Attention: Elitists

I know it’s Martin Luther King Day (though I have heard some leftist refer to it as “Civil Right Days” because MLK is not politically correct anymore) but BECAUSE He’s not PC anymore I present you resentment in another form. 🙂

A lot of us complain that our elite betters are ignoring our concerns, but nothing could be further from the truth. They have heard us all right. They have gotten together to come up with a solution to the many problems we have brought to their attention. And that solution is for us to shut up and keep sucking up whatever abuse they choose to heap upon us.

It’s all about empowering the elite to feel smug. And about sticking us normal with the check.

Upset about establishment virtue signaling that requires us to take limitless numbers of Third World denizens into our country? Mad when they take our jobs? Of course, aliens don’t take the elite’s jobs – for example, we lawyers get to bar people who don’t pass the Bar from horning in on our action, but if you’re an American who wants to build houses for a decent wage, well, too bad and so sad!

And if these uninvited guests change your neighborhood so that you can’t read the window signs, well, learn to accept diversity. Of course, these visitors never change what’s inside the elite’s gated communities – except when they change the rich kids’ diapers.

Oh, and if one of them gets hammered and uses his shiny new illegal alien driver’s license to ram his beat up Chevy into a car packed with your son and his friends, that’s a small price to pay for the elite redlining its collective sense of moral self-satisfaction. And if an illegal rapes and murders your daughter, well, better an American woman die than some dreamer’s dream of easy pickings be denied.

 

Your life is not a priority. It’s not even a consideration.

Attention flyover people down there below the elite’s private jets – time (for you) to make some sacrifices for Mother Earth! So what if the actual climate data refuses to cooperate with the climate change theory? So what if the elite predicted an ice age back in the 1970s? The solution to the problem of non-existent global warming is the same as the solution to phantom ice ages – give the elite more money and power.

In fact, there is no “problem” that can’t be solved by use giving the elite more of our money and more of our power.

Sure, some of us don’t live in coastal cities and our need SUVs for our families (we still breed out in here in America, you know), and some of us have jobs where we need gas-guzzling trucks. But the elite’s fetish for eradicating the scourge of the fossil fuels that made modern society possible trumps our petty livelihoods. Another couple bucks a gallon, another couple hundred a month for heat? Shoot, the elites can afford that, and the fact that the normals can’t shouldn’t keep their betters from enjoying the moral ecstasy that comes from imposing deep sacrifices on other people!

Of course, we are always those other people.

When elitists talk about how terrible the cops are, guess who gets mugged or worse when the crime rate goes up? Surprise! It’s never the coastal elitists and moral posers who love hamstringing the cops.

And when they talk about “gun crime,” how come the solutions always seem to involve making it harder for normal people to protect themselves and their families? How come these “common sense gun controls” never seem to target actual criminals? Hmmm, it’s almost like they would rather have us vulnerable and docile instead of able to protect ourselves from thugs…and tyrants.

Is it a secret where the vast majority of gun crime happens and who commits it? Here’s a hint: Democrat big cities and their residents. How about doubling up the cops in the ghettos, arresting the crooks everyone knows are crooks, and supporting the cops when they do it? Just kidding! There are no poser points to score by cracking down on real criminals; the moral superiority money shot comes from pressing that Manolo Blahnik high heel down on us normals and grinding away.

Resentful of Democrat-voting losers and bums who don’t feel like working but who expect you to toil to pay them off? Selfish!

Think that just because one of us would go to prison for, say, mishandling hundreds of classified documents, then a member of the elite should too? Sexist!

Upset that some skeevy weirdo pretending to be a girl is going to crash your daughter’s high school locker room for a bit of live entertainment? Transphobic!

Disagree with a leftist in general, You’re a racist or a Bigot.

So what if their candidates are an old White Socialist and old White Communist, you still hate Minorities. 🙂

Yeah, if you’re a normal American, you’re pretty much the root of all evil. You’re the worst of the worst. You suck.

And if you’re white, you are nothing but evil (unless you’re a Democrat or a RINO then you’re still evil but they want YOUR vote not ours).

Welcome to Political Three Card Monte. Whatever the issue, you lose.

But now we’ve done asking the elite for help. Now we’re telling the establishment how it’s going to be. Put just Trump, Cruz and Carson together and the insurgents own way over 50% of the GOP electorate. They can try to beat us down, but we’re finished thanking them and asking if we may have another. First we’re taking back the Republican Party, then we’re taking back the whole country. And then that feeling you elitists will be feeling won’t be smugness anymore. It’ll be fear. (Kurt Schlichter)

AMEN!

In His Interest Only

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Columnist and author of “The Undocumented,” Mark Steyn argued comparing President Obama to Neville Chamberlain is “rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain” on Tuesday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Steyn said of comparisons between Obama and Chamberlain, “I think actually that’s rather unfair to Neville Chamberlain, Sean. He got the central question of the 1930’s wrong, but he was an honorable man, who believed he was acting in the interests of his country and the British Empire which he loved. When Churchill became prime minister he kept Chamberlain on and had him chair the War Cabinet in his absence. And Churchill wept over Chamberlain’s funeral casket, and claimed he was an honorable man who just happened to be wrong. I don’t think you can say that about Obama. I think what Obama did is significantly worse than what Neville Chamberlain did. I don’t think, in effect, Obama was negotiating on behalf of the United States. I think what happened at these talks is that he and the Iranians were, in a sense, negotiating together to anoint Iran as the regional power in the Middle East and to facilitate Iran’s reentry, the biggest planetary sponsor of terrorism, to facilitate its reentry into the global community. That’s what Obama was there doing.”

“I think the nuclear issue was a mere pretext, a Hitchcockian McGuffin. Iran will be a nuclear state, and very soon. The joke inspections regime – under which Teheran can block any inspections for the best part of a month – will facilitate the nuclearization of Iran and prevent anyone who objects to it – such as Israel – from doing anything about it. That’s a given.”

But that’s not what the talks were about. Obama’s vision of the post-American Middle East sees Iran as the dominant power, and that’s what the negotiations were there to finesse.

Steyn added, “I think that’s the other difference between Obama and Chamberlain. The horrors of the — of what Germany did were not known to Neville Chamberlain. And in a sense the appeasers of the 1930’s did so because of the horrors of the first World War and the lost generation, and they didn’t want that to happen again. And it’s because we know they got it wrong, that history won’t give us the same opt out card. Because we should have known better because it had happened before. And I think what Obama gets here, i think it does come back to a — to his classic Marxist worldview in which he sees America as the problem on the world’s stage. And if you look at everything he did — he’s done, Sean, what he did with Iran fits into that context. I mean, whether you look at missile defense in Eastern Europe, where he takes the side of Russia over US allies like Poland and the Czech Republic. If you look at little things, like the Falklands Islands, where he takes the side of Argentina over a US ally like United Kingdom. And in the Middle East, he’s taken the side of Iran over US allies like the Sunni monarchies and Israel, because his central view is that America and American power is the problem in the world. And, therefore, American allies are part of that problem. And, therefore, what he does is, in a sense, withdraw from the world, and enhance the position of the enemies of American allies. That’s what he’s done in the Middle East. And it won’t be confined to the Middle East, it’ll spread beyond that.”

Sheldon Filger: In a private meeting with leftwing progressive activists in the Democratic Party held in January 2014, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, spelled out the administration’s intentions. Unknown to Rhodes, his confidential briefing was secretly recorded, and details would subsequently leak out. The core of what he had to say about the negotiations with Iran:

“So no small opportunity, it’s a big deal. This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context.” He went on to say, “We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away. And there are ways to do that.”

Largely in secret, and based on a belief that the American people lacked the sophistication to fully understand the Iran issue as thoroughly as President Obama and his expert advisors, a policy decision was apparently made to engage in a grand act of appeasement, allowing Iran to maintain intact its illicit nuclear infrastructure designed solely to fabricate fissile materials suitable for ultimately only one purpose — manufacturing nuclear weapons. A fig leaf of a 10-year moratorium on full-scale use of that capacity by Iran, with a supposedly strict inspection regime that is obfuscated by a complex treaty that is so arcane, it allows Iran numerous opportunities to thwart its intent and cheat successfully, has been presented as largely a public relations exercise. The real intent of the Iran deal, as Ben Rhodes suggested 18 months ago, is to transform Iran from an adversary to a regional ally of America’s and serve as the Middle East policeman, allowing the United States to finally extricate itself from military involvement in that region.

Barack Obama, John Kerry and Ben Rhodes apparently believe in a manner similar to Stalin’s that the Ayatollahs’ vehemently anti-American hatred is not a core value of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will be sublimated by pragmatism. Yet, even as the Iran Deal was being finalized, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei publicly chanted “death to America!” American flags were burning on Iranian streets as Kerry and Zarif exchanged smiles. And the regime’s most militant instrument of power, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, was staging naval exercises that involved the “sinking” of a replica of an American aircraft carrier.

President Obama has apparently convinced himself that Tehran’s hostility is only a passing phase, and that in time it will become the trustworthy guardian of the Middle East, protecting the United States from what the administration seems to regard as the unruly Sunni Arab world. Decades of alliances with the broader Arab world, and especially Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries, along with Israel, are in the process of being abandoned, in what must be regarded as the most reckless crapshoot in American geostrategic planning.

Unfortunately, the administration has lulled itself into sleepwalking with a hegemon whose core ideology, as the leaders of the Islamic Republic have repeatedly stated, is centered on hatred of the United States. Unless other forces can prevent what at this point seems inevitable, the ultimate outcome of the Iran deal is that Americans will one day awaken to the reality of an apocalyptic regime pointing nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles at their shores.

But it makes THEM feel good. It makes THEM feel superior. It MAKES them look “strong” in their eyes. And we know the only opinion that matters to Obama, Is Obama’s.

And in 10-15 years (or less) when Iran is terrorizing the world with Nuclear weapons the Left and Obama will be firmly and resolutely convinced beyond a shadow of any doubt that it will be someone elses fault! 🙂

Somebody Else’s Problem field, or SEP, is a cheap, easy, and staggeringly useful way of safely protecting something from unwanted eyes. It can run almost indefinitely on a torch (flashlight)/9 volt battery, and is able to do so because it utilises a person’s natural tendency to ignore things they don’t easily accept, like, for example, aliens at a cricket match. Any object around which an S.E.P. is applied will cease to be noticed, because any problems one may have understanding it (and therefore accepting its existence) become Somebody Else’s. An object becomes not so much invisible as unnoticed.

“The Somebody Else’s Problem field is much simpler and more effective, and what’s more can be run for over a hundred years on a single torch battery. This is because it relies on people’s natural disposition not to see anything they don’t want to, weren’t expecting, or can’t explain.”

― Douglas Adams, Life, the Universe and Everything

Problem Solved. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

The Bear Trap

“One does not sharpen the axes after the right time; after the time they are needed.” — Russian Proverb

The late Ukrainian violinist Mischa Elman is considered one of the greatest of all time, but he has nothing on Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has played the Obama administration better than any musician. (Cal Thomas)

A murderous enemy of democratic freedom such as Vladimir Putin gets a New York Times platform to lecture Americans. Why not? He just proved he has more international clout than our own president.

After all:

Ed Asner didn’t mince words when he told the Hollywood Reporter that celebrities won’t be mobilizing against any Obama wars: “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.” People in Tinseltown watch a little too much MSNBC.

Asner sounded very cynical. “It will be a done deal before Hollywood is mobilized. This country will either bomb the hell out of Syria or not before Hollywood gets off its ass.” He doesn’t even think clogging the town square in protest accomplishes anything any more: “We had a million people in the streets, for Christ’s sake, protesting Iraq, which was about as illegal as you could find. Did it matter? Is George Bush being tried in the high courts of justice?”

Even hard core kiss-ass Liberals aren’t happy with the Amateur hour displayed by Mr. Lead from Behind Community Organizer:

I Think Vladimir Took It, Barack
I Think Vladimir Took It, Barack

While many in the media are actually crediting Barack Obama for Russian President Vladimir Putin’s proposed Syrian chemical weapons “solution,” TIME magazine’s Joe Klein isn’t one of them.

Far from it, Klein penned a scathing rebuke of Obama’s handling of Syria Wednesday calling it “one of the more stunning and inexplicable displays of presidential incompetence that I’ve ever witnessed…The consequences of Obama’s amateur display ripple out across the world.”

“He willingly jumped into a bear trap of his own creation. In the process, he has damaged his presidency and weakened the nation’s standing in the world,” Klein wrote.

“As it stands,” he continued, “no one will be surprised if [Putin’s] offer is a ruse, but the Administration is now trapped into seeing it through and gambling that it will be easier to get a congressional vote if it fails.”

Klein addressed changes in the Middle East that will continue to occur in the coming decades including “the formation of new countries, like Kurdistan, along ethnic and sectarian lines, and the process will undoubtedly be bloody.”

But our involvement in such matters in the recent past has proven unsuccessful in Klein’s view, and Obama’s buggling has left America in a weaker position to have any positive impact on world events.

“He has now damaged his ability to get his way with the Chinese, the Iranians and even the Israelis.”

“The question now is whether Obama’s inability to make his military threat in Syria real—and the American people’s clear distaste for more military action—will empower the hard-liners in the [Iranian] Revolutionary Guards Corps to give no quarter in the negotiations,” Klein wrote.

“The Chinese, who have been covetous of the South China Sea oil fields, may not be as restrained as they have been in the past,” he continued. “The Japanese may feel the need to revive their military, or even go nuclear, now that the promise of American protection seems less reliable. The consequences of Obama’s amateur display ripple out across the world.”

But Obama’s incompetence doesn’t just have an international impact in Klein’s view. There are domestic consequences as well.

“[A]fter Syria,” Klein warned, “it will be difficult for any member of Congress to believe that this President will stick to his guns or provide protection.”

I’m not sure Syria was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Republicans, but if a liberal such as Klein has these kinds of concerns, that certainly might be the case for Democrats. (NB)

By my count he used the words “I,” “me” and “my” 30 times in his 15-minute address. He personalizes everything, but delivers little, except uncertainty in his foreign policy. The world is becoming increasingly dangerous because we have a president who either does not know how to lead, or doesn’t want to lead in foreign affairs.

That House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi would credit the president with a diplomatic triumph because of a pledge from two men whose promises aren’t worth the paper on which they have yet to be written, is funnier than the monologues of late-night comedians.

Shortly after Putin’s “diplomatic triumph,” which might have been expected given Syria’s puppet status with Russia, ABC News Online reported that Putin plans to meet Friday with Iranian President Hassan Rowhani to renew Russia’s offer of S-300 air defense missiles to Iran. Putin knows how to stir the pot to America’s detriment.

Iran, with or without its proxy war in Syria and its arming of Hezbollah, remains the major threat in the region. President Obama, who once said he would consider negotiating with Iran because America had become too “arrogant,” shows that, too, was a meaningless policy proposal. You can’t negotiate with evil. Evil must be defeated.

By assuming the role of a bad character on the world stage, Russia is a threat to peace.

During last year’s presidential campaign, Mitt Romney said Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe; they fight for every cause for the world’s worst actors.”

Who sounds more presidential: a tentative Barack Obama, who speaks loudly and too often, but carries a small stick, or Mitt Romney, who clearly understood that for threats to be diminished or deterred a president must have credibility? (Cal Thomas)

Oh, right, I’m just an ignorant “bagger” and I can’t possibly be critical of The Annoited One who’s so far above me in everything that I am but a knat… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Attitude Adjustment

” Liberal: a power worshipper without power. “– George Orwell. But when they have power? You get contempt.

What I have to say about last night’s debate is that it Biden’s contempt was obvious and very predictable. Liberals are always going on about disrespecting them (disagreeing with them) but that’s because that’s all they know themselves. So the fact that Biden had complete contempt for his opponent and showed him no respect is not out of character, it was expected.

Doesn’t this just remind you of “The Shining”??
Here’s JOE!

So beside their total contempt for you disagreeing with them they have to make sure everyone thinks you’re evil to boot. Can’t have people finding out that it’s YOU (the liberal) who is the actual problem. So they have to divert it.

Peggy Noonan’s take was probably the most spot-on analysis I’ve seen anywhere.  A key excerpt:

Another way to say it is the old man tried to patronize the kid and the kid stood his ground. The old man pushed, and the kid pushed back. Last week Mr. Obama was weirdly passive. Last night Mr. Biden was weirdly aggressive, if that is the right word for someone who grimaces, laughs derisively, interrupts, hectors, rolls his eyes, browbeats and attempts to bully. He meant to dominate, to seem strong and no-nonsense. Sometimes he did—he had his moments. But he was also disrespectful and full of bluster. “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy!” he snapped at one point. It was an echo of Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle, in 1988. But Mr. Quayle, who had compared himself to Kennedy, had invited the insult. Mr. Ryan had not. It came from nowhere. Did Mr. Biden look good? No, he looked mean and second-rate. He meant to undercut Mr. Ryan, but he undercut himself. His grimaces and laughter were reminiscent of Al Gore’s sighs in 2000—theatrical, off-putting and in the end self-indicting. Mr. Ryan was generally earnest, fluid, somewhat wonky, confident. He occasionally teetered on the edge of glibness and sometimes fell off.

And since liberals are that smug, arrogant and condescending they will cheer this performance as sticking it to the little shit and putting him in his place.

Liberal want you to “respect” them, but they have no respect for you. That’s because it ain’t respect they want. It’s fear. You must fear them.

FEAR IS HOPE!

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

And what better fear than “racism”.

“Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.” — Mary Frances Berry, the liberal former Chairwoman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights

“Liberals claim Republicans speak in racist code words for the simple reason that Republicans aren’t saying anything that’s objectively racist.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama

Sadly, liberals have made convincing black Americans that everyone hates them except the Democrats a central part of their political strategy. Although racism has always existed and will always exist, it’s worth noting that the party of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and segregation is the Democrats, not the Republicans. So, while you’ll occasionally run across a racist Republican, just as you’ll occasionally run across a racist from any group in America, there is, and never has been, any pervasive racism in the Republican Party. Since finding racism is at the core of the Democrats’ appeal to black Americans, this means that Democrats have to create a lot of racist remarks out of thin air. After all, it’s a lot easier to cry “racism” than it is to defend Barack Obama’s habitual incompetence in dealing with the economy, jobs, debt, foreign policy, gas prices, bailouts, and health care along with all the other issues the American people expect the President to be involved in.

10) Accusing Obama of saying something untrue:Witness a July 23 column published at the Christian Science Monitor website by Charlton McIlwain and Stephen M. Caliendo in which our helpful liberal guides explain that, “in the presidential election, it’s not a matter of whether racism will appear in campaign messaging, but when”…

Caliendo and McIlwain claim that “A recent ad from the Romney campaign, for instance, has the effect of presenting the untrustworthiness stereotype, calling Obama’s statements “not true,” and “misleading.” Then the ad goes a step beyond, by saying, “but that’s Barack Obama,” that is, the kind of person who misleads and says things that are not true.”

They explain that”charges of criminality, untrustworthiness, and the like are standard attacks on white candidates, there is no stereotype associating whites, as a group, with criminality, untrustworthiness, freeloading, or laziness, so the potential effect is not the same.”

…Caliendo and McIlwain also claim “in the same ad mentioned in question No. 1, while featuring the image of a smiling Obama, the announcer says, he also attacked Hillary Clinton with vicious lies.” This provides the opportunity to make the association: Obama, who is black, with “lying,” not to mention the descriptors “attacked” and “viciousness,” which also conjure the association with stereotypes of black aggression.”

And then there’s the corollary: It’s never there fault anyways, it’s always yours. (and undoubtedly racist if you keep going on about it long enough):

If we (Democrats) make an assertion it’s always True, even if it’s False. And if you make an assertion it’s always false even it’s true.

During the vice presidential debate tonight, when pressed about the lack of security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi before the attack on 9/11,Vice President Joe Biden said, “We weren’t told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there.”

This blatantly false. But After the debate, Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter said she “didn’t catch the exchange” when Biden made the false comments. So it didn’t happen.

It didn’t happen because she says she didn’t see it.  And it’s your fault for pressing her on it anyhow as she said the day before:

“In terms of the politicization of this — you know, we are here at a debate, and I hope we get to talk about the debate — but the entire reason this has become the political topic it is, is because of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. It’s a big part of their stump speech. And it’s reckless and irresponsible what they’re doing.”– Stephanie Cutter.

So the only reason that the Libya Terrorist attacks is still in the news is not because the Obama Administration failed miserably and 4 people were murdered and the incompetence of the administration was laid bare, it’s because Romney and Ryan want to continue talking about it for political gain!

Much like Bain (for Democrats) but the difference is, if they want to talk about it, it’s relevant. If you want to talk to them about something they did, it’s irrelevant.

After all Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in effect  Just Because Facts Were Wrong, Doesn’t Mean They Were False!

Remind you of the Dan Rather, Bush Military mess- ‘Just because the documents were fake doesn’t mean the info was wrong’. Because it was THEIR assertion and since they are never wrong…

” Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. “–George Orwell

And the Film did it and the only reason you want to still talk about it is because of politics is a pure example of it.

9) Angry:Angry. On the campaign trail this summer, President Obama has become — in the words of the mainstream Associated Press — more “aggressive.” But don’t you dare call him “angry.” According to MSNBC host Toure, that’s racist!

“You notice he said ‘anger’ twice,” Toure fumed in response to a speech last week by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. “He’s really trying to use racial coding and access some really deep stereotypes about the angry black man.” Or maybe Romney is just accurately describing the singular temperament of the growling, finger-jabbing, failure-plagued demagogue-in-chief. It’s about the past four years, not 400 years. Sheesh.

8) Saying “We own this country….It is not you owning it, and not politicians owning it. Politicians are employees of ours.”: Watching Eastwood act out his fantasy of standing over the president and lecturing him like he was an errant schoolboy in need of correction brought forth all the unsavory aspects of modern conservatism Romney desperately wanted to spend last night minimizing. Romney wanted to paint a picture of a conservative movement that has room at the table for the voices of people of color and women. Eastwood looked out at the crowd and said, to wild applause, “I would just like to say something, ladies and gentlemen. Something that I think is very important. It is that, you, we—we own this country.” Despite the incoherent, bumbling aspects of his speech, this sentiment—that we, not they, own this country—came across loud and clear. And with that, all of Romney’s hard work putting together a list of speakers that screamed “diversity” and “milquetoast” collapsed, and all before the candidate himself had a chance to speak. — Amanda Marcotte7) White liberals voting against Obama:Electoral racism in its most naked, egregious and aggressive form is the unwillingness of white Americans to vote for a black candidate regardless of the candidate’s qualifications, ideology or party. This form of racism was a standard feature of American politics for much of the twentieth century. So far, Barack Obama has been involved in two elections that suggest that such racism is no longer operative. His re-election bid, however, may indicate that a more insidious form of racism has come to replace it.

…Still, electoral racism cannot be reduced solely to its most egregious, explicit form. It has proved more enduring and baffling than these results can capture. The 2012 election may be a test of another form of electoral racism: the tendency of white liberals to hold African-American leaders to a higher standard than their white counterparts. If old-fashioned electoral racism is the absolute unwillingness to vote for a black candidate, then liberal electoral racism is the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors. — Melissa Harris-Perry

6) Breadbasket: “Ryan just called Florida ‘the breadbasket of the South’ … phrase has Civil War origins. Florida a major supplier food to the Confederacy.” — CNN’s Peter Hamby5) Kitchen cabinet:Radio talk-show host Mark Thompson jumped on Romney for using this phrase — coined to describe Andrew Jackson’s administration in the 1800s — at the NAACP convention in July. Romney was referring to a close member of his staff during his tenure as Massachusetts governor.

“To talk about being in the kitchen and not talk about an African-American actually being in your cabinet is really not a good metaphor to use with African-Americans,” Thompson blasted. Is it racist to ask: Huh?

4) Mitt Romney mentioning his sons:…”I’ve got 5 boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it,” Romney said.

…”Yet there [Obama] was, giving a presentation devoid of substance, vision, principle, or even basic coherence. He didn’t show a spark of anger, even when Romney slyly found a way to call him a boy, comparing Obama’s statements to the sorts of childish lies his ‘five boys’ used to tell,” Kevin Baker wrote at Harper’s.

“How the right’s hard-core racists must have howled at that! Mitt, at long last, has secured his base,” he added.

3) Calling Barack Obama “Cool” and/or opposing him in any way:Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, argued that President Obama has struggled during his first term due to racially-motivated opposition from conservatives who dislike having a black president.

…She said that “a lot” of conservative opposition is racially-charged, citing the use of the word “cool” in an attack ad launched by Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS superPAC.

“There’s an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there’s this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses,” Rye said. “And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren’t asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that’s the number one person they’d love to have a beer with. So, if that’s not cool I don’t know what is.

She added that “even ‘cool,’ the term ‘cool,’ could in some ways be deemed racial [in this instance].”

2) Golf:“For four years, Barack Obama has been running from the nation’s problems, he hasn’t been working to earn re-election. He has been working to earn a spot on the PGA Tour,” Sen. (Mitch) McConnell said.

…“Well, we know exactly what he’s trying to do there. He is trying to align to Tiger Woods and surely, the — lifestyle of Tiger Woods with Barack Obama,” said MSNBC host (of course) Lawrence O’Donnell.

…“Martin, there are many, many, many rhetorical choices you can make at any point in any speech to make whatever point up you want to make. If he wanted to make the point that you just suggested and I think he does want to make that point, they had a menu of a minimum of ten different kinds of images that they could have raised,” O’Donnell argued.

“And I promise you, the speech writers went through, rejecting three or four before they land order that one. That’s the one they want for a very deliberate reason. That — there’s — these people reach for every single possible racial double entendre they can find in every one of these speeches,” he added.

1) Chicago:Chris Matthews: Yea, well let me ask you about that gentleman. What about now, is this constant barrage of assaults, saying the guy is basically playing an old game of demagoguery politics, where you take the money from the worker bees and give it to the poor people to buy votes. That’s basically what they’re charging him with. Old big-style, big-city machine of 50 years ago.

They keep saying Chicago by the way, have you noticed? They keep saying Chicago. That’s another thing that sends that message – this guy’s helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods, screwing us in the burbs.

John Hielemann: There’s a lot of black people in Chicago.

And never question us because we are always right. We are vastly superior to you mere peasants so just have respect for your betters and just shut the hell up and do as your told.

And we all know you don’t want to be racist, now do you?

Vote for Obama, show that you’re not a Racist! 🙂

” If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. “– George Orwell’

” Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. “– George Orwell

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

There is Only Me! There is no U.S.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

“Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process is simple constitutional decency. This is out-and-out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president himself say months ago ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.’ Well, I have news for the president: The laws remain on the books, they haven’t changed,” syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer said on “FOX News” tonight.

“He proposed the DREAM Act of which the executive order is a variation. He proposed a DREAM Act. The Congress said no. The Congress is the one who makes the laws. What the administration does is it administers law. And in fact, what it’s pretending to do is to use discretion, that’s what the Homeland Security Secretary said,” Dr. Krauthammer said.

“This is not discretion,” he said. “Discretion is when you treat it on a one-by-one basis on the grounds of extenuating circumstances. This is the declaration of a whole new set of criteria, which is essentially resurrecting the legislation that the Congress has said no to.”

“And I think this is not how you run a constitutional Republic. This ought to be in the hands of Congress, and it is an end-run. What’s ironic of course is for eight years, the Democrats have been screaming about the imperial presidency with the Bush administration, the nonsense about the unitary executive. This is out-and-out lawlessness. This is not how you govern. And I think that’s the first issue that should be on the table,” Krauthammer concluded.

MSDNC:“This is just so unprecedented and outrageous, that you have to ask the question, would the right-wing be doing this if we had a white president there?” MSNBC guest and Democratic strategist Julian Epstein said on the channel this afternoon.

So you’re a racist if you oppose Executive Fiats by a black president.

America, What A Country. 🙂

“They play in our neighborhoods, they’re friends with our kids, they pledge allegiance to our flag. They are Americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one — on paper,” President Obama said in the Rose Garden about his policy change in deporting young illegal immigrants.

Ah, look ma, it’s the old Liberal guilt hoary of “it’s for the Children”…ah isn’t that special… <<Barf>>

Gee, I guess “I will selectively enforce laws, make new laws up on my own, and disregard laws anytime I want if it is to MY OWN Personal political advantage” is now the new standard.

Krauthammer is correct, it’s lawlessness because now the law serve the politics not the people.

And that Illegal alien/Hispanic Racist Activist/Squishy Liberal/For the Children Vote is far more important than any legal American white racists after all.

And the Border patrol has a new mission. If you see an Illegal who’s under 16, (or a pregnant woman) you don’t arrest them, you give them a work permit, say “Welcome to America” to take the job (cheaper) than the American who was here legally.

Now that’s fair! isn’t it?

Mr. Obama angrily shot down a reporter for the conservative Daily Caller who interrupted his remarks with the question, “Why do you favor foreigners over American workers?”

After all, that’s a racist question. The President is Black, so he cannot be questioned. He must simply be obeyed without fail.

RUSH: I have a name for this new Obama immigration policy. In case you haven’t heard, folks, very quickly. The regime today told the border agents: “If you catch young illegals, let ’em go and grant ’em work permits.” No more deportation of illegal immigrants. They are to be given work permits and they can stay in the country. So what this is is “Catch, Release, Vote.

I mean, he’s being literally reamed over the speech. And I’ll tell you what’s coming next. Here we go. We just went through the brief overview. First, War on Churches. Second, create (as part of it) a phony Republican War on Women. And then go after Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. Then come out for gay marriage.

And now: Don’t deport the young illegals; give ’em work permits.

What’s that gonna do to the unemployment number? Are we gonna count ’em looking for work or not? If we don’t, the number won’t drop. If we do, the number will go up. What’s it gonna do for those of you trying to get work to learn that 800,000 new illegals are in the job market who will work cheaper than you do? And what’s next is home mortgages and student loans. Those are the next two things that are gonna fall. They’ll throw it all up against the wall. You watch.

And we’ll completely ignore the Drug Runners, gun runners, human smugglers and violent felons and murders. They don’t exist. It’s “for The Children” only. They are the only ones that exist.

La Raza and MeCHA and groups like that now run the Democrats.

After all, you don’t want to be a racist now do you? 🙂

For years the administration had said it didn’t have the authority to make such a move, saying it couldn’t decide to stop deporting wide categories of people on its own without approval from Congress.

But on Friday President Obama says administration now interprets the law to give it the discretion.

Because his own Political needs supersede everything else in life.

“Effective immediately, the Department of Homeland Security is taking steps to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people,” Mr. Obama said in an appearance in the White House Rose Garden. “Over the next few months, eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety will be able to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.”

“This is not amnesty,” Mr. Obama said.

OH YES IT IS!

“This is not immunity.

OH YES IT IS.

This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stopgap measure that lets us focus our resources wisely, while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people. It is the right thing to do.”

<<Barf Overload!>>

But at least he’s sowed up the Illegal Alien/Radical Aztlan Hispanic Vote! 🙂

“I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana—and the reason is, because it’s against federal law. I can’t nullify congressional law.”

But I can go around it and that’s all I ever do anymore because I want what I want when I want it. So there! :)-

“I can’t ask the Justice Department to say, ‘Ignore completely a federal law that’s on the books,’” the president continued,

BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

“What I can say is, ‘Use your prosecutorial discretion and properly prioritize your resources to go after things that are really doing folks damage.’”

But only if it serves my own personal political needs. Everyone else can just get screwed!

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, said the new amnesty will become “a magnet for fraud,” and will end up letting jobs go to current illegal immigrants.

“How can the Administration justify allowing illegal immigrants to work in the U.S. when millions of Americans are unemployed?” Mr. Smith said. “President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people.”

Because it’s all about HIM, that’s how.

Reason.com writer, Mike Riggs, also questioned the difference between the two positions. In a blog post“Why Can Obama Bend the Law for Young Immigrants but nor for Drug Users?,” he wrote, “Today’s immigration announcement makes a compelling case that Obama is capable of using his executive powers to *not* enforce the law, and will do so when it’s politically advantageous.”

As I have said many, many times before, Liberals have no morals or ethics and their Ends justifies the means, no holds barred hubris is just how they are.

Like a 3 year old, they want what they want when they want it and no one is going to stop them from getting it. Morals, Ethics, Laws, who give a rip about those when I want what i want when I want it and because I want it and I want it NOW!

If it “feels good” do it. If it’s good for ME, do it.

F*ck you and your objections. I am vastly superior to you and I have sanctimonious Self-righteousness on my side.

And if that doesn’t work, well, you’re just a racist anyhow so you’re not important.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Proudly in Decline

“For most of my lifetime … the U.S. was such an enormously dominant economic power … that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms,” he lamented.

But Not anymore! Aren’t I great! Look Ma, what I did!

Now we’re all equal. No one is better than anyone else.

Aren’t I great!

“The fact of the matter is that for most of my lifetime and I’ll turn 50 next year – the US was such an enormously dominant economic power, we were such a large market, our industry, our technology, our manufacturing was so significant that we always met the rest of the world economically on our terms.

But not anymore!

And apparently according to the Messiah himself, it’s Ghandi’s fault:
“Throughout my life, including my work as a young man on behalf of the urban poor, I have always found inspiration in the life of Gandhiji and in his simple and profound lesson to be the change we seek in the world. . . . .I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today as president of the United States had it not been for Gandhi and the message he shared with America and the world.”
Really? Ghandi…boy Narcissism is your constant companion isn’t it.
But this did show itself during the campaign, most people and certainly the Mainstream media missed it.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” Why does Mr. Obama think other countries should have a say in these matters at all?

But then again, neither does Soon-To-Be Ex Speaker Pelosi. She is probably the most delusional of them all.

“We didn’t lose the election because of me,” Ms. Pelosi told National Public Radio in an interview that aired Friday morning. “Our members do not accept that.” (The narcissistic “we”)

Instead, the California Democrat attributes the loss of at least 60 seats to high unemployment and “$100 million of outside, unidentified funding.”

Yeah, the funding from George Soros didn’t work either dear.

“The reason they had to take me down is because I’ve been effective in fighting special interests in Washington, D.C.,”

Queen Pelosi, your Mirror on the Wall is calling!

Pelosi: “I’m sorry my ego has overwhelmed me. I have been consumed by the Dark Side. Leave a Message.” 🙂

UK telegraph 8/7/10: What the great French historian Alexis de Tocqueville would make of today’s Obama administration were he alive today is anyone’s guess. But I would wager that the author of L’Ancien Régime and Democracy in America would be less than impressed with the extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.

Sound familiar? Sound likely. Sound like a Democrat?

Mr. Obama was the first president to place the United States under the scrutiny of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which last week condemned America for, among other things, police brutality, discrimination against Muslims and illegally holding political prisoners (known to most of us as terrorist detainees). The council includes such dubious human rights torchbearers as China, Cuba, Libya and Saudi Arabia; allowing these dark places to preach to the United States is fully acceptable in Mr. Obama’s world.

Because it’s fair and equal. 🙂  What could be wrong with that 🙂

According to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, “nearly six in ten voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country”, and two thirds “say they are disillusioned with or angry about the way the federal government is working.” The poll showed that a staggering 58 per cent of Americans say they do not have confidence in the president’s decision-making.”

The Congressional Budget Office Long-Term Budget Outlook offers a frightening picture of the scale of America’s national debt. Under its alternative fiscal scenario, the CBO projects that US debt could rise to 87 percent of GDP by 2020, 109 percent by 2025, and 185 percent in 2035. While much of Europe, led by Britain and Germany, are aggressively cutting their deficits, the Obama administration is actively growing America’s debt, and has no plan in place to avert a looming Greek-style financial crisis.

So what do the Democrats want to do now?

More  Liberal “fairness” on the horizon so look out!

The Social Justice Train has pulled into D.C. yet again!

The Sh*t is going to hit the Lame Duck Fan!

“Whether you are a small business owner or a corporation with an entire human resources department, the business uses their professional judgment in the marketplace to make salary offers and pay decisions,” Layman told The Daily Caller. “There is no ‘correct wage’ for any given employee, so the Paycheck Fairness Act touches on the subjective nature of salary to make the employer easier to sue than they are under the existing two federal gender pay discrimination laws.”
It would try to ensure pay equity by restricting employers salary decisions, making it easier to file suit against employers believed to be engaged in sex-based pay discrimination and requiring businesses to disclose detailed salary information to the government.
Sound “fair” doesn;t it? 😦
And it will encourage businesses to hire more people if they have to have Big Brother and Eric “The Fairest Man in the Land” Holder looking over their shoulders! 🙂
“This would be the first law in the EEOC’s (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) jurisdiction that would have unlimited punitive damages at their disposal,” he said. “And they are notorious for engaging in bad faith and using heavy handed tactics to get employers to cave in. If now there is no limit on the punitive damages, you can imagine the threat to business.”
No, they don’t see the harm they doing. As a matter of fact, quite the opposite, they believe they are doing good.
Pointing out the decline and then creating more of it is just “fair” because we have been “unfair” in the past.
Much like the the white male has been.
So this is just Social Justice rectified.
It’s a good thing to have Mama Government looking out for you! 😦
So decline is a good thing. We deserve it.
Enjoy.

Cynical Ploy

Political Cartoon by Eric Allie

Stimulus: President Obama’s new plan to cut taxes on all but those most likely to create jobs is little more than an exercise in class warfare to divide Americans and win votes — not to get the economy growing again.

Much was made of Obama’s “compromise” on taxes, including his plan to keep lower rates on the 98% of Americans who earn less than $250,000, and spend $180 billion or more to cut some business taxes and invest in more infrastructure repair.

The president’s supporters say this is a good plan — giving Republicans the tax cuts they want while letting average Americans keep their current tax rates. Only the “rich” get hit.

This plan is actually quite cynical, as even the New York Times tacitly admits, saying Obama “intends to cast the issue as a choice between supporting the middle class or giving breaks to the wealthy.” In short, it’s not really about jobs at all. It’s about politics.

Obama, though himself wealthy, seems to truly hate the private-sector rich — believing the neo-Marxist pap that as a “class” they create nothing, but rather exploit the rest of us.

When he told Joe the Plumber during the 2008 campaign that he wanted to “spread the wealth,” he was at least telling the truth.

In fact, the wealthy are the nation’s creators, innovators and job makers. The small businesses they run account for more than four of every five new jobs. Obama’s tax hikes target them — and you.

As economists Kevin Hassett and Alan Viard recently noted, “Fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.”

A recent National Federation of Independent Business survey found that 50% of the small-business owners who employ 20 to 249 workers fall in the top two income brackets. They’re the “rich.”

So half of all small-business profits — maybe more — will be hit by Obama’s tax hikes. And guess what? They’ll respond predictably by not expanding their businesses or doing more hiring. If Obama’s plan is passed, expect no meaningful job growth for years.

For two years, we’ve heard repeated verbal assaults leveled at successful people to make the rest of us resent their success — like the canard that the rich don’t pay their “fair share” of taxes.

Well, as the National Taxpayers Union recently reported, the richest 1% of Americans earn 23% of all income and pay almost twice that — 40% — toward income taxes. Meantime, the bottom 50% take home 12% of the income and pay only 2.9% of the taxes.

Fair? Since 2002, the year before President Bush’s 2003 across-the-board tax cut went into effect, the share of taxes paid by the wealthy has risen every year. As for Democrats’ claim that the tax cuts “benefited only the wealthy,” 7 million new U.S. jobs were created from 2003 to 2008. How’s that stack up to Obama’s record of 4 million lost and counting?

Instead of emulating past success, Obama continues to push policies that scapegoat the rich while using “stimulus” spending to enlarge government, enrich unions and subsidize favored industries.

To their credit, Republicans have countered with a far better plan — one that freezes tax rates at the Bush levels and rolls back spending to the pre-stimulus levels of 2008. This would have a truly stimulative effect on the economy. It would be even better if the tax changes were made permanent and future spending were cut.

Until something is done to convince businesses that Washington is capable of fiscal sanity, few companies will willingly commit huge amounts of capital to new investments and jobs.

Like the rest of us, they want tax and regulatory relief, entitlement reform and smaller government. Until they get it, they’ll sit on the sidelines waiting for the craziness to end.

As the New York Times last weekend described the new Democratic “firewall” approach, “A national campaign trumpeting Democratic accomplishments on health care, education and Wall Street regulation has given way to a race-by-race defensive strategy.”

Joe Sixpack’s inevitable reaction to such a change in tack is simple: If ObamaCare, more money for teachers unions and preserving too-big-to-fail on Wall Street are so great, why not run on these things?

Instead, the party whose theme song used to be “Happy Days Are Here Again” is battening down the hatches.

“Small businesses drive economic growth, not government,” he added, “but ObamaCare and a slew of upcoming tax hikes are going to make it harder for our district’s small businesses to stay afloat.”

The hyperspending that was supposed to provide jobs has failed — yet those in power plan more of it.

But don’t worry, Obama’s new stimulus-that-isn’t-a-stimulus will solve everything.

After all, Obama was on the TV yesterday touting that “3 Million people had jobs” because of him.

Isn’t he amazing! 😦

The fact that they are union and government union apparatchiks kind of got lost in the ra-ra speech. 🙂

That and the millions of people who have lost their jobs SINCE he came to power. They don’t matter.

Obama characterized Republicans as pandering to corporations, millionaires, special interests, and credit card and insurance companies. He asserted they did “not having a plan to govern” and praised the values that “we Democrats believe in.”

The president recalled the principles upon which America was founded — “values of self-reliance and individual responsibility” and “a country that rewards hard work. A country built upon the promise of opportunity and upward mobility” — and contrasted them with his characterization of the Republican attitude in Washington. “They’re asking us to settle for a status quo of stagnant growth, eroding competitiveness, and a shrinking middle class.”

Said Obama, “This country is greater than the sum of its parts — America is not about the ambitions of any one individual, but the aspirations of an entire people and an entire nation.”(Politics Daily)

<<BARF BAG ALERT!!!>>

We also hoped for a chance to get beyond some of the old political divides -– between Democrats and Republicans, red states and blue states -– that had prevented us from making progress. Because although we are proud to be Democrats, we are prouder to be Americans -– (applause) — and we believed then and we believe now that no single party has a monopoly on wisdom.

We’re just way smarter than you and if we just explain why 2000+ page government takeover bills that we never even read are great then you’ll just love us!

“I ran because I had a different idea about how America was built.”

“Yes, our families believed in the American values of self-reliance and individual responsibility, and they instilled those values in their children. But they also believed in a country that rewards responsibility; a country that rewards hard work; a country built on the promise of opportunity and upward mobility.”

Just don’t be too upwardly mobile or successful or you’ll be an evil “rich” person!! And you’ll cross over to the Dark Side! 🙂

It’s amazing he can say this with a straight face. But then again, he is so much better than you.

It was an America where you didn’t buy things you couldn’t afford (They just expect government handouts to do it for them because they are entitled); where we didn’t just think about today -– we thought about tomorrow. An America that took pride in the goods that we made, not just the things we consumed. An America where a rising tide really did lift all boats, from the company CEO to the guy on the assembly line.

That’s the America I believe in.

<<<BARF>>>

He’s other deeply, deeply cynical and manipulative and/or delusional and  just thinks his soaring charms and rhetoric will override the reality of what he and democrats have actually been doing.

What matters is scoring cheap,soaringly cynical, disingenuous, arrogant and deeply divisive political rhetoric that sounds good and makes you feel good.

I just feel sick. 😦