Search This Blog

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Can Paul Ryan Clean Up the Chicago Mob?

“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” — John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law — 1765

One of my favorite shows in the days of black and white television was the Untouchables (latter made into a movie in 1987). The Untouchables were a group of 13 U.S. federal law-enforcement agents, led by Eliot Ness, who, from 1929 to 1931, worked to end Al Capone's illegal activities by aggressively enforcing Prohibition and tax laws against Capone and his organization. In their conduct, they became legendary for being fearless and incorruptible, earning the nickname "Untouchables."

The Untouchables were led by treasury agent Elliot Ness who was an ethical, honest, and fearless law enforcement officer who was charged with cleaning up the mob activities and violence in Chicago lead by the notorious gangster Al Capone. Ness and his agents would go after the illegal stores of alcoholic spirits with tommy guns and axes. They would break up barrels of the illegal beverages, raid speakeasies, and arrest bootleggers. Final they were able to get Al Capone on tax evasion.

Since that time Chicago has been known as a city controlled by a political mob with the latest example of this being Barack Obama who was discovered and rocketed to national notoriety by the Chicago Democratic Party machine, a machine that has a long history of corruption and illegal activities.

Why do I bring this up? Because I can't help but see the ghost of Eliot Ness when I look at Paul Ryan. The paradigm is the same. Of course, this time evil is cloaked in a rogue presidency, and they are making the laws, but the battle is the same: right and wrong, good and evil, etc. And Ryan, like Ness, is righteous and uncompromised.

Eliot Ness took on mob boss Al Capone and his army during the Prohibition Era. He assembled a special force of agents who were known for their incorruptibility — "the untouchables." Like Ness, Ryan came from humble beginnings. And he believes firmly in individual rights.

According to the Republican National Convention Blog, "Paul Ryan developed his political philosophy reading the works of free market authors including Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, and Ayn Rand. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead.'"

When he was announced as Romney's choice for vice president, Ryan's words were a direct rebuke to Obama's socialist rhetoric of class warfare:

"We look at one another's success with pride, not resentment, because we know that as more Americans work hard, take risks, succeed, more people will prosper, more communities will benefit. And individual lives will be improved. ... America, America is just more than a place, though. America is an idea. It's the only country founded on an idea. Our rights come from nature and God, not from government. That's right. That's who we are, that's how we built this country. That's who we are. That's what made us great. That's what made us great. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes."

Ryan has, according to the Washington Times, "a very conservative voting record during his seven terms in Congress, including repeated votes against spending bills, unemployment-benefit extensions and most of President Obama's agenda."

The Times noted his stellar record on reining in out-of-control government spending — a record that betters those of most of his fellow Republicans: "His chief breaks with most Republicans usually came on spending bills, where he regularly voted against his party leadership when they controlled the chamber before 2007. In 1999, he voted against expanding the Peace Corps, and voted against expanding debt relief to impoverished nations."

I believe that Paul Ryan, an intellectual leader, and his ilk are the antidote to what ails this suffering nation. Barack Hussein Obama and his band of moochers, looters, and destroyers are no match for the likes of him. I underestimated Romney, and I am glad to say it. Paul Ryan was an inspired choice. What a clear and clean message. Despite the media's war on American exceptionalism, capitalism, individual rights, business and businessmen, the producers, the family, and conservatism, Romney did not blink. He picked an uncompromised conservative (and in doing so gave the media the middle finger). Romney chose well.

Dennis Prager states in a recent column in the Patriot Post questioning will a weakened American character defeat Paul Ryan:

The Republican vice-presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, is the Democrats' political version of the Anti-Christ. He believes in self-reliance; the left believes in reliance on the state. His moral values are shaped by religion (Catholicism); the left is frightened by religious Christian politicians (and athletes, and members of the armed forces, and talk show hosts, and, for that matter, clergy). He believes in individualism; the left believes in collectivism. He believes in small government and powerful citizens; the left believes in large government and dependent citizens.

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party claims to be overjoyed at his selection as the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

The Democrats' glee -- even if exaggerated -- emanates from their belief that Americans will reject Ryan's economic and social plans to reduce the American debt, unleash private economic growth (the only type there is), and reform unsustainable government programs such as Medicare.

Democrats believe that if Americans perceive that their entitlements may be affected -- even if only beginning a decade from now, and even if the American debt is thereby cut by one third, and even if they, as well as the country, will ultimately benefit -- so many Americans have become so used to government benefits, the Republicans stand little chance of winning the upcoming elections.

In other words, and tragically, the left and Democrats are relying on the decline of the American character that left-wing policies have produced (not only here but in Latin America, Europe, and everywhere else). The Democrats are hoping that older Americans are (irrationally) frightened by Medicare reform even though these reforms will not affect them, and that younger Americans will likewise reject these reforms because they are counting on receiving Medicare as it now exists.

Left-wing social policies are predicated on giving more and more Americans more and more benefits and demanding less and less from them.

The left's party, the Democratic Party, seeks to have the state pay for Americans' health care, give record numbers of Americans food stamps (now in a form similar to ATM and credit cards so that no stigma be involved), provide their children with school meals and provide women with child care and contraceptives, while enabling more and more Americans to pay no federal taxes to pay for any of these benefits.”

Prager concludes:

“Since the Democrats could not win any national election with the votes of liberals alone -- according to Gallup, self-described liberals constitute just 21 percent of the electorate -- the great question of the 2012 American presidential election is this: Have the left and Democratic Party sufficiently weakened the character of enough Americans to enable the demonization of Paul Ryan to lead Barack Obama to victory?”

To the true believers on the left, re-electing Barack Obama is not a matter of what is or is not good for the country; rather, for the majority on the left, the primary motivation is geared solely toward defeating their sworn enemy: conservatives and Republicans, whom many falsely believe are a right-wing horde determined to create a theocracy and impose old-fashioned morality. But what they fear most from the right is a determination to reinstitute unfettered individual freedom and concomitant economic growth, which would relegate the American left to the back bench of American society.

Thus, to them, what the policies of Barack Obama and his radical minions are doing to the long-term fate of nation is immaterial as long as Obama regurgitates his support for the various causes that are near and dear to the coalition that makes up the left. There are two common threads to the belief system of American progressives: 1) an omnipotent central government controlled by them, and 2) an assumption that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from an equally bottomless pit of wealth. But this is not the same nation that experienced unprecedented prosperity from 1946 to 2007. It is not the same nation in which these narcissists on the left grew up, never knowing national adversity or trauma.

The manner in which these progressives, and their titular leader Barack Obama, are conducting themselves in the current campaign season is indicative of their arrogant and immature mindset. To the vast majority on the left, this campaign is merely a game played out on the playground of American politics, wherein they childishly engage in name-calling and temper tantrums reminiscent of spoiled brats determined to get their way, regardless of the consequences.

Thomas Sowell writes about the choice of Paul Ryan:

“This election is a test, not just of the opposing candidates but of the voting public. If what they want are the hard facts about where the country is, and where it is heading, they cannot vote for more of the same for the next four years.

But, if what they want is emotionally satisfying rhetoric and a promise to give them something for nothing, to be paid for by taxing somebody else, then Obama is their man. This is not to say that the public will in fact get something for nothing or that rich people will just pay higher taxes, when it is easy for them to escape taxation by investing overseas -- creating jobs overseas.

Even if most Americans do not have their own taxes raised, that means little, if they end up paying other people's taxes in the higher prices of goods and services that pass along the higher taxes imposed on businesses.

There are no doubt voters who will vote on the basis of believing that Obama "cares" more about them. But that is a faith which passeth all understanding. The political mirage of something for nothing, from leaders who "care," has ruined many a nation.”

It is time to grow up and understand that the America that could absorb all the excessive spending, promises, and left-wing fun and games is no more. This nation cannot survive on its present course, and if that course is not dramatically reversed, those on the left will suffer as much as if not more than the bulk of the American people they are trying to rule. History has shown repeatedly that when an overwhelming political and social catastrophe strikes a nation, the people turn against the ruling class, often with a vengeance. In the United States, that ruling class is presently dominated by the American left.

With the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney's vice presidential candidate, the choice could not be more clearly defined.

Pro-America vs. anti-America

Individualism vs. Statism

Capitalism vs. socialism

This campaign should be not called "restore America." It should be "Free America."

No comments:

Post a Comment