Lurking Behind Obama

You probably aren’t aware George W. Bush is no longer president. You’re likely shocked to discover he’s no longer in the oval office, not influencing congress – he’s not even in the rose garden. Listening to President Obama blame George W., you would think former President Bush is calling all the shots, involved in every decision. After 18 months of Obama in office, this is odd behavior. Obama is continuously shirking responsibility, blaming the former president for a multitude of issues Bush has little or nothing to do with. Could there be a larger plan at work? Why would Obama keep blaming Bush when it’s clear this is an outdated, weak and overwhelmingly ridiculous suggestion? If you accepted a job and upon starting blamed your struggles on your predecessor, how would your boss react? After 6 months, once you continued to place fault on the person who came before you, when would you begin to look incompetent? After a year, would it be fair to continue to blame the problems you’re encountering on someone who hasn’t set foot in your office for 365 days? Obama thinks so.

Eighteen months into his presidency,the Bush blame game is the most popular hobby of Obama. The deficit? Obama inherited it from Bush; it’s not his fault! Yet, the $1.3 trillion dollars Obama accumulatedin 2009 had nothing to do with Bush. Unemployment? It’s a result of the Bush administration policies and the reckless abandon of Wall Street during Bush’s presidency! Forget the fact Obama promised passing the stimulus bill would keep unemployment at 8 percent and it instead rose to 10 percent...Obama has. Is it possible Obama is using the blame game to divert attention from the legislation he’s hoping to pass during a lame duck session? When does the Obama administration take responsibility for its failures? At what point does this become Obama’s presidency? The smokescreen of Bush blame is wearing thin. We’re beginning to see the lame duck Congress lurking around the corner.

The lame-duck Congress will be called back into session between the elections this November and the swearing-in of the 112th Congress next January. This lame duck session will give members the ability to vote on anything, pushing issues through for which many will no longer be responsible. The three pivotal issues include Cap and Trade, Card Check and Immigration. With a Republican sweep expected, the lame duck session will be filled with dozens of Democrats who have lost re-election and are willing to pass initiatives at any cost. With nothing to lose, the lame duck session threatens to pass a bevy of bills that go against the will of the American people. If you think it’s too scary of a scenario, consider the public backlash to Obamacare and the extraordinary lengths they went to in getting it passed. The treachery of jamming bills through during a lame duck session creeps closer every day. Let’s take a closer look at the impending peril:

 

Cap and Trade has long been in the cross hairs of the Obama administration.

White House energy advisor Carol Browner explains, "We’re deeply disappointed we haven’t been able to get clean energy legislation." She added they could "potentially" pass an energy bill during a lame duck session. After all, leading the "[global] clean energy revolution" will be difficult without such a bill. The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is a 1,428 page bill with devastating consequences. The bill gives the federal government power over local building codes, requiring them to be 50 percent more efficient by 2016. But that’s just the government; how would the bill affect you?

Spooky side effects include electricity rates raised 90 percent, gas prices raised 58 percent, natural gas prices raised 55 percent and the average family’s energy bill raised by $1,241. Make no mistake about it, this is an unbridled tax bill focused on separating you from your money. As the Heritage Foundation explains, "[it] is clear that cap and trade is very expensive and amounts to nothing more than an energy tax in disguise. The bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about."

A tax on productivity during the worst economy since the Great Depression? Cap and trade, coming to a lame duck session near you.

 

With Cap and Trade complete, what overbearing bill will the administration unleash next? It’s known as the Employee Free Choice Act, better known as "card check." Card check denies workers access to a secret ballot when voting on whether to unionize, effectively outing those opposed to joining. Stewart Acuff, from the Utility Workers Union of America was asked, "[are] you so keen to get card check through that you would push card check through a lame duck session in defiance of what voters want and what public opinion wants?" Stewart responded, "[we] will push the Employee Free Choice Act any time we can and at every opportunity. . ." Who else on the left admits to their intention of using the lame duck session to push card check through? In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters, "The lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future." The lame duck session is their last opportunity, their last push to make these unwanted, ill conceived bills reality. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told Bill Press, "[we’re] still trying to maneuver" a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.

What would federally mandated unions mean for you? For starters, say goodbye to negotiating your salary, benefits and working conditions. You’ll now be forced to rely on a union as your exclusive "bargaining agent" for these purposes. Not to worry, you might be able to negotiate yourself – after you get the labor boss’s permission. Union organizers would effectively take control of tens of millions of once upon a time independent employees. According to the National Institute for Labor Relations, "Considerable evidence suggests that a new federal law promoting monopoly unionism would actually lower real earnings and household incomes, hinder job creation, increase poverty, and reduce the availability of important job benefits like health insurance." But you didn’t want any control over your pursuit of happiness anyway, did you?

 

With new energy taxes and intimidation from unions passed, President Obama will tackle one of the most controversial issues – immigration reform. Earlier this year, the justice department sued Arizona over the state’s new immigration law. Mexico is in the middle of a bloody drug war that recently took the lives of over 28,000 people. Sixty-eight percent of Americans support building a Mexican border fence. Seventy-nine U.S. citizens were killed in Mexico in 2009, up from 35 in 2007. Three people linked to the U.S. consulate were ambushed and murdered. Criminal gangs have killed 915 municipal police officers, 698 state police and 463 federal agents. Yet, Obama is planning to provide a pathway to legal status for over 11 million illegal immigrants. Relentlessly accused of being "all talk" on immigration reform – this is an issue Obama needs to pass in order to save face.

Beyond your security and looming drug warfare bleeding into our country, what’s the big deal? In Arizona alone, illegal immigrants take $1.6 billion from Arizona’s education system, $694.8 million from health care services, $339.7 million in law enforcement and court costs, $85.5 million in welfare costs and $155.4 million in other general costs (according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform). Consider the 60 percent of illegal immigrants who are uninsured, relying on emergency-room services, forcing local hospitals to take the hit for illegal immigrants’ emergency care. Beyond the possibility of losing your job and salary to someone in America illegally, paying for illegals’ healthcare and being victimized by crimes they commit while subsidizing them with your tax dollars, we can’t figure out why this is controversial. The lame duck session is the answer.

------------------------------------------

It’s clear passing any of these issues would go against the will of the American people. The consequences from these bills passing are chilling. Passing all three? Crippling. A slumping economy will not be improved by penalizing individuals for productivity, as cap and trade aims. Scaring people into unionizing is not an effective way to improve worker’s rights, as card check intends. Disregarding the safety of Americans and ignoring the border crisis is not effective governing. Filing a government lawsuit against a state that actually takes action to safeguard its citizens is insulting. This is not an appropriate way to pursue immigration. These are not bills that should even be considered. Yet, these are the issues they will try to pass during a lame duck session. They have made clear their willingness to pass these bills at any cost. The Democrats have more than hinted, they have assured us they will do everything in their power to make these bills a reality.

War, recession, increasing unemployment–America is experiencing great uncertainty. We don’t need to be taxed into oblivion, we don’t deserve to have our security threatened and we shouldn’t be intimidated into organizing unions. By voting on these bills during a lame duck session, some members will be exercising votes for which they have no responsibility. No responsibility, who can they have learned this strategy from? Members will vote at the insistence and with the support of Obama while resting on the same lack of responsibility Obama has been imploring for the last 18 months. The lame duck session is closing in; are we too late to stop it?



<< Return to the October 2010 Index

Most self-proclaimed Marxists know very little about Marxism. Some of them have all the buzzwords memorized. They talk about the exploits of labor. They talk about the slavery of capitalist society and the alienation caused by capital. They talk about the evils of power and domination.

But they don't actually believe what they say. Or else they wouldn't be such violent hypocrites. And we're not being dramatic when we say "violent."

For them, Marxism is a political tool that they use to degrade and annoy their political enemies.

They don't actually care about the working class.

Another important thing to remember about Marxists is that they talk about how they want to defend the working class, but they don't actually understand the working class. They definitely don't realize that the working class is composed mostly of so many of the people they hate. Because, here's the thing, they don't actually care about the working class. Or the middle class. They wouldn't have the slightest clue how to actually work, not the way we do. For them, work involves ranting about how work and labor are evil.

Ironically, if their communist utopia actually arrived, they would be the first ones against the wall. Because they have nothing to offer except dissent. They have no practical use and no real connection to reality.

Again ironically, they are the ultimate proof of the success of capitalism. The fact that they can freely call for its demise, in tweets that they send from their capitalistic iPhones, is proof that capitalism affords them tremendous luxuries.

Their specialty is complaining. They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They sneer at Christianity for promising Heaven in exchange for good deeds on earth — which is a terrible description of Christianity, but it's what they actually believe — and at the same time they criticize Christianity for promising a utopia, they give their unconditional devotion to a religion that promises a utopia.

They are fanatics of a religion that is endlessly cynical.

They think capitalism has turned us into machines. Which is a bad interpretation of Marx's concept of the General Intellect, the idea that humans are the ones who create machines, so humans, not God, are the creators.

They think that the only way to achieve the perfect society is by radically changing and even destroying the current society. It's what they mean when they say things about the "status quo" and "hegemony" and the "established order." They believe that the system is broken and the way to fix it is to destroy, destroy, destroy.

Critical race theory actually takes it a step farther. It tells us that the racist system can never be changed. That racism is the original sin that white people can never overcome. Of course, critical race theorists suggest "alternative institutions," but these "alternative institutions" are basically the same as the ones we have now, only less effective and actually racist.

Marx's violent revolution never happened. Or at least it never succeeded. Marx's followers have had to take a different approach. And now, we are living through the Revolution of Constant Whining.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.

Americans are losing faith in our justice system and the idea that legal consequences are applied equally — even to powerful elites in office.

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) joined Glenn Beck on the radio program to detail what he believes will come next with the Durham investigation, which hopefully will provide answers to the Obama FBI's alleged attempts to sabotage former President Donald Trump and his campaign years ago.

Rep. Nunes and Glenn assert that we know Trump did NOT collude with Russia, and that several members of the FBI possibly committed huge abuses of power. So, when will we see justice?

Watch the video clip below:


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

The corporate media is doing everything it can to protect Dr. Anthony Fauci after Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) roasted him for allegedly lying to Congress about funding gain-of-function research in Wuhan, China.

During an extremely heated exchange at a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Sen. Paul challenged Dr. Fauci — who, as the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, oversees research programs at the National Institute of Health — on whether the NIH funded dangerous gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Dr. Fauci denied the claims, but as Sen. Paul knows, there are documents that prove Dr. Fauci's NIH was funding gain-of-function research in the Wuhan biolab before COVID-19 broke out in China.

On "The Glenn Beck Program," Glenn and Producer Stu Burguiere presented the proof, because Dr. Fauci's shifting defenses don't change the truth.

Watch the video clip below:

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Critical race theory: A special brand of evil

wal_172619/Pixabay

Part of what makes it hard for us to challenge the left is that their beliefs are complicated. We don't mean complicated in a positive way. They aren't complicated the way love is complicated. They're complicated because there's no good explanation for them, no basis in reality.

The left cannot pull their heads out of the clouds. They are stuck on romantic ideas, abstract ideas, universal ideas. They talk in theories. They see the world through ideologies. They cannot divorce themselves from their own academic fixations. And — contrary to what they believe and how they act — it's not because leftists are smarter than the rest of us. And studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country. Marx was no different. The Communist Manifesto talks about how the rise of cities "rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life."

Studies have repeatedly shown that leftists are the least happy people in the country.

Instead of admitting that they're pathological hypocrites, they tell us that we're dumb and tell us to educate ourselves. Okay, so we educate ourselves; we return with a coherent argument. Then they say, "Well, you can't actually understand what you just said unless you understand the work of this other obscure Marxist writer. So educate yourselves more."

It's basically the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, the idea that when you point out a flaw in someone's argument, they say, "Well, that's a bad example."

After a while, it becomes obvious that there is no final destination for their bread-crumb trail. Everything they say is based on something that somebody else said, which is based on something somebody else said.

Take critical race theory. We're sure you've noticed by now that it is not evidence-based — at all. It is not, as academics say, a quantitative method. It doesn't use objective facts and data to arrive at conclusions. Probably because most of those conclusions don't have any basis in reality.

Critical race theory is based on feelings. These feelings are based on theories that are also based on feelings.

We wanted to trace the history of critical race theory back to the point where its special brand of evil began. What allowed it to become the toxic, racist monster that it is today?

Later, we'll tell you about some of the snobs who created critical theory, which laid the groundwork for CRT. But if you follow the bread-crumb trail from their ideas, you wind up with Marxism.

For years, the staff has devoted a lot of time to researching Marxism. We have read a lot of Marx and Marxist writing. It's part of our promise to you to be as informed as possible, so that you know where to go for answers; so that you know what to say when your back is up against the wall. What happens when we take the bread-crumb trail back farther, past Marxism? What is it based on?

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism.

It's actually based on the work of one of the most important philosophers in human history, a 19th-century German philosopher named Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

This is the point where Marxism became Marxism and not just extra-angry socialism. And, as you'll see in just a bit, if we look at Hegel's actual ideas, it's obvious that Marx completely misrepresented them in order to confirm his own fantasies.

So, in a way, that's where the bread-crumb trail ends: With Marx's misrepresentation of an incredibly important, incredibly useful philosophy, a philosophy that's actually pretty conservative.

This post is part of a series on critical race theory. Read the full series here.