Why it is…

This guy Christopher Cook from Western Free Press nails it. It’s a great summation of what I have said over and over again in this blog for the last 5 years.

“Conservatives see liberals as misguided; liberals see conservatives as evil.”
—Original source unknown

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with a ferocity you didn’t quite understand? Have you seen it happen to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media establishment does it to a public figure?

Of course you have. At some point or other, nearly everyone on the political right has witnessed or been the victim of an attack designed not to elucidate facts, but rather to paint him or her as a villain.

My attention was recently drawn to a typical such calumny from a Facebook exchange:

Republicans hate anything that isn’t white, wealthy, and christian at least in appearance. They hate the poor, women, and minorities. They hate science and don’t believe that the global warming we clearly are experiencing is man made. They hate any government programs that help the poor and minorities, and the particularly despise immigrants, particularly the illegal kind. They love programs that line the pockets of oil companies, mining companies, and are willing to export jobs with wild abandon.

They hate public education, and they despise public schools and the public school teachers and public university professors. And since the do not respect the market place of ideas, they hate tenure (that gives teachers academic freedom) because it prevents them from firing teachers who are Democrats and who might infect some student with their liberal ideas. They want insurance companies to make a maximum of profit, and are perfectly willing for the health insurance companies to kill people by refusing service to anyone that might cost them a buck more than the median expense. They don’t care about clean food because it might cost the food corporation a little money, and they don’t care about clean water because cleaning up the waste will cost their precious corporate persons a little money.

This is not a recitation of facts; it is a series of smears. It is the construction of a giant cartoonish super-villain, made of straw and woven together with calumny. The giant straw villain is then publicly burned, in a narcissistic orgy of self-adulation. Of course, the torches of the “best” people burn the brightest.

Or one of my favourites: “you should stop watching Faux News” end of discussion.

Another way of looking at it is this: It is the modern-day version of a witch trial. The charges are utterly farcical and cartoonish. “I saw her dancing with demons in the pale moonlight.” “She looked at me and I sneezed, and the next day, I had a terrible cold.” “She turned me into a newt.” But they are stated with great conviction and repeated incessantly, and they establish the unassailable collective will of which the accused has run afoul. The witch is made into the auslander, and the good people of the community show how “good” they are by shouting their accusations the loudest.

Either way, whether the wicker man or the witch, the effigy goes up in flames and the community is purged—for the moment—of its evil. Moral annulment now achieved, the villagers walk away feeling good about themselves. Feeling superior.

Facts are also unimportant in this perverse passion play. Like the slavering, semi-psychotic Facebook rant above, most such assaults aren’t a series of accusations backed up by facts, they are a series of character assassinations, most of which are contradicted by the facts.

The most salient example today is the charge that people of the right (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers) oppose Obama out of pure racism—simply because he is black. Though this charge is easily refuted—by common sense, widespread evidence, and actual studies—it is repeated incessantly by the media, the left’s foot-soldiers . . . even the president himself.

Anything short of full Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants is therefore, racist. Anything less than full compliance with Global Warming fearmongering is “denial” and also Racist (according to the EPA Director).

Face it, disagree with a Leftist on basically anything, eventually you’ll be  a racist. Period. End of Discussion. 🙂

When actual studies are done (as opposed to just restating what the leftist imagines to be so as if it were actual fact), we learn that real racism is distributed fairly evenly among the population without regard to political affiliation.  In 2008, a survey was done that showed similar numbers of Republicans (5.7) and Democrats (6.8) would not vote for a black presidential candidate. Such a question gives us one of the clearest possible tests of raw racism. A loaded question like, “Do you feel blacks receive too much welfare?” might confuse attitudes about race with attitudes about government welfare programs. But this gives us apples to apples: All things being equal, would you refuse to vote for someone solely because of race?

In the 2008 survey, Democrats were slightly (1.1%) more likely to show racist thinking than Republicans, though this is well within the margin of error. A similar study on senatorial candidates was far more damning to Democrats. Bottom line: there is little evidence that Republicans oppose Obama or any candidate on the basis of race to any greater degree than Democrats.

But this should be obvious based on other facts and indicators as well. Take Mia Love. If you are on the political left, you may not have heard of her, but she is a rising star on the right. She quotes Bastiat, she believes in core principles such as subsidiarity—she is dynamic, successful, and hits all the right notes. She is a black woman, and I have not met or heard of a single conservative, Republican, or tea partier who wouldn’t be delighted to support her. (Deep down, many of the left know this, which is why they have been so vicious to her.) I have worked alongside or come in contact with hundreds of activists and partisans on the political right over the last 15 years, and I cannot think of a single one who would not exult at a Mia Love victory. If she were elected president, I myself would do the happy dance on top of the tallest mountain in my area every November!

The reason is obvious: we agree ideologically. Race is unimportant. Barack Obama is, it can be fairly argued, further to the political left than any previous president. And people on the right oppose him so virulently for that very reason—not because of his race, but because of the huge ideological gulf that lies between. Imagine that.

The other painfully incessant canard is the notion that people on the right “hate the poor.” In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals by fairly significant margins, even when you adjust for a variety of factors. Rich, middle-class, and poor conservatives are all more charitable than their liberal counterparts.  It’s not that conservatives are wealthier overall, either—liberal households are 6% wealthier on average. (I bet you never heard that little fact on MSNBC.) It is also not that conservatives are more religious: new data indicate that secular conservatives give more than secular liberals. These conservatives are voluntarily helping the poor with their own money, in greater numbers than their liberal counterparts in every cohort. Conservatism is a greater predictor of charity.

Leftists (they hardly deserve the term “liberal”), by contrast, are more “charitable” with other people’s money. Leftist A votes for Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C to give it to Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B, who continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and ever-increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get together and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But we are getting dragged into the weeds here. We could go on and on refuting fact after fact, but the facts are unimportant. The leftist is creating a narrative. As a marketing guru will tell you, Facts tell, but stories sell. It’s a lesson the leftist has learned well.

Even more disturbing, in recent years, this method of “argumentation” has increasingly become the first tool pulled out of the toolbox. No longer does the leftist feel as compelled to make real arguments. All he needs to do now is shout “Racist!” or “War on Women!” and his job is done. He walks away feeling smugly satisfied of his own politically correct superiority, and the untrained observer is left addled at best, and possibly even swayed by the narrative.

So why they are so vicious?  Why do people who self-describe as “compassionate” direct such vitriolic hate and assaults at their ideological opponents? How they can justify painting you as such a monster?

Simple: To them, you are a monster. You must be.

Reason #1: Utopianism
You’re in their way

Strip everything away, and the fundamental trait of all leftists is this: The believe that through the state, they can build paradise on earth. They believe that with enough tinkering, coercion, and rule by “experts,” they can eliminate all hard choices and competing goods, perfect human nature, and bring all good things to all people.

To someone of the political right—defined by our belief in human freedom, private solutions, and individual sovereignty—this is just the modern re-telling of the age-old story: that some men should rule over other men. Ancient despotism, monarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, modern progressivism—they’re all just different flavors, and different degrees of application, of the same basic philosophy. But the person on the left does not see it that way. He wants perfection. He believes it is possible. And by gum, he’s going to get it.

This utopian thinking quickly leads to an unavoidable conclusion, echoed from the French Revolution to Lenin and Stalin to Mao to the Progressives of the modern era: “On ne fait pas d’omelet sans casser des oeufs.” (You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) To the utopian statist, “process costs” are entirely acceptable. They are building paradise, after all.

That’s why you see so much more toleration by the left’s rank and file of corruption and bad behavior by their leaders. What’s a little lying here, a little corruption there? They are building paradise. What’s a little cheating in the face of all they intend to accomplish?

That is also why you see such a prevalence of cult-of-personality adulation for strong leaders. Strong leaders resolve contradictions and sweep away the opposition. Strong leaders have the will to get the job done. Strong leaders get the trains running on time. Next stop, paradise.

But most importantly . . . these utopians—both the leaders and the rank and file—are so convinced of the nobility of their intentions that they believe that anyone who stands in their way must, by definition, have evil intentions. After all, who but a monster would stand in the way of paradise? And what consideration do monsters deserve? Why none at all, of course—they’re monsters.

That is why they do not simply disagree with you. That is why they calumniate you and attribute the worst motives to you. That is why they hate you.

Reason #2: Utopianism
The WORLD is in their way

The world refuses to conform to their utopian vision. The world isn’t the neat and tidy place they want it to be. They still hold onto the childlike belief that there can be goods with no tradeoffs, and this world of endless tradeoffs proves them wrong every day, mocking their childishness in the process. That makes them very angry.

Someone once said, “Conservatives believe what they see; liberals see what they believe.” Leftists hate you for the fact that you see the world as it is, rather than as it should be. You accept the facts of reality as they truly are, and you try to make the best of it. They believe that they can make reality conform to their vision of it. (That this effort always requires massive application of force against other human beings doesn’t bother them. It’s just another process cost.)

Your acceptance of reality as it is is pedestrian and troglodytic. Their vision of how reality should be makes them noble and romantic. They hate you for not living in the same fantasy land that they do. They hate you for recognizing that life is filled with tradeoffs. They don’t see the tradeoffs, so when you point them out, it’s as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-La-La . . . I can’t hear you! Stop making bad things happen.

Your acceptance of reality makes them so angry, in fact, that they have convinced themselves that you must be suffering from some sort of psychological malady. Over the last century, dozens of self-reinforcing  junk-science books and studies have been published labeling “conservatism” (once called “classical liberalism”) as a mental disorder. Like the mental patient permanently lost in a psychotic world of his own creation . . . he’s normal, it’s the rest of you who are nuts.

Reason #3: Preening Narcissism
They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

The ideas of the political left produce failure at best and misery, oppression, and democide at worst. In spite of this, I had long clung to the belief that at least people on the political left “mean well.”

But do they? Or do they simply want to feel as though they mean well?

Author Robert Bidinotto asks (and answers) the same question:

Have decades upon decades of liberal policy failures deterred liberals from being liberals? Have the trillions of dollars blown on welfare-state programs since the “New Deal” and the “War on Poverty” made a damned bit of difference in curing poverty? And has that failure convinced “progressives” that there is something fundamentally wrong in their worldview and approach? Have the horrendous historical consequences of appeasement policies stopped today’s politicians from appeasing international thugs and terrorists? No?

Then why does anyone assume that liberals gauge the value of their worldview by the standard of its PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES?

Practical consequences are ALWAYS trumped by the advancement and protection of one’s core Narrative: the fairy tale that gives one’s life meaning, coherence, and moral justification. [ . . . ]

Doing that makes them feel good about themselves. And they would far rather feel good about themselves than actually achieve any of their stated practical objectives. It’s not about the objectives at all. It’s about THEM.

John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

If this is true, then for many, utopianism isn’t about what they think they can achieve, it’s about their own self-image.

So is it true?

The persistence of this vision in the face of centuries of evidence would seem to indicate that it may be. We know that maximizing human freedom is more moral and produces better results—the last two centuries have made that clear. And on the flip side, we know that maximizing government at the expense of the individual produces a parade of horribles. And yet, again and again, we are told that it simply wasn’t done correctly before, or by the right people.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?
Why you are, my dear—you are so compassionate and fair and noble in every way.

The leftist looks at herself in the mirror and sees that she is one of those “right people,” because that is how she wants to see herself.

And if she is so beautiful and noble and fair . . . then how ugly you must be for standing in her way.

 

The leftist—the utopian, the statist—sees himself as on noble quest. He is the embodiment of everything good, simply because that is how he sees himself. How he wants to see himself. In order to maintain this self-image, he must make you the embodiment of everything horrible. He must make you ugly.

To statists, you are just another process cost. Their willingness to accept process costs on the road to their utopia is limited only by national context. In the United States, an exceptional nation where we still have some rule of law, they will certainly calumniate you, and they may decide to harm your finances, career, or reputation. In less exceptional countries where there is less rule of law, the harm is often to people’s freedom or even their very lives, as more than 100 million poor souls discovered in the 20th century.

The typical leftist in America, ignorant of his own philosophical pedigree, will protest this characterization. Do not let their protestations sway you. The degree to which they will treat you—the monster standing in the way of their utopia—as a disposable process cost is limited only by the degree of power they have. For your own safety, do not let them get more.

You are in the way of the utopia they are trying to create. You are in the way of the power they need to do it.

You. Are. In. Their. Way.

utopia

“The conservative “thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the liberal ideologue is merciless.”― Russell Kirk

the Ministry of Truth It is an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete rising 300 metres into the air, containing over 3000 rooms above ground. On the outside wall are the three slogans of the Party: “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” There is also a large part underground, probably containing huge incinerators where documents are destroyed after they are put down memory holes. (Hard Drives crashing anyone?)

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

154418 600 Obamas Piece Prize   Reposted cartoons

Welcome to the Dawn of 2013- Lies & SEP

Have you ever asked yourself why the people who want to actually cut spending (not just “cut” the rate of growth and call it a “cut”) and want to actually cut the size and scope of government intervention in our lives are portrayed as violent, ignorant, and/or extremists??

I do. Every day.

And I still think it comes down to drug addiction. But it goes deeper.

The people are addicted to the “free” stuff that isn’t free. And politicians are addicted to themselves and their own power. The Politicians are the dealers. The people are the enablers and the addicts buying from the dealers. And the Dealers are addicts to selling the drugs.

So they are incestuously addicted to each other.

The politicians keep giving the people “free” drugs – entitlements, class warfare, etc. and the people keep electing people who will give it to them.

And the sane ones who say that we have to stop this behavior are hated by everyone. The responsible one in the room is the last person anyone wants to listen to.

The Republicans aren’t happy with the Tea Party. Happy they got elected in 2010. But not happy that they keep getting reminded why they were elected which goes against this grain. And they aren’t prepared to fight the fight that is required to stop or wean off the addiction because they are in fact, addicts themselves.

And the Democrats and the Media that portray anyone who isn’t on board with them as “extremists” , “obstructionists”, “unfair”, “racists”, none more than the “domestic terrorists” known as The Tea Party.

Not loved by anyone.

Funny that.

Because in the end we will be forced to grow up. The longer we wait the harder and more painful it will be for us and for the future.

The Truth will come. That’s inevitable. It WILL come regardless. It is the real wolf at the door.

But like a petulant child, we refuse.

We want our candy and presents. We want Santa Claus/Obama Claus to come along and bring all of us more toys and tell us it was mean old Scrooge’s fault and that the Tea Party is the Grinch who wants to steal their Christmas.

The People of Whoville don’t want to know the truth.

There is is no joy in Whoville when it comes to the Truth about The Debt, The Deficit, Entitlements, Taxes, and Foreign Policy Threats like Al-Qaeda.

The People of Whoville want to be told sweet little lies because the Truth is too much too bear. And they are at fault and they can’t face it.

The Political Class just see an opportunity to use this to gain more power for themselves. But it’s a trap too.

Now they are addicted to lying. They can’t tell the truth anymore. And anyone who tries will be summarily crushed.

Divide and Conquer has no softer side. Authoritarians have non softer side.

And they are addicted to the power to control everyone and everything. The authoritarian modern liberal more so than the weak Republicans.

So the politicians are addicted to the power money brings them and the people are addicted to the money the government brings them.

What  a viciously incestuous cycle.

And the sane ones who want this to stop are the bad guys.

Well, a drug intervention is never anything but messy.

But 315 million addicts is a lot of messy.

The addict’s judgment is clouded due to their substance of abuse making it tough for them to see or think clearly.

And the Ministry of Truth is there to feed them sweet lies and to calm their fears. 🙂

That’s the Comfort Zone.

(with apologies to Fleetwood Mac)

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Oh, no, no you can disguise
(We want you to disguise, you can disguise)
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

Although I’m not making plans
I hope that you understand
There’s a reason why
Close your, close your, close your eyes…

But I couldn’t find a way
So I’ll settle for one day
To believe in you
Tell me, tell me, tell me lies

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

It’s someone elses’ fault other than our own and we don’t want to take the medicine to get it better.

Somebody Else’s Problem (also known as Someone Else’s Problem or SEP) is a condition where individuals/populations of individuals choose to decentralize themselves from an issue that may be in critical need of recognition. Such issues may be of large concern to the population as a whole but can easily be a choice of ignorance at an individualistic level. Author Douglas Adams‘ description of the condition, which he ascribes to a physical “SEP field,” has helped make it a generally recognized phenomenon.

Where multiple individuals simultaneously experience the same stimulus, diffusion of responsibility and/or the bystander effect may release individuals from the need to act, and if no-one from the group is seen to act, each individual may be further inhibited by conformity.

“Somebody Else’s Problem”, an effectively-magical field that obscures things you think aren’t relevant to you, such that even though you see them (or hear them or read them) you don’t actually *notice*, and quickly forget.

More generally, the phenomenon that causes people to ignore issues that they know about but think of as either not something they can do anything about, or not personally relevant to them right now. This can result in something that’s very important to a group of people being ignored by every individual member of that group.

Popularized by Douglas Adams in the “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” series, in which Ford Prefect describes it as:

“An SEP is something we can’t see, or don’t see, or our brain doesn’t let us see, because we think that it’s somebody else’s problem…. The brain just edits it out, it’s like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won’t see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.”

When individuals are exposed to a multitude of messages about pressing matters of concern- information overload (now also known as Information Fatigue Syndrome) may be a result.

In Joseph Ruff’s article “Information Overload: Causes, Symptoms and Solutions” Ruff states, “Once capacity is surpassed additional information becomes noise and results in a decrease in information processing and decision quality”.

The 24/7/365 News cycle anyone? 🙂

The virulent “I don’t wanna know” reaction , mixed with deeply cynical fear and racist power politics equals the 2012 election anyone?

Vote for Me, the Other Guy’s asshole!!! It’s HIS Fault!!

And the Politicians and The Ministry of Truth can herd these willfully ignorant sheep to use to satisfy their own addictions.

Thus the cycle continues.

There may also be a tendency to argue that since a proposed solution does not fit a problem entirely then the entire solution should be discarded. This is an example of a perfect solution fallacy. “This fallacy is often employed by those who believe no action should be taken on a particular issue and use the fallacy to argue against any proposed action”.

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic possibility and another which is merely better.

The perfect solution fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.

It’s Not “fair”!  🙂

It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection in vague terms only. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution’s failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored.

Misleading vividness is a term that can be applied to anecdotal evidence[1] describing an occurrence, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, with sufficient detail to permit hasty generalizations about the occurrence (e.g., to convince someone that the occurrence is a widespread problem). Although misleading vividness does little to support an argument logically, it can have a very strong psychological effect because of a cognitive heuristic called the availability heuristic.

The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that occurs when people make judgments about the probability of events by the ease with which examples come to mind. The availability heuristic operates on the notion that, “if you can think of it, it must be important.” The availability of consequences associated with an action is positively related to perceptions of the magnitude of the consequences of that action. In other words, the easier it is to recall the consequences of something, the greater we perceive these consequences to be.

Short circuit logic with emotion and keep it simplistic. Sound like Obama and the Democrats?

Never let a Crisis Go to Waste! 

Create new ones daily. Crisis Mode prevents a lot of actual critical thinking.

And the anti-nirvana heuristic solution  is to do something substantive and real. Hence, The Tea Party is against nirvana, utopia, mom and apple pie so they are the ultimate evil and must be destroyed. 🙂

The ones who truly want people to face the truth and fix the problem are seen as the problem. 😮

Welcome to the dawn of 2013 where doing the responsible thing makes you the Grinch, the enemy, the bad guy…

Well, Isn’t that Special? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Voices

Good Old Debbie Wasserman Schultz, On the Priorities USA Obama SuperPAC “Cancer” attack ad: “I have no idea the political affiliation of the folks who are associated with that SuperPAC.”

oh really, maybe it’s the Green Alien Sex Probe Party? 🙂

Every single viewer knows she’s BS’ing here.  Every last one.  If she’s unable to tell a basic, obvious truth in this circumstance, why should anyone believe a single thing that comes out of her mouth?  After the interview, DWS got pummeled online for her performance, which she attempted to clean up with a belated tweet:

RT @DWSTweets: Clearly Priorities USA is a Democratic SuperPAC. Was trying to state the obvious: we have no control over their activities.

So you lied previously then, eh. I guess she didn’t build those lies either. 🙂

Then Rich Lowry (“right winger”) met Rachael “Mad Cow” Maddow (MSDNC):

LOWRY: Do you support $700 billion in cuts in Medicare over the next ten years?

MADDOW: I’m not running for president.
(the usual escape clause for Liberal pundits)

LOWRY: Do you?

MADDOW: I’m not running for anything. Paul Ryan is running for vice president.

LOWRY: Do you? Why can’t you answer? See, you can’t answer.

MADDOW: But wait, I’m not running for anything..

LOWRY: This is the key vulnerability. Democrats have cut $700 billion out of Medicare which you won’t or can’t defend it. Defend it.

MADDOW: Is it good or bad?

LOWRY: Do you support it? You can’t answer.

MADDOW: But wait. Why are you asking me?

LOWRY: You can’t answer. Because you’re an opinion maker who is supposed to give us your opinion. But you will not tell us what your opinion is.

MADDOW: What I want to know is the logic of…

LOWRY: Democrats cannot defend that.

MADDOW: Wait. I want to know is the logic…

LOWRY: Go ahead. Defend it.

MADDOW: What I want to know is the logic.

LOWRY: [Laughs].

MADDOW: Wait. Rich, hold on.

LOWRY: Answer me. You’re not answering.

MADDOW: Can I say something?

LOWRY: Can you answer?

MADDOW: Can I say something?

DAVID GREGORY, HOST: Let her answer because I want to go back to Bill Bennett on something.

MADDOW: What I want to know is the logic of attacking somebody for something that you yourself are proposing to do? Paul Ryan proposes keeping those same cuts.

LOWRY: Mitt Romney is not doing it, and those are meat axe cuts. Can I make one last point? One last point?

GREGORY: No, no. I’m going to pull back on this. I want to ask Bill Bennett a separate question. This debate will go on.

Hilarious.
And her childish response later: Ah, a Drudge link. Welcome, 3-day onslaught of ALL CAPS swearing misspelled tweets & emails informing me that I am gay.
The Best and Brightest Leftist Attack Dogs, indeed. 🙂
Speaking of Attack Dogs: SeeBS Snooze

Incredible. CBS News has an anti-Romney “fact check” articleup this morning supposedly debunking statements made by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan during yesterday’s introduction of the veep pick.  At the end, CBS actually snuck in the hyper-partisan, DNC-talking-point assertion that it was “clear” that when President Obama utttered his infamous “you didn’t build that”, he was talking about “teachers and infrastructure.”

CBS claims that in criticizing “you didn’t build that,” Republicans “seized on only part of Obama’s quote.”  In fact, it is CBS itself that edited out another, most telling, part of Obama’s comments.  The network omitted the following Obama lines which make irretrievably clear that he was indeed disparaging the achievements of entrepreneurs. More after the jump.

BARACK OBAMA: “[I]f you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”
Not that it comes as even the slightest surprise, but CBS News reveals itself as little more than an arm of the Obama campaign . . . infrastructure. (Newsbusters)

Then on 60 Minutes one of the First questions they can come up with, a Talkign point: Bob Schieffer: How many years of tax returns did you turn over to the campaign?

Ryan shoots back: I’m going to be releasing two, which is what he’s releasing. What I hear from people around this country, they’re not asking where the tax returns. They’re asking where the jobs are. Where’s the economic growth? Those are the issues that matter. I think these are more or less distractions to try and take us off the fact that the president has given us failed policies that aren’t working, that are putting us deeper into debt, that are costing us jobs. And so, we’re going to focus on what it takes to turn this country around and get people back to work.

So much for that Talking Point. But they keep at it because they are childish bullies and it’s the only “journalism” they know how to do.

David Axelrod: Starting now, we can expect even more wealthy, right-wing ideologues lining up to support the Romney-Ryan ticket.
The people on the other side who are trying to buy this election are putting nasty, deceptive TV ads on the air right this very minute. They’re not going away. They’re getting worse.

He ignores his own nasty, deceptive ads, of course. He’s a Liberal. His attacks don’t count.

Paul Ryan is simply a guy who knows how to do math, something the Obama administration isn’t very good at.

For the GOP’s conservative base, Ryan’s entry holds the tantalizing promise of elevating Romney’s game, inciting a debate on the familiar and friendly battlefield of the tea party-dominated 2010 midterms.

The 42-year-old Wisconsin congressman “knows the game — he knows math — he knows exactly what the country needs,” said Alan Simpson, the former Republican senator from Wyoming Obama tapped to co-chair his deficit commission.

“There will be an adult conversation, therefore the children will throw emotion, fear, guilt, and racism on him,” he added. “They will bomb him, bomb him, shell him coastline and bunker, and he will survive. He has facts. He uses math. He’s damn good. He’s excellent.

And boy do liberals hate FACTS!!:)

Ryan:“We won’t replace our Founding principles, we will reapply them,” he effectively challenged Obama to say what Obama believes, which is: Madison was an extremist in enunciating the principles of limited government — the enumeration and separation of powers. And Jefferson was an extremist in asserting that government exists not to grant rights but to “secure” natural rights that pre-exist government. (hot air)

So do you want a government that takes “care” of you or a government that lets you take care of yourself!

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Can We Get along?

I couldn’t agree more.

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

I have had enough.

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

I think not.

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

So I am still Tea Party.

But I have had enough of adolescent bickering.

Is there any common ground left?

Are we capable as a people of Compromise?

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

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

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

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

Our most contentious issues are right versus right.

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

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

I Hope.

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

Follow the Money to Civility

Remember (The Liberals won’t) the stink the Liberals had about Sarah Palin and the “crosshairs” map Remember? The map that was criticized as an incitement to violence.

CNN even apologized on air:

CNN’s John King: “Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We were having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race. My friend Andy Shaw used the term ‘in the crosshairs’ in talking about the candidates. We’re trying, we’re trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he’s covered politics for a long time, but we’re trying to get away from that kind of language.”

https://i1.wp.com/justpiper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/walker-crosshairs.png

I wonder if they’ll do the same for Gov. Walker. ROTFL! They won’t even air it or discuss it!

Then there’s the Left’s “Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) is obviously a

Kochsukkker”

That’s you’re “mature”, “adult” Liberal. They are rational and capable of compromise and negotiation.

Right.

We need some “right wing sheep” (as the Left  online usually refers to people who disagree with them) to teach the kindergarten Left some manners and how to be an “adult”.

Good Luck! I think the universe would have to turn purple first!

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Watch a “mature” Communication Worker Union Thug (and if you’ve ever seen “Lie to Me” watch for the hate and contempt flash across his face):

The watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zm_Fl3AszuU

But remember, the rules Liberals want for everyone else doesn’t apply to them.

They just want to control YOU.

Do as they say, not as they do. Period.

“I’m proud to be with people who understand that it’s more than just sending an e-mail that gets you going,’’ Capuano said at the rally. “Every once in a while you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.’’

Massachusetts Rep. Michael Capuano apologized for controversial comments he made during a labor rally on the steps of the State House on Tuesday.

But that’s only a political apology you know. Not a real one.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Left punk’d Gov. Walker like a 5 year old calling someone on the phone to embarrass them ala Bart Simpson.

This is the “adult conversation” you’ll get from the Left.

And the Unions are unhappy that if Walker wins they will no longer be in control of both sides of the “collective bargaining” where they collectively bargain with taxpayers money.

You see, the Unions collect Millions of $$ by force from their members. Then they give it to Democrats to get them elected. Then when the “collective bargaining” comes along the Democrat they got elected by buying them the election sit across from them and “negotiates” a deal with the Union that will be funding their re-election.

Democratic politicians don’t think of themselves as “management.” They don’t respond to union demands for more money by saying, “Are you kidding me?” They say, “Great — get me a raise too!”

Democrats buy the votes of government workers with generous pay packages and benefits — paid for by someone else — and then expect a kickback from the unions in the form of hefty campaign donations, rent-a-mobs and questionable union political activity when they run for re-election. (Ann Coulter)

It’s a vampiric symbiosis. And it’s YOUR Money!

In effect, public employee unions are a mechanism by which every taxpayer is forced to fund the Democratic Party. 😦

The Unions paid for nearly 2/3 of Obama’s record-breaking $750 Million dollar buy off in the 2008 election and it’s estimated that Obama will spend $1 Billion for 2012 and the Union money will be the major reason.

So that’s why Obama is so involved in The Midwest, and bored and uninterested in The Middle East.

It’s all about the money! And the money buys power!!

And power is what Liberals really want.

But what are the contributions that public employee unions make to our states and our citizens? Their incentives are to increase the cost of government and reduce down toward zero the accountability of public employees — both contrary to the interests of taxpaying citizens. (IBD)

But very good for the Union, The Democrats, and The Left in general.

This is the ultimate in parasitic drug addiction to money and the Democrats will fight to very last drop of your blood (kind of like Gadhafi)!!!

That’s why one of the great 20th-century presidents was against unions for public employees who have civil service protections. No, not Ronald Reagan. It was Franklin Roosevelt who said, “Action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.” (IBD)

And FDR we all know was a “right wing sheep”. 🙂

So if you get to elect people who will pork your ass off will let someone else take away that pork?

Sound like Entitlements also?

It should. It’s the same problem in reality.

ObamaCare?

“Is it a violation of the House rule wherein members are not permitted to make disparaging references to the President of the United States?” Rep.Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) asked the chairman.

Bet it never raised an eyebrow when disparaging remarks were made about George Bush. 🙂

“In two previous gentlemen’s [sic] statements on the amendment,” Wasserman Schultz continued. “Both of them referred to the Affordable Care Act, which is the accurate title of the health care reform law, as ‘Obamacare.’ That is a disparaging reference to the President of the United States, it is meant as a disparaging reference to the President of the United States…It is clearly in violation of House rules against that.” (DC)

But “reaganomics”, “torture memo”  “star wars” (derogatory term by the left for Reagan’s SDI), “Me Decade/Decade of Greed”- Used by left-wing anti-Reagan critics to attribute the prosperity of the ’80s to selfishness,”Trickle-down”- Used by the media to give a Marie Antoinette “let ’em eat cake” slant to what free-market economists call “supply-side economics” are Ok because the Left said them.

And the same hysterical childishness will and has ensued every time you challenge the Left.

Talking away the Left favourite toys just makes them cry and whine and throw a tantrum.

Just like a child.

And that’s the  “adult conversation” as the President put it that you get from the Left.

Rejoice.

Next time you hear a Union person talk about the “American Dream” (of which 88% of Americans aren’t in Unions) and how curtailing Union power will kill it just remember… The American Dream is not a handout.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

 

The King of Unity

Congratulations have to go out to President Obama, while he is selling out our allies to the Russians and ignoring or encouraging Muslim Jihadists he was named as the MOST POLARIZING PRESIDENT IN US HISTORY by Gallup (2 years running!).

Maybe he can put it next to his *snicker* Nobel Peace Prize 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

The “first black president”, “the post-racial president”, “the unifier”.

“Unity is the great need of the hour – the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.

I’m not talking about a budget deficit. I’m not talking about a trade deficit. I’m not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.

I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.” –BarackObama.com

http://www.gallup.com/poll/145937/Obama-Approval-Ratings-Polarized-Year-Year.aspx

Real Clear Politics-  Jan 2008: And Sen. Barack Obama’s repeated and eloquent claims to being able to unite Americans are a major reason for his present, and very possibly eventual, success in his quest for his party’s nomination for president of the United States.

I do not doubt Mr. Obama’s sincerity. The wish that all people be united is an elemental human desire. But there are two major problems with it. First, it is not truly honest. Second, it is childish.

First is its dishonesty. Virtually all calls for unity — whether national, international or religious (as in calls for Christian unity) — do not tell the whole truth.

If those who call for unity told the whole truth, this is what they would say: “I want everyone to unite — behind my values. I want everyone who disagrees with me to change the way they think so that we can all be united. I myself have no plans to change my positions on any important issues in order to achieve this unity. So in order to achieve it, I assume that all of you who differ with me will change your views and values and embrace mine.”

Take any important issue that divides Americans and explain exactly how unity can be achieved without one of the two sides giving up its values and embracing the other side’s values.

Wasn’t Unity, “hope and Change” etc. the clarion call that we who were not duped by it knew to be utterly false!

After all, bi-partisanship to a Liberal means I win, you lose.

It is fascinating how little introspection Sen. Obama’s “unity” supporters engage in — they are usually the very people who most forcefully advocate multiculturalism, who scoff at the idea of an American melting pot and who oppose something as basic to American unity as declaring English the country’s national language.

Their advocacy of multiculturalism and opposition to declaring English the national language are proof that the calls of the left-wing supporters of Barack Obama for American unity are one or more of three things: 1. A call for all Americans to agree with them and become fellow leftists. 2. A nice-sounding cover for their left-wing policies. 3. A way to further their demonizing of the Bush administration as “divisive.”

Now it’s called “Civility” that is used to shut you up if you dare speak out against them.

After all, the Liberals are all mushy and gushy about the protestors in Egypt who were in an uprising against an oppressive government. Only when it happened here, The Tea Party, they were “astro turf”, “Stupid”, “Morons”, “idiots”, “racists”, “domestic terrorists” and the litany of childish insults continues to this day.

Utterly Fascinating.

And why after almost a year did ABC News suddenly want to go back to the racial profiling well?

Could it be an “election cycle”?? Does the media need to start dividing and conquering even more. Gotta get the Hispanics on the left’s side, so let’s go after the Gringos again and make them all look like frothing hood-wearing KKK again!

FEAR IS HOPE!

Now that’s “unity”. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The Speech

I will give the President props. He gave a great speech.

“Bad things happen,” Obama said, “and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath.”

Hello, Mainstream Media and MSDNC!

He took shots at the LEFT and the media that went crazy, which I didn’t think he would.

He sounded Presidential for the first time ever.

But will it last and will he and the Democrats grow up and be that angel of our better nature and be able to live up to soaring speech about living up to the child’s vision of Christina Taylor Green. “I want us to live up to her expectations. I want our democracy to be as good as she imagined it,” Obama said.

“We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another is entirely up to us.” -President Obama.

“Let’s remember that it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy. It did not,” the president said.

He admonished against any instinct to point blame or to drift into political pettiness or to latch onto simple explanations that may have no merit.

Lofty words. But will his party of Social Justice nutbags temper themselves and be more civil to those with whom they disagree?

I doubt it.

I am too cynical.

I just have to think, I will get them to re-elect me in 2012 and then we got them! Heh heh heh… This is my cunning plan!

That and when he gets back to Washington DC Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the Queen, will slap him and say “I am not amused…” 🙂

Sorry, that’s me.

Arizona has been through a lot in the last few years.

Illegal Immigration gangs and Cartel killings.

A Governor who abandons her post to be the Peter Principle of the New President and then blows us off. (Janet Napalitano)

She said Illegal Immigration was a “federal problem” and then we she was the Fed she largely ignored us and said “it’s more secure than ever”.

So that’s why we have snipers in the hills of the border and thousands of drug dealers coming over the border, agents killed, ranchers killed, and signs near the border saying Americans should stay away because it’s too dangerous IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY.

So when we try and address the issue, the Government sues us and we all get tarred as “racists”.

When I saw Napalitano at the Memorial my first thought was “Well, we finally got her to come back here. Can we rope her and tie her to border”.

And I saw Eric Holder, and wondered if now that he was here we could convince him that we aren’t all angry white racists and bigots.

Both decided to read for the Bible instead at the Memorial.

They know the Bible?? Aren’t most Progressives secular and God and Christianity is evil (clinging to their guns and religion, right-wingers, etc)??

Isn’t this “government sanctioning religion”??

Will the ACLU sue them. 🙂

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

I would like to believe it, but I am too cynical. So I take the Ronald Reagan attitude of “trust but verify”. I don’t trust the Left. Period.

It sounded good. But if it is not acted on it is but sound and “fury” signifying nothing.

The Day before the shooting the Obama administration planned to announce plans for an Internet identity system that will limit fraud and streamline online transactions, leading to a surge in Web commerce, officials said.

What it will really do is make the government the nanny of the internet and of course with Mr Loughner’s well known use of the Internet it will be the Left’s opportunity to regulate the internet to our death.

Ve vill be vatching you! (bad german accent)

So not much has changed.

Been There. Done that got the T-Shirt.

The “capitalist” T-Shirt sold at the McKale Center at U of A Memorial service.
“i don’t understand how the Right can get all butthurt about coming together…it just seems…i mean…someone was shot in the fu**ing head…a congresswoman…and you can’t, for one goddamn second stop with all the BS and just join hands and even if you’re not a believer…at least close your eyes and hope?…wtf is wrong with these people?” (TPM-a liberal blog- reader comment)

Now that’s striking a new tone, don’t you think! 🙂

Can the Left grow up and stop the childish and churlish ad hominems and be civil.
I very much doubt it.
So, American Left, prove me wrong. I dare you! 🙂

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Previous Political Cartoon Political Cartoon