http://bigfrick.com Making Al Gore Regret He Invented The Internet Sun, 28 Nov 2010 19:36:27 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1 http://bigfrick.com/2010/01/27/buzz-buzz-buzz/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed http://bigfrick.com/2010/01/27/buzz-buzz-buzz/#comments Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:59:14 +0000 Big Frick http://bigfrick.com/?p=373 Don’t you just hate it when the news media latches onto a new word and then beats it like a drum until all the meaning has been whipped out of it?

 

You can’t swing a cat in a TV newsroom, anchor desk or print media press room without hitting someone using the new buzzword “Populist”. It is simply all the rage. The country was anxiously waiting for another buzzword that could fit into just about every news story and fortunately, with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, we have found one.

 

And just in time too. Most of our old buzzwords and catch phrases have died by the wayside. Global warming is now timidly called climate change, alternative energy and recycling is now green anything and everything, the phrase war on terror has been stricken entirely from our speech and the word terrorist has been replaced by lone radical, the term unilateral is no longer uttered even when the new president unilaterally chooses to send an additional 40,000 American troops to Afghanistan, healthcare now means insurance and change equates to socialism.

 

Be assured that every candidate from either party is going to present himself as a populist. The real key will be once they do will anybody ask them to define what that means. 

 

The list of suddenly populist candidates is wide and varied. California liberal Democrat and ex Linda Ronstadt sweetie pie Jerry Brown is said to be looking to regain the governor’s job in that liberally doomed and union controlled state and is already claiming some newfound populist roots in his possible run against the likely Republican candidate, mega-millionaire and former CEO and founder of eBay Meg Whitman. Even Barack Obama, the Chosen One, is going to attempt to shed his elitist persona and present a new populist personality.

 

The fact that Jerry Brown or Barack Obama or any of the Democrats currently controlling the reins of Congress would even attempt to deceive the voting public into believing them to be pragmatic populists is stunning in its audacity and laughable in its absurdity. It only goes to show how little these liberals in populist’s clothing know about the definition of populism and moreover how very little they think of the intellect of the voting public.

 

The definition of a populist is a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people. It dates back in this country to the 1890’s when the Populist Party was formed to mainly address agrarian issues. The part the Democrats miss is that a populist represents the interests of the people but does not dictate to the people what those interests should be. A populist listens, a liberal Democrat, not so much.

 

Literally hundreds of millions of dollars are about to be spent by Democrats in an attempt to keep their coveted seat in the hallowed Halls of Congress. Without a doubt, most of those seeking reelection will be spending heavily on recasting their image in a populist mold. Even those that need not take up the populist banner will do so in an effort to show a unified and populist Democratic front. The Pennsylvania Avenue Messiah will become the lead populist in an attempt to rally the political troops and abate at least some of the political damage caused by his dismal failures thus far.

 

I believe this will be exactly the wrong strategy for these out of control tax and spend liberals to take as it will do nothing but alienate their liberal base and anger real conservative populists by attempting to insult their intelligence. The fact that Democrats explain away the loss of the Massachusetts US Senate seat to Scott Brown as being caused by voters still being upset with the Bush administration shows how truly clueless they are about the nation’s outrage as displayed by groups like the Tea Party movement and other true conservative populist believers.

 

It will be up to the voters in November to decide if we are going to buy the new and improved populist Democrat Party or if we are going to send the members of this faux-populist party packing.

 

Just the thought of that makes this old populist proud.

]]> http://bigfrick.com/2010/01/27/buzz-buzz-buzz/feed/ 0 http://bigfrick.com/2010/01/26/of-special-interest/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed http://bigfrick.com/2010/01/26/of-special-interest/#comments Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:57:33 +0000 Big Frick http://bigfrick.com/?p=371 I’m all for free speech as long as I can control what you’re saying.

 

That seems to be the message the Democrats are sending after the Supreme Court dismantled rules in place for a hundred years restricting corporate spending on political ads. The court’s edict officially reinstated the constitutional right to freedom of speech for America’s corporate voice which has been unjustly stifled for over a century.

 

The Democrats are crying foul and warning that this ruling will allow a huge influx of “special interest money” into the political process. I have a news flash for all the whining Dem’s who are once again attempting to mislead the American voters with deceptive and ominous sounding verbiage; all money spent on or donated to a political campaign is special interest money. Every single dollar and cent, and in the case of Barack Obama, riyal, halalah, euro and peso.

 

It seems unconscionable that a president who raised nearly $1 billion in campaign funds would now claim to be worried about special interest money. After making a solemn promise to fund his campaign the way every other presidential candidate has done by using matching public funds Barack Obama pulled out a little of that CHANGE he promised early and decided he could do much better without the restrictions that come with public funding. Acting as if the country has forgotten that little sleight of hand trick he now insists that expanding participation to privately owned American corporations is tantamount to vote fixing.

 

The problem the Democrats are now facing is that they have spent years demonizing corporate America. They have pushed, poked, slapped and slugged companies and entire industries to the point of near nationalized government takeover. The last thing Democrats want at this point is for these corporations to have a strong vocal platform from which to fight back.

 

A perfect example is Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters, who once again made the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington’s (CREW) 2009 list of the 15 most corrupt members of congress. She was also prominent on the list in 2005 and 2006. It was Waters who told Shell Oil president John Hofmeister that she is “all about” instituting a complete government takeover of the oil industry. Do you think Congresswoman Waters wants Shell and other oil companies to have the right to speak out against her in her next campaign?

 

Congresswoman Waters and a host of other Democrat House and Senate members have made a career out of inflicting corporate pain for political gain. Their leader, Barack Obama, has just recently announced his plan to unconstitutionally single out financial institutions to hit with a special tax. Under the old rules financial institutions were powerless to get their message out to the voting public during the campaign season. Do you think perhaps Democrats may now be more than a little worried about the push back to come from these and other major American corporations?

 

Democrats have been successful at demonizing corporations as cold, uncaring entities when in fact they are nothing more than groups of people. Successful, profitable companies grow and employ more people. But Democrats want the government, not industry, to dictate who wins and loses in the game of business. Democrats have already announced plans to override the Supreme Court decision with new laws and restrictions. They will also come to depend heavily on their friends at the major networks to do their dirty work for them, as was done by NBC and ABC’s refusal to air commercials opposing the ObamaCare debacle. The networks are already decrying the ruling as being dangerous. ABC’s Diane Sawyer echoed most of the major networks when she warned that the ruling would open the “floodgates for companies and unions to spend all the money they want attacking political candidates." Their immediate reaction certainly gives one reason to assume the networks will do everything within their power to avoid compliance.

 

But the Supreme Court was fairly clear in their ruling and any attempt, either by politicians, political parties or the major networks, to stifle corporate America’s newfound right to free speech should be met with immediate and vigorous legal challenges. How much the networks are willing to spend to defend themselves remains to be seen. 

 

If corporations, unions and industry groups are afforded the same rights to free speech as individuals Democrats will have a whole new populist movement to deal with.

 

What scares the hell out of them is that they see how well that worked for them in Massachusetts.

]]> http://bigfrick.com/2010/01/26/of-special-interest/feed/ 0 http://bigfrick.com/2010/01/25/the-un-populist-populist/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed http://bigfrick.com/2010/01/25/the-un-populist-populist/#comments Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:27:48 +0000 Big Frick http://bigfrick.com/?p=367 Here comes CHANGE!

 

Having suffered yet another humiliating political defeat, this time in Massachusetts the liberal Mecca of the eastern seaboard, at the hands of the great unwashed “teabaggers”, Barack Hussein Obama is about to bring on some more of that change he promised during the campaign. No, it won’t be a change in attitude. Nor will it be a change in direction. It will simply be a change in the way he says things, not a change in what he is saying.

 

Obama is set to do what he does best; give yet another speech. This one will be before both Houses of Congress and the entire nation as he delivers his first State of the Union address this Wednesday. This community activist qua speechifying leader of the free world will be where he is most comfortable; behind a podium with carefully crafted words flashing across teleprompters. Just like the other 422 times he has given a speech in his first year in office, Barack Obama will be in his element. He will talk at length about what must be done but will be scant with details of what has been done. He may take a new, stronger tone as he assures the American people that he will never quit “fighting” for them. But in the end it will be the same unworkable misconceptions he has failed with thus far packaged into a new set of verbiage. 

 

He will talk about how the middle class has gotten the short end of the stick from Wall Street fat cats and how he plans to rein in these uncaring financial demons by creating new sweeping legislation dictating their future profits by restricting their ability to make any. He will not explain how his plan will work, he never does, only that it is necessary for the future of Main Street USA. He will also not take into consideration the damage these new, unconstitutional restrictions on the 15 largest banks will have on the 45% of Americans that are invested in the stock market either through direct investments or their 401K retirement plans.

 

Having been defeated for a third time in the past three months by a vocal and growing populist movement Barack Obama is about to become a populist himself. Or at least attempt to appear so. But don’t be fooled.  Inside this pretty new packaging is the same socialist financial neophyte that tripled the national deficit in less than 12 months and focused all his political capital on nationalizing health care while actual unemployment rose to near 20% and business bankruptcies skyrocketed.

 

Using the same smoke and mirrors and misdirection that worked so well during his presidential campaign Obama will attempt to vilify the financial community and create a new rallying point for his failing Democrat minions. He will continue to be directed by his old community activist mentality, unable to recognize that it is the financial institutions that hold the key to our economic recovery, not sole responsibility for its failure. An inside peak into Obama’s intentions was given last week when instead of bringing new financial expertise and advise into his administration Obama rehired political guru David Plouffe as an advisor. Plouffe is credited as being the mastermind behind Obama’s presidential campaign and will likely attempt to bring the same meaningless mantra mentality to faltering Democrats in the 2010 midterm election.

 

Many analysts and pundits view the State of the Union speech as a critical turning point in Obama’s presidency. I do not. It will simply be more of the same delivered impeccably and convincingly by an accomplished wordsmith. But in the end it will be like a doctor, unable to cure your fatal illness and refusing to bring in a medical specialist that can help you recover, instead bringing in a public relations specialist to make your demise sound more appealing.

 

The question is; do the voters buy his new approach and allow the economy to slowly but surely expire or see through the deception and bring the Democrat control of the House and Senate to the political guillotine?

 

Obama may have some pretty new ribbons to put in what he’s spreading.

 

But you still don’t want to step in it.

]]> http://bigfrick.com/2010/01/25/the-un-populist-populist/feed/ 0