The intentionality of political consumerism

The problem is not with any elitist separation between the have and the have-nots, but the intentionality and ideology behind consumption. If conservatives are to change any views of people up and down the economic ladder today? We must make our policies known as being about people helping people—not of arguing about things or policies, but explaining how every policy of government will help or hurt people, not just an explanation, we support this and we are against that.

Today; despite having a black president in office, why do we have what seems a bigger social divide and an increased amount of political special interest groups competing for a bigger slice of political consumerism?

Political powers or policies are being marketed to special interest groups in exchange for a perceived vote being cast for that political party’s policy. Political policies should be all-encompassing, designed for all the citizenry; after all it is government of the people and by the people? If it is about special interest groups or focused government, penalizing to some and rewarding to others. Where is the motto that we should be living by and supporting? Where is E-pluribus Unum?  Should we be buying into these federal government policies forgetting about our own states or more narrowly our individual ability’s? How easily do we exchange individualism, and independence, for cheap defective products produced by political deceptions?

Political consumption produces products where it is easy to escape reality, while producing a false sense of social prestige, while slowly killing the human independent spirit, or the human potential within. With purchases that we make, do we buy because we need these things, or do we buy because we want these things?

It is human nature as with all animals in nature, in picking our paths in life with the least amount of resistance, or efforts needed in reaching our goals. The problem with taking the easy way out, it produces a faulty sense of accomplishment when indeed it is more of a successful manipulation; a taking advantage of people while using them to do our bidding, allowing them to make those efforts that should have been ours to make while claiming success. Looking towards government in this way is easy, accepting  political consumption, policies to escape making a greater effort or escaping reality just the same, expecting social prestige in the proses as the easy way out, a temporary Band-Aid for our problems.

Do we buy into these political policies in order to help people or to validate self-worth? For people who see themselves as powerless it is a temptation hard to resist. But true power is in production, not in consumption. Policies designed to deceive in order to gain support is the product of government today. Accepting any notion that government is there to fix our problems in society only provides us with a faults sense, although economics and goods play a part in the quality of life, understanding the intentionality behind the political ideology leading us to choose to consume it or not? Is just as important to understand this no matter which side of the coin your on. There aren’t any government policies that will close the gap between the haves and the have-nots. But a clear understanding that government has created a society of consumption where on every level; consumption is exactly where there is the least amount of power and the maximum ability to manipulate. That is the nature of government, and how it quenches its thirst of ever greater power. The bottom line, power is in the production not in the consumption; you must produce to wield any lasting power, having the ability to save and invest even in yourself by changing lifestyles, are only talking points of some politicians but never widely supported policies of any political party or there pre designed future outcomes.

The ideology behind political consumption I contend is the major reason blacks as a special interest group remain near the bottom of the social ladder, because political consumption is a coping strategy designed to sooth insecurities and self-hatred while simultaneously eliminating a chance for economic progression.

I believe political consumption is why we have a border security problem, an illegal immigration problem as well. It is for the most part why government can’t ever accept free market solutions to society’s problems, but avoiding free market solutions in its self maintains the power pendulum on the side of government and a false sense of power within special interest groups courting government for special affections.

Government has created special interest groups in order to pool their resources together, focusing them as if it is their only way for survival as a whole; placing government and false policies as the only solutions. The only way to gain lost prestige, whether it’s social or economic. But the government has a secret vested interest in never providing a pathway towards success as preserved by these groups, by keeping them as consumers. These groups are willingly giving up their power and accepting a status of being a member of the permanent underclass, moving through false motivation in the direction of political shifting winds or desires at their own expense.

We celebrate “Independence day” the 4th of every July, Not dependence day by consuming government policies designed to strip power, dignity, and the can-do-attitude, formed the minds that need it most!

The more we demand of government, the more we have already accepted government’s role of being the producers, and citizens as being the underclass consumers.

Do we buy products like political policies, (the common belief of a charitable government) to help people or to validate self-worth?

The problem is not with any elitist separation between the have and the have-nots, but the intentionality and ideology behind the power struggle of government created consumption.

It’s that president, that should be fired!

Remembering when…Reagan fires 11000 striking air traffic controllers?

I thought I would have never followed in the footsteps of the president. But here we are. When Mr. Obama angrily address the nation and blamed congress for not passing the gun control bill, he said. “They told you untruths”, and “You gave into the pressure.” also saying, “They lied”. At first I had a problem with statements like that, remembering when early in the Obama administration during a state of the union address; Mr. Obama was called a liar. The liberal left was outraged. But where are they now? Where is the outrage when the president lies, or when his disciples of destruction lie?

Why are we so believing of the government managers of decay, when they are so willing to spread the BS thick in offering us an excrement sandwich through a lie? What happened to “Let them eat cake?” With every official willing to lie to (Joe Blow Public) aren’t they just excrement boarding us, shoving piles of crap down on us in the form of lies, and that’s not torturing? I thought water boarding was torturing, but excrement boarding is nothing but gifts from heaven offered to us by angles? PLEASE!! No amount of government sugar will help that medicine go down.

Recently the FAA says it can’t avoid the air traffic controller furloughs. But where is the president on this lie? Silent as usual! Oh! I see. Calling people liars when they speak out against your policies isn’t OKAY, in fact despicable. Allowing ourselves the abilities to be free as a bird to lie at will in support of your political policies but against your opponents is just political theater? You see the degrees of a lie are as follows from best to worsted… 1) Political theater, 2) White lies, 3) Black lies.

Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood said Sunday that if the automatic so-called “sequester” spending cuts are enacted; the department will do everything it can to cut the fat of government contracts and other spending.

“But in the end there has to be some kind of furlough of air traffic controllers, and that will curtail the ability of them to guide planes,” LaHood said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“It’s required by law,” LaHood said. “This is not stuff that we just decided to make up. This sequester is very serious business.”

Where is the outrage for LaHood inaccurate statement? Nobody called him a liar when he said. “There has to be some kind of furlough of air traffic controllers.” An outright lie! He went on to say. “It’s required by law. This is not stuff we just decided to make up.”

Mr. Lahood being part of the Obama administration I would take it you have heard the statement…Never let a crisis go to waste? Isn’t that the same thing…as decided to make things up?

In debunking the lie and the lairs myths while exposing this administration willful acts of economical terror being played out on the American traveling public, I point to the sequester first. The sequester was an invention by the Clones of Obama in the Administration, and supported fully by Mr. Obama. Farther more the sequester is a cut in the increase of spending rates. Example if your growth of spending is 7% per year, and then there is a 3% cut in those rate, that’s a reduction (By the sequester) to 4% of an increase, you are spending more money year over year. So how is it that there now needs to be uncomfortable consequences? There is no reduction in spending. We are going to spend more than last year, so what is the big deal? Why all of the potential economical pain?

Take the FAA for instance. They have 31,000 employees, of those employees there are 15,000 Air Traffic Controllers. Slightly under half are indeed Air Traffic Controllers, yet these people are expected to take 100% of these furlough days off? Why can’t the other 16,000 paper pushers, desk jobs, take some if not all of those furloughs? Isn’t it important to keep America moving? What happened to …Do no harm to the fragile recovery or Obama will look bad for his….?

If Mr. Obama was even capable of doing the job of being the president, he wouldn’t even try to use thug tactics for only a political exclamation point to his legacy. You see Obama uses street thuggery to create the crises and the population’s pain, then he presents himself as the magic man with all the answers to the problems, mixed them all with liberal amounts of lies, and presto you have the foundation of the next crises.

Using the FAA Furloughs as the implement to bash the fragile economy in the knees in order to make a painful point, isn’t the president using black-mail tactics, union thuggery, the practice of mob rule? Where is the compromise?

These tactics will produce, a pissed off population, ever more divided against themselves, all predicated on the skillful ability to lie with a smile in motivating the mob to move in your pre designed direction. The president has no skills in persuasion! He isn’t a diplomat, and he never compromises unless he is getting the better deal, even if it is worse off to the country. Example: The FURLOUGHS!

I seem to remember a great president that had a crises shoved on him by the then thug tactics of the Air Traffic Controllers union back in the day. Ronald Reagan kept the skies safe, aircraft moving, and the thugs packing! That was a president that looked to do whatever was good for the nation first and foremost. So he fired the Air Traffic Controllers! Replacing them with new men and women willing to do the job, but then Ronald Reagan was a president of the people, and for the people. Not a community organizer beholding to special interest groups.

On the other hand, Mr. Obama looks towards the people as greedy little piggy’s that need to have their piggy banks robbed. He doesn’t care how much money he wastes, it is your money he is wasting. He doesn’t care about slowing down the economy and your travel’s. His are guaranteed. He doesn’t care how many lies he has to tell, because he looks towards the people of America as being too stupid to recognize the difference.

Remember back when we had a president willing to do whatever it took, to do the nation right? Reagan was the president of all of the people, not just for some specific special interest groups.

Reagan branded the strike illegal. He threatened to fire any controller who failed to return to work within 48 hours. Federal judges levied fines of $1 million per day against the union.

In 1955, Congress made such strikes punishable by fines or a one-year jail term — a law the Supreme Court upheld in 1971.

To the chagrin of the strikers, the FAA’s contingency plans worked. Some 3,000 supervisors joined 2,000 nonstriking controllers and 900 military controllers in manning airport towers. Before long, about 80 percent of flights were operating normally. Air freight remained virtually unaffected.

In carrying out his threat, Reagan also imposed a lifetime ban on rehiring the strikers. In October 1981, the Federal Labor Relations Authority decertified PATCO.

Reagan fires 11000 striking air traffic controllers Aug. 5, 1981 – Politico

This president we have in Mr. Obama, the one who is willing to inflict pain in order to get his way…kind of like now, with the Air Traffic Controllers Furloughs or things like the sequester; furloughs of essential personnel didn’t just show up on their own, they didn’t create themselves, and when a president that acts helpless in the face of these kind of issues, and offers no real solutions but new lies. That kind of president who sees his job as being all too important, because creating new crises from the old is a tough job; then sits back and watches sadistically as real people suffer. It’s that president, that should be fired!!!

Read more: