Dr. Phil

Image via Screenshot

Psychologist and TV personality Dr. Phil McGraw appeared on The Kelly File Thursday night to discuss the need to “stop rewarding bad behavior in America” for fear of continuing to promote a culture of entitlement and narcissism prevalent in recent generations.

“We do have a generation that, I think, we have raised with a great degree of entitlement where it’s like, the world owes me a living,” said Dr. Phil.

He brought up as an example a man aspiring to be a rock star at the age of 40, using all of his family’s money – even their savings and retirement funds – to buy fame as opposed to actually going out and working for it.

“He’s got the poses. He’s got the haircut, everything. But so entitled, won’t take a job because it’s not a rock star job,” Dr. Phil explained.

“People sometimes ask me what’s wrong with America,” he said. “This is the greatest country in the world with the greatest people in the world. But sometimes, we forget commonsense – the simple things we need to remember. Like, basically, you just don’t reward bad behavior.”

“We’ve got to stop rewarding bad behavior in America,” Dr. Phil went on. “When people don’t work and produce, then they need to be kicked to the curb, get a damn job, carry your own weight. It’s just that simple.”

bernies Fairy Talesd5c6f-democrats6

Why it is…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason #1: Utopianism
You’re in their way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason #2: Utopianism
The WORLD is in their way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:

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

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

So is it true?

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

You. Are. In. Their. Way.

utopia

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

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

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

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

154418 600 Obamas Piece Prize   Reposted cartoons

Intelligence Failure

Well, now we know why. But is it a surprise. After all, it isn’t an AGENDA item so it must really bore him. Let his minions do the lowly stuff.

A new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) report reveals that President Barack Obama has attended only 42.1% of his daily intelligence briefings (known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) in the 2,079 days of his presidency through September 29, 2014.

The GAI report also included a breakdown of Obama’s PDB attendance record between terms; he attended 42.4% of his PDBs in his first term and 41.3% in his second.

The GAI’s alarming findings come on the heels of Obama’s 60 Minutes comments on Sunday, wherein the president laid the blame for the Islamic State’s (ISIS) rapid rise squarely at the feet of his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

“I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” said Obama.

Because they were supposed to be doing the Job-That-President-didn’t-wanna-do  🙂 and they failed him, so it must be by default, their fault.

It surely can’t be his fault! Nothing is ever his fault! He’s too smart. He’s too wonderful. To clever to be at fault for anything, especially boring old crap he doesn’t give a shit about that other people where supposed to handle for him in the first place.

He’s King, not Commander-in-Chief, after all! 🙂

According to Daily Beast reporter Eli Lake, members of the Defense establishment were “flabbergasted” by Obama’s attempt to shift blame.

“Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” a former senior Pentagon official “who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq” told the Daily Beast.

Bullshit. If you can’t dazzle them with your Wile E Coyote Suuuuper Genius, you baffle them with bullshit, then get the Media to repeat it often enough people forget it was your bullshit.

On Monday, others in the intelligence community similarly blasted Obama and said he’s shown longstanding disinterest in receiving live, in-person PDBs that allow the Commander-in-Chief the chance for critical followup, feedback, questions, and the challenging of flawed intelligence assumptions.

“It’s pretty well-known that the president hasn’t taken in-person intelligence briefings with any regularity since the early days of 2009,” an Obama national security staffer told the Daily Mail on Monday. “He gets them in writing.”

The Obama security staffer said the president’s PDBs have contained detailed threat warnings about the Islamic State dating back to before the 2012 presidential election.

“Unless someone very senior has been shredding the president’s daily briefings and telling him that the dog ate them, highly accurate predictions about ISIL have been showing up in the Oval Office since before the 2012 election,” the Obama security staffer told the Daily Mail.

This is not the first time questions have been raised about Obama’s lack of engagement and interest in receiving in-person daily intelligence briefings. On September 10, 2012, the GAI released a similar report showing that Obama had attended less than half (43.8%) of his daily intelligence briefings up to that point. When Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen mentioned the GAI’s findings in his column, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dubbed the findings “hilarious.” The very next day, U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American staff members were murdered in Benghazi. As Breitbart News reported at the time, the White House’s very own presidential calendar revealed Obama had not received his daily intel briefing in the five consecutive days leading up to the Benghazi attacks.

Ultimately, as ABC News reported, the White House did not directly dispute the GAI’s numbers but instead said Obama prefers to read his PDB on his iPad instead of receiving the all-important live, in-person briefings.

Now, with ISIS controlling over 35,000 square miles of territory in its widening caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and with Obama pointing fingers at his own Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for the rise of ISIS, the question remains whether a 42% attendance record on daily intelligence briefings is good enough for most Americans. (Breitbart)

But what do I know, I’m just a “hater”, after all. 🙂

Now ISIS…

The Universe of Smug

It’s astonishing that an ideology which such an unbroken track record of failure has adherents who are so incredibly pleased with themselves. It’s like a soda pop executive whose proudest achievement was thinking up New Coke.

Coke at least the sense to admit their mistake. If it we’re a Liberal, it would have said it was Ronald Reagan’s Fault!

For the liberals who aren’t liberal solely because someone is handing them checks for plopping onto the couch all day instead of working, liberalism has become less an ideology than an attitude. It’s an attitude of serene superiority over everyone else based upon absolutely nothing more than liberals’ utter certainty of the rightness of their collectivist cause. That history shows that collectivism always leads to tyranny never seems to put a damper on their confidence.

My new book, Conservative Insurgency, a speculative future history of the struggle to restore our culture to greatness, predicts that one of the reasons America will turn away from liberalism is the utter insufferability of liberals. Hearing them lecturing us on how things should be is like hearing Hillary Clinton lecture us on how to keep our marriages together. In fact, we can probably expect to hear Hillary Clinton lecture us on how to keep our marriages together. After all, she’s the smartest woman in the world with a stellar track record of raising awareness of stuff.

Oh, and just try to press a liberal for an actual, tangible achievement on Hillary’s resume besides enabling her priapic hubby’s tawdry antics. If you do, you’re sexist, cisgender and probably racist.

It’s baffling that they hold themselves in such high regard. Take President Obama, an academic socialist who’s never competently performed an executive function in his life, including during the last five years. Yet he somehow still believes himself to be himself to be God’s gift to humanity. Literally. Except, instead of turning water into wine, he was going to make the oceans recede and cool the earth. We do need to give him credit, I guess. While the oceans haven’t receded, the Earth isn’t getting any warmer, which naturally doesn’t stop the slack-jawed global warming sucker caucus from insisting that the planet will turn into Hades if everyone besides them doesn’t ditch their SUV.

I guess it’s easy to be moral when morality is defined as whatever you need at that moment. Still, it’s annoying to listen to people with such a weird, unearned sense of their own moral superiority. In truth, they are utterly morally illiterate. These are folks who draw parallels between Hamas and Israel when the only parallel between the Israelis and the jihadist degenerates is that they share the habit of breathing oxygen.

You’d be better off discussing ethics with your terrier. At least your dog isn’t going to come up with excuses for Ted Kennedy.

They’re delusional in that they really believe they’re somehow better than people who actually contribute to society. This reinforces the fact that liberalism has become a mere affectation, an act, a pose. It’s like a hipster’s trendy pork pie hat, except it’s an attitude – by having it you send some sort of message about your own awesomeness. Advocating liberalism is the “I only listen to music on vinyl” of American political thinking.

Interestingly, when you look at liberals, many live their lives in a conservative manner. This is because they understand that being liberal in your personal life is a one-way ticket on the high-speed rail line to Failureville.

Do you think Barack Obama would let his two delightful kids fritter their lives away in a miasma of drugs, promiscuity and general sloth? Of course not; those kids are going to work hard and be expected to achieve. But Obama would never expect that of the millions of welfare-sucking losers his party depends on at election time.

No, he needs those Democrat serfs to stay right where they are: poor, trapped and readily exploitable. After all, if they were to live like he does and support themselves, they wouldn’t need him. And the priority for any liberal (after being seen as enlightened) is forcing someone else to need him.

Liberals like to look down upon conservatives as backwoods banjo-strumming freaks just waiting to ambush your canoe trip. Let’s put aside the academic studies that show conservatives are generally better educated than liberals and look at history. Liberalism and its collectivist brethren have never, ever succeeded anywhere they been tried. The results are always more poverty, more misery and less freedom. Always.

Detroit is the poster child of liberalism, but smug liberals conveniently ignore that blasted wasteland, arguing that the next time they’re trusted, well, then they’ll actually pull it off. Liberalism is the triumph of hopelessness over inexperience.

After all, it’s all George Bush’s/The Rich/Corporate America/The Republican’s fault. They are Wile E. Coyote  who thinks that if anything goes wrong with their Master Plan it must be the fault of Acme or The Roadrunner!

And then there are the noxious personal affectations of liberalism. Liberals seem to thrive by flaunting their self-designated signifiers of moral standing, whether it’s by shopping at Whole Foods instead of Safeway or by driving a Volvo instead of a Ford. God forbid you should take your kids to McDonald’s – if you do, the local liberal moms will wag their bony fingers at you and tell you how their young Teagan has been fed only a diet of hand-selected, free-trade Nepalese lima beans and that his salads are made with dolphin-safe kale.

The only people more unhappy than their puny children, who yearn for the delicious, nutritious meat that all human beings need, are the husbands of these harridans. These sad pseudo-men endure without the pleasures of manhood we conservative males take for granted, like being masculine, subsisting only on the thin gruel of their own liberal smugness. Luckily their emasculating wives refuse to allow them to bear firearms like real Americans; if they did, they’d probably eat a bullet.

Oh, you smug liberals, nothing could be more boring than you and your attitude. I think I’m going to have a Big Mac for dinner, just for you.

Kurt  Schlichter
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
It was George Bush’s Fault! 🙂
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

500

Political Cartoon

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi: “This resolution is a fitting tribute. It is a great resolution. Please, read it again and again. Carry those names in your heart. Remember, each of these people because, again, a tragic accident took lives, wounded people in the expression of ideas.”

Thanks, Nancy. For nothing! 😦

*************************************

This is my 500th blog post so I am where I more or less began, ObamaCare.

The greatest abomination every crammed down the American people’s throat in American History. Period.

And if the normal things government does doesn’t bankrupt us this surely will.

No doubt.

So with that, new info on ObamaCare from americansolutions.com (just click on the links if you want more info or a copy of the charts- The wall chart below has to be blown up to 400% to be seen and read properly by the way- it was a WALL chart, after all):

159-Agencies-Map_580x290.jpg

  • Obamacare adds 159 new agencies, offices, and commissions to an already bloated federal government.
  • Obamacare threatens to increase costs for American businesses by more than $4 billion.
  • The Obama administration has threatened companies who dare to blame Obamacare’s new regulations and taxes as a reason for their higher operating costs.
  • The law is so toxic that even several Democrats introduced legislation in 2010 to repeal part of the bill.
  • Health care premium costs are going up under Obamacare, even though President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid all claimed that would not happen.
  • Citing high costs and the potential for employees to lose their health coverage, the Obama administration has already issued more than 100 waivers for companies to be exempt from certain provisions in Obamacare.

Actually, the waivers are at over 220 and comprise mostly of companies and unions friendly to the Democrats or people they hope to be Democrats.

ATLANTA – The Center for Health Transformation (CHT) today unveiled its first wall chart of the 2010 healthcare legislation, making the enormous diagram available to the public, members of Congress and those in the medical community to view the complexity of the six-week-old legislation.

“This chart demonstrates how Obamacare is going to make American health care much more complicated,” said Newt Gingrich, founder of the Center and former Speaker of the House of Representatives. “With the release of these diagrams CHT will be the go-to place for information on the new health legislation.”

The chart illustrates how Obamacare will create 159 boards, commissions, bureaus, programs and offices of the federal government to carry out new tasks under the health care law. Most of these ideas are undefined and will be determined in the coming years under agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control or the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

“This diagram shows the new law is a massive expansion of government and does little to focus on improving individual health,” Gingrich said. “This is a blueprint for more regulation and more headaches for every American – especially those who rely on the government for health insurance coverage.”

The Center’s CEO, Nancy Desmond, said the chart is the first in a series that will provide straightforward facts about the Obama healthcare law and will help Americans understand how the law is playing out and what will happen in the future.

“Our goal is to serve as a trusted resource where people can get updates regarding the facts on the health law,” Desmond said. “We believe that people have the right to know what their government is doing, and CHT is dedicated to doing what we can to fulfilling that right to know.”

Desmond added: “Our first chart provides the names of 159 new government programs and their reporting structure. As individuals are appointed and new regulations are introduced, we will add to the charts.”

Desmond said the next chart will be a massive timeline of actions scheduled, public response periods created and a checklist that CHT will update weekly so Americans can track what the federal government is doing regarding healthcare.

Among the new programs in the law illustrated in the wall chart: the Interagency Pain Coordinating Committee; the Community Preventive Services Task Force; the Medicare Shared Savings Program; the Office of Indian Men’s Health; the Food and Drug Administration’s State-Based Reinsurance Program; and the Commission on Key National Indicators.

Most of ObamaCare’s taxes dishonestly take effect AFTER the 2012 election but here are a few for 2011:

Atr.og: 2011 HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2(Min$/Jan 2011): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

And while you’re at it, Look up ADVERSE SELECTION. Be amazed. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

And add in $4 or $5 a Gallon Gasoline.

Inflation (though the liberals and the media have been working 24/7 to hide the 1000-lb gorilla in the next room bashing on the door)

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.

And for all you Class Warfare Liberals out there, some wisdom from Dr. Thomas Sowell:

Bailouts say: “Give the taxpayers a little rhetoric, and a little smoke and mirrors with the bookkeeping, and we can keep the party rolling.”

One of the political games that is played during a budget crisis is to cut back on essential services like police departments and fire departments, in order to blackmail the public into accepting higher tax rates. Often, a lot more money could be saved by getting rid of runaway pension contracts with public sector unions.

Take California for instance:

Jerry Brown, a Liberal from the 1970’s, was elected largely by Unions (the Nurse’s Union was behind the whole Illegal Maid Scandal) got their payback in his budget to start cutting California’s $26 BILLION dollar budget deficit by savaging everyone in California, EXCEPT THE UNIONS!

Shocking, I know. 🙂

So stick it to everyone except the bloodsuckers who are killing you because they are the ones who got you elected.

Illinois, the same thing. Unions are being protected against the “shared sacrifice” because they are an important Liberal voting block.

Hence, why many of the waivers for ObamaCare are UNIONS!

But the amount of money it would take to keep the poor from starving in the streets is chump change compared to how much it would take to keep on feeding unions, subsidized businesses and other special interests who are robbing the taxpayers blind.

Letting armies of government employees retire in their 50s, to live for decades on pensions larger than they were making when they were working, costs a lot more than keeping the poor from starving in the streets.

Pouring the taxpayers’ money down a thousand bottomless pits of public and private boondoggles costs a lot more than keeping the poor from starving in the streets.

Bankruptcy says: “We just don’t have the money.” End of discussion.

And just in case you weren’t cynicial enough (like me) about the Tucson Campaign Rally:

Bracing for a half-billion-dollar onslaught of outside GOP cash in 2012, President Barack Obama’s advisers are quietly working to bring back together the major donor base that produced a record-breaking fundraising haul in his first run for president.

In the past few months, Democratic National Committee aides have contacted several of Obama’s earliest financial backers to brainstorm about when and where to host the first money-raising events. Several big donors said they expect the Obama 2012 operation to open its doors this spring, with a string of fundraisers to generate the early cash needed to rebuild the president’s high-tech campaign operation. (Politico)

So who are the real Greedy, narcissistic bloodsuckers? Corporate America or Liberals and Their Unions?

I know which one I see.

And ObamaCare is jut another boondoogle masquerading as a massacre waiting to happen.

Someone call the Pima County Sheriff’s Office… 🙂

Don’t Worry, It’s All Bush’s Fault!! Go #1 and #2!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Wanna see MINORITY Leader Pelosi spout the same old parrot, I mean party, lines about how she Democrats lost 2 months ago in the worst “shellacking” in nearly a century BECAUSE IT WAS GEORGE W BUSH’S FAULT!

Yes, even in 2011 it’s still his fault! And those mean old, rich-loving obstructionist Republicans!

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2011/01/07/jk.pelosi.dem.loss.bush.cnn

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Unemployment-Rate.aspx?Symbol=USD

So as predicted the liberals, and especially Queen Pelosi learned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for Nov 2nd other than what they have have known in their own heads all along, it’s not their fault!

It’s not their fault that unemployment has been over 9.4% since the Spring of 2009 (nearly 2 Bleeping years!!).

Nope, Not their fault. They were large and in-charge, but it wasn’t their fault!!

That there “economic” and “jobs” focus passing Health Care boondoggles, crushing Financial reforms, Oil Moratoriums, EPA,FDA,FCC,FTC regulatory dictatorships, and their Class Warfare and Race Warfare hasn’t doesn’t any good is because of Bush and the Republicans!

Liberals have to be the thickest, greediest, most narcissistic people on Earth.

And Liberal Politicians lead the way! And Queen Pelosi is the true Queen of them all.

President Obama insisted America was ‘digging itself out of hole’ today as new figures offered a glimmer of hope for the country’s beleaguered economy.

103,000 new jobs were created last month and the unemployment rate dropped to 9.4 percent, its lowest level in 19 months, the Labor Department said. (Daily Mail)

However, to get a true understanding of the data we must go further into the story.  For example, the economy needs to create 125,000 new jobs per month simply to keep up with the population demands for work.  You will notice that even during December, one of the highest months for hiring due to temporary retail needs, only 110,000 jobs were created, and thus there was a deficit of 15,000 jobs last month simply to stay even with the population. (Globe & Mail)

Secondly, the Labor Department does not record those unemployed who are not out actively looking for work.  Once someone falls off the unemployment benefit roles, there is no requirement to apply for jobs to ensure benefits.  When these people fall off, they are no longer counted in the unemployment data.

Still, the unemployment rate has topped 9 percent for 20 months, the longest such streak on record. And even with last year’s job gains, the unemployment rate fell only from 9.7 percent to 9.4 percent. (Daily Mail)

That would not be the “saved or created” jobs in Unions and government jobs, by the way…

So we had less employment than we need, we had by estimates something like 260,000 people stop looking (so they aren’t counted) and this was the good news!

But don’t worry, this is all Bush’s Fault too!.

And when Ben Bernacke estimates that it could be 5 years before employment levels are “normal” that too is Bush’s Fault! (and if unemployment over 8% becomes “normal” that too will be Bush’s fault).

This is the slowest recovery, if you can call it a recovery, since the 1930s. Businesses beset by the highest corporate tax burden in the world and the looming presence of ObamaCare and cap-and-trade regulation are simply marking time in an uncertain future.

Of the more than 14.5 million people out of work in December, more than 6.4 million have been out six months or longer. The mean length of time the unemployed have been out of work rose a third straight month to 34.2 weeks, the third highest level ever.

Add in those who’ve stopped looking for work or who are working part-time but want to work full-time, and the number of unemployed climbs to 26.1 million — for a jobless rate of 16.7%. (IBD)

But that too is Bush’s Fault!

If by a miracle Obama is re-elected that won’t be Bush’s fault, but the economic ruin left by ObamaCare (if it survives that long) as it kicks into high gear will be. Just wait and watch.

Obama, if re-elected will leave office in 2016, just at the point where ObamaCare really hits the gas with spending.

But that will still be Bush’s Fault if it survives The Supreme Court or the House Republicans.

Isn’t that nice to know. Your economic ruin in 2016 is because of George W. Bush!

You get the feeling that we will all be dead and the Democrats in 2111 will still be blaming Bush for everything.

Nauseating isn’t the word for it.

Unacceptable is.

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS UPDATE

The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.

“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. “They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’”

A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” The statement didn’t note if it was for child applications only. (FOX)

So my mother who passed away on Sept 29th was she #1 or #2??

Gay rights groups are applauding the decision.

“Changing the term mother and father to the more global term of parent allows many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn’t recognize their family,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Equality Council.

Her organization lobbied the government for several years to remove the words from passport applications. (FOX)

Global Term??? What the F*ck!

So how long before Mother and Father or even ‘Parent’ is Orwellianly struck from the language?

After all, it is discriminatory!

So should we now call it the “M”-Word or the new “f-Word” or the “P” word and start re-writing classic literature like they have to Huckleberry Finn??

Mommy Dearest is now #2 Dearest? Or #1 Dearest??

I Guess TV Moms like Mrs Cleaver will just now be TV #1’s or #2’s

So what happens to “going #1” or “#2” Then?? 🙂

Sh*t Happens I guess.

Especially when Liberals have their way.

But don’t worry it’s all Bush’s Fault and the homophobic (which is anyone who might disagree with the radical gay agenda much like being  a “domestic terrorist” if you are a tea partier according to the left.)

So just remember, if you’re toaster over burns your toast or you Tasimo Brew Bot screws up your cup of morning joe that it’s George W Bush and his evil Corporate friends who screwed you!

Take comfort in the knowledge.

 

Blind Man’s Bluff

Well, the Republicans, and some Democrats called the President and the Far Left’s bluff yesterday, voting down the Raise the Taxes on the rich so their base of the loonie left get that message.

But, of course that wouldn’t be the message. Most Democrats said that showed them siding with “millionaires and billionaires” over the middle class. (NYT)

And that was the symbolic gesture they wanted, to toss some red meat to their psychotic base before they allow themselves to be bribed into going along with something else.

Call it the sugar pill before the medicine.

Now, though, comes the bribery. What will it cost us taxpayers to buy off the Democrats and their class warfare this time. It certainly will not go away. It’s all they really have anymore.

“I feel like I am in the twilight zone,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. “It’s depressing to me that we have gotten to this level of posturing, that they are saying if you do not give people a tax break on their second million, that nobody gets one.”

The Democrats posturing, excluded, of course. 🙂

And let’s not forget the paternal contempt of the Left:

Sen. Schumer, pressing for his proposal (to make the cap $1 million), said: “It’s not that we want to punish wealthy people. We want to praise them. But they’re doing fine, and they’re not going to spend the money and stimulate the economy.”

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him 🙂 It surely wasn’t the other way around. 🙂

Right now there is little goodwill on the left toward the president. Liberals are up in arms amid talk of compromise on extending the George W. Bush tax cuts for all Americans, rather than allowing rates to rise for the wealthiest. They see Obama today as weak, vacillating and lacking either convictions or the gumption to fight for the principles they believe got him elected. They want a fighter in the White House who will put the Republicans in their place.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), an unabashed liberal, was quoted last week as saying that if Obama caves on tax cuts, “he’s going to have a lot of swimming upstream” to do. Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher accused Obama of “cynical charades” in his discussions about a compromise on tax cuts and unemployment insurance. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called Obama’s freeze on federal workers’ pay “transparently cynical.”

But other Democrats see dangers in a strategy of confrontation and argue that an alternative approach can win back the independent Democrats lost last month.

Liberals may be disillusioned, but they still voted for Democrats in the midterms. Independents defected in significant numbers. Many are worried about the president’s policies, and many think he has failed to fulfill his promise to reduce partisanship and change the way Washington works. They want results and expect cooperation between the parties.

What is the right strategy for Obama to regain the political initiative and put his presidency back on track? Should he hold firm, push a liberal agenda and provoke fights with the Republicans, as Truman did? That would reenergize his liberal base and sharpen his profile with the public.

Or should he be a conciliator, as Clinton tried to be, cooperating when possible with congressional Republicans but resisting when he believes they have gone too far right? That might show the Republicans as obstructionists and bring independents back to his side heading toward 2012. (Washington Post)

Well, this independent won’t be back if he plays cynical political games. But at least the left now sees the weakness that we all saw more than 2 years ago.

Only they see it for their own ideology, not reality. As usual.

Political Cartoon by Steve Kelley