I’m interested in learning more about the incident involving a “conservative kiosk” in North Carolina, whose owner claims he is being “kicked out” of a mall because he sells “conservative” items.
With the exception of Fox News, who I consider somewhat unreliable at best, the national media has totally ignored this story. A Google search produced several blog hits and a few reports from local media, but I didn’t find many national stories.
Loren Spivack owned and operated a kiosk inside the Concord Mills Mall in Concord, North Carolina. In his kiosk, Spivack sold various items with political motivated slogans and phrases. The examples provided by the NBC station included bumper stickers with “Impeach Obama,” “Work Harder. Obama Needs the Money,” and “Al Qaeda’s favorite days: 9/11/01 and 11/4/08″.
Personally, I find the stickers pretty lame and wonder how long it would take the average American to process the significance of the “11/4/08″ date. Sure, political junkies, such as myself, recognize the date as the day Barack Obama won the election, but you want a quick response and reaction with bumper stickers, from a mass audience, and that one requires a certain level of political awareness. Regardless, Simon Property Group, which owns Concord Mills Mall, communicated with Spivack that they would allow his lease to expire on July 31, 2009. According to this report, mall management felt that items sold at the kiosk were not “neutral” enough.
This decision follows a strongly worded letter printed in the Charlotte Observer, in which a recent college graduate complained about several of the items sold at the kiosk. The letter refers to several items with “pro confederacy statements” and items that promote “racism, sexism and even slavery.”
I understand that kiosks in the South sometimes sell items containing the Confederate flag or with slogans like, “the South will rise again.” Those type of items are definitely tacky, but no one has provided examples of these items being sold at the kiosk in question. Indeed, the only three items I can find mentioned being sold at the kiosk are the three bumper stickers mentioned earlier. In my opinion, none of the bumper stickers reported by the NBC station promote racism, sexism or slavery and none of them contain “pro-Confederacy statements.”
All three stickers contain anti-Obama messages, but speaking out against this President, voicing a strongly worded opinion about his election, do not qualify as “racist” or “sexist.” Speaking out against elected officials is American as apple pie. I’ve been doing it since I was a kid.
On October 14, 2008, I posted a blog expressing concern that criticizing then candidate Obama would result in this type of reaction. In the piece, I modeled two t-shirts I bought to express my discontent with the Bush administration. During the the Bush administration, I decorated my car with several “anti-Bush” bumper stickers, including “Vote Republican, It’s Never Too Late to Return to the Dark Ages” and “F The President”. I never went anywhere without my black rubber band that said “I Did Not Vote For Bush” or my blue band that said “Count Me Blue” (as in “blue states”). I wish I could contact the college student who wrote the letter to the Charlotte newspaper complaining about the kiosk. I would like to get their opinion on my anti-Bush t-shirts, bumper stickers and rubber bracelets.
Maybe it’s the punk in me, but I’m for free speech all the time, everywhere. I did not vote for Bush and I did not vote for Obama. I think both are poor presidents and I have spent a good chunk of my time criticizing both of them. Until the suits at Simon decide to comment on this issue, we’ll never know the full story, but if what has been reported so far is true, I would suggest a boycott may be in order.
It’s been a lazy Sunday afternoon in my household and I had the opportunity to enjoy two, very different, yet fascianting political documentaries. The first, from the right, Waco: The Rules of Engagement, which as the name suggests focuses on the Federal governments involvement in the raid on the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco.
The second documentary, slightly less dark, is from a far Left perspective. It is Philip Seymour Hoffman’s documentary, The Party’s Over, where Hoffman attempts to pull a Michael Moore and takes his camera and crew on the 2000 Presidential election circuit, from the training ground of street protesters through the Democrat and Republican conventions and all of the drama surronding Florida. Though a typical Hollywood Leftist lackey, Hoffman does a good job of getting opinions from people of diverse political backgrounds.
I might draft thorough reviews of both documentaries, after I’ve had more time to digest their content, but for now, I’m left with two main observations.
1.) I found it ironic watching Waco: The Rules of Engagement, that two of the politicians most vocal in supporting the Federal governments actions in Waco were Vice-President Joe Biden (D-DE) and Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Their basic response to the entire ordeal was that David Koresh and his followers presented a danger to the American people; therefore, the actions of the Federal government were justified. However, these same two politicians, bitch and moan about detention facilities for terrorists, such as the one in Guatonomo Bay, Cuba, and the “enhanced interrogation” tactics employed by agents of our government.
On one hand, these Democrat politicians support harsh treatment of alleged religious warriors (i.e. Waco), but in the other instance they decry the use of more human tactics (i.e. waterboarding at Guatonomo). How can justify this hypocrisy?
2.) Throughout the movie The Party’s Over, Hoffman attempts to show that there is no difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties, both are run by corporate interests and greed. He continually asks the question, “what is the difference between the two parties?” Mr. Hoffman, as someone who has worked actively on campaigns in both parties, I can tell you the main difference, from a philosophical perspective, is the proper role of the Federal goverment.
I’ve never been one for boycotts. I fundamentally disagree with many of the artists on the proper role of the Federal government and on the issue of American exceptionalism. However, I continue to consume their art. Indeed, a quick glance at my movie, music and book library and you’d be hard pressed to find any work by an artist I consider a political ally.
Every so often, an artist harbors such an abhorrent political ideology or personal beliefs that one must question whether or not it’s proper to contribute money to their art. To this day, I refuse to watch Passion of the Christ or any other Mel Gibson film because of his anti-Semitic tirades.
I’m having similar hesitations when it comes to the new Pixar flick, Up, which currently sits a top the box office and has received great reviews. However, the movie features the voice of Ed Asner. Regardless of the adjective you choose to describe Asner’s political views, it’s clear that he is well to the left of center of the average American, as evidenced by his support of the Marxist rebels of the FMLN who fought against our soldiers in El Salvador in the 1980′s. I can tolerate a socialist; I can’t support a traitor.
With that said, I don’t want to act like the religious nuts that boycott everything that runs counter to Puritan values or Levitical law. What do I do?
I’ve noticed that many people scoff at the idea of certain conservatives calling the current direction the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership are headed, “socialist.”
Personally, I think it’s a bit hypocritical for most elected Republican officials to use the term “socialist,” since the past 8 years were filled with government expansion, an idea often closely associated with “socialism.” However, I have no real problem with the semantics of applying the socilaist term to many of the policies being presented by the current administration. While they may not directly mirror the textbook definition of “socialism,” they do contain many of elements of “nationalization” and involve the intervention of the Federal government in the private sector.
It got me to thinking, if any use of the word “socialist” or “socialism”, as it relates to the current administration, will be viewed as simply a pejorative, what adjective, or what form of government, best describes the intentions of this current administration?
A few facts:
The previous administration began a policy of using the Federal government to engage in problems confronting the financial sector, part of the private sector. This policy was continued and expanded on by the current administration, including the use of Federal funds to prop up privately held financial institutions.
One sector, the automobile industry, received a lot of “hands on attention” from this current administration. Depending on where you get your news, this administration either forced one company (Chrysler) into bankruptcy or strongly suggested they consider it. Either way, the Federal government injected itself into the day-to-day business operations of a company in the private sector.
This administration and Democratic leadership has made clear its intentions to pass legislation regarding health care in the United States, specifically involving the Federal government in seeking out solutions for the uninsured or “under-insured.” Again, depending on where you get your news, this administration either wants to completly nationalize the health care industry or it seeks to establish some form of government run health care for those in need. Either way, it appears this administration and current Democratic leadership will attempt to expand the role of the Federal government in the health care indsutry.
While this may not fit your definition of “socialism,” it certainly does not fit the definition of “free-market capitalism.” My question to those sensitive to the word “socialism,” how do we describe these policies. Is there a particular term or phrase you would choose to use?
The United States Constitution acts like a doctor’s prescription. Instead of medicine, it intructs us on how much government is healthy. Just as taking more medicine than a doctor recommends can cause harm to the body, so to having more government than the Constitution prescribes can and will cause harm to our great nation. The Federal government is good in the small recommended doses laid out in the Constitution.
The Obama administration seeks to expand the powers of the government outside the parameters set up in the Constitution and risk the health of our nation as we know it.
I’m amazed when I hear people describe a politician as being “for the people.” I heard it for 8 years during the Clinton administration and I’m sure people said it during the Kennedy administration, but it’s nothing compare to what I’ve heard regarding Obama. Obama earned his nickname, “The Messiah,” because of the cult of personality he built up around himself, supports actually believe(d) that this man would help them pay their bills, put gas in their cars and make sure there was food on their table.
I don’t doubt that eventually the government in Obama’s Marxist mind could provide all these things. After all, Obama’s government aims to take from the rich, stockpile in the government and then redistribute among the poor. However, I do doubt that Obama dreams of this type of government for altruistic reasons.
Obama desires power and to build a legacy for himself. He aims to do this the only way a Marxist knows how, through policy that will takes not only money, but power from the people, and gives it to the politicians in charge of the government. You see, Obama cares about policy and power over the people in this nation. With an approval rating hovering at 63% , I just hope more Americans wake up and see Obama’s true intentions.
If you ever want to know what a business would look like it were socialized, look no further than the post office. I walk into the post office and the customer service is non-existent. The lines are always long, the postal service refuses to use operate all of their windows, on more than one occasion I’ve been in a long line when the postal worker decided it was time to take a break, regardless of the lengthy of the line. When you finally make it to the front of the line, the postal worker who assists you makes you feel like you are the biggest burden in their life.
The United States Postal Service does not exist to make a profit. They exist to provide a government mandated service and the postal workers do their job only to draw their government check. Indeed, the U.S.P.S. seems to reward “bad business.”
So the next time you think it would be nice to have the government pay your medical bills, just remember the post office, because if Chairman Obama gets his way, your local doctor’s office will operate in the same manner. This is a bad idea that must be stopped.
On June 12, 1987, standing in front of the Brandenburg Gate, President Ronald Reagan famously demanded, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall,” referring to the Berlin Wall, perhaps the most famous symbol of the divide between freedom and the oppressive reach of the Marxist governments in the Eastern Bloc.
Symbolically, this speech represented the triumph of the United States over the Soviet Union, free market capitalism over Marxism and socialism, and the beginning of the end of the Cold War. Recently, it seems that the Obama administration has taken great strides to try and undo the work of Reagan in the region, although don’t expect the kooks on the Left to report it that way. Indeed, many brown shirts see Obama’s actions as an attempt to “revive American dipomacy.”
As Obama cowers and placates the Russians, our roles as nations seem to be reversed. The Russians now dictate the conversation and as they do, our nation resembles the Soviet Union more and more. Looking at the full scope of the Obama administration’s first few months in office, it’s as if their playbook consists of one philosophy, looking at what Reagan did as President and doing the direct opposite–further proof to the Marxist motivations of our commander-in-chief.
The Left thinks that Americans dislike Limbaugh, that his audience is not representative of “mainstream America.” Personally, I find that assertion to be comical. If anyone’s political views run counter to those of “mainstream America,” it is Barack Obama. Obama represents the intellectual elite, a world of Ivy League educated blow hards totally disconnected with those of us on Main Street, U.S.A.
Sure, Limbaugh is pompous, but his beliefs–self reliance, personal responsibility, the belief in the American people, the skepticism of the Federal government, the belief that in the United States one can accomplish great things as long as one is willing to work–these are values that resonate with “mainstream America.”
The values of Obama–class warfare, a nanny state, entitlements, the government as the answer to all our problems–are values that resonate only with the ignorant and the elite. It’s this value system, glorified socialism, that define Obama, and led Limbaugh to issue the infamous, “I hope he fails” line.
Rush, I’m with you brother, I hope Obama fails to socialize our nation as well.
Check out what this jack ass, Jonathan Alter, from Newsweek had to say. Do you think he understands “mainstream America”? Hell no, this guy is one of the Ivy League elites who gets the “tingling sensations” in his leg when he hears Obama speak.
Since Alter is from the Northeast, idolizes FDR and graduated from Harvard, I doubt he understands what the average American desires in life, nor does he understand how the average Republican thinks. With that said, who is he to criticize Limbaugh or the GOP? It’s comical.
