Millenials

According to the admittedly less-than-stable Kanye West, Obama’s lost his “cool”:

“The reason why Obama mention our name is cause we’re most relevant,” West said. “…He’s just saying that trying to be cool. Obama was supposed to be the coolest person on the planet now he gotta say our names to be cool. It’s like a feature, we feature in his interviews right now. They need a feature from us to get relevant.”

Now, I’m not cool, I’ve never been or aspired to be cool, but there’s something about it that you either have or you don’t have.  Or, apparently, that you somehow can make people believe you have. Obama’s empty phoniness somehow struck a chord with scores of millions of Americans in 2007-2008, and this was especially true among young Americans whose shiny, happy faces are indelibly burned into my brain.  That sort of mass . . . what? hypnosis? hysteria? hopeychangey lunacy? . . . is hard to forget (but easy to forgive).

The trouble with cool is that when you lose it, it’s lost.  Pretty much forever.  Ask the Fonz.  And Obama has lost his “cool” with the only group for which that really matters: the millennials.  Now, as someone who works daily with millenials, I’m the last person to bash them or think them the outrageously self-indulgent, solipsistic rabble that many conservatives imagine them to be.  They’re not.  Or at least not any more so than any other generation of America’s young.  They’re idealistic, they’re ill-informed, and they’re full of boundless energy and compassion.  Yes, I really said–and believe–that last part.  Mostly.  I don’t believe that the millenials understand compassion as we do or as most generations before them did, but that said, they are no less compassionate than their counterparts of the ’30’s or ’60’s.  And let’s face it, this administration is more the worst of 1930’s meets the worst of the 1960’s than it is anything else.

Obviously, each generation brings its own identity and spin to all that.  In the twenties, the nation’s young were rebelling against the regressive stranglehold of the Wilson White House and the Great War’s tremendous loss (an entire generation “lost”).  In the thirties, well, there wasn’t much rebelling going on because the regressive FDR government made surviving difficult for so many.  But when it did occur, it occurred in speakeasies and other places where alcohol could be obtained despite the progressives’ ban on it.  In the forties, the nation’s young were called to war again, and again met the challenge with courage and patriotism.  But when they came home, they were done with conflict, done with rebelling, and ready to sink into the most boring, staid existence they could create for themselves.

So in the fifties, the nation’s young were rebelling against a stagnant, docile, detached yet confining, and prosperous culture.  In the sixties, the nation’s young were rebelling against . . . everything good and decent in the world (they’re the ones now running this country . . . into the ground).  In the seventies, the nation’s young were rebelling against all the isms that sprung up in the 60’s, including of course, a deep and abiding hatred for America that began in the ’60’s, and in the eighties, the nation’s young were rebelling against the sex, drugs, and free love excesses of the ’60’s and ’70’s with their own version of excess that tended to be more materialistic, less idealistic, and slightly (only slightly) less amoral than the youth of the previous two decades.

Every generation does its share of rebelling, and in every case, it’s just as self-involved, self-indulgent, and self-centered as this generation’s.  Teens and young adults are always about the self.  Even if they are spouting nonsense about world peace and stopping war and closing Gitmo, it’s always because it will make them feel better and think better about themselves, not for any altruistic purpose beyond that.

This is why we have a seemingly irreconcilable tension on every level of the millenials’ worldview: they “hate hate”; they are “intolerant of intolerance”; they support ever-expanding, ever-stifling big government and then bemoan their loss of privacy and individual liberty to that all-powerful state; they support Islam–the most oppressive, discriminatory, violent “religion” on the planet–but condemn all other religions as oppressive, discriminatory, and violent; they tout equality and lawfulness while cheering the clear lawlessness of this president, a man whose administration has admitted to targeting and silencing political opponents; they support “socialism” and “communism” without really understanding what either is, and when confronted with the reality of what these destructive ideologies are, they turn away because it touches them (to them, in their under- and ill-informed ignorance, they honestly believe that redistribution means taking from others and giving to them, when it turns out that it means taking from them and giving to others, they don’t like so much.); they support the view that every human being should be treated equally, that all people are created equal . . . at least in theory. Because they also support affirmative action, “hate crime” legislation, and a hundred other things that undermine that original concept (is murder more wrong because the victim is gay, female, a minority? Well, arguably, no. Murder is murder, and it’s wrong.  Period.  But not to the millenials; murder’s just dandy if the victim is a white male or a conservative.).

These, and a zillion more, ideological tensions will play themselves out. These “kids” will grow up, they will experience life as it is, and they will figure out that they were myopic, prejudiced, judgmental, intolerant, bullying, and unkind.  And they will regret it.  But that’s not for another twenty or so years.  So what happens in the meantime?

For now, at least, millennials who had already lost the shiny-happy, glazed Stepford-stare are starting to realize that big government means a lot more than some utopian existence for all.   They see, in their pocketbooks and wallets, that the Obama economy is destroying not just their health care, but also any chance they may have of “making it,” of living their version of the American Dream.  Their reality, sadly, is that college grads move back home for a few (or ten) years, that welfare and foodstamps are a great way to subsist, that being less than they are is not only okay but actually encouraged.  And some few will not accept that.  Some few will stand up and say “Enough! I am more than this, I can do more than this, I will not accept this.”

That isn’t happening now, so don’t get your hopes up about the polls saying that millenials are fleeing Obama.  They’re disappointed, their Messiah didn’t pan out, but as one millenial wrote over at PuffHo:

With every day spent in the White House, the president’s bright-eyed idealism seemed to shift toward the same old politics of every man who came before him. In turn, my idealism shifted right along with his. Am I disappointed? Of course. Would I vote for him again? Absolutely.

I’m not the only millennial living with this contradiction. Harvard’s new study also showed that 46 percent of millennials surveyed would vote for Obama again. Of course we would — because the alternative is way scarier.

This millennial, I think, speaks for millions, and I highly recommend reading her entire essay.  She’s wrong, of course.  The president’s “bright-eyed idealism” never shifted; she just didn’t understand what his ideals are.  The biggest thing here, though, is that she–and millions of millenials like her– think he and his ilk are “better” than “the alternative.”

The alternative being, of course, any conservative.  Freedom is scary to millenials who have been nurtured and raised to believe that the all-powerful, ever-benevolent government is the answer to all that troubles us.  Someone “hating on” you?  Let’s pass a law!  Someone eating too much, drinking too much soda, using too much styrofoam?  Make a law!  Someone not “getting their fair share”?  Make a law!  The idea that people can make their own decisions is not only alien but truly frightening to these young people.  It won’t be in twenty or thirty years, but for now, they need someone to tell them what to do, what to think, what to believe, and how to be.

In many ways, we have failed them.

The sad part is that they choose a known pathological liar for that role.  Is he as “cool” as he used to be?  Hell to the no.  Not even to them.  But until they realize that they are fully-functioning human beings who don’t need their every move dictated to them, they will continue to cling to him. Not because he’s cool but because he’s (still) (they hope) better than . . . freedom.

 

 

Establishment GOP As Clueless As Ever

I was watching this clip of Mitt Romney being interviewed on Hannity, and I sighed. A lot. I shook my head with disbelief and not a little sorrow.  Here it is, watch it, see how you respond:

 

Although I definitely believe that we’d be in much better shape right now as a country if Mitt Romney had won last November, I (almost) can’t believe how . . . seriously, truly, deeply stupid he is about the “mistakes” he claims to have made.  Hispanics.  Really?  That’s why he lost?

This is a deep and serious problem with establishment GOP: they honestly believe that their own big spending, big government solutions are way better than leftists’ big spending, big government solutions, and because they are so invested in this big spending, big government ideology, two major things happen (neither good for either the GOP or our republic):  one, they compete for Democrat voters on Democrat turf, and two, they do so at the expense of their own base . . . failing to care that the base is deserting them in record, wacko bird numbers. They seem to think that GOP numbers are tanking because of the left; that’s only half right–they’re also tanking because conservatives are fed up with them and have been for years.  What they don’t seem to understand is that they will never ever win by running as Democrats against actual Democrats.

Sure, if Mitt could have turned out Hispanics in the numbers (both real and fraudulent) that turned out for Obama, he’d have won.  He didn’t lose by all that much, after all, but the people who didn’t turn out, who didn’t vote for him weren’t only the Democrat and Obama’s base; they were prominently, in large numbers conservative voters (seriously, this is what Mitt worries he did so wrong: he didn’t win over enough Obama voters. Yet if the GOP had run an actual conservative, conservatives would have turned out in huge numbers as we did in 2010).  Instead of worrying that he, amazingly, turned out fewer conservatives than that national disgrace John McCain, Romney is worried that he didn’t turn out enough of Obama’s voters.  You can’t make this stuff up, you really can’t.

It’s insane.

Yet this is what the GOP elite are thinking, planning for, and worrying about.  How, they fret, will they ever convince Obama voters to vote for their big government instead of Obama’s big government?  Gee, they wonder, what can we do to show that we’ll hand out just as many phones and other freebies as Obama?  That they’ll grant amnesty without secure borders (ahem Rubio and Paul Ryan) just like Obama?  How can they convince Obama voters that their big government solutions to “national” health care, “national” education, and a myriad other issues they want to solve via the federal government and increased tyranny are better than the Democrats’ federal programs, regulations, and general tyranny?  If only they could solve that problem, they are certain, they’d win a presidential election.

Never mind that Americans are sick of, don’t want, and actively reject all that big spending, big government nonsense that does nothing for the American people (except enslave them and whittle away at that their God-given rights) and does everything for the political class and their cronies.  Who cares what Americans want?  Not the Dems.  Not Obama.  And no, not the GOP establishment who are trying to compete on regressive turf with regressive policies for regressive votes.  They think that’s a winning strategy, and they think that even as the American public declares that it wants less government spending and fewer federal programs.

Never you mind that it doesn’t work, that an election that Obama never should have won was not won by Obama but lost by these regressive GOP establishment types who really, truly, deeply believe that their key to success is to out-regressive the regressives, to win over regressive voters with their bigger, better, more policies, programs, regulations, laws, mandates, and dictates.  They just keep churning out unacceptable candidates that the conservative base of the GOP continuously rejects in hopes that they’ll finally hit on one who will appeal to not only indies but to a good portion of the Obama base.  That’s the plan.

And they think it’s a good one.

They see headlines like Ted Cruz now leads GOP presidential pack and The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states, and they conclude, as Mitt Romney does in the above video, that . . . Hispanics!

You can’t fix stupid.  You can only vote it out of office, out of power, sweeping it out of the way.

A Leaderless America? Not So Much

If one more person tells me some variation of “there is no leader in the WH,” my head may explode. Of course there is.  This idea that Obama is somehow removed from, above, or not up to his scrawny neck in what his administration is doing must be dispelled. Now, do I think he’s the brains behind the operation?  No way, I don’t think he’s that bright, but I do think he’s surrounded himself with people who have plenty of brains and plenty of nefarious, traitorous plans.  I also believe that he’s well-aware of and ideologically happy with every single thing that has led to the myriad scandals that stink up our White House.  Do I think that he gets his hands dirty (beyond going out and spreading vile lies, doubts, and suspicion of the TEA Party and conservatives more generally), that some “smoking gun” will be found tying him directly to the IRS, DOJ, AP, Rosen, NSA, or any other scandal we currently know about or ones that may yet be revealed?  Nope.

But it’s his Chicago stench that permeates every single scandal, up to and including Benghazi.  The bullying, the thuggery, the blackmail, the boot on the neck, the manipulation of events for a specific end . . . all of it is straight out of Chicago, specifically, and leftist “thought” more broadly.

It’s no mistake that his czars and other appointments are a rag-tag assortment of dirty dealers, traitors, commies, anti-Semites, radicals, and fascist zealots.  Those people didn’t just materialize around him; remember, he sought out this type of person all the way back in college.  That never ended, as we can see all too clearly.

What kind of a person appoints the freaks and fringe fanatics that Obama has?  Remember his TSA nominee who stated that white supremacists and “Christian identity groups” were America’s “biggest threat”?  That’s what Obama believes with all his tiny, shriveled evil little heart. Hell, his DHS said as much in their memo to all of America’s law enforcement in 2009.

Last week, Obama announced the war on terror over; for him, it is.  Indeed, it was never really about Islamic terror for him; he happily supports both in word and deed (and with our money) all sorts of Islamic terrorism and terrorist groups.  Hell, he calls various Islamofascist groups his “peace partners.”  That he’s droned a bunch of them doesn’t change that fact.  And it’s right in line with Obama, anyway, he’s famous for sacrificing friends, family, leftists, whomever for “the cause.”   But Islamic terror isn’t his focus, what he does has been a means to an end–his support for the Arab Spring wasn’t an accident, nor was he unaware that Islamofascist states would emerge (everyone was saying so from Glenn Beck to John Bolton).  Neither were any of Obama’s moves an accident from basically encouraging Iran to nuke up to removing the missile defenses in Poland.

We may not be able to connect the dots yet, but it’s becoming pretty clear that it’s all of one piece, including what he’s been doing right here in America.  To Obama, the nation’s real enemies, his real enemies, are people who “want to make America a better place to live,” people who support the 10th Amendment, people who are pro-life, Christian, Jewish, white, patriots.  He’s made this crystal clear since practically Day One with every appointment, every czar, every policy, every word.

Back in September of ’09, I wrote:

[Van] Jones is a racist, a self-proclaimed communist, a “truther,” and a proponent of destroying the American system and replacing it with a . . . well, with another one that favors people of color and subjugates whites.  I’m not making this up.  Van Jones has said it.  All of it.  He talks of white people purposely poisoning minorities with pesticides, he signed a document demanding investigation into our government’s role in either allowing or actually perpetrating the 9/11 attacks on this country, he’s spoken of using the green movement to install minorities in key positions of power and remaking the system to favor them, and he’s called republicans assholes.  Well, okay, that last one doesn’t matter; we’ve all said worse about our political adversaries at one time or another.  But the other points, they matter.  Each of them alone should exclude him from the president’s inner circle, and together, they paint a picture of a dangerous, racist, anti-American communist who should not be allowed to enter the White House gift shop let alone sit in the Oval Office and snuggle with the president.

. . . . .

You have to wonder, if you’ve got a brain in your head, what is going on with the other BO czars.  Who are they and what are they hiding?  What is BO’s agenda in having such radical and controversial figures surrounding him, advising him, making policy for all of us and doing so well outside the checks and balances set up by the Constitution?

Well, there’s John Holdren, BO’s Science Czar, who has a neato idea to control population.  Apparently, he’s a big fan of China’s forced abortion policy and even advocated putting sterilization drugs in America’s food and water supply.  He’s also said that forced abortions “could be sustained under the current Constitution.”  Um, okay, but don’t you think that’s a bit much?  And this man is in key policy position, unchecked by Congress or anyone else, advising the president of the United States.  He’s not in some think tank or university espousing crazy theories and philosophizing, he is actually helping shape American policy.  This is the problem, not his wacked out ideas.

Holdren apologists point out, correctly, that Holdren preferred “milder methods” of population control.  Um, okay, so what happens if the people don’t line up for population control abortions of their own free will?  Do you honestly think that if the government controls the healthcare system and Holdren or BO decide that “population growth” is a threat to either the environment or the economy/healthcare system that they won’t start limiting the number of children people can have, forcing abortion on those who’ve maxed their “quota”?  This sounds crazy, but what the hell is someone with crazy ideas like this doing in the White House if not to put those ideas in motion?  Again, the apologists say that these ideas were expressed in the 1970′s and as such are “dated” and not relevant today.  Another apologist angle is that the book presents a “theory” and does not recommend a “practice.”  Well, so did The Communist Manifesto.  Remember that nifty little book?

Another fun BO czar is Mark Lloyd, BO’s Diversity Czar.  He’s a fun guy who thinks that Chavez’s coup in Venezuela was beautifully accomplished and that his control of use of the media should be emulated here in the U. S.  God forbid the people have access to anything that might be anti-BO.  I wonder how much he had to do with the “flag the fishy” campaign?  Anyway, he finds free speech rather pesky especially from the conservatives, having the unfortunate effect of allowing people to express their dissent.  The best place to stop free speech, according to this lovely man, is by forcing right wing radio off the air with 100% taxes on their operating costs; once that pushes them off the airwaves, their license will be handed over to a (liberal or progressive) minority group (this is where the “diversity” thing comes into play, I guess, you know making sure that all talk radio leans left.  Lots of diversity there.).  I never listen to talk radio, but apparently, there are far right discussions taking place on those stations.  So what?  If you don’t like it, don’t listen.  The people who are listening are obviously of the same mind, so shutting them down won’t do anything about changing ideology, it’ll simply drive people to the internet (if BO doesn’t declare an “emergency” and shut it down, anyway) or to Fox News (which I do watch).  At least until they figure out a way to push Fox off the air.  Again, though, not being able to see or hear views with which you agree does not change your own views, so I find this rather silly.  And frightening.

And let’s not forget Michael Copps at the FCC and “net neutrality”:

And there it is, the admission.  There is a narrow window of time, while BO is still prancing around the WH playing grown up, to force through his radical agenda, an agenda that apparently includes regulating (or whatever you call “filtering and funneling” the right information to the American public) the internet, ensuring that information (the correct information, Herr Copps) reaches the masses in the correct manner and correct measure.  Can’t rely on “flag the fishy“campaigns forever, now can we?  And note, too, that like all good progessives, Copps understands that they may need to settle for a “down payment” (aka “a starter home“) on the publicly-funded, government-run propaganda machine of the (not so distant) future.

Part of what we’ve seen develop over the past few weeks is the Obama camp’s purposeful promotion of the image of a detached, disinterested, ditzy dimwit so that we will all blame someone, anyone other than Obama himself.  I’ve bought into it myself, so I understand where people are coming from, but if nothing else has become clear over the course of the past several months, it’s that Obama is central to what is going on in terms of discriminating against conservatives, Christians, veterans, and pretty much everyone who disagrees with him on any point.  Might he be a puppet?  Sure.  That’s even likely, but it does not exculpate him.  He is not an innocent victim here.

The innocent victims are we, the people and our Constitutional Republic.  People keep thinking that he’s incompetent, a failed leader, but that’s true only if his goal is to support America, keep her and her people safe, to protect and defend her Constitution.  Because, yes, a thousand times, yes, he’s totally incompetent at that.

But here’s the secret: he’s not applying himself to those goals.  He never has and he never will.

Listen again to the great and fearless Andrew Breitbart:

Shiny, Happy Faces: What I Learned By Revisiting 2008

I read this now-bizarre and I’m sure embarrassing pre-2008 election article on Obama (of course I didn’t stick it in my full-to-bursting “Post” file and now can’t find it).  You know the sort of thing, though: exuberant, hopey-changey, full-on brain freeze, idealistic, certain that Obama was more than human, maybe even a god.

In other words: delusional.

It was truly sick-making to be pulled back in time to 2008 and read the fawning, deaf, dumb, and blind near-worship that gripped our nation.  I was completely tossed back there:  to the gleeful, shiny faces of Obots en masse, and I was dumbfounded (I so wish I could find that article again, but I can’t even remember where it was posted or what it was called, so can’t do a realistic search for it–“realistic” meaning it won’t take me freaking hours to find it).

I remember sitting across the table from a then-colleague and now former friend (thanks, Divider in Chief) as she waffled on about how fabulous it was that Obama was elected.  Gag.  I smiled, nodded, tried to pretend that I wasn’t heart-broken inside (not because I wanted McCain, who the hell would want that?, but because even McCain would have been better than what we got saddled with. Twice). After some careful questioning, I realized that she-like so many others back then-didn’t really know why she liked Obama, but she did.

Magically.

Our friendship dissolved a couple years later, when I could no longer pretend that I was indifferent.  It was weird, really, that incident:  she started attacking Sarah–not at all sure why, really, since it had been a couple years since Teh Won won, but she just kept going on and on about how stupid Sarah is (yes, even citing the SNL “I can see Russia from my house” line as if Sarah had actually said it /smh).  After a while, I just couldn’t take it anymore, and full-knowing the risk I was taking, came back with a few choice dumb-frak asshat drooling idiot remarks that Obama had made.  Oh, erm, that’s different, everyone (insert: “whom I like”) can make a mistake.  Hey, I just hate talking about politics . . . .

Uh huh.

I remember that it took all the tact I had (and I am not endowed with an abundance of that, let’s be honest here) to write a post after the ’08 election debacle saying that “maybe he can.”  It was the low-point in my blogging life, actually, and I wish now I’d never written it.  I tried to find it, but I couldn’t because I guess I didn’t migrate my posts from Multiply (where I was blogging in ’08) to either blogger or WordPress.  Anyway, it’s out there somewhere.  And if it’s not, I remember it.  And feel shame.

I knew better.  I wrote all the way back in 2006 that Obama was sketchy, empty, useless.  Oh sure, back then I wasn’t quite so attuned to the problems we are now facing (read: I was beyond clueless), but I heard him speak for an hour and say absolutely nothing.  That wasn’t just once, that was every time he spoke.  And I knew something was wrong, plus my inner cynic (who very much resembles my outer cynic) recoiled at all the unspecific hopeandchange.  I didn’t like it.

I didn’t like it at all.

I remember sitting at lunch with some leftist loon I worked with as he sung Obama’s praises (almost literally, I half-expected him to hoist his considerable bulk off the chair and start jiggling and singing), and I just sat there wondering what the hell was wrong with everyone.  Finally, when the Obot incantations stopped, I asked this person what Obama stood for, what he represented, what his plans were for America, what “yes we can” even meant in real terms.  The person, after giving a pretty impressive impersonation of a large-mouth bass, mumbled something about “hope” and “change” and how great was the “race speech,” anyway?!

You mean the “race speech” a white guy wrote and that Obama read off a teleprompter?

Eye roll.

These people weren’t alone; there was (nearly) a whole nation under the same spell, and they could easily connect and sing in near-unison the early version of the Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm song.  I was the one who was alone (or felt like it) because I didn’t buy the charade.  I heard what Obama said to Joe the Plumber, I knew about Bill Ayers being his bestest bud and the bad Reverend Wright being his preacher, and I listened hard to his speeches, then I read them.  Then I read them again.

Talk about no there there.

But the media was swooning all the way back to 2006, as was almost everyone I knew.  I have to admit that there were times I doubted myself.  Could all these people be right?  What the hell was wrong with me that I didn’t trust him, didn’t think he should be elected president?  OMG, was I a racist without even knowing it? Was that even possible?  I mean, don’t you have to hate people because of their race to be a racist?  I didn’t hate Obama (not back then, anyway, and even now, I don’t hate him for his race. Obviously.).  Frankly, I didn’t even think about his race (most conservatives don’t think about race, as you know).  So I determined that I wasn’t racist; I was just alone in doubting this person, alone in thinking he was too good to be true, alone in thinking that he was purposefully presenting an empty canvas upon which every voter could paint their own hopes and dreams.

Obama was the second coming, the “one we’ve been waiting for,” the messiah back in ’08.  He was articulate, handsome, presidential.  He was everything and anything to everyone and anyone all the time.  He was intelligent, intellectual.  He was tech savvy and the epitome of the rational man, no knee-jerk “dead or alive” comments from him.  He was going to change everything we hated and double-down on everything we loved (that this varied from person to person didn’t seem important).  He was a unifier:  post-racial, post-partisan, post-American.

Barack Obama:  better than sliced bread, better than sex.  The young, the old, the white, the black, the Hispanic, the Asian, the gay, the straight, the bi and transgendered, the Christian, the Jew, the male, the female, the rich, the poor, the middle-class, the center-right and center-left, the left, the right, the far left (okay, not the far right :P)  . . . nearly everybody loved Obama.  Except me.  I didn’t love him.  I didn’t know him, and I didn’t trust him (I trust no one who can speak for an hour and say absolutely nothing, let alone anyone who can do that and somehow inspire cheers and literal swoons from an adoring throng. Gag.).

Election night, 2008: across the country people cheer, dance in the streets, hold up lighters, hug one another (often with tears in their eyes), wave American flags (yes, even leftists!).  The entire nation seemed to have been swept up in the Obama fervor.

It was chilling.  Like witnessing a real-life episode of the Twilight Zone or wondering if everyone had been replaced with pod people.  All those happy, shiny faces, all that glee and joy, all that faith in unclear, nonspecific hopeychangey stuff.

Unsettling.

That was leading up to and into November 2008.  By spring 2009, the hopeychangey stuff wasn’t working out so well, and the shiny, happy faces sort of froze into a grimace.  A grimace that still held hope in its eye.  A hope that started fading in 2010 and was pretty much extinguished by 2012.  That’s the year Obama ran not as the messiah who could stop the oceans from rising and heal the planet while simultaneously eliminating poverty, inequity, and those horrible boils unicorns sometimes get, but as the exact opposite.

He ran in 2012 as the divider: everything is about race, class, gender, sexual orientation, red state, blue state; everything is about ensuring that each voting bloc stays not only separate but feeling the Obama “love” (which is very like the Obama “hate” except that with the former he’ll smile at you indulgently and condescendingly as he bankrupts you. If you’re a particularly good Obot, he won’t send the IRS after you.  Or the ATF, FBI, EPA, DOJ, etc.  Yay!?!).

And now, here we are in 2013, and some of us are still feeling the pain and disillusionment from the last election.  But here’s what I learned from my foray into the recent past: there is absolutely no comparison between today’s Obama and the 2008 Obama.  Not only has he shown his true tyrannical and treasonous colors but even his Obots have an inkling that all is not what it seemed with their messiah, their chosen one.

He’s inarticulate (let’s face it, he can barely stutter out a coherent sentence that he hasn’t practiced–probably for days–if he can’t read that practiced line off a teleprompter), he’s not tech savvy (remember the president who had over a million followers on Twitter tell a Chinese audience that he had no idea what Twitter was?), he has nothing new to say (what he does say is either “it’s Bush’s fault” or “I have no idea what the hell is going on in my own administration”), and he has nothing new to offer (the world has seen petty, paranoid dictator wannabe bullies who oppress, intimidate, imprison and otherwise silence opposition).

When Obama was first elected, the dissatisfaction with President Bush was palpable, even amongst die-hard republicans (I don’t consider myself a republican, btw, I’m a Constitutional conservative–the GOP, generally speaking, are not), and Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a somewhat shocking margin.  That changed quickly, and by December 2009, the disillusioned had jumped ship, and the percentage of Democrat and Republican voters evened out again.  Floating indies (who seem to change parties, at least in part, on a whim due to some perceived wrong or because it’s Thursday) tend to be more conservative, at least fiscally, so the numbers aren’t set in stone.  But what they do offer is a glimpse into Obama’s popularity.  Or lack thereof.

His star is falling and falling fast.  Whatever his plans were, he will never be able to fulfill them because there is no way in hell he’ll ever again reach the exalted high he enjoyed in ’08.  America knows him now and has his number; it will take a great deal more than fake Greek columns, phony presidential seals, and dramatic readings of other people’s scripts to get those faces shiny and happy once more.

Why the #MarchAgainstMonsanto Matters to Conservatives

Until I read this post at the ever-delightful Adrienne’s place, I had never heard of Monsanto.  Never.  I can’t think now how that’s possible, but there you have it.  Anyway, she wrote in part:

This is the company that won’t allow farmers to save seeds.  If a farmer buys  GMO (genetically modified organism) seeds from Monsanto, they must sign an agreement not to save seeds.  I guess that means the farmer is only renting the plants they grow.  By Monsanto’s reasoning, they developed the seed, the farmer buys the seed, grows the plant on his land, but doesn’t really “own” the plant because he can’t use any seed produced.

If you dare to break the agreement, they will squash you like the little bug (no pun intended) they think you are.  Over the years, they have brought lawsuits against many farmers and have generally won.  My guess, and it’s only a guess because I have not read the court cases, is Monsanto won on contract law.  If the farmer signed the contract, then he is bound to uphold the terms.

These GMO seeds are already crossing with non-GMO plants.  I predict, due to my knowledge of hybridization and my life-long gardening, that this will prove to be a disaster in the future.

Imagine, if you will, a world where nothing you grow will produce seed that is usable.  Most hybrid plants will not reproduce true to form.  If you save the seeds from the hybrid tomatoes you purchased at a store and try and grow the seeds the following year, don’t count on eating any tomatoes.

Huh?! A company “owns,” essentially, the rights to food seeds?  How is that even possible?  If anyone else had written this, I would probably have dismissed it as hysteria and hyperbole, but as it was written by someone whom I know not to be given to either hysteria or hyperbole, I thought I better look into it further.

Monsanto is a vast, multi-national corporation that has genetically modified its canola, soy, wheat, and other crop seeds to be resistant to its own RoundUp sprays.  The crops will not die when RoundUp is sprayed to control pests and weeds, and these GMO seeds have been patented by Monsanto.  Pause, digest this: the SEEDS are patented.

Monsanto has also genetically-modified seeds so that even though a plant will produce seeds, they will not germinate (grow); they are modified to self-destruct, in other words.  Seeds, then, must be bought year after year . . . from Monsanto.  Indeed, even if you are a farmer using GMOs that are not “programmed” to self-destruct, you must sign a contract stating that you will not only buy new seeds each year from Monsanto but that you will also pay a “fee” per harvest for the privilege.

On the one hand, this makes a certain amount of business sense if you’re Monsanto, but the problem is that these genetically-modified seeds are contaminating non-GMO seeds that are planted within X number of miles of the patented seeds.  When the GMO seeds travel by wind, insect, bird, or beast to pure, natural-seeded crops, they cross-pollinate, making the produced seeds GMO hybrid monsters that are, courts have ruled over and over, the property of Monsanto.

So. Let’s say you are growing heirloom corn in your field, and the guy or gal next door or down the road is growing Monsanto GMO monsters.  The wind blows, a bird or bee flutters from field to field, a mouse or raccoon skitters between the two, and your corn is contaminated.  Guess who owns your corn and its seeds.  Monsanto.  Not you.  Not only that but your Monsanto’s seeds are now forever monsterfied by genetic modification.  They may be RoundUp resistant, they may not produce viable seed, or they may be both.  But they’re not yours whatever they may be.  They belong, on your land and in your fields, to Monsanto.

This could be problematic on the small scale, but as Adrienne points out, there is no way that eventually all crops will not be infected.  Eventually, by the process of nature, no crops will be free of GMO’s; eventually all seed will be good for only one season because the resultant crop seeds cannot be resown (not only will Monsanto sue you if you try, but why bother? They won’t germinate, they won’t grow).

Learning all this I was horrified (especially as I’ve begun my own feeble attempts to grow tomatoes and such in pots on my porch), and felt the need to learn still more, so I watched David vs. Monsanto on my fabulous Roku.  Through the entire film, I just kept thinking, why don’t we know about this?

A brief overview of this excellent documentary and its focus, Mr. Percy Schmeiser of Canada:  Mr. Schmeiser is a Canadian canola farmer whose fields were contaminated by a neighbor’s Monsanto crops–the seeds from the neighbors crop pollinated Schmeiser’s crops by wind (or insects or whatever, certainly not by Schmeiser’s hand).  This was not, obviously, Schmeiser’s desire, but it was beyond his–and importantly, beyond Monsanto’s–control.

Shmeiser harvested his crops and separated the seeds for next year’s crops as farmers have been doing since forever, but Monsanto stepped in and sued him for stealing their patented GMO seeds.  Schmeiser was almost ruined by this suit and was terrorized and harassed by Monsanto thugs; his wife, at one point, was afraid to leave their home.

At the end of years of harassment, hundreds of thousands dollars spent, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto does indeed “own” the canola seeds and that they cannot be reused, even if they were not planted in the first place!.  They also ruled that Schmeiser, because he was not actively stealing the patented seeds, was not liable for damages.  Small victory, but at least he didn’t have to pay the ridiculous amount Monsanto was demanding on top of having insisted Schmeiser’s entire crop and seeds be destroyed (you can read more about it here).

Schmeiser is just one in a long, long line of small farmers who are being threatened, harassed, sued, and shut down by Monsanto; there are more than we even know small American farmers who’ve suffered the same treatment (some were discussed in this documentary).  Governments in Canada and the U. S. are complicit in this, of course, with laws dictating what can and cannot be grown, how it can be used, etc.  Farmers are faced with the choice of either planting these government-approved GMO crops or going bankrupt.

Why isn’t the entire freaking nation not only alarmed and afraid but speaking out about this travesty?  Turns out that they are, en masse, across the globe today in the #MarchAgainstMonsanto.

Now I know it’s easy (perhaps a bit too easy) to reject such protests simply because regressives and assorted anarchists, commies, et al. are also involved.  But here’s the thing, so the frack what?  If this is wrong, then it’s wrong.  Period.  No matter who else thinks it’s wrong.  One of the things that angers me most about leftists (everyone from regressive loons to more centrist Obots) is the incredible lack of any principle at all.  They hate when Bush does something, but when Obama does the same thing or worse, they defend and support it.  They claim to hate government oppression and champion freedom of speech and the press, but the minute Obama shows his true tyrant colors, they tune out, defend it (oh, well, as long as it’s only conservatives being targeted, who cares? The TEA Party deserves to be silenced, they say!), and minimize every Constitutional and legal violation.

I refuse to do that, I refuse to consider issues and important encroachments on life and liberty only in light of whether or not leftists support or condemn them.  Too many conservatives are of the mind that if leftists hate drone strikes on civilians or on American soil, then we should automatically support them (ditto Obama’s illegal war in Libya and a myriad of other issues).  That’s mindless, knee-jerk nonsense, and we conservatives are better than that. Heaps better, actually.  So if you see anything wrong with the whole Monsanto thing–and our government, BOTH sides of the aisle, is not only complicit in but profiting from it–then learn more and stand up and be heard.  If not today, then in the near future before we are all dependent on “public-private partnerships” (aka fascism) for our food.