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

Gloom, Despair & Agony on Me

Lincoln Comp 590 cdn

The number of Americans not in the labor force grew by 169,000 in January, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest jobs report.

BLS labels people who are unemployed and no longer looking for work as “not in the labor force,” including people who have retired on schedule, taken early retirement, or simply given up looking for work. There were 89 million of them last month.

The number of people not in the labor force had declined in December to 88.8 million from 88.9 million in November.

The nation’s unemployment rate increased a tenth of a point in January, rising to 7.9 percent from 7.8 percent, a level the Labor Department described as “essentially unchanged.”

The number of unemployed persons, at 12.3 million, was little changed in January and has been at this level since Sept. 2012.

So disband the Jobs Council. “Mission Accomplished”, The New “normal” has been achieved.

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

Sixty-one percent of U.S. small business owners said they were “worried about the potential cost of healthcare” and 56 percent said they were “worried about new government regulations,” according to the Wells Fargo/Gallup small business index released on Jan. 31, which also showed that 30 percent of small business owners are not hiring and fear going out of business within a year.

“At the bottom of the list, but still at a surprisingly high level, 30% of owners say they are not hiring because they are worried they may no longer be in business in 12 months,” according to Gallup’s index summary. “This is up from 24% who had the same worry in January 2012.”

Well, they are just too greedy and want too much profit (might say the left). Psah, you’re overstating the problems. Besides, if we can just get rid of the Republicans Utopia would reign. 🙂

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

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is leaving office with a slap at critics of the Obama administration’s handling of the September attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. She told The Associated Press that critics of the administration’s handling of the attack don’t live in an “evidence-based world” and their refusal to “accept the facts” is unfortunate and regrettable for the political system.

Translation: F*ck you! F*ck you at the Drive-Thru!

The facts are what I say they are and if you won’t accept them then that’s your problem now go f* yourself!

Now that’s leadership, integrity and “transparency” 🙂

Yet another “vast right wing conspiracy”

Oh, and a Film lie cover story  that no one wants to even acknowledge was a bold faced lie or massive incompetence OR BOTH .

Mistakes were made, get over it.

Now Just imagine anyone but a Liberal (and Liberal Media) in charge?

“What difference does it make”? 🙂

8 Embassies attacked in 4 years. 1 Ambassador Dead.

Now that’s record to be proud of!

So, Now it’s John “f-ing” Kerry’s turn. The man who voted for the 87 Million before he voted against it!

We’ve all been Swift Boated…

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

 

 

 

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


Thoughts

So much for dialing back the rhetoric, right?

On Saturday in Inglewood, Calif., Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters had some harsh words for the tea party.

“I’m not afraid of anybody,” the California congresswoman told constituents in footage that appeared on ABC affiliate KABC in Los Angeles, not backing down from comments made about President Obama earlier in the week. “This is a tough game. You can’t be intimidated. You can’t be frightened. And as far as I’m concerned — the tea party can go straight to hell.”

That proclamation was met with cheers from the audience, including attendees sporting purple SEIU T-shirts.

So anyone for “compromise”?? And that “new tone” and “civility” evaporated just minutes after it was pronounced and is nowhere to be seen anymore in the liberal universe.

It’s important to recall that, when the left accuses the Tea Party of violent rhetoric, in August 2004 one of the oldest and most prestigious publishing houses in the world published a sympathetic portrayal of a man who wanted to murder George W. Bush (called “Checkpoint”). There was even a Movie: “Death of a President” (2006) about the assassination of George W Bush WHILE he was still in the White House!

Today’s raging left is different from the old left. As thinkers from Christopher Lasch to James Hitchcock and Charles Krauthammer have observed, today’s left is debilitated by psychological problems, not just political grievances.

Secondly, conservatives, unlike liberals, do not have an investment in creating a utopia on earth. We are not disciples of the religion of Progress, which holds that the cosmos is working towards some grand New World Nirvana where pain and suffering do not exist.

We also understand Neuhaus’s law: When orthodox and core values are made optional, sooner or later they are proscribed.

We understand that the left is never satisfied. (Seriously, how long before a church gets sued for not performing a gay marriage?)

If children are not properly raised, disciplined and socialized, they retain crude, monstrous images about the world in their psyches. They see ogres in everyone who does not respond to their needs, and potential disaster in every dispute — especially when that narcissism is commingled with the religion of Progress.

Of course, there is narcissism on both sides of the aisle. But conservatives haven’t written any fantasies about killing the president. (DC)

The Left has, twice, at least.

If you think about it, it’s amazing how these disparate groups, that are non-partisan and tax-exempt, like the Center for American Progress, Media Matters, Moveon, etc., all manage to come up with, use and push the same talking points within minutes of each other. Inevitably they’re all over NBC News and spewed as if they just occurred to the hosts, one after the other, on the spot. (I use NBC News to cover NBC proper and MSNBC. They want to be thought of as individual entities to protect the remaining shred of credibility NBC News still has, but they aren’t. When personalities from the credibility lifeboat on NBC appear on or have shows on MSNBC, they are the same.) And miraculously they’re the same talking points and buzzwords the White House adopts. No coordination there…

But vote for the President, the other guy/gal is a lunatic and an asshole… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Mule & The Pig

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

When Judge Vinson in Florida ruled that the whole of ObamaCare was unconstitutional some states took that to mean they don’t have do anything to prepare for the Health Care Armageddon of 2014 (you know where 10 years of taxes pays for 6 years of expenditures in a dishonest bookkeeping maneuver and what the current 734 waivers, mostly to Unions, were for).

The Feds went back to the judge for clarity. <<wink wink nudge nudge>>

He ripped them a new one for stalling on the appeal to the Circuit Court or The Supreme Court and said, effectively “ok, I’ll suspend my judgment but you have to appeal within a 7 days or else” No stalling.

Whoops.

And then Sen. Anthony “The Whiner” Weiner  (D-NY) wants Justice Thomas to recuse himself from the deliberations, gee I wonder why, could it be because there’s a 4-4 split of Liberals and Conservatives and Justice Anthony Kennedy? So he’s just trying to stack the deck more in his favor?

With Justice Sotamayor from the Solicitor General’s Office most recently she would be the more likely to have to recuse herself but she’s a Liberal so that will never happen.

Now that’s the “transparency” the Administration promised! 🙂

That’s so transparent it’s not even an atom thick.

Like the farmer in that old gag about the proper management of mules, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson tried to be polite to the Obama Justice Department. On January 31, he ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional but stopped short of granting the plaintiffs in State of Florida v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services an outright injunction against further implementation. Instead, he awarded them “declaratory relief.” This, as Judge Vinson  explained at the time, is t

he “functional equivalent of an injunction” because there is a presumption that “officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court.” In other words, the judge was asking them nicely to halt implementation of ObamaCare until the appeals process had run its course. Vinson failed to realize, however, that he was dealing with a particularly vicious specimen of that famously stubborn beast — the government (Liberal Progressive) mule.

And the beast remained true to form. The Obama administration made no effort to halt implementation of the unpopular health care law. In fact, the President and his health care bureaucrats openly declared their intention to move briskly forward with their plans to foist ObamaCare on an unwilling electorate. Moreover, when two states announced that they would treat the ruling as an injunction unless and until a higher court overruled the decision, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had the audacity to present Judge Vinson with a   motion to clarify: “This motion respectfully asks the Court to clarify the scope of this order, in particular that its declaratory judgment does not relieve the parties to this case of any obligations or deny them any rights under the Affordable Care Act while the judgment is the subject of appellate review.” In effect, the DOJ asked Vinson to issue a stay against his own ruling.

The judge was not amused. In his   request to the plaintiffs for an expedited response Vinson wrote, “Because I determined that the individual mandate could not be severed from the remainder of the Act, it was also necessary to declare the entire statute void. The defendants have now, two and one-half weeks later, filed a motion to ‘clarify’ that order.” Florida’s   memorandum in opposition called the motion a “thinly disguised request for a stay,” and asked Vinson to deny it. And this is what most experts expected him to do. Indeed, many legal scholars wondered aloud why the DOJ would deliberately provoke a judge with a well-deserved reputation for irascibility. As Randy Barnett, law professor at Georgetown University, put it: “Having lost one game of chicken when it came to the severability of the mandate, the government is now challenging the same judge to back down on whether his decision is binding.”

However, instead of taking a two-by-four to the government mule in order to get its attention, Vinson did indeed issue a   stay against his previous ruling: “After careful consideration of the factors noted above, and all the arguments set forth in the defendants’ motion to clarify, I find that the motion, construed as a motion for stay, should be GRANTED.” This was not, however, an unalloyed victory for the Obama administration. The judge made his stay conditional on the Justice Department’s expeditious pursuit of an appeal to his January ruling that ObamaCare is unconstitutional. Noting that it is in the country’s best interests to have this matter resolved quickly he wrote, “[T]he stay will be conditioned upon the defendants filing their anticipated appeal within seven (7) calendar days of this order and seeking an expedited appellate review, either in the Court of Appeals or with the Supreme Court …” In other words, the Justice Department must file an appeal by March 10.

And the wording of Judge Vinson’s order makes it clear that he was not taken in by the pretext behind the DOJ’s motion: “While I believe that my order was as clear and unambiguous as it could be, it is possible that the defendants may have perhaps been confused …” He then “clarifies” key points in his original ruling: “The individual mandate was declared unconstitutional. Because that ‘essential’ provision was unseverable from the rest of the Act, the entire legislation was void.” He then discusses what he meant to accomplish when he granted declaratory relief to the plaintiffs: “This declaratory judgment was expected to be treated as the ‘practical’ and ‘functional equivalent of an injunction’ with respect to the parties to the litigation.” Finally, he points out what he did not intend: “It was not expected that [the administration] would effectively ignore the order… then file a belated motion to ‘clarify.'”

All of which begs the following question: Why, then, did he not apply the two-by-four?! It is already blindingly obvious that this particular beast does not respond to reason. This was clearly demonstrated by the utter contempt with which the administration treated Vinson’s January order. And such behavior is by no means limited to the various ObamaCare challenges. Even as the administration pressed Judge Vinson to force states to implement a health care law he had pointedly ruled unconstitutional, the President and his Attorney General declared their intention to ignore the Defense of Marriage Act. Barack Obama and Eric Holder obviously believe that they, rather than the Constitution and the courts, are the ultimate arbiters of a law’s validity. And their behavior in State of Florida v. U.S. Department Health and Human Services suggests that they hold similar views concerning judicial rulings.

It is to be hoped that, having been given a second chance to comply with a ruling from the U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida, the Obama administration will depart from its usual pattern of mulish obstinacy. However, yesterday’s statement from the DOJ’s Deputy Director of the Office of Public Affairs contains an unmistakable note of defiance: “We strongly disagree with the district court’s underlying ruling in this case.… There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing the Affordable Care Act.” This is nonsense, of course. The only “clear and well-established” precedent associated with ObamaCare involves the stubborn refusal of the Obama administration to remain within its constitutional limits. Will this obstinacy end without a firm application of the two-by-four to the government mule’s occiput? We’ll know in seven days. (David Catron)

This would be the same mule that refuses to drill for Oil or really let anyone else do it either. It interferes with their “green” agenda.

Wants to regulate what you eat. What Light bulbs you can buy.

Wants to favour “green” energy that cost vastly more than conventional energy. New York Times 2009: Some experts not aligned with either camp estimate that wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated by a traditional coal plant. Built into the calculation is the need for utilities that rely heavily on wind power to build backup plants fired by natural gas to meet electricity demand when winds are calm.

And wind and solar power are generally more expensive than the fossil fuels they are meant to supplant. If carbon dioxide penalties made coal power more expensive, as some environmentalists argue is inevitable, the relative cost of renewable energy might decrease. But consumers will still pay more.

Candidate Obama 2008:

The problem is not technical, and the problem is not sufficient mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington.

The problem is can you get the American people to say this is really important and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake, and climate change is a great example.

When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gasses, coal power plants, natural gas…you name it…whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retro-fit their operations.

That will cost money…they will pass that money on to the consumers. You can already see what the arguments are going to be during the general election.  People will say Obama and Al Gore …these folks…they’re going to destroy the economy.

This is going to cost us 8 trillion dollars or whatever their number is.  If you can’t persuade the American people that, yes,  there is going to be  some increase on electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage and changing light bulbs and more efficient appliances, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy that the economy will benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you can be Lyndon Johnson.  You can be the master of Washington.  You’re not gonna get that done.

Now put that with the “persuasion” of the Left for Obamacare. Where if they just talk about it endlessly you’ll give in and agree with them.
When people to this day still don’t, They weren’t “persuasive enough”.
They crammed it down your throat, you gagged, they crammed it down again and then put a ball gag in your mouth. But don’t worry, they will “persuade” you eventually. 🙂

Now that’s transparent isn’t it?

This is the Mule that Wants to SPEND EVEN MORE! even with a $14 Trillion Dollar debt!!

They are like a kid with a sever sunburn that howls every time you touch them, in this case any of the Liberal spending or government spending at all.

So the Left new tact is to claim we aren’t actually broke! it’s just that the rich are too greedy!

The New York Times: It’s all obfuscating nonsense, of course, a scare tactic employed for political ends. A country with a deficit is not necessarily any more “broke” than a family with a mortgage or a college loan. And states have to balance their budgets. (But we, the Feds don’t!)

So the $14 Trillion Debt is a scare tactic meant to crush the Liberal’s Utopia Sand castle that the tide of both public opinion and economics is washing away and impose a Corporate Oligarchy that will crush the “middle class”.

Uh….yeah…<<<looking for the guys in he white coats that go on backwards!>>

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

The Fight for 2012 Begins Today

To those who say that the House Vote to repeal ObamaCare is a waste I say, a journey of a 1000 days starts with but a single step.

But ultimately, the best chance is the US Supreme Court.

ObamaCare is Unconstitutional. It’s just that the Democrats  and the Liberal Media don’t care.

And why do I say the campaign starts now.

Because the “grandma will be homeless” “children starving in the streets” “you’ll be eating dog food” kinda of liberal hysteria has ratcheted up again.

Polls are being released AGAIN, showing how much people love ObamaCare and don’t want it repealed. 😦

Perhaps it’s no surprise that on the same day Obama announced his Executive Order — and the day before the House of Representatives is expected to vote on a repeal of Obamacare (except for the Tucson shooting delay) — the Department of Health and Human Services released a study subtitled “129 million people could be denied affordable coverage” without Obamacare because of pre-existing conditions. (American Spectator)

So someone wind up Andy Griffith!!

If the Democrats weren’t worried they wouldn’t be trotting out the usual time-tested “fear” campaigns.

And yes, the fight is going to be long and hard and depends on Obama not being re-elected so you can bet the Democrats and their Liberal Media Ministry of Truth will have the full on 24/7 FEAR and MANIPULATION campaign going from now until 2 years from now.

So buckle up. The Socialists aren’t giving up without a major trench warfare. And just like last time they will fight till your last breath to save their Golden Goose of Utopia.

And it won’t be “civil”. 🙂

Political Cartoon

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

UNIONS, THE CHICAGO WAY  OR ELSE!

Labor unions give more money to the Democratic Party than any other source, and critics have long accused President Barack Obama’s administration of doing their bidding.  Now there is evidence that the White House has indeed put its thumb on the scale on behalf of unions. After saying that “union jobs are, by and large, good jobs,” the Department of Labor’s “strategic plan” for the next five years says: “many of the Department’s outcome goals are furthered by high rates of union membership.”

Don Todd, Americans for Limited Government’s head of research and a former DOL agency head under George W. Bush, told The Daily Caller that the Obama administration wants to “shame” companies into unionizing.

“In a worst-case scenario, your union organizer comes to you, offers you a deal to unionize, you say, ‘no,’ and, the next thing you know, OSHA’s [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] at your door,” Todd said in a phone interview. “Then, Wage and Hour show up, and they want to publicize it. They always find something wrong – it’s like with bed-checks in boot camp in the army.”

Todd said some companies will fight the DOL’s intimidation tactics, but many will give in to unionizing forces.

“It makes it the path of least resistance,” Todd said.

The current Solicitor of Labor, Patricia Smith, specialized in that kind of corporate intimidation when she served in a similar position in New York’s Department of Labor. Senate Republicans strongly opposed Smith’s appointment to her current post for that reason. In New York, Smith set up a neighborhood watch-style system for monitoring and investigating wage and hour violations by companies.

Former union executives and confidants are leading almost every agency within the DOL, including, but not limited to, John Lund, who has deep ties to the AFL-CIO, Craig Becker, who has worked with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU, and Joe Main, who had worked for the United Mine Workers of America.

Smith and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis recently released the DOL’s “Strategic Plan” for 2011 through 2016, in which they link the recent economic recession and the recently high unemployment numbers with the decline in private sector union membership. (This being the same dingbat that wanted Illegal Aliens to call her if they were being oppressed by their boss!!)

Holis has made the case publicly that unionization is a good thing as it is the only way workers get “higher wages,” “good jobs” and “flexibility and benefits like paid leave, childcare and education assistance.”

“It’s not enough to have fair wages and a safe workplace — workers also need a voice on the job! Some people say that, given the state of the economy, we can’t afford unions right now,” Holis said in a September 2009 speech to the AFL-CIO. “They’ve got it backwards. Today unions are more important than ever. Workers are facing unprecedented challenges, and they need the voice on the job that unions provide.”

DOL is pushing unionization by turning the fraud investigation arms of the Department of Labor into intimidation tools. Todd said DOL’s enforcement arms repeatedly audit and investigate businesses that refuse to unionize. They demand records of everything from Wage and Hour compliance to health and safety regulations, and won’t stop until the business they’re targeting unionizes.

Another way the Obama administration helps unions is by overloading the arms of the DOL that normally fight union fraud. The Obama administration, for instance, doubled the duties of the Office of Labor and Management Standards (OLMS). OLMS historically has been used primarily for investigating labor union fraud, but since Obama took office, OLMS is also charged with dealing with “whistleblower” complaints, or complaints from employees all over the country about companies that aren’t following safety requirements. That used to be handled by OSHA.

Another thing the DOL is doing in what appears to be an effort to weaken union investigations is shifting many career employees out of OLMS and into other, non-investigative agencies that pose no immediate threat to union survival. Todd said that’s the only explanation for shifting the employees he and previous administrations spent years training to different jobs.

“They’re moving people out of OLMS over to places like Wage and Hour, which is a waste of all the training they received in prosecuting and investigating union misconduct,” Todd said in a phone interview. “In the time that I was there, we convicted close to 1,000 union officers and employees. That was not for unfair practices – that was for stealing from members.”

Todd said he thinks it’s more likely that union leadership would rather “suffer from the thefts than from the bad publicity they’d get from investigations and convictions” of union members and leaders.

“The Obama Department of Labor is being organized to push a pro-union agenda without regard to the welfare of the worker,” Rick Manning, a spokesman for Americans for Limited Government, told TheDC. (The Daily Caller)

More Unions. More Democratic Party Money. More money for underfunded lavish pensions estimated to be short $2 Trillion dollars.

Political Cartoon

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

RICHMOND, Va. – A power struggle is unfolding in Virginia over climate change research.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has been taking the University of Virginia to court to get information on a climate change researcher who once worked at the school.

Now several members of the State Assembly say they’ve had enough and have introduced legislation to rein in Cuccinelli’s investigation.

Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic, is looking into whether UVA professor Michael Mann manipulated data to show that there has been a rapid, recent rise in the Earth’s temperature.

Democratic Sens. Donald McEachin of Henrico and Chap Petersen of Fairfax County say their bills won’t give blanket immunity to colleges to defraud the state, but they would curb politically motivated probes.

McEachin and Petersen, both lawyers, said Cuccinelli had abused the authority the office obtained under a 2002 law.

Their legislation would force Cuccinelli to sue and obtain subpoenas as is required of other civil litigation. This would afford defendants the right to defend themselves.

So the global warming frauds want to hide their deception. Gee, no one saw that coming.

So if the Democrats were in power to run “politically motivated” investigations would they be so concerned??

No.

Just like the Democrats using the Tucson tragedy for their own political purposes (and deriding anyone who says they are) . Last week, using the non-radio-inspired Tucson massacre as fuel, the National Hispanic Media Coalition called on the FCC to gather evidence for the left’s preconceived conclusion that conservative talk radio “hate speech” causes violence. It’s Red Queen science — sentence first, research validation later.

The movement “is grounded in the belief that social and economic justice will not be realized without the equitable redistribution and control of media and communication technologies.” But, hey, we better just ignore these communications control freaks lest we be accused of suffering a “persecution complex.” (Michelle Malkin)

So just like Global warming, it’s political goals first, actual science, compassion or civility, later.

Much, Much Later!

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

Obama also puts on his newly acquired pro-capitalism mask when talking about the sheer burden of regulation:

We’re also getting rid of absurd and unnecessary paperwork requirements that waste time and money. We’re looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation. And finally, today I am directing federal agencies to do more to account for — and reduce — the burdens regulations may place on small businesses. Small firms drive growth and create most new jobs in this country. We need to make sure nothing stands in their way.

Unfortunately, despite the laudable sentiment contained in the president’s words, it’s difficult to take Obama 2.0 seriously. In particular, is the American public, especially our entrepreneurs, supposed to sing the praises of Obama’s claimed conversion from class warfare redistributionist to proto-capitalist while his signature “accomplishment,” commonly known as Obamacare, is the single biggest small-business-killing piece of legislation in generations? (American Spectator)

I would say Obama and the Democrats words are hollow, cynical, and manipulative.

There actions needs speak louder than their words.

And right now all I see is a guy trying to get re-elected.

Nothing else.

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

Sign of the Times

Uber Progressive Leftist Alan Colmes on Megyn Kelly’s America Live yesterday discussing the 1/1/11 Tax Increases and Congress in general in getting things done implicitly said that 1-party rule (meaning Democrats) is the only way Washington can function anymore.

“But you don’t have 60 votes in The Senate to override a Republican filibuster”-Colmes

So unless you have an absolute supermajority  1- party rule where everyone is in lock step the minority is going to muck everything up.

Mind you, before Scott Brown’s election in January 2010 the Democrats did have a supermajority and STILL couldn’t pass their agenda. It took legislative trickery and dishonesty to pass ObamaCare after 15 months of wrangling, horse-trading,back room deals and manipulation by DEMOCRATS to pass it.

But even then, it was still the Republican’s fault!

So “Bi-partisan” is a myth.

The Democrats want total control or everything is going to go to hell. After all, they are the vastly superior economic and moral beings- if only those damn Republicans and those damn Tea Partiers would just get out of their way!

1- party rule (THEM) or bust!

I wonder if it will shift on the minority view when the Democrats are in the minority in the House starting in January? 🙂

It will still be the Republican’s fault, after all. Everything in life is, you know. 🙂

The “party of no” indeed…

But what do the Democrats want to do?

Here, for instance, is The Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberley Strassel:

“According to (Nevadan Harry Reid), Senate Democrats are going to confirm judges, rewrite immigration law, extend unemployment insurance, fix the issue of gays in the military, reorganize the FDA, forestall tax hikes, re-fund the government, and ratify a nuclear arms treaty (and the DREAM act) — all in two, maybe three, weeks. This is the same institution that needs a month to rename a post office.”

Or 15 months to pass Socialized medicine even with a Super-Majority! 🙂

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats can afford to have all the tax rates go up in January because they couldn’t get together and pass a bill to prevent that from happening (but the Democrats will do it just to preserve their class warfare ideology). But the nature of that bill matters, not just for politicians but — far more important — for the economy.

Speaking of the economy, another sign of the times:

The Soon-to-be Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi just this week: “But it’s also the right thing to do to grow our economy.  Economists tell us that unemployment insurance — the non-partisan Urban Institute estimated that unemployment insurance returns $2 to the economy for every $1 spent. This is money that is needed by families to buy necessities, to heat their homes… and immediately injects demand into the economy — creating jobs.”

Yes, folks, you heard it here- Unemployment creates Jobs and stimulates growth!

So more unemployment must therefore be a good thing.

Let’s all lose our jobs, sit home and watch Oprah and collect our Unemployment $$$ . It should be  a Utopia by Pelosi’s reasoning. 🙂

And Speaking of Pelosi:

In one of her first acts as speaker in 2007, Pelosi, a California Democrat, created the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to draw attention to climate-change science and showcase how a cap on carbon dioxide needn’t be a threat to economic growth.

Republicans, who won control of the House in the Nov. 2 election, have opposed legislative efforts to regulate carbon emissions as a tax on energy. When the panel convened today, Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican, said that the hearing “will be the last of the select committee.”

Too Bad Nancy, I guess you’ll have to peddle your Global Warming fraud another way…How about The EPA….

Republicans are assuming that cap-and-trade (aka cap-and-tax) is dead because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lacks the votes to bring up the House-passed bill and because this issue proved a loser in the 2010 House races. Like the famous Mark Twain saying, its death may be exaggerated.

The Senate’s environmentalism expert, Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., warns us that the Obama administration is trying to implement cap-and-trade anyway by bureaucratic regulations. Directives issued by the Environmental Protection Agency are coming down the pike to increase energy costs and kill jobs.

Last May, the EPA issued what it called a tailoring rule to govern new power plants, oil refineries and factories that yearly emit 100,000 tons or more of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride. Inhofe reports that this tailoring rule will further reduce our manufacturing base and especially hurt the poor and elderly.

Inhofe predicts that the EPA standards planned for commercial and industrial boilers will cost 798,000 jobs. He also warns about the harmful effects on jobs caused by new rules on ozone emissions.

Since Barack Obama moved into the White House, the EPA has proposed or finalized 29 major regulations and 172 major policy rules. The EPA is, for the first time, simultaneously toughening the regulations on all six major traditional pollutants such as ozone and sulfur dioxide.

Before Climate-gate exposed the politics behind the “science” of global warming, a 5-to-4 Supreme Court ordered the EPA to consider regulating emissions based on that unsubstantiated and now largely discredited theory.

Despite a long record of supporting Obama stimulus and spending legislation, the expected chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., says, “We are not going to allow this administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate.”

Opposition to EPA’s new rules is remarkably bipartisan. Seventeen Democrats signed a letter to EPA Director Lisa Jackson opposing them.

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., was elected after running a TV ad showing himself firing a rifle to put a bullet through a copy of the cap-and-trade bill, and he promised to fight EPA attempts to curb greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants. He may have a difficult task because Jackson is plotting to force mass retirements of the coal plants that provide half of U.S. electricity.

EPA’s aggressive overregulation is forcing the electric industry to choose between continuing to operate while taking on major capital costs of complying with heavy new burdens or closing down and building new plants that use more expensive sources such as natural gas. The public will surely end up paying higher electric rates (aka a big tax increase).

The ObamaCare law was deviously designed to take decision-making away from our elected representatives and give it to 15 “expert” members of the Obama-appointed Independent Payment Advisory Board. Many provisions of this law prohibit Congress from repealing or changing decisions of the “experts.”

The Obama administration is using administrative regulations to implement what is known as card check, which even the Democratic Congress refuses to legislate. Obama’s recess appointee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker, has lined up a 3-to-2 board majority to repeal the rule that requires secret ballots in unionization elections.

Currently, a secret ballot of workers is mandated to unionize a company. Becker’s new regulation will eliminate workers’ right and make them subject to coercion and bullying to induce them to vote yes on a card visible to union bosses.

The Obama administration is also toying with a plan to substitute administrative regulations for treaties. Several years ago, the Council on Foreign Relations fingered the treaty provision of the U.S. Constitution as its most objectionable section, and now an ex-Clinton administration State Department bureaucrat, James P. Rubin, has floated a New York Times op-ed suggesting that treaties are not “worth the trouble anymore,” and we should substitute domestic regulations.

The globalists find it inconvenient that our Constitution requires a two-thirds Senate vote for treaty ratification. Horrors! That, they say, causes “international frustration” with America.

This frustration broke into print because there are not enough Senate votes to ratify the New START Treaty that Obama signed with Russia. Rubin’s solution is to ditch the ratification process and substitute executive agreements and pronouncements.

Rubin reminds us that after it became clear the Senate was not going to ratify a climate-change treaty, Obama just used EPA regulations, and so we can do likewise with arms-control treaties. Let’s just ignore the Constitution and let Obama bureaucrats make all important decisions. (IBD)

Or Food, let’s get them where they eat.

A questionable food safety bill in search of a crisis passed the Senate, but may hit a snag in the House. This power grab of the nation’s food supply may end up benefiting a certain Hungarian billionaire. (aka George Soros, puppetmaster of the extreme Left).

Why would the Senate take up precious time in the lame duck session considering a food safety bill?

Just as ObamaCare wasn’t really about health care reform but about government power, S510 is not really about food safety but about government control of agriculture and the nation’s food producers. The Food Safety Modernization Act would give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented power to govern how farmers produce their crops. The FDA would be able to control soil, water, hygiene, and even temperature, on farms. Through the law, the agency could regulate animal activity in the fields.

“This legislation means that parents who tell their kids to eat their spinach can be assured it won’t make them sick,” said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who wrote the bill, referring to a recent e-coli outbreak traced to spinach.

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste, even if you have to manufacture one. As the Heritage Foundation reports, the nation’s food supply is the world’s safest and getting safer all the time. Incidences of food-borne illnesses, despite headlines about massive egg recalls, have been declining for more than a decade.

In 1996, there were 51.2 cases of confirmed food-borne bacterial contamination per 100,000 people.

By 2009, this fell by a third to 34.8 cases per 100,000 people. So it would seem it’s getting safer for kids to eat their spinach. But then again, this bill isn’t about spinach.

S510 transfers authority over food regulation enforcement from the FDA to the Homeland Security Department, which brought us the TSA, naked body scanners and the groping of our junk. The bill requires the EPA to “participate” in regulating the food chain.

The bill expands government authority and control over America’s 2.2 million farms, 28,000 food manufacturing facilities, 149,000 food and beverage stores, and 505,000 residents and similar facilities. It increases inspections of all food “facilities.”

Because it taxes them for the privilege, the House must pass a new version of the bill to be sent back to the Senate. The Constitution requires all tax bills to originate in the House, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who opened the session with a five-minute soliloquy on football, should have known that.

One interesting feature of the bill is a bunch of new regulations regarding seeds and seed cleaning that requires expensive equipment. Smaller concerns might not be able to handle the added burden, concentrating the handling of seed production in the hands of corporate giants like Monsanto.

Curiously, George Soros’ hedge fund has just bought 897,813 shares (valued at $312.6 million) of Monsanto. His hand seems to be in anything that weakens individual freedom and destabilizes currencies and free governments, and makes him money in the process.

Governments at all levels have been busy telling us what we should eat and how our restaurants should prepare our food. Trans fats are bad and must be banned, as must vending machines that dispense candy bars and soda. There’s talk of putting federally funded salad bars in our public schools.

So much for the pursuit of happiness — we’re from the government and we have ways to make you healthy. Thomas Jefferson once said: “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”

Well, ObamaCare has taken care of the medicine part, and now government is after our spinach, too.

You can have our turnips when you pry them from our cold, dead hands. Bon appetit, America. (IBD)

And there’s still the FCC with Net Neutrality and The Fairness Doctrine. The FTC with new regulations on businesses.

This Alphabet soup of liberal regulations is bad for anyone’s health.

“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”– Thomas Jefferson

We are from the Government and we are here to help you… 🙂

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”-Thomas Jefferson

Political Cartoon by Nate Beeler