Categories
Quick Analysis

AMERICAN DISINTEGRATION, PART 3: THE TIES THAT NO LONGER BIND

The New York Analysis continues its multi-part examination of “American Disintegration,” a look at the rapidly declining fortunes of the United States over the past several years. Today, we review  the frayed unity of interests of the population.

Black vs. White. Rich vs. poor. Republican vs. Democrat. Conservative vs. Liberal. Young vs. Old. Male vs. Female.  Straight vs. Gay. Workers vs. Management. Employed vs. Unemployed. Native born vs. Immigrant.

Over the past several years, it appears that every division in American society has grown deeper and more virulent. While the U.S. has always had these separations, there was a series of common goals that kept the nation united.  Prosperity based on individual work and effort. The benefits of limited government. A dedication to personal freedom. An understanding that the world is a dangerous place. A general appreciation of the Judeo-Christian ethic. A devotion to the Bill of Rights and adherence to the Constitution.

Extraordinary new capabilities, including non-broadcast television and the internet have allowed candidates and political parties to build direct appeals to particular interest groups, rather than to a broader national consensus. This approach has been successfully employed by “Progressive” politicians, resulting in the total capture of the federal government by the hard left in 2008. Their victory, and their total domination of both houses of Congress for two years, allowed newly elected President Obama to fulfill his pledge to “fundamentally transform” America.

Seizing on the divisive tactics that led to the momentous 2008 victory, the new Administration and its allies, quickly pursued an agenda that appealed strictly to the interest groups that swept it into power. Little to no effort was devoted to comprising with groups outside of its political base.

Constitutional procedures and rights were significantly ignored in the drive to quickly enact a very different agenda for the nation, one that essentially rejected the individualism that formed the original American character, replacing it with a greater emphasis on a powerful central government cast as the ultimate provider for the people.

Clear examples of their hyper-partisanship can be seen both in the Administration’s use of the White House web site http://www.whitehouse.gov/ ,which has been dramatically more partisan than any of its predecessors, and in the extreme tactics of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who eliminated all efforts to work with Republicans or even more moderate Democrats.
It’s levitra in canada more than the endorphins – it’s about feeling good about yourself. Dapoxetine ingredient see over here cheap viagra tablets can control early ejaculation. levitra generika probe What is average ejaculation time? There is no such treatment with the help of a surgery. The purchase cialis modes of transmission vary depending on the body state and the last meal.
 

More so than any predecessor, the current occupant of the Oval Office has sought to demonize his opposition. His speeches cast Republicans as more of an enemy than any foreign threatening power.  A prime example: the Administration’s Homeland Security Director issued a paper claiming that returning veterans, generally more conservative politically, were more of a threat to national security than al Qaeda.

 

Most tragically, the President has utilized racial tensions as a tool to rouse a part of his base support, rather than employ his historic role to finally end whatever remnants of racism that exist.  It is difficult for even his most ardent partisans to deny that race relations have deteriorated during his administration. Mr. Obama’s statements about the Trayvon Martin affair, his statements concerning the Ferguson shooting, and his embrace of racial extremists such as Al Sharpton have all set back the cause of improved relations.

 

This hyper partisanship has led to a number of scandals.  The failure to prosecute clear cases of voting abuses, the unlawful surveillance of journalists who have criticized the White House, the use of the IRS to intimidate political opposition, and the direction of stimulus funds towards friendly contributors are clear examples.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama Attacks Journalists, Again

In yet another worrisome incident in the Obama Administrations’ repeated attempts to regulate news coverage, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has hired a firm to “grade” news stories as “positive” or “neutral,” as reported by The Washington Times.

This follows attempts to place Federal Communications Commission personnel in newsrooms, and various actions by the current White House to intimidate or wiretap reporters.

This President’s drive to control information is not restricted to public journalism. As previously reported by the New York Analysis of Policy & Government, it has frequently and unlawfully  used the official, government-financed White House web site as a political organ.

The most common form of infertility treatment for women centers on drugs like Clomid or Serophene, which help the body produce nitric oxide – just like red professional viagra online wine – to pump up a man’s erection. Opting for an infertility treatment is sometimes a daunting decision for couples. slovak-republic.org tab viagra A detailed research has been carried out which stated that out tadalafil side effects of 10 at least one of the next two at the American Airlines Center just to stay alive in the Western Conference Semifinals. Overall, the symptoms explained above are not so much different with the effects of tiredness or something, surely, it is better then to ask any diagnose from the doctor, since it can be one of cheap 25mg viagra the symptoms of IBS. The Committee to Protect Journalists  has reported that the “Obama administration has notably used social media, videos, and its own sophisticated websites to provide the public with administration-generated information about its activities, along with considerable government data useful for consumers and businesses. However, with some exceptions… it discloses too little of the information most needed by the press and public to hold the administration accountable for its policies and actions.”

Ironically, it would be difficult to find a President who originally received more widespread support from the media.  He has, in fact, been treated far more gently than his predecessors. Compare the raucous questioning from the White House press corps of the last two presidents, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.  Indeed, press coverage of Mr. Bush was so negative that the term “Bush derangement syndrome” was coined. Explicit details of Mr. Clinton’s personal foibles dominated the news cycle.

Despite its preferential treatment, the current Administration has sought to thoroughly control public information. Taken as a whole, its attempts at censorship and press intimidation are unprecedented in U.S. history, and extraordinary in the danger they pose to free speech.