Fairness is a good thing in marriage and at the day-care center.  It’s a nice little domestic virtue. But a liking for fairness is not that noble a sentiment.  Fairness doesn’t rank with charity, love, duty, or self-sacrifice.  And there’s always a tinge of self-seeking in making sure that things are fair.  Don’t you go trying to get one up on me. (PJ O’Rourke)

One of the most interesting aspects of this debate is that relatively few commentators tie the Obama “fairness” argument to the political tactics of collectivist ideologues.  Those tactics were once very well known: take a word or expression that people think we all know the meaning of – justice, democracy, peace, fairness – and appropriate it for militant statist schemes that actually portend something very different.  With this kind of political bait-and-switch fraud, you can gain control over the people that they had no idea they were ceding.  This has been the method of socialists for decades.

In the current case, for example, the Obama administration wants us to focus on “taxes” as we discuss disparities between rich and poor, and to predicate the whole debate on “fairness.”  We think we know what is meant by these terms.

But given the background and the trend of sentiments expressed by Obama and those in his administration, it is entirely reasonable to assess that what is important to them is not “taxes,” specifically, but “disparities between rich and poor,” and the association of “fairness” with giving the central government a charter to intervene in those disparities.  Taxes are a specific case on which to establish a general principle: that cultivating “fairness” requires government intervention.

Is fairness properly cultivated as a condition or an attitude?  The adult world once had a ready answer to that question.  Children were taught that we should take care to be fair with others (the attitude), but that life – in terms of events, outcomes, and other people – wouldn’t necessarily be fair (the condition).

  But no matter how fair we seek to be, there will continue to be unfair outcomes, and many of them will be out of our control. (hot air)

“Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes.”As usual, the president motivated the higher taxes with references to “fair play” and getting the wealthy to pay their “fair share” of taxes.

“Fairness” was the codeword of the State of the Union address, not the chronic problem of lingering high unemployment, something the president never even mentioned. (Fox)

Envy. Jealousy. Covetness. Some of the 7 deadly sins are what Obama and The Democrats want in order to win.

So what is Fair?

Is it Fair That I don’t make Millions of dollars a year or a movie or TV Show?

Would it not be more “fair” to make it illegal to make over say: $200,000 a year.

The problem is that all those who aren’t making $200,000 a year, it’s not “fair” to them still.

So to be fair, EVERYONE would have to make $200,000 a year. Even the pimply 16 year old who just handed you your fries.

Thus Tom Cruise, movie star, and Tom Cruise the Fast Food kid would make the same amount.

Now that’s “fair” isn’t it?

So do you think this has any chance of working. Not in this universe!

So you’d have to lower the expectations.

Say dropping some zeroes. Say $20,000.

So do you think this has any chance of working. Not in this universe!

For exactly same reason but not because businesses couldn’t afford it. Because No one who was making more than that would do it.

But it would be equally “fair” now wouldn’t it.

And we’d all be EQUAL as well. How could that be wrong??

We all know why. But that’s why the Democrats don’t go any farther than the “eat the rich” strategy.

Is it fair that I don’t look like Hugh Jackman?

Fat People, Skinny People, “beautiful” people and “ugly” people.

Is it fair that I’m not as talented as say, Tom Brady?

Is it fair I never got to to Harvard, like Obama?

Was it fair that my sister got better grades than I did?

Well, the Democrats really don’t care. They just want to use the worst instincts of people to win. They want you to see the worst in other people too.

And the worse it gets the better they feel.

Worst is First.

It’s not fair.

If we let fairness in the door as a controlling quantity, human history suggests that we will never meet its rigorous standard.  Nothing can ever be “fair” enough, because there will always be someone who isn’t happy with the current conditions, and can point out an undeniable situational disparity of one kind or another.

The sensation of unfairness comes from deep within the human consciousness.  But it cannot be assuaged by any perfect reordering of material conditions.  Indeed, when material conditions are promptly reordered in response to our childhood complaints about unfairness, that only encourages us to base our happiness on specific material conditions – and complain more and more readily at the drop of a hat.  On the other hand, when we learn to deal with unfairness under the tutelage of good-hearted, fair-minded adults, what we come away appreciating is the trust and sense of safety their fair-mindedness engenders in us, even though things aren’t always fair.

Fairness cannot be enforced, nor unfairness requited, by the actions of the state.  Politics doesn’t lead us, through its inherent clash of competing biases, to a universal standard of fairness.  It merely enforces one set of policy ideas over another.  The tendency of all of us to treat each other unequally in one way or another (many of them utterly benign) is not itself a reason for government to intervene between us, but rather for government – which is just other people to whom we have given authority – to be limited in what it can do to us, period.(hot air)

But for the Democrats that doesn’t get them what they want.

Complete Control of Everyone and everything.

And “fairness” is the ticket.

Fear, Envy, Covetness.

They want you to want the government to screw the “unfair”. The problem is, that that is inherently unfair and based solely on their own political bias and control freakishness.

In requiring “fairness” you don’t get it.

In requiring “equality” you don’t get it.

And you lose Freedom in the process.

The Democrats don’t care about any of them. They just want you to want it bad enough to re-elect them so they can take it away from you because you asked for it.

And the Republicans are too busy with their circular firing squad of death to notice.

Meanwhile, you don’t have a job. Your prospect are crappy. And Unemployment that officially has been over 8% for 3 years in a row suddenly vanishes in a haze of resentment.

But as long as you feel it’s “fair” everything is just perfect.

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.

Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a  92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

The Climategaters (from the same offices) were potentially wrong in their doomsday scenario and it’s actually we’re all going to freeze to death instead (just like the hysterics of the mid-70′s!!)

Gee, I guess what is old is new again, when your goal to begin with was to frighten people into doing what you want regardless of any facts. And when new ones come along and screw up your old facts you just roll with it and start it all over again.

Sounds like Obama doesn’t it?

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.

Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest  a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’

These findings are fiercely disputed by other solar experts.

‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’

He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

CO2 levels have continued to rise without interruption and, in 2007, the Met Office claimed that global warming was about to ‘come roaring back’. It said that between 2004 and 2014 there would be an overall increase of 0.3C. In 2009, it predicted that at least three of the years 2009 to 2014 would break the previous temperature record set in 1998.

So far there is no sign of any of this happening. But yesterday a Met Office spokesman insisted its models were still valid.

‘The ten-year projection remains groundbreaking science. The period for the original projection is not over yet,’ he said.

Dr Nicola Scafetta, of Duke University in North Carolina, is the author of several papers that argue the Met Office climate models show there should have been ‘steady warming from 2000 until now’.

‘If temperatures continue to stay flat or start to cool again, the divergence between the models and recorded data will eventually become so great that the whole scientific community will question the current theories,’ he said.

He believes that as the Met Office model attaches much greater significance to CO2 than to the sun, it was bound to conclude that there would not be cooling. ‘The real issue is whether the model itself is accurate,’ Dr Scafetta said. Meanwhile, one of America’s most eminent climate experts, Professor Judith Curry of the  Georgia Institute of Technology, said she found the Met Office’s confident prediction of a ‘negligible’ impact difficult to understand.

‘The responsible thing to do would be to accept the fact that the models may have severe shortcomings when it comes to the influence of the sun,’ said Professor Curry. As for the warming pause, she said that many scientists ‘are not surprised’.

She argued it is becoming evident that factors other than CO2 play an important role in rising or falling warmth, such as the 60-year water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans.

‘They have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate,’ said Prof Curry. When both oceans were cold in the past, such as from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled. The Pacific cycle ‘flipped’ back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years .

Pal Brekke, senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre, said some scientists found the importance of water cycles difficult to accept, because doing so means admitting that the oceans – not CO2 – caused much of the global warming between 1970 and 1997.

The same goes for the impact of the sun – which was highly active for much of the 20th Century.

‘Nature is about to carry out a very interesting experiment,’ he said. ‘Ten or 15 years from now, we will be able to determine much better whether the warming of the late 20th Century really was caused by man-made CO2, or by natural variability.’

Meanwhile, since the end of last year, world temperatures have fallen by more than half a degree, as the cold ‘La Nina’ effect has re-emerged in the South Pacific.

‘We’re now well into the second decade of the pause,’ said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation. ‘If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk. And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.

Yeah, people could figure out they are LYING up their asses and have been been for more than 40 years!

Mind you, the Mindless Zombie Hoard on the Left won’t even bat an eye. They don’t care.

Hot or Cold. It’s all Armageddon to them if you don’t do extactly what they want you to do and right bloody now!

Yes, Masser! Yes Masser!

That’s all they want.

Barack Obama had an open microphone and time to kill at Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, a scenario only slightly less distressing than learning that a serial arsonist is on the loose. What resulted was grandiose even by the standards of this endlessly self-referential chief executive: 65 minutes of blather punctuated by 75 personal pronouns (yes, you read that right – the president referred to himself more than once per minute).

This was the leader of the free world using the chamber of the House of Representatives to stage the beginning of his reelection campaign. How did it play out? Well, let’s just say that the president has maintained his audacity even while the American people have lost their hope. Here are just a few of the more egregious examples…

1. “On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse.  Some even said we should let it die.  With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen.  In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility.  We got workers and automakers to settle their differences.  We got the industry to retool and restructure.  Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number-one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company.  Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories.  And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs. We bet on American workers.  We bet on American ingenuity.  And tonight, the American auto industry is back.  What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries.”

About that: (A) The credit for the auto industry bailout (misbegotten as it was) doesn’t belong to Obama. The process was announced by George W. Bush in December 2008, with the Obama Administration merely expanding upon it later. (B) Ford’s investments may be heartening, but they don’t have any business in this speech, as Ford was the only one of the big three automakers not to take a federal bailout (a fact the company touted in its television ads before the commercials were pulled after political pressure from the White House). (C) No prominent conservatives argued that “we should let [the auto industry] die.” Rather, they argued that a conventional bankruptcy restructuring, which would allow the companies to keep functioning without putting taxpayer money on the line, was a preferable alternative. (D) No one apart from this president sees Detroit – which had 11.2 percent unemployment in November – as a viable model for the national economy.

2. “This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.”

Remind us to tell that to the 20,000 workers who would have been employed by the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline or the 230,000 who could find gainful employment, according to an IHS Global Insight study, if the administration allowed the permitting process for energy exploration in the Gulf Coast to keep pace with the region’s capacious resources.

3. “Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same.  It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom.  No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts.  An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.”

Unless, of course you’re a green energy firm, a labor union or General Electric – in which case the rules you play by will be mailed to you upon receipt of your campaign contributions.

4. “Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.  Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.  Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.”

We’re only spending $1 trillion in this instance if you define “spending” as “failing to take from someone the money they’ve earned.” To understand how ludicrous this rationale is, consider the following: The same logic would lead you to conclude that we’re “spending” nearly $1 billion a year by failing to tax the American Cancer Society at a 100 percent rate. 

Also, this Warren Buffett nonsense has to stop. Buffett’s tax rates are lower than his secretary’s because he’s being taxed on capital gains: the profits he’s made from investments made with after-tax dollars. When Buffett originally made that money in the form of earned income, he paid a rate at least as high as his secretary (and probably higher, given the nature of the progressive income tax system). One simply cannot advocate for renewed economic growth in one breath and then decry the fact that there isn’t a higher tax on job-creating investment in the next. This shouldn’t be surprising coming from Obama, however. In a debate during the 2008 campaign, he said that he would favor raising the capital gains tax even if it resulted in a reduction in tax revenue – as a matter of “fairness.”

5. “I’m a Democrat.  But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed:  That government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.”

Given the president’s record, there are only two possible interpretations of this statement: (A) He’s lying. (B) He thinks we’re idiots.

There’s no doubt that – even by the president’s debased standards – this was a painful State of the Union. It did have one advantage over its predecessors, however. This one could be his last.

For the sake of the world, I hope so.

 

I am sick today.

See ya tomorrow.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062106392/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_il_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=janbre0c-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0062106392

www.scorpionsforbreakfast.com.

Obama came here to tout his greatness. He got a Scorpion for Breakfast.

But the thing about scorpions, they don’t get riled unless you rile them.

I haven’t always been the biggest fan of our Governor (But compared to our last one- Big Sis herself Janet -yikes what a difference) but from everything I have seen Obama picked this fight.

Interview from just after it happened: http://www.kfyi.com/pages/broomhead.html?article=9666508

http://townhall.com/video/obama-vs.-brewer

Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ): Well, I was there to greet him. I was the first in line as he came off the plane. He came down, he said ‘Hello Jan.’ I told him, ‘Mr. President, welcome to Arizona and we kept the sun up for you.’ And it was a beautiful day in Arizona. And I said, ‘We appreciate you being here and the bottom line is I’d like the opportunity to sit down to talk to him about the great Arizona comeback and the things that we have done here and job growth, etc. etc.

I explained to him how we have turned Arizona around and that we both love our country. I know that he loves our country, I love our country. And he brought up my book. And he was a little tense.

He said that he had read the excerpt and he didn’t think that I was very cordial. And I said, ‘Well, we agreed on that day to disagree.’ And he was somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense, to say the least. And I don’t remember — I was trying to be calm. You know, that picture (Brewer pointing her finger at Obama) is very interesting but I don’t remember actually doing that. And he moved on down the line.

MESA, Ariz. (AP) - Gov. Jan Brewer says President Barack Obama discussed her book with her and that he didn’t give it a good review.

Brewer was at the Mesa airport Wednesday, among several state and local officials greeting Obama after he got off Air Force One.

Brewer was observed giving Obama an envelope and speaking with the president for a few minutes.

A news reporter said in a White House press pool report that Brewer later said Obama told her he didn’t feel her book treated him cordially.

She says she invited Obama to go to the U.S.-Mexico border with her and to also discuss Arizona’s economic comeback.

He went to the Intel planet in Chandler to tout his greatness. She went back to the Capital.

Typical.

Isn’t it interesting how the AP video switch to a view where the whole exchange is obscured just before it happens?

“He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast. I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So.”

Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Brewer said: “That he didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn’t get my sentence finished. Anyway, we’re glad he’s here. I’ll regroup.”

On the letter, she said it was personal letter asking him to sit down with her to discuss the “Arizona comeback.”

She said she “reiterated an invitation that I’ve extended to him before with regards to coming to arizona and going to the border with me.” She said she would take him to lunch.

“We’ve had a remarkable comeback here and I want to share that with him.”

She said the president brought up the book.

“I thought we probably would’ve talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another. Our country is upside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I know again that he loves this country and I love this country.”

It was clear from the moment they greeted one another that this would not be a run-of-the-mill encounter between the president and a local official. At one point, she was pointing her finger at him and at another, they were talking at the same time, seemingly over each other.

He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn’t finish her sentence.

Shortly after, Obama’s press aides released a statement claiming Obama said she “inaccurately described the meeting.” The three-sentence statement ended curtly, saying that “the President looks forward to continuing taking steps to help Arizona’s economy grow.”

“He wants to talk about comprehensive immigration reform,” she said, but “we need to talk about the problems that Arizona is facing, and in that context, the problems going on in Mexico… [but] he just doesn’t get it.”

Comprehensive immigration reform is a common Washington, D.C. euphemism for giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

In the book, she described Obama as patronizing during their 2010 meeting when she asked for his help in curbing illegal immigration. His reaction, she wrote, “was though President Obama thought he could lecture me, and I would learn at his knee.”

Obama’s curt treatment of Brewer came the day after he used his State of the Union speech to call for a reduction in partisan rancor.

Better government can’t “happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town.” he declared. “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common-sense ideas.”

So another liberal call for “civility” last just hours.

Typical.

Obama 10/2011: “The one thing that we absolutely know for sure is that if we don’t work even harder than we did in 2008, then we’re going to have a government that tells the American people, ‘you are on your own,’” Obama told a crowd of 200 donors over lunch at the W Hotel.

“If you get sick, you’re on your own. If you can’t afford college, you’re on your own. If you don’t like that some corporation is polluting your air or the air that your child breathes, then you’re on your own,” he said. “That’s not the America I believe in. It’s not the America you believe in.”

But La Raza and the Liberal Left will love it anyhow. He stood up to the racist white bitch!

The winner, a guy who was previously homeless and has kicked and scratch and worked himself up to being a chef. He got beat one the first show. But now he was back to try again.

He fought hard and he won.

How the perfect anti-Obama. Redemption and Hard Work Rewarded.

The Republican National Committee has compiled this video comparing lines President Obama used tonight in his State of the Union Address with lines he used in previous addresses before Congress:

Obama 2010

: “It’s time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

Obama 2012

: “Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down.”

***

Obama 2010

: “And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system.”

Obama 2011

: “I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.”

Obama 2012

: “I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration.”

***

Obama 2010

: “We face a deficit of trust.”

Obama 2012

: “I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . .”

***

Obama 2010

: “We can’t wage a perpetual campaign.”

Obama 2012

: “We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign.”

The good news is that after a couple years these sorts of speeches begin to write themselves. (KFYI)

So I didn’t miss much apparently.

2009: “I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

So it’s 3 years later. Leave already…

But as we all know Liberals can say things like that but when it come to fruition they have forgotten they even said it and when you remind them they blow it off because they didn’t mean it then and they don’t mean it now.

And the new sound bites, lofty rhetoric, they don’t mean that either. Never did.

They just want you to buy it on the moment, then forget it, just like they do.

It’s not like they have principles or anything.

Thomas Sowell: This may be the golden age of presumptuous ignorance. The most recent demonstrations of that are the Occupy Wall Street mobs. It is doubtful how many of these semi-literate sloganizers could tell the difference between a stock and a bond.

Yet there they are, mouthing off about Wall Street on television, cheered on by politicians and the media. If this is not a golden age of presumptuous ignorance, perhaps it should be called a brass age.

No one has more brass than the President of the United States, though his brass may be more polished than that of the Occupy Wall Street mobs. When Barack Obama speaks loftily about “investing in the industries of the future,” does anyone ask: What in the world would qualify him to know what are the industries of the future?

Why would people who have spent their careers in politics know more about investing than people who have spent their careers as investors?

Presumptuous ignorance is not confined to politicians or rowdy political activists, by any means. From time to time, I get a huffy letter or e-mail from a reader who begins, “You obviously don’t know what you are talking about…”

The particular subject may be one on which my research assistants and I have amassed piles of research material and official statistics. It may even be a subject on which I have written a few books, but somehow the presumptuously ignorant just know that I didn’t really study that issue, because my conclusions don’t agree with theirs or with what they have heard.

At one time I was foolish enough to try to reason with such people. But one of the best New Year’s resolutions I ever made, some years ago, was to stop trying to reason with unreasonable people. It has been good for my blood pressure and probably for my health in general.

A recent column that mentioned the “indirect subsidies” from the government to the Postal Service brought the presumptuously ignorant out in force, fighting mad.

Because the government does not directly subsidize the current operating expenses of the Postal Service, that is supposed to show that the Postal Service pays its own way and costs the taxpayers nothing.

Politicians may be crooks but they are not fools. Easily observed direct subsidies can create a political problem. Far better to set up an arrangement that will allow government-sponsored enterprises — whether the Postal Service, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Tennessee Valley Authority — to operate in such a way that they can claim to be self-supporting and not costing the taxpayers anything, no matter how much indirect subsidy they get.

As just one example, the Postal Service has a multi-billion dollar line of credit at the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Hey, we could all use a few billions, every now and then, to get us over the rough spots. But we are not the Postal Service.

Theoretically, the Postal Service is going to pay it all back some day, and that theoretical possibility keeps it from being called a direct subsidy. The Postal Service is also exempt from paying taxes, among other exemptions it has from costs that other businesses have to pay.

Exemption from taxes, and from other requirements that apply to other businesses, are also not called subsidies. For people who mistake words for realities, that is enough for them to buy the political line — and to get huffy with those who don’t.

Loan guarantees are a favorite form of hidden subsidies for all sorts of special interests. At a given point in time, it can be said that these guarantees cost the taxpayers nothing. But when they suddenly do cost something — as with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — they can cost billions.

One of the reasons for so much presumptuous ignorance flourishing in our time may be the emphasis on “self-esteem” in our schools and colleges. Children not yet a decade old have been encouraged, or even required, to write letters to public figures, sounding off on issues ranging from taxes to nuclear missiles.

Our schools begin promoting presumptuous ignorance early on. It is apparently one of the few things they teach well. The end result is people without much knowledge, but with a lot of brass.

Bravo!

Now does that sound like Liberalism today and Obama in particular…

During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We’ve heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt’s angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Since the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you’ve demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.34 per gallon. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren’t you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that’s appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don’t you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you’ve worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush, and you’ve said things like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on — to put it into a risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.” Since you plan to raise taxes if you’re elected and you’ve had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn’t every American expect a tax increase if you’re reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing? (John Hawkins)

It’s fun to think what could have been if we had Journalists instead of Left Wing Propagandists masquerading as “journalists”.

So have a supply of industrial barf bags if yo decide to watch Obama’s “soaring” Campaign Bull shit speech tonight then the fawning and slobbering by the Liberal Media before and after.

I will be watching “Chopped” on the Food network.

Mr. Obama has honed that message for months as he has attacked Republicans in Congress and on the presidential campaign trail, contrasting it with what he has described as Republicans’ “go it alone” free-market views.

Don’t you just love the polar extremes.

Either you are for government running everything or nothing at all.

All or Nothing.

With most Americans registering disapproval of the president’s economic record after three years, it is all the more imperative for Mr. Obama to define the election not as a referendum on him but as a choice between his vision and that of his eventual Republican rival.

Emotion over logic. Throw reason out the window and go for “Hope & Change” 2.0 because he’s such a brilliant P.T. Barnum Speaker that he will bamboozle you again.

Fool me once, same on you. Fool Me twice, Shame on me!

And he will kick it off with Rep. Gabrielle Giffords who says she is resigning. He will pimp that for all the juice he can. The sugar overload will make everyone a diabetic.

Mr. Obama said he would call for “a return to American values of fairness for all and responsibility from all.” (Read: Marxist style socialism)

Because responsibility for all is not personal responsibility. That’s “going it alone”.

“We can go in two directions,” he said. “One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.”

Class warfare, envy, and “fairness”. The Zombie march continues.

“We must offer an alternative vision,” Mr. Romney said. “I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success.” (New York Times)

But resentment, envy, and fear are Zombie food.

Rolling up your sleeves, nose to grindstone, and being responsible for your choices and actions is like bullet to the brain of the Zombies.

The Government-must-do-it-for-me (and someone else must pay for it not realising it’s them anyhow) Zombie crowd is immune to reason and logic.

That’s why he will broadcast his Zombie-inspiring, Zombie-infecting State of the Union address.

The Zombie infection must spread and having an big TV audience will do nicely.

So, my recommendation: Watch “Chopped”. It will be more interesting…

P.s.

When burglar Kesler Dufrene became a twice-convicted felon in 2006, a  Bradenton judge shipped him to prison for five years. And because of  his convictions, an immigration judge ordered Dufrene deported to his  native Haiti.

That never happened.

Instead, when Dufrenes state prison term was up, Miami immigration  authorities in October 2010 released him from custody. Two months later,  North Miami police say, he slaughtered three people, including a  15-year-old girl in a murder case that remains as baffling today as it  did the afternoon the bodies were discovered.

DNA on a rifle found inside the house and cellphone tracking technology later linked Dufrene to the Jan. 2, 2011, slayings.

But North Miami detectives never got to interrogate him. Just 18 days  after the murders, Dufrene shot and killed himself when he was cornered  by Manatee County sheriffs deputies in Bradenton after an unrelated  break-in and shooting there.

 Now be “fair” and government will provide…

And the Republican’s want to help him with his image.

As he faces a reelection challenge with national job approval ratings still well below 50%, President Obama is seeking to portray himself as a man of the American people, stalled by those bipartisan know-nothings in Congress but determined to look out for the little guy in any way possible.

“We Can’t Wait” is his latest slogan, one which Republicans have mockingly picked up referring to the Nov. 6 election date.

After a brief bump from telling the Navy SEALs to kill Osama bin Laden, Obama’s approval is now no better than any other modern president and below all but one.

George W. Bush, who caused all the mess that Obama says he needs four more years to fix, was higher (49%) at this point in term one. And even doomed Democrat Jimmy Carter had majority approval (58%) at this late stage in his only term.

Obama will attempt to work on this public perception challenge Tuesday evening during his nationally-televised State of the Union Address to a joint session of Congress with a lengthy wish-list of populist programs. Soon after, comes his proposed federal budget.

Of course, very little of these ideas and items will ever come to pass, which the president knows.

As he seeks to become only the second Democrat president since World War II to win reelection, Obama is in reality building a premature platform to campaign on these next seven months leading to his party’s national convention in Charlotte.

A major challenge in Obama’s billion-dollar bid for a renewed lease on the White House and four more years to drive his progressive spending agenda is his image as an aloof Harvard elitist out of touch with ordinary citizens, much like 18th century French royalty.

One who golfs during wartime, stages frequent lavish celeb parties while citizens suffer high unemployment and foreclosure rates and vacations luxuriously on distant islands at the drop of a 747-boarding ramp. During last month’s holidays, Obama’s White House got by with only 37 Christmas trees.

With one highly-publicized exception last summer, Obama’s golfing partners and basketball buddies are almost always close friends or staff, an opportunity other chief executives have used for outreach bonding and socializing to ease everyday political cooperation and deals.

It took Obama 18 months, for instance, to invite the Senate opposition leader for an Oval Office coffee, a simple social gesture that most presidents accomplish their first week in office. Intentionally or not, even one of Obama’s favorite public postures (see White House photo above) gives off a sense of aloofness or arrogance. Watch for this gaze also as he reads the teleprompter Tuesday evening.

But now in one of a growing number of election year interviews, Obama reveals that he has figured out the real reason the American public sees him as cold, aloof and distant.

It’s the media’s fault.

Obama threw the entire Washington press corps under the bus. He was talking with a sympathetic Fareed Zakaria of Time in the Oval Office the other day.

In answer to a question, Obama said he’d forged close working relationships with world leaders such as Germany’s Angela Merkel, Britain’s David Cameron and India’s Singh. Speaking of himself in the third person, Obama predicted they would each say:

“We have a lot of trust and confidence in the President. We believe what he says. We believe that he’ll follow through on his commitments. We think he’s paying attention to our concerns and our interests. And that’s part of the reason we’ve been able to forge these close working relationships and gotten a whole bunch of stuff done.”

Zakaria then interjected: ”You just can’t do it with John Boehner.”

And Obama replied:

“You know, the truth is, actually, when it comes to Congress, the issue is not personal relationships. My suspicion is that this whole critique has to do with the fact that I don’t go to a lot of Washington parties.

“And as a consequence, the Washington press corps maybe just doesn’t feel like I’m in the mix enough with them, and they figure, well, if I’m not spending time with them, I must be cold and aloof.”

Obama claimed he and his wife “don’t do the social scene” because they are busy with their two daughters.

On Thursday, for example, Obama began the day with office work, then flew two hours south for a 13-minute speech at Disney World. Then he flew two hours back north to New York City for speeches at four Manhattan political fundraisers, including a show at the Apollo and a party at Spike Lee’s place.

After another hour flight on Air Force One and 10 minutes in a Marine helicopter, the president returned to the White House shortly before 1 a.m. Friday.

But he’s not an aloof, aristocratic dictator-wanna be.

And the liberal media that is slobbering all over…It’s their fault.

They need to do a better job of slobbering?

Not possible.

Nope. It just has to be every being in the universe’s fault except his. Period.

Except no substitutions.

And everyone will be thrown under the bus to save his Majesty’s Ego.

And the proper response is “Thank you, Master. You are too kind”.

And another interesting tidbit, when His Emperorship is giving his canned Ra-Ra Campaign Speech full of lofty rhetoric he absolutely does not mean and lowdown dirty politics that does mean it will be Tuesday January 24, 2012.

1000 Days since the US Senate (and thus the US Government) has passed a budget (which is the Republicans fault for passing a budget the Democrats didn’t like 3 years ago!).

He will likely propose another budget that will get voted down 96-0 like the last one because it’s all symbolism.

The Republicans are to blame for every thing. And they are too busy beating the crap out of each other to notice.

If your Frappucino machine spills your coffee all over the counter that’s the fault of the Manufacturer which is some faceless corporate intentity that supports the Republican Party so it’s their fault!

The Tea party are a bunch crazed whackos!

And then everyone else is to be blame because he’s black.

No wonder survivalists are on the rise with going on.

His people say the Democrat has some new ideas on how to increase tourism to Florida and probably the entire 57 states. Naturally, this requires another Obama speech.

And what better place for a campaigning president to go lecture needlessly on improving tourism than the iconic institution that figured it all out decades ago, Walt Disney Resorts? 

But here’s the problem with Obama going to Disney’s Main Street: They have to halt all tourism there for him to be seen encouraging more tourism, close the whole place down to tourists for much of the day while he’s there and before. Even Disney employees are being barred.

So, Main Street won’t look anything like the photo above. And the thousands of existing tourists who expected to spend a valuable vacation day strolling the old-fashioned shops for fudge and Mickey ears, riding the steam-powered cars and horse-drawn streetcars and getting a photo with the real Snow White today are just plum out of luck, like Grumpy.

This isn’t the first time Obama’s message has messed with the mechanics. A while back he flew about two hours to Columbus, Ohio for a 10-minute speech celebrating stimulus jobs at a construction site where workers had to take a day off without pay because the president decided to come mark their employment in front of cameras.

Does Obama, after all his lagging economic recovery, really want today’s political optics to be this oblivious president himself shutting down businesses all along any Main Street so that the Real Good Talker can read from a teleprompter at yet another hand-picked crowd for the cameras? Seriously?

Later, after the president’s entourage and motorcade depart the wonderful world of Disney following their private photo op visit, they’ll likely re-open the magical street to the tourists he was talking about getting more of. After how much lost business?

But Obama leaving Main Street is bad news for Broadway.

After shutting down Disney’s Main Street, President Obama is heading to New York City this afternoon to paralyze Manhattan traffic again. That’s because the Obama 2012 campaign has him scheduled for not one, not two, not three, but four campaign fundraisers in one evening.

Hopefully, the well-heeled 1% can listen as fast as he talks.

A common question I ask the “soak the rich” crowd (which usually gets an angry response): “Have you gotten your $38,500 “middle class warrior” autograph yet?”

He is a man of the people. He hates rich people. He hates Corporate America.

But they love him anyways and give him millions of dollars to continue bashing their heads in.

Why?

As I said yesterday, Zombies don’t understand logic or reason. They sure as hell don’t care.

Create an entirely new narrative. Push an entirely new issue. Change the subject from your record and your ideology, from massive debt and overreaching government, to fairness and inequality. Make the election a referendum on which party really cares about you, which party will stand up to the greedy rich who have pillaged the 99 percent and robbed the middle class of hope.

This charge, too, is straightforward: The Republicans serve as the protectors and enablers of the plutocrats, the exploiters who have profited while America suffers. They put party over nation, fat-cat donors over people, political power over everything.

It’s all rather uncomplicated, capturing nicely the Manichaean core of the Occupy movement — blame the rich, then soak them. But the real beauty of this strategy is its adaptability. While its first target was the do-nothing protect-the-rich Congress, it is perfectly tailored to fit the liabilities of Republican front-runner Mitt Romney — plutocrat, capitalist, 1 percenter.

Obama rolled out this class-war counter-narrative in his December 6 “Teddy Roosevelt” speech and hasn’t governed a day since. Every action, every proposal, every “we can’t wait” circumvention of the Constitution — such as recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess — is designed to fit this re-election narrative.

Hence: Where does Obama ostentatiously introduce the recess-appointed head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? At a rally in swing-state Ohio, a stage prop for Obama to declare himself tribune of the little guy, scourge of the big banks and their soulless Republican guardians.

Now, economic inequality is an important issue, but the idea that it is the cause of America’s current economic troubles is absurd. Yet, in a stroke, the Republicans have succeeded in turning a Democratic talking point — a last-ditch attempt to salvage re-election by distracting from their record — into a central focus of the nation’s political discourse.

How quickly has the zeitgeist changed? Wednesday, the Republican House reconvened to reject Obama’s planned $1.2 trillion debt-ceiling increase. (Lacking Senate concurrence, the debt ceiling will be raised nonetheless.) No one noticed. It made page A16 of the New York Times. All eyes are on South Carolina and Romney’s taxes.

This is no mainstream-media conspiracy. This is the GOP maneuvering itself right onto Obama terrain.

The president is a very smart man. But if he wins in November, that won’t be the reason. It will be luck. He could not have chosen more self-destructive adversaries. (Charles Krauthammer)

As always, Charles, I agree.

What’s Worse than a Zombie Hoard coming to get you?

Your “protectors” giving you to them willingly because they are too busy beating the crap out of each other to “protect” you or even care if you live or die.

Thy Ego Runneth Over.

For 2012 I have revised this analysis.

They are just a zombie hoard.

Remorseless. Merciless. Incapable of shame, morals or ethics.

They want want what they want when they want it and because they want it and will do anything to get it. Relentlessly.

And what they want is YOU. You to be either converted or cowtowed to their every whim. To do whatever they want when they want it.

Evidence John King, the CNN Liberal Moderator of the South Carolina Debate. He opens the debate with a salicious question to Gingrinch about his “open marriage” and Gingrinch blows him to bits for it and the crowd goes wild.

He did this to prove his “courage” to stand up to the evil “right wingers” and puff out his chest that he was “journalist” and was going to bravely confront the issue. Meanwhile, anything remotely damaging to President Obama is ignored with great speed and spin.

Rush Limbaugh (who I rarely get a chance to listen to because of my work schedule): Now, let me tell you one thing here, folks: You cannot shame the mainstream media. If any of you are thinking that the media learned a lesson — if any of you believe that the media finally had it handed to ‘em, if you believe that the media had their eyes opened and they are fully awake now and they understand what they’re dealing with — forget it. John King is proud of what happened last night. John King is a hero in the Main Street media because he didn’t back down, because he continued to illustrate how it is that the media does really control the agenda. That was a demonstration of the power they hold over every public figure’s head, that they choose to hold like a guillotine. John King… There may even be some jealousy and envy within the journalist ranks (well, not journalists; within the Democrat Party ranks) because John King is a guy that got in Newt’s face, stared him down — and the fact that Newt told him off? It’s a badge of honor. If you are thinking that John King was embarrassed and ran away with his tail tucked between his legs and learned his lesson and it’ll never happen again? Ah, ah, ah, ah. You cannot shame the mainstream media. They are proud of this. They delight in their power to destroy candidates that they don’t like.

And they don’t like anyone who doesn’t cowtow to them.

“At the end of the day the message to every conservative who hasn’t run for office is: “You want a piece of this? You want some of this? You want Brian Ross hounding you and your ex-wife and then you want me asking you about it on national TV the next night? Come on in. We’re ready.” That’s the message from John King and CNN last night, and do not doubt me on this.”

So the alternative is to cowtow. To live in fear of the Liberal wrath.

The Food Police. The TSA. The EPA. The Justice Department. Homeland Security. The FCC.

Because if they can’t make you a zombie, they can at least make you a peasant in fear of your Masters who will not challenge them or not have the power to challenge them.

“[...]you don’t have to be Sun freakin Tzu to know that real fighting isn’t about killing or even hurting the other guy, it’s about scaring him enough to call it a day.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

They’ll just turn your children into zombies instead. 12 years of Grade School and 4 years of College is a lot of Zombie Voodoo time after all. And “getting them while they are young” is entirely within the Zombie Liberal playbook. Make them a zombie before they even know what one is and then make them as immune as possible to any anti-virus and get them addicted to their own Kool-Aid. Feed it to them constantly through the Media and the Internet.

What it does is illustrate that they can be dealt with. But you can’t beat ‘em. They’re not gonna be shamed. They’re not going to be shamed into stopping the coverage of conservatives as they do it. It’s going to continue. No matter what kind of shame you think they suffer in a contest like that — no matter how much money they lose, no matter how many of them get fired, no matter how many magazines or TV stations or newspapers get shut down — they are not gonna change. They are hard-core, leftists”

And as I have said over and over again, they are have no morals or ethics because they are governed not by logic and reason but by emotions, mostly the most basic of primitive emotions, Fear, Lust (for power), anger, jealousy, ENVY, etc. –Raw emotions.

Which is why when you engage them they sound and act like an immature 5 year old. And as we all know from childhood development the child has to develop a sense of shame by have having boundaries and limitations and consequences. And if they don’t, they will grow up to with little to no sense of shame.

They are usually called sociopaths. I can call them Liberal Zombies.

Liberals have no shame. They want what they want when they want it because they want it.

“…one of the upsides that isn’t gonna happen is the media saying, “Gosh, we’ve been so mean to these people and so unfair. You know, maybe we ought to start being fair.” That’s not going to happen.

Liberals talk about being “fair” which means you’re being unfair to them and should do what they want.

Liberals talk about “compassion” but it’s to make you feel guilty, not them, and to do what they want.

Liberals will talk about “bi-partisanship” but that just means you have to compromise your principles so they can do what they want.

“Diversity” means you’re evil and need to do what they say to repent for your sins.

They are a remorseless hoard. They want what they want when they want it and on their terms only.

Give them everything they want or they’ll cry, scream, bitch, moan, pout and lash out at you.

That is their primitive zombie hoard mentality. And they want YOU.

“Lies are neither bad nor good. Like a fire they can either keep you warm or burn you to death, depending on how they’re used.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Most people don’t believe something can happen until it already has. That’s not stupidity or weakness, that’s just human nature.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Often, a school is your best bet-perhaps not for education but certainly for protection from an undead attack.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“Remember; no matter how desperate the situation seems, time spent
thinking clearly is never time wasted.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“I think that most people would rather face the light of a real enemy than the darkness of their imagined fears.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“They feel no fear, why should you?”– Max Brooks

“The zombie may be gone, but the threat lives on.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

Get rid of one zombie, and 10 more will take it’s place. So you have to be ready to do battle constantly.

Look at 2010. The Democrats suffered the worst defeat in 80 years. Does it look like they learned ANYTHING?

No.

As a matter of fact the zombie hoard is even tighter, even more determined than ever. They want it EVEN MORE.

So if we defeat then in 2012 will they go away?

HELL NO!

They will just keep coming back like a remorseless zombie hoard until you are overwhelmed.

Which is why you will have to fight them all of your days, your kids days and their kids days until the infection is wiped out.

But like any good zombie plaque it only takes 1 to re-ignite it and spread it all over again.

And these zombies has Media and Internet outlets! (and Europe!)

“Looking back, I still can’t believe how unprofessional the news media was. So much spin, so few hard facts. All those digestible sound bites from an army of ‘experts’ all contradicting one another, all trying to seem more ‘shocking’ and ‘in-depth’ than the last one. It was all so confusing, nobody seemed to know what to do.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. “Fear,” he used to say, “fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe.” That blew me away. “Turn on the TV,” he’d say. “What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products.” Fuckin’ A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

The Democrat Party in a nutshell.

FEAR IS HOPE!

My own personal Fourth Orwellian Precept (which includes WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH).

“If you believe you can accomplish everything by “cramming” at the eleventh hour, by all means, don’t lift a finger now. But you may think twice about beginning to build your ark once it has already started raining”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“When I believe in my ability to do something, there is no such word as no.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“. . . show the other side, the one that gets people out of bed the next morning, makes them scratch and scrape and fight for their lives because someone is telling them that they’re going to be okay.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“This is the only time for high ideals because those ideals are all that we have. We aren’t just fighting for our physical survival, but for the survival of our civilization. We don’t have the luxury of old-world pillars. We don’t have a common heritage, we don’t have a millennia of history. All we have are the dreams and promises that bind us together. All we have…is what we want to be.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“…We were a shaken, broken species, driven to the edge of extinction and grateful only for tomorrow with perhaps a little less suffering than today. Was this the legacy we would leave our children, a level of anxiety and self-doubt not seen since our simian ancestors cowered in the tallest trees? What kind of world would they rebuild? Would they rebuild at all? Could they continue to progress, knowing that they would be powerless to reclaim their future? And what if that future saw another rise of the living dead? Would our descendants rise to meet them in battle, or simply crumple in meek surrender and accept what they believe to be their inevitable extinction? For this alone, we had to reclaim our planet. We had to prove to ourselves that we could do it, and leave that proof as this war’s greatest monument. The long, hard road back to humanity, or the regressive ennui of Earth’s once-proud primates. That was the choice, and it had to be made now.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War