The panic began last week when the Central Bank ousted the chairman and the chief executive officer of Kabul Bank, after discovering that the bank had acted recklessly, lending tens of millions of dollars to allies of President Hamid Karzai and pouring money into risky real estate investments in Dubai.

$300 million dollars of Afghanistan’s sovereign funds have been withdrawn from foreign central banks to pay for it. They say that no American taxpayer dollars are going to be used for Afghanistan bailouts, but you never know.

We watched in amazement as the left, whipped into a froth by a national media which has resembled Pravda or Tass for for some time, rushed like lemmings to the voting booths to elect a shallow orator into the most powerful position on the planet.

Now we watch in disgust as the Obama supporters come out of their drunken-like stupor and sober up to the truth the rest of us already know; socialism is repressive and it doesn’t work to provide the conditions needed for a successful society. It never has. It never will.

But the left demonstrate another inability. They can’t recognize truth when it stares them in the face. As young college students, their minds have been corrupted by the liberal and socialist ideologies which have been pumped into their soft, mushy heads by professors and other corrupted elements coming from the left side of the political spectrum.

Now these legions of liberal minded graduates which some call “progressives” are now captains of industry. They are media moguls, teachers and politicians and for several decades they have been very busy subverting our institutions and the core values of our country. It’s no wonder our country is in shambles today, a product of their “sick-think” which turns traditional values and thinking on its ear by their belief that our country is broken and only they can fix it. The A.C.L.U. and activist judges are their tools.

Think about this one; California’s fiscal crisis is the product of a generation of leadership produced by the ’60s. If there was any era which represented a wholesale rejection of traditional values, it would be the ’60s. Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman among other politicians come from that generation. Collectively, their policies have made a shambles of California. In Washington, D.C., they’re well on their way to applying their sick-think to make a wreck out of our nation.

The liberal loves to label the Republican Party as “the party of no” which is to suggest the Democratic Party is “the party of yes.” Based upon their lack of convictions when it comes to traditional values, patriotism and national sovereignty, one might agree. They have established a clear record of saying –

• “yes” to same-sex marriages,
• “yes” to open borders,
• “yes” to granting constitutional rights to non-citizens, especially to our enemies,
• “yes” to tax policies creating economic uncertainty for businesses and denying economic freedom of consumers all of which lead to stagnant economic conditions and double digit unemployment rates,
• “yes” to spending policies creating debt levels which threatens our national security,
• “yes” to granting illegal immigrants the right to vote, especially when it benefits the Democrat party,
• “yes” to a national media which advances their agenda
• “yes” to emaciating our military
• “yes” to embracing tactics to promote voter fraud
• “yes” to large government
• “yes” to policies reflecting those of socialism i.e. nationalizing large corporations and majority ownership
• “yes” to allowing heads of foreign states the opportunity to address congress and then giving them standing ovations when they speak about how wrong we are to want to preserve our sovereignty by incarcerating and deporting immigrants who have come into our country illegally,
• “yes” to blaming Republicans and conservatives alike for the affects of their failed policies administered by their own, such as Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and who clearly don’t give a rat’s ass about the will of the people or democratic process,

Clearly, this list could go on for a long time, but the above items serve to illustrate the destructive characteristics of their belief systems which they embed into their policies and laws, all of which conservatives and those in the Republican party disagree with, leaving them labeled as belonging to “the party of no”.

However, it’s easy to see those of the left haven’t got a clue about what it means to do the right thing for our country, which is to say those on the right actually belong to “the party of know”.

Delving into this a little more you begin to find a few reasons that a growing number of Americans believe Obama adheres to the Middle-Eastern faith. In an interview with Nicholas Kristoff in 2007, Obama made the political mistake of describing the Islamic call to prayer one of the “prettiest sounds on earth.” Much to my dismay, the interview in the New York Times is no longer available freely on their website. In fact, it takes a little search engine sleuthing to discover that the Times restricted access to the story. Parts of it are found here and there, like on the Obama campaign website.

Twenty four percent of the country believe Obama is a Muslim. Almost a third believe that Muslims should be barred from holding the office of president. Another 24 percent don’t know what religion he belongs to. What does this tell us? Not that our country has a problem, but that Obama does.

I don’t know if Obama is actually Muslim or not. I don’t really care. What is disturbing is the way he likes to hide the truth on the issue. Sure, he’s said he’s a Christian. I don’t think he’s lying. Most of the country does, though, because he’s leading us in a bad direction. The economy is in shambles. Obama and his family are going on expensive vacations at the public largess. Health care was passed despite most Americans not wanting it. Obama isn’t doing anything to help his image, and when people find out he’s in support of the “Ground Zero mosque”, that he finds the Muslim call to prayer one of the “prettiest sounds on earth” and can recite the first lines of the Arabic call to prayer with a “first rate Arabic accent”, he isn’t going to be considered as a great Christian by a large portion of the population.

What I do know is that Obama has made a lot of mistakes that are going to cost him dearly in the 2012 election. While most Democrats and independents are not going to care too much about his religion or his birth certificate, there are some ‘on the fence’ or unlikely voters who just might be persuaded to cast their ballot against the current president when they start thinking there is a possibility that he’s secretly allied with the radical extremists that flew planes into the World Trade Center in 2001.

Obama’s refusal to properly address all the issues surrounding his birth certificate and his religion (saying you’re Christian during election season doesn’t count to most people) can only hurt him. The people who were going to vote for him already have—his biggest problem is keeping people from turning on him in the next election, as well as those already mentioned unlikely voters coming out of the woodwork to vote against him.

A few lessons to learn: don’t talk in an Arabic accent and recite the Islamic call to prayer, if a loud underground movement gets started requesting to see your birth certificate then show it to them, and if people doubt your faith so much, prove it to them. There is an old saying that “actions speak louder than words”. Obviously Obama has never heard it before.

In: Telling Israel how many days they have to bomb Iran.

Yes, the window is still closing on Israel’s chance of survival, and it’s now down to only eight days! (Update: He has since revised it to three days!)

I don’t think there is a more pathetic fearmonger in the world than John Bolton, he makes a living writing/reporting the same thing over and over: bomb them soon!

He was running around doing the same thing in early March, in an interview with WND reporter Aaron Klein:

“Right now we know about the facilities. … We know where they are,” he said. “We know exactly what their dimensions are, and I think they are susceptible to an Israeli attack.”

Bolton said an Israeli military option “isn’t there forever. … If Israel is going to use military force, it needs to use it sooner rather than later.”… “Since I don’t see any possibility that the Obama administration will use military force, I think what that means – to cut to the chase – is this comes down to a decision by Israel whether or not it will use military force against Iran’s program.”

Bolton said he believes there is no doubt Israel possesses the military capability to hit Iranian nuclear sites, but he said the Jewish state would need to act soon.

“I think the problem is that the military option is declining day by day,” he said. “Every day that goes by is another day where the Iranians can build alternative facilities for uranium conversion, uranium enrichment weaponization, that are in unknown locations that are deeply buried or hardened and that Israel’s capabilities just can’t reach.”

In 2009 Bolton wrote a column for the Washington Post titled “Time for an Israeli Strike?” Apparently not as no strike occurred last summer either.

Rewind even further to June 2008 when Bolton, in his infinite wisdom, said Israel was sure to attack Iran between the time of the November election and when the new president was sworn in.

Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The “optimal window” for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

“The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

“They’re also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there’s no telling what impact it could have on the election.”

The new excuse is that the radioactive fallout from the atomic plant will hurt civilians. I’m sure John Bolton would lose sleep over that. What he fails to mention is that an Israeli strike, even if it were to avoid civilian casualties, would likely bring chaos to the region and would lead to the deaths of both Iranian and Israeli civilians.

On another much more pointless story a mother of a soldier killed in war has been speaking out against the new Medal of Honor game coming out in October. In this game players can be on the Taliban. Just like every other multiplayer war game in existence there are (at least) two opposing sides. As a gamer myself I have played as America, Nazi Germany, terrorists who plant bombs, fictional world factions, counter-terrorists who chuck smoke grenades, Soviet Russia, and so. And I can say with confidence that no one really cares, no one thinks anything of it.

This individual makes the case that “it isn’t a game” and that her son didn’t get to start over after he died. She will never have to see this game, yet she is annoyed by it merely knowing it exists. During the interview she also makes the claim that WW2 enterainment is “not based on real people” — yet this game is? They are all fictional stories based on real events. My grandfather was in WW2 and he knows there are movies and games based on it, yet he does not go around pretending he is entitled to weigh in on these matters. Maybe he has a better understanding for what they fought for than this lady does. Why not let them release their game and let the market decide?

Lastly there is the tyranny of “new laws”. Not long ago a little girl was shot in her inner city neighborhood by a stray bullet. Like any situation of this kind there is immediately a campaign to make a new law (the law is almost always named after the individual) to either further restrict gun rights, make harsher punishments for drunk drivers, or whatever the case may be. Why is this done? So that the families involved can lessen their negative emotion by “working towards a greater good”, which makes the pointless and undeserved death of their loved one have “meaning”. Suddenly you have more laws (in harshness and quantity) than you really should have.

All to avoid bad feelings.

What is Postmodernism?
The term “postmodernism” has a very allusive definition. It applies to many things. Postmodernism is also includes styles of architecture and literary criticism. I have a very specific definition of postmodernism that I will use here. Postmodernism is a reaction against Enlightenment thinking and Western civilization prior to the twentieth century.

To be more specific, Robert Struble Jr defined it: “The postmodernist worldview dismisses all forms of absolutism from eras past, especially Judeo-Christian faith and morals; yet the postmodernists idolize absolutely their new secular trinity of tolerance–diversity–choice.” The rejection of knowable truth, sometimes called hyperrelativism, flourishes under this worldview. Stuble’s definition brings two key points to the discussion: the rejection of absolutism and truth, and the secular trinity of tolerance-diversity-choice.

It is no longer a mystery as to where the “living document” view of the American Constitution has emerged from. Instead of being an absolutist document that guarantees certains rights and restrictions, it is now a flowing document that can be molded into what society (or the ruling class) needs it to be at the time. Woodrow Wilson and the progressives were forerunners to today’s ruling class. Wilson was very keen to note that the constitution was an obstruction for government and the desire for power that those who control it inevitably have. Codevilla writes:

In Congressional Government (1885) Woodrow Wilson left no doubt: the U.S. Constitution prevents the government from meeting the country’s needs by enumerating rights that the government may not infringe. (“Congress shall make no law…” says the First Amendment, typically.) Our electoral system, based on single member districts, empowers individual voters at the expense of “responsible parties.” Hence the ruling class’s perpetual agenda has been to diminish the role of the citizenry’s elected representatives, enhancing that of party leaders as well as of groups willing to partner in the government’s plans, and to craft a “living” Constitution in which restrictions on government give way to “positive rights” — meaning charters of government power.

The secular trinity aids the ruling class in their goals. Using the power of the democracy and majority rules the ruling class will essentially “bribe” voters using government programs. These individuals get meager assistance and in return they give the ruling class electoral support. And the power of the ruling class grows exponentially. Good deal for them. So it is no wonder why Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and most other ruling class members are completely satisfied with leaving the Mexican border open. Once they are here you can then argue, as most do, there’s no way to deport or jail that many people — we just have to give them citizenship eventually. Twelve million or more people near the poverty line that will get bribed by the ruling class.

There are a slew of other superficial arguments that get thrown out into the discussion. They do jobs Americans won’t do (incorrect). They want to be Americans. As Europeans are quickly learning, immigrants flooding into the west do not want to assimilate because under the current regime of tolerance-diversity-choice they have no need to. I of course will not speak for everyone, but a segment of illegal immigrants do not want to be Americans. Desecreation of American flags, exalting of the Mexican flag, and anti-white racist rants are not uncommon at immigration demonstrations.

Postmodernism has inevitably led to today’s political correctness, identity politics, and government power grabs. It will only get worse until the tipping point is reached.

What is the Ruling Class?
The ruling class is a conglomerate of individuals including business leaders, public policy leaders, politicians, and academics. Most of them went to elite schools for their higher education. Unlike most other times in American history, the ruling class today is politically and ideologically homogenous. From their education they get their fair dose of brainwashing from “thought leaders” — almost exclusively advocating left leaning politics and postmodernism. Since all these “thought leaders” hold these views, students begin to believe that if I believe this I must be smart too. In fact the ruling class has slowly been dumbing itself down over time, but during this process their belief that they have intellectual and moral superiority over all others has remained in tact.

Meanwhile the American people, or “country class”, are brutish, selfish, unthoughtful bigots. They will run wild if not properly controlled. It is the job of the ruling class to control them and improve humanity as a whole. The country class tends to be white, rural, and conservative. Of course there are always exceptions to the rule. Therefore, these people are the main targets for ruling class contempt. At an elite fundraiser in San Francisco Barack Obama famously said that small town people cling to guns and religion.

Does the ruling class have a political party? Codevilla writes:

Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate — most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans. This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class’s prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans — a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents — lack a vehicle in electoral politics.

Democrats are the party of the ruling class. Some Republicans attempt to represent their country class constituents while others try to “get in on the action” and join the lower ranks of the ruling class. Under this paradigm it is no surprise that formerly Republican politicians are so quick to make changes to try to get in the ruling class — think Arlen Specter and Charlie Crist. Or even those who remain Republican, like Lindsay Graham. The Democratic Party is made up of the ruling class, the media elite, thought leaders, and country classers who have been “bribed” or duped into supporting them via government programs or being brainwashed by their education. Most country classers seem to realize Republicans don’t represent them well either, but vote for them reluctantly as “the better of two evils”.

It is possible to gain political power while not being liked by the ruling class. Ronald Reagan became president, and Clarence Thomas became a Supreme Court justice. They did not take Reagan seriously, and often condemned him:

When in 1983 Ronald Reagan characterized the Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” the reaction from his betters was swift. Writing in the New York Times, Anthony Lewis called it “primitive”—and wondered (naturally) what the Europeans would think. A headline in Time referred derisively to “The Right Rev. Ronald Reagan.” All agreed on one thing: this kind of black-and-white moralizing had no place in American politics.

Remember postmodernism’s rejection of absolutism? It also is no surprise that Supreme Court nominees viewed as strict constructionists are always attacked by Democrats in Congress. Robert Bork was ferociously attacked and failed the nomination process. Clarence Thomas was attacked too, but narrowly overcame it. Democrats threatened to fillibuster Samuel Alito. Their intellectual roots show disdain for the Constitution as it limits the ability of the ruling class to transform society to fit their desires.

These are just two brief summaries of the ruling class and postmodern thought. The rest of this article and the source links provided above flesh out these concepts even further.

The Self Perpetuating System Explained
Below is a visual representation of the system I am going to discuss. As a framework it is necessarily reductionist. Life is always more complex than a flow chart. Also continue to remember that there are always exceptions to the rule. Not all teachers are liberal, and not all country class people are white, and so on. Once I briefly explain this visual representation I will begin to go through all the supporting evidence for it and how everything fits together. I contend that only by understanding this new class paradigm can we understand the forces shaping us and our country, and how those forces may be working against our own interests. America’s founding principles of freedom will one persevere is we empower ourselves to defend our country class interests.

The ruling class today is actually a child of past intellectual movements including 20th century progressivism and postmodernism. They sought to better humanity. Improvements had to be made to America and the world. Some have wondered how a “progressive Democrat” (Woodrow Wilson) and a “conservative Republican” (George W. Bush) could share the same view that they need to “make the world safe for Democracy”. This demonstrates just how intellectually homogenous they are. And by the early 1900′s they were already forming as a class.

All the parts of their machine were being prepared at this time. Their drive to improve and control humanity needed to get funding. Not coincidentally the Federal Reserve Act was passed. Banking needed to be centralized in the name of collectivism and progress. In his book Freedom Under Siege Ron Paul states:

Academics, as is still the case, provided intellectual cover for these crimes. Thornton Cooke, writing in the pro-big government American Economic Review in 1911 explained why banking needs to be centralized: “American banking has made little use of the principle of cooperation, yet for a generation that principle has been the greatest single factor in American economics.” The railroads have their ‘community of interest arrangements’, so now, he said, it’s time to consolidate banking.

A commission met at a luxury resort (the ruling class never sacrifices on expense) to draft the legislation. The debate was between partial or total centalization. Not unlike today the legislation was written by those who would be effected or would benefit from it. What would become the Federal Reserve Act was drafted by the following individuals:

The elite came together knowing what their goal was. It was just a matter of getting it accomplished and making it acceptable in the eyes of the country class:

Senator Aldrich, who strangely did not understand why centralization could not be presented outright, was overridden by the more politically astute Warburg, who endorsed the Morawetz version of regional banking centers under the cover of decentralization. The board of directors in the original Aldrich plan was to be chosen solely by bankers, but that was later changed in the spirit of decentralization to make half of them appointed by the President of the United States.

The Federal Reserve and its ability to manipulate the economy and print money is what finances the grand schemes of the ruling class. I use this example to show why intellectual mileu and academia are placed early on in the flow chart. The influence on the ruling class itself is heavy. Both the ruling class and the media elite receive education from elite schools. Here they are all prone to accepting the ideas of thought leaders, if they haven’t already before that time. The ruling class puts the ideas of the thought leaders into practice while the media elite act as the PR division of the ruling class. Just as a reminder there are real journalists out there that are not shills but among the media elite they are few and far between.

The ruling class generally returns the favors to their partners by advocating policies that will help the traditional media and the education system along with the teachers. A plan for the state aid bill would raid the food stamp program and reward teachers and union workers — they’re higher up on the food chain. The country class too goes through the education system and are also prone to accepting the homogenous thought process of the ruling class. Others are bribed by the elite via government programs. For this meager assistance they will lend political support to the party of the ruling class, the Democrats. People are all too quick to think “what has/will the government do for me?” This leaves the ruling class with support from academia, the media, and portion of “common people”. This bribery is necessary because if everyone realized this as a fight between ruling and country classes, the ruling class party would never win an election given their small numbers.

These bribes are portrayed to the masses as “reforms” (that word generally has positive connotations). The ruling class has the moral high ground by portraying their agenda as “helping people” while their opponents are “obstructionist”. I do not deny that people are helped by such programs, but one needs to consider that the “helping people” part is actually way down on the ruling class list of reasons. It is well below “power” and “ego”. Some even benefit financially from these legislative “reforms”. These relatively meager benefits result in electoral support from those who benefit. But the ruling class is playing with fire. In an economic downturn what happens when there isn’t enough to go around? We recently saw in Atlanta.

Those who oppose the ruling class are the country class. They come from an entirely different intellectual and cultural background. America’s founding was heavily influenced by Enlightenment thinking. The nation then developed into one of freedom, individual rights, and free market economics, among other characteristics. The country class hails the Constitution as a good thing while the ruling class views it as a limit on their agenda. Traditionalism and financial conservatism also tend to be traits of the country class. All of these conflict with the ruling class. If postmodernism is a reaction against enlightenment thinking, then is it not also a reaction against America as we know it?

Academics, the media, and the ruling class are demonstrably hostile to the country class. This idea will be developed further below. That is a brief explanation of the visual representation above of our current ruling class dominated system.

The Agenda is Always Power
Does the ruling class really want complete control over the masses? The short answer is .. yes. Without the guiding hand of the morally and intellectually superior ruling class the people would degrade into racist, inefficient barbarians. Peter Stark (D-CA) recently echoed the ruling class belief that they shouldn’t have any limitation, including the Constitution:

At a July 24 Town Hall meeting, Democratic Congressman Pete Stark of California may have inadvertently articulated the Political Class view. In responding to questions about whether or not the recently passed health care law is unconstitutional, Stark said, “I think that there are very few constitutional limits that would prevent the federal government from rules that could affect your private life.” In response to a follow-up, he added, “The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.”

Surely people do not agree with this bizarre belief of unlimited government power? No they do not. But it gets more complex than this. According to a Rasmussen poll 86% of Americans believe there should be limits on the federal government. Only 9% believe the opposite. This belief actually unites America across ethnic, economic, and party lines. Not surprisingly there is one subgroup in American life that agrees with Pete Stark:

The only exception is America’s Political Class. By a 54% to 43% margin, the Political Class believes the federal government should be allowed to do most anything. Mainstream voters reject that view by a 94% to three percent (3%) margin.

The ruling class literally believes there should be no limit on their power. Under such a view holding the Constitution in high regards becomes impractical if not impossible. Suddenly everything starts to make sense. Lawmakers do not read any of the bills they vote on because none of it is relevant to them. All they need to know is that it increases government power and can be paraded to the masses as “reform”. Why waste time reading 2,000 pages?

The Racist Inferiors
The ruling class believes the country class to be a bunch of racist, kooky malcontents. In their new holy trinity of tolerance-diversity-choice the charge of “racism” is the worst thing that can happen to someone. While trying to torpedo the Rev Wright story Spencer Ackerman said Journolisters should pick “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.” The term “racist” today is what the term “heretic” used to be during times of religious extremism. In the end all Jeremiah Wright was doing was yelling what the ruling class quietly believes — anti-white, anti-America, anti-West.

To put it simply: the ruling class doesn’t think much of you. An opinion piece by William McGurn in the Wall Street Journal noticed the harsh hostility toward regular Americans that disagree with the ruling elite:

Now cut to today, where moralizing about the ugly motives of the American people has become common. Whether it’s a federal judge declaring there exists no rational opposition to same-sex marriage, a mayor railing against those who would like a mosque moved a few blocks from Ground Zero, a Speaker of the House effectively likening the majority of her countrymen who did not want her health-care bill to Nazis, or a State Department official who brings up the Arizona law on immigration in a human-rights discussion with a Chinese delegation, the chorus is the same: You can’t trust ordinary Americans.

Nancy Pelosi dismissed Obamacare protesters as people “carrying swastikas”. The belief that common folk are ignorant fascists is well engrained in the ruling class ideology. So engrained that none of them can probably tell you where their belief originated. Codevilla writes:

As their number and sense of importance grew, so did their distaste for common Americans. Believing itself “scientific,” this Progressive class sought to explain its differences from its neighbors in “scientific” terms. The most elaborate of these attempts was Theodor Adorno’s widely acclaimed The Authoritarian Personality (1948). It invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the “F scale” (F for fascist), interviewed hundreds of Americans, and concluded that most who were not liberal Democrats were latent fascists. This way of thinking about non-Progressives filtered down to college curricula. In 1963-64 for example, I was assigned Herbert McCloskey’s Conservatism and Personality (1958) at Rutgers’s Eagleton Institute of Politics as a paradigm of methodological correctness. The author had defined conservatism in terms of answers to certain questions, had defined a number of personality disorders in terms of other questions, and run a survey that proved “scientifically” that conservatives were maladjusted ne’er-do-well ignoramuses.

Mayor Bloomberg is no better, he recently said that the 61% of New Yorkers who don’t support the Ground Zero mosque should be “ashamed of themselves”. American must sacrifice itself on the alter of tolerance and diversity, even if that means destroying itself. In this regard the ruling class also wins. It becomes fully understandable to see why they leave the border open for decades making little effort to seal it. By flooding the country with poverty prone immigrants, and by shrinking the middle class, the elites will no longer have to pander to the country class for electoral success. By keeping this huge amount of people in poverty they will be more open to the bribes from the elite. Millions of illegal immigrants are here, now the ruling class focus is on making them legal and putting them into the electoral system, which has earned heavy backlash from the country class. Ruling elites from George Bush to Barack Obama have tried to finish the process.

The Media vs The People
As shown in the chart above the media elite come from the same ideological background as the ruling class. Therefore they are prone to supporting the party of the ruling class (the Democrats) and spewing hate toward the country class and their politicians. Their methodology is actually simple and immature. It is a trifecta of insults they use to discredit you and promote memes that you are one of the following:
1) You’re a kook – You disagree with the ruling class, you must be crazy, especially since you common folk tend to be backwards and irrational.
2) You’re stupid – These are the smartest people in the country and you’re arguing with them, so what does that make you?
3) You’re racist – Explained in the previous section.

These are applied equally to country class politicians and regular people alike. The Tea Party is racist. The likes of Ron Paul and Sarah Palin are kooky and or stupid. Sarah Palin is the best example to use for this. Barack Obama was seen as a smart, articulate, thoughtful man (as the ruling class always is). On the other hand Sarah Palin has folksy mannerisms and comes from a rural western state. She gets asked “what do you read?” A member of the ruling class would never get asked such a thing. Video was later revealed showing Katie Couric mocking Palin and her children.

It would be a shame if I did a section about the media and did not mention ruling class shill Chris Matthews. Every night the ghostly white Matthews gets on MSNBC to talk about how the Tea Party is racist. And kooky. And stupid. Because a country class populist movement HAS to be these things, by definition, as per ruling class ideology. After his primary win Rand Paul appeared on Rahcel Maddow’s show where she hammered him about “racism”. Paul, who merely discussed a philosophical issue with the civil rights legislation, went to the wrong place. I nearly expected Maddow to rise from her chair abruptly while shouting “repent!”

No love is returned from county class activists. Palin regularly calls them the “lamestream” media. They are often mocked by Andrew Breitbart and Matt Drudge on the internet. The biggest proxy war in the ruling vs country class fight is between the country class and the media shills, who are the PR wing of the ruling class. Academics provide intellectual cover for government power grabs, while the media supports the moves and denegrates the opponents. Not all media fits in this system, especially the new media. But among the traditional media this is rampant. Favors are considered in return for their services. Democrats, including the president, have considered bailouts for newspapers.

For most media critics the Journolist revelations really weren’t that surprising. If you come at the Journolist story from this paradigm it becomes even less surprising. Academic and media postmodernists all gathering in one place for one massive groupthink party. David Weigel followed the conservative movement for the Washington Post before it was found he said some not-so-flattering things about conservatives on Journolist.

But the fallout seems to have been a net-gain for Weigel: His public profile shot up, MSNBC hired him as a contributor and Slate.com — owned, ironically, by the Washington Post Company — hired Weigel.

Yet again, no surprises. Actually all of this is so predictable it’s a little boring. If a “journalist” gives unflattering remarks about the country class and they are made public that individuals stock will inevitably rise among the media elite and ruling class – he’s one of us. He basically got hired back by his old company under a different venue, and got picked up by the shill station MSNBC.

A Message to Country Class Liberals
What happens when those who say they are fighting against the man actually ARE the man? That is the status of today’s Democratic Party. Democrats are always talking against the “bigs”, as I call them. The big oil companies, the big insurance companies, the big drug companies. Those darned Wall Street fat cats. But let us not forget who helped write and support various legislation. As I pointed out near the very beginning the Federal Reserve Act was written by big banks for big banks. It was advertised as reform to make the economy more stable. Since then we’ve had a number of crises including 1929 and 2008. Big Pharma could not have gotten a better deal out of Obamacare. Big groups lobbied heavily for the new healthcare legislation, flooding lawmakers with money.

So I guess my message for country class liberals is this: realize that they aren’t your friends. Stop showering diety-like praise on Barack Obama, Ted Kennedy, and all the others. They may talk a good game but they aren’t in it for you. Realize that their interests do not coincide with your interests. The ruling class believes they’re better than you, and they know what is best for you. They believe they know what is best for everyone else too. Electing another ruling class president isn’t going to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan quicker. Obama has already broken his pledge in that regard.

Liberals will also fight against the super rich. But the Democratic Party, as the ruling class party, are the rich. RealClearPolitics analysis recently showed affluent voters are sticking by Obama in oddly steady numbers:

Affluent Americans are Barack Obama’s most secure class of support. They have stuck by this president at three to six times the rate of all other income groups since early 2009, based on a RealClearPolitics analysis.

It’s a familiar story that wealthy voters have moved toward Democrats in recent years. But the remarkable steadiness of Obama’s affluent support has continued with little notice. The national media has instead heavily covered Obama’s tepid flings with populism.

It isn’t possible to get any more elitist than the ruling class. They live in extravagance when the rest of us are struggling, and they do not care. While the nation has 10% unemployment Chelsea Clinton had a $2 million dollar wedding with a $10-12,000 wedding cake. She married Marc Mezvinsky who she met at Stanford, he now works at an elite bank (Goldmann Sachs), and his father is an ex-Democratic congressman who went to jail for fraud. Yawn.

Michelle Obama’s trip to Spain that cost over $300,000 got the attention of many, and criticism from even those on the left. Columnists are regularly comparing this to the times before the French Revolution. We have a president right now who almost seems more interested in being a celebrity than a president. He has played more golf in two years than Bush did in eight!

Only when everyone, conservative and liberal alike, in the country class comes to realize that our rulers and thought leaders disdain us and do not work in our interest can real reform take place. What that reform will look like and how it will play out is currently unknown. Something tells me that during our lifetimes we are going to find out.

The political establishment–the ruling class–is driving the American population to a tipping point. Much like the sudden events of 1789, the French population decided it could no longer tolerate the monarchy. Within a few years they had completely changed their society. Religion, work, the system of government, even the calander were all changed to suit the needs of the first French Republic. While the political leaders of the time drove their population to adopt a more liberal, socialist view of things, the American population is not reacting in the same manner. In fact, they are getting more conservative.

For possibly the first time ever, most Americans actually seem concerned about the financial state of the government. Thanks to the Austrian economists and Congressman Ron Paul, many Tea Party attendees are able to see literature on the workings of the Federal Reserve and learn how financial institutions have been in bed with the government for years. The deficits that didn’t seem to matter under George W. Bush are now a common talking point, even among some Democrats. The future of Social Security, Medicare, and most of all, how we will pay for the Obamacare bill, seem to dominate the political landscape. Everywhere you turn people are complaining. Talk radio. Online newspaper comments. Letters to the editor. Even interruptions in townhall meetings. When large newspapers are openly comparing the Obama presidency to the Ancien Régime, it becomes obvious that something is wrong.

The Obama administration has managed to do in less than two years what a century of bad government has not: wake up the population and make them truly revert back to their historic, conservative roots.

There has always been a conservative underpinning in America. While the lower classes are often open to the ideas of socialism in other countries, America’s rich heritage of capitalism and freedom has been engrained in enough people to prevent any radical change in government through the years. Now, to the dismay of Communists everywhere, Americans are moving into a more conservative position as a result of Obama.

One of the most interesting points to make about the conservative revolution taking place is that it is likely to move into the social arena, too. Columnist Vox Day points out that Rome, like America, changed from a liberal to conservative society depending on the economic conditions of the time. Sure, Obama himself has done enough when it comes to making people angry about the economy, but now social issues like gay marriage in California and immigration in Mexico have become problems for Democrats and liberals. Short term victories might come back to bite them, not only in the November elections, but in society moving ‘backwards’ to a socially conservative viewpoint.

Angelo Codevilla’s essay in the American Spectator outlined the political situation today and the future that we face. In it, he coined two terms: the ruling class and the country class. He correctly points out that the ruling class is the political establishment. It is a group of people who are in politics or business that give each other favors, train their own, and are the gatekeepers of their closed off society. Then there is the country class. This is a large portion of America–mostly white, non-urban, and Christian. The two classes are diametrically opposed to one another.

Codevilla goes on to write that the pressure the ruling class has applied to stamp out the country class will, in the end, come back to haunt them. Power in America is about to change hands. But Codevilla doesn’t end there. He also realizes that once conservative people have power, what will they do with it?

That remains to be seen.

This fallacy drives me nuts. Why? They hear you, they know exactly what you want and what you think, they just don’t care. That’s a major difference from being “deaf”. Welcome to the mindset of the political class.

He said Ronald Reagan proved they were “hooey”.

Well, let’s see what Reagan’s “hooey”, a.k.a. Reaganomics looked like:

In addition to the growth in GDP and jobs, the revenues to the Federal Treasury nearly doubled during the Reagan years. And note the explosion in both GDP growth and job creation in 1984. That was the second year after all of the Reagan tax cuts were in place.

Does Howard Dean know anything about economics (or, apparently, history)?

“Hooey”.

Development research has showed “an adolescent’s brain reaches the weight of an adult brain by about age fourteen due to myelin accumulation and dendritic branching. At this time the potential for contribution to insight, judgment, inhibition, reasoning, and social conscience are possible. Synapse formation continues despite ongoing pruning. The remaining dendrites continue to branch, grow, and form new synapses in response to new experiences. Continued psychological and cognitive development in adolescence is due to this dendritic growth. The prefrontal cortex responsible for reasoning and judgment continues to develop.”

If this happens at around age 14, then Matt Miller is advocating voting rights for individuals who cannot think critically or reason for themselves. Is this surprising to anyone? Add this in with numerous activist and liberal teachers and the end result is toxic. Does anyone remember some of the Obama brainwashing of children during the 2008 campaign? There are numerous examples of crazy liberal teachers around the country, in one case two teachers held anti-war signs at a high school assembly honoring 6 students who enlisted. Kids are also highly prone to accepting their parent’s and/or teacher’s political views until later in life.

At 22, I am just a kid to many who follow politics. And yet I am advocating an increase in the voting age to 30 because I am willing to make that sacrifice to stop school kids and college students from voting. I came to this conclusion based on years of experience in the public school system, and then college.

My elementary school years were interesting. The principal along with almost every teacher were in the tank for Democrats. At the time I was ignorant of politics and its consequences. Every single morning around 9AM we were herded into the school gymnasium. Did we use this valuable time to learn history, math, or english? Of course not, that’d be asking too much. Each and every morning we had to chant and listen to others talk about tolerance and diversity. Everything had to be done in a politically correct manner, and if you ever did anything otherwise you were reprimanded. Looking back on this bizarre practice, I’m quite disgusted at the progressive rally we were forced to endure every day. But none of us knew any better.

Under Miller’s plan we would not have been able to vote. Our elementary school was first through fourth grade, or ages 6, 7, 8, and 9. But by the time age 10 came around we would have gone through four years of indoctrination before finally being “ready” to vote. Miller would almost surely be proud of us.

This all happened in the 90′s. Bill Clinton was a rock star in the school, especially among the teachers. My final year in the school also happened to be the year of the 1996 presidential election. One day our teacher had us raise our hands to see who supported Clinton and who supported Dole. Sure, we were in New York state, but in the suburbs of upstate New York a lot of people tend to be Republican. When the Clinton kids beat out the Dole kids by a margin of about 10 to 1 the teacher seemed pleased. The day after the election there was euphoria. All the teachers and kids were excited that Clinton had won, and were quick to mention it was a landslide!

The rest of my public school days were a little better than the horrors of elementary school, but the bias was still present. The climax of human learning capability is during childhood, and often precious time from this period were taken to go over how other cultures celebrate their holiday season or how the environment was going to be destroyed within just a few years. The verdict is in on that method of teaching.

High school was the era of 9/11 and the Iraq War. Most teachers weren’t happy with the war and they made that perfectly clear to everyone. The euphoria of 1996 was quickly replaced with mellow whispers in 2004, “Kerry just conceded,” one teacher said to another, obviously not happy judging from his tone.

Now comes the next part of this discussion: why not just keep the voting age as is, why raise it to 30? I attended a state college with some of America’s future, supposedly some of the finer students in the state, and what I saw did not impress me. College professors regularly taught and advocated on subjects ranging from very liberal social science theory to open borders to socialism. And most students ate it up. I’m certain many of them thought if I believe this I must be smart. And if you encountered another left leaning student, they were smart, but if you found a conservative student that usually ended with hushed and snarky comments of condemnation.

On election night 2008 the euhporia was back, baby! Sometime between eleven and midnight EST (if I remember right) California was called for Obama, putting him over the edge in electoral votes. Drunk (or high) college students shouted out their dorm windows. A few days later, before class began, another student leaned over to me and asked “isn’t it great we have a black president?” The beauty of identity politics. Agree or disagree, there was no mention of him being smart, experienced, or even agreeing with her political philosophy — he was black, and that mattered first. College students are no better at thinking for themselves than younger kids — they have drank the koolaid.

Following Matt Miller’s brilliant idea is the end disclaimer that he works for the Center for American Progress and co-hosts a show on public radio. Or in other words, another leech on society. All his “concerns” that young people should have are basically a list of liberal talking points — global warming, making other people pay for your college education, and at the end is this beauty:

Are you really going to keep letting senators who represent less than 15 percent of the population stop any legislation they want? What about majority rule?

.. dislike for the American system, and bowing down to “Democracy”. Majority rules counts and we need more drones to vote!

The only thing that is likable in the entire article is that he discusses the issues of debt. And even that has to be taken with a grain of salt. Judging from his “talking points” it doesn’t seem like he is willing to cut spending. It’s a matter of raising revenue and not limiting the overreach of government.

Is it really a national priority to borrow billions more from us to keep taxes for the best-off 2 percent of Americans lower than they were during the Clinton boom, when we’re in the midst of two wars and already piling up trillions in fresh debt?

We have to tax the rich more and keep on with the entitlements!

And, of course, a shout out to those who are providing liberals with fresh new recruits:

Why do you say Social Security can’t be touched, even though you’re planning real benefit increases for future retirees now in their 40s despite trillions in existing unfunded promises? Why rule out questioning these built-in increases when there’s no similar “trust fund” for great teachers or for universal pre-school?

We should raise the voting age to 30. By that age, hopefully, you will have had a job, you will have gotten a pay check to witness all the money that gets taken out, and you fully understand the world around you. Meanwhile Matt Miller’s idea … is a very childish one.