Never Forget

When I see young kids these days, one of the thoughts I have is, that they don’t have connection to this history and the Politically Correct will water it down to nothing because it’s not Agenda Correct to remind people that every single terrorist was a Muslim.

So, as I do every year on this date. I remind people, “Oh yeah, that happened today”

Because, unlike Hillary, It does matter.

9/11, 9/11 Quotes, September 11th Quotes, 9 11 Quotes And Sayings, 9 11 Quotes Remembering, 9/11 Quotes Remembering, September 11th Attacks, September 11th Quotes And Sayings

So how many Leftist out there want to call me a racist for singling out Muslims? 🙂

How children are oblivious to this day’s importance because The Ministry of Liberal Education has watered this down to insignificance by now?

How many Liberals have banned this from their collectivist memory and are absolutlely sure it was a plot cooked up President Bush?

On just as a reminder this also happened…

But don’t worry, that was our fault. These Libyan muslims just happened to passing by the Consulate in Benghazi on 9/11 with their Rocket Launchers, Snipers, grenades, and Molotov cocktails and remembered that they saw a You tube video in June and got pissed off at that very moment and wam! 4 people are dead because of it.

That’s the Obama/Hillary story.

But don’t worry, it’s all a partisan witch hunt by right wing extremists now. 🙂

The Darnedest Place

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

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

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

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

The left without fear mongering. Not afraid of words.

Now that is a utopian vision for you.

Written for a show about a vision of hope.

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

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

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

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

The politics of power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#Blacklivesmatter becoming its rallying cry. (Yahoo)

Everyone else, screw off you racists!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Say one thing, do the opposite.

The end justifies the means.

And that is the Progressive Left in a nutshell.

The Past isn’t as Perfect

Some Democratic Party groups are renouncing their once-egalitarian idols, the renaissance genius Thomas Jefferson and the populist Andrew Jackson. Both presidents owned slaves two centuries ago, so they’ve suddenly deemed unworthy of further liberal reverence.

The Ministry of Truth has spoken. Anything else is a thoughtcrime.

In Connecticut, the state Democratic Party has removed the two presidents’ names from an annual fundraiser previously known as the Jefferson-Jackson-Bailey Dinner.

There are lots of strange paradoxes in the current frenzied liberal dissection of past sins.

But since they are orthodoxy, there can be no paradoxes because The Ministry of Truth has decreed it so. Anything else is a thoughtcrime.

One, a historic figure must be near-perfect in all dimensions of his or her complex life to now pass progressive muster. That Jefferson is responsible for helping to establish many of the cherished human rights now enshrined in American life apparently cannot offset the transgression of having owned slaves.

The modern Democrats were prominent slave owners of that day. The Republican Party was formed in opposition to slavery.

But don’t tell that to the Ministry, for that is a thoughtcrime.

Two, today’s moral standards are always considered superior to those of the past. Ethical sense supposedly always improves with time.

And if it does, then The Ministy’s job is enforce that it has anyways.

However, would American society of 1915 have allowed a federally supported agency such as Planned Parenthood to cut apart aborted fetuses to sell infant body parts?

Ivy League enrollment figures suggest some of these universities have capped the number of Asian students. Is this really much different than the effort to curtail Jewish enrollment at Ivy League schools in the 1920s?

Three, the sins of the past were hardly all committed by racist, sexist, conservative white men.

The truth does not matter to The Left. Period. The “truth” matters. 🙂

Under the new morality, should we not also condemn the Aztec king Montezuma as a Hitler-like war criminal? No society prior to the Nazi Third Reich had so carefully organized and institutionalized the machinery of mass death that each year executed tens of thousands of human captives from conquered neighboring tribes.

Perhaps San Diego State University should stop using the nickname “Aztecs” for its sports teams, given the fact the Aztecs practiced slave-owning, human sacrifice and cannibalism.

The Zulus are often portrayed as saintly indigenous people, brutally colonized by rapacious British imperialists. That’s not quite the whole story. Earlier in their pre-British history, the Zulus’ King Shaka adopted military imperialism and internal police state that would have made Josef Stalin proud.

By the time of his death in 1828, Shaka’s army had killed more than 1 million Africans through imperial conquest and mass executions.

Applying the morality of the present in crude political fashion to ferret out the supposed race, class and gender immorality of the past is a tricky thing. Picking saints and sinners can boomerang in unexpected ways.

Senator Robert “KKK” Byrd anyone? Al Gore’s father, the segregationist. And we already knw that some extreme lefties consider Martin Luther King a bad person because he said many un-PC things, like actual tolerance and acceptance of everyone, not just the sanctified Progressive Liberal.

Will Democrats now also damn America’s most openly racist president since the pre-Civil War era — the liberal saint Woodrow Wilson?

Wilson successfully led the U.S. in World War I, tried to organize a global League of Nations — and was an unapologetic Southern racist in word and deed. It was Wilson who fought the integration of the U.S. military and did his best as president of Princeton University to deny talented African-Americans admission.

Should Princeton focus only on that disreputable aspect of his legacy and thus change the name of its vaunted Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs?

Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren is worshipped as a progressive icon who through his work on the Supreme Court helped enshrine a liberal agenda. But no American was more responsible for incarcerating Japanese-Americans in internment camps when he was California’s attorney general.

Should we regard civil rights advocate Malcolm X as unworthy of attention or a complex historical persona? By present ethical standards, was Malcolm more than just a convicted thief and avowed Communist who dismissed Martin Luther King Jr. as “chump,” declared that he was “glad” when John F. Kennedy was assassinated and talked of black superiority as he condemned whites as “devils.”

Enter Louis Farrakhan talking about black killing whites…

The architect of Planned Parenthood was the feminist family planner Margaret Sanger. Shouldn’t Planned Parenthood denounce Sanger’s legacy, given her eugenics agenda that deliberately sought to focus abortions on minority communities?

The past is not simplistic “gotcha” melodrama in which we convict figures of history by tabulating their sins on today’s moral scorecards. Instead, history is tragedy. It is complex. Moral assessments are dicey. With some humility, we must balance past and current ethical standards, as well as the elements of the good and the bad present in every life.

But Liberals are simplistic and narcissistic. Not to mention, selective. After all it was the Southern Democrats who were against The Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s and fought a War FOR slavery.

We must avoid cheap, politicized moralizing that often tells more about the ethics and ignorance of today’s grand inquisitors than their targets. (Victor Davis Hanson)

Yes, it does. And no, The Ministry of Truth doesn’t care. “We are at war with Oceania and always have been…” — 1984 By George Orwell.

The truth of the moment is what ever the Party deems to to be. If it changes 5 seconds from now that is to be ignored because the Party is always right and The Ministry will see to it that history records it accurately, even if that mean revising what it says as they say it.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

In The Eyes of The Left

let me tell you what really happened.

Once upon a time there was an evil pizzeria that catered to the lowest form of religious bigotry. They waited for years, opening the store almost a decade ago. They knew that the gays were coming. And they wanted to put a stop to it. Or, at least, to capitalize financially off of it. And when Indiana passed its RFRA law, they saw their chance.

Oh, sure, we think that the local news reporter “just happened” to drive some 20 miles to find a pizza joint that was itching to deny service to gay people. But that’s a pretty big coincidence, don’t you think? How do we know she didn’t get an anonymous tip? How do we know that this reporter wasn’t in on the con? Simple answer: we don’t. OPEN YOUR EYES, SHEEPLE. CONNECT THE DOTS.

So then the reporter airs her report, the headline of which very misleadingly suggests the pizza joint would never want to serve gay people their delicious pies. (Was this sloppiness or intentional misdirection designed to gin up outrage—and thus a money-making backlash to the outrage? You decide.) There was much anger as entirely just warriors for goodness suggested we calmly burn the witch and her family’s business to the ground and others made death threats. Their Yelp page was defaced by good people doing good work. These bigots were named and shamed, called out and ruined!

But here’s where the really devious part of the grift kicked in. It was all a con. A con designed to rake in money from similarly minded bigots, of which there is no end in America. And the con worked! The family made hundreds of thousands of dollars via Go Fund Me.

Sonny Bunch’s description above is in jest as he laughs, along with myself, at the idiocy of these truthers.

And the gay people who donated to the GoFundMe because they wanted to apologize for their fellow brethren’s extremism were just suckers who fell for the scam.

They just can’t seem to wrap there heads around the fact that their attacks went too far so to explain it all it just HAD to be a conspiracy. Just to make themselves feel better about their attacks. (Flopping Aces)

This Article in the Atlantic is very well said: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/should-businesses-that-quietly-oppose-gay-marriage-be-destroyed/389489/?utm_source=btn-twitter-ppr

In essence: The question I’d ask those who want to use non-state means to punish mom-and-pop businesses that decline to cater gay weddings is what, exactly, their notion of a fair punishment is. Nearly every supporter of gay marriage is on board with efforts to publicly tell people that their position is wrongheaded–I’ve participated in efforts like that for years and insist that respectful critique and persuasion is more effective than shaming. What about other approaches? If their Yelp rating goes down by a star does the punishment fit the “crime”? Is there a financial loss at which social pressure goes from appropriate to too much? How about putting them out of business? Digital mobs insulting them and their children? Email and phone threats from anonymous Internet users? If you think that any of those go too far have you spoken up against the people using those tactics?

(If not, is it because you’re afraid they might turn on you?)

A relatively big digital mob has been attacking this powerless family in rural Indiana,** but I don’t get the sense that its participants have reflected on or even thought of these questions. I don’t think they recognize how ugly, intolerant and extreme their actions appear or the effect they’ll have on Americans beyond the mainstream media, or that their vitriolic shaming these people has ultimately made them into martyrs. I fear that a backlash against their tactics will weaken support for the better angels of the gay rights movement at a time when more progress needs to be made, and that they’re turning traditionalists into a fearful, alienated minority with a posture of defensiveness that closes them off to persuasion.

And that’s a shame.

**I’d be fascinated to how many grandparents of mob participants oppose gay marriage and what degree of social stigma they would want directed toward them.(Atlantic Magazine)

You know, the OLD SOUTH that fought to keep slavery and their children, the ones who opposed Civil Rights in the 60’s (Democrats mostly).

The eyes of the real history are upon you. But the Modern Left turns a blind eye to it’s own history because it doesn’t fit their sanctimonious agenda.

Fascinating.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

History Repeats

My seventh-grade son recently wrote a U.S. History paper extolling the virtues of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. “It ended the Great Depression,” he wrote with great certainty. He’s only 12 and parroting what the history texts and his teachers told him.

That’s his excuse. What’s Ken Burns’?

Mr. Burns’ docudrama on the Roosevelts—for those who weren’t bored to tears—repeats nearly all the worn-out fairy tales of the FDR presidency, including what I call the most enduring myth of the 20th century, which is that FDR’s avalanche of alphabet-soup government programs ended the Great Depression. Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on such lies?

Not for Liberals. They spent 90 years working up to ObamaCare, after all…

Ask nearly anyone over the age of 80, and they will say that FDR cared about the working man and “gave the country hope,” a point that Mr. Burns emphasizes. Roosevelt exuded empathy, which isn’t a bad thing—remember Bill Clinton’s memorable line “I feel your pain”?—but caring doesn’t create jobs or lift gross domestic product.

Nor does spending government money revive growth, despite the theories put into practice by the then-dean of all economists, John Maynard Keynes. Any objective analysis of these facts can lead to no other conclusion. U.S. unemployment averaged a rate of 18 percent during Roosevelt’s first eight years in office. In the decade of the 1930s, U.S. industrial production and national income fell by about almost one-third. In 1940, after year eight years of the New Deal, unemployment was still averaged a god-awful 14 percent.

Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor with their Scotch terrier Fala on the terrace of his house in Hyde Park, New York. (Photo: Newscom)

Think of it this way. The unemployment rate was more than twice as high eight years into the New Deal than it is today, and American workers now are angry as hornets. Imagine, if jobs were twice as scarce today, the pitchforked revolt that would be going on. This is success?

Almost everything FDR did to jump-start growth retarded it. The rise in the minimum wage kept unemployment intolerably high. (Are you listening, Nancy Pelosi?) Roosevelt’s work programs like the Works Progress Administration, National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration were so bureaucratic as to have minimal impact on jobs. Raising tax rates to nearly 80 percent on the rich stalled the economy. Social Security is and always was from the start a Madoff-style Ponzi scheme that will eventually sink into bankruptcy unless reformed.

The cruel irony of the New Deal is that the liberals’ honorable intentions to help the poor and the unemployed caused more human suffering than any other set of ideas in the past century.

The most alarming story of economic ignorance surrounding this New Deal era was the tax increases while the economy was faltering. According to economist Burt Folsom, FDR signed one of the most financially devastating taxes: “On April 27, 1942, he signed an executive order taxing all personal income above $25,000 [rich back then] at 100 percent. Congress balked at that idea and later lowered it to 90 percent at the top level.” The New Dealers completely ignored the lessons of the 1920s tax cuts, which just a decade before had unfurled an age of super-growth.

Then there was the spending and debt barrage. Federal spending catapulted from $4.65 billion in 1933 to nearly $13.7 billion in 1941. This tripling of the federal budget in just eight years came at a time of almost no inflation (just 13.1 percent cumulative during that period). Budget surpluses during the prosperous Coolidge years became ever-larger deficits under FDR’s fiscal reign. During his first term, more than half the federal budget on average came from borrowed money.

The cruel irony of the New Deal is that the liberals’ honorable intentions to help the poor and the unemployed caused more human suffering than any other set of ideas in the past century.

The road to Hell is paved with Liberal Good Intentions. Since they are The Enlightened , and they Care, it worked in their minds– in their reality. So, therefore, it will work again, and again, and again.

They are the good, compassionate, loving, caring, sensitive Angels of the World. Anyone who disagrees must therefore be a Devil and out to do everyone (but especially the poor) harm.

It just stands to reason, in their heads.

What is maddening is that thanks to this historical fabrication of FDR’s presidency, dutifully repeated by Mr. Burns, we have repeated the mistakes again and again. Had the history books been properly written, it’s quite possible we would never had to endure the catastrophic failure of Obamanomics and the “stimulus plans” that only stimulated debt. The entire rationale for the Obama economic plan in 2009 was to re-create new New Deal.

Doubly amazing is that at this very moment, the left is writing another fabricated history — of the years we have just lived through. The history books are already painting Obama policies as the just-in-time emergency policies that prevented a Second Great Depression. I wonder if 80 years from now, the American people will be as gullible as they are today in believing, as my 12-year-old does, that FDR was an economic savior.

Originally appeared in The Washington Times by Stephen Moore

Answer: YES. History is written by the winners, or at least, in this case the Liberal educators. So as long as they control the process, the falsehoods of the Liberal Narrative will become fact.

After all, if you often enough it becomes the truth. No one like this axiom better than a Liberal.

Ask nearly anyone over the age of 80, and they will say that FDR cared about the working man and “gave the country hope,” a point that Mr. Burns emphasizes. Roosevelt exuded empathy, which isn’t a bad thing—remember Bill Clinton’s memorable line “I feel your pain”?—but caring doesn’t create jobs or lift gross domestic product. (Chris Cook)

And then you have now the 24/7 Ministry of Truth to spew “the facts”.

So, yes, Liberals never learn from  REAL history (because they are SO MUCH smarter than the average bear) and we are doomed to repeat them.

Homework: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515

BlackFace, Black Eye

A white Michigan middle school teacher remains suspended two weeks after he was placed an administrative leave. (Update farther down)

Wait for it… 🙂

His crime?

Teaching history.

According to parents whose children are in the eighth- grade class, the administrator thought the lesson plan was offensive and racist.

Read more at: http://www.monroenews.com/news/2014/may/30/monroe-teacher-alan-barron-suspended/

Alan Barron was teaching his eighth-grade class about the history of racial segregation when he showed a video featuring blackface.

OH NO! The Truth is the end of civilized society as The Liberals see it!

History prior to 1964 must be a real bitch to teach then. Imagine how hard it was in Ancient Rome. 🙂

Oh, right, Liberals only want to teach politically correct history so that you’re an easily manipulated moron.

The video was historical, showing how white Americans used blackface to mockingly imitate black people as part of a broader social scheme of repression — but a school administrator sitting in on the class found it inappropriate, and Barron was suspended the next day.

The district, through spokesman Bobb Vergiels, would not acknowledge that Mr. Barron was suspended and only stated that he is “on leave.”

Actually, he didn’t mention his name (according to Monroe news): “The teacher in question was placed on paid leave to give the district time to fully consider what occurred in this classroom,”

Even here, Liberal prevaricate. 🙂

He was only a month from retirement, having served 36 years with the school district.

According to parents whose children are in the eighth- grade class, the administrator thought the lesson plan was offensive and racist. Mr. Barron was suspended the next day Adrienne Aaron’s husband is African American, and their child was in the class. She said Mr. Barron simply was showing the students what occurred in history. She said her daughter was not offended and felt the subject needs to be discussed.

“(My child) was more offended that they stopped the video,” Adrienne Aaron, who is married to a black man and whose child was in Barron’s class, told the Monroe News. “It had nothing to do with racism. History is history. We need to educate our kids to see how far we’ve come in America. How is that racism?”

“Mr. Barron is a darn good teacher, people get offended over everything these days,” wrote one commenter. “Even history.”

Yep, that would par for the course with the Politically Correct Thought Police.

“Mr. Barron is one of the … great teachers we have in Monroe Public Schools,” one parent wrote in a letter that was distributed through Facebook. “ He has changed many children’s lives over the course of his career. If Mr. Barron felt that he was teaching something that was offensive, he would most definitely not have done it.”

During his suspension, Mr. Barron is not allowed to attend district functions, including an annual banquet where retiring teachers are honored.

“It’s so sad this has happened to him,” Mrs. Aaron said. “He’s one of the best teachers we’ve had. We can’t believe that this is happening.”

UPDATE AT 8:42 P.M. Sunday – The Monroe News has learned that Al Barron was reinstated Sunday evening (after about two weeks of embarrassment).

The hyperactive, sugar-rush, Hyper-ventilating judgmental “diversity”obsessed “tolerant” LEFTISTs got shamed into it no doubt.

Did they learn anything from it? HELL NO!

How do you know?

When he was reinstated the only person talking was the teacher’s lawyer. The Leftists had crawled under their PC rock waiting like a rattlesnake to strike again.

But in a recorded message sent to district employees Sunday night, Monroe Public Schools Supt. Dr. Barry Martin said the information that was reported was incorrect and that the district was not opposed to Mr. Barron’s teaching methods.

“As a result of incorrect information presented within the community, there is a perception that the district was opposed to a teacher providing students with information about the history of racial issues in this country,” Dr. Martin said in a phone message and through a posting on the Monroe Public Schools Facebook page. “This simply is not true and is a misinterpretation of the concern.”

Bwah hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha!  See what I mean… 🙂

But in a recorded message sent to district employees Sunday night, Monroe Public Schools Supt. Dr. Barry Martin said the information that was reported was incorrect and that the district was not opposed to Mr. Barron’s teaching methods. #“As a result of incorrect information presented within the community, there is a perception that the district was opposed to a teacher providing students with information about the history of racial issues in this country,” Dr. Martin said in a phone message and through a posting on the Monroe Public Schools Facebook page. “This simply is not true and is a misinterpretation of the concern.”

Read more at: http://www.monroenews.com/news/2014/jun/01/al-barron-reinstated-mps-teacher/

It appears the PC police was likely a recently promoted teacher (to Assistant Principal) according to Facebook sources (after she deactivated her page because she was fire-bombed by what I’m sure the left would call “rac*st” sympathizers) after all, The assistant principal also apparently ordered that Barron stop the video as it was being played.

see

 

A leftist with new found power, more dangerous than that rattlesnake.

Pity his students when the Politically Correct and more “sensitive” replacement comes in.

I hear Jay Carney needs a new job… 🙂

 

UPDATE AT 8:42 P.M. Sunday – The Monroe News has learned that Al Barron was reinstated Sunday evening.

Read more at: http://www.monroenews.com/news/2014/may/30/monroe-teacher-alan-barron-suspended/

The Monroe News has learned that Al Barron was reinstated Sunday evening.

Read more at: http://www.monroenews.com/news/2014/may/30/monroe-teacher-alan-barron-suspended/

What is Old is New Again

That 1%er Update:

While millions of Americans saw their incomes decrease, their job opportunities dissipate and their home values drop as the economy dipped, the 535 men and women they elected to represent them in the U.S. Congress were not only shielded from the economic downturn but gained during it.

The average American’s net worth has dropped 8 percent during the past six years, while members of Congress got, on average, 15 percent richer, according to a New York Times analysis of financial disclosure. The median net worth of members of Congress is about $913,000, compared with about $100,000 for the country at large, the Times’ analysis found.

This wealth disparity between lawmakers and the people they represent seems to be continually growing . Nearly half of Congress — 249 members — are millionaires, while only 5 percent of American households can make the same claim .

But THEY (the 5%) are the 1%ers who are so evil and greedy! Not 1/2 of Congress! 🙂

To win a House seat, candidates spent an average of $1.4 million in 2010, four times as much as was spent in 1976, according to the Federal Election Commission. Winning a Senate seat is nearly 10 times as expensive, with the average successful Senate campaign shelling out nearly $10 million in 2010.

And there is no quid pro quo going on with the people who fund them! 🙂

And ’tis the Season for New Laws: Mostly from the Granola State, California, (“What isn’t fruits & nuts is flakes”) and boy has it ever been…

California also became the first state in the nation to require a prescription for obtaining any drug containing dextromethorphan, an ingredient found in many popular over-the-counter cough suppressants, including Robitussin, NyQuil and Dimetapp.

Voter identification continued to be a hot topic for legislators in 2011. Four states — Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas — approved laws requiring voters to present photo identification before casting ballots.

A fifth state, South Carolina, had passed its own voter-identification law, but it was overturned Dec. 23 by the Justice Department. South Carolina is required to submit revisions in voting procedures for federal clearance as a state with a history of discrimination at the ballot box, but it can appeal Justice’s ruling in federal court.

Yeah, the Justice Department doesn’t want you to discriminate against Illegals. They are future Democrats!!

Supporters say the laws are needed to combat voter fraud, but the effort has touched off an outcry among civil rights groups, which contend that the laws are aimed at suppressing minority-voter participation. The NAACP recently launched a campaign, Stand for Freedom, to fight voter-identification measures.

Naturally, they are going to play the Race Card. What else would they play…

Employers will be required to use E-Verify to determine the eligibility of their employees starting Jan. 1 in four states — Louisiana, Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia. In California, however, legislators bucked the trend by prohibiting any state or local government from requiring employers to use the E-Verify program unless required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds.

In education, California approved two hotly debated laws slated to take effect on New Year’s Day. The California Dream Act expands eligibility for institutional grants and fee waivers to students who are in the country illegally at the state’s university systems and community colleges.

Everyone who’s illegal move to California! 🙂

To qualify, students must attend for at least three years and graduate from a California high school and prove that they are applying for legalized immigration status. The students must also meet certain academic standards.

California also becomes the first state to mandate the teaching of gay history. A new law requires schools to include in the public-school curriculum the contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, along with disabled persons and others. The statute, which has no age limit, also bans instructional material that discriminates against those groups.

Students taking the SAT in California caught a break with a law requiring the sponsors of standardized tests to accept “alternative methods” of identification for students without a driver’s license or other traditional identification.

Yeah, we wouldn’t want to discriminate against illegal aliens who can’t prove there here illegally. 🙂

Worth Watching (on Free Speech):

In North Carolina this week, a young man named Mostafa Kamel Hendi hit upon a plan to make ends meet in this rotten economy: He decided to knock over a local gold store. Tape shows this determined and enterprising flower of American youth strolling into the store, hoodie over his head, and then gesturing to the clerk, Derek Mothershead, to shove some money in a plastic bag.

Mothershead, however, not being a member of the liberal effete class who believe that all robbery is a noble redistributionist impulse, had an unexpected reaction. He handed Hendi some money — and then, as Hendi bent to put the money in the bag, Mothershead clocked him with a tremendous left. Hendi went down, bleeding profusely. “There was just an opportunity there where I thought that I could actually do something and justice could be served,” said Mothershead, “and I thought that’s what needed to be done.” This tough Mother then forced Hendi to clean up his own blood with paper towels and cleaning solution. “If he wants money,” Mothershead added, “get a job. Work like everybody else in this world.”

Poor Hendi. If only he had worked for the government, none of this would have ever happened. Unfortunately, it seems there’s simply no way to fight back against a government full of Hendis hell bent on taking our money at the point of a gun — for our own good, of course.

Next up: The CAIR will file a lawsuit against the shop owner for being anti-Muslim. After all, at Fort Hood a Muslim went into a building yelling “Allah Ackbar” and killed 13 people and that was just “workplace violence” according to the Obama cronies. So this must be racism! 🙂

When 2011 dawned, it seemed a year of hope and change. After all, at the end of 2010, we elected Republicans in a Congressional landslide. President Obama was on the rocks thanks to charting a committed course of spending, spending and more spending. Most of all, the voting populace seemed to understand for the first time in 60 years that not only is there no such thing as a free lunch, but the man who offers the free lunch expects your firstborn child in return. Government, we realized, was Rumpelstiltskin rather than Santa Claus.

As the year progressed, however, it became clear that no matter who we elected, they were unwilling to say Rumpelstiltskin and make the greedy monster disappear. Republicans collapsed not once but twice on the spending issue. First, led by hack Speaker John Boehner, they imploded in April when, to avoid the dreaded “government shutdown” — a shutdown which, by the way, would essentially impact nobody except those on government benefits — Republicans agreed to cut a mere $38 billion from the 2010 baseline budget and keep funding to Planned Parenthood flowing. As it turned out, that $38 billion wasn’t $38 billion at all but actually $352 million.

Then, in July, Republicans caved again. This time, they agreed to raise the debt ceiling so that Obama could continue his Mary Kate and Ashley Olson style spending spree, complete with Rodeo Drive montage. What did they get in return? A big, heaping bowl of nothing: A promised $2.2 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years that actually amounts to a cut of $7 billion in 2012 budget authority and baseline cuts that actually allow Obama’s plans to move forward. And, to top that off, Obama got to push the debt crisis down the road past the election so that he wouldn’t have to discuss his shopaholic problem until after his re-election. Oh, yes, we were also downgraded, to boot, on our national credit by Standard & Poors. So that worked out well.

The Republican Party has responded to all of this chicken-heartedness by feting Boehner as a great leader and proposing that conservatives nominate one Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts. Romney is clearly to the GOPs liking — he fits the profile of the tough-talking scalpel-wielder and the in-office wimp. And we’ve been told that he’s inevitable, like death and taxes. Meanwhile, Iowa Republicans, in the apparent grip of rabies, are now considering nominating Congressman Ron Paul, who is a real scalpel-wielder on domestic policy but has his cannon fixed on self-slaughter on the foreign front.

To no one’s surprise, with the GOP offering a contrast like this, many Americans are content to settle for the real thing: a second Obama term. Despite a list of scandals that would have sunk any Republican president, despite leading America to the worst economic performance since Franklin Delano Roosevelt, despite crippling American influence in the Middle East for the next two generations, Obama rides high with a 44 percent approval rating. All he needs is to split the independent vote evenly to win re-election.

So what will 2012 be like? It depends on whether Americans are willing to punch back — not just at Democrats but at Republicans as well. It depends on whether they are willing to tell their fellow citizens to stop leeching off of the 1 percent and start working for themselves rather than the great collective.

When Mothershead investigated Hendi’s gun after K.O.-ing him, he found that it wasn’t genuine — it was a pellet gun. The truth is that if we stand up to it, our government is armed with pellet guns, too. Let them shut down the government, other than essential services. Good riddance. Let them warn of dire economic consequences if they’re unable to send billion-dollar checks to abortion clinics. Somehow, we’ll deal with it.

If we want 2012 to be a year of freedom, we’ll have to stand up for it rather than settling for an agenda of half-freedom. Half-freedom is no freedom at all, no matter who is in office. (Ben Shapiro)

A History Lesson

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Ann Coulter: Bored with the Penn State scandal because it didn’t implicate any prominent Republicans, the mainstream media have suddenly become obsessed with Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” They are monomaniacally fixated on luring Republicans into raising taxes.

And then if they do, it will be a campaign commercial against every Republican 24/7/365 for the next 3,000 years! A Multimedia Sensation! A Divine Revelation!

Just look at how obsessed they are with the Bush Tax Cuts, Reagan, etc.

If Democrats could balance the budget tomorrow and quadruple government spending, they’d refuse the deal unless they could also make Republicans break their tax pledge. That is their single-minded goal.

But the media are trying to turn it around and say that it’s Republicans who are crazy for refusing to consider raising taxes no matter how much they get in spending cuts.

Tell a Lie often enough, especially 24/7/365 on dozens of channels and you tell the people anything you want and it can become “truth”.

At Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.

Why are Republican refusing to have anyone but a Liberal as moderator so they can bait them. Are they masochists too?

Terrorism can wait — first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.

Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan’s statement in his autobiography, “An American Life,” that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted — implying that today’s Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they’d refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.

Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes “in return for (the Democrats’) agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but, Reagan continues, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.”

Yeah, but that’s not liberal “history”. The one that always favors them. Orwell would be proud.

Maybe that’s why Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats’ history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans’ opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That’s why Republicans need to remind them.

From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 — which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats’ subsequent caterwauling — he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.

You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.

So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes — though not income taxes — in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: “The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts.”

But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion — only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.

Meanwhile, Reagan’s tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years — as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.

If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)

But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.

Even the gusher of revenue brought in by Reagan’s tax cuts couldn’t pay for all the additional spending piled up by double-crossing Democrats — more than twice as much as Reagan’s spending on defense.

Reagan’s defense spending crushed the Soviet war machine. What did Tip O’Neill’s domestic spending accomplish? (I mean, besides destroying the black family, increasing single motherhood and creating government bureaucracies that can never be eliminated.)

Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later.

Pretending to care about the deficit — created exclusively by their own profligate spending — Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a “balanced budget” package with both spending cuts and tax increases.

In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his “read-my-lips, no-new-taxes” campaign pledge.

Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.

The Democrats didn’t care: All that mattered was that they had tricked Bush into breaking his tax pledge, which they celebrated all the way to Bush’s defeat in the next election.

On CNN’s “Crossfire,” then-congressman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., gloated: “All the spin control in the world can’t undo the fact that the president is moving away from (no new) taxes.”

An article on the front page of The New York Times proclaimed that “with his three words, (‘tax revenue increases’) Mr. Bush had broken the central promise of his 1988 campaign.”

As the next presidential campaign got under way, CNN interviewed a “Reagan Democrat,” who said: “Bush says, ‘Read my lips.’ Remember when he said that? We got taxes anyway. Clinton says, I will raise your taxes because we have to do something about that national debt.”

Democrats had effectively taken away the Republican Party’s central defining issue — low taxes — and the Republicans got nothing in return.

(I take that back: We got a stained blue dress for the Smithsonian. So, an OK trade.)

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton taunted Bush for breaking his tax pledge, saying, “He promised 15 million new jobs, no new taxes, the environmental president, an education presidency. It was a wonderful speech. But now we don’t have to read his lips; we can read his record.”

Apparently, Republicans can read the Democrats’ record, too. They know that Democrats will promise to cut spending in exchange for tax increases and then screw Republicans on the spending cuts.

It’s been 20 years since they pulled that scam, so Democrats figure it’s time to make Republicans break a tax pledge again. As long as no one knows the history of these “deals,” the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule.

Good, I hope not.

Who is the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who follows it? Or in this case, whose the bigger fool, the fool who thinks Democrats will keep any promises to cut spending or any Republicans who’d believe them??

And to celebrate the passing of another Turkey day, a real “fish” story to tell your kids about how generous and kind Big Government is.

IT’S THE ONE THAT WAS TAKEN AWAY!

This fish story may lack the epic qualities of Ernest Hemingway’s 1952 classic“The Old Man and the Sea,” but for New Bedford’s Carlos Rafael, the outcome was about the same. In both cases, despite capturing and bringing home a huge fish, powerful circumstances conspired to deprive the luckless fishermen of a potentially huge reward.

Boat owner Rafael, a big player in the local fishing industry, was elated when the crew of his 76-foot steel dragger Apollo told him they had unwittingly captured a giant bluefin tuna in their trawl gear while fishing offshore.

“They didn’t catch that fish on the bottom,” he said. “They probably got it in the midwater when they were setting out and it just got corralled in the net. That only happens once in a blue moon.”

Rafael, who in the last four years purchased 15 tuna permits for his groundfish boats to cover just such an eventuality, immediately called a bluefin tuna hot line maintained by fishery regulators to report the catch.

When the weather offshore deteriorated, the Apollo decided to seek shelter in Provincetown Harbor on Nov. 12. Rafael immediately set off in a truck to meet the boat.
“I wanted to sell the fish while it was fresh instead of letting it age on the boat,”he said.“It was a beautiful fish.”

It was also a lucrative one. Highly prized in Japan, a 754pound specimen fetched a record price at a Tokyo auction in January this year, selling for nearly $396,000. These fish can grow to enormous size. The world record for a bluefin, which has stood since 1979, was set when a 1,496-pound specimen was caught off Nova Scotia.

However, when Rafael rolled down the dock in Provincetown there was an unexpected and unwelcome development. The authorities were waiting. Agents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement informed him they were confiscating his fish — all 881 pounds of it.

Even though the catch had been declared and the boat had a tuna permit, the rules do not allow fishermen to catch bluefin tuna in a net.

“They said it had to be caught with rod and reel,” a frustrated Rafael said.“We didn’t try to hide anything. We did everything by the book. Nobody ever told me we couldn’t catch it with a net.”
In any case, after being towed for more than two hours in the net, the fish was already dead when the Apollo hauled back its gear, he said.

“What are we supposed to do?” he asked. “They said they were going to give me a warning,” Rafael said. “I think I’m going to surrender all my tuna permits now. What good are they if I can’t catch them?”

No charges have yet been filed in connection with the catch, but a written warning is anticipated, according to Christine Patrick, a public affairs specialist with NOAA who said the fish has been forfeited and will be sold on consignment overseas. Proceeds from the sale of the fish will be held in an account pending final resolution of the case, NOAA said. No information on the value of the fish was available Friday.

“The matter is still under investigation,”said Monica Allen, deputy director with NOAA Fisheries public affairs. “If it’s determined that there has been a violation, the money will go into the asset forfeiture fund.”

Aka, the government’s coffers.

“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a life time”  as long as he abides by everyone of the thousand of petty regulations, fees and permits that will allow the government to tax you and then take it from you because you missed 1. 🙂

“I think I’m going to surrender all my tuna permits now. What good are they if I can’t catch them?” (The Hull Truth)

The Permits were to fund some government bureaucrats fat ass pension. Now they’ll have to raise taxes to make up for it!! 🙂

http://townhall.com/video/fisherman-bags-the-big-one-only-to-lose-it-to-big-government

Be Thankful they are  from the Government and they are here to help you!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Are You Smarter Than a 12th Grader?

Only 12 percent of American 12th graders know enough history to score “proficient” in the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Only 17 percent of eighth graders and 20 percent of fourth graders achieved similar levels of grade-appropriate knowledge.

The good news is that all three groups did fare better, on average, than those who took the test in 1994, according to the Nation’s Report Card released today.

So instead of astoundingly ignorant they are just stupefyingly ignorant.  Now that’s progress! Rejoice! 🙂

Just 13 percent of high school seniors who took the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress, called the Nation’s Report Card, showed a solid grasp of the subject. Results released Tuesday showed the two other grades didn’t perform much better, with just 22 percent of fourth-grade students and 18 percent of eighth-graders demonstrating proficiency.

But I bet they have been overloaded with “self esteem” and touchy feely social liberalism.  They can tell you how evil the founders were to slaves but not what they actually stood for. They can tell you everything there ever was to know about Lady Gaga or American Idol. They can type incomplete texting words at the speed of light but couldn’t tell you what the Constitution says. You know, The really important stuff.

“The history scores released today show that student performance is still too low,” Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a statement. “These results tell us that, as a country, we are failing to provide children with a high-quality, well-rounded education.”

DUH!

<<DRUM ROLL>>

Time to spend even more money throwing it down the liberal social justice rat hole. Oh, and paying Teachers even more and hold them accountable even less.

That will fix it! Always does! 🙂

“We need to make sure other subjects like history, science and the arts are not forgotten in our pursuit of the basic skills,” said Diane Ravitch, a research professor at New York University and former U.S. assistant education secretary.

Here I thought History was a basic skill. And Science.

Oh that’s right, you can’t teach the little skulls full of liberal mush that the White Man anything other that an evil bastard and stole the Indian’s land and killed Mexicans and enslaved blacks and now enslaves you because corporations are your new slavemasters! Oh,  and that the forefathers were cruel, white people who enjoyed crushing black people under slavery or any other liberal nonsense.

And of course, you don’t teach people about the Constitution. That way you can manipulate them into thinking the way you want them to. Facts! Who needs facts when you have an ideology to indoctrinate!

To be considered proficient, they had to get certain scores out of 500. For fourth-graders, the score was 243. Eighth-graders needed 294, and 12th graders had to get a 325.

So that’s less than 50% for 4th Graders. Less than 60% for 8th Graders and 65% for 12th Graders.

So a grade on a test that would get you an F is “proficient” and the Liberals can’t even manage that!!!!

Oh, that’s right, Grades hurt kids self-esteem because they discriminate against those who don’t so as well. It’s bad. 😦

First grader is learning to spell but doesn’t have spelling tests. The mother who is on the PTA asks the principal about this asking how they reinforce the spelling. He responds with “Isn’t that what spell check’s for?”

2. Third grade boy failing math. Why? Because he actually does the math problem. We are talking about subtraction. Instead of doing the long subtraction where you need to cross out and add ten to the last number to get an exact answer they are supposed to “round” a certain direction and provide and “reasonable” answer. The correct answer as you would have it is NOT reasonable. The poor kid learned subtraction from his father over the summer and now can not grasp why his right answer is wrong.

Mother asked about it and was told “that’s how the test grades it”. Third grade is a state test here. (babyzone post)

From 1999 magazine article:

Researchers have found three consistent effects of using – and especially, emphasizing the importance of – letter or number grades:

1.  Grades tend to reduce students’ interest in the learning itself.

2.  Grades tend to reduce students’ preference for challenging tasks.

3.  Grades tend to reduce the quality of students’ thinking.

4. Grades aren’t valid, reliable, or objective.

5. Grades distort the curriculum.

6. Grades waste a lot of time that could be spent on learning.
7. Grades encourage cheating   (has this person ever heard of “grade inflation” where the teacher artificially makes the grades higher to make themselves look better??)
8.Grades spoil teachers’ relationships with students.

9. Grades spoil students’ relationships with each other.  (Alfie Kohn)

Reaching for the barf bag yet?

And if you hold these teachers responsible, you’ll get Wisconsin-style riots of indignation!

How dare you! 🙂

And let’s not even get into “whole language” theory or teaching kids in Spanish in the classroom rather than English.

<<reaching for the Barf Bag>>

Here in Arizona, there is the AIMS test that is supposed to rectify deficiencies.

When AIMS became a graduation requirement in 2006, lawmakers were “shocked” by the potential number of seniors unable to graduate because they failed AIMS, said Andrew LeFevre, Arizona Department of Education spokesman.

So legislators passed a law allowing students to increase their AIMS scores by up to 25 percent with good grades. The law topped the percentage at 15 in the 2008-09 school year and at 5 percent this year, making it even tougher for students with average grades and failing AIMS scores to graduate.

For example, students with an A average in honors classes could increase their scores by 25 percent, while a C-average student could augment by up to 12 percent. Now a C-average student can increase his or her AIMS score by up to 2 percent. (AZ Central)

So even if they pad their scores, some kids fail. And that is not a problem??

Gee, I would like to have padded my grades when I was younger. I was an A student in History 🙂 B’s in most things, except English and Science were usually C’s. I would love to have padded that out a bit then I might not have had to take English 101 twice in college then. You know that hurt my self-esteem! 🙂

But I managed. I buckled down and I graduated from College Cum Laude.

I guess I was too stupid to just coast along and let the liberals feel sorry for me and blame “the man” for all my problems.

The government can come to my rescue and make me feel better!

Gee, I feel cheated now! 🙂

Educators said history is critical to students learning how to become better citizens and understanding how the country’s political and cultural systems work. Students need to not only recognize leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Abraham Lincoln, but also understand why they were important to the development of the country.

But then, they would know that the Liberal establishment is lying to them and we can’t have that.

They’ll could come racist Tea Partiers or worse Neo-Cons! 🙂

“Overall the quality and success of our lives can only be enhanced by a study of our roots,” said Steven Paine, former state schools superintendent for West Virginia. “If you don’t know your past, you will not have a future.” (ABC)

The liberals are doing a very good job with that though. 🙂

From extreme leftist at FiredogLake:

Could you imagine the wingnut version of the American history exam you’d have to pass if these assholes got their way?

“Ronald Reagan — even more kickass than Jesus. Discuss.”

“Minorities: When should they stop guilt-tripping Normal America? Discuss.”

“The Free Market: Who really earned your tax dollars, you or Goldman Sachs? Discuss.”

History, who needs it. Now, Class & Race Warfare, now that’s something worth teaching!

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

I is an edgeukated amerikan! 🙂

 

Tough

Couldn’t have said it better.

Jedidiah Bila: I spend quite a bit of time calling out some on the left. I detest big-government policies that simultaneously snatch our liberty and rob us blind. I find class warfare to be profoundly un-American. I have no patience for leftists who demand civility while spewing hateful rhetoric, or those who insist that feminism, diversity, and compassion are enemies of conservatism. And I don’t like left-wing liars who utilize scare tactics to distort everything from Paul Ryan’s Medicare proposal to Jan Brewer’s effort to enforce an immigration law that the federal government should be enforcing already.

I’ve also had tough words for some in the GOP. I have rejected weak deals that do nothing in the way of seriously addressing this country’s deficit and debt. And I have repeatedly stood firm against business-as-usual Republicans who compromise even when it’s not in the best interest of the country.

I now see two trends developing on the right with respect to 2012 that I’d like to address.

First off, I’ve received many emails from Republicans who feel that GOP contenders shouldn’t boldly criticize each other and that conservatives shouldn’t strongly critique 2012 candidates. I beg to differ.

When it comes to a 2012 primary season, it is imperative that candidates hold each other accountable for their records, for any disparity between their actions and words, for promises made and not kept, and for any and all inconsistencies. I want grassroots conservative bloggers, columnists, television commentators, and talk radio hosts calling it like they see it, putting those records front and center, and having a zero-tolerance policy for phonies and do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do nonsense. That is the only way to try to ensure that the strongest, most capable, most genuinely conservative candidate rises to the top. I want candidates challenging the heck out of each other. And I want us challenging them, too.

Secondly, I’ve had about enough of folks on the right trying to discourage candidates from running by insisting right off the bat that they could never win. Candidates are labeled unelectable, unpresidential, too polarizing, not polished enough, too unconventional, or some other absurd description. And so I ask — what are you folks so afraid of? Why are you so terrified of Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, and others entering the race and showing voters what they’ve got? Whether or not they are able to adeptly articulate their message and/or possess a proven commitment to conservatism will be heard by voters. The American people will make their decision. And I have to question the motives of anyone who wants to silence a candidate before the battle has even begun.

Conservatives, 2012 isn’t a fight we can afford to lose. And it’s not just about defeating Barack Obama. It’s about supporting someone who can be trusted to get this country back on track. You and I both know that plenty of politicians with GOP labels stamped on their foreheads are in no way committed to principled conservatism, and can in no way be counted on to exhibit strong leadership when it comes to fiscal responsibility, entitlement reform, and reawakening the values that built this country. By challenging candidates — and by them challenging each other — American voters will begin to separate the men from the boys, the women from the girls.

And to those who love telling potential GOP candidates to sit down and shut up before they’ve even stepped up to the plate, I remind you that this is America. That’s not what we’re about. I, for one, am ready to hear from everyone gutsy enough to play.

AMEN!

The Left and the Leftist Media are going to hate you no matter what you do or what you say. Period.

You could farther left than Barack Obama (if that’s possible) and they’d still hate you. And so would anyone who would have voted for you.

So have some balls. Stir straight into the Hurricane of Hate.

Case in Point: McDonalds.

Under assault for year by the Food Police.

They attack them, they change their ways. They attack them for something else. They change. They attack them again and again and again.

It’s much like Israel to Hamas and The Palestinians, their very existence pisses them off!

Now that Osama bin Laden is dead, we can turn our attention to another remorseless enemy who for years has sown death and destruction among blameless innocents. I refer, of course, to Ronald McDonald.

The McDonald’s mascot may qualify as one of the more annoying characters on the planet. But to his credit, he doesn’t compound his unappealing personality by bossing you around. In that respect, he is far less objectionable than the people who make a fetish of finding him objectionable.

Last week, they took out ads in several newspapers blaming the clown for childhood obesity and demanding that McDonald’s “stop marketing junk food to kids.” The signers range from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an anti-meat group that the American Medical Association has accused of “perverting medical science,” to alternative-healing huckster Andrew Weil.

The general rule of critics is that McDonald’s can do nothing right. Some years ago, they insisted that the company get rid of the beef tallow in which it cooked French fries. It did so, in favor of a supposedly healthier oil containing trans fats. A few years later, the activists demanded that it abandon trans fats, which it soon did.

How much credit did it get for those changes? Not much. The class of people who detested McDonald’s went right on detesting it.

These ads are part of a larger campaign against everything McDonald’s represents. Were the company to retire Ronald McDonald, its enemies would step up their calls for an end to Happy Meals. Get rid of Happy Meals, and they would demand that McDonald’s thoroughly revamp its menu to incorporate their superior notions of nutrition.

Ultimately, the only way to please the critics is to become something unrecognizable. Or, better yet, disappear from the planet. New York Times food columnist Mark Bittman, who is to sanctimony what Saudi Arabia is to oil, believes “anything that discourages people from eating at McDonald’s could be seen as wonderful.”

Wonderful, that is, to enlightened souls who avoid it at all costs. But it’s clear that McDonald’s comes much closer to what paying consumers actually want than what its detractors prefer. It has 32,000 restaurants, serving 64 million people a day. Last year, it had revenues of $24 billion, more than the gross domestic product of some countries.

The food moralists imagine that McDonald’s marketing magic renders its targets helpless to resist. Ronald McDonald might as well be rounding up kids at gunpoint and forcing them to choke down

But children young enough to be seduced by Ronald McDonald or Happy Meals rarely visit restaurants without parents. These adults are free agents experienced at saying “no” to protect the interests of their sometimes ungrateful offspring.

Parents who dislike McDonald’s sales tactics have a wealth of dining alternatives. And anyone who wants a low-fat, low-calorie meal can easily find it underneath the Golden Arches: Health magazine ranks McDonald’s among the 10 healthiest fast-food restaurants.

It may be argued that many parents are too weak or ignorant to make sound decisions about the food their kids eat. If so, McDonald’s and its unstoppable brainwashing machine could vanish tomorrow without making the slightest difference in obesity or other diet-related ailments.

People don’t like cheap, tasty, high-calorie fare because McDonald’s offers it. McDonald’s offers it because people like it. In McDonald’s absence, patrons would seek it out at other fast-food places, sit-down establishments or grocery stores.

We live in an age of inexpensive, abundant food carefully designed to please the mass palate. Most of us, recalling the scarcity, dietary monotony and starvation that afflicted our ancestors for hundreds of millennia, count that as progress. But those determined to save human beings from their own alleged folly see it as catastrophic.

What is apparent is that the militant enemies of fast food would like it treated as a public health menace along the lines of tobacco. They want broad measures to restrict, discourage and punish the companies that sell it.

Ronald McDonald is merely a convenient symbol. Their true target is a capitalist economy that gives companies far too much latitude in appealing to customers and allows government far too little control over our food choices.

The idea of using government power to dictate what we eat will strike many Americans as a gross intrusion on personal freedom. But McDonald’s enemies? They’re lovin’ it. (Steve Chapman-Chicago Tribune)

Add in Liberal obsession with Oil Companies and you see where this is headed.

Liberals just want to control everything and everybody. They just consider themselves why smarter than you so you must be herded like cattle to do and to think what they want you to think.

So to have GOP Presidential Candidates cow-towing to the Media and the Left, trying to be “reasonable” and “accommodating” and “compromising” just drives me bat-crazy.

Stand Up. Be a Man (or woman) and Say what you believe and don’t Equivocate just to placate the Leftists. They won’t be.

Pure and Simple.

Now Just Do it!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Extreme!

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

The President in Pennsylvania, the state, instead of Pennsylvania Ave being a leader:  “If you’re complaining about the price of gas and you’re only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,” Obama said laughingly. “You might want to think about a trade-in.”

There’s that liberal “compassion” and “sensitivity”. 🙂

So if you are struggling with inflation in gas prices, food prices and utility costs the best thing you can for yourself is to get a new car that will cost you even more money!!

So what if you can’t afford it!

But you’ll get better mileage. 🙂

Sounds like an Obama plan. When you are struggling economically, spend even more!! 😦

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/07/krauthammer_obamas_energy_plan_is_drill_in_brazil_and_windmills.html

Before Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget released yesterday, the Liberal Establishment was telling us that what was needed was an adult conversation on the budget and entitlements. Now that they have got their adult conversation, they can’t handle it.

Evidenced by one of our favourite radical leftists and now head of the DNC (while still a Congressman):

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) comments on Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) budget proposal for FY 2012.

“Representing a large number of seniors in south Florida, I can tell you that this budget would be devastating for seniors and older Americans. This Republican path to poverty passes like a tornado through America’s nursing homes, where millions of America’s seniors receive long-term and end of life care,” Rep. Wasserman Schultz said.

And good “rich” Billionaire (because he’s a socialist): I carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control otherwise they might get me into trouble. ‘I have always harboured an exaggerated view of my self-importance,’ he wrote. ‘To put it bluntly, I fancied myself as some kind of god or an economic reformer like Keynes, or, even better, like Einstein (“Alchemy of Finance”).-George Soros

“‘I’ve come to the conclusion,’ Soros told Fortune, ‘that one can do a lot more about the issues I care about by changing the government than by pushing the issues.’  In short, he has become the world’s angriest billionaire.”  (Mark Gimein, “George Soros Is Mad As Hell,” Fortune, 10/27/03).

Sounds a bit like Obama. 🙂

A fundraising appeal from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee warns supporters that “Tea Party Republicans are threatening to shut down the government on Friday unless we surrender to their outrageous demands.”

The fundraising email, penned by DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.), went out late Wednesday and asks for small donations to the committee’s “GOP Accountability Fund,” setting a goal of raising $50,000 by Friday “so we can hold Speaker Boehner and his Tea Party fringe Republicans immediately accountable for shutting down the government.”

“The world is watching our next move,” Israel wrote. “Will we cave to the Tea Party’s disgraceful act of political extortion or will we fight back with the full force of our grassroots strength?”

Never let a Crisis go to waste!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

“What if the president and your representative saw it coming and could have prevented it from happening?” Ryan said. “What would you think of them if they didn’t?” A hush came over the audience at the American Enterprise Institute. It was Ryan’s way of saying that the financial meltdown arrived largely without warning, while the impending fiscal crunch is like a runaway freight train. “This is the most predictable crisis in the history of our country,” he went on. “We are on our path to a debt crisis” like those we’ve seen recently in Europe, with the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product rising, under Barack Obama’s budget, past the 90 percent danger point on its way to 800 percent. (townhall.com)

So if it’s that predictable, even the Democrats would drop their partisanship and do what is best for the nation and it’s people….

Yes, that was cynical chuckle moment.

The Democrats have only 3 plays in their playbook and variations on it.

1. Class Warfare  2. Fear  3. Intimidation

That’s it.

And if you disagree with them at any level you are an “extremist” !!!!

Ryan’s budget is based on the idea that people are capable of making decisions for themselves.

EVIL!!!

1961: And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you  can do for your country.

2011: And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what you can do for the country; ask what the government can do for you.

Karl Rove: In the White House Press Room on Tuesday, President Barack Obama did what comes naturally—scold others, in this case the Congress. Mr. Obama complained that a budget agreement “could have gotten done three months ago.”

What he didn’t say was that the budget should have “gotten done” six months ago, before the current fiscal year started last Oct. 1. Our government’s failure to have a budget in place halfway through the fiscal year is the president’s responsibility. He and his party dominated Congress by wide margins when the budget was supposed to be put in place.

Also on Tuesday, at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan did what the president has not. Demonstrating leadership and more than a little courage, Mr. Ryan laid out a thoughtful, ambitious blueprint for the next decade.

The Path to Prosperity would return discretionary spending to its 2008 levels and hold it flat for five years; reduce the federal government’s work force by 10%; slash corporate welfare; reform the tax code; and reduce the corporate and top personal rate to 25%. It would repeal ObamaCare, change Medicare so the government helps all seniors pay for an insurance policy they choose, and send states money for each person covered by Medicaid, plus the flexibility to spend that money as they see fit.

The Obama-Ryan budget battle foreshadows what Americans are likely to hear in the 2012 campaign: an unengaged, reactive chief executive versus a bold, reform-minded GOP.

In the short term, it’s obvious what Mr. Obama hopes to gain. Having watched his standing as “a strong and decisive leader” drop to 52% in last month’s Gallup poll from 60% last year, the president is looking to profit politically from a shutdown of the federal government.

When the government was twice shut down in 1995 and 1996, Congressional Republicans survived the controversy and kept their majorities in the 1996 election. At the same time, the shutdowns boosted Bill Clinton’s image. Only 37% viewed him as “a strong leader” in a June 1995 ABC News poll. In a January 1996 CBS News poll after the shutdowns, 53% said Mr. Clinton had “strong qualities of leadership.”

The president will instruct his party to demagogue the House Republican budget, labeling it as an assault on the poor and a windfall for the rich that will rip America’s social safety net to shreds.

Never mind that these charges are false and irresponsible. Mr. Ryan would have the government spend $40 trillion over the next 10 years, $6.2 trillion less than Mr. Obama’s budget plan of $46 trillion. This is an overall reduction in what the government plans to spend, not a cut from what it is spending today.

Under Mr. Ryan’s proposal, for example, health-care spending would still rise for both Medicaid, which serves the poor, and Medicare, which serves seniors. The $275 billion spent on Medicaid this year would grow to $305 billion in 2021 while the $563 billion spent on Medicare this year would grow to $953 billion in 2021. Nor would anyone 55 years or older be affected by any Medicare reforms.

Mr. Ryan and his colleagues want to act now to keep entitlement programs solvent. They want to keep Americans from experiencing the pain of the ­crisis that will come when the public debt has doubled by 2012 (from the level when Mr. Obama came into office) and nearly ­tripled by 2021, as it would under the president’s plan. Already mandatory spending, the part of the budget that’s automatic and not subject to approval each year by Congress, eats up all available revenue this year. Medicare goes broke in 2029, and Social Security is bankrupt in 2037.

The White House doesn’t care—it perceives a political path to victory in 2012. What makes this strategy doubly reckless and cynical is that the administration knows a debt crisis is coming and that its spending plans cannot continue.

But the Obama administration’s adults—Chief of Staff Bill Daley, Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew, and National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling—are clearly not in charge. The politicos—Senior Adviser David Plouffe (who managed Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign) and Communications Director Daniel Pfeiffer (who had the same title in the 2008 campaign) have their hands on the wheel. The White House is in full re-election mode.

The House GOP budget will not become law this year, but it will smoke the president out on spending and provide a framework for Republicans to discuss the nation’s fiscal challenges. The contrast between the GOP’s boldness and the president’s cowardice is striking. The question is whether the president and his party will pay a political price for their abdication of leadership. We’re about to find out.

But rest assured the Liberal Press will be there to ignore it entirely and will tirelessly cheerlead for the Liberal progressive cause.

I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function. (Gov. Huckabee 2009)

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Mike Lester

 

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Transparent Steal

No that title was not meant to say “steel”.

I have maintained all along that Obama is very transparent, in his radical socialist ways and the Ministry of Truth is very transparent. If you’re willing to look at it from the jaundiced eye of a cynic.

But the illusion of transparency at least is no more. But it will be transparent that the media won’t talk about it. So I will, along with sources.

President Obama has abolished the position in his White House dedicated to transparency and shunted those duties into the portfolio of a partisan ex-lobbyist who is openly antagonistic to the notion of disclosure by government and politicians.

Obama transferred “ethics czar” Norm Eisen to the Czech Republic to serve as U.S. ambassador. Some of Eisen’s duties will be handed to Domestic Policy Council member Steven Croley, but most of them, it appears, will shift over to the already-full docket of White House Counsel Bob Bauer ( his previous job as the president’s personal lawyer, as well as counsel to the Democratic National Committee).

With Mr. Eisen headed to Europe as an ambassador, his move from the White House “is the biggest lobbying success we’ve had all year,” Tony Podesta, one of the most influential lobbyists in Washington, said with a laugh.(NYT)

Bauer is renowned as a “lawyer’s lawyer” and a legal expert. His resume, however, reads more “partisan advocate” than “good-government crusader.” Bauer came to the White House from the law firm Perkins Coie, where he represented John Kerry in 2004 and Obama during his campaign.

Bauer has served as the top lawyer for the Democratic National Committee, which is the most prolific fundraising entity in the country. Then-Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., the caricature of a cutthroat Chicago political fixer, hired Bauer to represent the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In the White House, Bauer is tight with Emanuel, having defended Emanuel’s offer of a job to Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., whom Emanuel wanted out of the Senate race.

Another Bauer client was New Jersey Sen. Robert “Torch” Torricelli back in 2001. When one Torricelli donor admitted he had reimbursed employees for their contributions to the Torch — thus circumventing contribution limits — Bauer explained, “All candidates ask their supporters to help raise money from friends, family members and professional associates.”

Bauer’s own words — gathered by the diligent folks at the Sunlight Foundation — show disdain for openness and far greater belief in the good intentions of those in power than of those trying to check the powerful. In December 2006, when the Federal Election Commission proposed more precise disclosure requirements for parties, Bauer took aim at the practice of muckraking enabled by such disclosure.

On his blog, Bauer derided the notion “that politicians and parties are pictured as forever trying to get away with something,” saying this was an idea for which “there is a market, its product cheaply manufactured and cheaply sold.” In other words — we keep too close an eye on our leaders.

In August 2006 Bauer blogged, “disclosure is a mostly unquestioned virtue deserving to be questioned.” This is the man the White House has put in charge of making this the most open White House ever.

Most telling might have been Bauer’s statements about proposed regulations of 527 organizations: “If it’s not done with 527 activity as we have seen, it will be done in other ways,” he told the Senate rules committee.

“There are other directions, to be sure, that people are actively considering as we speak. Without tipping my hand or those of others who are professionally creative, the money will find an outlet.”

This perfectly captures the Obama White House’s attitude toward disclosure. Sure, the administration publish the names of all White House visitors, but, as the New York Times reported a few weeks back, White House folks just meet their lobbyists at Caribou Coffee across the street. Sure, they restrict the work of ex-lobbyists in the administration, but lobbyists who de-list aren’t questioned.

And we’ve seen just a few of the e-mails former Google lobbyist, now Obama tech policy guru, Andrew McLaughlin traded with current Google lobbyists using his Gmail account, but who knows what else the White House whiz kids are doing to avoid the Presidential Records Act — Facebook messages? Twitter direct messages?

Did I mention Bauer was a lobbyist? At Perkins Coie, Bauer lobbied on behalf of America Votes Inc., a Democratic 527 funded by the likes of the AFL-CIO and ACORN.

As with his other reformer rhetoric, Obama’s transparency is mostly smoke and mirrors. (Washington Examiner)

I would argue he is very transparent in his disdain for anyone who isn’t the Harvard elitist liberal socialist that and his apparatchiks are. He’s so open about it that it’s nearly invisible. 🙂

And he gets all the help he needs from his socialist friends in the media.

When the open-government activist group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued the Bush administration to get the records of White House visitors from Secret Service logs, media outlets practically fell over themselves to join the effort.  Newspapers like the Washington Post and USA Today and wire services like AP and Reuters filed amicus briefs with the court, and the Obama administration eventually agreed to start releasing the records.  Now, however, the same news organizations have discovered a new sense of privacy when it comes to their attendance in an off-the-record event with Barack Obama:

White House reporters are keeping quiet about an off-the-record lunch today with President Obama — even those at news organizations who’ve advocated in the past for the White House to release the names of visitors.

And guess who filed briefs supporting that argument? Virtually every newspaper that covers the White House.

Through July 20, Ms. Kumar counted 36 press conferences since Mr. Obama took office. That compares with the same number for the second President Bush, 66 for President Clinton and 54 for the elder President Bush the same amount of time into their presidencies.

But that leaves out some context.  Obama was holding press conferences every week or two in his first months in office, which is why he got to 35 by the end of July 2009, when it became clear that Obama was a gaffe machine when off of the Teleprompter.  Since then, he’s held a grand total of one, and it doesn’t look like the White House has any more planned after the late May Gulf spill presser.

When media outlets participate in off-the-record events, they give Obama a chance to spin coverage without doing so on the record.  It wouldn’t be a problem if Obama made himself regularly available in an open Q&A setting to the press corps, which complained when Obama’s predecessor would go a couple of months between pressers.  With the White House butting up Obama and keeping him off the record, participation in the luncheon is really just enabling the silence.  If media outlets felt so strongly about transparency as to demand the White House visitor logs, the least they can do is to acknowledge their own roles in letting this President off the hook for accountability and transparency. (hot air.com)

Just reinforces the fact that he is not a public servant, he is a public parent. This is the mommy-state way of saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” (comment on hot air.com).

Well, they are the Insufferably Superior Left,after all. And remember if you agree with them you are intelligent, tolerant and well mannered.

If you disagree with them you are barking mad loonie who foams at the mouth and has the IQ of a dead light bulb. You’re “stupid”, “racist”,”ignorant” a “moron”, etc. ad nauseum.

So why should anyone take a raving loonie seriously? 🙂

In fact, according to a March 2010 Associated Press analysis of FOIA responses at 17 major agencies, 466,872 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) denials were issued during the Obama administration’s first year in office – a 50 percent increase over the previous year.

In addition to denying more FOIA requests, Obama has refused to call for an audit of the secret Federal Reserve Bank and rescinded Bush-era disclosure requirements for labor union leaders –† the same union bosses who provided over $100 million (and nearly half a million volunteers) for Obama and Democratic Congressional candidates in 2008.

The hypocrisy on transparency doesn’t end there, though.

As part of the draconian new financial regulations Obama and his Congressional allies are imposing on the private sector, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is now virtually exempt from FOIA law.† Under a little-known provision of the new law, the SEC would not have to release any information derived from “surveillance, risk assessments, or other regulatory and oversight activities” – a purposefully broad definition that encompasses virtually everything the SEC does.

You know the SEC, the ones who were too busy wanting porn 24/7 to watch either Wall Street or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to care. And now, by law they don’t have to care. More Porn for the SEC, please….

“It allows the SEC to block the public’s access to virtually all SEC records,” former agency attorney turned whistleblower Gary Aguirre told FOX News. “It permits the SEC to promulgate its own rules and regulations regarding the disclosure of records without getting the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, which typically applies to all federal agencies.”

In fact, within days of the new law being signed, the SEC was already turning down FOIA requests from media outlets citing the new exemption.

But don’t worry, Big Brother will not lie to you… 🙂

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. (1984)

It’s transparent in it’s complete lack of transparency or even it’s appearance therein. 🙂

doublethink is the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs.

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which canceled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself — that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink..    ”
“     The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions.–George Orwell

The basic idea behind Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) which reinforce the total dominance of the State.

How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness. (1984)

The phrase “two plus two equals five” (“2 + 2 = 5“) is a slogan used in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four as an example of an obviously false dogma one must believe, similar to other obviously false slogans by the Party in Nineteen Eighty-Four. It is contrasted with the phrase “two plus two makes four”, the obvious – but politically inexpedient – truth. Orwell’s protagonist, Winston Smith, uses the phrase to wonder if the State might declare “two plus two equals five” as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true? Smith writes, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”

Now that’s transparent and on MSNBC,CBS,NBC,ABC,CNN,Their websites, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, et al. that 2+2=5. Now you just have to believe it. 🙂

It’s so transparent it’s nearly invisible. 🙂

Behind the Times

The Obama administration, headed up by a liberal dogma that has been trying to create it’s socialist utopia since Woodrow Wilson is not going to give up it’s sole dream of controlling everyone and everything ‘for their own good’ and “fairness”.

But it is curious that the Europeans who already went down this road in large part are starting to go back in our former direction.

It’s kind of like driving towards a massive accident and seeing people coming back from it bloodied and hurt, but you decide it can’t happen to me so you keep going anyhow.

That’s National Health Care now nearly 5 months after it was crammed down the throats of the American public in the single most partisan vote in memory.

Damn The Torpedoes! Full Steam ahead!

LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished. (London Times)

So like the G20 Summit where “austerity” was the watchword by the Europeans and Obama stood there stamping his foot demanding people spend even more.

Not only are the Democrats and their dream out of date they are out of step even with the people they still want to dance with.

They wanted to be them.

Now it’s too late.

But that won’t stop them, of course.

Zealots who have been waiting 80 years+ for this will not be so easily deterred.

But the effects of this are beginning.

MANDEVILLE, La.—Mark Baumann, a 44-year-old uninsured diabetic, sees in the Obama administration’s health-care law a future with stable coverage to pay for his insulin shots and blood tests.

That’s likely to come indirectly at the expense of his mother’s generous health-care plan.

Humana Inc., Mary Baumann’s insurer, intends to pare her “Medicare Advantage” plan to make up for the smaller government payments it will soon receive as a result of the new law, leaving her with higher costs or fewer services. On the table are beefed-up co-payments and premiums, as well as the loss of perks such as her free membership at a health club.

Most Americans know the overhaul is designed to cover the uninsured, a decades-long goal of Democrats. But it also represents a change in how the government spreads its social safety net underneath Americans. Already, it’s creating tensions that are a harbinger of debates to come.

Since the creation of Social Security and Medicare, younger workers have funded programs for the elderly. It’s a compact in which workers paid for retirees with the understanding that they’d be looked after by the generation behind them.

The health overhaul diverges by tapping a program for the elderly to help provide insurance to 32 million Americans of younger generations. Nearly half the funding for the law is supposed to come from paying lower fees to hospitals, insurers and other health-care providers that participate in Medicare, the federal insurance program for Americans age 65 and older, as well as younger disabled people.

The 44 million Americans on Medicare won’t see changes to their guaranteed benefits under the law. But of those, 11.3 million on Medicare Advantage plans, a public-private hybrid of the type used by Ms. Baumann, who is 79, are likely to begin seeing extra benefits go away as soon as next year. Medicare Advantage cuts are slated to pay for 15% of the health-care law’s tab.

The trims mark the leading edge of a spending shift that could broaden as lawmakers grapple with a deficit expected to hit $1.47 trillion this year. Left unchanged, Medicare and Social Security will consume half of all federal spending by 2035, up from about one third today, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And remember, by recess appointment an NHS-loving administrator is the head of Medicare.

And if, as predicted by many, including me, that private health insurance is driven completely to extinction then you’ll have health cost also in that GDP soup and with already half the people in this country not paying any taxes it does very bleak.

But at least it’s “fair”. 🙂

And, of course, the solution that will be published after the election by Obama’s “deficit commission” is a forgone conclusion, The VAT TAX and other taxes.

Then came Financial “reform” where one of the biggest cause of the problem, just like in Health Care (Trial Lawyers anyone?), were ignored because of partisan politics — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And then with the massive tax increases, even on the poor, slated for Jan 1,2011 you have the perfect storm.

But the Democrats will not change course. You know that. I know now that. They know that.

Damn the Torpedoes! Full Steam ahead!

They don’t care how many European train wrecks occur.

It’s their time and they will do it anyhow!

For “fairness” and “equality” and “social justice”! 🙂

Meanwhile, the rationing the Democrats say will not happen here are happening in their beloved NHS, acocrding to the  liberal Sun Telegraph newspaper:

Some of the most common operations — including hip replacements and cataract surgery — will be rationed as part of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government promises that front-line services would be protected.

Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

And now back to US…

We badly need to, over time and very gradually, reallocate resources from the elderly to younger families and their children,” said Isabel Sawhill, senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

“I’m sure that some of those additional benefits have been nice,” Nancy-Ann DeParle, who runs the White House’s Office of Health Reform, says of Medicare Advantage plans. “But I think what we have to look at here is what’s fair and what’s important for the strength of the Medicare program long term.”

Sun Telegraph: The Government has promised to protect the overall budget of the NHS, which will continue to receive above-inflation increases, but said the service must make “efficiency savings” of up to £20 billion by 2014, which would be diverted back to the front line.

Brother from another socialist mother? 🙂

Dr Peter Carter, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, said he was “incredibly worried” about the disclosures.

Dr Carter said: “Andrew Lansley keeps saying that the Government will protect the front line from cuts – but the reality appears to be quite the opposite. We are seeing trusts making job cuts even when they have already admitted to being short staffed.

Trust boards are the ones who make the health care calls now.

Much like the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology  that was in the Stimulus Bill.

And we won’t even go over the Food Police again this time.

Sun Telegraph: On Thursday, the board of Sutton and Merton primary care trust (PCT) in London agreed more than £50 million of savings in two years. The plan included more than £400,000 to be saved by “reducing length of stay” in hospital for the terminally ill.

As well as sending more patients home to die, the paper said the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients would be given advice on “self management” of their condition.

Bill Gillespie, the trust’s chief executive, said patients would stay at home, or be discharged from hospital only if that was their choice, and would be given support in their homes.

The president told the {New York Times in 2008}magazine that the chronically ill and elderly represent 80 percent of American healthcare costs, and said, “(T)here is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.”

“And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance,” he added.

That “independent group” turns out to be the government, now run by him. Funny how that worked out. 🙂

But the president questioned whether his now-deceased grandmother should have received her hip replacement while suffering a terminal illness.

Recounting the dilemma, Obama said, “(T)he question was, does she get hip replacement surgery even though she was fragile enough that they weren’t sure how long she would last (or) whether she could get through the surgery.”

“I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time,” Obama said.

This was not the first time the president had used his grandmother to illustrate his point on health care. In an April 2008 interview with The New York Times Magazine, Obama suggested much of the cost of health care in America comes from the elderly and those with chronic illness.

“That’s where you get into some very difficult moral issues,” Obama said – specifically considering whether “in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question.”

This was BEFORE he became president mind you. But the Journo-List inspired Media was not going to let you dwell on it.

2009 Newsweek article on the “The Five biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate”:

What we can say is that there is de facto rationing under the current system, by both Medicare and private insurance. No plan covers everything, but coverage decisions “are now made in opaque ways by insurance companies,” says Dr. Donald Berwick of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

Donald Berwick? Where have I heard that name recently.

Oh yeah, he’s the guy who was appointed by Obama as Head of Medicare and Medicaid without Senate approval by a recess appointment and he’s an admitted lover of the NHS.

Gee, that couldn’t be a coincidence now could it? 🙂

The {Health Care} law will spend $938 billion over a decade, mostly to expand coverage to lower-income Americans. To finance that, there will be $455 billion coming from cuts in government payments to health-care providers that serve patients on Medicare and two other federal programs. The hardest hit—to the tune of $136 billion—will be private insurance companies that run Medicare Advantage plans.

The payment cuts to Medicare Advantage begin in 2012.

“With the president being younger, my biggest concern is that we don’t mean anything,” said Sandy Reed, a 61-year-old who has a Medicare Advantage plan because she qualifies as disabled. “We’re disposable.”

‘Death Panels’ indeed…

And it has come out on the Daily Caller in their further investigation of the Journo-List scandal that the Mainstream media were in full bore mode of destruction when Gov. Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate.

All that savagery was plotted out.

So what you do when your opponent speaks the truth to power, destroy her.

So that’s why the ‘death panels’ comment was so widely and uniformly from left mocked, dismissed and discredited.

To this very day she is the most hated woman in America by the Left.

Most of the rest will be funded by new levies, including taxes on health-care companies, a higher Medicare payroll tax for wealthy Americans and a tax on high-value insurance plans. Critics of the law say its total cost is likely higher than advertised.

But it’s not like the Democrats actually care.

Their one and only shot at injecting their socialist cancer, that they’ve been waiting since their grandparents time in many cases, is all that matters.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

But at least it’s “fair”. 🙂

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! 🙂

The New Crisis

“Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you couldn’t do before.”- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel

Today was going to be the day when the Democrats sprung Part II of their Cap & Trade takeover.

Instead, because of the uproar over Illegal Immigration the Democrats want to pander to their base, Latinos, first.

So here comes the Amnesty Train roaring down the tracks.

That light at the end of the tunnel is the train!

Only this time, the vitriol over you being a racist if you are not for complete Amnesty is going to be even more pronounced.

After all, the Democrats really only have a one page playbook

FEAR

INTIMIDATION

CHARGES OF RACISM

That’s it.

And the pandering will be fierce.

The intimidation will be even more so.

You wouldn’t want to be a racist now would you?

Of course, you’re already one if you disagree with President Obama to begin win.

You stupid, ignorant, racist teabagging hick! 😦

So, the Democrats will use Latinos to pump up their base for November.

Not that they weren’t planning it anyhow, it’s just now they can puff up their chest in righteous indignation more now.

And the Fifth Column/Ministry of truth will be happy to go along with it.

And “Sanctuary City” Phil, the Mayor of Phoenix is having a great getting his mug on TV and proclaiming how outraged he his.

This the man who never met an ILLEGAL ALIEN he didn’t want to abuse for political purposes. And was a great ally of Former Governor Napalitano who now as Homeland Security Secretary is the Fed that said always complained about in her “It’s a Federal problem” pronouncements.

Only, she does even less now.

So, I agree with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) when he says it’s a “cynicial ploy”.

I would just add, with Democrats (and politicians in general) when isn’t?

So lots of chest thumping to come.

But fundamentally, the only thing Democrats want is Amnesty. (Code Phrase: Comprehensive Immigration Reform)

Notice how Liberals use “Comprehensive” when they about screw everyone comprehensively?

Comprehensive Health Care Reform

Comprehensive Financial Reform

Comprehensive Energy Policy

Comprehensive Immigration Reform

They want those 20 million new voters so they can steam roll their way to history and straight over you.

And you’re racist if you don’t want them to. 😦

The Mind- It’s a Terrible Thing to Waste

Historians criticized proposed revisions to the Texas social studies curriculum Tuesday, saying that many of the changes are historically inaccurate and that they would affect textbooks and classrooms far beyond the state’s borders.

The changes, which were preliminarily approved last week by the Texas board of education and are expected to be given final approval in May, will reach deeply into Texas history classrooms, defining what textbooks must include and what teachers must cover. The curriculum downplays the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state and says that the U.S. government was infiltrated by communists during the Cold War.

Because the Texas textbook market is so large, books assigned to the state’s 4.7 million students often rocket to the top of the market, decreasing costs for other school districts and leading them to buy the same materials.

Discussions ranged from whether President Ronald Reagan should get more attention (yes), whether hip-hop should be included as part of lessons on American culture (no), and whether President of the Confederacy Jefferson Davis’s inaugural address should be studied alongside Abraham Lincoln’s (yes).

Of particular contention was the requirement that lessons on McCarthyism note that “the later release of the Venona Papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government.”

The Venona papers document communication between the Soviet Union and its spies. Historians dispute the extent to which transcripts show Soviet involvement in American government.

Also contentious were changes that asserted Christian faith of the founding fathers. Historians say that the founding fathers had a variety of approaches to religion and faith; some, like Thomas Jefferson, were quite secular.

Some textbook authors expressed discomfort with the state board’s changes, and it is unclear how readily historians will go along with some of the proposals.

“I’m made uncomfortable by mandates of this kind for sure,” said Paul S. Boyer, emeritus professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of several of the most popular U.S. history textbooks, including some that are on the approved list in Texas.

“We now have the ability to deliver completely customized content” to different states, said Josef Blumenfeld, spokesman for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, one of three major publishers that supply Texas with most of its social studies textbooks. (referring to online resources)

But some historians weren’t so certain. Fischer, who is a historian at the University of Northern Colorado, noted that first-year teachers fall back on what’s most readily available to them — their textbooks.

“Teachers have a lot to do and a lot on their plate, and if there’s a nice big textbook that the kids have been taking home, they’ll use it,” he said.(WP)

As a person who has a Degree in Education and was at one time in my life going to be a History Teacher, this kind of manipulation of the fact enrages me.

This should not be a partisan issue.

It’s about the facts.

And nothing but the facts.

Warts and all.

But Liberals can’t leave politics out of it.

New York Times: After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

So again, Liberals go for the if it’s not 100% us, it must be all them.

So education continues to be the proxy war of the future minds.

Orwell was correct, Education is a key.

Control their thoughts and you can control them.

Dr. McLeroy, a dentist by training, pushed through a change to the teaching of the civil rights movement to ensure that students study the violent philosophy of the Black Panthers in addition to the nonviolent approach of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He also made sure that textbooks would mention the votes in Congress on civil rights legislation, which Republicans supported.

“Republicans need a little credit for that,” he said. “I think it’s going to surprise some students.”

I know many Liberals who will be appalled. They believe they are the sacred holder of Civil Rights and no one can touch them on that.

Much like their “compassion”. That is, until you disagree with them and their fangs come out and they want to destroy you.

When I was preparing to be a History Teacher I full expected to get into a lot of arguments, simply because for me History should not be about ideology, it should be about what happened and why.

The Good, The Bad and the ugly.

And then you decide.

But the ideologically driven can’t deal with that.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell

Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. George Orwell