7 Year Rash

Today is the 7th Anniversary of this blog. For a long time this year I considered making this one my last because, quite simply, The Stupid Have Inherited the Earth. Intelligence and Common Sense (let alone <gasp> Logic) are Politically Incorrect. Hell, some Leftists have decreed that just saying “politically incorrect” is Politically Incorrect. 😦

So instead I thought I’d revisit one of my favorites from the last 7 years.

This also goes out the #NeverTrump -ers who are so mindlessly obsessed with hating Donald Trump that they are willing Hillary into the White House.

Hate never felt so Right. 🙂

And a special shout out to the Sabotage Republicans (The Establishment ones and their followers) WHO ALSO want Hillary.

The Generations (and possibly permanent) of damage you want to inflict on what’s LEFT of this country is so short-sighted you deserve her.

It will be YOUR fault.

Agree with me or else!

To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone — to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone: From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink — greetings! -George Orwell

So with that in mind, cast your mindless adherence to January 21, 2012  and this Blog and see yourselves currently in it also.

THE ZOMBIE HOARD

They are just a zombie hoard.

Remorseless. Merciless. Incapable of shame, morals or ethics.

They want want what they want when they want it and because they want it and will do anything to get it. Relentlessly.

And what they want is YOU. You to be either converted or cow-towed to their every whim. To do whatever they want when they want it.

Evidence John King, the CNN Liberal Moderator of the South Carolina Debate. He opens the debate with a salicious question to Gingrich about his “open marriage” and Gingrich blows him to bits for it and the crowd goes wild.

He did this to prove his “courage” to stand up to the evil “right wingers” and puff out his chest that he was “journalist” and was going to bravely confront the issue. Meanwhile, anything remotely damaging to President Obama is ignored with great speed and spin.🙂

2016: Just Like they do with Hillary. The Debate will be set up to show that Trump is grumpy, unstable and mean. The fact that Hillary is a congenital, sociopathica Liar has no bearing on the debates whatsover.

Their will be more Candy Crowley moments than ever.

And the Zombie hoard will eat it up like candy. “Brains…”

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.- George Orwell.

And their has never been more deceit now than ever in American History and more mindless Zombie Hoards out to make sure “What difference does it make, anyways?”

Rush Limbaugh (who I rarely get a chance to listen to because of my work schedule): Now, let me tell you one thing here, folks: You cannot shame the mainstream media. If any of you are thinking that the media learned a lesson — if any of you believe that the media finally had it handed to ’em, if you believe that the media had their eyes opened and they are fully awake now and they understand what they’re dealing with — forget it. John King is proud of what happened last night. John King is a hero in the Main Street media because he didn’t back down, because he continued to illustrate how it is that the media does really control the agenda. That was a demonstration of the power they hold over every public figure’s head, that they choose to hold like a guillotine. John King… There may even be some jealousy and envy within the journalist ranks (well, not journalists; within the Democrat Party ranks) because John King is a guy that got in Newt’s face, stared him down — and the fact that Newt told him off? It’s a badge of honor. If you are thinking that John King was embarrassed and ran away with his tail tucked between his legs and learned his lesson and it’ll never happen again? Ah, ah, ah, ah. You cannot shame the mainstream media. They are proud of this. They delight in their power to destroy candidates that they don’t like.

And they don’t like anyone who doesn’t cow-tow to them.

2016: They made THEIR Choice. Now it’s you’re Zombie duty to vote for it or else.

“At the end of the day the message to every conservative who hasn’t run for office is: “You want a piece of this? You want some of this? You want Brian Ross hounding you and your ex-wife and then you want me asking you about it on national TV the next night? Come on in. We’re ready.” That’s the message from John King and CNN last night, and do not doubt me on this.”

2016: look at the evidence, every time new “evidence” comes out about Hillary they bury it. Every time Trump even raises his voice or say one less than perfect political phrase they are on it like flies on shit and they stick to it like super glue and blow it up.

mountain

So the alternative is to cow-tow. To live in fear of the Liberal wrath.

2016: To acquiesce. Given in, the Ministry of Truth has the system rigged.

Hell, the Democrats got caught rigging the Primary, blatantly.

No one really cared.

The Zombie Hoard just went, “oh” and moved on. The Media covered it up.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was sacrificed.

End of Story.

#2: Hillary is caught re-handed on the Email Scandal. The FBI even says so. But since Comey has connections to Clinton and doesn’t want to have a mysterious “accident” she is not prosecuted.

Future Hillary Supreme Court Nominee Loretta Lynch, Attorney General and Clinton Cronie refuses to prosecute her.

Other people not connected to Clinton aren’t so lucky.

David_Petraeus

And the reaction from the Zombie Hoard, “Yawn”.

Hillary is still leading in the Polls!

“Brains…”

The Food Police. The TSA. The EPA. The Justice Department. Homeland Security. The FCC.

Because if they can’t make you a zombie, they can at least make you a peasant in fear of your Masters who will not challenge them or not have the power to challenge them.

“[…]you don’t have to be Sun freakin Tzu to know that real fighting isn’t about killing or even hurting the other guy, it’s about scaring him enough to call it a day.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

They’ll just turn your children into zombies instead. 12 years of Grade School and 4 years of College is a lot of Zombie Voodoo time after all. And “getting them while they are young” is entirely within the Zombie Liberal playbook. Make them a zombie before they even know what one is and then make them as immune as possible to any anti-virus and get them addicted to their own Kool-Aid. Feed it to them constantly through the Media and the Internet.

2016: They’ll DEMAND Segregation, “Safe Spaces”, “Diversity” and “Inclusion” mindlessly and will trample Free Speech because they don’t want to be “offended”.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

WAR (Class, Gender, Race, Religion) IS PEACE

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Hell, even white people getting a tan will set the little zombie off…

What it does is illustrate that they can be dealt with. But you can’t beat ’em. They’re not gonna be shamed. They’re not going to be shamed into stopping the coverage of conservatives as they do it. It’s going to continue. No matter what kind of shame you think they suffer in a contest like that — no matter how much money they lose, no matter how many of them get fired, no matter how many magazines or TV stations or newspapers get shut down — they are not gonna change. They are hard-core, leftists”

And as I have said over and over again, they are have no morals or ethics because they are governed not by logic and reason but by emotions, mostly the most basic of primitive emotions, Fear, Lust (for power), anger, jealousy, ENVY, etc. –Raw emotions.

2016: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS!

Which is why when you engage them they sound and act like an immature 5 year old. And as we all know from childhood development the child has to develop a sense of shame by have having boundaries and limitations and consequences. And if they don’t, they will grow up with little to no sense of shame.

disagree

2016: “Microaggressions” anyone?

They are usually called sociopaths. I can call them Liberal Zombies.

2016: And the #Never Trumpers and Establishment RINOs.

Liberals have no shame. They want what they want when they want it because they want it.

2016: And the #Never Trumpers and Establishment RINOs.

“…one of the upsides that isn’t gonna happen is the media saying, “Gosh, we’ve been so mean to these people and so unfair. You know, maybe we ought to start being fair.” That’s not going to happen.

Liberals talk about being “fair” which means you’re being unfair to them and should do what they want.

Liberals talk about “compassion” but it’s to make you feel guilty, not them, and to do what they want.

Liberals will talk about “bi-partisanship” but that just means you have to compromise your principles so they can do what they want.

“Diversity” means you’re evil and need to do what they say to repent for your sins.

2016: “Inclusion” Means you include everything THEY say and do it without hesitation.

They are a remorseless hoard. They want what they want when they want it and on their terms only.

Give them everything they want or they’ll cry, scream, bitch, moan, pout and lash out at you.

2016: “White Privilege” anyone?

That is their primitive zombie hoard mentality. And they want YOU.extremists

“Lies are neither bad nor good. Like a fire they can either keep you warm or burn you to death, depending on how they’re used.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Most people don’t believe something can happen until it already has. That’s not stupidity or weakness, that’s just human nature.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Often, a school is your best bet-perhaps not for education but certainly for protection from an undead attack.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“Remember; no matter how desperate the situation seems, time spent
thinking clearly is never time wasted.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“I think that most people would rather face the light of a real enemy than the darkness of their imagined fears.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“They feel no fear, why should you?”– Max Brooks

“The zombie may be gone, but the threat lives on.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

Get rid of one zombie, and 10 more will take it’s place. So you have to be ready to do battle constantly.

Look at 2010. The Democrats suffered the worst defeat in 80 years. Does it look like they learned ANYTHING?

No.

As a matter of fact the zombie hoard is even tighter, even more determined than ever. They want it EVEN MORE.

So if we defeat then in 2012 will they go away?

HELL NO!

2016: They weren’t defeated. Even more hoards joined them. So if they are beat in 2016 will they finally be defeated and go away.

HELL NO!

They will just keep coming back like a remorseless zombie hoard until you are overwhelmed.

Which is why you will have to fight them all of your days, your kids days and their kids days until the infection is wiped out.

But like any good zombie plaque it only takes 1 to re-ignite it and spread it all over again.

And these zombies have Media and Internet outlets! (and Europe!)

“Looking back, I still can’t believe how unprofessional the news media was. So much spin, so few hard facts. All those digestible sound bites from an army of ‘experts’ all contradicting one another, all trying to seem more ‘shocking’ and ‘in-depth’ than the last one. It was all so confusing, nobody seemed to know what to do.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. “Fear,” he used to say, “fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe.” That blew me away. “Turn on the TV,” he’d say. “What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products.” Fuckin’ A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

The Democrat Party in a nutshell.

FEAR IS HOPE!

My own personal Fourth Orwellian Precept (which includes WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH).

“If you believe you can accomplish everything by “cramming” at the eleventh hour, by all means, don’t lift a finger now. But you may think twice about beginning to build your ark once it has already started raining”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“When I believe in my ability to do something, there is no such word as no.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“. . . show the other side, the one that gets people out of bed the next morning, makes them scratch and scrape and fight for their lives because someone is telling them that they’re going to be okay.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“This is the only time for high ideals because those ideals are all that we have. We aren’t just fighting for our physical survival, but for the survival of our civilization. We don’t have the luxury of old-world pillars. We don’t have a common heritage, we don’t have a millennia of history. All we have are the dreams and promises that bind us together. All we have…is what we want to be.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“…We were a shaken, broken species, driven to the edge of extinction and grateful only for tomorrow with perhaps a little less suffering than today. Was this the legacy we would leave our children, a level of anxiety and self-doubt not seen since our simian ancestors cowered in the tallest trees? What kind of world would they rebuild? Would they rebuild at all? Could they continue to progress, knowing that they would be powerless to reclaim their future? And what if that future saw another rise of the living dead? Would our descendants rise to meet them in battle, or simply crumple in meek surrender and accept what they believe to be their inevitable extinction? For this alone, we had to reclaim our planet. We had to prove to ourselves that we could do it, and leave that proof as this war’s greatest monument. The long, hard road back to humanity, or the regressive ennui of Earth’s once-proud primates. That was the choice, and it had to be made now.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

The Future is yours. So is living through “The Walking Dead” and “1984” for real.

truth

Small Package Big Liberal

snow is racist

“It’s unfortunate that the entire country is a racist country. So it’s an example of the fact that even though some great people have given some great performances in movies, they weren’t even thought about. We are living in a country that discriminates and has certain racist tendencies. So sometimes it manifests itself in things like this [the Oscar nominations] and it’s illuminated. But just generally speaking, we’re a bunch of racists.”–Danny DeVito.

Even though Hollywood is one of the most left-wing institutions on the planet, and one that enjoys unfettered artistic and political freedom, during an appearance at the Sundance Film Festival this weekend, actor Danny DeVito blamed the second year in a row of all-white Oscar nominations on racist America., on all of us, because we are all “a bunch of racists.”

As National Review’s Jonah Goldberg has pointed out, when Republicans do something wrong, it is a “Republican policy problem.’ When the Left is embroiled in a scandal or failure, it is a failure of America. 

Such moral outrage. Funny, how Politically Correct it is. How “trendy”.

I have said on social media that the whole thing can be fixed fairly easily.

We just implement a tiered system for awarding Oscars that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with merit or performance but everything to do with race. That should make everyone happy, right?

Call it a “Diversity” measure.

Tier 1: Blacks

Tier 2: Minorities of any definition as long as they are not “white”.

Tier 3: Everyone one (aka “Racist White People”)

So you start at the top and work your way down. If you get to Tier 3 at all you simply haven’t done your job correctly and should be fired or there needs to be a recount.

That’ll teach those racist white people!! 🙂

Thomas Sowell: The latest tempest in a teapot controversy is over a lack of black nominees for this year’s Academy Awards in Hollywood.

The assumption seems to be that different groups would be proportionally represented if somebody were not doing somebody else wrong. That assumption carries great weight in far more important things than Academy Awards and in places more important than Hollywood, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

In an earlier era, the groupthink assumption was that groups that did not succeed as often, or as well, were genetically inferior. But is our current groupthink assumption based on any more hard evidence?

Having spent decades researching racial and ethnic groups around the world, I have never yet found a country in which all groups — or even most groups — are even roughly equally represented in most endeavors.

Nor have I been the only one with that experience. The great French historian Fernand Braudel said, “In no society have all regions and all parts of the population developed equally.” A study of military forces around the world failed to find a single one in which in which the ethnic makeup of the military was the same as that of the society.

My own favorite example of unrepresentativeness, however, is right at home. Having watched National Football League games for more than 50 years, I have seen hundreds of black players score touchdowns, but I have never seen one black player kick the extra point.

There have been exactly 5 black place kickers in the history of the NFL.

hat’s right, just 5 black kickers have played since the 1966-67 season. Gene Mingo kicked for the ’67 Dolphins and Redskins plus the Steelers for ’69-’70. Donald Igweibuike kicked for the Buccaneers ’85-’89 and Vikings in ’90. Obed Ariri played one season for both the Bucs ’84 and Redskins ’87. Then there was Cedric Oglesby (Cardinals ’01) and most recently Justin Medlock (Chiefs ’07 and Panthers ’12).

What are we to conclude from this? Do those who believe in genetics think that blacks are just genetically incapable of kicking a football?

Since there have long been black colleges with football teams, have they had to import white players to do the opening kickoff, so that the games could get underway? Or to kick the extra point after touchdowns? Apparently not.

How about racist discrimination? Are racists so inconsistent that they are somehow able to stifle their racism when it comes to letting black players score touchdowns, but absolutely draw the line when it comes to letting blacks kick the extra point?

Would it have been racist if The Cardinals had actually showed up to play the Panthers and won the game and you had two “old” white guys at QB in the Super Bowl?

With all the heated and bitter debates between those who believe in heredity and those who believe in environment as explanations of group differences in outcomes, both seem to ignore the possibility that some groups just do not want to do the same things as other groups.

I doubt whether any of the guys who grew up in my old neighborhood in Harlem ever went on to become ballet dancers. Nor is it likely that this had anything to do with either genetics or racism. The very thought of becoming a ballet dancer never crossed my mind and it probably never occurred to the other guys either.

If people don’t want to do something, chances are they are not going to do it, even if they have all the innate potential in the world, and even if all the doors of opportunity are wide open.

People come from different cultures. They know different things and want different things.

When I arrived in Harlem from the South as a kid, I had no idea what a public library was. An older boy who tried to explain it to me barely succeeded in getting me to get a library card and borrow a couple of books. But it changed the course of my life. Not every kid from a similar background had someone to change the course of his life.

When Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe arrived in New York in the 19th century, they were even poorer than blacks from the South who arrived in Harlem in the 20th century. But the Jews crowded into public libraries because books had been part of their culture for centuries. New York’s elite public high schools and outstanding free colleges were practically tailor-made for them.

Groups differ from other groups all over the world, for all sorts of reasons, ranging from geography to demography, history and culture. There is not much we can do about geography and nothing we can do about the past. But we can stop looking for villains every time we see differences.

That is not likely to happen, however, when grievances can be cashed in for goodies — and polarize a whole society in the process.

Never Let a Crisis (or a “racist” Opportunity) Go to Waste!!

too white

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Reality Warp

“Until they became conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Nancy Pelosi told CNN this morning that while Iran may do bad things with the $150 Billion they are getting for complying with this Iran deal, we have taken them off the course of getting a nuke and that makes it all worth it.

What’s worse than her nonchalant attitude about Iran doing ‘bad things’ with ‘their’ money is the delusion that this Iran deal will prevent Iran from getting nukes. The deal was a joke from the very beginning and now she’s using it as an excuse to basically say ‘who cares’ if Iran uses all of this money to help Hamas or Hezbollah kill Jews.
Their reality and their Agenda has been met so everything’s just grand. Their Narrative has been satisfied so everything is good.
This is real Reality Control. As long as they believe it’s good, then it is. End of story.
“Orthodoxy means not thinking–not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.”
-George Orwell, 1984

Besides, if a Republican wins the White House it will be all THEIR fault anyhow so (all together now)

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 🙂
And if it’s Queen Hillary the First and  Republican Congress then it will be the Congress’s fault.
It’s not like Democrats take responsibility for their failures. They only take credit for other people’s successes and claim their ideas are a success regardless.
“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Giving our Terrorist BFFs $150 billion Dollars will absolutely NOT bite them in the asp.
Releasing Gitmo terrorists will not get more people killed.
Why?
Because they said so.
They are Homo Superior Liberalis and they are never wrong. Even when they are.
“What you say or do doesn’t matter; only feelings matter. If they could make me stop loving you-that would be the real betrayal.”
― George Orwell, 1984
And Liberal never stop the love of power and control.
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.”
― George Orwell, 1984
“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
― George Orwell, 1984
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

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.  🙂

 

 

 

The Chicken Little Hypocrisy Rebuke

Ragnarok will come someday, tomorrow, come someday,tomorrow,come someday. Ragnarok will come someday and we’ll all be killed.

Unless you give all your rights, freedoms, and your money and do exactly as we say when we say it because we say it!

DO as we Say, not as we Do and Do It Yesterday!

“This year, in Paris, has to be the year that the world finally reaches an agreement to protect the one planet that we’ve got while we still can,” said U.S. President Barack Obama on his recent trip to Alaska. Miguel Cañete, the EU’s chief negotiator, has warned there is “no Plan B — nothing to follow. This is not just ongoing UN discussions. Paris is final.”

The Apocalypse is here. Never Let a Crisis, even one you make up, go to waste.

The world is doomed if you don’t submit!

Conventional wisdom holds that negotiators are hashing out a fair allocation of the deep emissions cuts all countries would need to make to limit warming. That image bears little resemblance to reality.

In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.

Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached.

After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.

So it’s just The Agenda is The Agenda, and my don’t we look wonderful for “doing something” when in fact it’s all just a gigantic redistribution con.

But MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change calculates the improvement by century’s end to be only 0.2 degrees Celsius. Comparing projected emissions to the baseline established by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000 shows no improvement at all.

And therein lies the sticking point on which negotiations actually center: “climate finance.” Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy initiatives.

The issue will dominate the Paris talks. The INDCs covering actual emissions reductions are subjective, discretionary, and thus essentially unnegotiable. Not so the cash. Developing countries are expecting more than $100 billion in annual funds from this agreement or they will walk away. (For scale, that’s roughly equivalent to the entire OECD budget for foreign development assistance.)

Somehow, the international process for addressing climate change has become one where addressing climate change is optional and apparently beside the point. Rich countries are bidding against themselves to purchase the developing world’s signature on an agreement so they can declare victory — even though the agreement itself will be the only progress achieved. (Politico.eu)

The climate change summit in Paris that aims to tackle global warming will itself pump an estimated 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it was claimed today.

Around 50,000 people including world leaders, businesses and activists are expected to travel from across the globe for the two-week conference in Paris which started today.

Most will arrive by plane from as far afield as New Zealand, Sydney and Bermuda, while others will arrive by train and car.

According to calculations by Wired and Steven Stoft of climateParis.org, the average round trip per attendee will be around 9,000 miles.

Taking the fuel consumption of a Boeing 747 – around 16.5 miles per gallon – which the website describes as a ‘happy medium between private jets and bullet trains’, it is estimated around 27 million gallons of fuel will be used by travellers attending the conference. 

This figure was arrived at by multiplying the number of attendees by the average round-trip mileage to get 450million miles then multiplying that by 16.5miles per gallon.

With each gallon of fuel producing around 21 pounds of carbon dioxide, the total released by planes flying to and from Paris is thought to be about 575million pounds (290,000 tons), according to rough calculations.

But given that some planes will very likely carry more than one attendee, this figure is likely to be at the very highest end. 

The total still pales in comparison with the annual global output of 80 quadrillion pounds, meaning the Paris conference equates to around 22 seconds of the world’s production. 

In an opening speech at the summit, Prince Charles warned world leaders that ‘we are becoming the architects of our own destruction’ as he called for immediate action to halt global warming.

The heads of 151 nations have kicked off 12 days of talks in Paris in search of an elusive pact that would wean the world off fossil fuels, making it the largest gathering of global leaders in history.

The Prince of Wales urged them to ‘think of your grandchildren, as I think of mine’ as well as the billions of people without a voice and the youngest generation as they try to secure a new global deal. 

He said: ‘If the planet were a patient, we would have treated her long ago. 

‘You, ladies and gentlemen, have the power to put her on life support and you must surely start the emergency procedures without further procrastination.

‘Humanity faces many threats but none is greater than climate change. In damaging our climate we are becoming the architects of our own destruction. 

‘We have the knowledge, the tools and the money (to solve the crisis).’

Over the next fortnight negotiators from 195 countries will attempt to hammer out a deal that will put the world on a path to prevent temperatures rising by more than 2C above pre-industrial levels and avoid dangerous climate change. 

French President Francois Hollande later echoed his statement by telling leaders that ‘the hope of all of humanity’ rested on their shoulders.

And anyone who stands in their way is evil and wants to destroy mankind, naturally. 🙂 No hyperbole there.

In an opening speech at the conference centre in Paris, the French President said: ‘Never have the stakes of an international meeting been so high because it concerns the future of the planet, the future of life. The hope of all of humanity rests on all of your shoulders.’  

Barack Obama also painted a dire picture of the future without aggressive action to curb carbon emissions, describing submerged countries, abandoned cities and fields that won’t grow.

In a speech, he said: ‘As the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second largest (greenhouse gas) emitter… the United States of America not only recognises our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.’

The U.S. President also called the climate talks an ‘act of defiance’ by the world community following the Islamic State-linked attacks two weeks ago. 

The Islamic Radicals who want to kill you don’t care about your green defiance. Not one bit. As a matter of fact they are making an estimated $5 million dollars a day off of the profits from the oil fields you refuse to bomb because of your environmentalist radicalism. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Chinese President Xi Jinping said an eventual global climate deal must include aid for poor countries and acknowledge differences between developing and established economies. 

Xi, speaking at U.N.-led climate talks near Paris on Monday, said an agreement should also include transfer of climate technology to developing countries.

He said a deal should accommodate national interests, adding: ‘It’s imperative to respect differences’ among countries, especially developing ones.

‘Addressing climate change should not deny the legitimate needs of developing countries to reduce poverty and improve living standards,’ he said.

World leaders had earlier held a moment of silence in honor of people killed in recent attacks in Paris, Beirut, Baghdad, Tunisia and Mali.

The U.N. climate conference in Paris is most likely humanity’s last chance to thwart global environmental disaster, Pope Francis said on Monday, warning the world was “at the limits of suicide”.

The pope, who wrote a major document on the environment last June, made the comment in an hour-long news conference aboard the plane returning him to Rome at the end of a six-day trip to Africa.

The freewheeling conversations have become a trademark of his papacy and the few times he takes direct questions from journalists.

Francis, who visited Kenya, Uganda and the Central African Republic, also said the continent was “a martyr of exploitation” by wealthy countries who lust after its natural resources and try to impose Western values instead of concentrating on development.

The pope was asked if the U.N. climate summit in Paris would mark a turnaround in the fight against global warming.

“I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never’,” he said. “Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.”

He spoke of retreating glaciers in Greenland and low-lying countries at risk from rising sea levels.

“I am sure that the (Paris delegates) have goodwill to do something. I hope it turns out this way and I am praying that it will,” he said. (Daily Mail)

An echo chamber of activist groups and media outlets stands ready to rubber-stamp the final agreement as “historic,” validating the vast reservoirs of political capital spent on the exercise.

It’s a redistribution shell game to make Leftists and Socialists “feel good” about “doing something” thus validating their superiority.

And you get to pay for the privilege of being a serf under their rule.
Worry, they are happy. Don’t worry, they don’t care if you suffer.
It’s all about their power over you and their superiority in their own minds.
They are, after all, Homo Superior Liberalis, and you’re not, SERF.
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Dana Summers
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Save Yourself!

Last fall, voters in the Bay Area cities of San Francisco and Oakland followed Seattle’s lead and approved costly new minimum-wage mandates ($15 an hour and $12.25 an hour, respectively) for most businesses in the city boundaries. Now the bills have begun arriving, and some businesses can’t pay them.

The consequences of minimum-wage increases, at the historical levels studied in the U.S., are well known to labor economists. A summary of the research published last year by the Institute for the Study of Labor, and authored by University of California-Irvine economist David Neumark, found that each 10% hike in the minimum wage on the state and federal level has caused a 1% to 2% drop in youth employment. Similarly, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago found an increase in fast-food prices associated with the same wage change.

Given the scope and schedule of these new minimum-wage increases, the impact on prices and employment may be even steeper this time. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25, half of what San Francisco’s wage floor will be set at by 2018 after a series of increases that begin in May. Nationally, Congress phased in the last 40% increase to $7.25 over a three-year period; in Oakland, an almost-identical 36% increase happened overnight on March 1.

 
Photo: Getty Images

Businesses’ first line of defense against these labor-cost increases is an offsetting increase in prices. The magnitude is staggering: In Oakland, local restaurants are raising prices by as much as 20%, with the San Francisco Chronicle reporting that “some of the city’s top restaurateurs fear they will lose customers to higher prices.” Thanks to a quirk in California law that prohibits full-service restaurants from counting tips as income, other operators—who were forced to give their best-paid employees a raise—are rethinking their business model by eliminating tips as they raise prices.

Ironically, this change in compensation practices has reduced the take-home pay for some of the employees it was supposed to help: At the Oakland restaurant Homestead, the East Bay Express reported that servers are taking “a substantial pay cut,” earning a flat wage of $18 to $24 an hour and no tips instead of the $35 to $55 an hour they were accustomed to earning when tips were included.

Though higher prices are a risk that some businesses were able to take, others haven’t had the option. The San Francisco retailer Borderlands Books made national news in February when the owner announced that the city’s $15 minimum wage would put him out of business, in part because the prices of his products were already printed on the covers. (A unique customer fundraiser gave Borderlands a stay of execution until at least March of 2016.)

One block away from Borderlands, a fine-dining establishment called The Abbot’s Cellar—twice selected as one of the city’s top-100 restaurants—wasn’t so lucky. The forthcoming $15 minimum wage, combined with a series of factors like the city’s soaring rents, put the business over the edge and compelled its owners to close. One of the partners told me the restaurant had no ability to absorb the added cost, and neither a miraculous increase in sales volume nor higher prices were viable options.

These aren’t isolated anecdotes. In the city’s popular SoMa neighborhood, a vegetarian diner called The Source closed in January, again citing the higher minimum wage as a factor. Back across the Bay in Oakland, the Chronicle reported that some of the city’s businesses have been similarly affected. According to a board member of the Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce, 10 restaurants or grocery stores opted to permanently close this year alone as a partial consequence of the wage hike. Even the Salvation Army’s child-care facility is “scrambling to find ways to keep the doors open” in response to labor cost increases, according to the organization’s county coordinator.

Faced with convincing evidence of the policy’s failures, you’d think advocates would be chastened or apologetic. You’d be wrong: Ken Jacobs, who runs the University of California-Berkeley’s labor-backed Center for Labor Research and Education, chalked up possible consequences of new mandates to labor-market “churn.” Research that Mr. Jacobs co-authored predicted that the Bay Area hikes would be mostly cost-free. At a forum earlier this month where dozens of Oakland business owners fretted about their viability, representatives of Lift Up Oakland—the labor union-backed coalition that advocated for the wage hike—were not in attendance.

It’s probably too late to save other Oakland and San Francisco businesses. But it’s not too late for cities like New York and Los Angeles to heed the evidence before following their footsteps. (Michael Saltsman)

But “sticking it” to “rich” corporations is what Liberals like to use for their class warfare Divide & conquer. Doesn’t matter what the consequences are, they never do.

It makes their minions feel “righteous” and “angry”.

It gets them to vote for Democrats.

In the end the sheep slip their own throat, but they do it happily and will gladly gut themselves afterwards.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

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

The Ultimate Reality Show

“It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”– Thomas Paine

Mark Steyn: When it comes to facing the music, Obama is peerless at making a song and dance about tunes nobody’s whistling without ever once warbling the real big numbers (16 trillion). But, like Beyoncé, he’s totally cool and has a cute butt.

Or as Sen. Biden put it: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” 🙂

A couple of days later, it fell to the 45th president-in-waiting to encapsulate the ethos of the age in one deft sound bite: What difference does it make? Hillary Clinton’s instantly famous riposte at the Benghazi hearings is such a perfect distillation that it surely deserves to be the national motto of the United States. They should put it on Paul Krugman’s trillion-dollar coin, and in the presidential oath:

“Do you solemnly swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

“Sure. What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Well, it’s the difference between cool and reality — and, as Hillary’s confident reply appeared to suggest, and the delirious media reception of it confirmed, reality comes a poor second in the Obama era. The presumption of conservatives has always been that one day cold, dull reality would pierce the klieg-light sheen of Obama’s glamour. Indeed, that was the premise of Mitt Romney’s reductive presidential campaign. But, just as Beyoncé will always be way cooler than some no-name operatic soprano or a male voice choir, so Obama will always be cooler than a bunch of squaresville yawneroos boring on about jobs and debt and entitlement reform. Hillary’s cocksure sneer to Senator Johnson of Wisconsin made it explicit. At a basic level, the “difference” is the difference between truth and falsity, but the subtext took it a stage further: No matter what actually happened that night in Benghazi, you poor sad loser Republicans will never succeed in imposing that reality and its consequences on this administration.

And so a congressional hearing — one of the famous “checks and balances” of the American system — is reduced to just another piece of Beltway theater. “The form was still the same, but the animating health and vigor were fled,” as Gibbon wrote in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. But he’s totally uncool, too. So Hillary lip-synced far more than Beyoncé, and was adored for it. “As I have said many times, I take responsibility,” she said. In Washington, the bold declarative oft-stated acceptance of responsibility is the classic substitute for responsibility: rhetorically “taking responsibility,” preferably “many times,” absolves one from the need to take actual responsibility even once.

In the very same self-serving testimony, the secretary of state denied that she’d ever seen the late Ambassador Stevens’s cables about the deteriorating security situation in Libya on the grounds that “1.43 million cables come to my office”– and she can’t be expected to see all of them, or any. She is as out of it as President Jefferson, who complained to his secretary of state James Madison, “We have not heard from our ambassador in Spain for two years. If we have not heard from him this year, let us write him a letter.” Today, things are even worse. Hillary has apparently not heard from any of our 1.43 million ambassadors for four years. When a foreign head of state receives the credentials of the senior emissary of the United States, he might carelessly assume that the chap surely has a line of communication back to the government he represents. For six centuries or so, this has been the minimal requirement for functioning inter-state relations. But Secretary Clinton has just testified that, in the government of the most powerful nation on earth, there is no reliable means by which a serving ambassador can report to the cabinet minister responsible for foreign policy. And nobody cares: What difference does it make?

Four Americans are dead, but not a single person involved in the attack and the murders has been held to account. Hey, what difference does it make? Lip-syncing the national anthem beats singing it. Peddling a fictitious narrative over the coffin of your “friend” is more real than being an incompetent boss to your most vulnerable employees. And mouthing warmed-over clichés about vowing to “bring to justice” those responsible is way easier than actually bringing anyone to justice.

And so it goes:

Another six trillion in debt? What difference does it make?

An economic-stimulus bill that stimulates nothing remotely connected with the economy? What difference does it make?

The Arab Spring? Aw, whose heart isn’t stirred by those exhilarating scenes of joyful students celebrating in Tahrir Square? And who cares after the cameras depart that Egypt’s in the hands of a Jew-hating 9-11 truther whose goons burn churches and sexually assault uncovered women?

Obama is the ultimate reality show, and real reality can’t compete. Stalin famously scoffed, “How many divisions has the Pope?” Secretary Clinton was more audacious: How many divisions has reality? Not enough.

The Housewives of ‘X’ have nothing on Obama and Company. Reality is a concept to them. A concept to be shaped and mold to appear as they want it to appear not as it actually is.

It’s the Bachelor, the fairytale. Handsome man, chased woman. They find love. Everything’s wonderful.

Unfortunately, for us reality is more John & Kate +8 (trillion in debt) but its projected to be American Idol with Obama as the Host.

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grand-children’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…

The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance”
― Carl Sagan

When fantasy is more interesting and more desired than reality you get Obama.

When the fantasy endsReality is going to be a very harsh mistress.

Bust at least we can secure in the knowledge that it will be Bush/Rich people/Republican’s/Tea Partiers Fault! 🙂

Reality Bites

Had an interesting but short (because of time) conversation between me (right of center) another friend (somewhat left of center) and someone who is just left, not extreme left (but Obama bumper sticker left).

The one thing we could all agree on was that if we could replace EVERYONE in Congress we’d do it, in a heart beat.

Fascinating.

But that’s not the issue. And the Democrats are not running on the issue anyhow.

Democratic Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, who is considered a possible contender for president in 2016, bucked other Obama surrogates on Sunday, saying that the country was not better off now than it was four years ago.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, host Bob Schieffer asked: “Can you honestly say that people are better off today than they were four years ago?”

Responded O’Malley: “No, but that’s not the question of this election. The question, without a doubt, we are not as well off as we were before George Bush brought us the Bush job losses, the Bush recession, the Bush deficits, the series of desert wars — charged for the first time to credit cards, the national credit card.”

Quipped Schieffer: “George Bush is not on the ballots.”  (NJ)

But he  is for Democrats.

For Democrats it’s Bush/Ayn Rand Vs. The Greatest Most Caring, Most Compassionate, Greatest Dad,Killer of Bin Laden Bad ass, Black Man Ever! and…joe biden (small letters intentional).

They are the voice of reason against the insane on the right.

Perception is reality. And reality can be rewritten and overridden.

So the fact that they are insane is irrelevant.

Just as Democrats are gaveling in their convention Tuesday, the federal government likely will announce another dubious milestone — $16 trillion in total federal debt.

But don’t worry, that’s Bush’s Fault!!

David Axelrod a top adviser to Mr. Obama, said the president has a “plausible plan” to stabilize the debt, but acknowledged the plan doesn’t actually begin to reduce it.

“You can’t balance the budget in the short term because to do that would be to ratchet down the economy,” he said.

Antonio Villaraigosa, chairman of the Democratic National Convention says Obama has a plan to cut $4 trillion from the deficit. Obama plans to raise taxes on the wealthiest and cut them for the middle class, he said.
And that the Republicans plans are from “1812”.
Los Angeles has lost close to 140,000 jobs since the 2007 financial crisis. While other cities have rebounded, L.A.’s unemployment rate hovers well above 10% and is on the verge of bankruptcy.
But don’t pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

Though Villaraigosa has been mayor since 2005 and despite spending months on junkets outside of the city, he remains popular with his base coalition of Latinos and wealthy Westside liberals — two groups that deliver votes and seemingly never fall out of love with him.

Maybe that’s key to the high esteem in which he’s held by national Democrats. Like them, Villaraigosa shows little interest in governing — only in political power. And like them, he too is economically incompetent.

Gee, maybe his prominence shouldn’t be puzzling at all. He’s the perfect emblem for the Democrats. (IBD)

The Next Obama, a “clean, articulate black man” (as Biden once said of Obama) and another snake oil salesman for the class warfare age.

Axelrod for his part  called the Republican Convention a failure,“He spoke for 45 minutes and never really offered any real ideas for how to move the economy forward, how to lift the middle class. And in that sense, I think his convention was a terrible failure.”
But all he has is a “plausible plan” and 4 years of crap THAT didn’t work.
But  you aren’t supposed to notice that. You are supposed to focus on how “extreme” the Republicans are and fear what they going to do to you. What the Democrats are going to to is irrelevant.
Vote Democrats because the Republicans are extremist assholes.
Perception is reality. Reality can be overridden.
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

And the other guys fault for everything. Even your own mistakes.

They (Republicans) are the extremist who want kick grandma off a cliff, steal candy from babies, hand out wire coat hangers to every woman and crush you so their “rich” friends can party hardy.

The fact that Democrats are MORE extreme is not to be noticed and if it is, squashed by even more extreme fear-mongering by The Ministry of Truth.

That’s reality.

Few people have the imagination for reality.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

The growth of entitlement payments over the past half-century has been breathtaking. In 1960, U.S. government transfers to individuals totaled about $24 billion in current dollars, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. By 2010 that total was almost 100 times as large. Even after adjusting for inflation and population growth, entitlement transfers to individuals have grown 727% over the past half-century, rising at an average rate of about 4% a year.

In 2010 alone, government at all levels oversaw a transfer of over $2.2 trillion in money, goods and services. The burden of these entitlements came to slightly more than $7,200 for every person in America. Scaled against a notional family of four, the average entitlements burden for that year alone approached $29,000.

What happened to the days of limited government? Wasn’t the American government founded on the idea of governing the people, not stepping into their lives every day to provide them with handouts? Since when was the major job of the federal government to protect, manage and finance the entitlement empire?

Of course Medicare is not the only entitlement program, these statistics include Medicaid and Social Security, too. It seems with this development it is likely we will see this become a major point of discussion in the next two months of campaigning. Hopefully the debates will make it easy for both candidates to explain where they see the future of entitlement programs.

It seems that we need to make sure that this is not a trend that continues. With an exponentially growing debt, we can’t possibly continue this kind of spending. Never mind our founding fathers, President Franklin D. Roosevelt would not believe what these programs have become. This was never meant to be part of the federal government’s responsibility. (townhall)

But that’s reality. But doing anything about it is evil, mean,cruel, and heartless.That’s the Democrats created reality.

The reality of more Dependents (Baby boomers) and less producers (their kids and grandkids) is reality. But addressing the issue is throwing grandma off a cliff.

Fascinating how that works. And Fascinating who that reality benefits. 🙂

As Democrats convene in Charlotte this week, they likely will double down on their claim that Bain Capital is really the Bain Crime Family. They will accuse Republican nominee Mitt Romney and Bain’s other “greedy” co-founders of stealing their profits, evading taxes, and lighting cigars with $100 bills on their yachts.

Bain’s private-equity investments have enriched dozens of organizations and millions of individuals in the Democratic base — including some who scream most loudly for President Obama’s reelection.

Government-employee pension funds are the chief beneficiaries of Bain Capital’s economic stewardship. New York–based Preqin uses public documents, news accounts, and Freedom of Information Act requests to track private-equity holdings. Since 2000, Preqin reports, the following funds have entrusted some $1.56 billion to Bain:

Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund ($2.2 million)
Indiana Public Retirement System ($39.3 million)
Iowa Public Employees’ Retirement System ($177.1 million)
Los Angeles Fire and Police Pension System ($19.5 million)
Maryland State Retirement and Pension System ($117.5 million)
Public Employees’ Retirement System of Nevada ($20.3 million)
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio ($767.3 million)
Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System ($231.5 million)
Employees Retirement System of Rhode Island ($25.0 million)
San Diego County Employees Retirement Association ($23.5 million)
Teacher Retirement System of Texas ($122.5 million)
Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System ($15.0 million)

These pension funds aggregate the savings of millions of unionized teachers, social workers, public-health personnel, and first responders. Many of them would be startled to learn that their nest eggs, or even their current pensions, are incubated by the company that Romney launched and the financiers whom he hired.

Major universities have profited from Bain’s expertise. According to Infrastructure Investor, Bain Capital Ventures Fund I (launched in 2001) managed wealth for “endowments and foundations such as Columbia, Princeton, and Yale universities.” The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman noted on July 18 that Harvard “has also invested with Bain.” Thus, Michelle and Barack Obama’s undergraduate campuses (Princeton and Columbia, respectively) and the university where they earned their law degrees (Harvard) all have enjoyed Bain Capital’s financial prowess.

According to BuyOuts magazine and S&P Capital IQ, Bain’s other college clients have included Cornell, Emory, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame, and the University of Pittsburgh. Preqin reports that the following schools have placed at least $424.6 million with Bain Capital between 1998 and 2008:

Purdue University ($15.9 million)
University of California ($225.7 million)
University of Michigan ($130 million)
University of Virginia ($20 million)
University of Washington ($33 million)

Major center-left foundations and cultural establishments also have seen their prospects brighten thanks to Bain Capital. According to the aforementioned sources, such Bain clients have included the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Doris Duke Foundation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Ford Foundation, the Heinz Endowments, and the Oprah Winfrey Foundation.

Why on earth would government-union leaders, university presidents, and foundation chiefs let a company with Bain Capital’s reputation oversee their precious assets?

“The scrutiny generated by a heated election year matters less than the performance the portfolio generates to the fund,” California State Teachers’ Retirement System spokesman Ricardo Duran recently told the Boston Globe. CalSTRS has pumped some $1.25 billion into Bain. Since 1988, Duran says, private-equity companies such as Bain have outperformed every other asset class to which CalSTRS has allocated the cash of its 856,360 largely unionized members focused on investment performance for all of our commitments, including Bain,” Jodi O’Neill, a spokeswoman for the Indiana Public Retirement System, told Reuters. “Election rhetoric has neither a positive nor negative impact on our assessment of a fund’s performance.”

“These government-union pension funds call the shots,” says my friend Brett A. Shisler, a Manhattan financier and former private-equity executive. “They want Bain to do one thing: make money. They do not evaluate Bain on how many jobs they create or environmentally friendly products they launch. No, they just care about money. If Team Obama is concerned about ‘greed,’ they should not blame private equity. They should blame the pension funds. What they demand is a far cry from conscious capitalism.”

So, what really is Bain’s reputation? Is it a gang of corporate buccaneers who plundered their ill-gotten gains by outsourcing, euthanizing feeble portfolio companies, and giving cancer to the spouses of those whom they fired? If so, union bosses, government retirees, liberal foundations, and elite universities — including the Obamas’ — thrive on the wages of Bain’s economic Darwinism.

If, however, these institutions relish the yields that Bain Capital generates by supporting start-ups and rescuing distressed companies, 80 percent of which have prospered, then this money is honest — and Team Obama isn’t.(NRO)

So don’t do as I do, do as I say. And I say Reality is what we say it is. Not what it really is. And if you disagree, well, you’re just a dumb, racist, greedy white guy who cares what you think!

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Damn The Debt, High Speed Ahead!

Another journey to the Liberal Reality Twilight Zone.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

What do you do when you State budget debt is $400 billion dollars and you’re a Liberal?

$400,000,000,000.00!!! 

And you WANT a cool new toy.

You do it anyways. On a strictly party line vote, no less.

Which is not much less than the amount of indebtedness ($497,900,000,000.00) California owes in unfunded liabilities to the pension and health benefits plans of its current and retired workers.

So between them you are approaching a half  TRILLION Dollars in debt and obligations that totally unpayable but you want a new toy anyways.

So what do you do if you’re a liberal?

BUT MOMMY I WANT MY THAT NEW TRAIN SET!!!

I WANT IT!

I WANT IT!

I WANT IT!

You build an unnecessary High Speed Train! That’s what!

The Democrats and their union puppet masters have shown the country that denial, stupidity and a willful disregard for basic economics are fully deployed in adding to California’s already astronomical debt service.  This is the same state where the bathrooms in the state parks lack toilet paper due to state funding cuts. (American Thinker)

The total estimated cost for the Los Angeles to San Francisco rail ride is expected to exceed $98 billion. And you know that will balloon out of sight.

During the two-hour debate, supporters countered that they had a responsibility to look beyond today’s fiscal challenges and vote yes for what they said would be a short-term boost to jobs and local transit systems, and a long-term investment in the state. Some referenced bold public works projects of the past; Sen. Michael Rubio, D-Bakersfield, compared it to President Abraham Lincoln’s pursuit of the Transcontinental Railroad.

Shameless aren’t they…

“In the era of term limits, how many chances do we have to vote on something this important and long lasting? How many chances do we have to vote on something that will inject a colossal stimulus into today’s economy while looking into the future far beyond our days in this house?” said Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. “Do we have the ability to see beyond the challenges, the political point-scoring and controversies of today? Are we willing to take some short-term risk, knowing that the benefit to this great state will be, for centuries, enormous?”

Trains last for centuries? Really…And so what if we are $400 Billion in debt lets just Spend Even more!!!

The cost of the high-speed rail line – now estimated at $68 billion – has ballooned since voters approved the bonds four years ago, and public support for the bullet train has fallen as projected costs rose.

Critics have derided it as a “train to nowhere,” and many farmers in the Central Valley are angry about plans to seize some farmland and homes to make way for the bullet train.  (SFgate)

Farm land!!!! What will the Delta Smelt think! 🙂

And they still want to  build one from an 1 hour side of LA to Vegas!

One dissenter, Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, said public support had waned for the project, and there were too many questions about financing to complete it.

“Is there additional commitment of federal funds? There is not. Is there additional commitment of private funding? There is not. Is there a dedicated funding source that we can look to in the coming years? There is not,” Simitian said.

But it’s a Cool new toy! 🙂

The Keystone XL project was envisioned to transport crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin to delivery points in Oklahoma and Texas.  The proposed $7 billion project would create tens of thousands of American jobs and supplant a significant portion of crazy-country oil supplies with 830,000 barrels per day of friendly, Canadian crude.
 
In short, the primary motivator for building Keystone is profitable delivery of a local energy resource.  The primary motivator for building the California bullet train is that it would be really cool. (townhall)
And fits with the Liberal vision and version of reality.
I WANT THIS ONE MOMMY!
But dear this one over here is much better for everyone.
BUT I WANT THIS ONE MOMMY!
I WANT
I WANT
I WANT
This is the Liberal reality. Just not actual reality.
But the good news:
There will be a number of lawsuits filed against the project based on a lack of comprehensive environmental impact studies along the 130-mile route. We can savor quite a delicious payback of sorts for the Democrats, who gleefully destroyed the lumber and mining industries of California through politically motivated environmental over regulation.

And no federal funds. So when this turkey dries up for being over baked the California Taxpayers will be left eating the dead carcass.

Like the old joke about a busload of lawyers on the ocean floor, it’s a fine start.

Unless we elect a Republican President along with a Republican House and Senate this November, we cannot derail this high-speed boondoggle at the federal level. We must contribute our time, money and passion to have a chance for a convincing victory.

Because one thing about the Granola State (where everything is either a fruit, a nut , or a flake) is that it’s like a communicable disease for the rest of Liberalism countrywide and we don’t need the High Speed Rail Flu to go along with our ObamaCare now do we! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Reason

When people make statements that are completely at variance with reality and they continue to repeat them and you know they are not crazy, it’s only natural to wonder, what’s going on?

I’ve concluded that for some people on the left, political beliefs are like a false religion in which the parishioners become unable to distinguish myth from reality.

How else can you explain the statements of Donald Berwick, President Obama’s recess appointee to run Medicare and Medicaid, on his way out of office the other day? For starters, he claimed that the Affordable Care Act (what some people call ObamaCare) “is making health care a basic human right.” Then he went on to say that because of the new law, “we are a nation headed for justice, for fairness and justice in access to care.”

Now I can’t claim to have read everything in the 2,700-page law, but I can assure you that “making health care a right” just isn’t in there. Nor is there anything in the new law that makes the role of government more “just” or “fair.”

To the contrary, a lot of knowledgeable people (not just conservative critics) are predicting that access to care is going to be more difficult for our most vulnerable populations. That appears to have been the experience in Massachusetts, which Obama cites as the model for the new federal reforms. It’s not that Massachusetts tried and failed to expand access to care. It didn’t even try.

True enough, Massachusetts cut the number of uninsured in that state in half through Governor Romney’s health reform. But it didn’t create any new doctors. The state expanded the demand for care, but it did nothing to expand supply. More people than ever are trying to get care, but because there was no increase in medical services, it has become more difficult than ever to actually see a doctor.

And far from fair, the new federal health law will give some people health insurance subsidies that are as much as $20,000 more than the subsidies available to other people at the same level of income. In fact, the new system of health insurance subsidies is about as arbitrary as it can be.

Berwick isn’t alone in making bizarre statements about health reform. Right after the passage of the Affordable Care Act, administration health advisors Robert Kocher, Ezekiel Emanuel and Nancy-Ann DeParle announced that the new health reform law “guarantees access to health care for all Americans.”

In fact, nothing in the act guarantees access to care for any America, let alone all Americans. Far from it. Again, take Massachusetts as the precedent. The waiting time to see a new family practice doctor in Boston (63 days) is longer than in any other major U.S. city. In a sense, a new patient seeking care in Boston has less access to care than in just about every other U.S. city!

The disconnect between belief and reality is not unique to our country. With the enactment of the British National Health Service after World War II, the reformers claimed that they too had made health care a “right.” The same claim was made in Canada after that country established its “single-payer” Medicare scheme.

Yet in reality, neither country has made health care a right. They didn’t even come close. Neither British nor Canadian citizens have a right to any particular health care. A patient with a mysterious lump on her breast has no right to an MRI scan in either country. A cancer patient has no right to the latest cancer drug. A cardiac patient has no right to open heart surgery. They may get the care they need. Or they may not. Sadly, all too often they do not.

The British and the Canadians not only have no legally enforceable right to any particular type of care, they don’t even have a right to a place in line. For example, a patient who is 100th on the waiting list for heart surgery is not entitled to the 100th surgery. Other patients (including cash paying patients from the United States!) may jump the queue and get their surgery first.

Imagine a preacher, a priest or a rabbi who gets up in front of the congregation and gets a lot of things wrong. Say he misstates facts, distorts reality, or says other things you know are not true. Do you jump up from the pew and yell, “That’s a lie”? Of course not. But if those same misstatements were made by someone else during the work week you might well respond with considerable harshness. What’s the difference? I think there are two different thought processes that many people engage in. Let’s call them “Sunday morning” thinking and “Monday morning” thinking. We tolerate things on Sunday that we would never tolerate on Monday. And there is probably nothing wrong with that, unless people get their days mixed up.

In my professional career I have been to hundreds of health policy conferences, discussions, get-togethers, etc., where it seemed as though people were completely failing to connect with each other. One day it dawned on me that we were having two different conversations. Some people were engaged in Monday morning thinking, while everyone else was engaged in Sunday morning thinking.

Here’s the problem. Whether the beliefs are true or false, if people didn’t come to their religious convictions by means of reason, then reason isn’t going to convince them to change their minds.

This same principle applies to collectivism and health care. If people didn’t come to the false religion of collectivism by means of reason, you are not going to talk them out of it by means of reason. If you remember this principle, you will save yourself the agony of many, many pointless conversations. (Townhall.com)

And Boy have I had a few of those (!!) over the past 3 years!

Especially, one very strident liberal who refuses to acknowledge that the penalty for not purchasing health insurance (the mandate) levied by the IRS against your taxes is thus a tax and the Justice Department has defended it as such in court.

But since politically it can’t be a “tax” he’ll defend to end of the earth that this penalty is not from a tax, even though it is levied by the government’s tax collection agency.

I cite many case where the Justice Department called it a “penalty” in public but then a tax in court and he just says “no they didn’t”.

So I counter with:

In a Department of Justice (DOJ) legal brief  in the case of the State of Florida v. The Department of Health and  Human Services, the Obama Administration argues the individual mandate  (requiring Americans to buy a government-approved insurance plan even if  they can’t afford it) is a constitutional exercise of Congresss power  to collect taxes. 
July 17, 2010: It is a Tax In Court, the Obama  Administration defends the individual healthcare mandate as a tax,  painting the mandate requirement as an exercise of the governments  power to lay and collect taxes. Furthermore, Administration officials  say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of  the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being  challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private  organizations.

October 18, 2010 In Court:  Justice Department lawyers argue that the fine is a tax, which Congress  can impose under its constitutional taxing authority.

Ian H. Gershengorn, a deputy U.S. assistant attorney general, he said the penalty will act like a tax, paid  annually when individuals file their tax returns to the IRS.

October 19, 2010: It is a Tax When States suing the  federal  government over the constitutionality of the individual mandate  they  were answered with the response that Justice Department lawyers argue that the fine is a tax, which Congress can impose under its constitutional taxing authority.

And I get: “I noticed that in all of your articles about the court brief, none of them quote the court brief….”Again, just because the health insurance mandate penalty comes from the power of Congress to lay and collect taxes doesn’t make the health insurance mandate penalty a ‘tax’ — any more than the penalty for not filing a return can be called a ‘tax’.”

The doublespeak here is trying to disassociate the “penalty” from the TAX agency that would be collecting it and the fact that it is a tax. He knows it’s a tax, but ideologically that can’t be allowed  so it isn’t.

Thus, reason is not an option.

But there is something darkly satisfying about playing cat and mouse with liberals like this. I haven’t figured out exactly what though. I’m sure it’s a dark part of me as well.

But I’m reasonable enough to recognize it. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

I’ll hug him and squeeze him and call him Barack!
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 

Thanksgiving 2011

I am just thankful to be alive.

After yesterday’s car accident that totaled my car what else is there to say.

The false accusations of  “sexual harrasment” at Fry’s Electronics an hour earlier is another story for another day.

What a day!! 😦

So I turn it over to one of my favorite writer, Thomas Sowell.

“Alice in Wonderland” was written by a professor who also wrote a book on symbolic logic. So it is not surprising that Alice encountered not only strange behavior in Wonderland, but also strange and illogical reasoning — of a sort too often found in the real world, and which a logician would be very much aware of.

If Alice could visit the world of liberal rhetoric and assumptions today, she might find similarly illogical and bizarre thinking. But people suffering in the current economy might not find it nearly as entertaining as “Alice in Wonderland.”

Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the world envisioned by today’s liberals is that it is a world where other people just passively accept whatever “change” liberals impose. In the world of Liberal Land, you can just take for granted all the benefits of the existing society, and then simply tack on your new, wonderful ideas that will make things better.

For example, if the economy is going along well and you happen to take a notion that there ought to be more home ownership, especially among the poor and minorities, then you simply have the government decree that lenders have to lend to more low-income people and minorities who want mortgages, ending finicky mortgage standards about down payments, income and credit histories.

That sounds like a fine idea in the world of Liberal Land. Unfortunately, in the ugly world of reality, it turned out to be a financial disaster, from which the economy has still not yet recovered. Nor have the poor and minorities.

Apparently you cannot just tack on your pet notions to whatever already exists, without repercussions spreading throughout the whole economy. That’s what happens in the ugly world of reality, as distinguished from the beautiful world of Liberal Land.

The strange and bizarre characters found in “Alice in Wonderland” have counterparts in the political vision of Liberal Land today. Among the most interesting of these characters are those elites who are convinced that they are so much smarter than the rest of us that they feel both a right and a duty to take all sorts of decisions out of our incompetent hands — for our own good.

In San Francisco, which is Liberal Land personified, there have been attempts to ban the circumcision of newborn baby boys. Fortunately, that was nipped in the bud. But it shows how widely the self-anointed saviors of Liberal Land feel entitled to take decisions out of the hands of mere ordinary citizens.

Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner says, “We’re facing a very consequential debate about some fundamental choices as a country.” People talk that way in Liberal Land. Moreover, such statements pass muster with those who simply take in the words, decide whether they sound nice to them, and then move on.

But, if you take words seriously, the more fundamental question is whether individuals are to remain free to make their own choices, as distinguished from having collectivized choices, “as a country” — which is to say, having choices made by government officials and imposed on the rest of us.

The history of the 20th century is a painful lesson on what happens when collective choices replace individual choices. Even leaving aside the chilling history of totalitarianism in the 20th century, the history of economic central planning shows it to have been such a widely recognized disaster that even communist and socialist governments were abandoning it as the century ended.

Making choices “as a country” cannot be avoided in some cases, such as elections or referenda. But that is very different from saying that decisions in general should be made “as a country” — which boils down to having people like Timothy Geithner taking more and more decisions out of our own hands and imposing their will on the rest of us. That way lies madness exceeding anything done by the Mad Hatter in “Alice in Wonderland.”

That way lie unfunded mandates, nanny state interventions in people’s lives, such as banning circumcision — and the ultimate nanny state monstrosity, ObamaCare.

The world of reality has its problems, so it is understandable that some people want to escape to a different world, where you can talk lofty talk and forget about ugly realities like costs and repercussions. The world of reality is not nearly as lovely as the world of Liberal Land. No wonder so many people want to go there.

AMEN.

Now stay safe.

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Zombie Nation

The Obama administration passed another fiscal milestone this week, according to new data <http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np> released by the Treasury Department. As of the close of business on Oct. 3, the total national debt was $14,837,099,271,196.71—up about $44.8 billion from Sept. 30.

That means that in the less-than-three-years Obama has been in office, the federal debt has increased by $4.212 trillion–more than the total national debt of about $4.1672 trillion accumulated by all 41 U.S. presidents from George Washington through George H.W. Bush combined.

(and as much as George W Bush in 8 years! BTW)…

This $4.212-trillion increase in the national debt means that during Obama’s term the federal government has already borrowed about an additional $35,835 for every American household–or $44,980 for every full-time private-sector worker.

The Unemployment rate (those reporting that they are unemployed NOT the ones who have given up) is still 9.1% in the last jobs report. Half of the jobs “created” were union people who were on strike and not anymore.

But don’t worry, Obama’s Son of Stimulus where he SPENDS EVEN MORE will save us all! 🙂

OCCUPY WALL STREET 

“God bless them,” Pelosi said, “for their spontaneity. It’s independent … it’s young, it’s spontaneous, and it’s focused. And it’s going to be effective.”

“The message of the protesters is a message for the establishment everyplace,” said the House Democrats’ leader. “No longer will the recklessness of some on Wall Street cause massive joblessness on Main Street.” (Weekly Standard)

Pelosi on The Tea Party 2009:  protesters are “carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on healthcare.”

“This [tea party] initiative is funded by the high end — we call call it astroturf, it’s not really a grassroots movement. It’s astroturf by some of the wealthiest people in America to keep the focus on tax cuts for the rich instead of for the great middle class.”

“However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue,” the two leaders write…. “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”

“This isn’t about politics,” Obama said. “This about people’s lives… That’s why we must get this done – and why we will get this done – by the end of this year.

Now onto the Demands (hold onto your sanity):

All Debt world wide must be forgiven.

Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Has your brain processed how insane and naive that is yet?

From the Occupy Wall Street website:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand. (the fact that that is technologically impossible right is immaterial to these loons)

Demand six:
One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now. (OH, THE STIMULUS and The American Jobs Acts!!) 🙂

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union. (Gee the Union backers of this couldn’t have been behind this one!)

These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.

“this is what democracy looks like” — The Occupiers.

Has your brain exploded yet? Well…

OBAMACARE

The federal government is taking on a crucial new role in the nation’s health care, designing a basic benefits package for millions of privately insured Americans. A framework for the Obama administration was released Friday.

The report by independent experts from the Institute of Medicine lays out guidelines for deciding what to include in the new “essential benefits package,” and how to keep it affordable for small businesses and taxpayers, as well as scientifically up to date.

The advisers recommended that the package be built on mid-tier health plans currently offered by small employers, expanded to include certain services such as mental health, and squeezed into a budget. They did not spell out a list of services to cover, but they did say that treatments should be cost-effective.

Until now, designing benefits has been the job of insurers, employers and states. But the new health care law requires insurance companies to provide at least the federally approved package if they want to sell to small businesses, families and individuals through new state markets set to open in 2014.

Existing workplace plans won’t be required to adopt the federal model, but employers and consumer advocates alike predict it will become the nation’s benchmark for health insurance over time.

“The federal government has never before attempted to define what constitutes essential medical benefits for Americans with private insurance,” said Stephen Finan, a top policy expert for the American Cancer Society.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a statement that officials would hold “listening sessions” around the country before any final decisions are made, a process that could take months.

“Before we put forward a proposal, it is critical that we hear from the American people,” Sebelius said. The law would expand coverage to about 30 million uninsured people.

Hear this: KILL THE WHOLE THING AND GO AWAY!

Not “Listening” to that are you? 🙂

Red State.com: It is time to face reality. I am not nearly well-informed enough to offer even an educated guess as to the immediate cause of the market crash and subsequent recession/depression. But it seems painfully clear at this point that a substantial portion of the economic growth we enjoyed in the years prior to 2007 was entirely illusory and funded by ill-advised and unsustainable lending practices. This is a problem that doesn’t solve itself overnight. And moreover, when it is “solved,” a substantial portion of us will nonetheless have to accept a lifestyle that is much less comfortable than the ones we enjoyed 5 years ago.

What scares me – I mean, truly terrifies me – about this entire situation is not what I am going to do about my own predicament (although I would be lying if I said it did not cause me substantial amounts of stress). It is that no Presidential candidate who stands a chance of winning can afford to say anything like the preceding paragraph. It would be political suicide for any candidate – Republican or Democrat – to suggest aloud, “You know what? As a candidate I can fix things around the edges and start us on the road to recovery, but if we’re being perfectly honest with each other, it’s going to be a long time (if ever) before things get back to the way they were.”

And if the American people cannot stand to hear that message even when it is the manifest truth, we are in serious trouble. Because what it means is that we have become a nation in which people cannot be told to act like adults because we are no longer capable of doing it. And a nation where people have to be promised free ponies and unicorn dust even when everyone can see there’s no more ponies in the stable is a nation that’s just biding its time until final collapse.

America is going to go through a difficult time of readjustment and we will only get through it by knuckling down, determining to generate more productivity and make do with less – in other words, doing the things that brought us through before. If we have become so cushy and coddled that we can’t even stand to hear that it needs to be done again, then we are lost.

47% of poeple pay no income taxes. 48% of them are on government assistance.

The bottom 50% of all people pay 3% of the taxes.

So are you ready to make real sacrifices or do you want someone else to do it for you?

Only, there is no one else.

The truth doesn’t care if you don’t like it. A lesson I learned several years ago.

But Obama is here to save you. Rejoice!

And if disagree  you’re a greedy, rich-loving, sicko racist. 🙂

And the Occupiers are the future of America and the liberal media will be egging them on. 🙂

“Because what it means is that we have become a nation in which people cannot be told to act like adults because we are no longer capable of doing it.”

Rejoice.

The March of The Mindless Drones

“The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. “Fear,” he used to say, “fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe.” That blew me away. “Turn on the TV,” he’d say. “What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products.” Fuckin’ A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.”
― Max Brooks

Despite their honest intentions, many of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are being suckered into a trap and calling for the very “solutions” that are part of the financial elite’s agenda to torpedo the American middle class – higher taxes and more big government.

The ignorance displayed in these interviews knows no bounds. The protesters just don’t get it. They are calling for the government to use force to impose their ideas, all in the name of bringing down corporations who they don’t realize have completely bought off government regulators. Corporations and government enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship – getting one to regulate the other is asinine and only hurts smaller businesses who are legitimately trying to compete in a free market economy that barely exists.

The zeal for totalitarian government amongst some of the “protesters” is shocking. One sign being carried around read, “A government is an entity which holds the monopolistic right to initiate force,” which seems a little ironic when protesters complain about being physically assaulted by police in the same breath.

Force is ok, if it encourages “social justice”. It’s the role of government to use force some of them say.

One woman interviewed by Kokesh also announces her intention to help Obama to capture a second term. How can a self-proclaimed Occupy Wall Street protester simultaneously support the man whose 2008 campaign was bankrolled by Wall Street, whose 2012 campaign is reliant on Wall Street to an even greater extent, and whose cabinet was filled with Wall Street operatives?

Something is very wrong with this picture.

The usual suspects, mega-rich foundations and elitists, behind the young radicals have also started to emerge – George Soros, The Ruckus Society, the Tides Foundation and the Ford Foundation.

“The belated crusade against Wall Street is even more pathetic as it is coordinated by groups who wouldn’t exist without men like Soros, who made their money from deals that make the Street look sparkling clean. It’s class warfare as a cynical jab at the populist center, the people who mutter to themselves that the Street is full of crooks and so is Congress,” writes Daniel Greenfield.

The thousands of Americans currently expressing their disgust at Wall Street and the bankers who have ruined the economy to the detriment of the poor and middle class should be commended for getting off their hind ends and doing something, unlike the millions who will continue to watch American Idol, drink beer and laugh in ignorance as the country is flushed down the toilet. It should also be added that there is a sprinkling of “End the Fed” demonstrators who truly understand the root cause of the problem.

However, the fact that the majority of the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators are advocating “solutions” which the very elite they claim to be protesting against also want should set alarm bells ringing.

The official Occupy Wall Street website vehemently supports Obama’s tax agenda, again in the deluded belief that Obama, the ultimate Wall Street puppet, genuinely wants to go after big corporations who use loopholes to avoid paying income tax.

In calling for higher taxes on the middle class, the protesters are mimicking the likes of billionaire Warren Buffet. The top corporations pay virtually zero income tax because of loopholes that they have crafted in league with bought off government regulators. Obama’s tax hikes will only impact genuine middle class businesses and middle class Americans earning over $200,000 – with the rate of inflation as it is this can hardly be described as the “super rich”.

As Anthony Wile writes, the protesters are being completely misdirected by their socialist/communist leaders. The real center of financial control is the Federal Reserve and the city of London, and yet ideologue Michael Moore said earlier this week that “ending capitalism” was more important than dealing with the Fed.

Wile notes that the protesters seem obsessed with those who conduct financial transactions, not those who actually run global central banks, the real string pullers.

“To get at the root of the problem, one should be protesting, say, in London’s City where central banking originated. Or protesting in front of the Federal Reserve in Washington DC. These are real seats of power. But the shadowy and excessively powerful and wealthy individuals who have created the modern economic system are quite satisfied no doubt to have Wall Street take the blame. It suits their purposes,” writes Wile.

“It is too bad that the Occupy Wall Street movement seems to be obscuring the larger issues by apparently blaming the private (transactional) sector in entirety for what has occurred in the past few years.”

Well, I wonder who was bailed out previously? Could it have been Wall Street?

Could your pension be tied to stocks and funds on Wall Street??

Could you be a Mindless dupe of a liberal socialist education?

After all, the government should force people to comply, even with violence, right?

Who is paying $38,000 for fundraising campaign dinners and autographs? The guy who works at McDonalds?

The recent grad from a Liberal college who can’t get a job because business are so under attack by Obama that they don’t want to hire you?

But of course, none of these questions matter. Because this is logic. And logic has no place in “Occupy Wall Street” or in the minds of the mindless little socialists who don’t even understand what it is they are even saying.

Nope, This emotion over logic. This is emotion overwhelming logic.

FEAR IS HOPE

YES WE CAN!

The leftist juggernaut MoveOn.org, a Democratic Party front which vehemently backed Obama’s 2008 election campaign, is set to hijack the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protests this week, which is pretty ironic given the fact that the Obama administration is a creature of Wall Street itself.

Obama Machine Prepares To Hijack Occupy Wall Street Occupy Wall Street Joined by NYC Transit Union 01

After largely staying out of the protests thus far, “MoveOn.org is expected to mobilize its extensive online regional networks to drum up support for the effort,” reports Crain’s New York Business.

The Obama front organization has supported the demonstrators by way of its website coverage, but this marks the first time that MoveOn will actively engage to organize ‘Occupy Wall Street’ events which its members will attend.

The hypocrisy of MoveOn.org seizing control of a protest movement dubbed ‘Occupy Wall Street’ is staggering. MoveOn.org “endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic Party primaries, fundraised and organized for him, and has become perhaps the lead lobby organization for his policies,” reports SourceWatch.

The organization is also strongly supported by billionaire George Soros, with Soros having donated around $5 million dollars to the group in recent years.

So we have a Soros-backed organization which has aggressively lobbied for Obama, whose 2008 campaign was bankrolled by Wall Street (almost $2 million donated by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase), whose 2012 run is being bankrolled by Wall Street, and whose cabinet is filled with Wall Street operatives, now announcing its involvement in protests against Wall Street.

Liberals really need to wake up and smell the coffee on this one.

People with diverse beliefs have thus far taken part in the demonstrations which have now spread across the country, from marxists to End the Fed populists. However, as we documented yesterday, the movement is quickly being consumed by the leftist machine that activated millions of Obamanoids to vote for the ultimate Wall Street puppet back in 2008.

A story which was linked prominently on the Drudge Report yesterday betrays the fact that many of the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protesters are actually Obama supporters and advocates of a totalitarian form of statist tyranny – big government communists posing as anarchists and progressives.

This is the army that MoveOn.org will attempt to rouse to completely hijack the whole movement and silence the voices who are actively trying to steer the narrative of the protest towards concentrating on the genuine oligarchs of the US financial system.

Here at Infowars we are not simply disregarding the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ protest as a creation of the leftist machine and cynically abandoning the energy that thousands of young people are bringing to the streets.

We are pointing out that the usual suspects are hard at work to subvert and divert the impact of the protest by steering it away from the real cause of our economic fallout – the Federal Reserve – an institution which ‘Occupy Wall Street’ ideologues like Michael Moore have protected by their failure to acknowledge that it represents a far bigger threat than Wall Street.

In addition, Alex Jones has announced the campaign to “Occupy the Fed,” details to follow, in a bid to focus the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ movement on the real enemies of the American people, the Federal Reserve, and not let the protest be manipulated by Democratic Party front groups who are an integral part of the Wall Street establishment.

The march of the Mindless Drones.

In the years ahead, millions more Americans will lose their jobs, millions more Americans will lose their homes to foreclosure and millions more Americans will find themselves drowning in debt.  As the economy continues to decline, millions upon millions of Americans will become even more frustrated.  In particular, young Americans are really starting to become angry about the economy and our deeply corrupt financial system (and the fact that reality doesn’t fit the socialist doctrines they’ve been taught).  Eventually we are going to see an explosion of anger and frustration on the streets of America that is going to be absolutely unprecedented.  Occupy Wall Street is just the beginning.  If most Americans could see what is coming next, it would chill them to their cores.

So far, the Tea Party movement has been the most prominent, and it has been dominated mostly by Republicans.

Now, Occupy Wall Street is becoming a national movement, and it is being dominated mostly by radical leftists and socialists.

Both movements have attempted to appeal to the growing core of libertarians in this country, and to a certain extent both movements have had some success.

But what all of this represents is a fundamental shift in the way that Americans view political change.

Americans no longer trust that politicians will listen to them.  All of the recent polls show that satisfaction with the government is at an all-time low.  People are deeply frustrated and large numbers of them simply do not believe that the traditional ways of bringing about change work anymore.

America is broken, and it is getting really hard to deny it.

In America today, it takes massive amounts of money to get elected, and most of our politicians end up deeply aligned with those that have huge amounts of money to donate to political campaigns.

Most Americans today feel like they have no voice.  Many also feel like they do not have a legitimate choice at the ballot box.

So what happens when millions of Americans are deeply, deeply angry about the economy and the direction this country is headed, but they also believe that the political system is so broken that voting won’t do any good?

Well, we are starting to see what happens.

Today, people are marching non-violently in the streets.

Tomorrow, unfortunately, things are likely to get much crazier.  Violence is not the solution to any of our problems, but sadly that is the direction we are headed as a nation.  Those that are angry and frustrated tend to lash out in wild and unpredictable ways.  We saw that during the London riots recently.

It would be great if a couple of “quick fixes” could be implemented and all of our economic problems would go away.  But the reality of the situation is that the problems that we are facing are far more complicated than that.  The truth is that the United States is in the midst of a long-term economic decline which is getting progressively worse, and this country has become deeply, deeply divided.

There is not much hope on the horizon and time is rapidly running out for our economy.

So will the Occupy Wall Street protests bring about change?

Well, there are a couple of things that are very unusual about the Occupy Wall Street protests.

One of the unique things about the Occupy Wall Street protests is that they are focused on money and economics.  In the past, most mass protests in America have been about war or civil rights, but the Occupy Wall Street movement is very much focused on the economic pain that ordinary Americans are feeling.

It is also very unusual for liberals to be conducting mass protests while a liberal is sitting in the White House.

So if this is what is happening now, what is going to happen once a Republican gets elected?

That is a very sobering thing to think about.

At first, a lot of people thought that the Occupy Wall Street protests would quickly fade away.

But they haven’t.

“Remember; no matter how desperate the situation seems, time spent
thinking clearly is never time wasted.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

A Mind is a terrible thing to waste (old NAACP commercial from my youth).

But the socialist fantasy has hit reality and reality is winning and that makes them mad.

“Lies are neither bad nor good. Like a fire they can either keep you warm or burn you to death, depending on how they’re used.” ― Max Brooks

And they can even get Obama re-elected. Politicians may be corrupt and sold out to Wall Street in their minds but the power of cognitive dissonance prevents them from connecting the dots.

Now do you fear the zombie hoards? They are coming for you Barbara….

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel


Lest We Forget

This is the Reality. Not some whitewashed Liberal fantasy of Political Correctness.
That’s what we have to collectively remember.
3,000 innocent lives snuffed out
in a moment of blind hatred.
And with the hate-filled partisanship we have now, we have to remember that day.

And these are the Men who did. Radical Muslims. Not George Bush, Not the CIA, not Dick Cheney or any other ridiculously partisan silliness.

And No Political Correctness.

But you can see in the “Truthers” is the modern day birth of the hyper-partisan. The need to destroy at all costs your political enemies and to believe or say any wild ass thing as long as you believe it advances your ideology and denigrates the the “enemy”.

At San Diego State University an international student, Zewdalem Kebede, overheard students talking in Arabic expressing delight about the attacks. When Kebede challenged them, he was accused of engaging in “abusive behavior” and warned that any similar behavior in the future would result in “serious disciplinary sanctions.” At Penn State, a professor who advocated an aggressive military response to the attacks on his webpage received a letter from the vice provost for academic affairs chastising him for engaging in speech that was “insensitive and perhaps even intimidating.” (Keep in mind that engaging in “intimidating” speech was grounds for termination at Penn State at the time.) Meanwhile, at Johns Hopkins, a professor who publicly advocated going after the countries that supported al Qaeda and similar terrorist organizations found himself reprimanded and removed as the director of the university’s Central Asia-Caucasus Institute.

But it was truly eye-opening for me to see that most of the attempts to stifle speech on campus in the wake of September 11 were directed at what were normal responses of anger and solidarity that most Americans felt in those days and weeks after the attacks. What is so bizarre about these cases is that the same colleges and universities that present themselves as civilized and tolerant showed such startling myopia and intolerance towards the sadness and outrage of their fellow citizens.

It was just the start of my experiences fighting campus censors — and ten years later, the fight is far from over. (Greg Lukianoff is an attorney and the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education).

But now we should just Remember, in the face of Political Correctness.

“As I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for you are with me.” -Psalm 23:4

10:03 am ET – At this exact moment ten years ago, brave patriots aboard United Airlines flight 93 forced Islamist hijackers to bring the airliner down in a Pennsylvania field, thwarting another attack on the nation’s capital:

The Pentagon:

Guy Benson:One of the most striking and disturbing images of 9/11 is a photograph of an unidentified man plunging from the World Trade Center towers to his death.  Facing the reality that no rescue effort was feasible, this citizen — like dozens of others — chose to leap to his demise rather than be incinerated by the blaze.  This picture is extraordinarily difficult to stomach.  Much of the media, which has decided to sanitize 9/11 to the greatest extent possible, won’t show it: 


Onlookers were terrified, horrified, and overcome with grief:

This was not a “tragedy.”  It was an atrocity, committed by radical Muslims whose fanatical, murderous hatred for western civilization has not abated.  They cannot be coddled.  They cannot be placated.  They can only be captured and interrogated, or killed. May those whose lives were ripped away ten years ago never be forgotten.  May their loved ones find peace.  May God bless our military, intelligence community, and first responders.  And may God bless our great country.

Amen.

I will note for historical record that in spring of 1979 I stood atop one of the Towers in New York. I can never do that again in my life.

That is reality. Not some hyper-partisan fantasy.

Let’s Roll!

The Fantasy of Reality

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody, anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Liberals won’t understand any of this though, you understand. It’s completely beyond them.

It’s not “fair”! 🙂

President to announce deal to boost fuel economy

See how it all started, in my view (with lots of Star Wars and Inception References to boot): https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/the-real-star-wars/

“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”– Master Yoda

And who hates more Liberals.

Who wants to control absolutely everything you do from before you’re born until after you’re dead more than Liberals?

No one.

Who considers “compromise” being you given them everything they want first.

And “balance” is a euphemism for Tax Increases.

Liberals.

And quite why Republicans are so impudent in the face of this is beyond me.

White House Spokesman: “we are also realistic. that grand bargain if you will is still on the table. the one that the speaker of the house walked away from. and while often republicans don’t like to admit it, they came very close to an agreement. and that agreement is still available. now, if we are not able to achieve that in the next several days, we still need — we have no other alternative, we have to take action to ensure that we do not default. and we have to take action to reduce our deficit.

The Spin is amazing in it’s audacity. But then again the White House knows the in-the-tank Liberal Media and the not-paying-attention american public will eat this sort of spin up and vomit it out like it was real.

So the Republican passed a plan. The Democrats refused to even vote on it.

This is walking away from the “grand bargain”.

Boehner walks out of one meeting where Obama kept throwing more taxes in to the mix and suddenly that’s all the myopic media sees. Obama walked out of a meeting too, he even went on TV to complain about it. But does the media or the Left even remember that? No.

They were close to a deal, Obama crushed it by piling on more and more tax increases. But you’ll never, ever hear that from the media. No sir, they know nothing about it.

It never happened, even though it did.

The biggest lie though is the “default” scare. To default we have to not pay our bonds and debt. Guess what?

We have have enough to pay those, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Just not much else.

So the only way we really default is if the Democrats do it deliberately.

And why wouldn’t they!

It will be the Republican’s Fault! 🙂

(did you catch the logic error?)

And the “we will have to act” means the president will just summarily do whatever the hell he wants anyhow (Tax Increases and more spending) “to save the country”. That way he gets everything he wanted and the Republicans get the blame for it.

What could possibly be better than that!

He is the White Knight in the White House come to save you from those evil greedy Republicans and their psycho fringe Tea Partiers!

Mind you raising Taxes and spending more will not solve the problem. But it will be a political victory for the Democrats in their minds and in the minds of their fawning media lap-dogs.

And after all, that’s what’s REALLY important.

“Republicans have taken us to the brink of economic chaos,” House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said. “The delay must end now so we can focus on the American people’s top priority: creating jobs and growing the economy.”

(Sounds vaguely familiar? Have they repeatedly said this over the last 2+ years every time they are getting their way…why yes, they do…)

This would be the 9.2% Unemployment (and 8%+ since Obama was elected) that she’s referring to. The Democrats have done a brilliant so far, if only they could get rid of those damn Republicans…

And taxing the employers more, plus ObamaCare, is surely going to create more jobs and make everyone feel better!

If only we could get rid of the Republicans.

Obama told the press corps that Republican proposals to cut the budget would interfere with the well-loved American tradition of, er, expanding government:

We’re not out here trying to use this as a means of doing all these really tough political things. I’d rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes — like new programs

You may hear the argument that why not just go ahead and do all the cuts and we can debate the revenue issues in the election — right? You’ll hear that from some Republicans. The problem is, is that if you don’t do the revenues, then to get the same amount of savings you’ve got to have more cuts.

It took Obama this long to figure out that cuts are an alternative to increasing taxes?  Most of us had that figured out already, big guy.  (Hot air.com)

President Barack Obama and top auto executives are set to unveil details of a compromise to slash the amount of gasoline cars and trucks will need down the road.

The deal, to be announced Friday, will double fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025 and further restrict the tailpipe emissions blamed for global warming.

A Prius doesn’t get this.

So the automobile manufacturers who are losing money now have to spend even more to close that gap. And you can’t get rid of workers because the UAW runs the show.

Anyone for another bailout?

Oh, and that car you have now, the government will eventually rule you have to get rid of it (why do think Liberals like Obama wouldn’t?) and buy a new car you can’t afford. Doesn’t that sound good for the environment?

You can afford it.

And if you can’t I’m sure the government will help you out. Mind you they will have to get more money from you to do it. But hey, it’s only “fair”. 😮

And it’s good for the environment. 🙂

Thomas Sowell: Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise. As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high.

How was that possible? Because high tax rates drive investors into tax shelters, such as tax-exempt bonds. Today, as a result of globalization and electronic transfers of money, “the rich” are even less likely to stand still and be sheared like sheep, when they can easily send their money overseas, to places where tax rates are lower.

Money sent overseas creates jobs overseas — and American workers cannot transfer themselves overseas to get those jobs as readily as investors can send their money there.

All the overheated political rhetoric about needing to tax “millionaires and billionaires” is not about bringing in more revenue to the government. It is about bringing in more votes for politicians who stir up class warfare with rhetoric.

Now that the Republicans seem to have gotten the Democrats off their higher taxes kick, the question is whether a minority of the House Republicans will refuse to pass the Boehner legislation that could lead to a deal that will spare the country a major economic disruption and spare the Republicans from losing the 2012 elections by being blamed — rightly or wrongly — for the disruptions.

Is the Boehner legislation the best legislation possible? Of course not! You don’t get your heart’s desire when you control only one house of Congress and face a presidential veto.

The most basic fact of life is that we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available. It is not idealism to ignore the limits of one’s power. Nor is it selling out one’s principles to recognize those limits at a given time and place, and get the best deal possible under those conditions.

That still leaves the option of working toward getting a better deal later, when the odds are more in your favor.

There would not be a United States of America today if George Washington’s army had not retreated and retreated and retreated, in the face of an overwhelmingly more powerful British military force bent on annihilating Washington’s troops.

Later, when the conditions were right for attack, General Washington attacked. But he would have had nothing to attack with if he had wasted his troops in battles that would have wiped them out.

Similar principles apply in politics. As Edmund Burke said, more than two centuries ago: “Preserving my principles unshaken, I reserve my activity for rational endeavors.”

What does “rational” mean? At its most basic, it means an ability to make a ratio, as with “rational numbers” in mathematics. More broadly, it means an ability to weigh one thing against another.

There are a lot of things to weigh against each other, not only as regards the economy, but also what the consequences to this nation would be to have Barack Obama get re-elected and go further down the dangerous path he has put us on, at home and abroad. Is it worth that risk to make a futile symbolic vote in Congress?

One of the good things about the Tea Party movement is that it resisted the temptation to actually form a third political party, which has been an exercise in futility, time and time again, under the American electoral system.

But, if the Tea Party movement within the Republican Party becomes just a rule-or-ruin minority, then they might just as well have formed a separate third party and gone on to oblivion.

Writers can advocate things that have no chance at the moment, for their very writing about those things persuasively can make them possible at some future date. But to adopt the same approach as an elected member of Congress risks losing both the present and the future.

But at least we know who to blame. 🙂

And Never Let a Crisis go to Waste!

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

 

 

 

The Politics of Reality

But First…Mother Nature..Now that’s Cool! 🙂


7000 feet tall 50 miles wide and moving between 4o-50 mph with hurricane force winds!

It’s a Dust Storm!

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/weather/big-dust-storm-rolls-into-valley-7-5-2011?CMP=201107_emailshare

<object style=”height: 390px; width: 640px”><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/JhEc_1MD1tg?version=3″><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”></object>

http://www.weather.com/outlook/videos/time-lapse-amazing-phoenix-dust-storm-21209

http://www.weather.com/outlook/videos/time-lapse-amazing-phoenix-dust-storm-21209#21212

My power flickered on and off for a good 30 minutes during the storm.

Dust storm, though dangerous, are Cool! 🙂

But now back to reality… 🙂

It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not.

Not only among politicians, but also among much of the media, and even among some of the public, the quest is not for truth about reality but for talking points that fit a vision or advance an agenda. Some seem to see it as a personal contest about who is best at fencing with words.

The current controversy over whether to deal with our massive national debt by cutting spending, or whether instead to raise tax rates on “the rich,” is a classic example of talking points versus reality.

Most of those who favor simply raising tax rates on “the rich” — or who say that we cannot afford to allow the Bush “tax cuts for the rich” to continue — show not the slightest interest in the history of what has actually happened when tax rates were raised to high levels on “the rich,” as compared to what has actually happened when there have been “tax cuts for the rich.”

As far as such people are concerned, those questions have already been settled by their talking points. Why confuse the issue by digging into empirical evidence about what has actually happened when one policy or the other was followed?

The political battles about whether to have high tax rates on people in high income brackets or to instead have “tax cuts for the rich” have been fought out in at least four different administrations in the 20th century — under Presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

The empirical facts are there, but they mean nothing if people don’t look at them, and instead rely on talking points.

The first time this political battle was fought, during the Coolidge administration, the tax-cutters won. The data show that “the rich” supplied less tax revenue to the government when the top income tax rate was 73 percent in 1921 than they supplied after the income tax rate was reduced to 24 percent in 1925.

Because high tax rates can easily be avoided, both then and now, “the rich” were much less affected by high tax rates than was the economy and the people who were looking for jobs. After the Coolidge tax cuts, the increased economic activity led to unemployment rates that ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent.

But that is only a fact about reality — and, for many, reality has no such appeal as talking points.

The same preference for talking points, and the same lack of interest in digging into the facts about realities, prevails today in discussions of whether to have a government-controlled medical system.
Since there are various countries, such as Canada and Britain, that have the kind of government-controlled medical systems that some Americans advocate, you might think that there would be great interest in the quality of medical care in these countries.

The data are readily available as to how many weeks or months people have to wait to see a primary care physician in such countries, and how many additional weeks or months they have to wait after they are referred to a surgeon or other specialist. There are data on how often their governments allow patients to receive the latest pharmaceutical drugs, as compared to how often Americans use such advanced medications.

But supporters of government medical care show virtually no interest in such realities. Their big talking point is that the life expectancy in the United States is not as long as in those other countries. End of discussion, as far as they are concerned.

They have no interest in the reality that medical care has much less effect on death rates from homicide, obesity, and narcotics addiction than it has on death rates from cancer or other conditions that doctors can do something about. Americans survive various cancers better than people anywhere else. Americans also get to see doctors much sooner for medical treatment in general.

Talking points trump reality in political discussions of many other issues, from gun control to rent control. Reality simply does not have the pizzazz of clever talking points. (Thomas Sowell)

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Keep ’em Down

Thomas Sowell: Those who regard government “entitlement” programs as sacrosanct, and regard those who want to cut them back as calloused or cruel, picture a world very different from the world of reality.

To listen to some of the defenders of entitlement programs, which are at the heart of the present financial crisis, you might think that anything the government fails to provide is something that people will be deprived of.

In other words, if you cut spending on school lunches, children will go hungry. If you fail to subsidize housing, people will be homeless. If you fail to subsidize prescription drugs, old people will have to eat dog food in order to be able to afford their meds.

This is the vision promoted by many politicians and much of the media. But, in the world of reality, it is not even true for most people who are living below the official poverty line.

Most Americans living below the official poverty line own a car or truck– and government entitlement programs seldom provide cars and trucks. Most people living below the official poverty line also have air conditioning, color television and a microwave oven–and these too are not usually handed out by government entitlement programs.

Cell phones and other electronic devices are by no means unheard of in low-income neighborhoods, where children would supposedly go hungry if there were no school lunch programs. In reality, low-income people are overweight even more often than other Americans.

As for housing and homelessness, housing prices are higher and homelessness a bigger problem in places where there has been massive government intervention, such as liberal bastions like New York City and San Francisco. As for the elderly, 80 percent are homeowners. whose monthly housing costs are less than $400, including property taxes, utilities, and maintenance.

The desperately poor elderly conjured up in political and media rhetoric are– in the world of reality– the wealthiest segment of the American population. The average wealth of older households is nearly three times the wealth of households headed by people in the 35 to 44-year-old bracket, and more than 15 times the wealth of households headed by someone under 35 years of age.

If the wealthiest segment of the population cannot pay their own medical bills, who can? The country as a whole is not any richer because the government pays our medical bills– with money that it takes from us.

What about the truly poor, in whatever age brackets? First of all, even in low-income and high-crime neighborhoods, people are not stealing bread to feed their children. The fraction of the people in such neighborhoods who commit most of the crimes are far more likely to steal luxury products that they can either use or sell to get money to support their parasitic lifestyle.

As for the rest of the poor, Professor Walter Williams of George Mason University long ago showed that you could give the poor enough money to lift them all above the official poverty line for a fraction of what it costs to support a massive welfare state bureaucracy.

We don’t need to send the country into bankruptcy, in the name of the poor, by spending trillions of dollars on people who are not poor, and who could take care of themselves. The poor have been used as human shields behind which the expanding welfare state can advance.

The goal is not to keep the poor from starving but to create dependency, because dependency translates into votes for politicians who play Santa Claus.

We have all heard the old saying about how giving a man a fish feeds him for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime. Independence makes for a healthier society, but dependency is what gets votes for politicians.

For politicians, giving a man a fish every day of his life is the way to keep getting his vote. “Entitlement” is just a fancy word for dependency.

As for the scary stories politicians tell, in order to keep the entitlement programs going, as long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

But give hima fish every day, maybe he will vote for you to give him more fish!

And after all, that’s what really matters. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok


Tough

Couldn’t have said it better.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AMEN!

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

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

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

Case in Point: McDonalds.

Under assault for year by the Food Police.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pure and Simple.

Now Just Do it!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

The BULLY Pulpit

Roughly 150 various advocates — lobbyists for gays and lesbians, legislators, White House officials, at least one cabinet secretary and the first lady — gathered around President’s Obama’s bully pulpit in the White House Thursday to cheer for increased government monitoring and intervention in Facebook conversations, in playgrounds and in schoolrooms around the country.

No officials at the televised East Room roll-out of the White House’s anti-bullying initiative suggested any limits to government intervention against juvenile physical violence, social exclusion or unwanted speech. None mentioned the usefulness to children of unsupervised play. None suggested there were any risks created by a government program to enforce children’s approval of other children who are unpopular, overweight, or who declare themselves to be gay, lesbians or transgender.

“It breaks our hearts to think that any child feels afraid every day in the classroom, on the playground, or even online,” first lady Michelle Obama said.

“We’re going to prevent bullying and create an environment where every single one of our children can thrive,” the president said, as he announced a series of government actions intended to fund, guide and pressure state and local officials to adopt regulations and programs that would shield children from insults or social-exclusion as well as from physical harm. (DC)

I particularly like the part about “guide and pressure” to adopt regulations. Not that Liberals believe in a Nanny State where the government is Mother to us all or anything. 🙂

But I bet if your Not Gay or other politically correct “feel good” stereotypes you’ll “deserve it” or “brought it on yourself or “no big deal”.

If you just a normal skinny, introverted, straight white kid you’ll get nothing. And god forbid if you’re a young Republican!!

But the Liberals and liberals in government will be there to protect it’s future voters and after all, government always know best and can solve all problems. 😦

Meanwhile, the newest tactic from union shills is to send letters to Walker’s campaign donors promising a boycott of their businesses if they don’t now become good little union shills themselves. Reciprocating could be a fun project for Wisconsin tea partiers. Pick a liberal-owned business, essentially at random, and organize a boycott aimed at crippling it. That’s a nasty tactic, but then we’ve spent three weeks of watching screeching cretins try to intimidate and occasionally even outright threaten Republican legislators. If our moral superiors on the left want to fight dirty, we should be sportsmanlike and oblige them. (hotair.com)

MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, who recently declared that contrary to reports about Wisconsin’s budget deficit the state was “on track to have a budget surplus this year,”

And you wonder why I make fun of MSDNC…

Making it worse, the author of this extortion effort heads a police union.

March 10, 2011
Mr. Tom Ellis, President
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation
770 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
SENT VIA FASCIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL

Dear Mr. Ellis:

As you undoubtedly know, Governor Walker recently proposed a “budget adjustment bill” to eviscerate public employees’ right to collectively bargain in Wisconsin. ..

As you also know, Scott Walker did not campaign on this issue when he ran for office. If he had, we are confident that you would not be listed among his largest contributors. As such, we are contacting you now to request your support.

The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.

In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.

Wisconsin’s public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that ideal.

In the event you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact the
Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim Palmer, at 608.273.3840.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you soon.

James L. Palmer, Executive Director
Wisconsin Professional Police Association
Mahlon Mitchell,President
Professional Professional Fire Fighters
Jim Conway, President
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311
John Matthews, Execuctive Director
Madison Teachers, Inc.
Keith Patt, Executive Director
Green Bay Education Association
Bob Richardson, President
Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Dan Frei, Prersident
Madison Professional Police Officers Association

So how dare you support the fascist pig, Governor Walker and if you do we’ll destroy you! 🙂

That’s what I love about Unions. So open-minded, caring, compassionate, and willing to compromise for the greater good.

Their own greater good. 🙂

Mark Steyn:…too many other Americans seem to be living their version of the old line: If you owe the bank a thousand dollars, you have a problem; if you owe the bank a million dollars, the bank has a problem. America owes the world $14 trillion, so the world has a problem.

And, if it’s the world’s problem, why bother our pretty little heads about it? I’m struck by the number of times I’ve been blithely assured by insiders in D.C. and elsewhere that “it’s not in China’s interest” to yank the rug out from under America: We don’t need to do anything drastic, because they won’t do anything drastic.

I’m not so sure I could claim with any degree of confidence to know what China considered to be in its interest. But we have the planet’s most lavishly funded intelligence agency, so they’re bound to be on top of it, aren’t they?

In the new budget, there’s a request from the CIA for an emergency appropriation of $513.7 million. Great! A mere half-billion. That’s enough for 10,000 cowboy poetry festivals.

So what’s it for? Toppling Kim Jong Il? Taking out the Iranian nuclear program? Er, no. It’s an emergency payment to stop the CIA pension fund from going bankrupt next year with unfunded liabilities of $6.4 billion.

The CIA failed to foresee the collapse of the Iron Curtain until it happened. It failed to spot that Pakistan was going nuclear until it happened. But, when the world’s most bounteously endowed intelligence agency fails to spot that its own pension fund is going bankrupt until it happens, I wouldn’t bet the future on anyone in the U.S. government having much of a clue about what is or isn’t “in China’s interest.”

That leaves America to calculate what’s in America’s interest.

Or better yet, Liberals to calculate what’s in their best interest, like more control over everyone so they will stop rebelling against their superior moral positions.

To “preserve” the “tradition,” it is necessary to invert everything the tradition represents: From true grit to federally funded grit.

<Obama>  also argued that domestic production is not a long-term solution to the problem of American oil consumption. “Even if we started drilling new wells tomorrow, that oil isn’t coming on line overnight,” he said. “And even if we tap every single reserve available to us, we can’t escape the fact that we only control 2% of the world’s oil but we consume over a quarter of the world’s oil.”

Which is the same line the Democrats have used for years. It’s a Talking point.

“Any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn’t match up with reality,” Obama said. “We are encouraging offshore exploration and production. We’re just doing it responsibly. I don’t think anybody has forgotten that we’re only a few months removed from the worst oil spill in our history.”

It was nearly a year ago, Mr President, and is that why you’ve banned oil drilling from just about every inch of America that wasn’t already doing it? And granted only 1 new permit in the last year just before a new conference on oil prices as a political gimme?

I can’t wait to see what they come up with when it hits $5 a gallon.

Lisa and Stephen Furry have hit financial rock bottom, even though they’re not acting like it.

Sounds like Congress, Unions, and Democrats in general.

The couple filed for bankruptcy a little more than a year ago, wiping out $50,000 in credit card debt, yet their household spending outstrips their income. They shop at Whole Foods, spend freely on beauty products and splurged on a wedding anniversary getaway to Santa Barbara — at a four-star hotel.

They haven’t paid the mortgage on their North Hollywood home since September, and a default notice could come at any time.

Things have gotten so bad that Lisa recently borrowed $200 from her 7-year-old daughter’s savings account to cover household expenses.

“We’re a paycheck away from the homeless shelter,” said Lisa, 45, only half jokingly as she sat in her living room next to her 135-pound mastiff named Madison.

Brad Hartman, a financial planner in Glendale who reviewed the couple’s finances, found no humor in the situation.

“It’s a little surreal,” he said. “They barely have enough cash to buy groceries.

“They need a reality check.”(LA TIMES)

So does Congress and most especially Democrats, Unions and The President.

But don’t worry, the government will step in and save them from themselves. After all, they are the masters of all and are the perfect candidates for fiscal responsibility. 😦

That can be the next BULLY pulpit… 🙂