Once upon a time liberals "spoke truff to power" and righteously called for the impeachment of a president over an enemies list and spying and bullying, which was bad even though the president in question was only spying and bullying and collecting the names of DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS, which, when you think about it, is sort of understandable though reprehensible and we should always be careful to act disapprovingly and tut-tut over such behavior and raise our eyebrows and purse our lips just to make sure everyone understands that we sincerely disapprove...even though it WAS directed just at Democratic politicians.
Zoom ahead to the topsy-turvy world of today's liberals where they cheer their king when he turns the full force of government muscle on its OWN CITIZENS attempting to exercise their rights to support and elect candidates which represent their values. For today's liberals are staunch supporters of the king. Now they LOVE the government and the establishment and the power structure! Now they LOVE THE IRS for having an enemies list and bullying and spying! Now it's for "the cause." Now it's for King Obama. And, besides, it was highly effective. So don't expect any liberal to be upset or disapproving of the similar tactics of special prosecutor Francis Schmitz in Wisconsin.
Perhaps the probe will turn up some nefarious activity that warrants this subpoena monsoon and home raids. But in the meantime the effect is to limit political speech by intimidating these groups from participating in the 2014 campaign. Stifling allies of Mr. Walker would be an enormous in-kind contribution to Democrats. Even if no charges are filed, the subpoenas will have served as a form of speech suppression.
Mr. O'Keefe told us that the flurry of subpoenas "froze my communications and frightened many allies and vendors of the pro-taxpayer political movement in Wisconsin and across the country." Even if no one is ever convicted of a crime, he says, "the process is the punishment."(Emphasis most emphatically mine)
A marine tells his local community what is going on. Is anyone paying attention?
This might alarm you for a moment because the gentleman certainly has a background and the connections to speak with authority, but then again it is so very, very easy, and rather attractive, to push it aside as utterly impossible. This is America. Things like that do not happen here. They happen in Argentina. They happen in Cuba. They happen in Russia. They happen in Germany. They happen in Italy. They happen in just about every nation in Africa. But they do not happen here!
On Saturday, Terry M. Hestilow, a retired United States Army Captain from Fort Worth, Texas, posted a letter on Facebook that he wrote to Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, warning that the Department of Homeland Security is preparing to go to war with the citizens of the United States.
"It is with gravest concern that I write to you today concerning the recent appropriation of weapons by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that can only be understood as a bold threat of war by that agency, and the Obama administration, against the citizens of the United States of America," his letter began.
But to reassure you, if any of this is beginning to sound a little scary, I must remind you of how our Bestest Ever President Peace Prize cautioned us:
So don't worry your little heads about any of this. President Peevish has told us that we should just trust them...or we're going to have some real problems.
Federal Police in Grand Junction, CO
Today this was posted on my Facebook wall by a friend. It was accompanied by his written statement of what happened.
So, as I was about to park, I saw this vehicle, so I quickly got out of my car and took a picture as it drove by. As the driver saw me do this, he slammed on the brakes, and asked, "Do you have a problem?" To which I replied, "Just taking a picture. Is that illegal now?" He then eeked forward a few feet and stayed there in the middle of the road for about a minute and a half until a car approached him from behind, forcing him to move... This, ladies and gentlemen, is a FEDERAL POLICE FORCE. Here. In Grand Junction. Feel safe yet?
BOO!
Only I'm not kidding and this is really getting scary.
Political theater has always been a spectator sport in America. Watching politicians carry on, take up air time, posture and pose, or simply doze..has provided numerous humorists and comedians with ripe, almost fetid, fodder. Politics in America, while often hilariously stupid, always ineffective, and, at times, borderline retarded, have nevertheless been historically characterized
by a certain benign incompetence that left the citizens of this great
nation free to carry on, improving their lives, fixing government's
mistakes, and generally remaining optimistic and generous.
But no longer.
This is the Age of Obama. This is when we must finally learn our lesson, and Obama is going to teach it to us. This is when we must understand at long last that we didn't build that, and if we did, we've made enough money at some point anyway, so much money, in fact, that it is better for everyone if Obama is allowed to spread the wealth around and if we are uppity enough to disagree with this, Obama has instructed his followers to get in our faces or to bring a gun to our little knife fight. It is the Age of Obama, where laws are absolute to citizens, but amazingly fluid to our Beloved Leader and his friends; where belief in the Constitution is tantamount to terrorism and standing on principle is considered arson.
I've got a match and some lighter fluid right here.
Now we are threatened with what will
most likely amount to the paid vacation of 800,000 federal employees.
This is outrageous! How are we to cope? Our overlords have been
released from their desks, dismissed from their endless and unproductive
meetings, removed from the halls of power, sent home to put their feet
up and have a little down time.
OUR BETTERS ARE IN CHARGE AND WE DARE NOT QUESTION THEIR BENEVOLENCE. OTHERWISE BAD THINGS MIGHT HAPPEN.
Of course, the important thing to remember is that all the bad things that are happening are not Obama's fault. They are the fault of those who don't want to accept his benevolence. He wouldn't do these bad things if only Republicans would bow and scrape and accept whatever he wishes.
But the Bad Republicans are making Obama do bad things because the Bad Republicans are thinking bad thoughts about him. The Bad Republicans don't like his policies because they are racist and ungrateful and just plain stupid. The Bad Republicans are predicting that Obama's Most Awesome Affordable Care Act will not only be less than affordable, they are insisting that people don't even want it. Of course the Bad Republicans are lying. Everyone LOVES Obamacare. Why, there have only been a few...well...a couple...okay...thousands of waivers and exemptions allowed, but only to Obama's closest friends who said, "Thank you VERY much, really, honestly, but we'd prefer not to be covered by your most excellent law." And Obama said, "Sure. We're buds."
And then Congress, the ones who helped Obama write this most excellent law, said, "Oh, hey, yeah...we LOVE Obamacare...it's positively HISTORIC...but actually, we'd rather not have to participate either. Think you could fix that for us, big guy?"
And Obama said, "Sure. Why not?"
It's like listening to Kenny.
So now the Bad Republicans are saying that the American people Very Bad Teabaggers are simply asking the same favor, but Obama says the Bad Republicans and the Very Bad Teabaggers are in danger of destroying the entire country with a shutdown because they are willfully doing this just to be mean and because they are racist. So the Bad Republicans are listening to the Very Bad Teabaggers, although with their mouths full all the time, who can tell what they're saying? But even so, the Bad Republicans are willing to destroy the entire country on the crazed mumblings of a group of Very Bad Teabaggers extremist terrorists who should definitely be sent to the cornfield.
The concept of Godwin's Law, which is the use of a Hitler reference to win an argument, has parallels within our own country. But here the winning reference is McCarthy.
This tactic -- accusing someone of "McCarthyism" -- has been used for so long by liberals that it is taken for granted that it immediately wins the argument. So when Hugh Hewitt pressed his guest, Karen Finney, on her use of the accusation and her knowledge of history, she became infuriated. And she hung up on him.
Well, take that!
Hugh Hewitt was amused.
This is the face of politics in America in the glorious age of liberal ascendency. The left is angry and they are open about it. They are taking power and they are furious at anyone who questions them. The name-calling, whether it is directed at dog whistle racism or Tea Party terrorism or senatorial McCarthyism is reaching a level of flailing hysteria that more closely resembles a passionate yet ill-informed adolescent than a rational adult.
It cannot be without some measure of amazement and consternation that we watch both our country's liberal media personalities and federal officials make such egregious errors in logic. We hear Chris Matthews state that calling President Obama by his last name is indicative of racism because it is disrespectful. This is not, however, to imply that referring to Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, or Truman by last name was ever disrespectful. We learn from Judicial Watch, a conservative government watchdog group who obtained a copy of the Department of Defense training manual, that the United States government now regards the men who created the United States government as extremists:
As noted, an ideology is a set of political beliefs about the nature of people and society. People who are committed to an ideology seek not only to persuade but to recruit others to their belief. In U.S. history, there are many examples of extremist ideologies and movements. The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule and the Confederate states who sought to secede from the Northern states are just two examples. (Emphasis mine.)
The training manual continues:
“Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.” (Emphasis mine.)
I find it ironic that Karen Finney is warning of dire and potentially violent consequences should Senator Cruz continue his opposition to Obamacare on a show called "Disrupt", while Tea Partiers who stand for civil disobedience and change through the political process are called terrorists.
And I find it downright chilling that our own government considers the founding principles and values of this country to be extremist.
The IRS scandal is proving to be a hot potato and career bureaucrats are tossing it from one department to another, seemingly willing to "out" anyone and everyone...well, anyone and everyone except the President of the United States who blithely assured us all at the outset of this story that he didn't have a clue. Unsurprisingly, all of us took him at his word.
But now, unfortunately, it appears there isn't anyone else toblame except the stunningly intelligent yet admittedly ignorant POTUS.
But President Peace Prize has promised us he's as upset as anyone and determined to get to the bottom of it, by golly. Sort of. But one must understand that $100 million dollar vacations with the family to Africa and deeply painful yet inspired public musings on how he could easily have been a teen-aged thug who jumped a man and tried to beat him to death must take precedence over the uncovering of the largest, most potentially damaging scandal in the history of the presidency.
Our President is a man of vision and sacrifice. In the midst of scandal he can push himself away from the daunting task of delving into rampant and abusive political corruption to grant himself and his family a much needed va-ca in the land of his ancestors (no, not Ireland). In the midst of scandal, he has the humanity to give a speech citing myriad incidents of racial injustice he suffered in his own youth. In the midst of scandal, our Beloved President found a way to insure that Trayvon's death was not in vain; it allowed him an opportunity to talk about himself yet again, and that's always a handy thing. Thanks, Trayvon. You're a real team player.
So, while busying himself with Very Serious Matters, like endless rounds of golf and vacations halfway around the world, or with the tragedy of Trayvon stirring memories of how terrible his own life had been in his early years, President Peace Prize put his best man on the job of ferreting out the truth in the twisted trials of the IRS and the Tea Party. Bulldogs for Truth like ranking Democratic representative, Elijah Cummings, are proving worthy of President Obama's promise to uncover just what happened. In piercingly insightful questioning, Congressman Cummings asked IRS official, Elizabeth Hofacre whether President Obama had ever just picked up the phone and spoken to her directly about deliberately, systematically, and illegally targeting political enemies.
Her answer was no.
And that, kittens, was good enough for Bulldog Cummings. Apparently Rep. Cummings' level of proof is not a smoking gun, it's not even a stained dress. No, Rep. Cummings apparently needs Obama to stand in front of the Congressional hearing in a blood-stained shirt, holding a gun, sobbing, "Yes...YES! I did it. I targeted the Tea Party! I hate those bastards!"
Absent that, there is no scandal, and Bulldog Cummings would like for everyone to realize that and go home. Please. Please, dear God, everyone just go home and drop this whole thing.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican, finally woke the proceedings up with what he called "the evolution of the defense" since the scandal began. First, Ms. Lerner planted a question at a conference. Then she said the Cincinnati office did it—a narrative that was advanced by the president's spokesman, Jay Carney. Then came the suggestion the IRS was too badly managed to pull off a sophisticated conspiracy. Then the charge that liberal groups were targeted too—"we did it against both ends of the political spectrum." When the inspector general of the IRS said no, it was conservative groups that were targeted, he came under attack. Now the defense is that the White House wasn't involved, so case closed.
This is one Republican who is right about evolution.
When the Boston bombing was so recent that people were still screaming and bleeding, the erudite Mr. Moore took to Twitter and managed to use his pudgy fingers to hammer out tweets about the OBVIOUSNESS of the blasts occurring on Tax Day and what that OBVIOUSLY meant. Duh.
OBVIOUSLY.
For my money, 2 + 2 = a five letter word.
When it became OBVIOUS that the attack had been carried out by Muslims (but only because they were losers), the ever insightful, prescient and OBVIOUSLY wickedly funny Mr. Moore tweeted out how right correct he had been all along.
OBVIOUSLY.
What may not be so OBVIOUS is that the incredible Mr. Moore can't even be original with his sarcasm. This joke was done beautifully by Cliff Clavin ages ago.
He reminds us of that fact repeatedly because apparently it gives him carte blanche to comment on anything in the political arena, while, in sharp contrast, being...say...a pediatric neurosurgeon like Dr. Ben Carson means -- SHUT UP!
Leo is the wordsmith who put his hands over his ears in a attempt to win the argument during a recent appearance on Hannity. Apparently such behavior makes for good TV because he was back on Hannity last night.
But there is something besides the illuminating lunacy of the left going on here. Notice how quiet Mr. Innis quietly defends his quiet position throughout the theatrics. And comes off as losing.
No way, you say!
Way.
When one side is quietly acting like an adult, while the other side is having a temper tantrum, the temper tantrum always wins. Why? How can this be? Because the LoFo voters just hear passion...and feeling...and urgency...and they can just tell he cares.
And caring delivers the slam dunk, dance in the end zone, take it to the bank win, kittens. Every. Time.
Reasoning is...so...reasonable.
Bor-ring.
We have turned the news into theater and carnivals with pretty girls and men with perfect hair and great ties, and we wonder why it's all become so theatrical and dizzyingly insane.
The news used to be intentionally boring because they were informing you - which used to be their job. Now they are entertaining you - different job.
When news is entertainment, the side with the greatest entertainment value wins.
We'd better start having some temper tantrums. And soon.
You can tell from the very first moment that Bill Whittle is not his usual upbeat self in this video. He begins not with his trademark, "Well, hi everybody, I'm Bill Whittle." Instead he seriously says, "Well, hello everyone, I'm Bill Whittle."
I know. It's subtle. But I pick up on the little things in life. Watch for yourself.
We are in the end game of this great experiment in freedom for the individual. How will it end?
And, more importantly, which side will YOU be standing on when it does?
The election of the president of the United States nears and it is not too melodramatic to say the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Only two men realistically have a chance at winning this election, though a number of others are running.
Will it be Romney...or Obama?
The following video by Bill Whittle is one of his best as he tackles the question with clear-eyed, pragmatic reasoning. He focuses not on the Obama voter, who can not be persuaded, nor on the undecided voter, who frankly has made up his mind but is unwilling to say. No, he focuses on the principled voter who has decided to vote third party. His argument is particularly salient to me as I was "one of the those" until the 2004 election of George Bush. Until that presidential election, I had always voted Libertarian. Straight ticket. Period.
So perhaps, because of my history, I have a few additional insights.
I voted third party for many reasons, and none of them were really - or solely - about principle. Oh, principle was the "cover", the offered reason, the grounds for my stubborn commitment. But it was not truly about principle. It was about the refusal to become engaged. To participate. To get dirt on my hands.
And it was about apathy. The belief, not just that my vote didn't matter, but that the entire process didn't matter. That even if an R or D candidate won, nothing would change.
I voted Libertarian because it allowed me the moral arrogance of being "above the fray." It also allowed me to feel as if I was voting from an intelligent, principled stance without having to know a single thing about the election, the issues, or the candidates. They were both wrong, so why pay attention? By refusing to vote for either party - both of which support some aspect of the Establishment - I enjoyed a double scoop of chocolate/cherry ice cream. I got to feel smug while dressing my ignorance in party clothes.
Yeah, me! I was so freaking cool while all the numbnuts ran around voting for R's and D's and getting the same crap sandwich no matter who won.
And, secretly, I never had to address my fatalistic apathy about politics, my sense of helplessness in the face of the power structure of Washington and the Establishment. And my unwillingness to do anything about it. That wasn't pleasant. So much better to feel superior than insignificant.
Even when I voted for George Bush in 2004, I knew I was participating in a sham. It made me angry to realize that I truly did not have a voice, that the political machine in Washington had long since begun running under its own steam and didn't need my approval or disapproval as gas for the engine. The process of elections was to give people the appearance of control and participation, while in reality it was simply a ceremony every four years that essentially amounted to, "The King is dead. Long live the King!"
It wasn't until the rise of the Tea Party and the opportunity it offered for genuine citizen activism that I began to believe differently. Finally, the people were raising their voices. Finally, we had a pathway, a focus, a stated goal. Finally, we had a chance.
And that's all -- and everything -- Romney is.
A chance.
Voting for anyone else is throwing away that chance. We may never have another.
I'm going to take it.
So if you are still determined to vote third party, let me offer one more plea. Just this once, just this election, vote for Romney. I'll never ask again, because if Romney doesn't do what he has promised, then I will help to form a third party and will stand with you, though it may be too late for any party other than the Democrats, to ever regain power in this country. Think of that. Your principled vote could doom this country to a future that you DO. NOT. WANT.
A vote for Romney gives us a fighting chance.
If you take that chance and vote for Romney - JUST. THIS. ONCE. - I (and I know Bill) promise to do everything in our power to hold him to his promise to PUSH BACK against the last century of incremental progressive gains.
That is all we have. There is no third party vote that can change any of that now - at this moment.
Few experiences in life are more unsettling than to see your deepest beliefs shaken like a Rottie with a Beanie Baby between its teeth. Immediately one is struck by how insubstantial and vulnerable our beliefs can be: how effortlessly reduced to bits of fluff and sprinkled velour when they impact reality and are shredded as lies. The realization brings the catastrophic, crashing question: what NOW?
Yes, kittens, what now?
Watching Obama's performance on Tuesday night has understandably sent out seismic waves of shock and existential despair through the liberal community. For people who invest not just their intellectual principles, but their MORAL CHARACTER in politics, discovering that your man is truly not just an empty suit, but an empty chair, has to be one of the most epiphanous experiences possible. So what now? There is no "what now." Sorry.
The very question, "what now?" is predicated on the notion (I love using that word. It's Obama's favorite.) that there is a possible response to the event that allows you to maintain your original assumptions. "What now?" assumes that there is still a way to save your man, your beliefs, your own moral character, your view of the world and its possible future.
There isn't.
Obama is an empty chair because his ideas are empty. Leftist ideas are not just wrong - they are false. They are lies. History has allowed it to fall to the hapless Obama to show the world just how empty and devoid of intellectual substance leftist ideas really are. Until now, the ideas of leftism -- at least in this country -- had had the bountiful good fortune of the world's most robust economy on which to parasitically posture their moral superiority. All the promises of utopian egalitarianism seemed rather harmless amid the rough and tumble vibrancy of a country that had set men free of the demands that one's uniqueness be subordinated to another's equality.
Okay. Lets. Shall we?
Not likely to be a Tea Partier.
The left loves to insist that they "celebrate diversity". It's a central tenet to their moral view of tolerance and acceptance. But the honest celebration of diversity creates something anathema to the left. Economic inequality. So the left does not celebrate TRUE diversity. The left celebrates individual deviancy. The left defiantly holds up a mirror to the values of the right. The right embraces moral and cultural unity to foster an environment in which individuals can pursue their individual dreams without societydescending into dysfunction and dependency. The left, in contrast, defies and destroys cultural unity, allowing people to engage in behaviors that are destructive, dysfunctional, idiosyncratic, and which often result in economic and emotional dependency. The right celebrates cultural unity and economic diversity. The left celebrates economic unity and cultural diversity. The lefts' view of the world is not just backwards, it's upside down as well. In order to believe in leftism, one must first believe that the business of life is not business, that cultural activity and economic activity are unrelated. To the left, life is not production and creation, but indulgence and immediacy. In their world the need to produce is recrafted into servitude and slavery; the idea of PROFIT, the excess of production, becomes synonymous with greed and brutal, immoral self-interest.This belief forces one to be in conflict not only with the "business" of business, but with the business of life itself. It is not really a surprise, then, that when faced with a man like Romney, who understands what you create is a measure of who you are, Obama looked like an empty chair. A leftist discussing economic policy with a businessman is in dangerous territory to begin with, but a leftist with no demonstrable understanding, appreciation or RESPECT for the individual diversity of free people acting in their own self-interest is reduced to posturing and petulant smirks. Obama's contempt on that stage was not just for Romney or his tax plan. It was for America and freedom. Obama's lack of answers was not because he is stupid, it was because his ideas are stupid. Obama, like all those on the left, does not believe in creation. He believes in redistribution. He does not believe in production; he believes in confiscation. This is to believe in nothing. Theft is an empty promise. What we saw on stage Wednesday was simply the absolute truth of what leftism is. It is an empty chair. UPDATED! Wow. I took all this time writing this crap and Roger L. Simon said pretty much the same thing, only better. I should just quit. I ain't getting paid anyway. HAHA!
Apparently taking Obama's own words from his own books which, if we are to believe him, he wrote himself, and presenting them in a context that actually helps the American people understand his many inexplicable decisions and actions "is nothing more than an insidious attempt to dishonestly smear the President by giving intellectual cover to the worst in subterranean conspiracy theories and false, partisan attacks.” (Emphasis mine.)
Right. Got it. The truth -- Obama's own truth in Obama's own words -- is now a conspiracy. Stuff that up your Memory Hole, Mr. Smith.
Of course the White House attack didn't leave out those extremist Tea-bagging racist, one-toothed, slow-witted idjits who never vote Democrat, saying, "It should say enough about D’Souza’s credibility that a movie catering to the Tea Party attacks someone for allegedly ‘anti-colonial’ views.”
Oh, slam!
As a Tea Partier myself, I would say that my president doesn't like me much. The Great Uniter, the man who was not like us, who was a gift from God come to heal our souls, has kind of a bitchy side to him, don't you think?
“Their original strategy was to lie low and hope this goes away, but now they’re launching a full-scale attack,” D’Souza told The Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday. “And this is one of the most bizarre, clumsy and ineffective attacks I have seen in politics. Half of the stuff they talk about isn’t even in the film, like the Lockerbie bomber. These guys are referencing a Columbia Journalism Review article that’s two years old and is about my book, not about the film.”
One gets the feeling from the myriad attacks and smears that erupt out of the White House against anyone who dares question the actions of President Present that adolescents and pre-teens are working for Obama. Stupid kids. They never seem interested in even checking the accuracy of their attacks. It's as if they are simply relying instead on issuing talking points to the faithful, knowing they will race around the internet to gain validity simply through repetition. And spittle.
The truth isn't necessary when every argument dissolves into screaming accusations of racism and conspiracies.
So add anti-colonialism to the list of code words.
I've made plenty of posts about the insanity of the Democrats on full display at the Democratic National Convention, but this video, found at Rachel Lucasis too deliciously insane not to pass on.
For God's sake, people, we are looking at the Borg or the pod people or something, but these aren't Americans as I've always understood us to be. DO. NOT. GO. TO. SLEEP.
Jon Stewart of The Daily Show explores the question of how bad and wrong do you have to be at ABC to get in trouble for being so very, very bad and so very, very wrong. Apparently we have not plumbed the depths...yet.
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. citizens who are on the government’s list of people banned from flying because they’re considered terror threats are not prevented from learning how to fly in schools around the country, according to government regulations.
Such a person may have to drive across the country to learn how to fly a plane because he or she would likely be stopped from boarding a commercial airliner. But the security checks put in place after the 9/11 attacks will not keep the person from receiving pilot training.
Meanwhile, a high red-alert has been issued for all Tea Party types because of the violent, mass-murdering terrorist threats they pose to society. BE ON THE LOOKOUT! NEVER LET DOWN YOUR GUARD, COMRADES!
Why, yes, I'd love another cup of tea, thank you!
It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.
It would seem that more than a few of the new Representatives sent to Congress under the banner of the Tea Party and its platform for limited government and reduced spending actually prefer a LOT of sugar in their tea.
Once upon a time liberals "spoke truff to power" and righteously called for the impeachment of a president over an enemies list and spying and bullying, which was bad even though the president in question was only spying and bullying and collecting the names of DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS, which, when you think about it, is sort of understandable though reprehensible and we should always be careful to act disapprovingly and tut-tut over such behavior and raise our eyebrows and purse our lips just to make sure everyone understands that we sincerely disapprove...even though it WAS directed just at Democratic politicians.
