Mar 08

“I felt I had watched a very friendly stranger go to a party on the third floor of my family’s house, while my family was being held captive in the basement, desperate to escape”

Categories:

Assholes, Celebrity Stupid, Commies, Gangster Government

by

Stop helping.

A few weeks ago, when I heard Conan O’Brien was in Havana to shoot an episode of Conan, my heart sank. I’ve always liked him but I’m allergic to the tourist gaze. My many trips to Cuba have taught me how damaging it is. The Cuban regime, like all dictatorships, depends heavily on propaganda and learning it would take center stage on a late night show filled me with dread. Conan promised that his goal in Cuba was to make people laugh, that he wouldn’t touch the complicated politics of the situation. Ay Conan, if it were only that easy.

You can’t go to Cuba and be apolitical. Traveling there is a political act alone. The brands he joked about at the grocery store were all companies that were appropriated by the Cuban government. That cigar factory he visited was taken from a Cuban family of cigar makers. Cubans cannot afford to eat at paladares because the average Cuban only makes $20 a month, creating an unofficial tourist apartheid where foreigners enjoy Cuba while Cubans endure the regime. The “ruins” that took Conan’s breath away are dilapidated buildings that thousands of people have to live in because they are not free to move out of them without government permission.

He was there to connect with the people. But he was only connecting with the people that work in tourism — which any Cuban will tell you are a small and distinct sector of the population. Even acknowledging that would have been nice, but instead Conan lamented that in a few years there will probably be American stores in colonial Havana. That’s when he lost me.

Why shouldn’t there be a Foot Locker or a Gap in Havana? If Paris can handle multiple Nike stores — I’m pretty sure Havana can too. The idea that commerce would ruin the “ruins” disregards the desperate need for things to change in Cuba. Why shouldn’t Cubans benefit from capitalism the same way Conan does without losing what makes them special? After all, every show clip I clicked on came with an embedded commercial. If Conan really loved the Cuban people as much as he seemed to, why wouldn’t he want the same opportunities for them that have given him such a wonderful platform?

Every good totalitarian knows you can’t have socialism without slaves. They’re necessary to properly service the nomenklatura and their useful idiots like Conan, Michael Moore, and a bazillion other disgraceful, willfully-ignorant schlubs, maintaining the privilege and profligacy of their masters while being carefully hidden from view as much as possible. That’s the reality of it, whether Hollywood-Left dilettantes choose to admit it or not.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

2 comments

Mar 08

Sees the light

Categories:

Fucking Morons, Gangster Government, Real Men Of Genius!

by

Political correctness eats itself. And everything else.

A former equality chief has branded his years working to stamp out racial discrimination as ‘utterly wrong’.

Writer and broadcaster Trevor Phillips said efforts made under the Blair government turned anti-racism into an ‘ugly new doctrine’.

Mr Phillips is the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and has waged a 30-year campaign to tackle issues around discrimination and equality.

In an upcoming Channel 4 documentary, called Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True, he says attempts to stop prejudice instead encouraged abuse and endangered lives as well as contributed to the rise of parties like Ukip. 

He explains: ‘It was my job to to make sure that different racial and religious groups got on.

‘Campaigners like me seriously believed that if we could prevent people expressing prejudiced ideas then eventually they would stop thinking them. 

‘But now I’m convinced we were utterly wrong.’

Mr Phillips, a Labour party member, says anti-racism began with good intentions but turned into ‘thought control’. 

But Mr Phillips insists people should be free to use racial stereotypes, such as that many Jews are rich or that black people are more likely to be convicted for robbery, because they are true.

Explaining the issue, he said: ‘The dividing lines of race, religion and culture are probably the most dangerous flashpoints in Britain today, but they’re also the ones we find hardest to talk about in public.

Of course they are, you fool. That was the whole point of what you were doing. You were attempting to rein in free expression; who but a damned liberal-fascist SUPERGENIUS!! could possibly consider that anything other than “thought control”? You try to eliminate unpopular or even downright ugly opinions by government coercion and then act surprised that it becomes “difficult to talk about” them? That it became “thought control,” when it was never anything but precisely that in the first place?

Thought control was the goal. Making it “hard to talk about” unpleasant opinions–illegal to talk about them, in fact–was the mechanism by which you hoped to achieve that goal. It wasn’t some surprising “unintended consequence”; it was the whole fucking point of what you were doing.

And now we all have to sit back and watch you laboriously pick that profound intellectual lintwad out of your friggin’ navel, and pat you on the head for your courageous, honest genius after you’re done?

Sheesh.

(Via Insty)

2 comments

Mar 08

Doing diversity right

Categories:

Heh, Leftward ho!, RACIST!

by

If not good.

The Women on 20 campaign is fighting to put a woman on the $20 bill as a step towards achieving gender equality — apparently not realizing that the idea is transphobic and that the proposed list of nominees is racist and ableist.

While I definitely agree that it’s time to put an end to our microaggression-money, the suggestion that “female” is the only other gender we need to represent perpetuates the outdated concept of a gender binary. Not only are there an infinite number of genders out there, but there are also those who are gender fluid who identify sometimes as male and sometimes as female depending on how they feel at the moment. How about developing a bill that is male on one side and female on the other? That would actually be a great way to explain gender fluidity to Americans who are not as culturally aware as I am.

There must be a gender-fluid bill, a straight female of each race, a lesbian female of each race, a bisexual female of each race, an asexual female of each race, a gender nonconforming person of each race, a handi-capable female of each race, a handi-capable gender nonconforming person of each race, and also a few mixed-race representatives. I think that Gloria Steinem and Lena Dunham should at least be considered too even though they’re obviously a little bit evil because they’re white. I apologize if I am forgetting anyone. I’m aware that my white privilege makes me a terrible person so please forgive me in advance for my ignorance. I didn’t mean to oppress you.

What we actually need to do here is overthrow our entire currency.

Oh, I think that’s probably gonna take care of itself before too much longer. After all, if the Progtards have their way we’ll be carrying shiny rocks around in the pockets of our dried-animal-fur clothing as our medium of exchange soon enough. If you’ve read Peter Hamilton’s Fallen Dragon, you already know where the road they want us on winds up: Santa Chico.

3 comments

Mar 08

In search of Spock

Categories:

35, Heh, In Memoriam

by

I was kind of at sea when it came to mentioning the death of Leonard Nimoy, having nothing much to say that everybody else hadn’t already said. So I just held off on it and said nothing. I’m glad now that I waited.

“I loved Spock,” said President Obama, reacting to the death of actor Leonard Nimoy. Why? Because Spock reminds him of himself. The galaxy’s most famous Vulcan, the president wrote, was “Cool, logical, big-eared, and level headed, the center of Star Trek’s optimistic, inclusive vision of humanity’s future.” Just like you know whom.

The president is not the only writer who has drawn comparisons between himself and Spock. I am also a Star Trek fan, but I admit I was somewhat confused by my rather apathetic reaction to Nimoy’s death. And as I thought more about the president’s statement, I realized he identifies with the very aspects of the Spock character that most annoy me. I don’t love Spock at all.

The 2009 movie has a backstory that is complicated and silly, and I am too tired to recount it in detail so you can read a synopsis here. Nevertheless, Star Trek is an enjoyable picture that is revealing of Spock’s awfulness. It shows how Spock (played by Zachary Quinto) is tormented, physically and mentally, by the fact that his mother is human, how Mr. Logic is actually a boiling kettle of fury, resentment, passion, and ambition. Spock is a jerk to his girlfriend Uhura (Zoe Saldana), who is way out of his league. He almost kills Kirk (Chris Pine). He is so overcome with emotion he relieves himself from duty in the middle of a huge crisis.

Spock is rude to his father. “I never knew what Spock was doing,” Sarek (Mark Lenard) tells Picard in “Unification 1.” “When he was a boy, he would disappear for days into the mountains. I would ask him where he had gone, what he had done; he’d refuse to tell me. I forbade him to go; he ignored me.” Spock and Sarek fight constantly throughout the Trek continuity, despite Sarek’s offering his son countless diplomatic opportunities that Spock invariably messes up. Then Spock ignores his father for years as Sarek suffers from Bendai Syndrome and dies.

And Obama likes this selfish jerk?

Well, he would, wouldn’t he? Continetti runs through a lot more of this sort of thing, all of it in good fun, winding it up thusly:

It’s in this scene where Data’s superiority to Spock is most apparent. Data not only has the mental and physical edge over practically everyone, he is curious and earnest and humane, while Spock is moody, flip, detached, and self-consciously superior. Data wants to fit in, while Spock displaces his anxieties over his bicultural heritage onto his family and work relationships. Data’s words and actions are the result of blind unerring computation, while Spock is a creature of inner conflict and envies his famous and high achieving father. I’d pick Data over Spock for my first officer any day.

What Leonard Nimoy’s death revealed is that there is a sizable portion of Trek fans, and of nerds in general, that identifies with Spock’s neuroses, his hang-ups, his self-loathing, that are attracted to the cold soulless abstractions through which he views life, who believe in the naïve and ineffective diplomacy in which he so thoughtlessly and recklessly and harmfully engages. I can’t help but find this revelation disturbing. One of those fans happens to be the president of the United States who, like Spock, has derided the notion of helping to end the slaughter of the Syrian Civil War as illogical while giving up leverage in his negotiations with Iran. It will take America some time to recover from the legacy of our Spock-loving president—though probably not as long as it will take my friends to stop laughing at me for writing this column.

Heh. Like I said: good fun, and none of it necessarily derogatory of an excellent actor’s skilled portrayal of a memorable but highly flawed character, although it may well be interpreted that way.

Oh, and Nimoy was great as Spock too. May he rest in peace.

Update! Okay, i just gotta say it: I like Spock and all, and Leonard Nimoy seems to have been a fine fellow. But when all’s said and done, I’ll take Bill Murray:

Step five: Leave yourself open to magical moments. It’s unclear how long ago this was, but Murray told a tale of being in a cab in Oakland and finding out his cab driver was a saxophone player. The driver, however, never got to practice because he drove 14 hours a day. So when Murray also found out the guy’s sax was in the trunk, he had him pull over, get out his horn, sit in the back, and play while Murray drove. “You know, that’s like two and two. It makes four,” Murray said. “Not only did he play all the way to Sausalito, which is a long ways, but we stopped and got barbecue. He was playing at what people would call a sketchy rib place in Oakland at like 2:15 in the morning. It’s like, ‘Relax, man. You’ve got the fucking horn. We’re cool here.’ He’s blowing the horn and the crowd’s like, ‘What the hell’s that crazy white dude playing that thing?’ And it was great. It made for a beautiful night. I think we’d all do that, if you saw that moment and you’re, as we say, available, you’d make the connection and you’d do it right.”

Step six: Stay relaxed and success will follow. “Someone told me some secrets early on about living. You have to remind yourself that you can do the very best you can when you’re very, very relaxed. No matter what it is, no matter what your job is, the more relaxed you are, the better you are. That’s sort of why I got into acting. I realized that the more fun I had, the better I did it, and I thought, Well, that’s a job I can be proud of. I’d be proud to have that job, if I had to go to work and say, ‘No matter what my condition or what my mood is, no matter how I feel about what’s going on in my life, if I can relax myself and enjoy what I’m doing and have fun with it, then I can do my job really well.’ And it’s changed my life, learning that. And it’s made me better at what I do. I’m not the greatest or anything. But I really enjoy what I do.”

I mean, come on; how can you not just love the guy? I’d wager he’s more fun to hang out with than any ten other Hollywood celebs you could name, from any era you can think of. Time spent with Murray would just about have to be time well spent by definition, no matter what you were doing. A positive, hopeful attitude like his is infectious, and it damned well ought to be, too.

Years ago I wrote a piece about New Orleans, and that’s what reading about Murray’s…well, adventures is probably the best word, I guess–always reminds me of. I’ve spent a goodly portion of my life chasing after that kind of spontaneous serendipity myself, and while it ain’t exactly been enriching in the monetary sense, I sure have had a lot of fun at it.

(Via Insty)

1 comment

Mar 04

“Do we really need a Department of Homeland Security in the first place?”

Categories:

Culture Of Corruption, Life in a once-great nation

by

No.

The creation of the DHS was a classic example of how Washington reacts to a crisis. In the wake of 9/11, the pressure was on Congress and the Bush administration to “do something,” or at least look as if they were doing something. The result was a new Cabinet-level agency that cobbled together a host of disparate agencies, ranging from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Nearly every federal employee who wore a badge was simply swept up and dumped into the new bureaucracy. From a simple management or “span of control” perspective, lumping together so many unrelated functions is an invitation to failure.

From a national-security standpoint, the DHS is part of the problem, not the solution. After all, the agencies primarily responsible for counter-terrorism, such as the FBI, CIA, and NSA, are not part of the DHS. This, of course, hasn’t stopped the DHS from developing its own counter-terrorism infrastructure. But, if one of the primary intelligence gaps before 9/11 was the failure of agencies to share information and coordinate activities, it is hard to see how more duplication and fragmentation makes things better.

Making matters worse, virtually every congressman wants to be part of protecting the homeland too. No fewer than 90 congressional committees and subcommittees oversee some aspect of the department.

With so much of Congress involved — and because no one wants to appear soft on protecting the homeland — spending has skyrocketed, tripling from $18 billion per year in 2002 to more than $54 billion last year. Money spreads to every congressional district without regard to actual security needs. Thus, the DHS has provided grants to such obvious terrorist targets as Bridgeport, Conn., Toledo, Ohio, and North Pole, Alaska.

Is there more, and even worse, you ask? You already know the answer.

Leave comment

Mar 04

Real statesman schools petulant dilettante

Categories:

Our Allies, Our Enemies, Patton Would Be Proud!

by

“President” BitchBrat holds breath, turns blue.

The world leader who addressed a joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday was a man with a clear vision of Iran as an expansionist, extremist, radical Islamist power sure to use nuclear weaponry for domination.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walked the chamber through the regime’s four-decade history of imposing fundamentalism via repression at home and terror abroad as compelling prologue for urging the U.S. to abandon President Obama’s proposed nuclear deal with the mullahs.

As directly as possible, Netanyahu told the gathering of America’s elected representatives:

“For over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We are better off without it.”

Obama has on the table technical specifications and inspection standards designed to limit Iran’s ability to “break out” toward building a nuclear bomb within a year. He would allow the pact to expire in ten years, trusting that Iran would then meet standards for peaceful atomic energy.

The White House says, in effect, that this is the best the world can do considering that Iran has developed advanced nuclear know-how, illegally built sophisticated nuclear facilities, amassed ballistic missiles and could wire up and deliver a bomb in a hop, skip and a jump.

Well, whose fault is that?

Why, the guy who has no problem with Iran becoming a nuclear power and would just as soon see Israel destroyed, who else? And for those who refuse to believe that: if those things were the case, what would he be doing differently? This is the truly amusing part:

Pathetically, Obama falsely derided Netanyahu for failing to propose “viable alternatives” for further reining Iran in. Even more pathetically, at this 11th hour, Iran rejected the 10-year freeze that’s crucial to Obama’s scheme, flatly deeming it “unacceptable.”

The Iranians’ sudden deal-breaking intransigence highlights the folly of Obama’s enterprise and points the U.S. toward the action that Netanyahu, in fact, called for:

Get up from the table and lead the world to impose an ever-increasing economic chokehold on a rogue regime that has proved vulnerable to sanctions.

Obama fails to see so-called viable alternatives only because he has neither the nerve nor the wisdom to use them.

No, he pretends to fail to see them because he doesn’t wish to see them implemented. He is opposed to them; they directly interfere with his agenda. As I keep saying: just assume the absolute worst about the blaggard and everything he does suddenly makes sense.

Repeating itself update! “In a way it was Churchillian — not in delivery; it was not up to Bibi’s norm — but in the sonorousness and the seriousness of what he said. And it was not Churchill of the ‘40s. This was the desperate Churchill of the ‘30s.” Yeah, well, lots of those eerie parallels to be seen these days.

Leave comment

Mar 04

“Net Neutrality”: the real skinny

Categories:

Culture Of Corruption, Death to Liberty!, Gangster Government

by

So I’ve had a couple people ask me about the so-called “Net Neutrality” thing of late, and thought I’d try my hand at explaining it. First thing you need to know is this: it is NOT about the specific narrow issue they’re speaking of right now. It ain’t about stopping Netflix from getting preferential treatment for increased bandwidth, squeezing out potential mom-and-pop streaming startups with their big evil dollars. That argument is just the camel getting his nose under the tent, a subterfuge. What it’s really about is the government finally asserting control over the internet–just a little, just the very tip and no more, they promise. Which, as everybody over age 15 or so should know full well by now, is only the prelude to a good, thorough screwing.

Second, you need to know that there isn’t really a problem here in need of any sort of solution; the internet has done just fine as a free, innovative, wide-open frontier unfettered by the heavy hand of FederalGovCo. As somebody said, “Net Neutrality” is basically a solution in search of a problem, “a solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Next, you need to know who’s all for this power grab. Everything else aside, that will tell you everything you’ll ever need to know.

Today’s vote by a bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility is the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Left. Using money from George Soros and liberal foundations that totaled at least $196 million, radical activists finally succeeded in ramming through “net neutrality,” or the idea that all data should be transmitted equally over the Internet. The final push involved unprecedented political pressure exerted by the Obama White House on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, head of an ostensibly independent regulatory body.

The most influential of these congregate around the deceptively named Free Press, a liberal lobby co-founded in 2002 by Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor.

His goals have always been clear. “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.” Earlier in 2000, he told the Marxist magazine Monthly Review: “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.” When I interviewed him in 2010, he admitted he is a socialist and said he was “hesitant to say I’m not a Marxist.”

Despite his astonishingly radical goals, McChesney’s Free Press group was able to leverage foundation cash and academic “research” into an influential force behind net neutrality. Julius Genachowski, President Obama’s first FCC chairman, hired Free Press’s Jen Howard as his press secretary. The FCC’s chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, has co-authored a Free Press report demanding regulation of political talk radio. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan cited research from Free Press and other left-wing groups backing net neutrality more than 50 times.

Any further questions? Can anybody doubt that with this rogue’s gallery of left-wing fascists behind it, it can’t be anything but deadly for freedom, innovation, entrepreneurship, true diversity, and creativity? Government licensing requirements to start a political blog; federal bureaucrats overseeing your Twitter account to make sure you give “equal time” to government-approved points of view; possible jail time for expressing dissenting opinions–better not make any derogatory references to Islam or associate it in any way with Muslim terrorism there, bub–“hate speech” codes along the lines of those stifling free expression in Britain and all over Europe right now; taxes and fees on top of taxes and fees, and a federal Grey Man at each and every step of the way to look over your shoulder and make sure you’re not up to anything naughty…all these things and worse are no longer the stuff of paranoid fantasy.

Count on it all transpiring, and then some; how many instances can you think of when the federal government has moved in on an industry or institution, from health care to education, and actually improved things? And don’t kid yourselves about any supposed good intentions on the part of the many-thumbed “expert” regulators, either; these people have showed us their stripes and fangs enough times by now that we ought not to be mistaking the drooling, slavering tigers for harmless kittens, or for anything other than the clampdown artists they are and always have been.

1 comment

Mar 04

“Net Neutrality”: the real skinny

Categories:

Culture Of Corruption, Death to Liberty!, Gangster Government

by

So I’ve had a couple people ask me about the so-called “Net Neutrality” thing of late, and thought I’d try my hand at explaining it. First thing you need to know is this: it is NOT about the specific narrow issue they’re speaking of right now. It ain’t about stopping Netflix from getting preferential treatment for increased bandwidth, squeezing out potential mom-and-pop streaming startups with their big evil dollars. That argument is just the camel getting his nose under the tent, a subterfuge. What it’s really about is the government finally asserting control over the internet–just a little, just the very tip and no more, they promise. Which, as everybody over age 15 or so should know full well by now, is only the prelude to a good, thorough screwing.

Second, you need to know that there isn’t really a problem here in need of any sort of solution; the internet has done just fine as a free, innovative, wide-open frontier unfettered by the heavy hand of FederalGovCo. As somebody said, “Net Neutrality” is basically a solution in search of a problem, “a solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist.”

Next, you need to know who’s all for this power grab. Everything else aside, that will tell you everything you’ll ever need to know.

Today’s vote by a bitterly divided Federal Communications Commission that the Internet should be regulated as a public utility is the culmination of a decade-long battle by the Left. Using money from George Soros and liberal foundations that totaled at least $196 million, radical activists finally succeeded in ramming through “net neutrality,” or the idea that all data should be transmitted equally over the Internet. The final push involved unprecedented political pressure exerted by the Obama White House on FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, head of an ostensibly independent regulatory body.

The most influential of these congregate around the deceptively named Free Press, a liberal lobby co-founded in 2002 by Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor.

His goals have always been clear. “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies,” he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. “But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.” Earlier in 2000, he told the Marxist magazine Monthly Review: “Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.” When I interviewed him in 2010, he admitted he is a socialist and said he was “hesitant to say I’m not a Marxist.”

Despite his astonishingly radical goals, McChesney’s Free Press group was able to leverage foundation cash and academic “research” into an influential force behind net neutrality. Julius Genachowski, President Obama’s first FCC chairman, hired Free Press’s Jen Howard as his press secretary. The FCC’s chief diversity officer, Mark Lloyd, has co-authored a Free Press report demanding regulation of political talk radio. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan cited research from Free Press and other left-wing groups backing net neutrality more than 50 times.

Any further questions? Can anybody doubt that with this rogue’s gallery of left-wing fascists behind it, it can’t be anything but deadly for freedom, innovation, entrepreneurship, true diversity, and creativity? Government licensing requirements to start a political blog; federal bureaucrats overseeing your Twitter account to make sure you give “equal time” to government-approved points of view; possible jail time for expressing dissenting opinions–better not make any derogatory references to Islam or associate it in any way with Muslim terrorism there, bub–“hate speech” codes along the lines of those stifling free expression in Britain and all over Europe right now; taxes and fees on top of taxes and fees, and a federal Grey Man at each and every step of the way to look over your shoulder and make sure you’re not up to anything naughty…all these things and worse are no longer the stuff of paranoid fantasy.

Count on it all transpiring, and then some; how many instances can you think of when the federal government has moved in on an industry or institution, from health care to education, and actually improved things? And don’t kid yourselves about any supposed good intentions on the part of the many-thumbed “expert” regulators, either; these people have showed us their stripes and fangs enough times by now that we ought not to be mistaking the drooling, slavering tigers for harmless kittens, or for anything other than the clampdown artists they are and always have been.

Leave comment

Mar 01

BREAKTHROUGH!

Categories:

Dhimmi-wits, Our Enemies

by

Celebrity gigolo and Secretary of State Mrs John Heinz-Kerry announced today that the Imperial Soviet Socialist States of America has reached amicable agreement with its partners and bestest pals in Iran granting everything Iran had asked for in exchange for these magic beans.

The emerging nuclear deal with Iran is indefensible. The White House knows it. That is why President Obama does not want to subject an agreement to congressional approval, why critics of the deal are dismissed as warmongers, and why the president, his secretary of state, and his national-security adviser have spent several weeks demonizing the prime minister of Israel for having the temerity to accept an invitation by the U.S. Congress to deliver a speech on a subject of existential import for his small country. These tactics distract public attention. They turn a subject of enormous significance to American foreign policy into a petty personal drama. They prevent us from discussing what America is about to give away.

And America is about to give away a lot. This week the AP reported on what an agreement with Iran might look like: sanctions relief in exchange for promises to slow down Iranian centrifuges for ten years. At which point the Iranians could manufacture a bomb — assuming they hadn’t produced one in secret. Iran would get international legitimacy, assurance that military intervention was not an option, and no limitations on its ICBM programs, its support for international terrorism, its enrichment of plutonium, its widespread human-rights violations, and its campaign to subvert or co-opt Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria. Then it can announce itself as the first Shia nuclear power.

And America? Liberals would flatter themselves for avoiding a war. Obama wouldn’t have to worry about the Iranians testing a nuke for the duration of his presidency. And a deal would be a step toward the rapprochement with Iran that he has sought throughout his years in office. The EU representative to the talks, for example, says a nuclear agreement “could open the way for a normal diplomatic relation” between Iran and the West, and could present “the opportunity for shaping a different regional framework in the Middle East.” A regional framework, let it be said, that would leave American interests at risk, Israel one bomb away from a second Holocaust, nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East, and Islamic theocrats in charge of a large part of a strategic and volatile region.

I feel safer already.

As with almost everything else His Most Puissant Highness does or proposes, this burlesque of diplomacy is useful insofar as it clarifies further just who real Americans’ enemies–both foreign and domestic–actually are, and the alliances and allegiances of convenience between various loathsome agglomerations of them.

3 comments

Mar 01

Seen enough yet?

Categories:

Balls The Size Of Church Bells, Culture Of Corruption, Die Income Tax Die!, Gangster Government, This Far, No Further

by

I sure have.

Every IT-savvy commenter and coblogger was saying that all of these emails are periodically backed up to tapes which are always available.

The IRS kept claiming they weren’t. They claimed they were lost, or missing, or “recycled” every six months.

People not in the IRS kept saying “Bullshit, the point of the tapes is to keep them forever.”

So yes. This new investigator, Mr. Camus, set out to find the tapes which the IRS head swore under oath did not exist and he found them. In two weeks.

This suggests the very real policy that multiple hands at the IRS deliberately lied to Congress in order to end Congress’ search for the tapes, and that they further did not do the minimum due diligence required by law in cooperating with a federal subpoena: As Mr. Camus states, when he went to the storage facility in West Virginia, which is “exactly where you’d expect [the tapes] to be,” the IT people there found them immediately, and furthermore said that no one had ever before asked for the tapes.

Oh, I wouldn’t exactly count on that. After all, these are employees of an out-of-control bureaucracy in an illegitimate government–they lie as a matter of course, without the slightest fear of repercussion or reprisal. Thus:

I’m happy that we can pretend for a while there’s incriminating evidence on them that will finally allow for a prosecution of Lois Lerner and anyone else involved in using the IRS for thuggery.

Now we can put this to bed, right?

But I don’t believe a word of it.

The idea that the guys directly in charge of these suddenly found backups elected to say nothing to anyone, and waited for someone to come ask for them, like Cinderella waiting for prince Charming to show up and put the glass slipper on, is bunk. The only way that could have happened is if the IT people in at least one group have gotten up every morning for at least a year, showered, shaved, dressed, and showed up at work where they stuck their heads in buckets of mud for the entire day. It only could happen if they live in Plato’s cave when they go home at night.

It must be sweet in that department that didn’t start going over what they had for backups from day 1 when it was revealed that the IRS lost the backups. It must be awesome to work for a boss who didn’t come down and say, “so, what’s up with these backups! Because we’re being made to look pretty damned foolish! Do we have that stuff or not! I want to know ASAP because I expect to be on a bridge call by 12:00 where everyone, the Pope included, is going to be asking that question.”

But the call never came? So they just went back to their daily business? With all the news going on about missing backups? They didn’t know who to tell maybe? So they just told no one?

Anyone with half a brain, who’s had half an ounce of responsibility knows that somewhere someone was going to answer for those missing backups. And it behooves the guys who are supposed to have them, to be able to answer that they in fact do have them, if all it takes is for them to go look.

And you can bet your sweet bippy they went and looked. And they pro-actively told someone above them.

Yet we’re supposed to believe they said nothing.

To anyone.

For over a year.

Right.

Alan goes on to suggest that the situation involves an even more nefarious motive for the coverup than some of us might wish to believe, which presents us with a further question: are they that smart? You bet they are…for certain values of “smart.” Bear in mind what I’ve said all along about our Emperor, His Royal Splendiferousness Barrack Hussein Abdul Mohammed Shitstain: cunning and devious ain’t necessarily the same thing as smart.

The IRS is easily the most powerful (and most feared, with very good reason) agency of a rogue, contra-Constitutional government, and it–along with said illegitimate government, which wields it like a cudgel to rob and cow its subjects–is completely out of control. A truly free and self-respecting people would not for a moment countenance such an abominable agency’s continued existence; a truly legitimate national authority reliant on the consent of the governed wouldn’t need it. I can’t think of any plainer, more honest way of putting it than that. Which brings us to this:

Consider the evidence of enemy action thus far:

– The federal government is replacing the American voters with invaders.
– The executive branch has been materially in contempt of federal court for years.
– The federal government has commenced banning rifle cartridges.
– The regulatory state has transformed into an unaccountable, all powerful entity.
– The government has seized control of the only free information source.
– The executive branch has just co-opted the power of the purse from the legislative.
– The legislative branch has willfully and deliberately surrendered it’s authority.
– The federal government has seized control of the health care industry.
– The regulatory state has been weaponized to crush peaceful challenges to authority.
– The federal government has turned a massive spy apparatus upon the citizenry.
– The executive branch refuses to curb it’s abuses of power and criminal excesses.
– State sovereignty has been obliterated.
– The regulatory state has been fully captured by those it was to govern.
– The judicial branch has been stacked with rubber stamping ideologues.
– Unalienable rights under natural law have been materially breached.

Every possible peaceful avenue of redress has failed us. All attempts at civility met with spittle and derision. Each “compromise” answered only with churlish demands for “more.” The Rubicon has at last been crossed fellow patriots. No more compliance. No more acceptance. No more of our money and no more of our liberty. If they want our precious possessions now, they’ll have to earn them – at cost.

The government’s fools have finally rendered the law dead, just as they have rendered this nation dead. The old rules that bound us are now so much vapor and soot – so it has been openly decreed by our putative masters. But in casting off their – and our – obligations to law, they willingly and knowing surrender the protection it once afforded them. They no longer have license, they now lack mandate, and we no longer owe them fealty. The body of tyrants that was once our government is now entitled to only what treasure they can seize, what obedience they can force and what respect they can coerce with lash and blade.

There is a problem with tyranny blatantly declaring itself and starting to operate out in the open as such: it abnegates all pretense to legitimacy, abandons all claim to the loyalty of its subjects, and opens itself to resistance, insurrection, and sabotage as morally and legally justifiable* forms of dissent. Which only means that the tyrant is going to have to get busy redefining treason to include all those on his suddenly-expanded enemies list.

So nobody, but nobody, should be at all surprised that that’s exactly what the tyrant has done.

At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly. The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists. But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens.

And if you are a “terrorist”, that means that you have no rights and the government can treat you just like it treats the terrorists that are being held at Guantanamo Bay. So if you belong to a group of people that is now being referred to as “potential terrorists”, please don’t take it as a joke. The first step to persecuting any group of people is to demonize them. And right now large groups of peaceful, law-abiding citizens are being ruthlessly demonized.

Below is a list of 72 types of Americans that are considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” in official U.S. government documents. To see the original source document for each point, just click on the link. As you can see, this list covers most of the country…

That list is lengthy, and covers pretty much every living soul likely to be reading this post, including its author. I won’t transcribe it; chances are you all know who you are already, and what your would-be masters think of you and intend to do about you. But if you have any doubts about exactly what kind of country you now live in, whether it retains any plausible claim on your allegiance, or where your relationship to the liberal-fascist Superstate now stands, I urge you to go and have a look–and to face up to the ugly reality at last. Which is this: Constitution-revering, patriotic, real Americans not only no longer have representation in our national institutions; we no longer have a nation at all.

Conduct yourselves accordingly, folks.

*Timeless words, deathless principle: “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government…when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Sound like anybody you know, perchance?

Leave comment

Feb 27

Twilight time

Categories:

Culture Of Corruption, Guardians Of Freedom, We Are Soooooo Screwed

by

Am I the only guy in the world who thought this story not so much cute and inspiring, but sad and depressing?

For the first time, the U.S. Air Force has resurrected a B-52 bomber that had been in long-term storage at the Boneyard, the portion of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base near Tucson, Arizona, where the military sends aircraft that have been retired from the fleet.

The 53-year-old Stratofortress, tail number 61-1007, nicknamed the “Ghost Rider” had been in storage at the desert in the care of the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) since 2008. Thousands of aircraft are stored at the Boneyard, where the dry desert environment helps preserve them. Some are scavenged to supply parts to planes still in the fleet. Others are brought back into service. Ghost Rider, after upgrades, will become the first B-52 to return to duty from the Boneyard.

Though the dry desert air inhibits corrosion, the baking heat can have other adverse effects, including causing dry rot in the tires and fuel lines. The lines and fuel bladders in Ghost Rider were completely replaced, Tech. Sgt. Stephen Sorge, a fuels specialist from the 307th Maintenance Squadron, said in an Air Force report on the project.

Once that work was done, the plane’s engines were tested again in January. On February 13, Ghost Rider flew again, a three-hour flight from Davis-Monthan to its new home, Barksdale Air Force Base in Shreveport, Louisiana. The resurrection process took 70 days, according to the Air Force report.

“I’ve been flying the B-52s since the ’80s and it surprised me that after almost seven years…she cranked up just fine and we had no issues with the flight control systems,” Col. Keith Schultz said in the Air Force report after piloting the eight-engine jet on the 1,000-mile flight.

So we’re now reduced to cobbling together parts from junked planes to keep our aging, decrepit fleet of sixty-year-old aircraft in the air. Great.

The nice thing, if you can call it that, is that we remain the world’s sole superpower–not because we’re all that powerful anymore, but because the other prospective contenders have so crippled themselves with big-government socialism as to place themselves completely out of the fray. Good thing we at least are smart enough to recognize the superiority of free-market capitalism and to not try to walk the same big-government…uhh…umm…

Oh, hell.

I define a bureaucracy as an organization that does not understand itself to be under competitive pressure. This applies to most government departments, as well as many large companies, and other organizations, like many parts of my own Catholic Church. The reason why militaries often have a reputation for efficiency that other government departments don’t is because they tend to get competitive pressure in the form of people who try to kill them.

But being a government body, a military’s “natural” status is of a bureaucracy: lumbering, impervious to change, inefficient. Efficiency is still the exception to the rule. Napoleon was able to conquer most of Europe because Europe’s militaries had become bureaucracies due to their feudal structure, which in France had been cut off (often literally) in the French Revolution.

As strange as it may seem today, in 1940, the French military had a similar aura of invincibility; it was the military that had led the Allied forces to victory in World War I, then the greatest war anybody had ever seen. Part of the impetus for appeasement in the 1930s came from the notion that Germany couldn’t do anything too crazy because then the French would crush them. But the French did not understand that they were competing, they got complacent and lazy, and got crushed by Germans who understood very well that they were competing.

Today, the U.S. military has fallen under the Bureaucracy Rule. The U.S. has no great power rivals, and thank God for that. Iraq and Afghanistan have not caused an identity crisis for the U.S. military because many senior commanders view these as “freakshow” wars — counterinsurgency wars, not the kind of “real” wars that militaries fight.

What are the signs that an organization has become a bureaucracy?

He lists a few telling ones, but there are plenty more he doesn’t go into; if you have family or friends in the military, most likely you’ve heard about at least some of them. And then there’s this:

The United States military does not currently have the ability to fight two major wars simultaneously, according to a new report, a significant reduction from the capacity enjoyed by defense officials for decades.

The Heritage Foundation’s “2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength” concludes that the armed forces “would be ill-equipped to handle two, near-simultaneous major regional contingencies (MRC).” The two-MRC goal was largely attained during the Cold War, when U.S. forces engaged in a conflict every 15 to 20 years while maintaining ground forces in other regions to ensure stability and deter aggressors.

That strategy enables the U.S. military to defeat one adversary in a conflict while preventing another aggressor—seeking to take advantage of the United States’ preoccupation with the first conflict—from defeating it in a separate theater.

But this strategy is no longer feasible, according to the report.

“The consistent decline in funding and the consequent shrinking of the force are putting it under significant pressure,” the report said. “Essential maintenance is being deferred; fewer units (mostly the Navy’s platforms and the Special Operations Forces community) are being cycled through operational deployments more often and for longer periods; and old equipment is being extended while programmed replacements are problematic.”

“The cumulative effect of such factors has resulted in a U.S. military that is marginally able to meet the demands of defending America’s vital national interests.”

Fortunately for us, one entire branch of the nation’s political uniparty–along with half the population–doesn’t recognize that we even have national interests that are either vital or legitimate, thereby obviating the need to worry about defending them. So we got that going for us, I suppose. As for that bit about “problematic” replacements…

According to the latest (2012) estimate from the Pentagon, the total cost to develop, buy and operate the F-35 will be $1.45 trillion—yes, trillion, with a “t”—over the next 50 years, up from a measly $1 trillion estimated in 2011. For those of you keeping score at home, this means that the F-35’s lifetime cost grew about $450 billion in one year. (Who says inflation is dead?)

The fighter system’s cost grew by approximately one Manhattan Project every three weeks between 2011 and 2012.

That number—$1.45 trillion—might be difficult to grasp, especially in the context of U.S. defense spending, so let me try to put it in perspective: the entire Manhattan Project, which took around three years and led to the development of the atom bomb, cost a total of $26 billion (2015), most of which went to “building factories and producing the fissile materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons.” By contrast, the F-35 will cost $29 billion. Per year.

For the next 50 years.

Indeed, just the 12-month increase ($450 billion) in the F-35’s lifetime estimate means that the fighter system’s cost grew by approximately one Manhattan Project every three weeks between 2011 and 2012. Granted, A-bombs are far different from fighter jets—for example, bombs don’t need maintenance after use—but these differences shouldn’t obscure the F-35’s simply astounding impact on the U.S. federal budget.

These crazy numbers still might be justifiable if the F-35 were part of a near-flawless weapons system that is destined to guarantee U.S. air superiority for the next half-century. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth.

It all puts me in mind of a conversation I had whilst walking around NYC with my great good friend Chris Pfouts, now deceased. He said that if New York had to build the subway system now instead of back when it did, it would simply never actually get done. It would not, and it could not, because modern American society is simply not capable of seeing such a massive project through anymore, for all sorts of reasons.

This conversation took place about twenty years ago. He was right then, and is even more so now. But hey, as long as we’re fighting 10th-century barbarian fanatics on mule-back, we ought to be just about able to stay even, right?

All that said, though, it must be acknowledged that, however far we mighty may have fallen, we haven’t fallen quite this far…yet.

Germany, which has persistently failed to contribute its agreed share of the military budgets agreed by the NATO mutual defence organisation, has neglected its own military to such a point where they now lack basic equipment – such as guns.

This discrepancy was farcically illustrated at a NATO joint exercise last year, which was intended to train and test the supposedly elite rapid reaction force, a collection of NATO units ready to deploy anywhere in the world at short notice to respond to crises. Despite the exercise having been planned years in advance, the Germany contingent found they didn’t have enough machine guns, and resorted to using black-painted broom handles instead.

It is now known the battalion of Panzer Grenadiers were lacking nearly one third of their machine guns, almost half of their side-arms, and almost all of their night-vision goggles.

German authorities insisted mounting the broom handles on their armoured personal carriers was merely a matter of subterfuge, as the vehicles had the interior space taken up by radios and command equipment instead – but this appears rather to be the latest in a long line of German military mishaps caused by a chronic lack of money.

Significant underinvestment in military equipment, poor maintenance, and a lack of spare parts have led to a number of embarrassing failures for the German military in the past few months. After deciding to donate millions of euros worth of military equipment of Kurdish fighters, the German government found itself unable to deliver it, because every military transport plane they tried to ship it with broke down on the runway.

Looks like the EUrosocialists are finally running out of other people’s money. And remember, these are the guys the Greeks–and the other sick men of Europe–are looking to for their fiscal salvation.

1 comment

Feb 26

Playing God

Categories:

Eco-tards, Heh

by

Geoengineering: is there a downside?

Oh, yes. Milton Friedman famously noted that if you put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand. Geoengineering would give the government control over the planet’s thermostat.

Consider an analogy: For the past hundred years, control over the money supply has been given to the Federal Reserve. Led by a group of experts in economics and business, the Federal Reserve is justified as a means of tempering the boom and bust cycle of the pre-central bank period. But the economy, it turns out, is really complicated, and nobody’s perfect, so occasionally the Fed makes mistakes that plunge the globe into a crippling depression.

Now imagine the equivalent of the Federal Reserve, but for global temperature. Maybe it would be based in Washington, DC (shudder); maybe at the United Nations (double shudder). No doubt, it would be staffed by the world’s most eminent experts who made it through the political vetting process. Yet one wrong move, one over-reaction or under-correction, and the planet could turn into a hothouse or be headed into a new ice age. That could be really bad. When the earth’s temperature dropped a couple of degrees during the “Little Ice Age,” this led to crop failures, wars, revolutions, and other nastiness that may have killed off upwards of a third of humanity.

And that’s not the worst-case scenario. Because there is no world government (thank God), setting a single target temperature for the planet would be very difficult. Some countries might prefer a warming world. Others might want it chilly. The resulting conflict could lead to a new Cold War (pun intended). Because geoengineering is so cheap, planet-changing programs are well within the reach of poorer nations and even some wealthy individuals. That’s a lot of chances to screw things up royally.

Are We All Going to Die?

Yes.

Well, THAT’S a relief, anyway.

Feb 26

The tyrant makes his move

Categories:

Balls The Size Of Church Bells, Death to Liberty!, Life in a once-great nation, Life In The O!gulag, Our Enemies, Tales of the Gun, This Far, No Further

by

Everybody ready?

It’s starting.

As promised, President Obama is using executive actions to impose gun control on the nation, targeting the top-selling rifle in the country, the AR-15 style semi-automatic, with a ban on one of the most-used AR bullets by sportsmen and target shooters.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives this month revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track, immediately driving up the price of the bullets and prompting retailers, including the huge outdoors company Cabela’s, to urge sportsmen to urge Congress to stop the president.

Wednesday night, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, stepped in with a critical letter to the bureau demanding it explain the surprise and abrupt bullet ban. The letter is shown below.

The National Rifle Association, which is working with Goodlatte to gather co-signers, told Secrets that 30 House members have already co-signed the letter and Goodlatte and the NRA are hoping to get a total of 100 fast.

Gonna take a good bit more than just that, I’m afraid. This reign of witches, pace Jefferson, is not gonna just pass over on its own. It’s gonna have to be pushed along.

“This round is amongst the most commonly used in the most popular rifle design in America, the AR-15…” said Goodlatte’s letter.

So? Why else do you think he’s going after them? He couldn’t get them banned by Constitutional means–not there ARE any Constitutional means for doing away with a natural right explicitly protected in the Constitution itself–so he’s doing what any omnipotent tyrant would do: issuing a decree. Now we’ll see who’s willing to stand up and fight, and how far they’re willing to take the battle.

I’ve said all along that if there’s ever to be a final spark put to the funeral pyre of liberty that will ignite the hearts of the liberty-minded and rouse them to direct action at last, it will be 2A issues that do it. The gun-rights folks are aware, awake, and deadly serious about their rights and beliefs; I never have expected them to just go gently into that good night, not by a long yard. King Hussein Obama just might have struck the match here that will end up burning not just him but the whole socialist edifice to smoking ruin.

The soapbox: in a cacophony of voices, all are mere babble. The ballot box: a rigged system, a false choice, a meaningless charade, a dog-and-pony show that changes absolutely nothing, bread and circuses for the marginally aware, life vest for a forlorn and fruitless hope. The cartridge box: now under direct attack, by the very government charged by our Founding documents to protect it. As our old friend MM says in this comment (NOTE: forgot the link before, fixed now): whatcha gonna do?

But frankly, I advise you to refrain from discussing your intentions here, or on any other website or blog. Because they’re coming for those too:

In a 3-2 vote today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to radically overhaul the way Internet service is regulated. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and the commission’s two Democratic commissioners voted to move forward with the rules. The agency’s two GOP-appointed commissioners opposed them.

Under the new rules, broadband providers, long classified by the agency as Title I information services, will now be regulated as Title II telecommunications services—essentially making them public utilities, like the phone system. The move is designed to allow the FCC to implement strict net neutrality rules limiting how much control Internet service providers (ISPs) can exert over what passes over their networks.

Today’s vote is the result of a lengthy process begun by Chairman Wheeler roughly a year ago, and that process came in the wake of two previous efforts in which the agency’s net neutrality rules were struck down in court. But the end result of the vote was largely set near the end of last year, when President Obama released a statement calling for the agency to implement the strongest possible net neutrality rules.

Obama’s statement, itself somewhat atypical in its attempt to publicly influence an independent regulatory agency, followed a long, secret effort inside the White House, in which administration staffers acted, as The Wall Street Journal reported, “like a parallel version of the FCC.” Wheeler had been considering less restrictive rules, but changed his course after the president’s statement.

They mean to control us–all of us, in every imaginable aspect. They will never, ever stop–they’ll keep coming, keep trying every way they can think of to slip the leash over our heads and around our necks one way or another–they will have to BE stopped. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

In the meantime, though, it means that the FCC has taken an unprecedented and fear-reaching step in order to make good on one of the Obama administration’s long-running political priorities—a step that solves no significant existing problem, but is instead designed largely to fend off hypothetical harms, and give the agency far more power over the Internet in the process.

As Commissioner Pai told ReasonTV, the move is a “solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist.” It is a solution, however, that is now in place, and is sure to create some problems of its own. 

It most certainly will at that, and maybe not in the way some people think. Hey, what’s that sad, withered, half-dead looking tree over there? Could be it just needs watering.

2 comments

Feb 26

True colors

Categories:

RACIST!

by

Careful what you wish for, racist bitch.

MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry said during an address at Cornell University this week that she hopes 17-year-old Trayvon Martin “whooped the s–t” out of gunman George Zimmerman during their fatal encounter in 2012.

Harris-Perry’s speech, titled “We Can’t Breathe: The Continuing Consequences of Inequality,” was delivered during the university’s annual Martin Luther King, Jr. Commemorative Lecture.

Harris-Perry’s address, which was captured and uploaded to YouTube by the university’s conservative group, the Cornell Review, continued: “And I hope he whooped the s–t out of George Zimmerman. And it’s not disreputable because he encountered a stranger who was prepared to kill him, and you know how I know? Because he killed him.”

Trayvon Martin, a worthless ghetto thug, an opportunistic petty thief wandering around getting high on Lean and looking for a house or car to break into or a defenseless, unwary white person to mug, did in fact TRY to “whup” Zimmerman. You know how I know? Because of the multiple lacerations on Zimmerman’s head after the worthless ghetto thug tried to pound his head into the sidewalk. Know how else I know? Because Zimmerman shot his worthless ghetto-thug ass deader than Caesar’s ghost in self-defense, that’s how. It’s why Zimmerman is a free man walking around on this earth, and Martin is a worm-eaten corpse who will never harm another innocent person again, as is no more than just.

But it’s worse than all that, and bigger than all that. The loathsome Harris-Perry is all too typical of a mindset prevalent in a large segment of the so-called “black community”–a vile, pig-ignorant, hateful, and bigoted segment consisting of ghetto parasites like Martin, insidious con artists who use them for monetary gain like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and their slightly-better-educated and more affluent cheering section of blatherskites and willful enablers, of which Harris-Perry is most decidedly a part.

Together, these three groups combine to keep thugs like Martin rotating from “street life” to prison cells, priming their perpetual-victim pump with plenty of pseudo-intellectual excuses for their indolence, insolence, and poverty. Well, one excuse, really: slavery. Now, never mind that there is not one black person living in America today who even knows anyone who was a slave–who knows anyone whose great-grandparents were slaves, for that matter–unless that person hails from a Moslem country wherein slavery is still practiced (which makes the whole Black Muslim phenomenon pretty damned ironic, if you ask me).

And ultimately, that excuse provides them with a handy object ready-made for their mindless, drooling hatred: De White Man.

Ace gets close to it in addressing the stupid bitch, but stops short of taking it all the way to the hoop:

I think you’ve had a secret position all along, a hateful, racist one, that you will not confess:

That you know Trayvon Martin did just what all the witnesses said he did, and that George Zimmerman was perfectly sober in deciding his life was in some danger, but you think Zimmerman should have taken his punishment happily, whether he wound up dead or brain damaged or not, because he had the temerity to challenge Trayvon’s right to be in that housing development, and therefore Martin was entitled to dish out a little Impromptu Street Justice and Two-Fisted Racial Healing, even if it resulted in (a) man’s death.

I think some of our more Racialist friends on the left have long held this position — that yes, Martin was pounding Zimmerman’s head into the concrete, but so what, Because Zimmerman deserved it for being a “racist,” and the Rule of Street Justice says that a black man who feels disrespected is entitled to some self-determined Racial Payback if he likes.

So yeah, that’s what I think. The seething “Let’s get Justice for Travyon” types usually don’t admit that Martin was pounding Zimmerman, but, and this is key, they usually don’t spend much time denying that salient fact either. They just sort of handwave it away, as if that’s just a trivial detail and not very important to their Big Picture legal analysis.

And on that point I think they’re being honest– they don’t see this as important in their legal analysis. Zimmerman deserved what he was getting for the crime of Disrespecting a Black Man, and he broke the Rules by putting a stop to his chastisement.

If Zimmerman just wanted to plug Martin, he sure was slow on the draw.

And that last is what really matters. Or will, eventually.

The truth is, there’s one hell of a lot of black people out there–almost every one of them “liberal,” Progressivist, left-wing, whatever–who absolutely hate and despise De White Man, considering white people the author of every single fault, failure, and catastrophe that ever occurred to any “person of color” anywhere, ever. The only white people they have any use for whatsoever are those who properly prostrate themselves on the altar of Black Victimhood and White Guilt to meekly accept their just scourging and debasement: i.e., white “liberals.”

And there are an awful lot of white people who are good and sick of being used as a combination of piggy-bank and whipping boy for black failure. These are generally people of good will who don’t wish any harm at all to anyone because of the color of their skin. In fact, recognizing as they do that their own hopes for a peaceful and prosperous life for themselves and their children are bound up in somehow reversing the life course of ghetto trash like Martin, they hope only for success for those people, although they sometimes despair of finding a solution–particularly as long as race-pimp remoras like Sharpton and Harris-Perry remain attached to them for their own personal gain.

Those white people are becoming fed to the gills with having black fingers constantly wagged in their faces while sneering race-pimps like Perry blame them for crime, poverty, unemployment, and incarceration rates that they are in no way responsible for; they know they bear no culpability for ghetto black youth’s lack of ambition, education, ability to speak proper English, or refusal to wear a pair of pants in the intended manner. The soul-destroying nihilism promoted by hip-hop culture that infects inner-city black culture like a cancer is in no way their fault. The destruction of the black family perpetrated by the welfare state is not something they can be blamed entirely for either, since blacks have voted in overwhelming numbers for the continuation and metastasization of it long past the point where they should have figured out on their own what was really being done to them.

So, knowing all this, and knowing how much people like Harris-Perry–and Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown, and who even knows how many others just like them–hate them, how long can it really be before these people decide to stop being as “slow on the draw” as George Zimmerman was? How long before they decide that their own time of being hapless, helpless, docile victims of misguided “black rage” is well and truly over?

As I’ve said here many times already: those both subtly and not so subtly calling for race war better be damned careful about what they wish for…lest they finally get it, but good; lest they encounter plenty of “strangers who are prepared to kill them,” rather than meekly submit to anymore violent shakedowns masquerading as misbegotten Street “Justice.”

Update! Bob Owens on vicious cycles:

It’s a heck of a lot easier to sell a false victim narrative than it is to take responsibility for failed families, failed political ideologies, and rampant criminal behavior.

It’s a lot easier to manufacture a “white Hispanic” police wannabe out of a tri-racial neighborhood watch volunteer, than it is to admit that the community had to form a neighborhood watch in the first place because of the rash of crimes committed by other young criminals like Trayvon Martin.

This sort of celebration of criminal behavior by Harris-Perry and others like her will only inspire and reinforce the beliefs of other feral youths that their violent behavior is not just acceptable, but laudable.

Sadly, law enforcement officers and regular citizens alike will be forced to react to that increasingly brazen and mindless violence.

Sadly, that will mean more violent youths are justifiably killed in self-defense.

The exploiters and enablers will then attempt to rehabilitate that next violent offender into a “victim,” as they line their pockets.

And the cycle will continue.

For exactly as long as people–both white and black–allow scum like Harris-Perry and Sharpton to perpetuate it. And then, suddenly…it won’t.

1 comment

Feb 25

One more time ag’in

Categories:

Commies, Kissing The Royal Baby, Liberals are violent haters, The Liberal Way of War

by

Jeez, I thought we’d settled this one years ago. Guess not.

Gallup headlined its write-up of a 2010 survey “One in Three Americans ‘Extremely Patriotic’: Republicans, conservatives, and seniors most likely to say so.” According to Gallup, 52 percent of Republicans and 48 percent of conservatives called themselves extremely patriotic; only 20 percent of Democrats and 19 percent of liberals did.

As a general matter, patriotic sentiment becomes more attenuated the further left you go. The late distinguished philosopher Richard Rorty, hardly a McCarthyite, once wrote a New York Times op-ed titled “The Unpatriotic Academy.”

He praised the Left on campus for its championing of marginalized groups, before stipulating that “there is a problem with this left: it is unpatriotic. In the name of ‘the politics of difference,’ it refuses to rejoice in the country it inhabits. It repudiates the idea of a national identity, and the emotion of national pride.”

Edmund Burke famously said that “to make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.” For the Left, America is lovely to the extent it corresponds to a progressive vision of a European-style welfare state that leads from behind in international affairs and pounds its chest less about its own greatness and exceptionalism. The America it can feel proud of exists not in actuality, but in prospect, as a vessel for a distinct ideological vision.

Needless to say, it is hard to pursue this project while simultaneously feeling what George Orwell, in his definition of patriotism, called “devotion to a particular place and particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world.”

None of this means that questioning any particular politician’s patriotism will ever be considered in bounds — it smacks of questioning motives that are ultimately unknowable. But if Giuliani had stood up before that room of conservatives and said that liberals don’t feel about this country the way we do, he would have been on unassailable ground, and had the data to prove it.

Which says nothing at all about whether he would have been assailed or not anyway; he surely would have been, because “liberals” are at least smart enough to know that it’s very difficult to get away with seizing and holding power over a populace they so patently despise when their contempt for said populace is widely acknowledged.

In fact, for decades now “liberals” have regarded patriotism itself as worthy of scorn and ridicule, and have never been all that shy about sneering at those who openly profess it. As Ira Straus says:

Most of the people who are denouncing Giuliani’s remark probably think it’s true. Even many of the liberals who are denouncing it must think so. How often have they portrayed patriotism as a backward idea, held onto by ignorant ordinary Americans, the kind who cling to their religion and their guns — something intelligent people know better than? Even conservatives recognize that patriotism is an ambiguous virtue, a love of the near that can be in contradiction to the love of the universal good. Leo Strauss reminded us that Socrates said a soldier was like a dog, nice to the people of the house but dangerous to the rest. This does not lead conservatives to scoff at soldiers or forget their virtues, the way many progressives have been heaping mud on American Sniper.

The main use for words such as “patriotism,” in contemporary progressive circles, has been to deploy them in an upside-down fashion. When things are done and said at America’s expense, they praise it as “true patriotism,” as when an Obama or a Leahy says that “America would cease to be America” if it went on electing conservatives and taking commonsense national-protection measures. Or when they condemn a pro-American idea as “un-American” — a phrase they abhor when it is used sincerely, but feel no compunction about using for the sake of confounding the masses. Or talk about their loyalty to “America” as a “principle” — interpreted always their way — rather than an actual country, to be served loyally. Or demand that, to be true to their rhetorical “America,” we must sacrifice the global interests and power of the real America — the America whose strength is the most important guarantee the world has for the continuation and progress of its principles.

They don’t like it when ordinary patriotic Americans see something wrong with their lack of love for the real, existing America. They call it “McCarthyism,” an attack on intellectuals for thinking the things intelligent people are supposed to think. As if there could be anything wrong with being an enlightened intellectual and seeing through the silliness of love of country!

They don’t feel they are hurting freedom when they go about constructing an edifice of denunciation and discipline against ever saying such things. They feel it, rather, as a way of protecting their own freedom from unfair criticism. It is, for them, a matter of maintaining public hygiene in face of the unwashed, mean-spirited masses.

Straus has a lot more, particularly on the real but hidden motivation of the libs’ manufactured OUTRAGE! over all this (hint: think Stalin and one of his preferred methods for maintaining absolute control over a cowed populace) and the mechanism by which they implement it, and guys like Lowry really ought to read it before cooperating in their own subjugation by wringing their hands in “liberal”-approved fashion over Giuliani’s “inappropriate” truth-telling.

That truth remains: “liberals” are proud of the stumbling, staggering, impoverished, enfeebled, and above all contrite totalitarian shithole they intend to finish turning us into; conservatives are proud of the far greater nation–the Constitutional Republic as founded–that we were for a while there. Contra all the milquetoast conservatives who wilt onto the fainting couch whenever someone like Giuliana refuses to call a “liberal” spade a man-powered entrenching device, it is neither inaccurate nor unfair to speak the obvious and incontrovertible truth, without equivocation or euphemism. It might well be out of bounds, at least for some, but that says more about how firm the “liberal” grasp on our throats really is than anything else.

1 comment

Feb 24

There’s politically correct, and then there’s correct

Categories:

Brilliant!, Patton Would Be Proud!

by

Giuliani was the latter. And so is this kid.

President Obama, You don’t love America. If you really did love America, you would call ISIS what it really is: an assault on Christianity, an assault on America and downright hate for the American values that our country holds. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and every single thing that our country stands for.

I hope that one day people will get enough guts to speak out against your downright hatred for this nation.

When they [ISIS] kill innocent Americans that have done no wrong except report on what is their constitutional right as journalists and you do nothing about it, you don’t care about their lives. You could care less!

But here’s what you need to realize: here in America, we don’t back down to terrorists. We fight them on their own battleground and we annihilate them till the very end.

Here in America, we don’t allow the government to take away what we work for but we continue to work harder so that we may continue to succeed.

A-friggin’-men. Amen, and hats off to you, son. Your parents should be very proud of you, so should you, and so should we all. It takes guts aplenty for an ordinary subject to speak up plainly like this in the kind of country we live in today.

(Via Bill)

Update! There’s pride and guts, and then there’s…this.

Is it possible that a reasonable person could think President Obama doesn’t love America? Well, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has faced heavy criticism for saying just that, but Giuliani isn’t crazy. His thoughts are usually well-collected. He is a Republican leader, and his opinion matters. That said, his comments aren’t helpful in today’s election context, and attacking Obama is generally off-message for Republicans who want to win in 2016, but Giuliani has a right to say what he thinks.

I’m a sufficiently intimidated, mostly tame Republican, so I won’t say I share the mayor’s views, but the fact is that a lot of Republicans do believe that Obama doesn’t clearly and consistently demonstrate his love for America in a way that they can always relate to. The media are in full-throttle attack mode against anyone who gives pause to Giuliani’s statements. Their blaring “how dare you” harangue reveals their defensiveness.

“Love” is a subjective term, and humankind has grappled with exactly what love is since the beginning of time. So who is to say who loves whom and who loves what?

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The rest of the article is factually sound enough, if weasel-worded. But Rogers already openly admitted to his overall gutless pussification, so why should anybody with more backbone attend to any of it? Myself, I’ll stick with Giuliani and the young fella quoted above; they’ve earned the regard and respect of honest patriots who remain uncowed by an empty-suit tyrant and his baglapping support apparatus. Rogers…eh, not so much.

None dare call it update! Fred Siegel gets it right. He usually does.

The ranting has obscured the reasons why so many Americans take Giuliani’s remarks to heart. Starting with his June 2009 speech in Cairo, when he apologized for American actions in the Middle East, Obama has consistently given credence to Islamic grievances against America while showing reluctance to confront Islamic terrorism. In 2009, after Major Nidal Hasan killed 13 American soldiers and wounded 40 others at Fort Hood while shouting “Allahu Akhbar,” the administration labeled the killings workplace violence. In recent months, the pace of evasions has quickened. Obama was the only major Western leader absent from the massive Paris march held in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo killings. Worse yet, Obama referred to the killings in a Jewish supermarket in Paris as “random” acts of violence.

But this was only the beginning of a string of curious comments and loopy locutions made by the president or his spokespeople in the weeks that followed. While ISIS rampaged across the Middle East, the president told a Washington prayer breakfast that Christians shouldn’t get on their “high horse,” because they were guilty of the Crusades, among other crimes. Not only were the Crusades many centuries past, but they were also a complicated matter in which both sides behaved barbarically. But more important, Obama’s comments reinforced the standard Muslim propaganda about how the jihad is merely defensive. Shortly thereafter, ISIS murdered 21 Coptic Christians in Libya (a country in complete chaos, thanks to an Obama-led Western intervention). The White House’s response was to condemn the killing, not of Christians but rather of “Egyptian citizens,” another evasive locution. The casual listener need not have knowledge of the White House’s associations with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or the administration’s hostility toward the anti-jihadist regime in Cairo to find Obama’s words and behavior peculiar treasonous.

Fixed it for ya.

With all the atrocities that the ISIS fanatics have committed, Obama’s anger has been more often directed not at them, but at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The animosity between the two men has never been a secret, but now, with Obama’s term in office waning, he is determined to cut a deal on the Iranian nuclear program on terms much to Tehran’s liking. Netanyahu is an obstacle to that goal.

All of this, then, was a backdrop to Giuliani’s remarks, in which he called out Obama for the president’s many rhetorical bluffs. If the former mayor’s words have created a firestorm, it’s because for many, they have helped make sense of Barack Obama’s words and actions.

Precisely so–which is exactly why his media flufferboys are so exercised about it. It’s always been true; now it’s out in the open, and they know that has potential to do them great harm with people who might not otherwise be paying attention.

1 comment

Feb 24

To all sane people still living in California

Categories:

Tales of the Gun, The Loony Left

by

All three of ‘em, I mean: get out now, before someone maims or murders you and is given a medal for it by your deranged rulers.

I mean, after this, what the hell are you waiting for? The warning shots have been fired across your bow a bazillion times already.

Almost a month ago, I wrote about something amazing that happened in our Superior Court: the judge ruled against a prosecutor who sought a judicial indictment against James Simon, who had shot William Osenton when the latter followed Simon’s car for miles and then, after Simon pulled into his own garage, followed right into the garage after him, got out of the car, and headed for Simon’s house. Despite Simon’s warnings (both verbal and a warning shot), Osenton was undeterred, so Simon shot him twice in the stomach. Osenton survived the shooting.

The Prosecutor’s take  in the preliminary hearing was the same as that advanced by the Progressive: With a scary guy chasing you right into your garage, and then getting out of the car and storming towards the house, all that you are allowed to do is hide in the house, call 911, and hope that the police come in time.

We can call the Progressive’s and the Prosecutor’s take the anti-Castle Doctrine: Seconds may count, but you’d better politely wait several minutes until the police arrive, based upon the gun-grabbers’ unswerving presumption that anyone threatening you and/or trying to break into your house is, more likely than not, a pacifist who wants to sit down with you and discuss world peace through disarmament.

Unfortunately for Dr. Simon, the prosecutor didn’t let the matter rest after the judge said no. Instead, he decided to bring out the heavy guns [pun intended], and have a grand jury decide whether to indict Simon. The grand jury did, which isn’t very surprising given that the prosecutor had before him 19 upstanding Marin County residents.

And that should tell you all you need to know about what’s going to happen next. I won’t go so far as to say that anyone still insisting on staying in California will deserve it when something like this happens to them. But as with white people still clinging to Ferguson, Missouri, they long ago lost the privilege of being shocked and surprised by it.

(Via Maet)

Feb 24

Dark Ages: the new normal

Categories:

Culture Of Corruption, Distinction Without A Difference, FTGOP, Our Enemies

by

Annnnd…well, here we are.

The Obama years will be forever known as the Dark Ages of US history, a time of political, cultural and economic deterioration. We have yet to see if they will lead to the fall of the American republic.

In the Obama years, the lie became not only a campaign strategy or a means to enact damaging policies, but an institution of government; the Presidency itself, a lie of monstrous proportions guarded by the complicit and the willingly ignorant.

In the Obama years, the Congress finally clearly demonstrated that although we have elections, there is no longer a government representing its citizens, but an entity serving itself, operating outside of Constitutional constraints and unaccountable to the American people for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many.

In the Obama years, disseminating either disinformation or no information, a devoted media helped create the intellectual darkness and vacant servitude required to carry out the strategy of their leftist Messiah;  a country without any sense of its own history and traditions, where the low-information voter would slouch towards Obama’s imaginary utopia through a combination of governmental coercion and the hedonist nihilism of a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free America managed by a nanny-state.

In the Obama years, we see the resurrection of the economic feudalism of the Dark Ages, a system dominated by wealthy special interests that inhibit the upward mobility of the poor and the middle class.

In the Obama years, like during the Dark Ages, we witness the rise of Islamic hegemony and violence, the infiltration of the US government by the Muslim Brotherhood and the promotion of Sharia law in our schools and judicial system.

It is clear that members of Congress have largely not adhered to their oath to support and defend the Constitution. The solution, however, is not simply trying to elect more “good” people, who eventually get coopted or crushed by the system, but to create circumstances or incentives that oblige bad people to do the right thing.

The author lays out some pretty good ideas for sparking an American Renaissance, not one of which will ever happen until after we’ve disincentivized bad behavior on the part of the bad people we’ve allowed to rule us by rendering it not just painful, but actually, literally lethal.

Meanwhile, though, back in the delusional-fairytale America where voting Republican actually matters: another UNEXPECTED!™ betrayal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took steps Monday to prevent a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security by splitting off legislation attacking President Obama’s immigration actions from the funding fight.

The Kentucky Republican is seeking to fast-track legislation to eliminate two new immigration programs launched by Obama late last year, while allowing a 2012 initiative targeting younger immigrants to continue as designed.

McConnell’s move sets the stage for separate votes on a measure to fund the Homeland Security Department (DHS) past Friday and to dismantle Obama’s unilateral efforts to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.

A House-passed proposal combining those two efforts had hit a wall in the Senate, where Democrats on Monday united for a fourth time this month to block the measure over their opposition to the provisions undoing Obama’s executive actions.

The DHS will suffer a partial shutdown if Congress doesn’t act before Saturday.

A very damned partial shutdown, of a redundant bureaucracy that does very little other than serve as the poster-child for overlarge, tyrannical, contra-Constitutional government while actually decreasing real security against the only true enemies we have outside the Ruling Party–enemies we’re not even allowed to notice are enemies, by Imperial decree.

But hey, go GOP, right? After all, this isn’t the hill to die fighting on; it would be counterproductive to do anything other than give Obama and the Democrat Socialists everything they want while pretending to oppose them. And they’re really helpless anyway, controlling only one both halves of one third of the government as they do, right? Just wait till 2017, after they’ve regained the presidency–THEN the Fightin’ GOP will really hunker down and save the Constitution. Meanwhile, there is absolutely nothing the branch of government that makes the laws and controls the pursestrings can do, right?

Meanwhile, though, it’s absolutely crucially critically essential to keep giving them power they’ll never use to do something they don’t actually want to do. And if you fail to see the necessity of marching off to the polls every couple of years to waste your time doing something that will accomplish precisely nothing other than making yourself feel all smug and good about doing your laughable “civic duty,” then hey, you’re part of the problem, man!

Right, GOPtards?

Y’know, it occurs to me just how similar the bleating of the GOP sheep outlined above is to the eternal socialist plaint that the reason their program always fails to deliver anything but tyranny, poverty, misery, and mass murder is that it can only work once it’s made global in scope. Can’t do anything right piecemeal, they simply MUST have ALL the power before the magic can work.

In a pig’s eye. The fraudulent pustules can go peddle it someplace else; no market for it here. Slice them however you like, they’re still all baloney.

(Both via Insty)

1 comment

Feb 22

Community-organizing the jihad Part the Third

Categories:

Obama Lies, Our Allies, The Liberal Way of War

by

And lying about it. Of course, and as usual.

While Sisi sees a dangerous flaw in Islam, Obama believes America needs to be “fundamentally transformed” but Islam is fine as is. You see the problem, no?

In reality, the summit had so little to do with confronting terrorism that the president did not invite the FBI director — you know, the head of the agency to which federal law assigns primary responsibility for terrorism investigations.

The summit was really about advancing the “social justice” agenda of “progressive” politics. The president and his underlings somehow reason that the answer to the barbarity of ISIS and al-Qaeda is to “empower local communities” here and abroad. Apparently, if the community organizers rouse the rabble to demand that government address “injustice” and Muslim “grievances,” the alienation that purportedly drives young Muslims into the jihadists’ arms will abate. This is the strategic political aspect of the Left’s denial of terrorism’s ideological roots: If terrorism is not caused by Islamic supremacism, then it must be caused by something else…and that something somehow always manages to be a government policy opposed by the Left: insufficient income redistribution, running Gitmo, our alliance with Israel, surveillance of radical mosques, etc. Smearing your political opponents as the root cause of mass-murder attacks — it’s a very nice weapon to have in one’s demagogic arsenal.

To the extent the summit dealt with Islam, it was to play the counterproductive game of defining the “true” Islam in order to discredit the Islamic State and al-Qaeda as purveyors of a “false” or “perverted” Islam. To try to pull this off, Obama relied on the bag of tricks toted by his “moderate Islamist” allies (who also turn out to be reliable progressives).

In his summit speech, Obama made the concession — which was almost shocking coming from him — that ISIS and al-Qaeda terrorists “do draw” from “Islamic texts.” He mocked them, however, for doing so “selectively.” The clear suggestion was that the terrorists deceive when they assert that Islamic scripture commands Muslims to, for example, “strike terror into the hearts” of non-believers, decapitate them (“smite their necks”), or enslave them. He intimated that there must be some balancing scriptures, some other side of the story nullifying these belligerent commands.

But then, almost in the next breath, the president engaged in the same bowdlerizing of Islamic teaching of which he had just accused our enemies. We should, he said, be listening to, instead of the terrorists, “Muslim clerics and scholars” who “push back on this twisted interpretation” and assure us “that the Koran says, ‘Whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind.’”

The Koran does indeed say that, in Sura 5:32. Yet, in the very next verse, conveniently omitted by Obama (5:33), it goes on to say…

Now, guess what it says. Go on, guess. Hint: it’s exactly what you’d expect if you’ve ever read much at all of Mohammed’s Little Murder Book–ie, more of the usual bloodthirsty totalitarian mania that characterizes Islam as it is perceived by the huge majority of its primitive devotees, and practiced by the more, shall we say, ambitious and energetic of them. How very selective of him not to mention it, eh?

But as McCarthy says, Obama’s treasonous Taqqiya Kaffeeklatsch was about nothing more nor less than promoting the Progressivist agenda by hook or by crook, just like everything else always is. I’ll say it again: there’s only one war Obama truly wants to fight, and it ain’t against IS; it’s against us.

1 comment

Feb 22

Beginning to get it yet? Part the Bazillionth

Categories:

FTGOP, The Ruling Class

by

It’s far too late for the GOP to figure it out, but maybe some of those teetering on the brink of a few grim realizations might be pushed over the edge into recognizing reality at last.

The moment a journalist takes sides, they are no longer operating as a journalist but as an advocate. It doesn’t matter what one thinks of any comment made by a politician about another. White and Fournier, with those tweets calling on various Republicans to “denounce” or “condemn” Giuliani’s comments are not acting as objective reporters, but instead like palace guards whose sole purpose to protect President Obama.

This is not anything new. The most outrageous is example was in 2012 during the second debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama during the 2012 campaign. Mitt had Obama on the ropes about whether he referred to the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi a terrorist attack (he didn’t). As the President fumbled with words, Candy Crowley of CNN, there to be a debate moderator, instead swooped in to “correct” Mitt Romney on something that was not incorrect.

NOW we’re getting somewhere: palace guards, not just for Obama but for any Democrat Socialist, is PRECISELY what they are. There is no other way to accurately describe them. And much like His Royal Supercalifragilisticexpialidociousness, there is no way to make sense of the things they do without assuming the worst about them. It really is just like this:

It was at nearly the same time, Stephen Miller aka @redsteeze (if you’re not following him, you should be and you should also be reading his work over at The Wilderness) said to me:

@JayCaruso They ARE Barack Obama.. His image directly reflects on those who who got him elected. An attack on him is an attack on them
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) February 21, 2015

He’s exactly right. In Obama they see themselves. What he wants to carry out is what they want and they are going to do what they can to make sure these last two years he gets to do just that, the consequences be damned.

So whether it is going after Rudy Giuliani or going after a Congressional staffer for a slight against the Obama daughters, the media is going to be out to defend Obama at all costs.

That’s what the palace guard does.

Bingo, all up one side and down the other. Expecting anything else from them is the height of folly; no matter who you are–yes, even Maverick McCain, a Court Media darling right up until the very moment he was running against a Democrat Socialist, at which point he morphed immediately (to his own stunned chagrin) into a dangerous, wheezing, warmongering, sleazy old lunatic, a menace to his nation, his party, and himself–you will never, ever, ever get anything else. Hence the futility of this pitifully forlorn plea:

What should Boehner do? I think he, and every Republican, should do what George H.W. Bush did to Dan Rather as the 1988 presidential race was heating up: eat the mainstream media alive. They are the enemies of the Republican Party and should be treated as such. Stop trying to curry favor because you won’t get it. Bush laid a trap for Rather, insisting on the interview being live so it couldn’t end up on the cutting room floor. It totally flustered Rather, greatly energized Bush’s campaign, put the kibosh on his too-much-a-nice-guy image, and helped mightily to propel him to the White House. Make mainstream media bias the issue. Throw loaded questions and those premised on liberal assumptions back in their faces. Accuse them of bias when they are biased. Don’t be Mr. Nice Guy.

Why have the Republicans been such wimps when dealing with the media? The reason, I think, is that the Republicans were the minority party in this country from 1932 to 1994. The Democrats held the House for all but four of those 62 years and the Senate for all but ten of those years. In far too many ways, the Republicans still act as the minority party, begging for crumbs from the media. But they now hold more political offices, at both the federal and state levels, than at any time since the glory days of Calvin Coolidge. Instead they should, in dealing with the media, emulate Joan Crawford, at least as depicted by Faye Dunaway in Mommy Dearest, dealing with the board of Pepsi Cola (warning, she doesn’t use ladylike language).

Yeah–you know, like Newt Gingrich did back during the 2012 primaries, when he used an assault on an openly hostile press as the launching pad to vault himself from obscure-crank status to frontrunner and overwhelming winner of the SC primary just about literally overnight…just before the “conservative” punditry caught the vapors themselves over his frightening unpredictability and uncollegial incivility, redoubling their efforts to drum him out of polite GOP society and back to the margins where threats to the Big Government status quo properly belong.

Ahem.

So with that in mind, what on earth makes any of you people think for a moment that the GOP WANTS to go after the mainstream press? Hoping they will–calling for them to do so as if there was a snowball’s chance in Hell in July that they might–indicates that you think they do want to neutralize Court Media’s sinister influence on American politics once and for all, and nothing could be further from the truth, as lamentable and infuriating as that is. All you need to do to confirm this is spend about thirty seconds considering that out of the current crop of GOP no-hopers, only Ted Cruz (and probably Bobby Jindal) are even remotely likely to actually do it–and then remembering how they’re generally treated by the old-line GOP traditionalists: as something to be handled with heavy gloves and a facemask as you’re walking it out to the dumpster, pinching your nose against the offensive odor wafting off of them in waves.

It all goes right back to what I said about the Obama/Democrat Socialist/Court Media monolith above: assume the worst about them, and everything they do (or adamantly refuse to do, in this case) suddenly makes perfect sense. I’d say we have enough evidence by now to render the deceitful, treacherous GOP not a hell of a lot more worthy of the benefit of the doubt than Obama is. Maybe I’ll start up a new category here for posts like this, something like “Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Party,” maybe. Then again, “FTGOP” works pretty well for my purposes, I think.

(Via Ed Driscoll)

Feb 21

You only wish I was kidding

Categories:

Balls The Size Of Church Bells, Damn that's funny!, Dhimmi-wits, Our Enemies, The Liberal Way of War

by

Hey, remember all the way back to yesterday when I titled a post “Community-organizing the jihad?”

Yeah. Just like that.

But y’know, maybe I’m wrong to poke fun at these featherweight college-boy pukes. Maybe a good, hard dose of meddlesome, out-of-control, overweening, supersize Progressivist PC Government is just what the barbarians at the gates need, and could solve all our problems for us. After all, Americans were some pretty rowdy sumbitches once upon a long ago, and it sure sucked all the juice out of us, didn’t it? How else are you gonna turn this:

Rage boy!

Into this:

Pussy boy

Hey, the meek shall inherit the Earth, right? Also the gutless, the dickless, the submissive, and the steercotted.

Looking at that smug, smarmy, putrid little smirk all over Pussy Boy’s sallow yap up there, it suddenly dawns on me that I have never sympathized more with the Moslem killers and their cause. Just take your time and make him suffer, Ahmed, that’s all I ask. His girlish squealing will be like music to a lot of ears.

Update! “The left takes the same approach to every problem, be it bullying or beheading: an expensive conference promoted by the same Benetton-ish graphic design the left has used since Live Aid, and the already-agreed-upon solution that the answer lies in greater ‘dialogue.’” Like I said: when the only tool you know how to use is a hammer…

Basically, what we are now is a nation governed by the Oxford Union, with a cross between Neville Chamberlain, Vidkun Quisling, and Benedict Arnold for pretend pResident.

An insult, if you like update! Steyn takes issue with my characterization of Obama:

The US media have had a fit of the vapors over Rudy Giuliani’s suggestion that Barack Obama does not love America. As the Instapundit says, their reaction suggests that Giuliani hit a nerve.

For my own part, I am way beyond that. By the way, I’m growing rather weary of the cheap comparisons of Obama with Neville Chamberlain. The British Prime Minister got the biggest issue of the day wrong. But no one ever doubted that he loved his country. That’s why, after his eviction from Downing Street, Churchill kept him on in his ministry as Lord President of the Council, and indeed made Chamberlain part of the five-man war cabinet and had him chair it during his frequent absences. When he died of cancer in October 1940, Churchill wept over his coffin.

So please don’t insult Neville Chamberlain by comparing him to Obama.

I stand corrected. It’s a lead-pipe cinch that no real American will be inclined to weep over Obama’s. Piss over it, more like. Mark has bigger fish to fry, naturally:

I opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security on the basic Thatcherite principle that if you create a government bureaucracy in order to deal with a problem you’ll never be rid of the problem. But I underestimated the creativity of our rulers: The DHS was set up because 19 Muslims flew planes into skyscrapers and killed thousands of people. Thirteen years later, the head of the DHS thinks his department’s priority should be to “give voice to the plight of Muslims” who have the misfortune to live in America.

The “plight” of Muslim communities in America and the west is that they enjoy freedoms they could never dream of back in Somalia or Syria or anywhere else – but that they value those freedoms less than they value the pre-eminence of Islam.

If you were a “moderate Muslim”, what would you make of an extraordinary week in which the global superpower has piled up a mountain of preposterous, mutually contradictory official lies all designed to flatter you: Islam has been part of the fabric of America since the 18th century, and yet the plight of Muslims in this country and the discrimination they face has never been worse. We are at war with the mysterious shadowy Empire of Violentia-Extremistan, which is nothing to do with Islam, yet necessitates the saying of Muslim prayers – and Muslim prayers only – at official US government events.

On The Hugh Hewitt Show yesterday, I pointed out that the French Government estimates that some nine thousand “Frenchmen” have volunteered to fight for ISIS. That is approximately half the total western deployment in Afghanistan of around 18,000 troops from some four dozen countries. It is larger than any French military deployment in the last half-century. That 500-strong congregation of mourners for the Copenhagen killer may not be the largest funeral turnout in Denmark’s history, but it’s similarly impressive.

And yet none of that could be discussed in Washington, at a summit arising directly out of the Charlie Hebdo slaughter.

We are at war with a depraved enemy, but we cannot be allowed to assert our moral superiority even to head-choppers, rapists, slavers and immolators. Thus the priority of Barack (“Hey, how ’bout those Crusades?”) Obama has been to undermine our sense of probity, and make us not merely equivalent to but worse than our enemies. That was the purpose of this last week of Official Lies.

I’d say not “worse than,” but “subordinate and submissive to,” myself. Either way, none of this jawdropping horseshit is happening because His Royal Majesty just loves him some America, that much is clear. “Degrade” IS? The only thing he’s interested in degrading is US.

Profit vs Prophet update! Diplomad explains things to the jejune dolts:

We might do a face palm and utter, as did TV’s Batman, “Poor, deluded child,” but, in fact, this Spokesperhubeing has captured the essence of the Obama Misadministration, to wit, a total, ultimately disastrous disconnect from the real world. For them, people are just sad little brainless marionettes who can be pleased with a few shiny bobbles, you know, like, a job or, uh, hey, start a business…maybe a green business recycling adult diapers at a senior center, you know, do something for Gaia…that’s the ticket, Muhammed. Get the little people little jobs and businesses and we can be free to run the world as we see fit…

My Dear Mari, and with whatever respect is due, My Dear Mr. President, ISIS already offers a job to its members. The job? Killing Christians and Jews–and any “random” not sufficiently Islamic Muslims–on its path to the apocalypse or global domination, whichever comes first. ISIS wants a final battle with the forces of Rome. Islam, you see, is the root cause for “folks” joining ISIS, not the lack of burger-flipping jobs, bad health care, or depressed minimum wages. The 9/11 hijackers, let’s remember, came from wealthy families as did Osama bin Ladin. You see, Deputy Spokesperhubeing, these ISIS “folks,” to use President Obama’s endearing term, believe in something for which they willingly kill and die. It is a twisted retrograde ideology called, I repeat, Islam–yes, I said it, again, the forbidden word. A repellent creed, but one in which they believe, and motivates them to commit horrors. Give them at least credit for that.

Would fanatical Nazis have been dissuaded from conducting the Holocaust had they been offered jobs at McDonald’s? Would fanatical Shintoists have given up massacring Chinese, Malays, and Filipinos in exchange for work at Barnes & Noble or TESCO? I think not. In addition, of course, there are poor people all over the world who do not go around cutting off heads, burning prisoners to death, kidnapping and raping hundreds of schoolgirls, and vowing global conquest. I have lived in and visited lots of poor countries, e.g., Haiti, Bolivia, Paraguay, Dominican Republic, and those folks do not march people down to the beach and have televised beheadings, pour acid on their wives and daughters, throw gay men off tall buildings, set prisoners on fire, or vow to conquer the world in the name of religion. Something else than just poverty needs adding to the mix. Shall we call that active ingredient Islam?

No, never. That would be unpleasant, uncivil, and far too close to the truth. And everybody knows that truth is to Progressivists as garlic is to vampires.

The pithiest update! Daniel crystallizes it better than I’ve seen it done yet:

Islam never became enlightened. It never stopped being ‘medieval’. Whatever enlightenment it received was imposed on it by European colonialism. It’s a second-hand enlightenment that never went under the skin.

ISIS isn’t just seventh century Islam. It’s also much more recent than that. It’s Islam before the French and the English came. It’s what the Muslim world was like before it was forced to have presidents and constitutions, before it was forced to at least pay lip service to the alien notion of equal rights for all.

The media reported the burning of the Jordanian pilot as if it were some horrifying and unprecedented aberration. But Muslim heretics, as well as Jews and Christians accused of blasphemy, were burned alive for their crimes against Islam. Numerous accounts of this remain, not from the seventh century, but from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Those who weren’t burned, might be beheaded.

These were not the practices of some apocalyptic death cult. They were the Islamic law in the “cosmopolitan” parts of North Africa. The only reason they aren’t the law now is that the French left behind some of their own laws.

Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia that were never truly colonized still behead men and women for “witchcraft and sorcery.” Not in the seventh century or even in the nineteenth century. Last year.

The problem isn’t that ISIS is ‘medieval’. The problem is that Islam is.

And all the King’s knuckleheads and all the King’s boy-men are never gonna put that egg back together again. No matter how many idiotic little Moslem-sucking “conferences” they convene.

3 comments

Feb 20

Community-organizing the jihad

Categories:

Brilliant!, Our Enemies, Patton Would Be Proud!, The Culture Of Treason, The Liberal Way of War

by

When the only tool you know how to use is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

President Barack Obama, who still believes that his job consists of giving speeches, convened a “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism,” the purpose of which was to provide a platform for the president to give a keynote speech. In it he insisted, as he does, that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam, and that arguments to the contrary only lend credibility to the Islamic terrorist organizations that have nothing to do with Islam. He cited a letter from a fifth-grader, a Muslim girl named Sabrina, who wrote: “If some Muslims do bad things, that doesn’t mean all of them do.” President Obama was impressed with these remarks — “the wisdom of a little girl,” he called them. If the alternative is Marie Harf, we suppose he could do worse.

Of course, no sensible person walking the earth believes that every Muslim on the planet is an al-Qaeda sympathizer or an Islamic supremacist. The problem is that (1) some of the world’s Muslims do sympathize with Islamic-supremacist views, (2) there are an awful lot of them, and (3) Islamic organizations are the preeminent practitioners of terrorism around the world at the moment.

President Obama can try to explain to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and his colleagues that their project is not a genuinely Islamic one. Drop Joseph Kony off at St. Patrick’s Cathedral and his eccentric syncretism is revealed for what it is, but Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi’s Islam is the Islam of millions in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Indonesia. Radical Islam is a longstanding part of Islam, not an amendment to it.

Of course we are singling out the Islamic world for criticism and scrutiny — as we should. The president in his speech praised Islamic scholars who “preach that Islam calls for peace and for justice, and tolerance toward others; that terrorism is prohibited; that the Koran says whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind.” He added: “Those are the voices that represent over a billion people around the world.”

Are they?

No, not really; all available evidence suggests that those voices are very damned few both as a percentage and in absolute terms. Obama’s biggest problem–and ours?

Barack Obama is not the president of the world; he is the president of the United States, and his principal duty is seeing to our national security.

He is not in the least interested in our national security; that much has long been obvious. Giuliana had it right the first time:

Rudy Giuliani is in the stocks for saying that he does not believe that President Barack Obama “loves America.” He said this at a small, private dinner for Scott Walker, who probably will not be inviting Giuliani to very many events in the near future.

Giuliani went on to say that he wasn’t questioning the president’s patriotism — angels and ministers of grace defend us! — only noting that the president’s rhetoric is decidedly low-cal on the American exceptionalism but full-fat when it comes to criticism.

It may be the case that the president is a practitioner of the Smokey Robinson school of patriotism: “I don’t like you, but I love you.” Something’s really got a hold on this guy, and it is not an excessive fervor for the American order.

Put it this way: Why would anybody who sees the world the way Barack Obama does love America?

For the progressive, there is very little to love about the United States. Washington, Jefferson, Madison? A bunch of rotten slaveholders, hypocrites, and cowards even when their hearts were in the right places. The Declaration of Independence? A manifesto for the propertied classes. The Constitution? An artifact of sexism and white supremacy. The sacrifices in the great wars of the 20th century? Feeding the poor and the disenfranchised into the meat-grinder of imperialism. The gifts of Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor? Blood money from self-aggrandizing robber barons.

There is a personality type common among the Left’s partisans, and it has a name: Holden Caulfield. He is adolescent, perpetually disappointed, and ever on the lookout for phoniness and hypocrisy. His is the sort of personality inclined to believe in his heart the declaration that “behind every great fortune there is a great crime.” (He also believes that this is a quotation from Honoré de Balzac, whose works he has not read, when it fact it comes from Richard O’Connor’s The Oil Barons: Men of Greed and Grandeur.) He believes with Elizabeth Warren that the economy is a rigged game based on exploitation and deceit rather than on innovation, productivity, and competition. He believes with Barack Obama that the only reason (e.g.) Staples does not pay its part-time associates more or schedule them for more hours is so that it can pad its executive pay and protect its “billions” in annual profits. (He believes that Staples, whose financials he has not read, makes “billions,” when in fact it does no such thing.) Say an admiring word about Steve Jobs and he’ll swear that there are four-year-olds working 169 hours a week in Chinese sweatshops producing iPods at the point of a bayonet. He believes that most people get into Harvard and Yale because they have influential parents (that’s the University of Texas, unfortunately), that rich Americans mostly inherit their money (in reality, about 15 percent of their assets are inherited, less than for middle-class families), that the U.S. goes to war abroad to enrich contractors at home, and that the entire history of Latin America must be understood through the prism of the United Fruit Company’s maneuverings in 1954.

Give Holden Caulfield a television show and you’ve got Chris Hayes.

And mollycoddle, mentor, and handhold him through an entire lifetime of unearned perks, privileges, Ivy-League “educations,” and phonus-balonus no-show jobs–making sure you put the right words in his mouth every step of the way–promoting him and pimping all the way to the Oval Office purely because of two factors: 1) his suitably Leftist and anti-American beliefs, inculcated in him from childhood, and B) the color of his skin, which makes him doubly useful to you as both an example of the superiority of your one-size-fits-all-by-force ideology and as a handy bludgeon against your critics, now pre-emptible with but a single sneered word (RACIST!), and you have…pretend pResident Barrack Hussein Obama.

No wonder the reliable Court Media propaganda eunuchs are in paroxysms of theatrical rage over Giuliana’s daring to utter the most simple and incontrovertible of truths. Just like back during the Bush years, when “dissent was the highest form of patriotism” and “questioning the patriotism” of nakedly anti-American fifth-columnists and Moslem terrorist aiders-and-abbetters was greeted with purple-faced shrieks of phony OUTRAGE!™, exposing their contempt for this nation and its supporters is the one sure way to undermine their more-mainstream support by ripping their masks right off.

“Sad to see what a lunatic Rudy Giuliani has turned into,” said Politico’s Ben White. “Enormous amount of fair game criticism of Obama but this he ‘doesn’t love his country’ stuff from Rudy is just pure garbage talk. Repugnant.”

The Daily Caller’s Matt Lewis characterized the former mayor’s remarks as “stupid.”

“Rudy Giuliani dives into Dinesh D’Souza’s anti-Obama dumpster,” read the headline to an article written by the Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart.

MSNBC reported, “Giuliani manages to sink to new depths.”

MSNBC’s Luke Russert used the occasion to remind his followers on Twitter that Giuliani once cross-dressed for a comedy act at a political roast.

MSNBC contributor Lizz Winstead called the former mayor “the worst.”

Forbes’ Halah Touryalai said: “Low. Weak. Then again, it’s Giuliani.”

“Giuliani just wants attention, but wtf?” asked CNN’s Chris Boyette.

Never have the Court Media wagons been circled so quickly and completely, forming a solid wall of defense for their precious and beloved Golden Man-child–which only emphasizes how close to their coal-black hearts Giuliani’s well-aimed arrow struck. They ain’t gonna like this very much either:

A retired four-star admiral who commanded the U.S. Pacific Fleet during several Middle East flare ups is charging that President Obama’s strategy in the area is “anti-American” and instead “pro-Islamic.”

“We’ve had many opportunities to changed the course of history. It hasn’t mattered whether it’s a Democratic or Republican administration, we’ve failed every one of them,” says Lyons, who headed PacFleet from 1985 to 1987.
But at a security conference where he described how military forces were thwarted by the White House or Pentagon, he blasted Obama the hardest.

“The Obama administration has a strategy. It is very simple. Any thinking American should be able to grasp it. It’s anti-American, anti-Western, it’s pro-Islamic, pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood,” he said last week at a conference hosted by the conservative Center for Security Policy where he heads the military committee.

Lyons, in the Navy for 36 years and a critic of Obama, said the nation has to come to “grips” with Islam as something other than a religion. “Until you recognize that Islam is the political movement masquerading as a religion, you’re never going to come to grips with it,” he said at the conference titled the “Defeat Jihad Summit.”

Bang fucking zoom–another arrow aimed straight and true at the very beating heart of Leftist treason. Now if only the useless sellouts at GOP headquarters had the gumption–or the desire–to step up and finish ‘em all off.

What, you thought for a moment they actually might? Silly you.

1 comment

Feb 18

Muslim terrorist front group says jump, Greasy Joe says how high

Categories:

Bah!, Dhimmi-wits, Life in a once-great nation, Our Enemies

by

A new low.

(CNSNews.com) – A U.S. Islamic advocacy group says that Vice- President Joe Biden, addressing a White House summit on “countering violent extremism (CVE)” on Tuesday, referred to right-wing extremists and supremacists committing violence “in the name of the Bible.”

Name one, you temporizing bastard. Just one, that didn’t happen at least five centuries ago, you flea-bitten, camel-humping, little-boy-sodomizing bag of pus (apologies to any vermin-infested, sexually deviant chancres, boils, or zits who might take rightful offense). But wait; it gets even worse, as incredible as that seems…and is.

During a background briefing Monday on the three-day CVE summit, an administration official was asked about use of the phrase “vulnerable community,” which a questioner said was regarded by some as stigmatizing Muslims.

“We want to be clear that the evidence doesn’t show that there’s any particular community – there’s no profile that we can point to say this person is from this community, is going to be radicalized to violence,” the official replied.

Beyond belief. How does any sane person even begin to respond to such ludicrous tripe as this?

I’d say our national shame and disgrace is now complete, were it not for the sure knowledge that sometime over the next few days–or hours, or minutes–they’re going to come out with something even worse. Oh, and did I say “Muslim terrorist front group” in my title up there? Why, yes. Yes, I damned sure did.

We’re going to lose this “war”–and we deserve to. Any nation that would stand for the ascent of such pusillanimous pissants to positions of authority would.

(Via Ace)

2 comments

Feb 18

Con job

Categories:

Distinction Without A Difference, FTGOP

by

Just in case any of you were still (!) clinging to the lamentable illusion that the GOP is any more of a friend to or supporter of Constitutional conservatism than the Democrat Socialists are.

Former Utah Gov. John Huntsman will not primary Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a major strikeout for the GOP establishment,which has been looking for someone to take on the conservative leader.

“I don’t rule out another run, but not against Mike,” Huntsman told Deseret News, a local outlet in Utah, via text message. “We don’t always agree (who does) but he’s very capable.”

CNN anchor John King had touted Huntsman as a potential challenger to Lee—the GOP establishment has been trying to take him down in a primary in much the same way Tea Partiers have taken down so-called Republicans-In-Name-Only, but has come up short looking for candidates. Huntsman’s decision to not run means they’re likely to come up short entirely.

Huntsman did tell the local outlet that he had “no formal plans” to help Lee get re-elected, adding that: “We’ll see what happens after his announcement for re-election.”

Huntsman was elected twice as Utah’s governor and was by far the GOP establishment’s best chance at beating Lee in state. He resigned from his gubernatorial post in 2009 after President Barack Obama named him his ambassador to China—a position from which he resigned to run for president unsuccessfully in 2012.

“The Deseret News reported Monday that several political insiders and business leaders in Utah reportedly have spoken with Huntsman and indicated he had not ruled out getting in the race,” the Deseret News wrote. “Huntsman did not respond to a request for comment until that story was published.”

All’s fair in love and war, and the milquetoast deceivers of the Democrat Socialist wing of the Republican Party have every right to try to undermine Constitutional government and replace authentic conservatives like Lee with Progressivist frauds, I guess. But purblind conservative supporters of the GOP need to wake up and realize that political war is being waged on them–and who the enemy really is–before they’ll ever have a hope of winning it.

(Via Insty)

1 comment

Feb 18

A primer on lies

Categories:

Liberals Lie, The Liberal Way of War

by

And the lying “liberal” liars who tell them.

Lies rip apart society’s fabric, and this is never more true than when the lies emanate from a nation’s chief executive.  The last few years have revealed that Obama is a finely-tuned lying machine.  Those of us who opposed his politics from the get-go realized this early, but his second term, which revealed the depth and breadth of the lies he told to sell Obamacare, brought this dismaying fact home to the rest of America.  The recently revealed Obama lie is the fact that he told a bold-faced lie during the 2008 campaign when he pretended to oppose gay marriage — a lie he told solely to make himself more electable.

Although Obama’s lies have been the most consequential of late, whether he was lying about gay marriage or health insurance or Benjamin Netanyahu’s properly conducted invitation to speak to the House, other people’s lies, including lies about lying, have also shaped the national dialog in unseemly and dangerous ways.

Obama’s lies, however, were out and out frauds.  He knew they were lies when he told them, and he told them for the explicit purpose of making people change their behavior in reliance on his lies — and, moreover, to change them in ways that were damaging to the people he defrauded.  They were exactly the type of lies that the Ninth Commandment is meant to prevent insofar as they destroy important societal institutions.

For example, people who value traditional marriage wouldn’t have voted for Obama if they knew he was lying.  People who thought the Affordable Care Act would lower premiums and allow them to keep their policy and their doctor wouldn’t have supported Obamacare.  The invariably low support for Obamacare would have been even lower but for Obama’s fraud, something that might have stopped even those Democrats’ intent upon the bill’s passage.  People who believed in racial harmony would never have voted for a man who, despite his flowery words in 2004 and 2008, practices racial demagoguery at every opportunity.  And of course, people might have thought twice about electing a self-professed “Christian,” whose recent behavior indicates he spoke the truth only when he said “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

And that gets us to a rather unique kind of liar, who uses new lies as a vehicle for recycling extremely damaging old lies.  That unique liar, of course, is Jon Stewart, who pretends that his ideologically-driven news show interspersed with snark and dishonesty is, in fact, a comedy show impartially poking fun at the news.

There’s a lot more–a LOT more. But of course, there would be. Without lies, Progressivists would be left mute, rudderless, and incapable of the harm they inflict on people who would live free. In this, they are exactly like their Muslim terrorist allies: lying, far from being anything to be frowned upon or avoided, is reduced to a mere tactic, just another arrow in the Progressivist quiver.

Older posts «