We're changing our WunderBlogs. Learn more about this important update on our FAQ page.

Have We Reached the New Tipping Point?

By: sebastianjer , 1:34 PM GMT on July 01, 2012

Have We Reached the New Tipping Point?

By Jim Yardley

To paraphrase Larry the Cable Guy, I don't care who you are -- you have to admit that Thomas Jefferson certainly had a way with words. In this one short section from the Declaration of Independence, he not only describes the duty of citizens to oust an oppressive, despotic government, but identifies the major reason why it hasn't happened already. Take another look at what is arguably the key phrase in the paragraph cited above:

... accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Under George III, the accumulation of abuses hit a tipping point that moved Americans from the "suffer [evil], while evils are sufferable" to viewing those abuses as intolerable.

Under Barack Obama, and those of a similar mind in subordinate positions, such as Eric Holder, Michael Bloomberg, and others, the abuses which we have suffered have accumulated to the same point we were at in 1776. They can no longer be tolerated. We can not afford, as a nation, a continuance of such violations of the underpinning of our democratic republic, the Constitution.

Progressives ignore history in many cases because they feel that they are so much smarter and more intellectual than people were in the past, and that whatever mistakes were made back then (whenever then was) will not be repeated since they are so much smarter that they couldn't possible make those mistakes again.

But any examination of history tells us that it is not the huge screw-ups by the elites that trigger revolutions. It is invariably something that looks minor (to the elites) and yet causes a reaction that catches those self-same elites totally by surprise. The difference is that it is most often the small things that affect people personally.

For example, the Fast and Furious "gun tracking" program is looked on by most citizens as being flawed, and an overreach, and yet it does not rise to the level of triggering a revolt. Why? Because it does not affect most of us individually and personally.

The idea that the White House leaked all that classified information annoys people, but most view it as not affecting most of them individually and personally.

But consider ObamaCare, Mayor Bloomberg's assertion that he has the authority to tell you what size soda you are allowed to buy, Janet Napolitano's TSA "pat-downs," Ken Salazar's "boot on the neck" attitudes that help gas prices climb, the claim that the president can decide what and what is not actually part of a religion, and the continuing economic disaster that surrounds each and every one of our citizens. Each of these things affects most people personally, which is why there is such pushback against both ideas.

It appears that we have finally reached that tipping point, where nearly everything from this point forward is likely to be viewed by voters as impacting them individually and personally -- and that impact will probably not be applauded. Each new thing will be an irritant.

President Eisenhower enjoyed his rounds of golf, and President Clinton enjoyed mingling with the Hollywood elites, yet there was not a groundswell of bitterness toward either man. The economy was humming along, and the ordinary person-in-the-street was reasonably content with the condition of his or her life, and the world seemed relatively safe and stable.

But take a quick look at what the person-in-the-street sees around him today:

The American economy is still in the tank, and domestic unemployment of 8%-plus appears to be a permanent fixture.
Nations in the Middle East are building nuclear weapons or are melting down into civil war and starting to involve their neighbors.
The North African nations along the Mediterranean coast are being taken over by religious zealots with an ax to grind against the United States and a jihadist desire to martyr themselves.
Europe is on the verge of imploding economically and, perhaps, politically.
The People's Republic of China is flexing its military muscle in the southwest Pacific, while its economy is reacting to the rest of the globe's economic malaise and beginning to contract.
Russia has a new president who dreams longingly of become the next tsar (one not appointed by Obama).
U.S. soldiers serving in Pakistan and Afghanistan are unable to turn their backs on their "allies" for fear of being killed by one of their partners in the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

With this environment, when compared to the Eisenhower or Clinton periods, is it any wonder why the average American feels that there is something amiss when the president appears to be (a) constantly playing golf, (b) attending yet another fundraiser with the glitterati, or (c) dashing off for a vacation on the taxpayers' dime to revel in another exotic locale -- and accomplishing not much of anything to alleviate any of the above crises?

His mantra of change revolves around raising taxes, allowing anyone at all to stroll into our country and suffer no penalty, and announcing that Catholics must set aside a basic doctrine of their faith to satisfy his desire to look like a hero to women. This, by the way, is the same man who claims to be reading Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine in the situation room of the White House while doling out death from the sky on a retail basis, and claiming that such actions make him a really, really gutsy guy.

The Chicago re-election campaign staff of the president seems unable to convince Obama to change his self-centered and insensitive behaviors. That assumes of course that they even notice that his attitudes and behaviors are beginning to grate on the nerves of the ordinary American, who is wondering how he is going to feed his kids this week.

None of Obama's behaviors individually rise to the level of being insufferable evils, but when taken in the aggregate, they appear to be the embodiment of what Mr. Jefferson said so eloquently:

... when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security ...

There is a strong probability that Mr. Obama will be just as surprised in November by election returns that are clearly the result of his ideas of governing a nation as was George III in 1778 was in the reaction to his ideas of governing. I am fairly that George III must have said something (couched in well-educated, upper-class British idiom) akin to "Whaddaya mean, I lost an entire country?" I look forward to hearing how President Obama phrases the same reaction.
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map


Interesting Pics 2012

The religion of Climate Science

Rio: killing the earth since 1992
Jer's Photo of the Day

Photos and Photo Art by Sebastianjer



Emails: White House worked with health industry to send business to Axelrod’s firm

Election 2012

Since April I have been tracking "Likely Voter" polls in the states that could possibly be in play in November. These are not polls of just "registered voters" but only those of "likely Voters" which are generally accepted to be the most accurate. As we get closer to the election most polling outfits will begin to poll only "likely voters" at present only a few do now. I will post the most recent of these LV polls as I find them. A (+) represents Obama is up a (-) represents that Romney is up in that state according to the most recent LV poll.

FL -4 /OH -3/ PA +6/ IA +1/ NC -3/ VA -5/ AZ -13/ CO +4/ NV +8/ MO -7/ NH +3/ MI +1/
MN NA/ WI +6/ ME +14/ OR NA/ NJ NA/ NM NA/ GA +12/ SC NA/ IN NA/

BOLD are changes since 6/27 and direction of change for Obama (>)up (<) down since last poll
IA >
NH <
MI >
WI >
GA New
ME New

States where over 50% of voters would vote for President Obama in the above polling data:

NV 52%

States 45% or below for Obama
FL 45%
OH 45%
IA 45%
NC 44%
VA 43%
AZ 41%
MO 42%
GA 40%

Read here for significance

History in Pictures


"We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality."

Ayn Rand

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 8 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

7. sebastianjer
5:32 PM GMT on July 01, 2012
BTW I think Mack is OK anyway, not the best but certainly not a bad candidate.

Oh and I was really hoping West would have run, woudn't that have been something?
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
6. sebastianjer
5:30 PM GMT on July 01, 2012
Hi Spathy

At this point I'm all into "just win baby". I don't like being in that position but I believe Mack has best chance of beating Nelson so I'm supporting him. Like I said I don't like having to look at races that way but my feeling now is that if Reps don't take the Senate the nations pretty much doomed so I really am not into "purity" right now. I had not even planned on sending money to Romney, but now I intend to.

Before you can turn things around you first have to change direction, changing directions and putting a stop to progressive anti-American policies is first order of business IMO everything else comes a distant second.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
4. sebastianjer
4:17 PM GMT on July 01, 2012

Another Reason To Declare Independence from Obamacare SCOTUS Disaster

Derek Hunter

Many have weighed in on the Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare much better than I could. Two of the best were Rush Limbaugh’s and Mark Levin (download the June 28th show for free and share it widely). But a few things remain unmentioned as far as I can tell.

First, the SCOTUS decision means the low-income uninsured won’t likely see any change to their status.

How is that? How can a law designed in large part to help the poor obtain insurance, a law that taxes and spends so much, end up with no real change? Because the one ”bright spot” of the ruling was on the matter of Medicaid expansion.

Medicaid is the joint federal-state health insurance program for the poor, in which both governments split the cost. ObamaCare mandated states accept more federal money and expand eligibility to ensnare a larger number of Americans in this dismal government-run plan. But along with that mandate for the states to spend hundreds of millions more than they can afford, the law included a penalty for states that didn’t expand the Medicaid eligibility – the loss of all federal Medicaid money. Essentially it was a choice between spending more money that states don’t have or receiving no federal money, yet still being obligated to provide Medicaid.

The Supreme Court rejected that provision. It said states can be offered the option but can’t be forced to accept the expansion money, nor to extend Medicaid to people who don’t currently qualify. Given many states are going broke now, and Medicaid is their largest expenditure already, it’s highly doubtful many will spend more on this program.

So, given Medicaid was a key component to extending coverage to all Americans under ObamaCare, and given it’s now dead or at least an unlikely option, the uninsured near-poor – the people this whole mess was designed to help – won’t be getting Medicaid. Since they also probably won’t soon earn enough to buy insurance on their own, they finish right where they started – in no-man’s land.

Middle-class Americans without insurance will have to pay an Obama Tax that will grow with each passing year. The near-poor were exempted from the tax, but they won’t get insurance either.

Given the ease – relative to the rest of the world – with which Americans can move up the economic ladder, many will work at jobs that can’t afford to provide insurance under ObamaCare and are too small to be required to provide it. But those jobs will pay enough so employees eventually will qualify for the Obama Tax. So, just as these near-poor approach some semblance of economic security, the IRS (which Obamacare empowered to enforce the Obama Tax) will be right there to whack them back down.

Therefore, and not for the first time, the people ObamaCare was supposed to help will be hurt the most.

Middle-class families also will take a hit.

Most Americans work for small businesses. The law requires businesses with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance or pay a fine. Since ObamaCare forces insurance companies to accept everyone with pre-existing conditions – which is like requiring car insurance companies to insure cars after their owners have wrapped them around a tree – premiums will skyrocket. Companies quickly will notice it’s easier to simply pay the fine. This means a new group of uninsured Americans.

If the slight bump in pay doesn’t permit them to afford insurance, they will be hit with the Obama Tax. (And for those of you keeping score at home, they make significantly less than the $250,000 per year the President promised to never, ever raise taxes on. “Read my lips!” anyone?)

The government doesn’t care about your expenses. It doesn’t care about your kids in private school, your mortgage or student loans or the relatives you’re trying to help through a bad time. It doesn’t care how or really even whether you make ends meet as the Obama Recession rolls into another year. It sees you as a number – the number of dollars you make, whether you make enough to buy insurance according to its formula.

Don’t believe me? Try discussing with a bureaucrat anything you owe government on any level and see if you can appeal to their mercy. You might get a traffic fine reduced occasionally if you catch the right bureaucrat on the right day. But the IRS deals with tens of millions of people over hundreds of billions of dollars. Bureaucracies are not in the mercy business.

So now that Obamacare has morphed into a tax on staying alive, it will become yet another liberal “well-intentioned” attempt to “strengthen the social safety net” that ends up functioning more like a spider web that ensnares people in the life it was supposed to help them escape.

It also forces the health insurance market into a bastardized market that threatens its very existence. It will cause many insurers to fail, which will lead to consolidation, concentration and ultimately corporate welfare. Or the government will step in, take over the entire market and give us the American version of Britain’s detestable National Health Service, which is something Democrats have been working towards for decades. Either way, government wins and we – all of us – lose.

Of course none of these taxes and insurance drops will take effect for these impacted people until after the election, which was by design. Costing people you need to vote for you more before they vote is fool’s errand, a lesson Barack Obama learned from President George H.W. Bush. But once he no longer need their vote, ever, for the rest of his life…lookout.

Did we reject a tyranny 236 years ago to gradually create our own without the accent and powdered wig? Did we replace “No taxation without representation” with “Taxation through misrepresentation”? As you celebrate our nation’s independence this week, commit yourself to talk to as many people as you can about how we’ve lost that which we are celebrating and how November is our next, and maybe our only, chance to declare it again.
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:
3. sebastianjer
3:57 PM GMT on July 01, 2012
Member Since: December 31, 1969 Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 8 - 1

Page: 1 — Blog Index

Top of Page