Can’t We all Just Get Along?

“Can’t We all Just get along?” — Rodney King.

NO.  Liberals sure as hell don’t want to. They are to vastly superior for that.

In all my years, living through good times and bad, war, recession, periods of great advancement, social upheaval, the eradication of catastrophic diseases and the myriad of forward leaps and backward slides in this United States of America, I have never seen a time when our population was on such adversarial footing.

The problem is not just disagreement, that always has and always will exist, but it seems that in the past we were always able to find some common ground, with reasonable people on each side of an issue. Through civil discourse, and give and take, negotiations found a path both sides could live with.

I think our forefathers designed our government to make it possible for both sides of an issue to be heard, but look how far that concept has fallen, with congressional leaders not even allowing legislation they disagree with to even get to the floor for debate.

It seems, today, instead of engaging in two-sided conversations and attempts to understand each other, we tend to label and lump all those who disagree with us into categories we consider to be mentally inferior to us, considering anything they say to be out of step, off the wall or just plain stupid.

For instance, if you let it be known that you don’t go along with the global warming theories, you are labeled a mental Neanderthal, unable to understand the catastrophic threat to the planet, and even though, for the last century, the apologists have vacillated between devastating heat and ice age and neither have transpired, you are considered to be a flat earth type doofus.

People from both sides of the liberal-conservative issue will resort to rancid hyperbole and insulting name-calling before they even learn each other’s names, raising tempers to the point that any sensible discussion is all but impossible.

People who consider themselves our intellectual betters, those who spout ideological condescension and know beyond a shadow of a doubt what is good for us, rarely have the foresight to consider what the ramifications of their actions would be, and they consider it an insult to their superior intellect when called on it.

Then there are those who use the word “racist” to describe anyone with the nerve to criticize President Obama or believe that “all lives matter.”

If you consider an unborn fetus to be a person, especially if you are a man, you are quickly told that what a woman does with her body falls under a “woman’s right to choose.” It’s a category that supersedes all others governing natal matters, something that is none of a man’s business.

They have the power of life and death and you don’t, son shut the F*ck up, you don’t matter. 🙂

Poor me, I was unaware that a woman could become in a “family way” without the participation of a male.

The Feminists of today are sure working hard for it. Or at least just making the Male just a necessary evil or cattle.

The Republican presidential debates this year, especially the ones hosted by CNN, at least in my opinion, have been more incendiary than informative. The moderators have plumbed the ignition points and tried to pit candidate against candidate, resulting in petty arguments about who did what, when and to whom, each candidate trying to one up the other in exposing past mistakes and present faults. Meanwhile, the audience is left wondering if either one is worth voting for.

Only Hillary. To The Media SHE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE. Everyone else is just an annoyance to swat down.

I don’t really know what has lead to this attitude of prejudging someone and labeling their ideas irrelevant and contrary before even a word is said, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the nova explosion of social media could claim a lion’s share of the blame.

Being able to hide behind an avatar and say basically anything you want to without even having to reveal your true identity or whereabouts emboldens even the faint of heart to say things they would never say to someone’s face.

Plus, narcissism that just say they are right and you’re wrong and that’s it. And they are the “victims” of hate even when they are perpetrating the hate.

And you can find plenty of sides to choose and plenty of examples to follow if you’re not the kind of person who thinks for themselves. So many people fall into this trap, faithfully repeating what they have heard, never mind checking the validity. They lead the conversation with slights and insults and never even get past the verbal garbage to meaningful dialogue about whatever the subject was in the first place.

The anything with a (D) crowd. 🙂  “What difference does it make?” 🙂

It has digressed to the point that so many people are able to tell you that you’re an idiot, racist, backward-thinking, bigoted misogynist, but for the life of them, they can’t tell you why they feel that way.

But don’t challenge them, because you’re still an an idiot, racist, backward-thinking, bigoted misogynist regardless. 🙂

Preconditioned ideas, without reason, are a dangerous thing.

What do you think?

I think Liberal think with their emotions and emotions have been proven to override logic and reason.

Greed and Fear. That’s the liberal way.

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

 

It’s Worse than We Thought

It’s reality but not as we know it

John Hawkins: How radical, weird and out of touch have liberals on college campuses gotten since Obama came into office? It’s worse than you ever thought and although there is an almost unlimited number of problematic incidents to choose from, these 15 are particularly effective at getting across how bad things have become.

1) “College Students Say Remembering 9/11 Is Offensive to Muslims…. The everything-is-offensive brand of campus activism has struck a new low: Students at the University of Minnesota killed a proposed moment of silence for 9/11 victims due to concerns—insulting, childish concerns—that Muslim students would be offended.”

2) “Portland State University Offers Course Teaching How to ‘Make Whiteness Strange’…According to Portland State University Professor Rachel Sanders’ ‘White Privilege’ course, ‘whiteness’ must be dismantled if racial justice will ever be achieved. The course description states that ‘whiteness is the lynchpin of structures of racial meaning and racial inequality in the United States” and claims that ‘to preserve whiteness is to preserve racial injustice.’ Students taking the course will ‘endeavor to make whiteness strange.’ In order to make whiteness strange, the description says students must ‘interrogate whiteness as an unstable legal, political, social, and cultural construction.’”

 

3) “A University in the San Francisco Area Actually Told Students To Call 911 if They Were Offended….Administrators at a Catholic university in the San Francisco Bay Area have rescinded an official school policy instructing students to clog up the regional 9-1-1 emergency reporting system to report ‘bias incidents.’

The school is Santa Clara University, reports Campus Reform…Until this month, however, Santa Clara administrators have been instructing students to report ‘bias incidents’ using the emergency service reserved for dispatching police, firefighters and ambulances.

‘If the bias incident is in progress or just occurred: ALWAYS CALL 911 IMMEDIATELY,’ the Santa Clara website instructed students in fierce, all-capital letters.”

4) “Educators in the Volunteer State are very concerned that students might be offended by the usage of traditional pronouns like she, he, him and hers, according to a document from the University of Tennessee – Knoxville’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

…For all you folks who went to school back when there were only him and her – here’s a primer: some of the new gender neutral pronouns are ze, hir, zir, xe, xem and xyr.”

5) “A Professor at Polk State College has allegedly failed a humanities student after she refused to concede that Jesus is a ‘myth’ or that Christianity oppresses women during a series of mandatory assignments at the Florida college. According to a press release from the Liberty Counsel, a non-profit public interest law firm, Humanities Professor Lance ‘Lj’ Russum gave a student a ‘zero’ on four separate papers because the 16-year-old did not ‘conform to his personal worldviews of Marxism, Atheism, Feminism, and homosexuality.’ The law firm has called for a full, private investigation of the professor and the course curriculum.”

6) “College Codes Make ‘Color Blindness’ a Microaggression…wait, what?…. UCLA says “Color Blindness,” the idea we shouldn’t obsess over people’s race, is a microaggression. If you refuse to treat an individual as a ‘racial/cultural being,’ then you’re being aggressive.”

7) “The phrase ‘politically correct’ is now a microaggression according to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. The university’s ‘Just Words’ campaign is the work of UWM’s ‘Inclusive Excellence Center’ and aims to ‘raise awareness of microaggressions and their impact’—microaggressions like ‘politically correct’ or ‘PC.’”

 

8) ) “‘American,’ ‘illegal alien,’ ‘foreigners,’ ‘mothering,’ and ‘fathering’ are just a handful of words deemed ‘problematic’ by the University of New Hampshire’s Bias-Free Language Guide….Saying ‘American’ to reference Americans is also problematic. The guide encourages the use of the more inclusive substitutes ‘U.S. citizen’ or ‘Resident of the U.S.’ The guide also tries to get students to stop saying ‘Caucasian,’ ‘illegal Immigrant,’ ‘mother,’ ‘father’ and even the word ‘healthy’ is said to shame those who aren’t healthy.”

9) “Late yesterday afternoon, ACLJ filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brandon Jenkins against officials of The Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC) in Maryland for denying Brandon admission to its Radiation Therapy Program in part due to his expression of religious beliefs. As one faculty member explained to Brandon, on behalf of CCBC, the ‘field [of radiation therapy] is not the place for religion.’”

10) “A California school co-founded by a firebrand who once called for an ‘intifada’ in the U.S. has become the nation’s first accredited Muslim college.”

11) “According to Coastal Carolina University, sex is only consensual if both parties are completely sober and if consent is not only present, but also enthusiastic. This is a troubling standard that converts many ordinary, lawful sexual encounters into sexual assault, and it should frighten any student at CCU.”

12) “Clemson University apologizes for serving Mexican food…Students took to Twitter to call the event culturally insensitive and to question the school’s efforts to promote diversity….Clemson Dining issued an apology to ‘offended’ students after hosting a ‘Maximum Mexican’ food day.”

13) “All-Women’s College Cancels ‘Vagina Monologues’ Because it Excludes Women Without Vaginas.”

14) “The ‘Black Lives Matter’ leader who landed a teaching gig at Yale University delivered a lecture this week on the historical merits of looting as a form of protest, backing up his lesson with required reading that puts modern-day marauders on par with the patriots behind the Boston Tea Party.”

15) “Assistant Dean (at Cornell) Tells a Project Veritas Investigative Journalist that the University Would Allow an ISIS Terrorist to Hold a ‘Training Camp’ on Campus, Saying: ‘It Would be Like Bringing in a Coach to do a Training on a Sports Team.'”

 

BE AFRAID of the Crybaby Generation, Be very Afraid.

Ministry of Truth Moderates?

I still don’t understand why the GOP has the Liberal Media moderating their debates. I just don’t get it. And apparently last night it showed.

I didn’t watch it for precisely the reason that apparently happened. The Liberal Media wanted to incite a fight and make the GOP look bad.

It’s like asking the Wolf to guard the chicken coup. The Big Bad Wolf to watch the sheep.

It’s idiotic. And apparently last night it showed.

‘The questions asked so far illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media. This is not a cage match,’ Cruz said 

‘Look at the questions: “Donald Trump, are you a comic-book villain?” “Ben Carson, can you do math?” “John Kasich, will you insult two people over here?” “Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign?” “Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen?”‘ 

‘How about talking about the substantive issues that people care about?’

Cruz earned the night’s loudest single wave of applause for that outburst. 

Rubio followed him with additional slams on the U.S. political press corps after Trump demanded an end to ‘scam’ super PACs that ‘are causing some very bad decisions to be made by some very good people.’

‘The Democrats have their own super PAC,’ Rubio claimed. ‘It’s called the mainstream media.’ 

You just now figured that out? Really??

“The CNBC moderators acted less like journalists and more like Clinton campaign operatives.  What was supposed to be a serious debate about the many issues plaguing our economy was given up for one Democratic talking point after another served up by the so-call ‘moderators.’  They clearly war-gamed this thinking that a relentless series of personal attacks on the candidates would somehow drive their ratings and help Hillary Clinton.

The CNBC debate will go down in history as an encyclopedic example of liberal media bias on stage.  The audience roared its disdain for these so-called ‘journalists,’ and all of America heard it.  CNBC should be embarrassed for their pitiful display of partisan liberal media bias and apologize to the GOP candidates and the American people.”– Brent Bozell

Except by the Liberal Media itself I bet. 🙂

“Congressional Republicans, Democrats and the White House are about to strike a compromise that would raise the debt limit, prevent a government shutdown, and calm financial markets of the fear that a Washington crisis is on the way. Does your opposition to it show you’re not the kind of problem-solver that American voters want?” CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla asked the presidential candidate.

That’s questions more loaded than a drunk at bar at 2am. And more slanted than the drunk trying to walk home afterwards!

“So you don’t actually want to hear the answer, John?” Cruz called out the anchor. “You don’t want to hear the answer, you just want to incite insults.”

“You used your time on something else,” a dismissive Harwood said.

Which was: “The questions being asked shouldn’t be trying to get people to tear into each other, it should be what are your substantive solutions to people at home,” Cruz said before getting cut off.

“You’re not interested in an answer,” Cruz scolded.

No, he really wasn’t. He wanted to incite insults and violence to make you look bad. That was his job.

A half-hour after the debate ended, CNBC had turned off the TV monitors in the press filing center, effectively hiding its own post-debate broadcast coverage from the hundreds of reporters who traveled to cover the event.

Frank Luntz, the legendary Republican pollster, hosted a focus group during the debate as he has for each of the other Republican intra-party clashes.

’23 of tonight’s 26 focus group participants watched all three broadcasts.,’ he tweeted. ‘They ALL said @CNBC mod[erator]s were the worst.’

Why do you have The Ministry of Truth running your Debates? It makes NO sense!

And New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who had few spotlight moments, lit into the moderators for asking a question about whether the federal government should regulate pay-for-play fantasty football competitions online.

‘Wait a second,’ he said, firing rhetorical bullets at the CNBC anchor desk: ‘We have $19 trillion in debt, people out of work, ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us – and we’re talking about fantasy football?’ 

The Liberals don’t want you talk about those things that THEY fucked up. Why the hell would they want that?

Inanities is what they do best.

‘How about we get the government to do what they’re supposed to be doing?’ an agitated Christie shouted. ‘Enough on fantasy football. Let people play! Who cares?’ 

Moments earlier, Christie had lit into moderator John Harwood for interrupting him in mid-answer. 

‘Even in New Jersey,’ he said, ‘what you’re doing is called “rude”.’ 

The network’s chief moderator, John Harwood, found himself in trouble early for claiming Rubio’s tax plan was the subject of an aggressive takedown at the hands of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation.

He told the debate’s audience that the organization scored the Rubio plan ‘and concluded that you give nearly twice as much of a gain in after-tax income to the top one-percent as to people in the middle of the income scale.’

So the moderator is preaching partisan BS instead of asking questions, ghee, why didn’t you see that coming GOP? The Ministry of Truth is there to make you look bad and to plant questions that are slanted so far to the left they are one dimensional.

‘Since you’re a champion of Americans living paycheck to paycheck, don’t you have that backward?’ Harwood asked him.

‘No,’ Rubio corrected him. ‘You wrote a story on it. You had to go back and correct it.’

‘No, I didn’t,’ Harwood insisted.

Harwood, though, tweeted his correction on October 14. 

‘Tax Foundation says Rubio benefits lowest 10% proportionally more than top 1%,’ that tweet read. 

A “Narrative” correction? 🙂

The Ministry of Truth has an agenda. and a Narrative. But yet let them “moderate” your “debate”?

Why?

The Colorado debate began with a round of navel-gazing as CNBC host John Harwood asked the 10 assembled candidates, job-interview style, to describe their biggest weaknesses.

WTF!

Would they ask Hillary or Bernie Sanders that question? Really??

QUOTH THE DONALD: ‘I am now in Colorado looking forward to what I am sure will be a very unfair debate!’ (Daily Mail)

Ya Think! 🙂

Media critic Howard Kurtz analyzes the behavior of the CNBC debate moderators, particularly John Harwood, on FOX News’ Kelly File:

KURTZ: Megyn, this was an absolute trainwreck for CNBC. Many of the moderators’ questions seemed to be snide, hostile, condescending, borderline insulting. And let me just make clear: I’m totally in favor of tough and provocative questions. When you do that, sometimes audience doesn’t like it, sometimes the candidates don’t like it. But a lot of the questions were not drilling down on facts or record or policy. When John Harwood says Trump, comic book campaign, or do you have the moral authority to be president? When Carl Quintanilla asked Marco Rubio — who had a good night by the way — are you a young man in a hurry? Shouldn’t you wait a few years to run for president? It just validated what a lot of people think about the mainstream media — and this channel is affiliated of course with NBC News — that they cannot be fair to Republicans.

WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT THEM TO BE?

That’s the question I want answered.

DIY

A recent New York Times headline read, “Raising Taxes on the Wealthiest Would Pay for Bold Plans.” The story says that by soaking the rich “the government could raise large amounts of revenue … while still allowing them to take home a majority of their income.”

Nowhere in the story, nor in the endless promises of Democratic presidential candidates, is there a single word about whether more government spending will produce the promised outcomes. We are to take this on faith, despite past performance being a good indicator of future results. Also absent is any expectation that individuals have more power than government to direct and improve their lives.

The Government in 2015 has taken in more tax money than any time in American History…but they still run a massive deficit…things have gotten worse not better.

That’s because to the left, government is much like a deity to be worshipped rather than a servant of the people. If you don’t worship at the leftist shrine, you’re labeled unsympathetic toward the poor. Republicans should respond: “We care about the poor, but unlike you, who have spent over a trillion dollars fighting poverty with little to show for it, we want the poor to become independent of government.”

What keeps most of the poor locked in poverty is propaganda from the left, which tells them they cannot succeed without government assistance, which, in turn, leads them to a series of bad choices and a state of perpetual victimhood. Look at America’s big cities, dominated by Democrats, to see how that’s working. Once we talked about people who overcame difficult circumstances; now we just sing about overcoming … someday.

 

Charles Koch and his brother David are reviled by the left because they contribute large amounts of money to Republicans. Never mind that George Soros does the same for Democrats. The normally reclusive Charles is doing interviews to promote his new book “Good Profit: How Creating Value for Others Built One of the World’s Most Successful Companies.”

Speaking with Megyn Kelly on the Fox News Channel, Charles read a letter his father sent him about his inheritance: “If you choose to let this money destroy your initiative and independence, then it will be a curse to you and my action in giving it to you will have been a mistake. I shall regret very much to have you miss the glorious feeling of accomplishment. Remember that often adversity is a blessing in disguise and is certainly the greatest character-builder.”

Where are you hearing anything like that in contemporary political discourse, especially among Democrats? It’s all about free college tuition, free health care, free everything. The United States will become a giant ATM and those evil, miserly, insensitive “millionaires and billionaires” will pay for it all because it isn’t fair that they have more money than you have.

They (the anti-Democrat) are racists,bigots, homophobes, haters,misogynists, who hate children, poor people, want to destroy the environment and above all are “greedy” and “selfish” (the last two are in quotes because they are so laughable I can’t type it straight).

Even if government confiscated all of their wealth there wouldn’t be enough to pay off the $18 trillion national debt. What happens when the money runs out; when all of the wealth of the successful is exhausted and the incentive to make money disappears with it?

The Democrats will demand more.

Where will the left turn then? Who is asking these questions? Not debate moderators, who seem more interested in getting the candidates to attack each other, as though the debates were just the latest reality shows. This is the future of the United States at stake. Could we please hear some adults conversing like adults?

The Liberal Media only wants to attack the right and throw Nerf balls at the Left.

The Agenda is The Agenda and they are the superior form of life, at least according to them.

Need a plan for success, or at least independent living?

The Democrat completely endorse not having one. That’s what government is there for, for you to be coddled and manipulated like zombies.

It isn’t new. Stop turning to government as a first resource. Get married before you have children, stay married and if things get tough seek counseling. Stay in school. Don’t take drugs. Develop good character and a sound work ethic. If a good job with a future isn’t available where you live, move to a city that offers more opportunity, or start a small business.

Why be an adult when Democrats want to be your Mommy. 🙂

In the bidding war for votes, the left is preaching a message of envy, greed and entitlement. Human history proves that message doesn’t improve a life.

But as long as itn wins elections they don’t care.

The old values worked. If you’re a millennial, ask your grandparents about them, why they worked and how we lost sight of them along the way. Since these values succeeded for previous generations, why don’t we reclaim them?

Because then you’re a “greedy”, “selfish” “uncaring” bastard!

Yeah, Bastards! 🙂

 

They are Coming For You…

 

Mary Katharine Ham and I have written a new book, End of Discussion, which explores and exposes how the Left (primarily) increasingly seeks to “win” cultural and political debates by preventing them from happening. Instead, they move to delegitimize, disqualify and demonize their opponents through the impugning of motives, name-calling, and bullying — all of which is intended to raise the cost of disagreement, and to stifle open conversation. This phenomenon is born on college campuses (Chapter 5: “Speech Police Academy”), weaponized in DC, and has begun to permeate all aspects of American life (Chapter 2: “Everything’s a Thing”). Mary Katharine quasi-launched End of Discussion with Bill O’Reilly on Monday, then we appeared jointly on The Kelly File last night. Among other things, we analyzed stories illustrating how the Outrage Circus is making America less free (see the gay marriage purges in Chapter 8: “Bake Me A Cake Bigots”) and less fun (“Chapter 9: “The Uptight Citizens Brigade”):

End of Discussion is available in Hardcover, digital and audiobook editions. It’s on sale at Amazon, elsewhere online, and at retailers across America — including Barnes & Noble, Walmart, Books-A-Million, Costco, and others. By the way, I’m joining the ladies of ‘Outnumbered’ on Fox News as #OneLuckyGuy today at noon ET. Please tune in!  I’ll leave you with a link to Rare’s excerpt from our chapter on the “war on women” aspect of the Outrage Circus’ acrobatics, entitled, appropriately enough, “The Vagina Demagogues.”  Enjoy, and please buy the book!

Birthed By Liberal Educators for 12 years. Matured by Liberals at College. Then weaponized by DC politicians and then social “activists” all so the Thought Police can destroy your life if you even THINK of disagreeing with them!

Jerry Seinfield: Seinfeld says teens and college-aged kids don’t understand what it means to throw around certain politically-correct terms. “They just want to use these words: ‘That’s racist;’ ‘That’s sexist;’ ‘That’s prejudice,’” he said. “They don’t know what the f­—k they’re talking about.”

He forgot the one of the Left’s favorites: “Islamophobia”.

Leno said much the same in March:

He said: ‘College kids now are so politically correct. I mean, to the point where — I’ll give you an example, we had interns at the show, college interns.

‘Like, the last year of the show, one of the interns comes and says, “Mr. Leno, I’m getting lunch. what do you want?’ I said, ‘I don’t know, where are you going?’

‘He said, “we’re getting Mexican.” I said, “I don’t really like Mexican.” He goes, “whoa, that’s kind of racist”.’
Leno then shouts: ‘That’s not racist.’

‘No, being anti-guacamole is not racist, okay? You have no idea what racism is. That’s not racist, you idiot, you moron.’ (Hot Air)

All the guys above are white dudes, which allows liberals to say, “Hey, aren’t you a white male? I think that’s enough out of you. End of Discussion.”

Rich, White dudes! Even WORSE!

http://www.amazon.com/End-Discussion-Outrage-Industry-Manipulates/dp/0553447750

There’s a whole chapter in “End of Discussion” devoted to these battles called, “The Uptight Citizens Brigade.” We applaud Joan Rivers for her genuinely unapologetic approach to comedy. We highlight the ludicrous spectacle of the outrage industry going after the famous drinking card game, “Cards Against Humanity,” for a card that was offensive even though the entire reason for the card game’s existence and every card in it is EXPLICITLY TO OFFEND.

Go watch “The Rocky Horror Picture Show” with an audience. That is the most Politically Incorrect movie environment left on Earth.

Hint: every time Susan Sarandan’s (yes, her!) Janet says just about anything you yell “slut” at the screen. It’s so un-PC! 🙂

Their mission and their guarantee is that they WILL OFFEND everyone. Then you’ll have a good time doing it!

http://www.rockyhorror.htmlplanet.com/about.html

< Comedian Colin>Quinn believes that this PC mindset has expanded from colleges to American society as a whole in recent years. “Now people are outraged over any ‘buzzword’ that they think is offensive which has led to George Orwell version of ‘groupthink’ that demands conformity.”

Pizza anyone? 🙂

At The Spike TV Guys Choice Awards Clint Eastwood was introducing The Rock, he compared the San Andreas star to former athletes who have become actors, like “Jim Brown and Caitlyn Somebody…,”

That “somebody” was considered so “offensive” that it will be edited out of the broadcast.

Yes, just that. That’s all it took for the PC police to go nuclear!

You know what Eastwood’s guilty of? He’s guilty of trying to use Jenner as a punchline, irrespective of what the point of the joke is. And that really is a thoughtcrime first-degree, bordering on blasphemy, in the current media climate.

That’s it.

Enjoy that freedom of thought because the Left is gunning for you, RIGHT NOW!.

You racist, homophobic, islamophobic, hater you!

You will comply. You will conform. You will do as you are told and think only thoughts we have approved of.

END OF DISCUSSION. 🙂

Word Games

“Like most political topics [in the US] the debate is relatively non-existent.  Once you identify pro or con on the subject, the other side assumes they know your feelings and arguments and immediately begins either attempting to convert you or demonize you for your beliefs.”

This struck a cord with me because of how true I feel it is. Why is this? What is a society that does debate more productively? What would you like to see happen and might it happen? Any thoughts are welcome.

My definition of debate; respectful conversation that might lead one or both sides to see the full scope of an issue and agree on a best choice in the matter. -Timothy A Walker

Advocacy is the norm.  Unlike debate, advocacy can be effective sans facts.  Good advocacy works on our reason, emotion and the character of everyone involved is a consideration too.

Unlike debate, advocacy shares a lot of common ground with propaganda and is very easily abused.

There has been a consistent reduction of clarity in news, linked to misinformation, that favors advocacy forms of dialog.  Infotainment is advocacy.

The lack of clarity norms renders debate lofty,inaccessible and boring essentially.

We need advocacy and we need debate.  I believe the real answer to this is a sharp increase in clarity norms, which would favor good advocacy and frame it as the gateway to debate instead of being the gateway to misinformation and polarization is most often is now.

Clarity is a non partisan common interest we all should have.—Doug Dingus

In the 1980s there was a TV show called “Not Necessarily The News” on HBO that featured something called “sniglets.” (Hosted by Bob Saget). Although it’s probably a hate-crime to say the word “sniglet” out loud now and will get you accused of homophone-a-phobia, a sniglet is a word that should appear in the dictionary but doesn’t. Sniglets have all but disappeared, but the dictionary itself might as well be thrown out too. Words that had unambiguous meanings for decades or even centuries have seen those definitions changed by progressives in the name of political correctness.

To make sure you are up to date on which words and phrases are now permissible, I’ve assembled a few here that have seen their definitions change so you don’t get accused of being an “Ist-a-phobe” at the water cooler come Monday.

Thug: noun.
Old meaning: a violent criminal.
New meaning: a racial slur; the same as the “n-word.”
Source: Tonight Show band leader Questlove in a tweet this week and pretty much everyone on MSNBC.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: upriser, revolutionary, victim, misguided young people, Democratic Party voter.
Acceptable uses: When referencing the bad guys in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and when talking about white hockey players Food Stamps: noun.
Old meaning: a small document that is given by the government to poor people and that can be used to buy food.
New meaning: a racial slur; “code” for black people.
Source: Democrats in the 2012 election deemed pointing out the fact there are more people on food stamps under President Obama than at any point in American history to be “racial code.” It being a fact was deemed irrelevant.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: economically challenged, differently fed, Democratic Party voter.
Acceptable uses: When calling for greater funding for the program or when accusing a Republican of wanting to “gut” the program.

Budget cut: noun.
Old meaning: the act of reducing budgeted expenditures.
New meaning: a reduction in the rate of increase in spending where more money is spent than the prior year but slightly less than previously projected; draconian gutting of vital programs, particularly for poor and minority people.
Source: The Democratic Party and the mainstream media.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: There is no alternative; reducing, or even proposing a reduction in the rate of increase of government spending, is racist.
Acceptable uses: The term is not only allowed to be used when talking about spending on national defense, it is required.

Urban: adjective.
Old meaning: of or relating to cities and the people who live in them.
New meaning: racist code for “black people.”
Source: Every progressive everywhere.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: Underrepresented communities, victims.
Acceptable uses: Only when giving the full name of a country singer or talking about an awful store selling clothes for white suburban hipsters.

Progressive: adjective.
Old meaning: Political philosophy based on the belief that some people are intellectually and genetically superior to others and should, therefore, be able to exercise power over everyone else, up to and including who can live or reproduce.
New meaning: tolerant, loving, smart, caring.
Source: The Democratic Party (which also was the source of the original definition but now chooses to pretend otherwise) and pretty much everyone on MSNBC.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary None. Even though the philosophy was created by those who literally advocated for the extermination of “undesirable” people (minorities and poor, uneducated whites), people proudly call themselves progressive without consequence.

Tolerance: noun.
Old meaning: willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own.
New meaning: Conformity; the belief that the only acceptable thoughts are those that adhere to a progressive philosophy.
Source: The Democratic Party, College professors, pretty much everyone on MSNBC.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: None. There is no need to remove this word from your vocabulary, but it is important to remember it means only the new definition. Any deviation from the new meaning to the old one will be met with protests, boycotts and potential massive fines from government.

Diversity: noun.
Old meaning: the quality or state of having many different forms, types, ideas, etc.
New meaning: different colored, like-minded drones. It no longer applies to the ideas or thoughts, only skin color. This word particularly does not apply to black or Hispanic conservatives.
Source: The Democratic Party, the mainstream media and pretty much everyone on (the mostly white) MSNBC.
Suggested replacements for your vocabulary: None. You must not question this concept, only blindly accept it. To point out the hypocrisy of rich, white liberal progressives living in gated communities extolling the virtues of diversity is a near hate-crime.
I hope this small but important list helps you navigate our brave new world. Should you find yourself violating these suggestions by saying something like, “Well, progressive Democrats and their policies have pretty much had unfettered reign in the most violent and economically depressed areas of the country for generations and things have only gotten worse,” the only hope for redemption is a donation to a progressive organization that sells “indulgences.”

The most popular indulgence sellers are the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation and Al Sharpton’s National Action Network. Donations are tax deducible and you can rest assured that your money will be put to good use, not wasted on frivolities like accurate record keeping or paying taxes. (Derek Hunter)

Don’t do as They do, do as they say. OR ELSE!

The Tolerance Game

 This may not be as flashy as Hillary or Obama, but it still about Freedom and the intolerance of The Left that will come for you some day if you don’t do something about it. (anyone else find the banners ironic?) 🙂

Nothing says tolerance than being called the C-word for supporting religious freedom, or having a student-led petition started to have your banner removed at your respective school. That’s exactly what happened to Lindsey Kolb, a senior student at Missouri State University in Springfield, after she voiced her opinions in support of religious freedom a few weeks ago. At the time, the city was debating whether to add sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to its nondiscrimination statutes.  Some, like Lindsey, felt the religious exemption wasn’t specific enough.

Yet, before we get into the liberal intolerance that was thrown at Kolb, let’s discuss a little more about the law’s aspects.

As the Springfield News-Leader reported, anyone found guilty of violating the ordinance would be served with a 180-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine, though the city’s attorney said virtually all of these infractions would only result in a financial penalty. As for existing law, local columnists have come to the same scenario in question: bathrooms:

One thing that does change is that a business owner would not be able to preemptively kick someone out because the owner believes that person is a threat. As it stands now, if a business owner believes a person is in the “wrong” bathroom, the owner would have the right to tell the person to leave the business. With sexual orientation and gender identity protections in place, the person who is asked to leave would have the recourse to file a complaint with the Mayor’s Commission on Human Rights.

As for the religious exemption [emphasis mine]:

One ordinance suggested by the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Task Force included a broad religious exemption. Basically, any business owner could deny service if he or she did so on religious terms. However, the version of the ordinance the city adopted only exempts strictly religious organizations.For example, a church can deny employment to whomever it chooses, for any reason. A religious person, who owns a call center, shoe store, or any other such business, cannot.

And therein lies the controversy; a private business owner who is deeply religious would be forced to go against his own faith and beliefs. It’s the baker and the gay wedding cake scenario.

Kolb wrote an op-ed in the Standard on March 31, one week before the scheduled vote on the bill–in response to a satire piece that mocked Christians. Yet, it’s her final paragraph that struck at heart of the battles now raging over religious freedom laws:

My last point is to call for the entire community to engage in civil discourse regarding this topic. I ask you to consider both sides, read the bill, talk to your friends, talk to your family, do some research and come up with your own decision concerning your vote. Last week in The Standard, the attempt at making an argument for one side attempted to cease the conversation by using name-calling, making light of valuable political conversation and attacking one community with hopes that it will relieve tension on another community. This is not only unprofessional, unproductive and immature, but it is not held to the standards that our university has poured into our lives. Missouri State University is dedicated both to public affairs and creating educated persons. Let’s start having conversations now about important issues rather than turning to insulting tactics.

Trying to talk rational sense to The radical Left, now that’s just crazy!

On April 7, the ordinance failed by a narrow margin.* Nevertheless, the “Get Kolb” campaign was up and running.

They needed to lynch someone for losing. It couldn’t be them. Someone’s scalp had to pay for this injustice!!

Kolb said that the vitriol aimed at her included people telling her that she should commit suicide, along with other attacks laced with profanity and misogynist language (don’t be a cunt).

Kolb is former president of MSU’s College Republicans chapter and the State Chairwoman for the Missouri Federation of College Republicans, as well as a university ambassador, which explains one petition urging the school to remove her banner hanging on Carrington Hall–the main administrative building on campus.

From the petition’s description on Change.org, it says it doesn’t aim to make Kolb a “scapegoat,” (more like sacrificial goat to the God of  Progressive Liberalism) though it also says its impetus was grounded in “the things Lindsey has said in the past.” It’s an ideological mess [emphasis mine]:

My goal here is not to make Lindsey a scapegoat for the way the vote turned out yesterday [April 7] or attack her religious rights or right to free speech. The goal is to create dialogue that induces change here on campus and in our city. Yes, last night’s vote was disappointing, but the petition was not made because of the way things turned out, it was made because of the things Lindsey has said in the past that include the comments she made last night. I respect Lindsey’s right to say what she believes just as much as I ask anyone to respect my right to voice my opinion, however when one is the representative for something larger than themselves, it is important that their opinions and values align with those of the entity they represent. <Ours only> Missouri State claims to value its Public Affairs mission pillars of Ethical Leadership, Cultural Competence, and Community Engagement and each year chooses one pillar to highlight. This year, the chosen pillar is Ethical Leadership. In GEP classes, students are assigned projects to define and identify ethical leaders in our world. At SOAR, new students do group activities that represent our Public Affairs mission and one that I specifically remember is the one in regards to Ethical Leadership. My SOAR [Student Orientation, Advisement and Registration] group found that an ethical leader is one who has their own set of values but can recognize when the greater good requires them to set those values aside.…

Whenever Lindsey was approached in 2013 to be on the banner on Missouri State’s most recognizable building, she agreed. Through that agreement she also vowed to live our Public Affairs mission and be culturally competent, engage in her community, and be an ethical leader. For Missouri State to continue to endorse her discriminatory views is effectively showing that they do not in fact value ethical leadership. The goal of the petition is not to attack free speech or victimize Lindsey. The goal is to show that there are consequences to one’s speech whenever it is inflammatory and supports discrimination against those who the speaker represents.

…

Lindsey is not to blame for the loss for the LGBT+ community last night, but signing the petition can help change our campus and our city for the better. (which means we are going to sacrifice HER anyways for our political needs)

This classic American progressivism; we support free speech, just our version of free speech. At least they note that Kolb isn’t to blame for the failure of the ordinance since she has zero skin in the political game in Springfield.

“Personally, I don’t vote in Springfield. I vote in my home district. I advocated for the repeal because I believe in religious freedom. I believe that churches, businesses, and organizations, and people with religious convictions should be able to decide whom they serve,” she said.

Well, she’s in the majority. Overall, while Americans generally support gay marriage rights, a AP/GFK poll found that 57 percent think that a wedding-related business should be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple if it violates their religious beliefs.

In a poll conducted by Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research on behalf of the Family Research Council, they found 81 percent of Americans believed government “should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses.”

The Left and their false sense of Sanctimony and “outrage” would never TOLERATE such a thing. 🙂

Ironic is it not?

Witch Hunt

The sanctimoniously outraged Liberals are on the march AGAIN. Out to hang people in the name of “tolerance”! (the irony of that is lost on them in the fog of their own hatred and mindless zealotry). How dare you oppose us! bAnd the truth doesn’t matter because they are red-eyed bull (ies) who just want to steamroll over all the “haters” (aka people who have a different opinion than the almighty righteous leftist mafia!). After all, you have no choice but to agree with them or else, that’s the American (Left) Way. 🙂

Earlier this week, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed into law a religious freedom bill that some think is discriminatory, and could lead to businesses being allowed to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers.  The governor soon found himself under siege by nearly 3,000 angry protestors, according to The Hill. The publication also reported businesses voicing their opposition to the measure, with Apple CEO Tim Cook tweeting his “disgust” over law. Yelp proposed that businesses boycott the state, and said it had cancelled all of its travel there. Angie’s List’s CEO said he plans to cancel a $40 million expansion to their headquarters in Indianapolis, cannibalizing 1,000 jobs over five yeas in the Eastside neighborhood. Oh, and Miley Cyrus called Gov. Pence an “a**hole,” which perfectly captures the hyper- emotionalism exuded by the left that often lends to them taking positions that seek to kill the debate.

Let’s go through the some of the facts about this bill. For starters, 40 percent of states have similar laws (via WaPo):

Indiana is actually soon to be just one of 20 states with a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Here are those states, in dark teal:  (and they are all bigots!) 🙂
Forty percent of U.S. states have something similar to Indiana, as does the federal government.

The Washington Post also mentioned that President Bill Clinton signed into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act … in 1993. It was introduced in the House of Representatives by then-Congressman Chuck Schumer (D-NY). By a voice vote, it passed the House, then worked its way to the Senate, where members voted 97-3 in favor of the law. I’m going to bet that these protestors won’t be showing up at Bill Clinton’s residence, or any of the members of the U.S. Senate–current and former–who voted in favor of the bill, to voice their outrage.

This ignorance of the law was exuded during the Hobby Lobby case last summer. Also, it’s worth noting (again) that RFRA isn’t a “blank check” to discriminate.

Here’s RFRA:

(a) IN GENERAL- Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).(b) EXCEPTION- Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person–

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Here’s Indiana’s law:

Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Looping back to Hobby Lobby, Bloomberg’s Megan McArdle had a great post noting that there’s–you know–a process to determine if one’s religious beliefs are genuine [emphasis mine]:

1) What can stop a company from arguing that it is against the owner’s sincere religious beliefs to pay workers a minimum wage?The Religious Freedom Restoration Act is not a blank check to religious groups to do what they want. The law says that the religious belief must be sincerely held, and also that the government can burden the exercise of that belief if it has a compelling state interest that cannot easily be achieved in any other way. That’s why no one has successfully started the Church of Not Paying Any Taxes, though people have been trying that dodge for years.

2) How can we tell if a belief is sincere?

Hobby Lobby closes its stores on Sundays and otherwise demonstrates a pretty deep commitment to fairly stringent Christian values, of which opposition to abortifacients is often a part. There will always be some gray area, of course, that allows people to claim special treatment for spurious beliefs, but the government has done a fair job over the decades of sorting out genuine beliefs from obvious attempts to dodge the law. Hobby Lobby seems to fall pretty squarely within the “sincere belief” camp.

To further quell the left’s hysteria over this law, here is a pro-gay rights law professor, Daniel O. Conkle, writing for USA Today on why Indiana needs RFRA [emphasis mine]:

I am a supporter of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. But as an informed legal scholar, I also support the proposed Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). How can this be?…

The bill would establish a general legal standard, the “compelling interest” test, for evaluating laws and governmental practices that impose substantial burdens on the exercise of religion. This same test already governs federal law under the federal RFRA, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. And some 30 states have adopted the same standard, either under state-law RFRAs or as a matter of state constitutional law.

Applying this test, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that a Muslim prisoner was free to practice his faith by wearing a half-inch beard that posed no risk to prison security. Likewise, in a 2012 decision, a court ruled that the Pennsylvania RFRA protected the outreach ministry of a group of Philadelphia churches, ruling that the city could not bar them from feeding homeless individuals in the city parks.

If the Indiana RFRA is adopted, this same general approach will govern religious freedom claims of all sorts, thus protecting religious believers of all faiths by granting them precisely the same consideration.

But granting religious believers legal consideration does not mean that their religious objections will always be upheld.

…

In any event, most religious freedom claims have nothing to do with same-sex marriage or discrimination. The proposed Indiana RFRA would provide valuable guidance to Indiana courts, directing them to balance religious freedom against competing interests under the same legal standard that applies throughout most of the land. It is anything but a “license to discriminate,” and it should not be mischaracterized or dismissed on that basis.

Keep in mind; Conkle also noted that the courts, even in states with RFRA statutes, have rejected recent claims of religious exemptions amongst marriage-related businesses. But also said that those who disagree with gay marriage should have their day in court as well.

The position that wedding-related businesses having the right to refuse service to gay and lesbian customers based on religious grounds is popular. While a plurality of Americans support gay marriage, they also support religious protections for those who disagree as the Associated Press-Gfk poll showed in February. Though, if you head over to Gallup, you’ll find that a solid majority support gay marriage.

Then again, the former finding is not surprising; it’s the 57 percent figure in AP’s poll that show Americans support gay marital rights, but also religious freedom.

In short, this faux outrage is grounded with folks who didn’t get the memo. Actually, it’s probably folks who refuse to read the memo. A Democrat proposed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and it was signed into law by a Democratic president. It’s a 22-year old law! Forty percent of states have RFRA tests within their state laws, and it’s not a “blank check” to discriminate given that there is a high threshold in determining genuine religious beliefs, satisfying a compelling government interest, and making sure the latter is honored in the least intrusive way possible. 

Nevertheless, this silliness has forced Gov. Pence to discuss a “clarification” bill with legislators over the weekend.

It’s not necessary.

UPDATE: Seattle Mayor bans municipal workers from traveling to Indiana on city funds. Yet, it appears his state has RFRA statutes 

UPDATE: Then-State Senator Barack Obama voted for RFRA in Illinois, which the White House did not refute (via Weekly Standard):

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act was signed into federal law by President Bill Clinton more than 20 years ago, and it lays out a framework for ensuring that a very high level of scrutiny is given any time government action impinges on the religious liberty of any American,” Pence said. “After last year’s Hobby Lobby case, Indiana properly brought the same version that then-state senator Barack Obama voted for in Illinois before our legislature.”This Week Host George Stephanoplous later asked White House press secretary Josh Earnest to respond to Pence’s claim: “Josh, you just heard the governor say right there this is the same law, he says, that Barack Obama voted for as a state senator back in Illinois.”

Earnest didn’t dispute the Indiana governor’s statement. “Look, if you have to go back two decades to try to justify something that you’re doing today, it may raise some question about the wisdom of what you’re doing,” Earnest said.

UPDATE: Via Allahpundit: Here’s the video of Clinton signing RFRA in 1993.

UPDATE: Via HRC: Illinois has a public accommodation law that prohibits discrimination by sexual orientation from private businesses and government entities “that provide services to the general public.”  Yet, only 21 states have such accommodations. Again, why is this bill controversial? If this law permits somehow permitted a “blank check” on discrimination, which it does not, it would’ve happened in Indiana and elsewhere long ago.

But the truth doesn’t matter to Liberals, especially “morally outraged” liberals who have no capacity for rational thought and it’s all out nuclear war on anyone who stands in the way of their fight for “tolerance” 🙂

What Difference Does it Make?

I’m Back. I’m tired. I got in at 2am in the morning.

Talk about admirable aspirations, ignore the nation’s economic and fiscal realities, keep everyone fighting amongst themselves over anything at hand while calmly deploring all the disputes, rancor and chaos that this president has helped to engineer.

Such stunning cynicism has actually worked pretty well for the Real Good Talker this past year.

Never mind stratospheric millions of jobless, an amazingly ineffective economic stimulus program, historic highs in poverty rates, a national debt larger than a national economy and nearly 50 million people collecting food stamps tossed out like free candy from a parade float.

Instead, talk about educating every single American child for their own fair shot at some kind of idealized future, delivering better healthcare to millions more people for less money with no additional doctors and protecting ill-defined middle-class Americans from someone doing something to them.

None of it will ever come to pass on his grand rhetorical scale. But the community organizer doesn’t care. By the time enough figure it out, Obama will be back in the Pacific golfing with Choom Gang buddies while another ghostwriter drafts the next autobiography.

Now that he’s got Washington and Republicans fighting over how to address his briefly postponed sequester cuts and a national debt that grows by $2.8 million every single minute of every single day, Obama this morning launches his next divisive distraction: More controls on firearms.

While the media has been full of stories of booming post-election gun sales, less attention has been focused on another fact: As the estimated count of non-military U.S. firearms now exceeds 310 million, the annual number of gun homicides has declined strikingly: From more than 17,000 in 1993 to 9,900 in 2011.

No one believes that anything Washington orders will stop the awful occasional outbreaks by a few twisted souls among the more than 315 million Americans. But it’s admirable to try, isn’t it? It sounds pretty good, doesn’t it? Can you prove it won’t work?

“My starting point is not to worry about the politics,” Obama said with a straight face. “My starting point is to focus on what makes sense, what works, what should we be doing to make sure that our children are safe and that we’re reducing the incidents of gun violence.”

And fortuitously for Obama and his mob from Chicago, the nation’s newest gun homicide capital, a renewed emotional if useless, constitutional debate over bearing arms will keep folks from discussing other issues potentially more embarrassing to this White House. (IBD)

BENGHAZI

After explaining to Gregory that there are still a number of unanswered questions regarding Benghazi, McCain concludes by saying there’ s been a massive cover-up. Gregory is confused: “A massive cover-up of what?”

You ought to know Mr. Gregory, oh that’s right, you’re too busy trying to bury it and make it a non-story… 🙂

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m asking you, do you care– I– I’m– I’m asking you, do you care whether four Americans died? Or do you– the reasons for that? And– and shouldn’t pe– people be held accountable for the fact that four Americans died–

DAVID GREGORY: Well, what you said was the cover-up–

(OVERTALK)

DAVID GREGORY: A cover-up of what?

JOHN MCCAIN: Of the information– concerning the deaths of four brave Americans. The information has not been forthcoming. You can obviously believe that it has. I know that it hasn’t. And I’ll be glad to send you a list of the questions that have not been answered, including what did the president do and who did he talk to the night of the attack on Benghazi?

And why was it? Why was it that we– that the f– the people who were evacuated from the– from the consulate the next day were not interviewed the next day. And then they would’ve known that it was not a spontaneous demonstration. Why did the president for two weeks, for two weeks during the heat of the campaign continue to say he didn’t know whether it was a terrorist attack or not?

Is it because it interfered with the line of Al Qaeda has decimated? And everything’s fine in that– in that part of the world? Maybe. We don’t know. But we need the answers. Then we’ll reach conclusions. But we have not received the answers. And that’s a fact.

But hey, what difference at this point does it make, right?  (Newsbusters)

 

Less is More

Hilariously disingenuous Quote of 2013 so far, Our Dear Leader:

“We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate,” Obama said from atop the Capitol steps overlooking the National Mall.

Remind of the Tucson “Civility” Speech a year ago:

“But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.”

Too Bad he doesn’t mean a word of it and his minions will not heed these word for even a microsecond and he knows that. This stuff is for the consumption of the stupid, ill-informed, I-don’t-wanna-know voter and for the Liberal media for fawn over.

In short, it’s for the stupid and uniformed “peasant” masses and your King is just giving a lofty speech of  Sound and Fury signifying nothing!

And The Ministry of Truth is doing it’s job and be a sycophant and fawn all over his gloriousness.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” the president said.

But the threat posed by his over-the-top spending. Let’s not be to be too hasty. Let’s go slow. Let’s do next to nothing.

It’s not on the Agenda so it really doesn’t matter.

He said America must not rest until “all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm.”

Santa Claus is coming to town and the distractions are looking good for him.

We are from the Government and we are here to help you… 🙂

Officially, some 23 million people don’t have regular work. While official unemployment has dipped below 8%, the real unemployment rate — the one that counts discouraged workers and those who’d like full-time jobs but can’t find one — is 14.4%. (Which is actually higher than 4 years ago!!)

Yes, we know, this is a tired litany. And yet, have we become as a people so inured to Obama’s failure that we no longer take note of it?

After all, if you complain about it your just a hateful, divisive, ne’er-do-well who just wants everything to fail. You have no hope. Obama is your only hope!

FEAR IS HOPE!

Worse, do we just do nothing, letting Obama’s ruinous Keynesian experiments take their course?

The Liberal Media will bash into the ground worse than The Incredible Hulk jumping up and down on your carcass if you don’t play along.

During Obama’s first weeks in office in early 2009, hopes were high. At the time, he promised that, if Congress passed his $830 billion stimulus right away, by December of 2012 unemployment would be 5.2%.

Well, guess what: it’s 7.8%. (and that’s what it was 4 years ago at this time!)

That’s failure enough. But it’s far worse than even that. Today, we are still 4 million jobs below the pre-recession peak of employment. Just 460,000 jobs total have been created during Obama’s tenure.

But the Liberal will tell you it’s millions because of their fuzzy, dishonest partisan Math “skills”. But how do you create millions of jobs but still have the same unemployment rate (U3) but a higher U6??

They won’t answer that. You’re not supposed to ask that.

At the current rate of 151,000 new jobs a month with about 120,000 new entrants into the workforce each month, it would take, oh, until about 2024 just to get back to the our pre-recession peak in employment.

Today, the average time spent unemployed by those who lose jobs is 39.7 weeks — near its highest since the Great Depression. Some 4.8 million Americans are long-term unemployed, a national disgrace. Meanwhile, unemployment rates for youths and minorities are stuck at double-digit levels.

Beneath all these depressing statistics is a hard fact: The Obama economy has horribly underperformed.

But you’ll never here that from the Ministry of Truth or Obama’s Minions. They have done an ‘outstanding’ job against the odds considering how much evil they have had to fight because of George W. Bush! And those evil “obstructionist” Republicans who just want to kiss the rich and kill the poor. And let’s not even talk about the violent domestic terrorists, The Tea Party!! Pure abominations they all are.

Just have to give them more time. GWB’s evil is ever present and ever-growing to them.

The long-term GDP growth average for the U.S. is about 2.5% annually. Under Obama, growth has averaged about 1.6%. All told, therefore, our our GDP today is 9% less, or $1.4 trillion less, than it should be. That’s what the Obama economy has cost you.

And the service on the debt now is $1.4 Trillion a year. That’s one hell of a minimum credit card payment!

Obama has spent four years not passing budgets, running up trillion-dollar deficits, piling on $6 trillion in debt, spending $800 billion on phony “stimulus,” while hitting businesses large and small with an estimated $518 billion in new regulations.

And that doesn’t include the coming hit from new taxes contained in the fiscal cliff deal and ObamaCare that will start hitting entrepreneurs and small businesses this year. In short, don’t expect boom times. (IBD)

Expect Less. He’ll meet your expectations and everyone will be happy.

Now that’s an America every one can get behind.

Sounds Great. Less Results!

Don’t look to the Sky, Look at your Feet!

Strive for Less and you’ll succeed!!

Now that’s America 2013! Be Loud and Proud! 🙂

 

 

It was Bush’s Fault! Damn Republicans…

The Zombie Hoard

Last year I theorized that Liberals were Bees. Mindless angry drones that stung anything in sight.

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

Gotcha!

President Barack Obama is expected to seek a new base tax rate for the wealthy to ensure that millionaires pay at least at the same percentage as middle income taxpayers. (The fact that they more taxes period doesn’t matter-class warfare does!)

A White House official said the proposal would be included in the president’s proposal for long term deficit reduction that he will announce Monday. The official spoke anonymously because the plan has not been officially announced.

Obama is going to call it the “Buffett Rule” for Warren Buffett, the billionaire investor who has complained that rich people like him pay a smaller share of their income in federal taxes than middle-class taxpayers.

Buffett wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece last month that he and his rich friends “have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress.”

Yeah, and who made them “friendly” by giving them lots of money for favors, Hmmm?

Something smells very fishy…

The measure would be in addition to $447 billion in new tax revenue that Obama is seeking to pay for his short-term spending and tax cutting plan to jump start the economy.

Long term spending cuts, anyone? Nope. Just enough to get him to 2013 he hopes. Then he can let loose the hounds…

So permanent Tax Increases and short term tax cuts! Gee, that’s sounds like the usual Tax and Spend Liberalism pig just dressed up with a new lipstick.

“We counted, in the Republican debate [hosted by MSNBC at the Reagan Library], we counted 26 ideological questions…. Out 26 questions, how many do you think came with a left-wing ideological bent?” NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell asked Fox News host Sean Hannity on his eponymous program last night.

“Twenty-five out of 26” Bozell informed a stumped Hannity, referring to a study released Tuesday by Media Research Center (MRC) deputy research director Geoff Dickens.

“Now, that’s perfectly fine if you’re going to play devil’s advocate… but that’s not what these questions are,” MRC founder Bozell added, noting that the media don’t hit Obama from the right on policy questions in interviews.

The Video:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb-staff/2011/09/16/media-mash-biased-debate-coverage-edition

Now will they be “fair” and ask these kinds of slanted “gotcha” questions of Barack Hussein Obama or the Democrats?

OF COURSE NOT!!! Don’t be silly. Why would they.

Ultimately, Obama’s American Jobs Act (AJA) will kill more jobs than it creates because it does not reduce uncertainty, fails to permanently reduce business operation costs and focuses on “one and done” jobs that result in employees being fired the moment the AJA has blown through its $450 billion in borrowed funds. Examples of AJA job-killing attributes are:

1. The AJA imposes eight different tax increases on the already high-taxed oil production industry, thereby costing jobs in the domestic oil industry and driving up costs for gasoline and heating oil (which makes American businesses less competitive and costs more jobs).

After all, the future is “green jobs” so might as well get rid of the evil jobs now. Pnly problem is, “green job” killers Like Solyndra keep popping up despite Millions of $$$ in stimulus money.

But if we keep banging our head against the wall, eventually we will break the wall (in 20 years or so…maybe). But we have to keep pounding!

2. Increasing America’s debt by another $450 billion, thereby promoting economic uncertainty resulting from increased risk of a federal government insolvency and bankruptcy.

Debt limit, anyone? Cutting Spending long Term, anyone?

3. Promoting costly, frivolous litigation by empowering disgruntled job applicants to sue job creators anytime an applicant believes (rightly or wrongly) an employer did not hire him because of his unemployed status.

See more below.

4. Hurting churches, synagogues and other charitable institutions by increasing taxes on tithes and charitable contributions (and cutting revenues that create jobs in America’s charity sector).

5. Creating at least two more federal government bureaucracies with over $10 billion to spend and the power to interfere with free markets as they wish.

Over the long haul, these AJA costs and burdens kill jobs by driving employers out of business or encouraging them to relocate to foreign countries. (DC)

Let’s look at #3 again:

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act, introduced this week, includes provisions that would prohibit discrimination against job applicants on the basis of their unemployment status and that would levy fines of up to $1,000 a day.

So you go to apply for a job. You don’t get it. You file a complaint that you didn’t get it because you were “unemployed” and that potential employer could get fined for not hiring you because you were unemployed.

Do you detect a problem here??

Why would an employer hire ANYBODY under such conditions?

They wouldn’t.

But Liberals can’t and won’t see that, you know. It’s not “fair”.

The unemployment discrimination proposal begins with Section 371 of the jobs act, which calls the proposal the Fair Employment Opportunity Act of 2011. It states, “Congress finds that denial of employment opportunities to individuals because of their status as unemployed is discriminatory and burdens commerce” by “reducing personal consumption and undermining economic stability,” among other impacts.

Gee, Nancy Pelosi said Unemployment was a stimulus to economic growth.

The proposal states the Act’s purpose includes prohibiting employers from disqualifying individuals because of their unemployed status.

And, of course, a Government bureaucracy was scanning the field to see if it could pounce on you. The EEOC hearing this month in which the commission explored whether employers are hiring only the employed, and if this has a disparate impact on protected groups. (BI)

Government is watching your every move.

Orwell, anyone? 🙂

President Obama promised to take his economic message “to every corner of this country.” He’s done this and America has said “no.” Wall Street heard Obama’s economic message and the Dow dropped 300 points the next day. Voters in Nevada and New York City heard his economic message and Republican congressional candidates scored stunning victories (including a 54%-46% win in a district with a 3-1 Democrat registration advantage that had not elected a Republican in more than eight decades).

America’s economy has serious structural issues that presidential band-aids and make-up don’t fix and can’t hide. President Obama’s jobs bill simply is not up to the challenge.

President Obama’s American “Jobless” Act should be defeated because it is poorly thought-out, bad economic policy, will cost Americans jobs and has been resoundingly rejected by the voting public. (DC)

But when it is, it will be the Republican’s Fault! Those dame obstructionists!

The fact that the Act is total crap on a stick doesn’t matter. The Liberals just want more “evidence” of “obstructionist” Republicans for their “Vote for me the Other Guy is an Asshole” re-election campaign of Fear and Loathing.

And, of course, it’s always going to be the ultimate fault of the most evil, conniving, malicious, throw-grandma-of-a-cliff, extremists, racists of all– The Tea Party. 🙂

But the Liberals, Democrats, and the Mainstream Media aren’t biased and self-serving,calculating, and manipulative, now are they… 🙂

The Democrats Plan Revealed

Over the last few days the Democrats plan for dealing with the $14,300,000,000,000 debt of this country can be summed up in 3 words:

BLAME THE REPUBLICANS!

That’s it. That’s all they want or need.

Nothing else matters as they want you to blame the Republicans in the most hyper-partisan act in American History in 150 years.

It’s the Perfect POLITICAL solution.

I didn’t say anything about economic solutions because neither are the Democrats.

The Republicans propose a plan (3 now) and the democrats just demagogue it into the ground and refuse to even vote on it.

Hell, they haven’t even passed their own budget (in the Senate) in 819 days!

Why do they need to commit to anything. They just demagogue whatever the Republican put up and the Ministry of Truth Media demagogues it to death and you buy the bullshit! It’s a perfect solution.

So what if it cause a depression that destroy the country for generations and possible crashes the world’s economy…like they care. As long as they win…who cares!

So what if this depression crushes the very people they are allegedly “protecting” in their demagoguery…The poor. Like they actually care.

If they can get the very people who are hurt by them to blame the other guy and flock to them and suckle at the government tits so much the better! It’s what they wanted all along. It’s a win-win for them.

As long as they aren’t to blame what does it matter how ugly it gets. And they calculate that they will win politically in 2012 from it. Political Capital is the only capitalism that Democrats believe in.

So where’s the downside for them??

Class Warfare. Demagoguery. Fearmongering. Dishonesty. It’s all Good.

The country can go completely to hell because that is irrelevant compared to the potential political gains they feel they will receive and are entitled to.

And the In-The-Tank Liberal Media will cheerleading them all the way.

The Republicans keep proposing plan after plan and the Democrats just turn their noses up at it like a 4 year old who’s told to eat their peas. 🙂

The Democrats just spread fear, intimidation, threats, and class warfare.

Divide and Conquer.

But as long as the Republicans are blamed for it that’s all that really matters in the end because then the Democrats can sweep into power in 2012 and really have no opposition to their Socialist Utopian vision. And that is the ultimate goal.

People so dependent on the Government that they have no choice but to keep the Democrats in power for generations and the longer and deeper it becomes the harder and harder it will be to pry them out of power and eventually it may even come to a point where people would wonder why you’d want to in the first place.

The Democrats dreams come true.

So why would they bother with an actual plan to fix the actual problem? They don’t need one, so why would they agree to one?

They wouldn’t.

But they key is, they have to keep the blame on the Republicans.

And the Republican have to keep acting like the school nerds who is constantly getting beat up by the school bully.

That’s they key.

So the question then becomes, are you that easy to manipulate?

I think so.

Baaaaaaaaa! 😦

In a series of phone calls, administration officials have told bankers that the administration will not allow a default to happen even if the debt cap isn’t raised by the August 2 date Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner says the government will run out of money to pay all its bills, including obligations to bond holders. Geithner made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows saying a default is imminent if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, and President Obama issued a similar warning during a Friday press conference after budget negotiations with House Republicans broke down.

A senior banking official told FOX Business that administration officials have provided guidance to them that even though a default is off the table, a downgrade “is a real possibility for no other reason than S&P and Moody’s have to cover (themselves) since they’ve been speaking out on the debt cap so much.”

This guidance is a big reason why Wall Street has largely dismissed the possibility of default, and though the markets have been jittery amid the talk of default, they haven’t imploded as would be the case, many economists fear, if the nation missed a payment on its debt.

Obama has offered nothing, instead just attacking, attacking, attacking, blaming everyone but himself in utter denial of the reality that no man on the face of this Earth is more responsible for our debt catastrophe than he.

Leadership anyone? anyone?

Sorry, all we have is a Community Organizer who only understands threats and intimidation not Leadership. And even since the days of Senator Obama when he voted “present” more often than he ever voted at all, he doesn’t like to take a stand for anything that isn’t beneficial to him personally. So that’s why we get nothing but campaign speeches from him.

He isn’t going to lead the nation. He is just going to lead himself to re-election. That’s all that matters to him.

So what if the nation goes down the toilet, as long as he get re-elected, and re-elected with a Democrat majority he’s good.

This president who now tells us we must raise taxes to save the Republic is the same president who just seven months ago was telling us that everyone agrees the worst thing one could do during a crisis is raise taxes. Republicans agreed then and hold to that position now. That makes them unreasonable, unbalanced.

And where did this sudden spurt of media fiscal discipline come from, anyway? Where were they when America needed someone to ask Obama, Pelosi and Reid how they were going to pay for TARP? Where were the media demanding to know where the trillion bucks for the anti-stimulus program was coming from? How about the trillion for Obamacare?

They went along for the ride on all these budget-busting disasters. And now they have the temerity to lecture us on fiscal discipline?

There is the oblivious. Some journalists refuse to acknowledge that spending has soared under Obama. When Grover Norquist factually noted Obama’s binge, CNN anchor Ali Velshi erupted in protest. “Wait a minute! ‘He created with his spending’? You didn’t just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover?” Norquist said yes, he wasn’t kidding. Velshi dismissed this concept as unreasonable: “OK, we’re going to pass by that question because that’s an unreasonable position.”

In round numbers: In fewer than four years, Obama has increased the debt by $4 trillion. He proposes we raise it another $2.3 trillion. This makes Obama responsible for almost half the debt of the United States. But it is “unreasonable” to say so.

The leftist news media aren’t coming to this debate to be an honest broker. They’re just trying to break one side apart, and never mind that it’s their vision that is driving us right over a cliff. (Brent Bozell)

As long as The Democrats and The Liberals  win the Political battle nothing else matters to them.

After all, what will be left will be solely dependent on them and what better outcome for them could their possibly be?

Can We Get along?

I couldn’t agree more.

I had an epiphany yesterday in regards to the childish back and forth I have had for the last 5 years with many a leftist. It’s ultimately very rude, disrespectful and childish.

I have had enough.

Can we maintain any sense of civility, decorum and respect as we debate the extremely emotional social issues that demand our attention and involvement?

I think not.

But will this change this blog. Probably slightly, but I’m still opposed to what this administration is doing on just about every level. But I’m also very unhappy with the Republicans lack of balls.

So I am still Tea Party.

But I have had enough of adolescent bickering.

Is there any common ground left?

Are we capable as a people of Compromise?

Are politicians so into their own selves that politics is more important in the end?

The answers to questions like these will determine if we have a country to leave to our children or even to ourselves.

It’s difficult if not impossible to control emotions. Emotions are simply a physiological response to physical and psychological stimuli. What we can do is learn to control our response to those emotions. Self-control is a valuable tool for effective communication and respectful debate. Name calling is childish- any two year old can pitch a fit and uninformed accusations display ignorance. If you want to make your point credible, exercise restraint.

In right versus wrong issues it’s fairly simple, if not always easy to simply step up and present the facts. In most cases, a clear statement of reason will win the argument. When both sides have a legitimate claim to the right side of an argument, it’s extremely important to understand the oppositional perspective whether you agree or not.

Our most contentious issues are right versus right.

I’m all for open, passionate and even heated debate. We can express ourselves passionately without denigrating our opponent, using inflammatory language and insulting labels. To do so requires a high level of respect, self-control and strength. It requires strength, confidence and courage to acknowledge the right of another person to his or her opinion- even when they’re wrong and you’re right! (thinklikeablackbelt.com)

Liberals and Democrats will still piss me off. But there has to be a better way.

I Hope.

Ve Vill Crush You!

The announcement that Americans are set to be bombarded with mandatory government propaganda via their cellphones represents a shocking lurch forward in the Obama administration’s bid to launch a total takeover of all communications as part of a wider move towards controlling the Internet, developing an omnipresent wiretap system, and creating a constant environment of suspicion and distrust by enlisting citizens to spy on each other.

So, what elese can these chips be used for? The government-mandated chips would also help achieve the Department of Transportation’s aim of <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40418794/ns/technology_and_science-wireless/t/govt-evaluating-cell-phone-blocking-tech-cars/>blocking all cellphone use in cars. The chip would allow authorities to prevent use of the phone by measuring the speed you are traveling via GPS technology and shutting down the handset.

The system is also wide open for abuse in more prosaic terms, with some fearing that the messages could include PR talking points and political electioneering

No, Obama is above such crass things! 🙂

And of course, tracking everything you buy and tracking everywhere you go and what you do is nothing to be worried about! 🙂

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a
human face – forever.”– George Orwell

And just to add insult to lethal injury to your freedom:

The government’s Consumer Price Index recently announced that inflation over the last 12 months <http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm> has been 2.7 percent

Well, one expert says actual inflation, dollars and cents that consumers have to pay to cover their living expenses, food, clothing, utilities and such – actually are well above 8 percent, not 2.7 percent.

John Williams of Shadowstats.com says that since 1980, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics has changed the way it calculates the Consumer Price Index – in order to account for the substitution of products, improvements in quality and other things.

Recalculating the data without the methodological changes BLS began in 1990 reveals inflation getting worse.

The Producer Price Index increased 0.7 percent last month, which equates to an 8.4 percent annual wholesale inflation in the pipeline for consumers.

Inflation data last month confirms that the cost of living is rising much faster than wages. We are on a trajectory to crush the middle class within five years unless urgent, decisive action is taken now. The traditional safety net of home equity today no longer exists.

And in what society is there only the Rich and the Poor and no actual middle class? Where their are only apparatchiks and everyone else (peasants).

Communism, Socialism, Marxism…. TA DA! 🙂

But don’t worry, Obama is a likeable guy. There is no harm. He’s a good guy at heart…

In search of Hispanic votes and a long-shot immigration overhaul, President Barack Obama on Tuesday stood at the U.S.-Mexico border for the first time since winning the White House and declared it more secure than ever. He mocked Republican lawmakers for blocking immigration over border security alone, saying they won’t be happy until they get a moat with alligators along the border.

“They’ll never be satisfied,” he said.

“Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said derisively to laughter from the crowd. “Maybe they’ll want alligators in the moat.”

I’m for the moat! 🙂

The approach also allowed the president to make clear that it’s Republicans — not him — standing in the way of immigration legislation. As his re-election campaign approaches it’s a message he wants broadcast loud and clear to Latino voters who don’t like his administration’s heavy deportations and feel he never made good on his promise to prioritize immigration legislation during his first year in office.

“I am asking you to add your voices to this,” Obama said. “We need Washington to know that there is a movement for reform gathering strength from coast to coast. That’s how we’ll get this done.”

Politically, Obama sought to have it both ways.

He said he would lead a “constructive and civil debate” on the issue but publicly questioned the motives of Republicans and their ability to keep their word.

And it remained unclear how mocking Republican calls for border security would get Obama any closer to his goal of bipartisan legislation.

Given Republican opposition the bills likely won’t get far, but Obama will try to make certain voters know who to blame.

Divide and Conquer! 🙂  Classic Liberal tactic.

In full campaign mode, he’s been deploying his administrative agencies to do favors for his big contributors, to the detriment of ordinary Americans.

Last week, Obama made the gutsy call to threaten public schools that are asking students for proof of residency. The memorandum warned school districts that it’s illegal to ask students for proof of citizenship or legal residency status.

Obama’s wealthy donors need illegals so they can get cheap nannies, cooks and pool boys.

On the other hand, illegals being paid off the books are not helping Americans find jobs.

According to a May 4, 2011, report from the (liberal) Pew Research Center for the People

& the Press, 76 percent of “hard-pressed Democrats” — defined as “religious, financially

struggling” — agree with the statement: “Immigrants today … are a burden on our country

because they take our jobs, housing and health care.”

As Kausfiles observes, maybe financially struggling Democrats believe immigrants

“take our jobs” because, in fact, they do.

How many illegal servants do Obama’s friends need? Another million? How about 10 million? Then will Obama start enforcing immigration laws? And isn’t it his job to enforce the law, irrespective of whether his campaign contributors need slave labor?  (Ann Coulter)

And he can count on the Ministry Of Truth Media to back him up.

The trip had a more overtly political component too. From El Paso, the president headed to the relatively liberal bastion of Austin to raise money for the Democratic National Committee at two events. A total of about 800 people paid $44 to $35,800 to attend.(Newsmax)

There was the REAL reason! $$$$$$$ Gotta raise that Billion Dollars to buy the election.

After all, it’s really all about HIM.

What are Americans supposed to do to earn money? Obama doesn’t care: Ordinary Americans are irrelevant to the Democrats’ electoral ambitions — they exist only to justify the hiring of more government workers.

The Democrats have now officially abandoned working-class Americans.

Obama is doing what’s in his and his party’s self-interest, rather than concerning himself with the mass of American citizens. He is using his executive authority to reward gays, illegal aliens, do-nothing government employees, far-left union bosses, abortion industry executives and global warming kooks.

Are you on that list of Obama’s friends?

Democrats blithely act as if big labor, pro-illegal-immigration, pro-government union policies combined with massive government red tape and huge socialist programs will have no effect on jobs.

They incessantly repeat “gutsy call” for “you’d have to have been brain-dead not to make the call to kill bin Laden,” hoping the Democratic Party will suddenly seem macho.

Then, after a few weeks of robotically chanting “gutsy call,” they can get back to their true passion — destroying jobs — at which point they will robotically chant Bush’s name to explain why millions of Americans have lost their jobs under Obama.

How gutsy. (Ann Coulter)

Has he been Deified yet? 🙂

Scared Lizard Brains

President Obama seems to have learned nothing from the disaster of the “cling-to-guns-and-God” talk that almost derailed his campaign in 2008. He’s back at it—blaming voters for failing to “think clearly” because they’re “scared” about the economy:

WEST NEWTON, Mass. – President Barack Obama said Americans’ “fear and frustration” is to blame for an intense midterm election cycle that threatens to derail the Democratic agenda.

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared,” Obama said Saturday evening in remarks at a small Democratic fundraiser Saturday evening. “And the country’s scared.”

Scared of You, your Czars, and your Socialism,dear boy.

Obama views himself as the neocortical leader — the defender, not just of the stimulus package and health-care reform but also of cognitive reasoning. His critics rely on their lizard brains — the location of reptilian ritual and aggression. Some, presumably Democrats, rise above their evolutionary hard-wiring in times of social stress; others, sadly, do not.

Though there is plenty of competition, these are some of the most arrogant words ever uttered by an American president. (Washington Post)

This is an improvement over Obama’s 2008 “cling” speech because now Obama’s critics are scared rather than racist or stupid. There’s hope for us!

Obama told the several dozen donors that he was offering them his “view from the Oval Office.” He faulted the economic downturn for Americans’ inability to “think clearly” and said the burden is on Democrats “to break through the fear and the frustration people are feeling.”

Big Brother Barack is hear to save you. Cuddle up and he’ll protect you from the evil capitalists and the mean old Republicans who want your children to starve and your grandma to be homeless and eating dog food!.

Now, don’t you feel better. 🙂

Insulting voters is rarely a good way to win them over. But usually the “blame the customer” approach, as Mark Shields calls it, takes hold in the wake of an election defeat. Obama has broken new ground by moving it up to two weeks in advance of the vote.

It’s another thing to say those poor people will change when they get their jobs back when you’ve had two years to get them their jobs back and have conspicuously failed. At that point, blaming “false consciousness” becomes a semi-delusional way of dancing around your own inability to remove the root of that false consciousness. A little humility is in order. If true humility is unavailable, false humility will do.

Maybe Obama was cynically making a pitch to his immediate audience—a small crowd of Massachusetts donors who might be expected to respond to the idea that they were defending “facts” and “science” against confused know-nothings. But Obama should know, especially after the 2008 San Francisco incident, that a candidate can’t keep his words confined to a fundraiser. And this apparently wasn’t a closed-to-press event like the one in S.F. We didn’t have to rely on a donor/blogger like Mayhill Fowler to spill the beans. Reporters reported on it. Obama couldn’t have been trying to cyncially play to the donors—he’s not that naive! This must be what he really thinks.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

Obama seems more inclined to just tough it out until the economy recovers and the scared, confused voters become unscared and see the light. Meanwhile, he’ll spend his time in a protective cocoon.

He’ll be the child you will just sit and pout and turn blue 🙂 until he’s proven right and everyone loves him for it.

Ground your heels into the dirt and refuse to do anything until someone kisses my butt and tells me I’m the greatest thing since the evolution of man.

We thought he was a great salesman. He turned out to be a lousy salesman. We thought he was a great politician. Instead he makes elementary mistakes and doesn’t learn from them. He didn’t know “shovel-ready” from a hole in the ground, and then somehow thinks admitting this ignorance without apology will add to his appeal.

Did I happen to mention this editorial was from Newsweek? You know the Magazine famous for Cover Headlines like “We are all Socialists Now” and “Is America  Islamophobic?”

I found it fascinating. And in the end the writer said he still wanted Obama over a Republican. Even after trashing him.

Now that’s partisanship for you. 🙂

What could Obama possibly learn from voters who are embittered, confused and dominated by subconscious evolutionary fears? They have nothing to teach, nothing to offer to the superior mind. Instead of engaging in debate, Obama resorts to reductionism, explaining his opponents away.

In April 2008, Obama described small-town voters to wealthy donors in San Francisco: “It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” Now, to wealthy donors in Massachusetts, opponents are “hard-wired not to always think clearly.” Interpreting Obama does not require psychoanalysis or the reading of mystic Chicago runes. He is an intellectual snob.

But intellectual disdain among elites feeds this destructive populism rather than directing or defusing it. Obama is helping to cause what he criticizes.

Obama may think that many of his fellow citizens can’t reason. But they can still vote.

And voting him out in 2012 and his buddies out in two weeks is what us scared, racist, primitive gun-clingling,  scared morons have to do.

Period.

The Fundamentals of Nov 2nd, 2010

Newsweek’s Ben Adler was aghast at the clause in the GOP’s Pledge to America that Republicans will provide a “citation of constitutional authority” for every proposed piece of legislation. “We have a mechanism for assessing the constitutionality of legislation, which is the independent judiciary,” Adler wrote. “An extraconstitutional attempt to limit the powers of Congress is dangerous even as a mere suggestion, and it constitutes an encroachment on the judiciary.”

A progressive blogger, meanwhile, writes in U.S. News & World Report that such talk of requiring constitutionality is “just plain wacky.”

Before we get to the historical niceties, a question:

Does anyone, anywhere, think legislators should vote for legislation they think is unconstitutional? Anyone? Anyone?

How about presidents? Should they sign such legislation into law?

Yet, according to this creepy logic, there’s no reason for congressmen to pass, obey or even consider the supreme law of the land. Re-impose slavery? Sure! Let’s see if we can catch the Supreme Court asleep at the switch. Nationalize the TV stations? Establish a king? Kill every first-born child? Why not? It ain’t unconstitutional until the Supreme Court says so!

Nationalize Health Care, sure, why not. Mandate that all citizens will have health care or else they will pay a fine (that is actually a tax but we don’t call it that except in court when we have to) or possibly go to jail.

Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Mandate that Companies must provide Health care or pay a fine (that is actually a tax but we don’t call it that except in court when we have to).

Whoops!, sorry the Democrats ALREADY DID THAT. 🙂

And of course, that means the president can’t veto legislation because it’s unconstitutional, because that’s apparently not his job. Wouldn’t want to “encroach” on the judiciary!

Especially, the judiciary we’ve been packing with Liberals for a generation or two.

Like suing a State of The Union, Arizona.

Get a Liberal judge to rule that if we want to ignore Border Security you can’t do anything about it! :)~  <sticks tongue out>

Oh, and you’re a “racist” if you disagree with us. 🙂

Of course, reasonable people understand how absurd all of this is.

There’s nothing in the Constitution — nothing! — that says the Supreme Court is the final or sole arbiter of what is or is not constitutional.

But for Liberals, let’s just pass whatever the hell we want, when we want it, and if we can get a Liberal enough judge to agree we can do it, Go for it!

Nor is there anything in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court case that famously established judicial review. Nor is there in Cooper v. Aaron, the 1958 case in which the court ruled that its findings are the law of the land.

George Washington vetoed an apportionment bill in 1792 because it was unconstitutional. What was he thinking? If only he had a Ben Adler around to tell him what a fool he was.

Andrew Jackson vetoed the reauthorization of the national bank in 1832 because he believed it was unconstitutional. He added at the time that, “It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.”

“Even the Supreme Court has never claimed that it is the only branch with the power or duty to interpret the Constitution,” says Jeff Sikkenga, a constitutional historian at Ashland University’s Ashbrook Center. “In fact, it has said that certain constitutional questions like war and peace are left to the political branches to decide.”

The debate over whether the courts are the final word on the Constitution is more than 200 years old. The debate over whether they are the sole arbiter of constitutionality is extremely recent and extremely silly.

But it’s also necessary because too many politicians — in both parties — have abdicated their most solemn duty: to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. George W. Bush signed campaign finance reform even though he thought much of it was unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi thinks the Constitution has as much relevance as a pet rock. When asked if the health-care bill was Constitutional, her perpetually wide-open eyes grew perceptibly wider as she incredulously asked, “Are you serious?”

The real issue is quite simple. If more politicians were faithful to the Constitution, the government would be restrained. And restraining government is “weird,” “wacky” and “dangerous” to so many liberals today. (Jonah Goldberg).

And people who propose it, The Tea Party Movement, are “racists”, “stupid”, “morons” ,”idiots” ,”dumb”,”ignorant”,”fools”.

Fascinating. 🙂

A Reminder:

Unless something totally unforeseen occurs, Democrats are poised to take a real beating in November. Their response to the impending disaster has run the gamut. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is in denial: “One thing I know for sure is that Democrats will retain their majority in the House of Representatives.” Massachusetts Senator John Kerry is condescending: “We have an electorate that doesn’t always pay that much attention to what’s going on, so people are influenced by a simple slogan rather than the facts or the truth or what’s happening.” President Obama is angry: “It is inexcusable for any Democrat or progressive right now to stand on the sidelines in this midterm election.” Why is the electorate ready to kick Democrats to the curb? Here’s why:

* An “unstimulated” economy. The original Mother of All Stimulus packages, $787 billion dollars, quickly grew to an astounding $865 billion. It wasn’t enough. Congress pumped out another $26 billion in “supplemental” stimulus in August. The results? Unemployment in the private sector remains well above the eight percent Democrats promised, even as public sector workers who support Democrats were rewarded; our Democratically-controlled Congress has amassed more debt in the last four years than nearly the previous two hundred and thirty combined; the Keynesian economic model Democrats stand by is a colossal failure; the Summer of Recovery was a propaganda fiasco.

* The health care bill. The absolute epitome of ideological, public-be-damned arrogance. A horrendous compendium of bribes, exploding bureaucracy, runaway costs, written in secret and unread by those who passed it. It includes a mandate, likely un-Constitutional, forcing people to buy health insurance or pay a fine. The same administration which originally claimed the commerce clause of the Constitution made such a fine possible is now saying that the federal governments’s “power to tax” justifies it. Irrelevant. 60% of Americans want this monstrosity repealed, ASAP.

* The federal lawsuit against the state of Arizona. Again, it’s the arrogance, stupid. Despite all the hectoring from Democrats and the Obama administration about racist this, and xenophobic that, fair-minded Americans recognized four things: people have a right to protect their life and property, and if the federal government can’t or won’t do it, they have a right to do it themselves; the idea that anyone opposing the “rights” of illegal aliens is a bigot is nonsense on stilts; the ruling class in Washington, D.C. is holding genuine border control hostage to “comprehensive reform;” the glaring double-standard of suing Arizona for violating federal immigration statues, even as the feds turn a blind eye to hundreds of “sanctuary cities” with illegal protection directives unquestionably in conflict with federal law.

* The demonization of the Tea Party movement. Take your pick: teabaggers, racists, angry white men, fringe elements, bigots, Astro-turfers, etc. etc. Democrats and the media have tried every one, and every one has been a miserable failure for one overwhelmingly simple reason: decent Americans know they’re decent, and getting insulted by Democrats running the country into the ground has only stiffened their resolve. Progressives want to demonize people who believe in smaller government, fiscal responsibility and a desire to return to Constitutional principles? Why not attack people who believe in guns, and religion too? Oh wait. The president already did that as well.

* A hopelessly compromised media. Air America tanked, CNN is tanking, and ABC, NBC and CBS news programs have been shedding viewers at historically unprecedented rates—even as Fox and the Wall Street Journal prosper. Americans don’t mind people in the media expressing their opinions, as long as they’re characterized as opinions, but they seethe when such opinions are portrayed as “hard news.” They get even angrier when certain stories are “omitted” by those same organizations, especially when Americans recognize such omissions are calculated to protect the progressive agenda. I wonder if it occurs to either Democrats or their media water-carriers that a majority Americans may savor whacking both groups in November. Depressed looks on the faces of Nancy Pelosi and Katie Couric? In theater circles, that’s known as a “two-fer.”

* The Ground Zero mosque. Yet another reminder of the contempt progressives and their media enablers have for ordinary Americans who had the “temerity” to allow their feelings to be known. Despite every attempt to characterize these Americans as Islamo-phobic bigots, the public wasn’t buying, again for one overwhelmingly simple reason: decent Americans once again demonstrated their decency by separating the legality of the project from the appropriateness of it.

* The complete disconnect between the First Family and ordinary Americans. The golfing, the soirees, and the high-priced vacations have created the perception that we are living through another “let them eat cake” moment in history. On Tuesday, the president called the public schools in Washington, D.C. a “‘struggling’ system that doesn’t measure up to the needs of first daughters, Sasha and Malia.” Those would be the same public schools Congressional Democrats tossed 3,300 low-income kids back into when they killed funding for vouchers that had freed those kids from D.C.’s educational ghetto. The First Lady is hectoring Americans to eat healthier. Perhaps more Americans would if they could afford to: the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) stated in their Producer Price Index that the price of food increased 2.4% for March 2010. That’s the biggest increase in almost 30 years.

* The war on terror. A politically correct contingency operation against unnamed insurgents with a specific draw-down date? Democrats once again prove that all the talk about Afghanistan being the “good war” was complete rubbish. They want out, and victory—along with the heroic efforts of our men and women in harm’s way—be damned. Once again: has America ever fought another war where they knew the exact location of the enemy, had the ability to inflict possibly irreparable damage on them—and decided to split the difference instead? If you answered “Vietnam,” another progressively-instigated catastrophe resulting in the deaths of fifty-eight thousand American soldiers and three million innocent Asians, go to the head of the class. And when is that civilian trial of the 9/11 perpetrators scheduled to begin?

* Czars and nationalization. The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats may bristle when Americans call them socialists, but the nationalization of banks, car and insurance companies, student loans and healthcare sure isn’t free-market capitalism. Neither is wiping out oil jobs in Louisiana with a government-mandated ban on offshore drilling—after the feds completely bungled their role in cleaning up the spill which engendered it. Unelected czars who answer to no one but the president, along with out-of-control government agencies such as the EPA have made it clear to many Americans that this administration often considers Congress a completely unnecessary component of governance, especially if they don’t kowtow to the president’s agenda.

* “Unexceptional” America. Progressive contempt for the values and traditions which make this the greatest country on earth can no longer be disguised. An American president who “believe(s) in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism” has made it plain that this is not a great nation which needs tweaking, but a fundamentally flawed one needing a complete progressive make-over. Once one understands this basic premise, everything this administration and Democratically-controlled Congress does makes sense. All of it centers around the ridiculous premise that America owes the world an apology for any number of shortcomings, many of which can only be alleviated by government-mandated “social justice.” That would be the same social justice which demanded—and still demands—that Americans manifestly unqualified to own homes be given mortgages, regardless.

Unknown to the majority of Americans, this precise mindset was part of the financial “reform” bill which also requires banks to lend a certain percentage of capital to minority-owned businesses, even if it means lowering their lending standards. Apparently progressives won’t be satisfied with their odious social-engineering schemes until every sector of the American economy bears a striking resemblance to the housing sector. So far, Americans support financial reform because it’s been framed as “Main Street versus “Wall Street.” It’s not. Like every other initiative undertaken by this Congress and this administration, it’s the elevation of irresponsible and dishonest Americans over those willing to accept the consequences of their own behavior.

There you have it. Democratic control for four years in Congress, and two in the White House has been exactly what many predicted: an ideologically-driven disaster of epic proportions. For years, progressives obfuscated their true intentions, because even they knew most Americans couldn’t stomach them. The elections of 2006 and 2008 changed everything. Progressives bought into their own hype, believing they had pulled off a multi-generational transformation of the American mindset. As a result, they showed Americans their true colors: unbridled arrogance, utter contempt for the average citizen’s intellect, and a ham-fisted, never let a crisis go to waste determination to bend the electorate to their will, using government as a club.

That’s why they’re going down in November. And the most satisfying aspect of the whole scenario is this: despite every attempt they’ve made to blame anyone and everyone else for their problems, they brought it on themselves. (Arnold Ahlert)

And don’t forget the LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN AMERICAN HISTORY during a recession (or “jobless recovery”) that Congress was too chicken to vote on stopping.

But don’t worry, it’s all those damn Republican’s fault!!

And George W. Bush.

The Banks.

CEOs

Corporate America.

Wall Street.

Teabaggers.

The Right Wingers.

Christians.

“The Rich”

FOX News

Rupert Murdoch (who owns Fox)

Talk Radio

Did I leave anyone out?

Oh, yeah, DEMOCRATS! 🙂

WTF! China?!

If I wrote this as a joke, I’d catch crap for falsely depicting Barry & Co. as a bunch of pinkos. Associated Press:

The United States and China reported no major breakthroughs Friday after only their second round of talks about human rights since 2002…

Michael Posner, the assistant secretary of state, told reporters that another round will happen some time next year in Beijing…

Posner said in addition to talks on freedom of religion and expression, labor rights and rule of law, officials also discussed Chinese complaints about problems with U.S. human rights, which have included crime, poverty, homelessness and racial discrimination.

He said U.S. officials did not whitewash the American record and in fact raised on its own a new immigration law in Arizona that requires police to ask about a person’s immigration status if there is suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

That’s right: We said “sorry” to China for violating human rights by enforcing our own immigration laws.

Jay Nordlinger at the Corner asks: “Did we, the United States, talking to a government that maintains a gulag, that denies people their basic rights, that in all probability harvests organs, apologize for the new immigration law in Arizona?” Yep! And John Hinderaker at Powerline wants to know: “Is it unfair to say that the Obama administration consists of a bunch of anti-American ignoramuses? If so, why?” Ya got me! (Daily Caller)

Yes, folks! The people who brought you forced abortions, gulags, repression and Tienanmen Square are now official not as bad as Arizona!

You’re Bad, but we’re bad too, Kumbuya!  can’t we all just get along.

<<<BARF>>>

<<<BARF>>>

<<<BARF>>>

MICHAEL POSNER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE: We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination, of potential discrimination. And that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.

<<<BARF>>>

<<<BARF>>>

<<<BARF>>>

The Chinese, who incarcerate people for political opinion, who have brutalized the nation of Tibet, who have no protections for freedom of speech, the press or anything else, are being asked to discuss the new Arizona law? Is this “The Twilight Zone”? Why would the Obama administration even bring it up?

Once again, this Chinese thing is stunning. If you sneak into China, you’ll wind up in a concentration camp or with a bullet in your head, and the Obama administration is discussing Arizona with these people? Totally beyond the pale.

“Talking Points” will remind you that more than 60 percent of Americans support the Arizona law, fully realizing that the federal government will not secure the border and the state had to do something.

Later this week, President Obama will meet with the Mexican president, and the Arizona law is sure to come up there as well. We will watch that very closely. (Bill O’Reilly)

And he will no doubt apologize again.

<<BARF>>

After all, Mexico and Latin American are quite literally throwing these people at us, but we are going to apologize to THEM for some of US  getting upset over the murders, the shoot-outs, the drugs, violence and civil unrest.

Damn, there must be something in that Harvard Law School water…

But don’t worry, dear seekers of truth, you won’t find it anywhere on The Ministry of Truth.

They are crusaders for justice,fairness, and the Liberal Socialist Way!

And Arizona is definitely on a moral relative par with China. 😦

The April Fools

The Cone of Silence is being lowered.

The government takeover of Health Care is no longer to be discussed openly.

If we don’t talk about it, enough people will forget about it by November.

“My assumption is that this is going to wash out. It’s just not going to be that central (to the election). If anything, it might turn out to be a net plus for the Democrats,” said Joel Aberbach, director of the Center for American Politics and Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The Fifth Column/Mainstream Media/Ministry of Truth will beat the drum that it’s no big deal, nothing to see, it’s the law, get over it.

Not worth debating. (which it wasn’t before it was passed either).

They will diminish it.

You’re just a bitter old right winger if you continue complaining it about.

“We Won. You Lost” get over it.

But we will talk about it as little as possible.

Let the fire die of neglect.

Then I read this from David Broder:

Most Republicans I have talked with say they are convinced that their outnumbered legislators have done the right thing by denying virtually all their votes to Obama and using every device possible to slow down or derail his agenda.

Most of the Democrats I interviewed are just as certain that the folks in the White House and the speaker’s office were justified in pushing the health care bill ahead to final passage in the face of polls showing most voters were opposed.

But the partisanship on both sides was itself a turnoff to independents.

They were the people who had taken Obama seriously when he said he wanted to move Washington beyond the recriminations of the George W. Bush years.

Regardless of their views on health care — or the economy or education or anything else — they are turned off by the inability of both parties to overcome their parochial concerns and find agreement on steps to curb the joblessness and debt that are consuming the country. (IBD)

And I got to thinking about the coming court fight over ObamaCare and my concern that Liberal Judges will dismiss it out of hand, like many liberal Democrat Attorney Generals do just because they are Liberals.

Not because of legal merit, but because of ideology.

We have a new Political structure in this country.

We have Homo Sapien Liberalis and Homo Sapien Non-Liberalis.

And Homo Sapien Liberalis will not go against it’s own kind.

So it’s not merely that you have to defeat them in November, you have to defeat them in every election on every level, every time.

Otherwise, they’ll keep popping up like the weeds in my backyard.

And you are the fool to think otherwise.

The days of actual bi-partisanship are gone.

Homo Sapien Liberalis doesn’t work that way.

And if they are in power and you oppose them, they will try and crush you, destroy you, diminish, demean and disrespect you.

You are, after all, a mental defective for disagreeing with them.

After their victory in the Health Care fight, what have they done since?

Gone on full bore attack on the Tea Party activist. Full on.

And the Fifth Column is right there with them.

Think I’m kidding: Read this from the Leftist Huffington Post:

Is there a double standard going on here? Surely there is. But what is worse is that the way that Tea Baggers and the Republican leaders frame the issue is that anyone who “stands up” and “protests” the Obama administration is a patriot, but anyone who does the same to a Republican is a spoiler, a low life, and a possible traitor.

When Republicans in Congress heckle the president or other legislators, they model the kind of behavior that degenerates further into the kind of violence the young heckler at the McCain rally experienced. When Republicans do not stand up for the right to express one’s opinion regardless of party, they enforce a kind of group-think that can only harm freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has defended the right of citizens to engage in robust and raucous colloquy. That ruling applies not only to Tea Party protesters but to all Americans as well. (Lennard Davis-Professor at University of Illinois-Chicago)

The poor leftists are victims of the mean, nasty “violent”, Free speech crushing right-wingers! Waaaaa!!

The nerve of those oppressive Tea party activists! 😦

And the whole “racism” angle is back.

The Left’s favourite pit bull is being let out into the yard again.

Frank Rich of The New York Times and Colbert King of The Washington Post are among the columnists willingly checking their honesty – or their brains – at the door to throw political mud. Either these people are too ignorant to know their charges or false, or they don’t care and spit their bile anyway.

King wrote last week of looking at “angry faces” at Tea Party rallies and finding them “eerily familiar,” resembling protesters seeking to prevent a black University of Alabama enrollee in 1956.

Rich peppered his column with Third Reich imagery, eventually backing up his claim of racism with comparisons to those who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Leaving aside for the moment that much opposition to that measure came from Democrats, it cannot be said plainly enough today: These men and their numerous partners in this smear should be ashamed – if nothing else, for logical flaws beneath a fifth-grader.

Their argument is: (A) This movement is filled with vocal people displeased with the way things are going; (B) I can find examples in history of people whose vocal displeasure was fueled by racism. Hence, (C) these people must be fueled by racism.

OK, boys, let’s see how you like it: (A) You are fans of ObamaCare; (B) Castro is a fan of ObamaCare, so, (C) you are communists.

Logic and basic human decency prevent me from making that connection seriously. I would like to believe that if these craven critics actually attended a Tea Party event, their testimony would change. But I doubt it. Theirs is a screeching born of panic, the need to demonize a movement rather than debate it. (Mark Davis)

So it’s fight between two species both fighting for survival.

But to illustrate the problem, this was found in the Comment Section of Mark Davis’s Op-ed piece:

Yesterday, the University of Washington held a debate about the constitutionality of the recently passed health care reform bill. The Seattle Times reports that none of the panelists at the debate argued that the bill was unconstitutional because the organizers of the event couldn’t find any law professors who held that view:

The University of Washington billed it as a debate among distinguished law faculty over whether the new federal health-care law is constitutional.

But while the four panelists at a packed event Tuesday may have differed on some of the finer points, they all agreed on the big question: They said the new law passes constitutional muster and that various lawsuits arguing the opposite — including the one joined last week by state Attorney General Rob McKenna — have little merit or chance of success. Even John McKay, the former Republican U.S. attorney for Western Washington (who was forced out in 2006 under contentious circumstances) said that while he sympathized with some of the political issues in play, he thought the lawsuits lacked merit. In fact, he questioned the timing and thrust of the cases: “One way to say it is, that this has to be seen as a political exercise,” he said.

Moderator Hugh Spitzer noted the lack of a vigorous dissenting voice. “I will say that we tried very hard to get a professor who could come and who thinks this is flat-out unconstitutional,” he said. “But there are relatively few of them, and they are in great demand.”

My guess is that they either didn’t look hard enough, didn’t care to look to hard, or that no one wanted to be the Christian thrown to the lions in a Liberal Coliseum to shreded by the panel and the liberal audience.

The fact that they held a “debate” anyways, with the other side being debated at all is indicative of Homo Sapien Liberalis.

The Liberals smugly went on with the show confident that they are right simply because they “couldn’t find anyone” to oppose them.

Which I’m positive is disingenuous at best.

It’s not like Homo Sapien Liberalis is actually capable to listening to arguments against it’s own positions and changing their minds.

No, that would be a Jedi Mind Trick. And they must stay strong.

They are after all, always right. No Matter what.

Just ask them.

Hope and Change, you say.

Bi-Partisanship, you say.

Freedom and Democracy, you say.

I say APRIL FOOLS!

Only, you’re a fool to believe the Left anymore.

He that lives upon hope will die fasting

“Early to bed, and early to rise, makes a man healthy, wealthy and wise” — Benjamin Franklin

New York Times: Oct 6

As Democrats have found, aiding those who have lost their jobs is simpler than preventing more layoffs and creating new jobs.
“There may not be anything we can do,” said a Democratic Congressional leadership aide who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter. “Under any circumstances, it’s going to take a while for jobs to recover.”

Did someone forget to mention to them that government doesn’t create jobs. Employers create jobs.

You know, those evil capitalist bastards. 🙂

And what happened to all those “saved or created jobs” or even the promise that the stimulus would be a rousing success and unemployment would peak at 8%??

Now, experts say it will be at 10% soon and likely to be around that for 2010.

The official website of the Department of Labor shows the following statistic that is now being
cited by the Washington Post and even by Bloomberg News: U.S. unemployment (as of about a month or so ago) is 16.3% when one includes the so-called “discouraged workers” (who have stopped looking for work) and the new part-time workers who were seeking a full-time position but could not find one.

Furthermore, if one includes all the others who are not counted in the “official” statistics—-
including those over 65 who are looking for work, those who have recently left a school of
some kind, those who live on family farms but are looking for work somewhere off the farm
—-some estimate that the real unemployment rate is between 18 and 21%.

Dept of labor Statistic: In September, 35.6 percent of unemployed persons were job-
less for 27 weeks or more.

“Since the period last winter when we were losing 700,000 jobs per month, we have certainly made some progress on this front. But today’s job report is a sobering reminder that progress comes in fits and starts, and that we are going to need to grind out this recovery, step by step,” President Obama said (Oct 2).

Yeah, losing 230,000+ jobs a month is an improvement over 700,000!

“Obama reiterated his claims that the stimulus plan will help reverse the economic downturn once the bulk of its funds are distributed to states and localities.” (CNN 3/6/09)

The bulk of that money coming in 2011 just before the election.

And Health Care reform starts in 2013.

Hmmm… 🙂

But don’t worry, Congress is on the ball.

After taking control of the House in 2006 — and again when President Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) boasted that lawmakers would work four or five days a week to bring change to America.

When Hoyer released his 2009 legislative calendar last December, he said: “The American people voted decisively for change this November, and we will work hard to make that change a reality.”

But midway through Obama’s first year in office, Hoyer’s House has settled into a more leisurely routine. Members usually arrive for the first vote of the week as the sun sets on Tuesdays, and they’re usually headed back home before it goes down again on Thursdays.

Since the House returned for its fall session on Sept. 8, it has stuck around to vote on a Friday just once: to approve a 5.8 percent increase in Congress’s own budget (boosting Capitol Hill’s annual budget to $4.7 billion). Including $4 million for consultants — with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) getting up to nine each and Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) getting up to three more.

(And this the same Harry Reid who cut a deal for 100% Medicare funding for Nevada all by itself. Whatta guy!)

A Democratic leadership aide vehemently defended the schedule, saying members shouldn’t be kept in Washington for four or five days when work can be completed in fewer. (Politico)

“We’re in the middle of a health care reform bill,” said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “This is a 24/7 operation.”

“This is a fiscally responsible bill,” said Jake Thompson, spokesman for Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), chairman of the Senate’s legislative branch appropriations subcommittee.

The question is 24/7 what? Certainly not working at your real job.

2 1/2 days a week. Big month long recesses. And As the AP notes, a $4,700 pay raise took effect in January; congressional salaries now stand at $174,000.

Gee what a sweet deal.

But don’t worry, they are using there time wisely…working hard for you, the American people!

——–

GRETA VAN SUSTERN: Congressman Greg Walden is fighting for a 72-hour review period for all bills in the House. He joins us live and — he brought us a little reading material! What have you got there, Congressman?

REP. GREG WALDEN, R – OR.: Well, let’s see, 1,420-page national energy tax, cap-and-trade. Here’s the health care bill, 1,026 pages, right, 1,026 pages. We had 14 hours and 43 minutes before the committee voted on the bill.

VAN SUSTEREN: How about for the cap-and-trade bill? How much time…

WALDEN: Cap-and-trade bill…We had 16-and-a-half hours. This is the cap-and-trade bill. This is the one that passed the House. They had a 390-page amendment filed at 2:49 in the morning the day we voted on this.

VAN SUSTEREN: So let me get this straight…

WALDEN: See why people are angry?

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, now, before we even get to the third one, does — tell me how this works. So the committee comes out with a bill…

WALDEN: Right.

AN SUSTEREN: … in the House, and they say, OK, we’re going to take it to the floor and vote on it.

WALDEN: So it goes up to the Rules Committee.

VAN SUSTEREN: OK. So you got to grab it between the committee and the — and before it hits the floor?.

WALDEN: Right. But it goes to a separate committee, the House Rules Committee. They decide the terms of debate. They decide what amendments will be allowed. And frequently, what will happen is you’ll have a 390- page — think about half this, about 400-page amendment to this bill that then is combined, but there’s never a combined document. They may put it up on line, but we’re voting a matter of hours after that.

VAN SUSTEREN: What’s the third one?

WALDEN: The third one is the so-called stimulus. So it was 1,073 pages, 12 hours. Now, Speaker Pelosi said we’d have a minimum of 24 hours.

VAN SUSTEREN: But even that’s insane!

WALDEN: It is.

——–

But don’t worry they are hard at work for you, 2 1/2 days a week!! 🙂

That gives them plenty of time to read 1000+ page opuses that will fundamentally destroy that which know as America.

Doesn’t that just give you the warm fuzzies…. 🙂

And they are “transparent” just like they promised.

The “dark days” of the “most secretive administration in American history” (i.e. the Bush Administration) and the “culture of corruption” of the G.O.P. controlled congress are over…right?

The senators wrote, “At a time when trust in Congress and the U.S. government is unprecedentedly low, we can begin to rebuild the American people’s faith in their federal government through transparency and by actively inviting Americans to participate in the legislative process.”

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) joined a group of eight Democratic senators today in calling for greater transparency and public engagement as the health-care debate moves to the Senate floor. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) also signed a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, citing their constituents’ frustration and want for more information.

Webb and his colleagues wrote: “Whether or not our constituents agree with the direction of the debate, many are frustrated and lacking accurate information on the emerging proposals in Congress. Without a doubt, reforming health care in America is one of the most monumental and far-reaching undertakings considered by this body in decades. We believe the American public’s participation in this process is critical to our overall success of creating a bill that lowers health care costs and offers access to quality and affordable health care for all Americans.”

Sounds rosy, but remember just a few days ago.

The senators are borrowing the idea from Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning, who offered an amendment during the Finance Committee debate that would have put the health care reform bill into legislative language, scored it by the Congressional Budget Office, and put it online for the public to read for three full days before the committee voted on it.

When he introduced his idea, Bunning said, “Quite frankly, I think Americans are tired us us taking the easy way out, tired of us not reading or having the time to read the bills. They expect more from us and we should deliver it.” The Democrats are asking Reid to deliver on all three of Bunning’s suggestions.

When Bunning introduced his amendment last month, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) accused him of trying to stall progress on health care reform and the committee rejected the amendment, as “it was a serious amendment”.

“Let’s be honest about it,” said Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. “Legislative language is relatively arcane, very legalistic, and most people don’t read the legislative language.”

Gee, that is transparent. 🙂

And remember, the Senate bill that is available is only “the conceptual” version that is 256 pages.

Wonder if anyone will read this on their 2 1/2 day work week??

Even the liberal New York Times is questioning President Obama’s promise of transparency.

A Times editorial from September 5, 2009 says: “White House officials are now proposing deep revisions to a Senate Judiciary Committee bill that weaken protections against forcing reporters to reveal their sources.”

The Times says a shield law to protect journalists is necessary, but that the White House wants judges to defer to the administration’s view of what constitutes a security leak: “The executive branch would arrogate power to decide the public’s right to know by crimping the news media’s ability to make a case for disclosure. The latest hedging from the White House does not deliver on his promise for a new era of openness.” (FOX)

You mean Big Brother wants to control the media?

Heaven Forbid.

Remember, he has “Diversity” Czar for that.

🙂

Chief Diversity Officer Mark Lloyd:

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press.  This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

What Lloyd says about Chavez is more than a mite frightening:

“In Venezuela, with Chavez, is really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.  To begin to put in place things that are going to have an impact on the people of Venezuela.

“The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him.  But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.

Ridiculously exorbitant fees and fines on broadcasters could certainly be “used to financially strangle groups that criticize the government,” could they not?  That is, when the government’s not simply “revoking the licenses” of stations that don’t toe the Party line.  Or better still, “seiz(ing) control of media outlets to stifle criticism.”

This entire censorious evolution – from fines, to license rescissions to outright seizures – took place in just over three months.  This is Lloyd’s definition of Chavez “tak(ing) very seriously the media in his country,” as a part of leading an “incredible..democratic revolution.”

But it couldn’t happen here:

Especially from the guy who wrote a June 2007 report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”

* Restore local and national caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations.
* Ensure greater local accountability over radio licensing.
* Require commercial owners who fail to abide by enforceable public interest obligations to pay a fee to support public broadcasting. (a 100% of your operating budget fee that is…)

Sound familiar?

But don’t worry, we’re from the government and we work hard (2 1/2 days a week) for your money (we just get an automatic raise every year) and we are on top of all the legislation and give them all a fair hearing and debate.

Don’t you feel better about your government working hard for you now!

(and thank you to Benjamin Franklin for the title of this piece)