It’s zir way or the highway

A New Years Gift brought to be the fine people of the “Tolerance”, “Diversity” and “Inclusion” crowd.

The morally superior Left. 🙂

Did you call a transsexual person “he” or “she” when they preferred to be called “zhe?” According to a newly updated anti-discrimination law in New York City, you could be fined an eye-watering $250,000.

In the latest, astonishing act of draconian political correctness, the NYC Commission on Human Rights have updated a law on “Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Expression” to threaten staggering financial penalties against property owners who “misgender” employees or tenants.

Incidents that are deemed “wilful and malicious” will see property owners face up to $250,000 in fines, while standard violations of the law will result in a $125,000 fine. For small business owners, these sums are crippling.

It’s not as simple as referring to transmen “he” or transwomen as “she,” either. The legislation makes it clear that if an individual desires, property owners will have to make use of “zhe,” “hir” and any other preferred pronoun. From the updated legislation:

The NYCHRL requires employers and covered entities to use an individual’s preferred name, pronoun and title (e.g., Ms./Mrs.) regardless of the individual’s sex assigned at birth, anatomy, gender, medical history, appearance, or the sex indicated on the individual’s identification. Most individuals and many transgender people use female or male pronouns and titles.

Some transgender and gender non-conforming people prefer to use pronouns other than he/him/his or she/her/hers, such as they/them/theirs or ze/hir

Other violations of the law include refusing to allow individuals to use single-sex facilities such as bathrooms that are “consistent with their gender identity,” failing to provide employee health benefits for “gender-affirming care” and “imposing different uniforms or grooming standards based on sex or gender.”

Examples of such illegal behaviour include: “requiring female bartenders to wear makeup,” “Permitting only individuals who identify as women to wear jewellery or requiring only individuals who identify as male to have short hair,” and “permitting female but not male residents at a drug treatment facility to wear wigs and high heels.”

So, Klinger on M*A*S*H could not get Col. Blake or Col. Potter fined $250,000 for objecting to him where a dress to work. (Military Protocols aside because after all, that just government sanctioned discrimination anyhow).

Not mention that Klinger being of Middle Eastern descent could also charge him with Islamophobia!

Yeah, that make perfect sense! 🙂

In other words, if a bar owner prevents male bartenders from wearing lipstick and heels, they’ll be breaking the law. They’ve now got a choice between potentially scaring off customers, and paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Regardless of the establishment’s clientèle or aesthetic, every property owner will be forced to conform to the same standard.

This is the latest in what Spiked Online editor-in-chief Brendan O’Neill calls “The Crisis of Character” in the west, in which identities become grounded in subjective interpretation rather than objective reality. The state is now forcing society to recognise the subjective identities of individuals, regardless of how absurd or surreal they may seem. In New York City, recognising someone’s identity is no longer a matter of case-by-case common sense and courtesy. It’s zir way or the highway. (Breitbart)

And in Orwellian Language Manipulation and Reality Control along with Moral Relativism (where the  only moral thing is do the Leftist Politically Correct thing or be a “bigot”, “racist” or both).

The Left: We want to do whatever the fuck we want to do, and when we want to do it, because we want to do it and you heathen mongrel Neanderthals who aren’t worth of kissing our ass will just have to shut and do as you are told or else.

We are the superior beings and we will rule over you with an iron fist of “social justice”.

We are your Superiors in every way possible, now and forever.

You do as your told when you are told, or else!

<<insert maniacal laugh here>>

Welcome to end of 2015, The Year of Orwellian Madness.

Here comes 2016, the End of The World Vote.

You will bow down peasants to your new Monarch, Queen Hillary The First.

That is the only choice you will be given to avoid punishment.

Or Else, The Scarlet “B” (BIGOT) be ‘tattooed’ on your forever!

the scarlett b
You will burn in Liberal Politically Incorrect until you are re-educated and renounce your unenlightened non-diversity, non-inclusion and intolerant heathen ways.

INFIDEL.  🙂

 

 

 

Advertisements

If you Like your Job…

ObamaCare

Please enjoy the latest installment of the “it’s working” chronicles. Sorry, American workers (via The Hill):

ObamaCare will force a reduction in American work hours the equivalent of 2 million jobs over the next decade, Congress’s nonpartisan scorekeeper said Monday. The total workforce will shrink by just under 1 percent as a result of changes in worker participation because of the new coverage expansions, mandates and changes in tax rates, according to a 22-page report released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). “Some people would choose to work fewer hours; others would leave the labor force entirely or remain unemployed for longer than they otherwise would,” the agency said in its latest analysis of the now five-year-old law.

This assessment largely confirms the bombshell February 2014 analysis from the nonpartisan entity, which also projected that Democrats’ $2 trillion healthcare scheme would slow economic growth and slow job creation.  Take it away, 2011 Nancy Pelosi:

“Four million jobs will be created by the legislation when it is fully in effect.”

In 2010, she said Obamacare would create 400,000 new jobs “almost immediately.”  Last year, the law’s defenders were reduced to arguing that the reduction in worker hours was a positive development, offering Americans more time to spend with their families, and freeing them from “job lock.”  CBO’s findings determined that Obamacare disincentivizes work, shifting the burden of subsidizing health coverage for people who choose to work less or leave the workforce altogether onto the backs of middle class taxpayers.  Democrats’ frantic “liberation from job lock” spin worked out…about as well as one might have expected.  Obamacare’s cheerleaders have been wrong about virtually everything: Their law was not a job creator.  Their law has not bent the national health spending “cost curve” down.  Their law has not even approached lowering rates across the board.  Their law has not made healthcare more affordable.  Their law has not secured access to care.  Their law has not reduced emergency room visits, or decreased uncompensated care. Their law did not guarantee that satisfied consumers could keep their preferred doctors and plans. And their law has not attracted nearly as many enrollees as they expected, largely due to lack of affordability.  Their law has not signed up as many young and healthy consumer as they’d anticipated, raising new fears of an adverse selection spiral.

Gee, How many times have I said that very thing? 🙂

And their law has not become popular post-implementation.  Meanwhile, the string of high-profile failures among Obamacare co-ops is inflicting more chaos onto an already-strained system:

Health care providers could get stuck with unpaid bills in a half dozen states where co-op plans have collapsed. That’s because there’s no financial backstop in those states if the failed nonprofit startups backed by Obamacare loans run out of money before paying off all of their medical claims. That messy scenario is already playing out in New York, where the state’s co-op shut down at the end of November after its financial situation proved direr than originally known. The Greater New York Hospital Association estimates the co-op, Health Republic Insurance of New York, owes its members at least $165 million. And the Medical Society of the State of New York found that of more than 900 doctors surveyed, 64 percent reported being owed money by the co-op plan. For most insurers, a state’s guaranty fund – bankrolled by the industry – will cover unpaid medical claims if they become insolvent. But in some states, like New York, that fund doesn’t support plans that are licensed as health maintenance organizations, which is typically how the co-ops were set up. The other five states where providers could end up with unpaid bills if the failed co-ops run out of money: Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon and Utah…Just over half of the 23 co-ops seeded with $2.4 billion in loans have collapsed, with most set to cease operations at the end of this year. That’s left roughly 600,000 individuals scrambling to find new coverage.

On Capitol Hill this week, Republican lawmakers are demanding answers about how the government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on state-level Obamacare exchanges that ultimately collapsed, and have since been abandoned.  Here’s Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) grilling acting CMS administrator Andy Slavitt about whether or not he agrees with the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) recently-announced verdict that zero of the remaining state-level exchanges are “fully operational,” after five years and $1.45 billion in IT spending, courtesy of taxpayers:

Senate Republicans used a budget maneuver called reconciliation to vote to repeal vast swaths of Obamacare last week, approving a bill that would gut the law.  Once it passes the House, President Obama is expected to veto the legislation in order to protect his unpopular, harmful law. Hillary Clinton, who invented Obamacare, asserted last week that the law is working.

And The Ministry of Truth assures us that it’s all just a plot by dissidents and Thought Criminals and that they just want poor people to die. 🙂

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA. They fight for it to very last drop of YOUR blood. 🙂

 

I find your lack of faith disturbing….

The brutal business of The Elite Agenda that doesn’t give a shit what the American People want or need. It’s what THEY want.

A Secret Deal, that you have to pass before you get any details…sound familiar??

President Obama won a big victory for his trade agenda Friday with the Senate’s approval of fast-track legislation that could make it easier for him to complete a wide-ranging trade deal that would include 11 Pacific Rim nations.

A coalition of 48 Senate Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for Trade Promotion Authority late Friday, sending the legislation to a difficult fight in the House, where it faces more entrenched opposition from Democrats.

The Senate coalition fought off several attempts by opponents to undermine the legislation, defeating amendments that were politically popular but potentially poisonous to Obama’s bid to secure the trade deal.

“This is an important bill, likely the most important bill we will pass this year. It’s important to President Obama,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and primary author of the bill, said at the close of debate.

Way more important than the Executive Amnesty or the Iran Nuke Bill or ISIS, or even Climate Change (that is the more important, after all, according to our King).

The Barons have spoken! The peasants are revolting…They stink on ice.

Want to know how out of whack this whole thing is?

This is from the Super-Liberal Progressives at The Daily Kos:

Senators are forced to go into a classified viewing room in order to read the full text of the document, but are not allowed to bring in key staff or take notes on what is included in the bill text.  Not only this, but as you would assume for classified documents, elected officials are unable to speak to anyone without proper security clearance about the specific details of the trade negotiations without suffering potential criminal legal ramifications. This becomes a serious issue when dealing with complicated and technical negotiations regarding the largest trade deal in American history.  It also raises serious questions about the legislative process and democracy generally when the public is unable to view the content of a bill introduced in Congress, but foreign government officials and private corporations are.

The Democrats are mad about secrecy from the group that gave us “You have to pass it to find out what’s in it”!!!!

Really?

It’s hilarious that the Progressives who gave us NAFTA and ObamaCare , that continue to hide Hillary Clinton from the truth, are so bend out of shape NOW!

Wow, thanks to “Jar Jar” Boehner and his Dumber Cousin Mitch for their “leadership” in ‘fighting’ the Obama Agenda.

(man my fingers nearly snapped off trying to right that sentence without a complete mental breakdown).

Sith Lords in Disguise? Or they’ve just been in DC so long they are converts to The Dark Side.

The Elite Republicans have now shown that re-electing them is virtually no different than re-electing Progressives, they just dress it up nicer.

Gee, why am I not surprised? 🙂

Politics really is about strange bedfellows.

What is especially significant is that the poll shows this anger is bipartisan. Only 41% of Republicans approve of the performance of the GOP congressional leadership. This is much lower than the 60% approval rating GOP leaders received in 2011 and the 78% approval rating they received from Republicans in 1995, months after the party took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Now ask yourself if Boehner & Co actually care what you think?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, are typical establishment Republicans who have been on Capitol Hill too long. They are opposed to the Tea Party and true conservatives and have no interest in real reform or following the wishes of grassroots Republicans.

Just four months after the Republicans took control of the Senate and House, most of the GOP electorate has lost faith in congressional leadership. It is no surprise since nothing has been accomplished except the Keystone Pipeline bill, which President Obama vetoed, and the House-passed bill ending abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. On almost everything else, there has been rhetoric, but no action.

Despite the fact that almost every Republican congressional candidate campaigned against Obamacare and the President’s executive amnesty for five million illegal aliens, Congress voted to fund both programs. The Senate approved the radical nomination of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General and just gave Obama a major victory by approving legislation giving him more power to enact trade deals.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, are typical establishment Republicans who have been on Capitol Hill too long. They are opposed to the Tea Party and true conservatives and have no interest in real reform or following the wishes of grassroots Republicans.

Just four months after the Republicans took control of the Senate and House, most of the GOP electorate has lost faith in congressional leadership. It is no surprise since nothing has been accomplished except the Keystone Pipeline bill, which President Obama vetoed, and the House-passed bill ending abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. On almost everything else, there has been rhetoric, but no action.

Despite the fact that almost every Republican congressional candidate campaigned against Obamacare and the President’s executive amnesty for five million illegal aliens, Congress voted to fund both programs. The Senate approved the radical nomination of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General and just gave Obama a major victory by approving legislation giving him more power to enact trade deals. (Townhall.com)

BUT THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA, right? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Word Police Rise

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

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

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

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

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

Disagreeing with someone in power will be a crime.

“Never waste a crisis…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To The Authors That Blame Murder On Politics

Posted by Thomas Purcell 

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

UNITED  IN HORROR (Ross Douthat- New York Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amen!

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

Frank Bellet, Petrie, Qld

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

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

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

So the silliness continues and Orwell is on a binge!

 

It’s all About Me

Political Cartoon by Robert Ariail

YES WE CAN! 🙂

Political Cartoon by Steve Kelley
Jonah Goldberg: Most theories for why the president came unglued like a papier-mache doll in a steam bath during his press conference this week center on the fact that he can’t stand having his liberal bona fides questioned.

When Iran unveils its nuclear program or slaughters dissidents in the streets of Tehran, Barack Obama keeps a steadier hand than G. Gordon Liddy’s over a candle. Question his citizenship, his patriotism, even his jump shot, and he’s all Vulcan poise. But if you doubt his commitment to The Cause, he turns into Charlie Sheen without his Ritalin.

There are other theories, of course. He was just pretending to be mad so he could seem more moderate as he preps his 2012 bid for re-election. He hates giving Republicans what they want. Obama’s “political immaturity,” as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said in an interview with National Review Online, leads to “whining” when he can’t have his way.

All of these theories are possible, and none of them are mutually exclusive. But there’s one more possible reason for his dyspepsia. This week Obama lost his argument with Hillary Clinton.

It’s largely forgotten now, but during their lengthy primary battle, the two committed liberals’ greatest disagreement wasn’t over policy or their shared disdain for George W. Bush. It was over their different visions of the presidency.

For example, in a Nevada debate, Obama admitted that he wasn’t a particularly organized person. But that was OK because the core role of the president shouldn’t be organizational but inspirational. “It involves having a vision for where the country needs to go … and then being able to mobilize and inspire the American people to get behind that agenda for change.”

Pshaw, responded Hillary, the president is really a “chief executive officer” who must be “able to manage and run the bureaucracy.”

This disagreement was symbolized by their respective role models. Obama likened himself to Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy, inspirational leaders who led through rhetoric. Clinton sided with Lyndon Johnson, the guy who spun the shining words into actual legislation and got it passed, often on a bipartisan basis.

The debate played itself out by proxy in liberal magazines and in snippets of speeches and short outbursts on the stump, with most liberals siding with Obama over Clinton. Some even suggested she was a racist — or at least race-baiting — for daring to suggest that all he offered was the ability to give a good speech.
But even some of Obama’s biggest fans admitted that his devotion to the magical power of words stemmed from the fact that he had little else going for him. “Barack Obama could not run his campaign for the presidency based on political accomplishment or on the heroic service of his youth,” David Remnick wrote in the New Yorker after Obama won the general election. “His record was too slight. His Democratic and Republican opponents were right: he ran largely on language, on the expression of a country’s potential and the self-expression of a complicated man who could reflect and lead that country.”

Fast-forward to this week. Obama’s undisciplined diatribe against the “purists” in his own party who oppose compromise amounted to an abject admission that Hillary was right all along.

“Measuring success” by the no-compromise standard, Obama declared, means “we will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people. And we will be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are.” But, he suggested, liberals will make little progress.

Obama then went on a stem-winder about how “this is a big, diverse country. Not everybody agrees with us. I know that shocks people. The New York Times editorial page does not permeate across all of America.”

All true. And the Democrats are being foolishly purist, as we saw Thursday when House Democrats voted to reject the tax compromise.

But denouncing purists and accepting that significant swaths of America aren’t going to be persuaded by your rhetoric is an admission that the Obama vision of the presidency either doesn’t work or that Obama isn’t up to the job of making it work.

Indeed, even on health-care reform, his signature accomplishment, Obama failed to mobilize and inspire the American people to his side. He got that passed with LBJ-like legislative skullduggery and sleight of hand, not “yes we can!” rhetoric.

Admitting you’re wrong is part of growing up, and growing up can be painful. At least it certainly looked painful watching it on TV.

So you bring in the smoothest talker you know, even if you’ve dissed him in the past — Bill Clinton. Then you make a poor excuse and go off to the White House Christmas Party (where it’s all about you) and leave Billy boy there to do your job for you because you have “communication” issues.
Political Cartoon by Ken Catalino
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
Mother nature kicked the Global Warming nuts in the gonads yet again.
They met in London, it’s a record snowfall. The meet in Copenhagen, it’s a record snowfall.
They meet in Cancun.
As negotiators from nearly 200 countries met in Cancun to strategize ways to keep the planet from getting hotter, the temperature in the seaside Mexican city plunged to a 100-year record low of 54° F. Climate-change skeptics are gleefully calling Cancun’s weather the latest example of the “Gore Effect” — a plunge in temperature they say occurs wherever former Vice President Al Gore, now a Nobel Prize-winning environmental activist, makes a speech about the climate. Although Gore is not scheduled to speak in Cancun, “it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival,” jokes former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer.
The reaction:
ClimateGate was “bad enough,” says Duncan Davidson in Wall Street Pit, but Cancun’s weather is particularly “inconvenient” for global-warming alarmists.
The Inconvenient Truth and Mother nature Strikes Again. But don’t worry, the Left is completely deaf to these signs.

Bolivian President Evo Morales called Thursday to save the Kyoto Protocol and to create an international climate justice tribunal.

‘The planet is wounded,’ Morales, Bolivia’s first president of indigenous descent, said in Mexico’s Caribbean resort city of Cancun.

‘We have an enormous responsibility with life and with humanity,’ he told the UN Climate Conference in a 20-minute speech.

Morales asked industrialized nations to approve a second round of commitments to the Kyoto Protocol, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after 2012.

‘If we send the Kyoto Protocol to the bin, we will be responsible for ‘ecocide,’ and thus for genocide, because we would be attacking humanity as a whole,’ he said.

A World Court of Global Warming. Gee, I wonder who they’d go after?
The biggest polluter on the planet, China?
Or the the most politically advantageous? –US.
Hmmm… 🙂

(CNN) — Delegates at the United Nations climate change conference in Cancun, Mexico, approved an agreement early Saturday morning, despite objections from Bolivia.

The agreement includes plans to create a $100 billion fund to help developing nations deal with global warming and increase efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation.

Criminal Courts, taxes, and redistribution of funds….Sounds familiar somehow. 🙂

Bolivia’s government, meanwhile, claimed rich nations “bullied and cajoled” other countries into accepting a deal on their terms.

Anyone seeing the contradictions yet?

“For us, this is not a step forward. It is a step back, because what is being done here is postponing without limit the discussion on the Kyoto Protocol,” Bolivian Ambassador Pablo Solon told delegates early Saturday.

The agreement does not specify what will happen once the Kyoto Protocol expires, postponing the debate until the next scheduled climate talks in South Africa in 2011.

“It is less than what is needed, but it represents a significant step in the right direction,” <Mexican President> Calderon told delegates.

Sounds oddly familiar somehow? 🙂