government-educated economic low-information voter – someone who couldn’t tell you the difference between a profit and a profit margin if his next case of Bud and his pickup truck depended on it — would chose the man with the record of business success. Candidate 2.
Maybe our country, and you’re children’s future, would be better served if we just worked through this “likeability” nonsense and concentrated on the job at hand. We’re hiring a new CEO – a new Chief Executive Officer for the Executive Branch of Government. We have a politician and a businessman seeking the job. We’ve seen what the politician – the man with absolutely no private sector business experience whatsoever – has done with the job over four years. It isn’t pretty. Not even mildly cute. Maybe it’s time to consider the businessman. There’s a problem though … CEOs aren’t generally hired through democratic processes; politicians are. So this is going to take a massive change in the way medium to high-information voters approach the election. Low-information voters are a lost cause … so let them line up for their ObamaPhones and EBT cards while we try to outnumber them.
Now I think it’s pretty clear to all of us, no matter which side we’re on, who the better campaigner is out there. It’s Obama .. but why? That would be because campaigning is in the politician’s nature; not so much for the businessman. Let’s make it real simple:
Politicians ask for their jobs.CEOs are asked to take the job.
Politicians campaign for their jobs.
Businesses campaign for the best CEO.
Nations don’t recruit presidents. You know the routine … a group of politicians; some seeking power, some genuinely wanting to make things better, place their names into contention and say pretty much anything they feel they need to say to get the job. When a business seeks a new leader they form committees, hire consultants, engage headhunters — whatever they need to do to find the best available candidate for the position. When they find their guy, they ask him to take the job.
The CEO is pursued. The politician pursues.
The CEO doesn’t have to convince those company employees least-qualified to decide on a new boss that he’s the man for the job. The politician, in effect, does.
The decision the American voter faces in November is clear. Do you vote for the man who has done the best job of telling you what you want to hear .. the man pursuing the job with no real record of accomplishment or success? Or do you step into the voting booth and recruit the man with a proven record of business success – a man who might not be as glib or smooth at asking for the job – but a man who clearly has the better credentials to get the job done?
As they say: Use wisely your power of choice. Your children and grandchildren are watching — and they’ll remember.- Neal Boortz
July 24, 2012 – My pal Neal Boortz makes a great argument in his recent blog post today…..
By Neal Boortz
So — let me get this straight. Southern Methodist University slips some dollars to key players, and they get the “death penalty” from the NCAA. Penn State officials participate in an organized cover-up of some coach who is having sex with little boys in the football locker room and they get fined the equivalent of one year’s worth of football revenues and they lose some scholarships? Slip money to players, really bad. Slip something else to little boys in the shower — not as bad. Yeah … that makes sense to me.
And what’s this yak squeeze about vacating all wins dating back to 2008? Does that really work? Do former Penn State players reminiscing about great games in Penn State history now tell their friends … “No. Everything has changed. We really didn’t win that game. I didn’t really score the winning touchdown.” I’m sorry .. but I just don’t get this. What if a college fraternity got into trouble because of some sexual improprieties that occurred during a frat party? Then along comes the fraternity council and these guys are told that as punishment all sex they’ve had with coeds in the previous three years has now been vacated. Is the frat-rat now going to say “Awwww man! And that brunette eight months ago was so goooood!”
Insensitive? Offensive? Yeah … like I care. It damned sure gets the point across.