Bassackwards

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Watch the Orwellian spin in terms discussed in this Walter Williams’ piece. Mr. Williams is a conservative so he’s pointing them out but watch how to liberals Positive is Negative and Negative is Positive.

Because Americans still retain a large measure of liberty, tyrants must mask their agenda. At the university level, some professors give tyranny an intellectual quality by preaching that negative freedom is not enough. There must be positive liberty or freedoms. This idea is widespread in academia, but its most recent incarnation was a discussion by Wake Forest University professor David Coates in a Huffington Post article, titled “Negative Freedom or Positive Freedom: Time to Choose?” (11/13/2013) (http://tinyurl.com/oemfzy6). Let’s examine negative versus positive freedom.

Negative freedom or rights refers to the absence of constraint or coercion when people engage in peaceable, voluntary exchange. Some of these negative freedoms are enumerated in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. More generally, at least in its standard historical usage, a right is something that exists simultaneously among people. As such, a right imposes no obligation on another. For example, the right to free speech is something we all possess. My right to free speech imposes no obligation upon another except that of noninterference. Likewise, my right to travel imposes no obligation upon another.

Positive rights is a view that people should have certain material things — such as medical care, decent housing and food — whether they can pay for them or not. Seeing as there is no Santa Claus or tooth fairy, those “rights” do impose obligations upon others. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something he did earn.

If we were to apply this bogus concept of positive rights to free speech and the right to travel freely, my free speech rights would impose financial obligations on others to supply me with an auditorium, microphone and audience. My right to travel would burden others with the obligation to purchase airplane tickets and hotel accommodations for me. Most Americans, I would imagine, would tell me, “Williams, yes, you have the right to free speech and travel rights, but I’m not obligated to pay for them!”

What the positive rights tyrants want but won’t articulate is the power to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another. After all, if one person does not have the money to purchase food, housing or medicine and if Congress provides the money, where does it get the money? It takes it from some other American, forcibly using that person to serve the purposes of another. Such a practice differs only in degree, but not kind, from slavery.

Under natural law, we all have certain unalienable rights. The rights we possess we have authority to delegate. For example, we all have a right to defend ourselves against predators. Because we possess that right, we can delegate it to government, in effect saying, “We have the right to defend ourselves, but for a more orderly society, we delegate to you the authority to defend us.” By contrast, I don’t possess the right to take your earnings to give to another. Seeing as I have no such right, I cannot delegate it.

The idea that one person should be forcibly used to serve the purposes of another has served as the foundation of mankind’s ugliest and most brutal regimes. Do we want that for America?

The Liberals do. They are authoritarians/totalitarians. Especially the Homo Superior Liberalis variety. They are after all, so vastly superior to you that’s why they think you’re stupid and need to be condescended to. You must be controlled. If they let you do what you want all you’ll do is evil.

Welcome to the world of the Liberal.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

The Spin Cycle

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Another brilliant comment from Mr. Salt & Soda Ban, New York’s NutJob Mayor: “I don’t understand why the police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike,” Bloomberg told the “Piers Morgan Tonight” host. “We’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.”

Gun Control (aka none at all). Something that the Founding Fathers were unalterably opposed to. But that’s Knee Jerk Do-Gooder Morally Superior Liberalism for you!

If you took his guns away, would you still not have a pathologically disturbed person?

Would he be “safer” without a gun??

Not really. He’d just find another way to kill people. Bombs, like the ones in his apartment perhaps. Then what would the reactionary liberals want to ban then??

To Quote Captain James Tiberius Kirk: You’ve managed to kill everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!

The problem is the person, not the weapon.

The problem is the liberal preaching moral relativism- the philosophical theory that morality varies between individuals and cultures and so there is no objective right and wrong.

And if there is no absolute right and wrong then  you do what feels good. And the Aurora Killer this obviously felt good, as sick as it was.

But the minute you start talking to a liberal about right and wrong all you’ll get is that they are right and you’re wrong. That’s it.

Otherwise, you’d be some right wing christian nutcase, even if your not a Christian. Muslim excluded.

Then The next day Bloomberg realized he said something nearly as stupid as what Obama said about businesses.  Which Obama is trying to diffuse also: “Those ads taking my words about small business out of context — they’re flat-out wrong,” Obama says in the commercial. “Of course Americans build their own businesses. Every day, hardworking people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has.” (The Hill)

They were both quoted accurately. They just said what they really think and that was the problem. 🙂

New York State law prohibits strikes by public employees and Bloomberg clarified his remarks when speaking to reporters on Tuesday.

“I don’t mean literally go on strike,” he said. “Keep in mind, it is police officers who run into danger when the rest of us run out. Police officers have families. They want to come home to their families safely.”

Ugh. yeah, and people who own guns (which I do not) don’t??

And he didn’t actually mean it. He meant the first statement, it just looked bad politically. “They should call their congressman, call their senators and say ‘My family wants me to come home. What are you doing to protect me?’” Bloomberg said.

NJ Governor Chris Christie: “Can we at least get through the initial grief and tragedy for these families before we start making them political pawns?” Christie said. 🙂

Not on the Left. 🙂 Never let a Crisis Go to Waste!!

Now for the greatest circular argument of the week award that goes to David Axelrod, the architect of “Hope and Change” in 2008 : Now that Romney and his allies have hit back with ads correcting the record and pointing out the death of ‘hope and change,” Axelrod is blaming them for the public perception that Obama’s gone mega negative.  Talk about a circular argument.  It’s also an ironic one.  Think about it: When asked why his campaign is so negative, Axelrod blames the other side.  Argument confirmed.(townhall)

So you’re negative campaigning against us is you’re fault! So the Obama campaign wants to fight their nuke-em-at-all costs strategy by being “nice”.

Barf Bag bag overload!

“I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message because I believe we’re all in this together,” he says.

Tobe Berkovitz, a professor of communications at Boston University who specializes in political communication, suggested the approach is a response to the frustration the Obama campaign thinks voters are feeling with the negative campaign. 

“After pummeling Romney like a tin drum for the last two months, now they’re trying to change the focus, talking directly to voters in an effort to appeal to swing voters,” Berkovitz said.

The ads, Berkovitz surmised, were just a “temporary detour down Mr. Niceness-world.”(The Hill)

But like the nature of the Left, the surrogates will be out there doing their nuke-em all to hell and saying very silly things that will be “mischaracterized” as always.

Allahpundit: Am I right in thinking that O never felt obliged to do a spot like this, clarifying his own comments, back in 2008? He gave his speech on race to try to defuse the Rev. Wright uproar, but he never did an ad directly answering an attack that I can recall, not even after his immortal “bitter-clinger” comments at that lefty fundraiser. Typically the playbook when a pol says something damaging is to let it lie and not extend its media shelf life with a new commercial that dredges it up again in the course of rebutting it. He must be awfully nervous about how “you didn’t build that” is playing with that middle class he claims to care so much about if he feels obliged to do this…O says here that his point in the original “you didn’t build that” comments was that America needs to “stand behind” its small business owners. Is that right? Go re-read what he said in Roanoke. Sure sounded at the time like he was telling them that they owe us, not that we owe them.

But if you quote a Liberal’s words back to them it just pisses them off.

We need more of that. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

 

The Little Neros

“What we now have is a very stark choice,” Obama told a group of about 50 donors at a Chicago restaurant called MK. “Under their vision, we can’t invest in roads and bridges and broadband and high-speed rail. I mean, we would be a nation of potholes, and our airports would be worse than places that we thought — that we used to call– the Third World, but who are now investing in infrastructure.”  (That’s called spending…)

At an another appearance, Obama said: “The speech I gave yesterday [Wednesday] was not a partisan shot at the other side. It was an attempt to clarify the choice that we have as a country right now.”

“I think it’s fair to say that their vision is radical. No, I don’t think it’s particularly courageous.”

But raising taxes is courageous? That’s what Democrat desperately want to do. So they can spend EVEN more! 😦

Meanwhile, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service downgraded its outlook Monday on U.S. government debt, expressing unprecedented doubts over the ability of Washington to bring the massive federal budget deficits under control.

The agency lowered the long-term outlook to “Negative” from “Stable,” saying there is a one in three chance the United States could lose its top investment rating on its debt in the next two years.

The International Monetary Fund has just dropped a bombshell, and nobody noticed.

For the first time, the international organization has set a date for the moment when the “Age of America” will end and the U.S. economy will be overtaken by that of China.

The Obama deficit tour

The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore critiques the president’s speeches attacking Republican budget plans.

And it’s a lot closer than you may think.

According to the latest IMF official forecasts, China’s economy will surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 — just five years from now.

Put that in your calendar.

And if Obama is re-elected, make it sooner I’d bet. He and the Democrats are incapable of cutting spending. They live to spend money.

It provides a painful context for the budget wrangling taking place in Washington, D.C., right now. It raises enormous questions about what the international security system is going to look like in just a handful of years. And it casts a deepening cloud over both the U.S. dollar and the giant Treasury market, which have been propped up for decades by their privileged status as the liabilities of the world’s hegemonic power.

According to the IMF forecast, whoever is elected U.S. president next year — Obama? Mitt Romney? Donald Trump? — will be the last to preside over the world’s largest economy. (WSJ)

The Visigoths have sacked Rome and the little Nero’s are still fiddling! 😦

Astroturf 2011-2012

If video of angry constituents haranguing members of Congress over healthcare reform captured the tone of that policy debate, Democrats and their allies hope that similar clips will emerge in 2011 to define the coming battle over Medicare and entitlement reform.

Left-leaning groups pushed the idea last week that Americans all over the country are outraged at Republican legislators and have been confronting them at town halls to voice their opposition.

In emails and press statements, Democratic organizations have trumpeted examples of town-hall meetings where Republican legislators were criticized by constituents.

“Even Chairman Ryan’s constituents don’t approve of his plan to deliver tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans while ending Medicare,” the email read. “At a recent town hall in Wisconsin, Chairman Ryan was booed as he defended his budget’s continuation of low taxes for the richest people in our country.” (DC)

The fact this is a lie doesn’t matter. Liberals will say anything to win. The truth is almost never included.

Say or do anything to win.

And the Republicans are still trying to be ‘gentlemanly’ while the Democrats will use doomsday weapons at the drop of a hat–Any Hat. It doesn’t even need to be a hat for them to go all out.

One attendee at a townhall already has the talking point down, “Did you not vote for Paul Ryan’s bill?” the attendee asked. “Well, that is to abolish Medicare and give people some money. It will not be the Medicare that we know.”

So when did you stop beating your wife?

In a town hall event on Wednesday held by Rep. Lou Barletta (R-Pa.), an audience member was removed after she became loud and disruptive.

Moveon.org sent an email to residents in Barletta’s district asking them to attend the congressman’s town hall to “ask the congressman why he voted for a budget that that puts millions of seniors, children, and people with disabilities at risk of losing their health care, so we can give millionaires trillions in tax cuts.”

Meaning  let Rome burns and the Democrats will supply the Marshmellows.

It’s not like they care about anything but winning.

Astroturf sales are about to skyrocket!

Meanwhile, the end is nigh. Rejoice.

Liberals hate declaring victory, because “crisis” is the lifeblood of activist government. But when it comes to poverty among the elderly, they really should take a bow.

In 1965, about 30% of seniors lived in poverty. By 2000, that number had fallen to 10%, a two-thirds decline. By 2009, the poverty rate for seniors had risen somewhat (thanks to the recession and financial crisis), but it’s still half the poverty rate for children, and about 20% less than for adults 18-64.

This makes sense: We accumulate education, wealth and property as we age. For that reason, seniors have much higher net wealth than their younger counterparts. But while entitlement programs have undoubtedly helped alleviate poverty among the elderly, they are unsustainable as currently structured.

This is because current tax revenues (from working Americans) pay for today’s retirees, and far fewer working Americans exist relative to retirees than in the old days. In 1950 nearly 17 people worked for every Social Security recipient. In 2009 the number was three. In 2040 it’ll be two.

We’re also collecting benefits much longer than originally anticipated.

Life expectancy for seniors in 1965 was just under 70 years. Now it’s close to 80, meaning that instead of paying for five years of Medicare benefits, Americans pay for 15.

Baby boomers retiring today will receive far more in Medicare benefits than they ever paid in taxes. Researchers at the Urban Institute project that a married 66-year-old couple paid $110,000 in Medicare taxes, but will receive about $340,000 worth of benefits.

So what if paying out 3 times what you put in over the next 20 years is completely unsustainable Liberals don’t care.

Economics bores liberals.

“Armageddon” excites them.

Only when the true armageddon comes, they will not be to blame. They will be as pure as the driven snow, and the news media will say s so over and over again.

FEAR IS HOPE!

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Rejoice citizen, the politicians of both parties are looking out for you…. 🙂