Paul Ryan's Moral Leadership may not be Popular, but it's "the right thing."

History is littered with despots who claimed they knew more than the people that elected them.

Rep. Paul Ryan is just that kind of "leader."

Upfront's Mike Gousha asked Ryan about all the polls that directly contradicted Ryan's positions on the minimum wage, extending unemployment etc. Ryan just laughed.

I purposely included Ryan's jaw dropping corporate focused agenda that exemplifies the failure of trickle down economics-it hasn't worked so far, so business needs even more help. Where in Ryan's to-do-list is there something that has to do with people directly?

But what Ryan said next...including his Freudian slip:

"It sounds simple...but if I believe this is counter productive for the very people we're trying to hurt...to help...and will hurt them by doing this, but it's politically popular, what does that say about you as a moral person...leaders have to take positions that may not be popular sometimes if they think they're doing the right thing."

It's a message Republicans haven't been shy about saying, with absolutly no blow back from the media. Scott Walker has made a run for president contingent on the Senate turning Republican, because he too wants to do the unpopular "moral" "right thing." Divided government would just get in the way.

One more thing, Ryan flip flopped on employee mobility, a benefit he liked under his reform plan:

Ryan said "Washington is making the poverty trap that much worse" by creating disincentives for people to enter the workforce and escape poverty. “The effect will be severe — as if 2.5 million people had stopped working full time by 2024. ” By choosing to stay at home or cut back their hours, low-income workers will not get on the "ladder" to economic success and will be stuck in a cycle of poverty, argued Ryan.

From the Daily Kos came this interesting point:

Remember the whole kerfuffle over Ann Romney, and her choice to be a stay-at-home mom? Do you remember any Republicans saying that Mitt Romney's wealth created a "disincentive" for his wife to go out and work, and that this was somehow a bad thing? Of course not … regular people need that whole dignity of work thing. 

Why America should hate Authority, and those Courageous Leaders Promising more of it....

This goes to the heart of where we're headed in this country.

On a recent tour of the New Glarus, Wisconsin, historical museum, our tour guide said something that got me thinking. The guide spent the first 10 years of his life in Germany, and offered an amazing perspective on his life there since 1940, and the opportunities his family and the Swiss people saw in America. And he said this of the Swiss:

"The Swiss hate authority."   

It was a moment of clarity for me. Isn't that really an American ideal? It was never our intention as a country to elect "leaders." We elect representatives to serve us. We don't give someone "authority" over us, to lead us, because like the Swiss, we hate authority.

It's no accident that conservative politicians and the radical tea party right are all about electing "leaders." They want leaders with the courage to stand up to a dissenting public. The majority rules. But what about the Constitutionally protected minority?

The best and most chilling example of this move toward authoritarian leadership, can be seen in the speech below; it was a tea party sponsored Wisconsin visit by presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. Do we want a leader, or a representative? That's the choice:



Gov. Nicki Haley unintentionally offered her own shocking warning to America if Walker wins, when she said;

"If he wins this , we will see more power and strength across the governors of this country than we've ever seen before." 

It really is breathtaking.

Republican "Leaders" Good, Democratic "Leaders" Bad. Archbishop says "live with an election for four years."

The proof of the authoritarian takeover of Wisconsin is all around us. Just listen for all the buzz words and try to see all clues.

The one word that stands out to me is the term “leader.” I first noticed it when Mr. Authority himself, Paul Ryan, used it over and over trying to justify the brutal cuts to seniors and middle class. Americans might not like losing their safety nets, but those are the risks real “leaders” are willing to take.

Funny, conservative "leaders" are always rewarded with loyalty and respect by their voters.

But when Obama leads? He’s accused of raising taxes, cutting Medicare, appeasing dictators, raising gas prices at the pump, destroying jobs and turning us into Europe. They won’t let Obama lead, right from his first day in office. They immediately wanted to take their country back from…their leader?    

Here’s Milwaukee’s Archbishop Jerome Listecki in an interview WITI-TV, defending Scott Walker, calling him a "leader. What could go wrong...: 

jsonline: “You have a recall when you have corruption, you have clearly something that's done that's illegal," Listecki said. "If there was something which was morally detrimental to society, I think you do that. "Otherwise," he continued, "you have an election, you live with an election for four years, and you vote the person out of office.”

“Scott Walker did what he thought was right," Listecki said. "Therefore, he was, as a leader, he was willing to stand up and to - quote - take the heat for doing that," he said. "Only time will tell whether or not basically the course of action (was right). In his mind, he saw that as the right action. As a leader, I respect him for doing it.”

Only time will tell, give him a chance, so what if he’s lost private sector jobs six month in a row.

The following is audio of California Rep. Rep. Trent Franks, who made extreme and conspiratorial  claims about President Obama; his reelection would lead to constitutional and security crises; even the emergence of “nuclear terrorism.” It’s the same stuff the GOP said about him just a few months into Obama’s term as president, when they decided to take their country back.

But Obama’s a leader isn't he? Why don’ Republicans let him be and just shut the hell up? 

The Drum Beat Goes On: The Parasitic Welfare State blah, blah, blah

Always fascinated by the far right wing, I thought this bizarre piece of Dickensian tripe pretty much sums up how the writer, Richard Brodie, hates the only America he’s ever known. Conservatives like Brodie always describe a brutal dystopian system of punishments and authoritarian “leaders.” In fact the word “leader” is cropping up more and more on the right. Rep. Paul Ryan is constantly complaining how the people are looking for “leaders,” like him. No Paul, you aren’t our leader, but our servant and representative.

Right away in Brodie’s piece, he misses his own point:

When I asked our next-door neighbor, a well-known African-American movie actor, why his three healthy, middle-aged brothers didn’t have jobs when, as the actor complained, they were continually “hitting [him] up for money”, he answered—“They wouldn’t dream of getting a job: they’d lose their welfare!” This statement sums up the poisonous deterrent to personal initiative and the subsequent production of personal sloth engendered by the creation of the welfare state…

Brodie inadvertently pointed out how wealth can turn close relatives into family beggars and leaches. It says more about concentrated wealth in an elitist society of “haves” than the welfare state. Brodie then picks on protesting citizens, because not only is it bad to question authority, but they are also demanding…welfare?

Today … hordes of picketers can be seen in public demanding this or that form of welfare, almost proudly proclaiming their indigence. Electoral politics have even encouraged officials, a preponderance of them Democrats, to be forthcoming with government handouts as a way of buying whole classes of future voters, and let the country be damned.

Racism is alive and well:

A particularly egregious form of welfare is Aid to Single Mothers, a subsidy that not only encourages dependency but that actually discourages marriage, destroying any semblance of family life. In the Afro-American community, for example … So when the public cringes at the current unemployment numbers, particularly among minorities, they should avoid the clarion calls to “compassion” and realize that not only will more government doles foster more parasitism, but that a significant percentage of these unemployed are already in a huge and growing sub-class of people who “wouldn’t dream of getting a job—because they’d lose their welfare!”

It’s all about racism and “leaders.”

What we need is leaders who have the intelligence and the integrity to realize that putting people on the dole creates a class—and eventually a nation—of parasites, a catastrophe for any nation.

And finally, here’s where the author lets us in on his dirty little secret; he’s projecting. He’s one of those lazy money grubbing parasites. Thus, everybody else must be too…?

Even I, who loathe the idea of welfare, have experienced the seductive appeal of free government money. When I was laid off of my job five years ago I discovered that unemployment compensation, which I knew would last for a year, was quite adequate to live on, which I did for almost the whole year before looking for another job. To my great shame I interpreted it as a paid year’s vacation…