The Darnedest Place

You find things of value in the darnedest places. I was doing research for my Star Trek Club’s 40th Anniversary when I ran across a clip from an episode I hadn’t seen in many years, “The Savage Curtain” (1969).

It would give the Politically Correct apoplectic shock if they could get their Political Correct brains around Star Trek, that is. They couldn’t handle “The Dukes of Hazzard” after all. 🙂

LINCOLN: What a charming negress. Oh, forgive me, my dear. I know in my time some used that term as a description of property.
UHURA: But why should I object to that term, sir? You see, in our century we’ve learned not to fear words.
KIRK: May I present our communications officer, Lieutenant Uhura.
LINCOLN: The foolishness of my century had me apologising where no offense was given.
KIRK: We’ve each learned to be delighted with what we are. The Vulcans learned that centuries before we did.
SPOCK: It is basic to the Vulcan philosophy, sir. The combination of a number of things to make existence worthwhile.

Imagine the politically correct not being “offended” by mere words!!!  The mind boggleth.

The left without fear mongering. Not afraid of words.

Now that is a utopian vision for you.

Written for a show about a vision of hope.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

I have a dream today.”- Dr. Martin Luther King (1963)

Some on the left consider this “mind rape” and race baiting by the white patriarchy.

How is possible that the 1960’s could be MORE tolerant in many ways than the “enlightened” 21st Century?

The politics of power.

There is no actual power in equality or celebrating actual diversity. Only in division. And there is more division now than there has been in 50 years or more.

The Progressive Left celebrated it’s victory at Ferguson, MO one year ago. Where they took an aggressive black man who attacked a white cop and made not only Cops the bad guys but White People in general.

Many in the crowd in Ferguson wore T-shirts emblazoned with Brown’s portrait and the words “Choose Change.” Others carried signs, including one that read: “STOP killing black children.”

What Change? White people stop killing black people, of course.

NAACP president Cornell William(I always love these guys because their organization’s own name is Politically Incorrect, oh the irony)

He urged passage of laws against racial profiling by police and support for reforms requiring body cameras, independent prosecutors and retraining of US police departments.

Cops are politically incorrect to shoot black people, especially White cops and they must be retrained to be think of Political Correctness first and their safety and the safety of the public, second. If that gets them killed, oh well, their only cops… Cops Lives Don’t Matter. 🙂

“No accountability, no justice. Police are still killing us — it’s a crisis that’s going on,”-Erica Snipes, the daughter of Eric Garner.

#Blacklivesmatter becoming its rallying cry. (Yahoo)

Everyone else, screw off you racists!

They stormed the stage of Socialist Bernie Sanders, he’s more “progressive” than they are. (they even stormed the ultra-ultra-ultra Liberal Netroots Convention)

“I was going to tell Bernie how racist this city is — with all of its progressives — but you’ve already done that for me. Thank you.”

“If you care about Black Lives Matter, as you say you do, you will hold Bernie Sanders specifically accountable for his actions,” Johnson continued.

He may be the biggest socialist in Congress and the biggest one running for President, but he’s evil. He’s white!

But, don’t worry, it’s only “Star Trek”, no one really cares about that. 🙂

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Or in the case of the Progressive those who refuse to learn continue to strive for the perfect division so that there power is perfected and if you don’t succeed keep doing it until you do.

Say one thing, do the opposite.

The end justifies the means.

And that is the Progressive Left in a nutshell.

America: The Movie

I went to see “America: Imagine the World Without it” by Dinesh D’Souza yesterday.

http://www.americathemovie.com/

It is a thought provoking movie. But it will annoy The Leftists because it shows how they have shamed at least 2 generations into hating the idea of America and turning it on it’s head and calling everything about it Evil through propaganda and deception.

But this is not just a movie exposing that. He starts the movie in a very rational fashion (unlike arguing with a devout Leftist).

He lays out their case, acknowledges their points, then systematically proves them inaccurate and then how they managed to get to this point in the first place.

Then what needs to be done to bring back the “idea of America” (Freedom, The Dream, entrepreneurship,grit,self-motivation, etc..)

The Revolutionary War founded the idea.

The Civil War Preserved The Idea.

World War II Saved the idea.

Now, we have to Revive, Rescue and Return the idea. We have to bring it back.

As MY history teachers called it, “The Light on the hill”.  The light of TRUTH.

Not the dark, evil predator that the Left wants you to believe for their own agenda.

They only want you to believe it because it suits them.

They have to destroy America in order to Remake it in their Image.

Or, what was it the Alinsky disciple Barack Obama once said, “Fundamentally Transform” America. 🙂

The “idea” isn’t dead. But it needs our help.

And you must not give into the “shame” the Left will heap upon you, for that is their weapon of choice and they’ll use it like the universe itself depending on it.

Because, to them, it does.

But stay strong. Truth is stronger than Leftist Fiction. But you have to be well armed.

 

The Word Police Rise

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
–January 27, 1838 Abraham Lincoln

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.
–December 1, 1862

What I predicted cynically yesterday has started to come true. 😦

Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.) reportedly plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a federal official or member of Congress.

So “targeting” a liberal for defeat could be a federal crime soon. 😦

Disagreeing with someone in power will be a crime.

“Never waste a crisis…”

And the left has  had a renewed flare-up of Palin Derangement Syndrome, her “targeting” of candidates for defeat is for most on the vindictive minds of liberals.

“The rhetoric is just ramped up so negatively, so high, that we have got to shut this down,” Brady said.

Meaning, we have to censor those who disagree with The Left.

MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann called on Palin to repudiate her part in “amplifying violence and violent imagery in politics.”

The Left is complete pure and virtuous and not responsible in any way for the vitriol they have interjected into politics, especially in the last 12 years. It’s all the right’s fault for opposing them.

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas tweeted this early Saturday: “Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin.” The tweet included a link to Palin’s target map.

Kos also recycled a clip of Giffords reacting to the map on MSNBC, where she warned Palin of potential consequences to such visuals.

“The way that she has it depicted, has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district,” Giffords said. “When people do that, they’ve got to realize there are consequences to that action.”

Conservative Andrew Breitbart responded on his own website and on Twitter Saturday, tweeting this warning: “For the love of God, @markos. Stop it. Don’t go there, trust me. Trust me. Trust me. You will not like the blow-back, I assure you.”

Moulitsas, who is also a contributor to The Hill, re-tweeted the message, accompanied by an “LOL.”

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, “We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.” Democrat Congressman Bill Pascrell of New Jersey denounced “an aura of hate” fed “by certain people on Fox News.”

Just hours after the shooting, Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik sounded off at a news conference (BTW he’s a Democrat), pinning blame for the tragedy squarely on “the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government.” Dupnik proclaimed, “the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous.”
“This may be free speech,” he said. “But it’s not without consequences.”
His comments flew across Twitter and were highlighted by a Daily Kos blogger who praised Dupnik for not being afraid “to point the finger at who is culpable.”

An internal Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by the network indicated that <the shooter> Loughner, 22, is “possibly linked” to an anti-Semetic, white supremacist group.
The DHS memo called the group American Renaissance “anti-government, anti-immigration, anti -ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti-Semitic.” (The Hill)

And the Left is the one that produced an Assassination Movie of a Sitting President and when they were excoriated for it they blew you off like it was meaningless. (called “Death of a President”).

Adelaide Now (Adelaide, South Australia) Always ripe with talk of threats and reprisals, the tone of American political debate has turned uglier in the past decade.

The Left raged against George W. Bush, hanging him in effigy, depicting him being guillotined and showing him in one movie being assassinated. After the election of a Democratic Congress in 2006 and President Barack Obama in 2008, the Right frequently invoked guns and violence to stir opposition.

To The Authors That Blame Murder On Politics

Posted by Thomas Purcell 

Dear Author, and to other writers, columnists, and authors who blame this attack on right wing politics:
I think its outrageous that while the families of the dead still are shedding tears, and they aren’t even cold in the ground, that you would use your public forum and your skills as a writer, and author, to bring a political crusade into this issue.
The politics of discourse, whether it be heated, or not, is not the issue. The man that perpetrated this crime is solely to blame. There has not been a single shred of evidence to indicate that the shooter was acting on behalf of anyone that represent public conservative thought, much less Sarah Palin. Even a cursory review of the man’s rants on You Tube or Myspace or interviews with his high school friends show him to be a highly unbalanced individual, and most likely driven by his heretofore undiagnosed and untreated mental illness.
But there is a greater issue here, one that you and other writers are missing. You are abusing the authority your publisher, and the power of your readership to exploit the deaths of fine public servants in order to push a political cause. Writing, and authorship, carries with it great joys, as well as the ability to generate an income, but it also comes with it a great responsibility- to report with the judgment of a fair mind, and based in facts. Writing, and seeking readership in the public eye, is a serious matter, one that should not be taken lightly, or used as a weapon to injure those unfairly who disagree with you. The importance of such responsibility should not be taken lightly, nor disregarded. This is why acts of either plagiarism, yellow journalism, or libel are taken so seriously in courts of law.
There is nothing more powerful then the power of an idea.
Your column suggests that the theory that the Republicans should target certain individuals that had shown weakness in their local polling, and to support tea party candidates in those elections is tantamount to murder. You are saying that conservatives support individuals that go out and shoot the opposing candidates or murder a respected public servant. While issues such as Palin using a crosshairs to show candidates who should be targeted for reelection was done in poor judgement, it hardly is an act suggesting someone should go on shooting spree. In fact, I find it unlikely that you would be able to find a single article, speech or known author of the right, that would suggest such a thing and still keep their job- much less the respect of their readers. By posting such an article at this time, you are in effect, claiming that the public discourse of political discussion is inherently dangerous, and that opposition on ideas leads to violence.
And now, while law enforcement still is investigating the case, and the dead are not even put to rest, you use the pulpit of your column without any evidence- and, in fact, in opposition to what we do know, and just plain common sense.
I find it abominable.
Attacks and acts of violence against our leaders, whether they be from the left or right, or any political school of thought, has never been condoned or suggested by either side. It has been said that violence is the last refuge of the coward, and I agree with that sentiment. But to use the power of the pen, in such a scandalous way, and to act with disregard for the families of the dead; is an abuse of your skill, and the talents you were born with.
When I read columns like this, and others like it, I sometimes feel shame for the profession.

UNITED  IN HORROR (Ross Douthat- New York Times)

When John F. Kennedy visited Dallas in November of 1963, Texas was awash in right-wing anger — over perceived cold-war betrayals, over desegregation, over the perfidies of liberalism in general. Adlai Stevenson, then ambassador to the U.N., had been spit on during his visit to the city earlier that fall. The week of Kennedy’s arrival, leaflets circulated in Dallas bearing the president’s photograph and the words “Wanted For Treason.”

But Lee Harvey Oswald was not a right-winger, not a John Bircher, not a segregationist. Instead, he was a Marxist of sorts (albeit one disillusioned by his experiences in Soviet Russia), an activist on behalf of Castro’s Cuba, and a man whose previous plot had been aimed at a far-right ex-general named Edwin Walker. The anti-Kennedy excesses of Texas conservatives were real enough, but the president’s assassin acted on a far more obscure set of motivations.

Nine years after Kennedy was killed, George Wallace embarked on his second campaign for the presidency. This was the early 1970s, the high tide of far-left violence — the era of the Black Panthers, the Weathermen, the Symbionese Liberation Army — and Wallace’s race-baiting politics made him an obvious target for protests. On his final, fateful day of campaigning, he faced a barrage of coins, oranges, rocks and tomatoes, amid shouts of “remember Selma!” and “Hitler for vice president!”

But Arthur Bremer, who shot Wallace that afternoon, paralyzing him from the waist down, had only a tenuous connection to left-wing politics. He didn’t care much about Wallace’s views on race: he just wanted to assassinate somebody (Richard Nixon had been his original target), as “a statement of my manhood for the world to see.”

It’s possible that Jared Lee Loughner, the young man behind Saturday’s rampage in Tucson, will have a more direct connection to partisan politics than an earlier generation’s gunmen did. Indeed, many observers seem to be taking a kind of comfort from that possibility: there’s been a rush to declare this tragedy a teachable moment — an opportunity for people to cool their rhetoric, abandon their anger, and renounce the kind of martial imagery that inspired Sarah Palin’s PAC to place a target over Gabrielle Giffords’s district just months before Loughner gunned down the Arizona congresswoman.

But chances are that Loughner’s motives will prove as irreducibly complex as those of most of his predecessors in assassination. Violence in American politics tends to bubble up from a world that’s far stranger than any Glenn Beck monologue — a murky landscape where worldviews get cobbled together from a host of baroque conspiracy theories, and where the line between ideological extremism and mental illness gets blurry fast.

This is the world that gave us Oswald and Bremer. More recently, it’s given us figures like James W. von Brunn, the neo-Nazi who opened fire at the Holocaust Museum in 2009, and James Lee, who took hostages at the Discovery Channel last summer to express his displeasure over population growth. These are figures better analyzed by novelists than pundits: as Walter Kirn put it Saturday, they’re “self-anointed knights templar of the collective shadow realm, not secular political actors in extremis.”

This won’t stop partisans from making hay out of Saturday’s tragedy, of course. The Democratic operative who was quoted in Politico saying that his party needs “to deftly pin this on the Tea Partiers” was just stating the obvious: after a political season rife with overheated rhetoric from conservative “revolutionaries,” the attempted murder of a Democratic congresswoman is a potential gift to liberalism.

But if overheated rhetoric and martial imagery really led inexorably to murder, then both parties would belong in the dock. (It took conservative bloggers about five minutes to come up with Democratic campaign materials that employed targets and crosshairs against Republican politicians.) When our politicians and media loudmouths act like fools and zealots, they should be held responsible for being fools and zealots. They shouldn’t be held responsible for the darkness that always waits to swallow up the unstable and the lost.

We should remember, too, that there are places where mainstream political movements really are responsible for violence against their rivals. (Last week’s assassination of a Pakistani politician who dared to defend a Christian is a stark reminder of what that sort of world can look like.) Not so in America: From the Republican leadership to the Tea Party grass roots, all of Gabrielle Giffords’s political opponents were united in horror at the weekend’s events. There is no faction in American politics that actually wants its opponents dead.

That may seem like a small blessing, amid so much tragedy and loss. But it is a blessing worth remembering nonetheless.

Amen!

And then there was this from The Australian reader’s comments.

Frank Bellet, Petrie, Qld

IN a nation where political opponents are declared to be Nazis or communists and major political figures are vilified as conspirators in a plot to bring down the US, reasonable political discourse becomes very difficult.

This sort of angry rhetoric is designed to make the motives of anyone with opposing political views suspect, to imply that they are traitors rather than simply people with another idea of the national interest.

“Paranoia is the most political of mental illnesses. Paranoids need enemies and politics is full of enemies,” said Jerrold Post, director of the Political Psychology program at George Washington University and the author of ‘Political Paranoia’.

So the silliness continues and Orwell is on a binge!

 

Trust Me

When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property. –Thomas Jefferson

Trust, but verify. –Ronald Reagan

If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost. –Senator Barack Obama August 2006

25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -17. (Rasmussen)

For the past year, those giving Congress good or excellent marks have remained in the narrow range of nine percent (9%) to 16%, while 53% to 71% have rated its performance as poor. (Rasmussen)

Guess when the 71% was. Health Care “deem and pass” cram down talk in February. Right before they did cram it down your throat! 🙂

30% of Likely Voters say the country is heading in the right direction, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey taken the week ending Sunday, August 8.

Confidence in the nation’s current course has ranged from 27% to 35% since last July.

Pew Research Center:

Distrust

Thomas SowellDemocracy: It’s an awful thing in a country when its people no longer believe the government protects them and their rights. Yet, a new poll shows that’s exactly where Americans are headed right now.

In a Rasmussen poll of 1,000 adults taken last Friday and Saturday, nearly half, or 48%, said they see government today as a threat to their rights. Just 37% disagreed. The poll also found that only one in five (21%) believe current government has the consent of the governed.

In other words, people think much of what our government does today is illegitimate — possibly even illegal.

For a democratic republic such as our own, this is extraordinarily dangerous. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were created explicitly to protect Americans’ rights by limiting the scope, reach and power of the federal government.

The Declaration promises “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” and goes on to say that “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

In short, our government was designed to protect our rights — not to serve as an all-embracing nanny state that slowly, silently strips us of our ability to act as free individuals.

Bailouts, TARP, the takeover of the auto industry, nationalization of health care, the micromanagement of Wall Street and the banks, the expected $12 trillion explosion in U.S. publicly held debt over the next decade — all this and more adds up to a feeling of loss of control by the American people over their lives, both public and private, and a diminution of their rights.

The Founding Fathers understood this could happen. “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence,” George Washington presciently warned. “It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

His generation understood it would be up to us, the citizens, to ensure government wouldn’t trample our rights. That’s what the Constitution was — an agreement to limit government to certain, carefully prescribed duties. And that’s why we vote.

Today, Americans feel their rights are threatened by a government that has grown beyond its constitutional bounds. Once merely a dangerous servant, our federal government is on its way to becoming a fearful master. The only question is, will we let it?

How did we get to the point where many people feel that the America they have known is being replaced by a very different kind of country, with not only different kinds of policies but very different values and ways of governing?

Something of this magnitude does not happen all at once or in just one administration in Washington. What we are seeing is the culmination of many trends in many aspects of American life that go back for years.

Neither the Constitution of the United States nor the institutions set up by that Constitution are enough to ensure the continuance of a free, self-governing nation. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what members of the Constitution Convention were creating, he replied, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.”

In other words, a Constitutional government does not depend on the Constitution but on us. To the extent that we allow clever people to circumvent the Constitution, while dazzling us with rhetoric, the Constitution will become just a meaningless piece of paper, as our freedoms are stolen from us, much as a pick-pocket would steal our wallet while we are distracted by other things.

It is not just evil people who would dismantle America. Many people who have no desire to destroy our freedoms simply have their own agendas that are singly or collectively incompatible with the survival of freedom.

Someone once said that a democratic society cannot survive for long after 51 percent of the people decide that they want to live off the other 49 percent. Yet that is the direction in which we are being pushed by those who are promoting envy under its more high-toned alias of “social justice.”

Those who construct moral melodramas– starring themselves on the side of the angels against the forces of evil– are ready to disregard the Constitution rights of those they demonize, and to overstep the limits put on the powers of the federal government set by the Constitution.

The outcries of protest in the media, in academia and in politics, when the Supreme Court ruled this year that people in corporations have the same free speech rights as other Americans, are a painful reminder of how vulnerable even the most basic rights are to the attacks of ideological zealots. President Barack Obama said that the Court’s decision “will open the floodgates for special interests”– as if all you have to do to take away people’s free speech rights is call them a special interest.

It is not just particular segments of the population who are under attack. What is more fundamentally under attack are the very principles and values of American society as a whole. The history of this country is taught in many schools and colleges as the history of grievances and victimhood, often with the mantra of “race, class and gender.” Television and the movies often do the same.

When there are not enough current grievances for them, they mine the past for grievances and call it history. Sins and shortcomings common to the human race around the world are spoken of as failures of “our society.” But American achievements get far less attention– and sometimes none at all.

Our “educators,” who cannot educate our children to the level of math or science achieved in most other comparable countries, have time to poison their minds against America.

Why? Partly, if not mostly, it is because that is the vogue. It shows you are “with it” when you reject your own country and exalt other countries.

Abraham Lincoln warned of people whose ambitions can only be fulfilled by dismantling the institutions of this country, because no comparable renown is available to them by supporting those institutions. He said this 25 years before the Gettysburg Address, and he was speaking of political leaders with hubris, whom he regarded as a greater danger than enemy nations. But such hubris is far more widespread today than just among political leaders.

Those with such hubris– in the media and in education, as well as in politics– have for years eroded both respect for the country and the social cohesion of its people. This erosion is what has set the stage for today’s dismantling of America that is now approaching the point of no return.

“To those who claim omnipotence for the Legislature, and who in the plentitude of their assumed powers, are disposed to disregard the Constitution, law, good faith, moral right, and every thing else,” Lincoln declared in an early speech to the Illinois legislature, “I have nothing to say.”

In Lincoln, we have a glimpse of prudence in a liberal democracy; but it is also our best glimpse of it, and perhaps our best hope for understanding and recovering it, and our best hope for the possibility of statesmanship in an age of the partisan absolute, where ignorant armies clash by night. (Heritage.org)

Or on the Internet and the 24/7 News cycle…:)

Trust:
reliance on the integrity, strength, ability, surety, etc., of a person or thing; confidence.confident expectation of something; hope.the condition of one to whom something has been entrusted.the obligation or responsibility imposed on a person in whom confidence or authority is placed: a position of trust.charge, custody, or care: to leave valuables in someone’s trust.something committed or entrusted to one’s care for use or safekeeping, as an office, duty, or the like; responsibility; charge.

The new “reach for hope” should be a renewal of trust. But Verify 🙂

A New Hope & Change

“If you are going through hell, keep going.” –—  Winston Churchill

Despite putting up some great blogs, in my opinion, this month professionally it has been the worst in probably 20 years.

I was so stressed out I barely slept.

I can barely eat.

I have visions of foreclosure, bankruptcy and ruin, dancing in my dreams.

But I have had a good cry.

But I am not about to quit.

I may not win, but if I give it my all, then that at least is consolation.

But take nothing for granted.

I used to.

And that is what I would tell the Republicans right about now.

They are facing an enemy that goes by the rule of there are no rules.

The end justifies the means.

Winning is the only acceptable outcome. Morals and ethics mean nothing.

They are a hindrance.

For winning is power. And power is all that matters.

But the Republicans have also got to bring hope back.

The “Hope & Change” that was stolen from us by the Democrats.

And they can’t fail.

It’s a very high bar in a very partisan raptor-eat-piranha world.

The Mainstream Media is most definite NOT on your side.

So you are going to have to get to the people. Expecting the Mainstream Media to be anything else but totally in the tank for the Democrats is a mistake.

I still have to pick myself up. The Punches are going to still be coming.

Hell awaits.

But you just have to keep going.

Keep Believing.

Keep Hope alive.

And for a devout pessimist like myself that is a tough task.

But it’s necessary.

It must be fought.

And to regain the soul of this country that has been invaded by the terminal cancer of Liberal socialism, it’s a tough disease to fight.

But if you don’t all hope is lost.

The Country is the Titanic, she’s hit an iceberg of cold socialism, the question is will she sink?

That is the question.

And the vote on November 2nd by you and me determines that.

No equivocation. This is do or die for Old Glory.

Are we a nation of innovations and rugged individualists and idealists or are we a country that says all I want is the spoils but none of pain or responsibility for it.

Gimme….Gimme…Gimme

What’s mine is mine and what’s your is also mine because I deserve it!

Do you earn it or are you entitled to it?

Is the spoils of others’ labors superior to the spoils of your own?

Is it all about you?

Are you center of your own universe and everything MUST spin around you and do your bidding and if it doesn’t you are entitled to it anyhow.

Because it’s only “fair”.

Or are you Galileo who dares to be the heretic against the tidal wave of political correctness, fear, and division.

We are in the midst of a great Un-Civil War and one of the greatest speechs in the history of mankind is very approriate at this time.

The Gettysburg Address By Abraham Lincoln  (Modernized)

Eleven score and fourteen years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal regardless of differences.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. The politically correct wolves are at the door and their teeth are bared.

We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

The Voting Booth. That most hallowed of ground.

But in a larger sense we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.

November 2, 2010.

It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

AMEN!


The Line too Far- Not for Liberals

Remember when Rep. Joe Wilson called out “You Lie” during an Obama speech to Congress and the Liberal Media and the Democrats nearly went into full apoplectic meltdown over the incivility of it all.

Well, now the Goose has been burnt to a crisp.

What’s good for the goose is still not good for the gander, if your a Liberal Democrat.

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Monday (heard this one in the “Mainstream Media” much?):

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all Republicans can come up with is this: Slow down. Stop everything. Let’s start over,” Reid said.

“If you think you have heard these same excuses before, you are right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said: Slow down. It is too early. Let’s wait. Things aren’t bad enough.”

So now if you oppose them, your in favor of slavery!!

But don’t worry, you won’t get weeks of analysis on how uncivil this was. You’ll be lucky to ever even heard of it.

That’s “journalism” in 2009.

Of Course, Sen. Reid probably doesn’t need to be reminded the actual facts. It’s just that to a liberal in the heat of the moment and with no other recourse, an attack ad hominem is all they know how to use. Like an instinctual response of  a defensive scorpion. Sting! Sting! Sting!

“To suggest that passing this horrible bill is anything akin to ridding our country of slavery is terribly offensive and calls into question Mr. Reid’s suitability to lead,” Steele said. “Having made this disgraceful statement on the floor of the United States Senate, Mr. Reid should immediately apologize.”

Not only did Reid not apologize, but his spokesman called the criticism from Republicans “feigned outrage.” Reid’s speech offered a comparative sweep of past legislative milestones – slavery’s end, women’s suffrage, Civil Rights. (Las Vegas Sun)

Reid continued, “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.

“When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.” (Town Hall)

Not only am I not sorry for my inappropriate and defamatory comment, let’s unload the full barrell of shotgun shells and go for the AK-47 and ready the Nukes!

IBD: Politicians who believe in the never-ending expansion of government are fully willing to pull out the stops when something as big as government-run health care is within grasp.

Maybe he does need to be reminded. Maybe his “liberal education” never taught him the real facts.

Does Harry Reid really forget that the Republican Party’s First real candidate for president after it surpassed and supplanted the Whigs, was Abraham Lincoln???

Founded in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, the Republican Party quickly surpassed the Whig Party as the principal opposition to the Democratic Party. It first came to power in 1860 with the election of Abraham Lincoln, a former Whig, to the presidency and presided over the American Civil War and Reconstruction.

When the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which would end segregation nationwide, came to Congress for a vote, a number of Senators did, in fact, threaten to filibuster the bill as Harry Reid stated. What Harry Reid did not mention is that 80% of those Senators that threatened to filibuster the Civil Rights Act were Democrats. In fact, 31% of Democrats in Congress voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That means about 1/3 of the Democrat Party refused to end segregation nationwide.

People like Sen Robert Byrd, who is still there!

How did the Republican Members of Congress vote concerning the Civil Rights Act of 1964? A total of 82% of the Republicans in Congress voted to end segregation nationwide. In other words, segregation ended when a larger percentage of Republicans voted in favor of civil rights.

But as I have shown repeatedly, facts that liberals don’t like or don’t push their agenda don’t matter to them.

And where is the major media: Trying to hide yet another mess under the table.

Former Clinton Mouthpiece on ABC’s Good Morning America:

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos appeared on Tuesday’s Good Morning America to spin and minimize Senator Harry Reid’s contention that opponents of health care reform are similar to supporters of slavery. After ABC played a truncated version of Reid’s quote, Stephanopoulos, hopefully observed, “My guess is this is going to blow over.

Sure, when you censor and downplay the whole clip. How many times and in how many ways did Liberals play “You lie” and wrack themselves with glee and feigned disgust 24/7??

He did concede to co-host Robin Roberts: “Republicans were just furious about that, Robin.” But, ABC didn’t show any clips of “furious” Republicans complaining about the harsh attack. Prior to the clip being played, Stephanopoulos, who is rumored to be the next host of Good Morning America, adopted a charitable description of Reid’s comparison to slavery: “Boy, the whole Senate floor exploded over [the remarks] yesterday, when Senator Reid went to the floor and tried to rally his Democrats by evoking these great legislative fights of the past.”

It’s over-blown. No big deal. Nothing to see here.

See the same pattern as ever other time a Liberal gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar?

Now imagine a Republican, or Conservative, or even George W Bush saying this?

Impeachment would be called for. Or at least several months of 24/7 “analysis”.

But a Liberal says it, eh, so what no big deal.

It never is if it’s them.

It goes like this:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Republicans were just furious about that, Robin. My guess is this is going to blow over. The real action now going on behind the scenes in these negotiations over this public health insurance option.

Robin ROBERTS: Oh, yeah. That is another- Yeah, we haven’t even talked about that, which is so key, as we’ve been saying for many months now. And who are the key players in this, George?

Just move on, gloss it over, barely recognize it, diminish it, and move onto The Agenda.

That’s “Journalism” for you in 2009.

Hate Air America (yes, apparently they still exist): Should Harry Reid apologize? And should Democrats resort to the sort of bomb throwing name calling that Republicans have been doing for years?

I would laugh but I am too cynical for that.

How low can they go? The desperate Democratic peddlers of a government health care takeover have proclaimed an insurance “holocaust in America” (Fla. Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson), lambasted conservative health care town hall protesters as “political terrorists” (Indiana Democratic Rep. Baron Hill), sent SEIU thugs to demonstrate outside Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman’s private residence, and derided senior citizens questioning President Obama’s fuzzy math savings claims (California Democratic Rep. Pete Stark: “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.”) Now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is leading them deeper into demagogic mire.

Following in the mucky footsteps of former President Jimmy Carter (who blamed GOP Rep. Joe Wilson’s objections to Obama’s policy deceptions on a “racism inclination”) and Jesse Jackson (“You can’t vote against health care and call yourself a black man”), Reid likened Republicans who object to socialized medicine to slave masters, enemies of women’s suffrage.(Town hall)

As low as they have to get what they want. It doesn’t matter to them. And it sure as hell doesn’t matter to ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN, et al.

Town Hall: There is now a $200,000 “bounty” on the head of U.S Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue. Left-wing activist website “Velvet Revolution” published a want ad this week with Donohue’s picture on it, soliciting information leading to “the arrest and conviction” of the business leader for “opposing progressive initiatives.”

IBD:“We now seek hard evidence that will stand up in the court of law; i.e., documents, affidavits and testimony implicating Donohue in crimes; including fraud, tax violations, campaign finance violations, money laundering, insider trading, election tampering, pension fund and stockholder manipulations. We want to hear from insiders and whistle-blowers posessing (sic) information not already in the public domain.”

Is it just us, or is this the most despicable act the hipster left has come up with since MoveOn.org tried to smear General David Petraeus as General Betray-Us in a New York Times ad last year?

But these are the compassionate, rational, loving, salt-of-the earth, bi-partisan,tolerant, saintly (compared-to evil-capitalist Republicans) Defender of Mom and Apple Pie, who care about the poor, and the downtrodden. 🙂

And don’t the Mainstream Media tell you any different! 🙂

IBD: No wonder White House Press Secretary Gibbs delivered his infantile diatribe this week claiming that the president’s 47% approval according to the Gallup tracking poll — a new low — is meaningless.

CSM: In a blame-the-messenger moment, the press secretary, citing swings in Mr. Obama’s approval ratings in Gallup daily tracking data, said: “I am sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that.”

Gibbs continued: “I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend. I don’t pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it.

It’s no big deal that Obama has the lowest approval rating at this point in his presidency since Harry S. Truman. He’s a Liberal. It doesn’t matter.

We’ll beat George W Bush into a bloody pulp over his approval ratings, but Obama’s, peshaw, nothing to see here. it’s meaningless.

Notice how liberals love that word when deflecting criticism and scandals from them? 🙂

And finally: a Bit of ironic humor from The Christian Science Monitor:

Tomatoes Going Rogue

All the drama occurred yesterday at the Mall of America in Bloomington, Minnesota. Palin was at another stop on her “Going Rogue” book tour.

At some point during the four hour engagement, a man perched on a second floor balcony hurled two tomatoes at Palin. The rapidly-moving vegetables fruits didn’t come close. One onlooker said they missed by at least 10 feet.

That didn’t mean the aggressor was unsuccessful however. He managed to hit two people. Who happened to be cops.

Needless to say, an arrest quickly followed. Jeremy Paul Olson, was charged with assault and disorderly conduct.

Attack of the Killer Tomatoes (2009) or is that the The Gang/Guy That Couldn’t Shoot Straight?? 🙂

Breaking News:

Some good news possibly though: Sen Ben Nelson (D-NE)  has promised to vote against the overall legislation unless his amendment is included. This was a total ban on federal funding for abortion.

The Democrats voted it down.

If he carries out his threat, Democrats would fall at least one vote short of passage unless they can find a Republican to fill his shoes.

So I guess they will be kissing up to Maine Senators Olympia Snow and Susan Collins now more than ever!!

Which means compromises that many Democrats will hate. But will they swallow it to just get something, ANYTHING, passed so they and the media can stand triumphant as the saviors of the American people?

Stay Tuned.

The sideshow has only just begun.