Obama the Socialist, or Is He? Listen to the Voice of One Who Knows...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


at the 44th Karlovy Vary International Film Festival

Every so often we have our views called into check. Whenever this happens the wise person considers the perspective, as well as the experiences of the person calling the entrenched views into check. In doing so one learns and therefor grows. At least that is how it should work.

Milos Forman, the immigrant from Czechoslovakia who later won Academy Awards for best director for the films “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and “Amadeus”, provides just such a check for America. He clearly, and accurately describes American politicians misunderstanding of totalitarianism and western European democratic socialism in his July 10th op-ed piece in the New York Times .

He ends the article with a very poignant warning. Mr. Obama, and politicians of both major parties, as well as every American citizens ought to consider his words... and warning.

The New York Times - WHEN I was asked to direct “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” my friends warned me not to go anywhere near it.

The story is so American, they argued, that I, an immigrant fresh off the boat, could not do it justice. They were surprised when I explained why I wanted to make the film. To me it was not just literature but real life, the life I lived in Czechoslovakia from my birth in 1932 until 1968. The Communist Party was my Nurse Ratched, telling me what I could and could not do; what I was or was not allowed to say; where I was and was not allowed to go; even who I was and was not.

Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.

My sister-in-law’s father, Jan Kunasek, lived in Czechoslovakia all his life. He was a middle-class man who ran a tiny inn in a tiny village. One winter night in 1972, during a blizzard, a man, soaked to the bone, awakened him at 2 in the morning. The man looked destitute and, while asking for shelter, couldn’t stop cursing the Communists. Taking pity, the elderly Mr. Kunasek put him up for the night.

A couple of hours later, Mr. Kunasek was awakened again, this time by three plainclothes policemen. He was arrested, accused of sheltering a terrorist and sentenced to several years of hard labor in uranium mines. The state seized his property. When he was finally released, ill and penniless, he died within a few weeks. Years later we learned that the night visitor had been working for the police. According to the Communists, Mr. Kunasek was a class enemy and deserved to be punished.

Skip

Whatever his faults, I don’t see much of a socialist in Mr. Obama or, thankfully, signs of that system in this great nation. Mr. Obama is accused of trying to expand the reach of government — into health care, financial regulation, the auto industry and so on. It’s fair to question whether the federal government should have expanded powers: America, to its credit, has debated this since its birth. But let’s be clear about how frightening socialism actually could be.

Marx believed that we could wipe out social inequities and Lenin tested those ideas on the Soviet Union. It was his dream to create a classless society. But reality set in, as it always does. And the results were devastating. Blood flowed through Russia’s streets. The Soviet elite usurped all privileges; sycophants were allowed some and the plebes none. The entire Eastern bloc, including Czechoslovakia, followed miserably.

I’m not sure Americans today appreciate quite how predatory socialism was. It was not — as Mr. Obama’s detractors suggest — merely a government so centralized and bloated that it hobbled private enterprise: it was a spoils system that killed off everything, all in the name of “social justice.”

Skip

I am not asking Mr. Obama and the Republican leaders to stop playing instruments of their choosing. All I am asking is that every player keep in mind the noble melody of our country. Otherwise the noisy dissonance might become loud enough to wake another Marx, or even worse. {The Entire Article}

Indeed wisdom is increased through the recognition of truth as well as having the ability to understand and accept it as truth. President Obama has many failing, he has shown he does not have the answers to our national problems, his solutions have created more questions than answers, he has a vision vastly different than many, perhaps the majority of Americans, but as Mr. Forman has aptly pointed out the President is not what the right has painted him to be.

Via: Memeorandum

Comments

  1. Great post. Obama is not the bogeyman. He's a rather mainstream, moderate Democrat from Chicago. That's it.

    jmj

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks jmj. I've been trying to gently nudge the more ridged right wing individuals I know into a realistic understanding of a flawed president without the steroidal hyperbole so often employed by those who hold the extreme position.

      Now if only we would get back to the challenge of actually making capitalism work for the middle class again. As opposed to primarily the oligarchs, super millionaires, and the billionaires.

      Getting rid of government subsidies and lobbyists might be a good start.

      Delete
  2. Glad you liked my post enough to share Forman's NYTimes piece here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to burst your liberal bubble my dear but the post went up here BEFORE I visited you site.

      Sorry, But nice try anyway.

      Delete
  3. I read that once at Shaw's, and now I've reread it.

    I understand his sentiment. This is not totalitarian communism, but he has set up a straw man:

    "They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. "

    That's not what critics on the right did. They called Obama a socialist, which could be meant to imply a euro-socialist, rather than a totalitarian dictator.

    So I think he's given us a strawman argument.

    Regardless, I do think such terms get misused. I think we are close to fascism, and it started before Obama, but that is a harsh buzzword, so I prefer to use statism or corporatism.

    And when Bush was being called Hitler, and Reagan a nazi, where was this guy and the concerned citizens of the left to decry how that "cheapens the experience of millions who lived and died under brutal naziism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Silver, It is high time the right STOPS saying and writing things that could be meant to imply anything. State the facts supported by solid evidence. Truth is a diamond not easily damaged.

      I have been saying for nigh on 20 years that the United States Government, and this includes "conservative republicans" have been moving rapidly towards a fascist type of state. Think Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, the ever growing MIC, the enhanced police powers of interrogation, enhanced surveillance through cell phone tracking, etc. We lose our freedoms and liberties incrementally, as a result often without notice. Republicans have been as big a part of our loss of liberties in many respects as have liberals. It is time to get our head out of our asses and start to address the REAL threats.

      What Forman has said is not building a strawman, it is reality. Fight the reality Silver, not the "perceived" strawman. We can be fiscally conservative and socially libertarian, or to make it simple classically liberal without making excuses. It is time we did.

      I find it quite interesting that Mr. Forman apparently knows more about liberties and freedom than any bureaucratic politician (or pundit) of either major party in America. I mean having actually lived the alternative what gives him the right to question our cherished beliefs, right?

      Okay, sarcasm off. The man is right, and those who understand history and his closing warning will understand this is so. Those who wish to keep the blinders on may vert well wake to a fate much worse than that they perceive exists today.

      We need fiscally conservative leaders with a healthy belief in the principals our forebears pledged their life, liberty, and sacred honor to achieve for all posterity.

      I really do fear we are losing it as we argue over BS like religion and homosexuality as we head towards the cliffs edge all the while.

      Just the opinion of one classical liberal. All the rest... is up to the rest.

      Delete
    2. I find myself thinking more and more like you, Les, every time I blog here. Even though there's a pretty big philosophical line between us, there's plenty of room for agreement, and it's MUCH MORE room than is offered between "Republicans" and "Democrats." And I believe most Americans would discover this about each other as well, if they just did the "taboo" deed of discussing politics.

      At least we do that, guys. We make a wave in the stream of consciousness.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. jmj, I am the first to admit I have been guilty of partisan politics and the edgy it's my way or the highway at times. In those cases I lost the opportunity to learn from INTELLIGENT individuals I simply disagreed with. As human as I am, and who isn't, I'll likely engage in such activity again, most in the blogoshere do from time to time. It's life, and it is just the way it is I guess. At least most of us do not resort to the antics of one Infamous Anonymous who pleasures himself/herself/itself in being a sorry a**.

      At any rate jmj you are correct in that republicans and democrats are not working in this countries best interests. Which of course means neither are working in the peoples best interests.

      We must be free to have differences. Having the right to have them places the responsibility on us to work out the differences. Compromise is a two way street in which neither side gets everything it desires. I have yet to witness any relationship of any sort, personal, business, or governmental where one side gets everything it wants. It is unrealistic to think it possible and in holding to a position unwilling to accept reasonable and possible positive compromise forever is in fact destructive and foolish.

      Delete
    4. >euro-socialist, rather than a totalitarian dictator.

      Euro-socialist = totalitarian dictator riding a unicorn through a field of pansies

      And it is definitely less accurate (at least during his reign as King of America) to call Obama a socialist than to call him a wannabe fascist. It's basically a government ownership of business/industry versus governmental control (heavy regulation, etc.) of business/industry thing, socialism being, for all intents and purposes, the former, and fascism the latter. Fascism has a tendency to open the way for full-blown socialism, then hardcore, violent communism, of course, and fascism and socialism are both forms of slavery, but there are subtle differences in their methods and mechanism.
      On a continuum, we have communism, socialism, fascism, American liberalism, in that order, in a close grouping on the end with the least liberty, and American conservatism (no, I'm not necessarily talking about the Republicans) then minarchistic libertarianism (classical liberalism) on the end of the spectrum with the most liberty.
      Where's anarchy? It's a bit of a special case, but if anywhere, it goes on the end with less liberty, due to the fact that it's essentially mob rule (democracy), which means that there are no rights, and only brute animal force, etc., rule the day. Kind of like hardcore communism with less bathing.

      Delete
    5. Natsuo... I'm wondering what your thought on Ayn Rand are. I detect a bit of Randian Objectivism in your comments.

      Delete
    6. About the only place that Rand and I disagree is on religion (and thus the ultimate source of our rights, as well as some of our motivations). Other than that, I have long believed that she's got it right on just about everything, and that history (both before and after her) has proven it an uncountable number of times, on both the micro and macro levels.
      Because of the atheism, I wouldn't say that I'm a full-fledged Randian Objectivist. Instead, I would say that I'm a "Bastiatarian," which is a bit like if Ayn Rand got religion. :)

      Delete
    7. Well said! Count me as a full fledged Randian Objectivist with the understanding that purity is the goal not the reality. Thus one must at times be pragmatic.

      Delete
  4. RN USA: Sorry to burst your liberal bubble my dear but the post went up here BEFORE I visited you site.

    Sorry, But nice try anyway.


    ATTENTION CONSERVATIVES! President Obama is NOT a Socialist
    Wednesday, July 11, 2012
    Posted by Shaw Kenawe at 9:51 AM



    Wednesday, July 11, 2012
    Posted by Rational Nation USA at 12:28 PM

    Labels: .Obama, Socialism, Totalitarianism
    Obama the Socialist, or Is He? Listen to the Voice of One Who Knows...

    Ok. Whatever. I just took notice of the date and time stamp and made a logical assumption.

    Why did you feel the need to label this simple observation as a"liberal bubble?"

    Can you just see it as a simple little observation and not a political one-upsmanship?

    It's all so witheringly boring...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What you proved Shaw was that you were up and posting well before I was up. o you presune to be so pompous as th believe the fisrt think I do when turning on my computer is to visit Progressive Eruptions? If so sorry to bust your bubble again. I first visit Memorandum, Drudge, etc. and pick my first post of the day. This I do every day.

      Compare the posting I do to yours, not that it is important other than if I used your site to determine my post content daily I'd be in deep shit.

      Shaw, you are intelligent, and whether you choose to believe it or not I respect your intelligence, amd your intellectual honesty, even when I disagree.

      Having said this, for you to be so presumptuous as to comment that your post was the reason I posted this was not only presumptuous it is false. I recognized your intention (perhaps erroneously) and for that reason I labeled it a "liberal bubble." Because Shaw, that is what I expect from the extreme left. I didn't expect it from you.

      Delete
  5. Excellent post, I agree with Jersey. While I don't particularly care much for Mr. Obama (or Romney either for that matter) these days, he certainly isn't a socialist. The heath-care plan was a knockoff of the Republican plan from the 90s and the stimulus was heavily loaded with tax cuts. I really think that the critics of the President should try to focus a hell of a lot more on the competency angle and not the pinko one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well stated Will. Perhaps some of our more progressive friends will begin to see the point reasonable moderates and fiscal conservatives/social libertarians are trying to make.

      I remain hopeful.

      Delete
  6. RN, you over-reacted to this simple friendly little comment and turned it into something it was not:

    "Glad you liked my post enough to share Forman's NYTimes piece here."

    Your reaction is unfortunate and wrong.

    There is nothing whatsoever "extreme" in my harmless assumption, but I do find your reaction odd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did not say you were extreme. Your reaction is odd as you say.

      Glad you liked my post enough to visit.

      Delete
  7. Obama's not an extremist and neither are either of you. I can say that with relative assurance.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Totalitarianism is just that, totalitarianism. it doesn't matter by what means is used to bring it about. it is still totalitarianism if the people submit to it willingly by the means of a democratic decision just as it is totalitarianism if the people submit to it by the means of force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a given Griper. However if the people accept, encourage, and ask for it them by democratic republic vote it becomes the new order.

      Until such time as the minority commits to an armed revolution, and I am DEFINITELY not encouraging such an action, or gains the majority vote again and reverses the direction.

      Its how it works Griper. The Founding Fathers were indeed brilliant. Don't cha think?

      Delete
  9. yes, they were brilliant in their own way. and if people were to recognize this brilliance as it was meant to be recognized, totalitarianism could not become a possibility in this nation and there would be no need of an armed revolution by the minority.

    the Constitution was written clear enough so as to prevent the need of this possibility. the only reason it has become a distinct possibility now is because ideology was given priority over the Constitutional principles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I'm not mistaken I believe the process of amending the Constitution, adding to and changing it was likely part of the package deal the framers left us so future generations could respond to changing times and realities if they felt necessary. They certrainly knew they couldn't guide the nation from the grave.

      Having said this I still lean towards strict interpretation more than to view the constitution as a living breathing document to be changed at someone's whim.

      That is of course why the process for amending is as it is and why there have been so few amendments over the 234 year history of the document.

      Unfortunately politicians and judges have made it easier to circumvent the process over time.

      Delete
  10. "If I'm not mistaken I believe the process of amending the Constitution, adding to and changing it was likely part of the package deal the framers left us so future generations could respond to changing times and realities if they felt necessary."

    that is a "living document" argument not an argument for a strict interpretationist. it is the acceptence of that argument that is the reason judges and politicians have made it easy to circumvent.

    the separation of government powers are clearly defined for the States and federal government in the Constitution and there is no amendment that changes how it was divided. so, the only thing that argument serves is to mislead us in regards to the powers of the federal government. and the only reason someone would want to mislead the people is because they wished to form a type of government that requires all powers are in the federal government or have all powers centralized.
    now, you tell me what type of government would require that all powers of government be centralized?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "now, you tell me what type of government would require that all powers of government be centralized?"

      I'll make you a deal Griper, okay?

      Please tell me specifically what the purpose of providing for amending the constitution was. Or, if that specificity is not possible because neither of us actually had the opportunity to talk with the framers... what you believe the reason the framers understood the need for an amendment process. You may use specific amendments if you wish to illustrate your point.

      Agreed?

      Delete
  11. the most obvious reason for that provision was the recognition that changes would be needed to put into practice the form of government envisioned and the amendment process prevented the need to rewrite the whole Constitution as was necessary when they saw that the Article of Confederation was flawed, not in principle but in putting those principles into practice. we have to remember that they set up an experimental form of government,a form of governing never tried before in history.

    the biggest flaw being:

    under the Articles of Confederation the funding of the federal government was to be done in a voluntary manner by the States. this would have been the ideal form of taxation. this didn't work so the founding fathers realized the need to force someone to pay taxes to fund the federal government. thus the need to change the Constitution in order to give the federal government the authority to impose taxes upon individuals. but when reading of this authority given you'll find it could only tax within the authority of the powers already possessed by the federal government. it was not allowed to tax within the authority and powers of the States.

    additionally, under the Articles of Confederation, since the States were taxed not the people only the States had representation in the federal government. it was only under the new Constitution that the people were given a voice in the federal government.

    this change abided by the principle of "no taxation without representation"

    this points out that the founding fathers did not seek to make changes in government in order meet changing times but in order to make the existing form of government more functional in practice.

    so, that be one reason for the amendment process. it was not put there to change the form of government or its purpose of existence as so many seek to do and as your reason and the concept of a "living document" declares implicitly.

    the form of government did not change with new Constitution, only the structure of it did.

    ReplyDelete
  12. An interesting interpretation. Been quite a few years since I read the ineffective Articles of Confederation.

    "this points out that the founding fathers did not seek to make changes in government in order meet changing times but in order to make the existing form of government more functional in practice."

    Perhaps so. This argument no doubt has merit, because as you say our representative democracy was an experimental form of government never before tried. It also implies that the framers realized they could not possibly foresee every possible "need to amend (make changes to) the constitution" to make it more functional (or effective) as their experiment "matured." They therefore insured a mechanism was in place that generations long after they were gone could respond as American society (We the People) felt necessary. This of course through the elected representatives of the people.

    As to living document, nothing in my article implied the concept of a "living document" as the post was not about the constitution. It was about the very real possibility of the United States becoming a totalitarian socialist state. As I have said on more than just a couple occasions specifically a fascist one.

    The "implied living document" came from my response in the comment section:

    "If I'm not mistaken I believe the process of amending the Constitution, adding to and changing it was likely part of the package deal the framers left us so future generations could respond to changing times and realities if they felt necessary. They certrainly knew they couldn't guide the nation from the grave.

    Having said this I still lean towards strict interpretation more than to view the constitution as a living breathing document to be changed at someone's whim.

    That is of course why the process for amending is as it is and why there have been so few amendments over the 234 year history of the document.

    Unfortunately politicians and judges have made it easier to circumvent the process over time."

    I responded to your comment theme and I intentionally worded my response as I did allowing room for discussion. History is a great teacher, if people would actually learn from history. However, it is rather evident, at least IMO that in some ways they obviously don't. It is unlikely that the small percentage of those who do will ever be able to get those who chose not to to somehow miraculously begin to do so.

    Some might argue that our form of government has not changed over it's 234 hear history. Only the nut and bolts (structure) has changed and evolved into its present somewhat convoluted form.

    Now to hold up my end of the deal, in answer to your question:... "the separation of government powers are clearly defined for the States and federal government in the Constitution and there is no amendment that changes how it was divided. so, the only thing that argument serves is to mislead us in regards to the powers of the federal government. and the only reason someone would want to mislead the people is because they wished to form a type of government that requires all powers are in the federal government or have all powers centralized. now, you tell me what type of government would require that all powers of government be centralized?"

    Answer: A totalitarian all powerful one. Whether that government be a democratic republic such as ours, any of the forms of socialism be it democratic socialism, fascism, nazism, communism, or some other variant of socialism, a dictatorship, oligarchy, plutocracy, etc. please feel free to add to the list.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Les,
    you might add one more type to that list, one of which the founding fathers were quite familiar with, a monarchy.

    in the writing of a Constitution that would prevent the formation of a monarchy it would also prevent the formation of every other type of government that you mentioned also.
    we must also acknowlege that the only way a person could form one of those governments is by misleading the people in regards to what the Constitution says.

    so the next question a person must ask themselves is how do you form a government that would make it impossible for one of these types of government to result?

    it isn't by changing the structure of of a particular government nor is it by changing the names of the offices of that particular government.

    there is only one way and once you have the correct answer to this question you will see the intent and the true genius of the founding fathers.
    there is your next challenge, Les.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Griper, I intentionally left the list open to add to. I somehow knew you would. :-)

      "there is only one way and once you have the correct answer to this question you will see the intent and the true genius of the founding fathers. there is your next challenge, Les."

      You may be right Griper. Having been a history major, although I left it for business endeavors, a mistake as it turns out and one I acknowledge in my blog profile. But I digress.

      I do not need the challenge really Griper as I have studied the framers genius, as well as questioning their shortcomings over many years. Thankfully they had much more "genius" than shortcomings. I recall a statement by John F. Kennedy made in one of his speeches to a group of dignitaries if you will. "...probably the greatest concentration of talent and genius in this house except for perhaps those times when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."

      Indeed. And that my esteemed friend is how I shall respond to your latest challenge.

      Delete
  14. since your response does not answer the question asked then i must assume you do not have an answer.

    and without the answer, your strict interpretation of the Constitution cannot be as strict as you'd like to believe it is.

    for it is the answer to that question that gives a strict interpretation the necessary logical reason it needs to be considered as valid.
    without the answer a person is vulnerable to misleading conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Griper, I have no need to answer or respond to your challenge. For you see, I understand the Constitution as well as you believe you do.

      I believe in the ultimate wisdom of the framers. Men of rational thought, both logical and pragmatic. Men who where ahead of their times. Men of intellect, many with scientific minds and the thirst fr knowledge, realizing knowledge would grow exponentially. Men who knew the guiding principals of the great document they penned and gave the people were correct because they were right.

      Men who realized that time, knowledge, and circumstances would not stand still, remaining static for all time beyond 1776. The gave the people the document that would protect their freedoms and liberties. Then they left it in the hands of posterity for all time.

      Perhaps you now understand. If not it is then neither of our concern.

      Delete
  15. les,
    "Men who realized that time, knowledge, and circumstances would not stand still, remaining static for all time beyond 1776. The gave the people the document that would protect their freedoms and liberties"

    another argument to justify calling the Constitution a "living document".

    i've heard that same form of argument used so many times by progressives in defense of their understanding of the Constitution. i really am surprised to hear it again from you.

    it is the acceptance of progressive arguments such as that that is leading us down the path of totalitarianism if we haven't reached that point already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Men who realized that time, knowledge, and circumstances would not stand still, remaining static for all time beyond 1776. They gave the people the document that would protect their freedoms and liberties"

      That statement is absolutely correct Griper if one truly understands the words and the reality to which they speak.

      Griper you said - "another argument to justify calling the Constitution a "living document".

      It seems many fail to understand then.

      Also - "i've heard that same form of argument used so many times by progressives in defense of their understanding of the Constitution. i really am surprised to hear it again from you."

      Thinking beyond the confines of the box some (perhaps most) would attempt to keep us in.

      Still more - "it is the acceptance of progressive arguments such as that that is leading us down the path of totalitarianism if we haven't reached that point already."

      Bullshit. Why not stop building straw men and bogeymen in the attempt to mislead people. Yes progressivism has down much economic and social damage over 100 plus years. So has the the relationship, or perhaps more accurately stated the unholy alliance of money and political power, thus creating an oligarchy. This my friend is what you, indeed we all need to fear.

      But like I said, I'm unrestrained by the box many willingly reside in.

      Delete
  16. alright. Les, let's see if your understanding of those words are equal to or superior to my understanding:

    show me a time when it would be justified for government to deny me of my free will. if you can i'll acknowledge your superior understanding of those words.

    show me a circumstance where it would be justified for government to force me to accept collectivism over individualism. if you can then i'll acknowledge your superior understanding of those words.

    show me a time or circumstance that would justify the government denying me of my life and liberty.if you can i'll acknowledge your superior understanding of those words

    as far as i'm concerned those are the principles established in 1776 and are still valid today and they'll be valid for the future also. time, circumstances or new knowledge cannot change that for me. maybe they can for you. if that isn't what the Constitution is all about for you then i'll agree that you and i have an entirely different viewpoint on what that Constitution means and its purpose.

    those are the very principles that totalitarianism seeks to deny us. and if those principles were established in 1776 then the only thing that time or circumstances can do is errode those principles so as to allow for a totalitarian government, in my humble opinion.

    and i'll even say that you agree with this too for that is exactly what has happened, isn't it? most of your posts expound upon this errosion.
    i say no more on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1) - If the exercise of your free will resulted in injury to another except in an act of self defense.

      Ia) - if the exercise of your free will in any say encroached on my legitimate and lawful exercise of my free will.

      Checkmate Griper.

      Delete
  17. It is the ucompromising, dishonest, and now trumpublican party (the old gop) that presents an immediately clear and present danger to our democratic republic. Not the democrats or President Biden.

    Cons had better watch closely what they wish for.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

RN USA is a No Judgement Zone (to steal from Planet Fitness), so please, No Judgement of others. We reserve the right to delete any such comment immediately upon detection.

All views are welcome. As long as the comment is on topic and respectful of others.



Top Posts

The Ignorance and Arrogance of Obama...

Spoken Like a True Dyed In the Blue Statist...

The "Scandal" That Won't Go Away...

It's Going To Be Close, Brace Yourself For Continued Polarization of America, Especially if Obama Loses...

2015 Could Be a Bad Year for Liberals...

Small Businesses Can Improve the Health of a Community...

Is Our Democratic Republic At Risk From Forces Both Foreign and Within?...

April Job Numbers Appear Improved... Are They Really?

Jon Stewart and the Babbling Nancy Pelosi...