It’s All About Me :)

Today is primary day in Arizona. But as a registered Independent I have become used to the way of things. I am not allowed to vote today because I am not a partisan of either main party.

I have no voice.

But our President has a voice. And boy does he love the sound of it.

From David Limbaugh’s new book Crimes Against Liberty: Who is Barack Obama? To say that he has an enormous ego is an understatement. Many commentators, including psychological analysts and foreign leaders, have described him as a narcissist.

Obama’s patent self-confidence is not just posturing. It’s evident he truly believes he is special. He did, after all, pen two largely autobiographical books before he had accomplished much of anything. He once told campaign aide Patrick Gaspard, “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that . . . I’m a better political director than my political director.”

Obama’s belief that he is a gift to the world is a theme he would carry forward into his presidency. He truly believes he alone has the power to reverse the mess America has allegedly made of world affairs, and that only he can restore America’s supposedly tattered reputation.

Indeed, it often seems that for our president, American policy is not about the United States, but about him personally. At the Summit of the Americas, Obama sat through a 50-minute harangue against the United States by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, who eviscerated the United States for a century of “terroristic” aggression in Central America. When it was Obama’s turn, he did not defend the United States, but made himself the issue: “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.”

Obama’s numerous self-references soon became legendary. Obama referred to himself 114 times in his first State of the Union. By September 23, 2009, Obama had given forty-one speeches so far that year, referring to himself 1,198 times.  At his West Point speech in December, he referred to himself forty-four times. In a speech in Ohio in January, Obama referred to himself no fewer than 132 times and, in the same speech, had the audacity to proclaim, “This is not about me.”

That phrase, “This is not about me,” cropped up in many of Obama’s speeches, signaling that whatever “this” is, it’s precisely about him—his ego, his ideology, his agenda, his legacy, or his unbending ambition to have his way. The rhetorical device, “It’s not about me,” is a long established pattern in which he self-servingly pretends to project an air of humility to leave the impression that he is modest about accomplishing great things—thereby shamelessly seeking credit both for his modesty and his greatness.

Yet Obama continues to tell us—either as a brazen practitioner of Orwellian deception or as a poster child for political tone-deafness, “I won’t stop fighting for you.” If he were truly fighting for the people, he wouldn’t have mocked the tea partiers or closed his own counterfeit public forums on health care to all but union and other special interest supporters of ObamaCare.

Candidate Obama overtly cultivated a messianic image, from the grandiose pomp accompanying his campaign speech in Berlin to the Greek columns that adorned his acceptance speech at Chicago’s Invesco Field. His advisers fully bought into the façade, especially to the idea that Obama possessed a superior intellect—so far above the masses that it was difficult to convey his ideas in terms simple enough for the people to understand.

At a forum at the Kennedy School of Government, one participant suggested to Obama’s adviser and long-time confidant, Valerie Jarrett, that Obama’s ideas were so complex that the administration should consider writing simple booklets to explain them to ordinary people, just like the computer industry originally wrote DOS For Dummies. Jarrett said it was an excellent idea. “Everyone understood hope and change” because “they were simple . . . part of our challenge is to find a very simple way of communicating. . . . When I first got here people kept talking about ‘cloture’ and ‘reconciliation’ and ‘people don’t know what that’s talking about.’” Then it really got thick as Jarrett proclaimed, “There’s nobody more self-critical than President Obama. Part of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately.”

Obama didn’t exactly discourage this quasi-deification. In noting Obama’s “pathological self-regard,” former George W. Bush aide Pete Wehner reported that Obama surrounded himself by aides who referred to him as a “Black Jesus.” Wehner noted, “Obama didn’t appear to object.”

Surrounding himself with sycophants and egged on by an adoring media, Obama assumed the presidency with the arrogant ambition of transforming America. He believed he was The One—a visionary whose great deeds would be remembered generations from now. But while his charisma was a great asset on the campaign trail, as president he quickly found that his trademark oratory could not convince a skeptical nation of the wisdom of his extravagant plans.(Daily Caller)

“We were told we were getting a cool, calm, steady leader who could rise above emotional impulses to deliver classic statesmanship and prudent governance. But all too often we witness in him a petulant and vindictive bully who doesn’t seem to understand why anyone would challenge his omniscience,” Limbaugh writes.

Leftist Comedian Bill Maher in 2008: “New Rule: Republicans need to stop saying Barack Obama is an elitist, or looks down on rural people, and just admit you don’t like him because of something he can’t help, something that’s a result of the way he was born. Admit it, you’re not voting for him because he’s smarter than you. Barack Obama can’t help it if he’s a magna cum laude Harvard grad and you’re a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law. Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That’s why George Bush is president.” 🙂

One of the questions a lot of pundits are speculating on is whether Barack Obama will make the great pivot after 2010, the way Bill Clinton did after 1994. Remember, Clinton made a big pivot to the right. Privately, a number of Democratic pollsters and others tell me they fundamentally believe Barack Obama is ideologically incapable of such a pivot. Limbaugh’s book provides the first real evidence that this is true. After 2010, there will be no moderation or pivot right. Obama is wedded to the failed liberal policies of the past hundred years that again and again the American public has repudiated.

But Obama holds that repudiation in contempt. As Limbaugh writes, “Obama’s disingenuousness is not just a matter of stretching the truth once in a while or engaging in a little old-fashioned hyperbole. His outright, habitual lies are a fundamental aspect of his governance…Inside a few months, he showed himself to be deeply racial, aggressively partisan, grossly incompetent, often verbally awkward apart from his teleprompter, an inflexible liberal ideologue, secretive, dishonest, undemocratic, dogmatic and dictatorial, and intolerant and dismissive of his opposition.”

“Based on his behavior as president, it is clear he truly believes his own hype, for we have discovered that instead of messianic, Obama is acutely, perhaps clinically, narcissistic…. Unless stopped, and reversed, the casualties of Obama’s systematic assault on this nation will be our prosperity, our security, and ultimately, our liberty.”(Red State.com)

On Fox Last Night: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSBnzFtN6tk&feature=player_embedded

But don’t worry, he’s on vacation, AGAIN.

“It’s really inspiring, this vision they have for the future,” The president said at an event for Sen. Patty Murray. “Gives you a little pep in your step when you hear it.” referring to his new slogan for the GOP, “No We Can’t”.

Now that’s not petulant and childish now is it folks! 🙂

The net result of Obama’s failed policies is that consumers are reluctant to spend, entrepreneurs are reluctant to invest, and employers are reluctant to hire to the degree necessary to spur economic growth.–Doug Schoen, Democrat Strategist

But there’s always spin from the Ministry of Truth, In this case, CBS:

“President Obama’s approval ratings are certainly lower than they have been in the past, but it is worth noting they’re higher than President Clinton’s approval ratings were in 1994 at the same time and even higher than President Reagan’s approval ratings were in 1982 at this same time. I think the Reagan and Obama situation are sort of good comparisons because Reagan also had inherited a very difficult economy,” Jennifer Palmieri, of the liberal thinktank Center for American Progress, told the “Early Show.”

“The president’s had a lot of legislative victories but the White House understands very clearly that you don’t get points with the American people for legislative victories. They want to see results. The uncomfortable truth the white house is wrestling with [is] a lot of these policies they’ve enacted take time for people to see results in their everyday lives … that’s just going to take some time.”

Or put another way by major leftist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times:

Dumb and bigoted.

That’s Maureen Dowd’s assessment of her fellow Americans in a piece that ran in Sunday’s New York Times, “Going Mad in Herds.” According to Dowd, we are a tribe of unenlightened Islam-haters, who obtusely believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim. All this, she says, is evidence of something I’m sure she knew all along — that Americans lack Obama’s stirring intellect.
“Obama is the head of the dysfunctional family of America — a rational man running a most irrational nation, a high-minded man in a low-minded age,” she writes.

Be patient. He’s genius takes a long to appreciate, if you’re smart enough that is. 🙂

Reach for that Hope!

Anyone got Sisyphus on speed dial?

It’s the Spin Zone

How you say something can effect how it’s perceived.

That is, if you can find it.

Take yesterday’s preliminary hearing on SB 1070.

The Los Angeles Times, which is an open borders pro-illegal newspaper opened with:

A federal judge on Thursday expressed skepticism about the constitutionality of a key part of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, but did not say whether she would prevent the measure from taking effect next week.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton said during a hearing that the provision that makes it a state crime to lack immigration documents apparently conflicts with a Supreme Court ruling that says states cannot create their own immigration registration systems.

John Bouma, a lawyer representing Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in the seven lawsuits seeking to block implementation of the measure, tried to convince Bolton otherwise. Then he gave up.

“I didn’t have the feeling I persuaded you last week either,” he said, referring to similar arguments on another lawsuit.

Sounds bad doesn’t it? But consider the source.

But my favourite that I’ve seen is good ole’ Katie Couric, CBS NEWS:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”

If those words were written in Arizona today, they might include a footnote: just make sure they have their papers.

No bias here. 🙂

They also have stories on Neo-Nazis patrolling the border and a puff piece on the violence at the border that says it isn’t so bad.

Diminish,distract,and destroy. Liberal “journalism” in action.

Then you read The AP story on The Daily Caller:

PHOENIX (AP) — The judge who will decide whether Arizona’s new immigration law is constitutional hasn’t indicated whether she’ll put the statute on hold before it takes effect next week and had some pointed questions Thursday for challengers at two court hearings.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also went beyond dry legal analysis to point out some of the everyday realities of illegal immigration and how that applies to the new law.

Without prodding from attorneys, the judge noted that the federal government erected signs in a wilderness area south of Phoenix that warn visitors about immigrant and drug smugglers passing through public lands. She said the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country’s interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona.

“You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored,” said Bolton, who didn’t issue a ruling after the two hearings.

Notice the Difference? 🙂

Now that couldn’t be media bias now could it?

Perish the thought! 🙂

Especially after the “Journolist” releases. 🙂

But I will at least say  it was nice to see this buried down at the bottom of the Times article:

“I guess we have some explanation of why we have so many [smugglers] and aliens unlawfully here,” Bouma said. “The federal government doesn’t want them prosecuted and doesn’t think the state should.”

🙂

But then it followed immediately with this liberal lie: Government statistics show that the Obama administration has deported more illegal immigrants annually than the George W. Bush administration.

So what, he’s spent as much as Bush did in 8 years in 18 months. But you won’t here that from the Journo-List inspired liberal press.

But again, it’s the liberal Bush Derangement Syndrome coming back up like a bad case of acid reflux.

But then comes: Arizona is the favorite crossing point for illegal entrants from Mexico, and even though the numbers have dropped off during the recession, fears of violence from Mexican drug traffickers persist. Bouma noted a sign the federal Bureau of Land Management recently posted in the desert 30 miles south of Phoenix:

“Danger — Public Warning. Travel Not Recommended. Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area.”

Bolton said she had seen pictures of the sign, heavily publicized by Brewer, and that it was “awful.”

At the very end. Do you not think this was important?

Daily Caller:

Attorney John Bouma, who is defending the law on behalf of Gov. Jan Brewer, said the federal government wants to keep its authority while turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants.

“You can’t catch them if you don’t know about them. They don’t want to know about them,” he said.

Bouma told Bolton that those challenging the law haven’t demonstrated that anyone would suffer actual harm if it takes effect, and that facts — not mere speculation — must be shown.

“In Arizona we have a tremendous Hispanic heritage. To think that everybody that’s Hispanic is going to be stopped and questioned … defies reality,” Bouma said. “All this hypothetical that we’re going to go out and arrest everybody that’s Hispanic, look around. That’s impossible.”

Yeah, don’t tell the Ministry of Truth that there are Hispanics who are for SB1070, it will be another “Uncle Tom” moment, or is that “Uncle Jose”.

The New York Times opens with a picture of Hispanic Protesters…gee no bias there. 🙂

With just a week remaining before Arizona’s stringent new immigration law is set to take effect, a federal judge in Phoenix heard, for the first time, from Obama administration lawyers urging her to strike down the controversial legislation while dozens of demonstrators argued both sides outside the courthouse.

As protesters blocked traffic, chanted, sang, yelled and banged on bass drums, lawyers from the Justice Department and for the State of Arizona sparred over whether the law, known locally as SB1070, violates the United States Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says federal law generally trumps state law. The federal judge, Susan R. Bolton, asked pointed questions of both sides, but made no ruling from the bench before adjourning at 3 p.m.

So it’s all about the protesters.

Edwin S. Kneedler, the lawyer for the federal government, argued that the federal government has the sole authority to enforce immigration laws under the Constitution and that Arizona was, in essence, establishing its own immigration policy — which in some cases would be stricter than the federal law and does not take into account either humanitarian concerns or the government’s foreign policy goals.

<<Barf Bag on standby>>

Touchy-feely “feel good” Lies. Gee, the liberal press never does that… 🙂

“The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power,” he said.

Buried in the middle of the article:  John J. Bouma, asserted that the state law actually mirrors the letter of the federal law, even if that federal law is not enforced fully in practice. He argued the state had every right to ask its peace officers to call up federal authorities and check on a person’s immigration status during routine traffic stops or other arrests, even if it created a headache for federal authorities.

“You can’t catch them if you don’t know about them, and they don’t want to know about them — that’s what they are saying,” Mr. Bouma said, gesturing to the Justice Department lawyers.

“What we get is the plaintiff over here saying we cannot do anything,” he added. “That it’s not Arizona’s problem, that we should just live with it.”

As Judge Bolton questioned the federal government’s counsel, she expressed skepticism that the state was indeed carrying out its own immigration enforcement policy. She asked several times whether the statute would actually take the decision about what to do with an illegal immigrant away from federal authorities.

“How does it become immigration enforcement policy? It’s an immigration status check,” she said. “Arizona cannot remove anybody, and they don’t purport they can.”

So the meat is buried, and the headlines are biased.

About 30 protesters blocked traffic, many wearing T-shirts that said “Stop the Hate.” Several unfurled a large, white banner that blared “Stop SB1070. We will not comply.” Others in the group held a banner in Spanish saying: “There is no problem with immigration; there is a problem with capitalism. Revolution is the solution.” After two hours, the police cleared the intersection and arrested seven people.

Ah, LA RAZA and MeCHA showed up… 🙂

Antoinette Murray, 45, said she feared the law would prompt police officers to stop citizens who look Hispanic and arrest them if they cannot produce the right documents. “If they look at someone and they are of Mexican descent, they are going to be guilty until proven innocent,” she said. “It makes you guilty for being brown.”

The a priori racism argument yet again.

Sound familiar:

“You can imagine, if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona …” the president said Tuesday at a campaign-style appearance in Iowa, “suddenly, if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed.”–President Obama April 29, 2010.

Outside the courthouse, people of all political stripes mounted noisy demonstrations. Charlene Greenwood, 46 and unemployed, described herself as a Tea Party member, wore a semiautomatic pistol on her hip and signs that read, “Illegal immigrants have better health care than I do” and, “Bank robbers, drug dealers and prostitutes are just trying to support their families too.”

So you go for the most extreme “loon” you can find and highlight them. No bias there.

In Sci-Fi Fandom this is known as “going for the guy in the spock ears” only. The most extreme element is normal to the person who wants to be condescending to begin with.

To confirm the stereotype.

“And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” –Candidate Obama said. 4/12/2008

But the old grey lady had to end their piece with one more sob story:

Among the protesters were several illegal immigrants who were waiting for judges to decide their cases. Rudy Gomez, 37, said he came to the country illegally from Guatemala in 1997 and has been working as a roofer ever since.

He has four children and fears he may be caught and deported in the crackdown envisioned under the law, he said. “I’m not doing anything wrong,” he said. “This is my home. This is where I live.”

Boo Frickin’-Hoo!

Come here legally and people will welcome you.

But he’s been here 13 years. Has 4 kids that we are undoubtedly paying for (education, health care,etc) , and he’s taken a construction job from a legal american.

And we are supposed to look the other way.

Because it’s the federal government’s job to look the other way.

And if you dare look, the almighty OZ will crush you where you stand!

I don’t think so.

“A law that is unenforced is no law at all,” said John Bouma, the lawyer representing Arizona. “We have had repeated pleas … that have basically gone unheeded.”(Reuters)

“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton asked in a pointed exchange with Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler. Kneedler responded to her query about why Arizona authorities don’t have the right to be inhospitable to illegal immigrants by saying the law has given the state the power to enforce immigration law “in, frankly, an unprecedented and dramatic way.”(WP)

States’ Rights: A federal judge hears arguments over whether a state law that mirrors federal law on immigration should take effect next week. Can a state protect its borders when the federal government won’t?

Critics of Arizona’s enlisting local police to enforce federal immigration law fail to note the existence of the federal 287(g) program, which trains local police to do just that. The Department of Homeland Security has memoranda of agreements (MOAs) with some 70 state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in 287(g) partnerships to enforce federal law. Nine of these jurisdictions are in Arizona, and all of the agreements were inked while Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was Arizona governor.

Judge Bolton also heard arguments on whether the Arizona law should be put on hold for now and whether the federal lawsuit should be dismissed. Unfortunately, illegal immigration, a raging drug war in Mexico and an increasing presence by Hezbollah south of the border cannot be put on hold. As the case began, Mexican authorities fought raging gun battles in Nuevo Laredo, across the border from Laredo, Texas. Nuevo Laredo is among several northern cities under siege from a turf battle between the Gulf cartel and its former enforcers, the Zetas gang of hit men. Violence and kidnappings have spilled across our border. The case for border security and immigration enforcement have never been stronger.

A bid by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to block the suit failed 55-43 with five Democrats voting with him and two Republicans siding with the Department of Justice. Sens. Mike Johanns of Nebraska and George Voinovich of Ohio voted against Arizona and in favor of open borders.

Rhode Island has a policy issued through an executive order identical to Arizona’s law. Rhode Island has not been sued, probably because its policy was not enacted in an election cycle. Nine other states have joined in a legal brief supporting Arizona in federal court, and a number of states are considering similar laws.

Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has declared the Wolverine State the lead state backing the Arizona law in court. It has filed a brief in federal court on behalf of Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia.

“Arizona, Michigan and every other state has the authority to enforce immigration laws, and it is appalling to see President Obama use taxpayer dollars to stop a state’s efforts to protect its own borders,” Cox said in a statement. We think so too.

The duty of this administration is to protect the borders of the United States and to enforce our laws, not to wage a legal war against Arizona for doing what the feds have failed to do.(IBD)

The power the Feds refuse to use and want bar anyone else from using.

Now that’s protecting your base and your base wanna-be’s, just not your citizens.

But what else would you expect from our “post-racial” President and his takeover-happy apparatchik-minded Liberals.

The Winning Strategy Part 1: The Media

November 2010.

The most important election in American History.

And the Democrats know it.

So, get ready for anything goes.

Because after all, the end justifies the means.

There will be all out Nuclear Race War.

Class Warfare.

Bush Derangement Syndrome will be epidemic.

You’ll up to the sky in kitchen sinks.

Nothing will actually be off limits.

Everyone of you who even hints at disagreeing with them is a Racist or an Uncle Tom.

You know who you are. 🙂

And The Mainstream Media will be right there in their propaganda roll as the Ministry of Truth.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and 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.

Think how underplayed the greatest lie of the Obama administration is being ignored, That of the Health Care Mandate as a Tax then you get the idea.

Then it came out this week that many in the News Media (not just “commentators”) actively and with political forethought deliberately ignored, suppressed or actively worked against the Reverend Jeremiah Wright story when it broke and actively worked to get Obama elected in general by hook or by crook.

Absolutely no “objectivity” or “journalism” need apply.

Did you notice how fast it disappeared?  And anyone who brought it  after that was…<<drum roll>>…A RACIST! 🙂

And if you disagreed with Obama, you were de facto a Racist?

Then after he was elected the Tea Party sprung up, and guess what, they were Racists too!!

It was no accident. I was a calculated plan by the very journalists themselves.

Someone found a forum where “journalists” hung out and said what they really think.

But don’t expect to here it on the Mainstream Media, the very people who were saying it. 🙂

Daily Caller: It was the moment of greatest peril for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s political career. In the heat of the presidential campaign, videos surfaced of Obama’s pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, angrily denouncing whites, the U.S. government and America itself. Obama had once bragged of his closeness to Wright. Now the black nationalist preacher’s rhetoric was threatening to torpedo Obama’s campaign.

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Specifically, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us,” Ackerman wrote on the Journolist listserv in April 2008. “Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

ABC being the “tough questions” asked of the President about Rev. Wright in April 2008, just after it broke.

How dare they! That must be stopped!

The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

“Richard Kim got this right above: ‘a horrible glimpse of general election press strategy.’ He’s dead on,” Tomasky continued. “We need to throw chairs now, try as hard as we can to get the call next time. Otherwise the questions in October will be exactly like this. This is just a disease.”

(In an interview Monday, Tomasky defended his position, calling the ABC debate an example of shoddy journalism.)

Thomas Schaller, a columnist for the Baltimore Sun as well as a political science professor, upped the ante from there. In a post with the subject header, “why don’t we use the power of this list to do something about the debate?” Schaller proposed coordinating a “smart statement expressing disgust” at the questions Gibson and Stephanopoulos had posed to Obama.

“It would create quite a stir, I bet, and be a warning against future behavior of the sort,” Schaller wrote.

Tomasky approved. “YES. A thousand times yes,” he exclaimed.

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson’s] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”

Jared Bernstein, who would go on to be Vice President Joe Biden’s top economist when Obama took office, helped, too. The letter should be “Short, punchy and solely focused on vapidity of gotcha,” Bernstein wrote.

In the midst of this collaborative enterprise, Holly Yeager, now of the Columbia Journalism Review, dropped into the conversation to say “be sure to read” a column in that day’s Washington Post that attacked the debate.

Columnist Joe Conason weighed in with suggestions. So did Slate contributor David Greenberg, and David Roberts of the website Grist. Todd Gitlin, a professor of journalism at Columbia University, helped too.

Journolist members signed the statement and released it April 18, calling the debate “a revolting descent into tabloid journalism and a gross disservice to Americans concerned about the great issues facing the nation and the world.”

The letter caused a brief splash and won the attention of the New York Times. But only a week later, Obama – and the journalists who were helping him – were on the defensive once again.

Jeremiah Wright was back in the news after making a series of media appearances. At the National Press Club, Wright claimed Obama had only repudiated his beliefs for “political reasons.” Wright also reiterated his charge that the U.S. federal government had created AIDS as a means of committing genocide against African Americans.

It was another crisis, and members of Journolist again rose to help Obama.

Chris Hayes of the Nation posted on April 29, 2008, urging his colleagues to ignore Wright. Hayes directed his message to “particularly those in the ostensible mainstream media” who were members of the list.

The Wright controversy, Hayes argued, was not about Wright at all. Instead, “It has everything to do with the attempts of the right to maintain control of the country.”

Hayes castigated his fellow liberals for criticizing Wright. “All this hand wringing about just
how awful and odious Rev. Wright remarks are just keeps the hustle going.”

“Our country disappears people. It tortures people. It has the blood of as many as one million Iraqi civilians — men, women, children, the infirmed — on its hands. You’ll forgive me if I just can’t quite dredge up the requisite amount of outrage over Barack Obama’s pastor,” Hayes wrote.

Hayes urged his colleagues – especially the straight news reporters who were charged with covering the campaign in a neutral way – to bury the Wright scandal. “I’m not saying we should all rush en masse to defend Wright. If you don’t think he’s worthy of defense, don’t defend him! What I’m saying is that there is no earthly reason to use our various platforms to discuss what about Wright we find objectionable,” Hayes said.

(Reached by phone Monday, Hayes argued his words then fell on deaf ears. “I can say ‘hey I don’t think you guys should cover this,’ but no one listened to me.”)

Katha Pollitt – Hayes’s colleague at the Nation – didn’t disagree on principle, though she did sound weary of the propaganda. “I hear you. but I am really tired of defending the indefensible. The people who attacked Clinton on Monica were prissy and ridiculous, but let me tell you it was no fun, as a feminist and a woman, waving aside as politically irrelevant and part of the vast rightwing conspiracy Paula, Monica, Kathleen, Juanita,” Pollitt said.

“Part of me doesn’t like this shit either,” agreed Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent. “But what I like less is being governed by racists and warmongers and criminals.”

Ackerman went on:

I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Ackerman did allow there were some Republicans who weren’t racists. “We’ll know who doesn’t deserve this treatment — Ross Douthat, for instance — but the others need to get it.” He also said he had begun to implement his plan. “I previewed it a bit on my blog last week after Commentary wildly distorted a comment Joe Cirincione made to make him appear like (what else) an antisemite. So I said: why is it that so many on the right have such a problem with the first viable prospective African-American president?”

Several members of the list disagreed with Ackerman – but only on strategic grounds.

“Spencer, you’re wrong,” wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. “Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn’t further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_ — Obama’s substantive agenda — with this crap.”

(In an interview Monday, Schmitt declined to say whether he thought Ackerman’s plan was wrong. “That is not a question I’m going to answer,” he said.)

Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”

But it was Ackerman who had the last word. “Kevin, I’m not saying OBAMA should do this. I’m saying WE should do this.”

Karl Rove played down the notion that members of the mainstream press agreed with Ackerman but he said he found it curious that such talk was tolerated within the group. It was important, he added, not to judge the motives of members who chose not to respond.

“I thought it was a revealing insight in the attitude of one minor player in the D.C. world of journalism,” Rove said of Ackerman’s comments. “It’s an even more important insight into a broader group of more prominent journalists that they seem to be willing to tolerate the suggestion that they should all tell a deliberate lie or that they should take somebody’s head and shove it through a plate glass window. I would hope that somebody would say, ‘Mr. Ackerman, do you really believe we ought to fabricate a lie about people just because we don’t agree with them?’”

Barnes added that even if there was an effort on the left to smear opponents as racists, the plan wouldn’t work.

“The charge has been made so often without any evidence that it has lost its sting,” he said. “It has become the last refuge of liberal scoundrels.”

Interview on FOX: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/publisher-neil-patel-chats-with-megyn-kelly-about-journolist/

And Now Part II: The Enemies List

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.

But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.

In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.”

Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.

In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.

On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”

“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”

On Journolist, there was rarely such thing as an honorable political disagreement between the left and right, though there were many disagreements on the left. In the view of many who’ve posted to the list-serv, conservatives aren’t simply wrong, they are evil. And while journalists are trained never to presume motive, Journolist members tend to assume that the other side is acting out of the darkest and most dishonorable motives.

When the writer Victor Davis Hanson wrote an article about immigration for National Review, for example, blogger Ed Kilgore didn’t even bother to grapple with Hanson’s arguments. Instead Kilgore dismissed Hanson’s piece out of hand as “the kind of Old White Guy cultural reaction that is at the heart of the Tea Party Movement. It’s very close in spirit to the classic 1970s racist tome, The Camp of the Saints, where White Guys struggle to make up their minds whether to go out and murder brown people or just give up.”

The very existence of Fox News, meanwhile, sends Journolisters into paroxysms of rage. When Howell Raines charged that the network had a conservative bias, the members of Journolist discussed whether the federal government should shut the channel down.

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

“I agree,” said Michael Scherer of Time Magazine. Roger “Ailes understands that his job is to build a tribal identity, not a news organization. You can’t hurt Fox by saying it gets it wrong, if Ailes just uses the criticism to deepen the tribal identity.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air…

“If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

A comment on the website after the stories summed it up beautifully:

This expose simply confirms what many of us have known all along. Liberals in the MSM are rigid idealogues who write for each other. They passionately believe they are on the side the angels while conservatives are just plain evil. In their world the ends justify the means and advocacy journalism is their contribution to advancing the cause. They are no better than the “journalists” who wrote for TASS or PRAVDA and their mindset is as rigid and narrow as what you would find in areas where the Taliban has complete control.

Excerpts: http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/21/a-few-excerpts-from-journolist-journalists/

Tomorrow, the question will be how do you fix voters…CHEAT like You have CHEATED before! 🙂
One Hint: The Electoral College is Evil and must be stopped! 🙂

You Can Fool People with Spin

Government these days isn’t about making the hard choices. It’s about making the choice that will sell, either to “your base” (thus ignoring everyone else) or by spin (which is inevitably deceitful) because it will benefit you or one of your “sides” interests.

They write 2000+ bills they won’t read. But expect everyone to follow.

They can’t be bothered to read SB1070, at a minimalist 16 pages.

Much easier to just play on people fears, anxiety,biases, and divide and conquer.

And when that doesn’t work, just lie.

Then there’s the politician favorite phrase these days, “I misspoke”.

No, we have it on tape or audio.

But they “misspoke”.

Then you get stuff like this:

President Barack Obama, fresh from a win on a sweeping overhaul of Wall Street regulations, on Saturday urged Congress to take up his proposal for a $90 billion, 10-year tax on banks as the next step in reform.

Obama wants to slap a 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of the biggest U.S. financial institutions to recoup the costs to taxpayers of the financial bailout.

“We need to impose a fee on the banks that were the biggest beneficiaries of taxpayer assistance at the height of our financial crisis — so we can recover every dime of taxpayer money,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

He does realize that a tax on business is passed onto the consumer right?

He doesn’t care. It sounds good.

It plays to his anti-capitalist base and the “wall street” anger that has been ginned up.

The fact that Congress in the 1990’s set up the roots of this problem and the Government agency in charge of monitoring them were too busy with Porn is not a matter for discussion.

And one of the biggest players in this whole mess, Fannie and Freddie were and are  ignored should be a sign.

Alinsky, Rules for Radicals:
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

Daniel Foster at the conservative National Review Online argues that the bill is filled with unnecessary or useless measures.

“There is much in the bill that has nothing to do with ‘Wall Street’ or the root causes of the crisis (i.e. debit card and interchange fee rules),” Foster writes. “There is little in it that will ‘reform’ too big to fail or change the incentives for the kind of behavior that led to the crisis (implicit subsidies and bailout authority galore); and it was a ‘compromise’ mostly between Democrats.”

Then you have VP Joe Biden, a one man gaffe machine:
VP Biden ran into an ice cream shot owner (in his shop) who aked him to lower the taxes and he called the guy a “smartass”

And it gets better:
Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy Friday, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.”

Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost.

“We inherited a godawful mess,” he said, adding there was “no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost.” (CBS)

Andrew Langer, The Daily Caller:

Ultimately, with election victory comes the responsibility of governance. That responsibility requires grappling with the excruciating problem of making tough choices. This is something all elected officials face at some time or another, and it is the caveat for anyone interested in pursuing a political career. Problems ensue when political leaders abdicate their responsibilities—and a case can be made that such abdication is an abuse of the public trust. And when it comes to domestic policy, there is no more important issue than the creation of a government’s annual budget.

For the past three years, there has been a disturbing trend of federal legislators essentially punting their responsibilities—whether it comes to oversight of federal agencies, understanding the constitutional implications of legislation, or, at its most basic, actually reading legislation being voted upon. This seemingly fundamental misunderstanding of the role of legislators in our republic has resulted in an unprecedented outpouring of public ire, from Tea Parties to very public “dressing downs” of congressmen at Town Hall meetings.

Congress should have gotten the message, yet as proof they are deaf to their constituencies, leaders in the House have recently done—or not done—something stunning. Congressional leaders have decided that they are unable to even propose, let alone pass, a federal budget this year.

They have ostensibly done this while they await the decision of President Obama’s “Deficit Commission,” a convenient fiction created to give cowardly Democrats the “cover” necessary for a tax increase following the 2010 elections. It is not their fault, they will argue when they eventually do propose a budget. They were forced to do this because of the recommendations of the commission.

It is an excuse that doesn’t hold water. Congress has the responsibility for the budget, which means that the majority party has the responsibility for getting it prepared and shepherded through the system and passed. It is, in fact, statutorily mandated. But without any consequences, the law has about as much real power as a Las Vegas illusionist: it’s great theatre, but it really doesn’t do what it claims.

The problem is that more and more government entities (including state and local governments) are shifting these powers to unelected commissions. While some might call it mere “punting”—moving the power to some other group of individuals—it’s more accurately a form of political surrender; the functional equivalent of throwing in the towel because, well, the job is just too darn hard, and, in an election cycle, these guys want the title but they don’t want the responsibilities to go along with it.

Spending and size of government are the two top issues going into this fall election, with healthcare reform playing a role in both. Voters not only are fed up with out-of-control spending, they’re genuinely fearful of the potential economic instability runaway spending creates. Controlling that spending is infinitely more complicated when government officials refuse to release a budget detailing just how that money is being spent. It was, interestingly enough, the continued secrecy of national budgets that brought Gorbachev to power as the Soviet Union’s last premier—and opening up those budgets to greater scrutiny one of the hallmarks of his Perestroika program. How ironic, then, that more than two decades later, America is moving in that direction—an entirely wrong direction—when it comes to budgets.

Americans are tired of cowardly politicians. They are tired of being lied to, of having polls say one thing and do quite the opposite. They are hungry for real leaders—leaders who mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders who are willing to make the tough choices, like Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey.

Whether it’s trying to shift responsibility or surrendering to the difficulties of governance, either way the result is the same: Americans’ government grows larger without anyone exercising fiscal restraint. Political leaders raise taxes to try and pay for their inability to control spending. Overall we all suffer. Unfortunately, in this case, waiting until January 2011 might just be too late.

  • Entitlements lead to Tax Increases The deficit will reach a stunning $1.5 trillion this year. Even after the recession ends, trillion-dollar deficits will persist, causing the national debt to double by 2020.
  • Excessive spending—not low revenues—accounts for 92% of deficits by 2014 and 100% by 2017.
  • Solutions that “split the difference” between tax hikes and spending cuts doesn’t really address the source of the problem: spending.
  • Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest costs will surge by nearly $2 trillion by 2020. By comparison, the cost of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is 85% less at $404 billion.

Tax Increases Are Not the Solution

  • Raising federal income taxes to pay for entitlement spending would require rates to double by 2050 and continue to rise thereafter.
  • Balancing the budget with tax increases alone would increase the tax burden from an average of 18% of the economy to 30% by 2055.
  • Layering on a value added tax (VAT)—a new national sales tax—would create a huge drag on the economy and family budgets.
  • A VAT would cause the price of everything to rise by 15–20%. By 2019, 44 cents of every dollar would go to the federal government, compared to 15 cents today.

Tax Hikes Have Harmful Economic Consequences

  • Tax increases take money from families and businesses, lowering savings and investment and killing jobs. This is especially harmful in the current economic climate.
  • Future generations—who can’t yet vote—will be stuck paying the higher taxes and inheriting lower standards of living that go with it.
  • Any new federal income taxes would be on top of state and local taxes, such as income, property, excise, fuel, and sales taxes.
  • A VAT would become a cash cow for Congress to fund new spending and open the door for continued, stealthy rate increases.
  • Twenty of 29 developed economies with a VAT have increased rates since passage. Denmark leads, having increased their VAT from 15 to 25% since it was enacted.

Congress has been mismanaging taxpayer dollars for decades. Can Washington really be trusted to use new revenues to close the deficit gap, or would they just spend the money on new programs? (heritage.org)

I would say no.

When you can just “misspeak” or “The previous administration…” or “the party of no” or just demonize someone else, why bother.

It is much easier to spend than to be responsible.

After all, it’s not the politician’s money.

It’s yours.

And you’ll always be there for them so why should they worry. 🙂

Just Plain Silly

Massachusetts, The Socialist Commonwealth, has many new Liberal ideas starting out there.

There auto insurance is so heavily regulated they have a lot less competition going on in that state. BTW, did you know you have the option to buy coverage to have it apply out-of-state!

See part 5: This option provides coverage for accidents beyond Massachusetts to anywhere in the United States, its territories or possessions, or Canada.

http://www.mypolicy.com/insurance-personal/automobile-12parts.htm

Universal Health care started there in 2007 and was bankrupt by 2009, but that doesn’t deter anyone.

So here is an editorial from The Daily Caller that stuck my fancy.

If you’re planning to spend the next New Year’s Day in Concord, Massachusetts, don’t get caught nursing your annual hangover with a plastic bottle of cool spring water — you might be breaking the law.

The city of Concord passed a law in April banning all bottled water in plastic containers, effective January 1, 2011. Supporters of the law say ridding the town of bottled water is a first step toward a cleaner planet. Never mind that plastic water bottles only account less than one percent of landfill space. Who are we to let facts get in the way of a good regulation?

In commemoration of the successful campaign to rid Concord of bottled H20, we decided to take a look at a few of the other laws that have come out of the Bay State, a land full of people who clearly think they are incapable of making personal decisions on their own accord.

1. A January 2010 law mandates that all children in Massachusetts daycare centers must brush their teeth after lunch — or else.

It is against the law for daycare providers to not help children brush their teeth after meals. While parents can opt out (either on libertarian principle or family tradition if they’re from some parts of Alabama), they can rest easy knowing that state bureaucrats are looking out for their children’s pearly whites. Heck, the state even provides toothpaste, brushes and holders! What? No floss?! There oughta be a law…

2. It is illegal in Massachusetts to deface a milk carton.

From what we can gather, there was once a rogue band of underground milkmen roaming the New England countryside defacing poor innocent milk cartons with giant Sharpie pens.  The horror! The mayhem! The curdling! Well, the state put an end to that, slapping a $10 fine on anyone who dared to vandalize a container of 2 percent.

3. It is illegal in Dudley, Massachusetts to own more than three cats without government permission.

Here’s to you, Dudley, for finding a way to push that nice lady with kitty litter in her hair and all those pussycats even further into desperate reclusion.  Residents of the town decided to impose a $100-per-day fine for owning too many cats after someone living next to the town cat lady complained about the felines ruining his yard. The cat lady promptly put her home up for sale, packed her 15 cats, and never looked back. Success!

4. Children in Attleboro, Massachusetts are forbidden from playing “tag” or other running games during playtime.

Heaven forbid an American child loses all that self-esteem his teachers worked so hard to build over the years. (Remember, everyone’s a winner!) A school in Massachusetts made national headlines in 2006 for issuing playground rules that restricted children from playing “chasing” games like tag and touch football because they were “dangerous” and “exclusionary.” In a rousing match of phone tag, a spokesman for the school refused to confirm or deny to The Daily Caller that tag is  still allowed today. Guess that means we’re it.

5. A Massachusetts fisherman was fined for saving a whale caught in his net.

As Clare Boothe Luce once quipped, no good deed goes unpunished. A U.S. District Court fined fisherman Robert J. Eldridge $500 after he untangled a whale from his nets and set the giant sea mammal free. What he should have done, the court told him, was call state authorities and wait for them do it. Never mind that the whale may have suffocated if they didn’t arrive in time. But hey, Eldridge should consider himself lucky: He could have faced a $100,000 fine and up to a year in jail. That’ll teach him.

Honorable Mention: Group in Cambridge calls for a ban on all meat on Mondays.

The Cambridge Climate Congress, established to make recommendations for climate laws for the People’s Republic of Cambridge, recently proposed a ban on all meat sales once a week to curb the “climate emergency.” (It didn’t pass.) As the logic goes, meat comes from cows, and cows emit gas (farts) that heats up the planet. Let’s take a moment to thank the selfless citizens of Cambridge for making a good faith effort to rid the world of climate change and those smelly bovine backsides.
So what new hot liberal trend to run your life for you will be coming to a town near you, or even yours.

Let’s Wait and see. 🙂

The Battle of The Rages

While, they kind, non-violent, loving Liberals are smearing hateful Nazi symbols all over the Capitol proclaiming their moral superiority and politically correct love for everyone who isn’t a White Male.

But they aren’t the racists…oh no…

They don’t want to divide people by race…oh no…

They aren’t hateful and violent like Tea Partiers….oh no… 😦

Arizona’s new law is a reminder that the states formed the federal government and not the other way around. One of the federal government’s functions was to provide for the security of the new country against foreign enemies and intruders. At this, and particularly under this administration, it has failed miserably.

There are 460,000 illegal aliens in Arizona, a number that increases daily, placing an undue burden on the state’s schools, hospitals and law enforcement. Arizona has a window seat to an illegal invasion and on the escalating and violent drug war in Mexico that has put American lives and society at risk.

On March 27, the consequences of a porous and unprotected border claimed the life of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz after he radioed his brother that he was checking out someone he believed to be an illegal immigrant.

Incredibly, his murderer escaped to a pronghorn antelope area that the Interior Department of Secretary Ken Salazar had placed off-limits to U.S. Border Patrol agents.

So unserious is the administration about protecting the border that it has allowed a bureaucratic turf battle between Interior and Homeland Security to let 4.3 million acres of wilderness area become a haven and highway for illegal aliens, drug smugglers, human traffickers and potential terrorists. (IDB)

But they saved the Antelope!

Awww….isn’t that so warm and fuzzy…

Like the warmness of a drug dealers gun having a shoot out on the highway.

Or the drunk illegal that just killed a family.

Or the drop house with 50-100 illegals stashed in their as effective hostages until someone pay the Coyote.

Human Smuggling is ok with Liberals, BUT DAMN STRAIGHT WE’LL SAVED THE ANTELOPE!

I found this on The Daily Caller by Jedediah Bila:

I had a horrible nightmare last night that America was being run by a far-left ideologue that was spending our money like it grew on trees, cowering before dictators, and promoting government dependency while self-sufficiency and personal responsibility went by the wayside. Oh wait, never mind. 🙂

President Obama has once again championed political correctness in his criticism of Arizona’s new law to crack down on illegal immigration. As reported by Fox News, “The law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.” Obama responded by calling the law “misguided,” insisting that the failure of the federal government to handle immigration matters responsibly will yield “ . . . irresponsibility by others . . . That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans . . . ”

The federal government has had plenty of time to secure our nation from the threats of illegal immigration. Should Arizona sit back and hush up while a few more gangs invade its borders and endanger its citizens? You know, while the federal government takes care of its real priorities, like enforcing a government overhaul of the health care industry and inventing creative ways to disguise job-crippling energy taxes as some sort of green campaign? Kudos to Arizona for stepping up to the plate and doing a job it shouldn’t have to do. In fact, a recent Rasmussen telephone survey reveals that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation.

The important issue here is political correctness. Of course, everyone who supports the legislation has already been labeled racist. I wish the term terrorist rolled off the tongues of the Left with half as much ease as racial profiling. Somehow the crime of being in this country illegally is of far less concern to them than the act of asking someone to show his or her ID. Does the twenty-three-year-old who looks more like seventeen and is asked to show ID at the corner liquor store face age profiling, too? Let me not give them any ideas.

So, much like every liberty-loving American who doesn’t like Barack Obama’s Alinsky-inspired redistributive agenda, security-seeking Arizonians who support the state’s new legislation regarding illegal immigration fit the liberal definition of racist. The fact that the law prohibits officers from conducting an immigration check on the sole basis of one’s nationality or race is, of course, ignored by the Left.

It is imperative that Americans don’t get bullied into silence as a result of the leftist tactic of calling all forms of dissent racist, as the consequences would be dangerous. Such silence would lead to the destruction of our first amendment rights and a passive acceptance of potentially-disastrous policies. Also, tossing the word racist around with persistent ease would yield apathy among Americans when legitimate acts of racism arise that should be condemned. When writing about feminism, I’ve always said that the greatest disservice you can do to a female politician is to criticize or not criticize her policies due to her gender. The same applies to race.

The federal government hasn’t done its job of protecting Arizona. Legal immigration is something that has always been welcomed in this country, as America embraces the productivity and contributions of those from around the world who seek the opportunity our nation fosters. However, the illegal alternative cannot and should not be tolerated.

The bottom line is that the laws of our country should never be compromised in the name of political correctness or any other convenient term that aims to preserve some distorted ideological doctrine of “fairness.” A far-left friend of mine asked me this yesterday: “So, if a group of white, thirty-year-old women were doing something they shouldn’t be doing in Manhattan, and you got stopped by the cops to show ID because they thought you were acting suspiciously, wouldn’t you be offended?” My answer was a resounding no. If I were innocent, then what’s the big deal in flashing my ID? If anything, I’d be grateful that the cops weren’t taking any chances with anyone. And if I were guilty, the proper term isn’t “unfair.” It’s “caught.”

A crime is a crime. Security is of paramount importance. And if that means someone may get a little offended every now and then, so be it.

You’re just a hateful Nazi if you disagree with the Left.

Now that’s the best way to start a reasoned debate on the issue, don’t you think?? 😦

The Upside Down World of Liberals

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — Crying “Raise our taxes!” and “Show some guts!”, thousands of people rallied at the state Capitol on Wednesday to protest lawmakers’ inaction on a tax hike to fix a $13 billion deficit.

The secretary of state’s police estimated 15,000 people showed up, making it one of the largest rallies in Illinois Statehouse history.

Most of those participating in the “Save Our State” rally, organized by a coalition of more than 200 public-service organizations, marched in the streets around the Statehouse. They called for an income-tax increase to avoid deep budget cuts that would hit education, law enforcement and services for young children, the elderly, the handicapped and the homeless.

Legislators were in session at the time, even as hundreds finished the march by crowding into the Capitol, filling three floors of the rotunda.

“It gives me goose bumps,” said Lisa Lafrank of Collinsville, a second-year special education teacher who is bracing for a second round of layoff notices at her school district. “You realize there are so many other organizations facing the same cuts and have the same problem.”

Speakers at the rally pleaded for a House vote on a measure, approved by the Senate last year, that would increase the personal tax rate by two-thirds. House Democrats have been reluctant to vote on it without support from minority Republicans, who call for spending reductions.

Gov. Pat Quinn has offered his own tax proposal, calling for a one-third increase, but there is no sign that lawmakers are interested in voting on that idea either. Even if a tax increase were to pass, the deficit is so large that some spending and service cuts are likely.

Amid signs that read, “Cut the bull, not the budget” and “Wanted: Responsible legislators,” was 18-year-old Meliqua Page of Chicago, now a college student who has benefited from a youth homeless program that was cut by more than $1 million last year.

“We came out here,” Page said, “to show that the little people do matter.”

Yes, folks, it’s public sector Liberals protesting that our taxes are not high enough to pay for their pensions, benefits, and entitlements.

And yes, they are lobbying Democrats to raise taxes.

Lobbying them.

Think about that one.

Raising Taxes is as natural as breathing to Liberals.

But these are largely not private sector employees. These are public and government sector employees who know that union pensions are going south so they want you to pay more for their pensions and entitlements.

Most of the rest are people who don’t want their entitlement drugs cut.

It’s all about them.

Now that is a Liberal trait.

But a Pro-Tax Increase Rally!!!

The world is truly upside down and backwards!

Van Jones, disgraced White House “green” Czar (he was only an avowed Communist and 9/11 Truther) said recently, “There are way more jobs putting up solar panels, building smart batteries, making wind turbines, putting them up, than we will ever have again in America in the coal lines. Period.”

Currently, solar panels cost around $70,0000 for a full on run of them apparently.

Yeah, I have that, no problem… 😦

Then there’s “Cash for Caulkers”, Stimulus money for weatherizing homes.

Weatherization really does save money–but the government sucks at making it happen:

The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, which prior to the Obama administration had an annual weatherization budget of $13 million, committed to spending $327 million in stimulus funds to weatherize 56,000 homes by 2012.

The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs had only managed to weatherize 47 homes with its 50-fold budget as of the Sept. 30, 2009, stimulus reporting deadline. According to CNN, the stipulations surrounding stimulus spending are so complex that Texas “had to set up training academies to teach people how to manage the federal money,” which drastically slowed the weatherization process.

So, Texas can’t weatherize efficiently with a 50x-larger budget, and solar panels are still prohibitively expensive, and Van Jones calls subsidizing both a “fiscally conservative” energy policy? (Daily Caller)

So waste billions on re-inventing the wheel that isn’t better than or less expensive than the current model and call that “fiscally conservative”, now if that’s not upside down logic what is?

That’s like a lot of Liberalism, when you’re broke, Spend Even More!

And Now for a Little Humor: The Gecko Got Fired!!

Or at least his voice did.

A voice-over actor — best known for telling viewers they can save 15 percent or more on car insurance — says he lost his gig doing Geico commercials after leaving a voicemail with a group that organizes Tea Party events to ask how many of its employees are “mentally retarded.”

Los Angeles actor Lance Baxter aka D.C. Douglas in a press release said he was dropped from the upcoming Geico “Shocking News” campaign after leaving a message with the press shop at FreedomWorks, a Washington-based organization led by former Republican leader Dick Armey that has been at the forefront of the Tea Party movement.

“I called as a private citizen to make a complaint,” Douglas said of the message he left with FreedomWorks. “Racism and homophobia are my Achilles heal, but unfortunately my message included inappropriate words and I am sorry for that. However, telling their members to harass my employer to get me fired is an egregiously disproportionate response to my actions.”

FreedomWorks Chief Executive Matt Kibbe posted audio of the phone call online. In the message, Douglas claimed to be working on a written piece, and said he wanted to know the percentage of “mentally retarded” employees at FreedomWorks. He also asked its policy on how they will spin the news when “your members actually kill someone.”

Geico has since held auditions to replace Douglas voice on the commercials, he said. He said he has “consulted with several Los Angeles attorneys and has been advised that FreedomWorks’ actions were questionable.”

In the release, Douglas says he doesn’t plan to spend any money to sue FreedomWorks, but he’d like to find an attorney to sue pro-bono for him. (Daily Caller)

The message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAB0-0Vbff0

Yeah, he’s mad, but he wants his payback for it for free!

Maybe they can save him 15% on his next gig…Or maybe he can team up with Tiger Woods! 🙂