Posts Tagged ‘Republican’

The Rat’s Out Of The Bag As Liberal Democrats Reveal Their ‘Final Solution’ To The Problem Created By Human Freedom And Dignity

March 29, 2017

Here’s a picture that Democrats don’t like looking at:

If you take a look at that picture it shows a great big giant problem for the Democratic Party that they need to deal with.

It’s a map that shows that only incredibly crowded cities vote Democrat, with the rest of America where people are allowed to breathe freedom overwhelmingly vote Republican.

If you live in a rural environment, you have this strange tendency to not think that the government is your provider and your master and you don’t want it to be your god.  The power of government is not all around you and above you and below you.  And you don’t want it to be.

If, on the other hand, you live in a giant city, crammed in like sardines, well, you pretty much can’t live without government.  You can’t own a gun so you are clearly helpless and depend totally and utterly for the police; you can’t travel around so you clearly must rely on public transportation.  You need government assistance in the roach-motel-pill-boxes a.k.a. apartments because somebody has to pay for all the sky-high taxes and cost of complying with tens of thousands of regulations – and so when the rich people who own the apartment buildings get hikes, guess what happens to the rent?  Yep, it goes up; so we need government to impose public housing requirements and provide subsidies for rent.  The entire cost of living in these giant cities is sky high, in fact.  Because Government thy god is a hungry god, an all-consuming fire.

People in the rural area have a “live free or die” mentality; people in densely packed urban cities haven’t had a free thought in generations.  They are like goldfish crammed into a Wal-Mart fishbowl, staring at nothing with their empty fish eyes.  They are so dehumanized that they are capable of killing their own children in the abortion mills without ever once having a single twinge of conscience.  They have already murdered sixty million babies in America: a Holocaust that makes them TEN TIMES more wicked than the Nazis.

In a liberal Democrat-controlled city, there is no place to go to be alone, to think your own thoughts – and that is a good thing too, as far as the left is concerned – because if you were able to be alone and think your own thoughts you might begin to start thinking thoughts of escape, thoughts of freedom.  And they cannot have that.  They WILL not have it.

You will think what you are told to think by your betters.  They will pump your thoughts into your head via the media culture that they control.

Now, no one who has truly enjoyed actual life in a rural environment would ever willingly place himself or herself in such a hellhole.  But that’s okay, because “Democrats” are “DEMOnic bureauCRATS” who believe in using the raw, naked power of Government to force people to comply.

That’s the problem the Democrats face.  What’s their solution?

Well, they need SOME kind of ruse, some kind of bait-and-switch.  There’s a saying that you can fool all Republicans some of the time, and all Democrats all of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the time.

So enter “climate change.”  Enter the Democrat Party’s “Final Solution” to put us all in their Auschwitz cities where they can have complete and total and absolute control over each and every one of us:

California will need billions of dollars in new funding for housing and transportation improvements, and to make extraordinary changes to state and local government policies, in order to meet its new 2030 climate change goals, according to new reports from state and regional government officials and UC Berkeley researchers.
Californians will need to cut their driving by 1.6 miles per day, which they could accomplish through telecommuting, carpooling, biking or taking transit to work once a month as well as replacing short car trips with walking and combining multiple errands into one trip, state climate regulators said.
Car and truck pollution makes up the largest portion of California’s carbon emissions, and residents will need to drive less to reach the state’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. These driving reduction numbers also assume that the state will substantially boost the number of electric cars on the road and cut carbon from fuel.
To get there, representatives from the Southern California Assn. of Governments and other regional agencies told climate regulators at a meeting last week that they needed a lot of new money for transportation and housing — as much as $5 billion in the Sacramento region alone — as well as policy changes that could include tolls and other charges for people to drive in congested areas.
Since 2008, regional governments have been responsible for developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by aiming to redirect development from sprawling outward to denser development into cities, adjacent suburbs and neighborhoods near mass transit lines. But regional governments have to revise their plans to meet the new targets now that the 2030 climate change goals passed the Legislature last year.
Beyond funding, state officials need to be sensitive to how Californians are used to getting around every day, said Hasan Ikhrata, the executive director of the Southern California Assn. of Governments, which is responsible for implementing a climate change blueprint in Los Angeles, Imperial, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura counties.
“We have changed the discussion in the state of California in a good way about how to sustain the future,” Ikhrata said at the meeting. “But at the same time we still have 40 million Californians that need to get from A to B. And we can’t overnight think they’re all going to bike or use transit. Some of them will drive.”
Rather than expecting all Californians to drive less, the state could see substantial driving reductions if it changed policies to funnel new housing into cities, according to a study released Monday by public policy think tank Next 10.
The study, written by UC Berkeley environmental and housing researchers Ethan Elkind, Carol Galante and Nathaniel Decker, compared the effects of concentrating all future housing growth into areas that have already been developed with a scenario where only 60% of new homes were built in those locations, which is what happened from 2000 to 2015.
The study found that residents living in already developed neighborhoods would drive about 18 fewer miles every weekday than those living outside those communities.

They won’t force EVERYONE to change, understand.  “Some of them will drive.”  You know, like the elite liberal class of commissars, the politically connected, the leftist celebrities who will be able to continue to live out on our television screens their dramas of the rich and shameless.  Oops, I mean famous.  Life won’t change for them.  They will continue to live their luxurious, separate, life=atop-Olympus lifestyles.  It will be all the rest of us jammed into rat warrens.

And these people aren’t stupid: they know it will have the very intentional benefit of “fundamentally transforming” the way we think once we’re jammed into the dense cities that they have far more control over.

And this “final solution: is REALLY something the left wants to impose, because oh yes, they’re talking about doing this a LOT:

To meet the bold new climate change goals put in place last year, California will work to put millions of electric cars on the road, revolutionize its dairy industry and generate half of all power from solar panels and other renewable sources.
But those efforts will come up short, warn state regulators, without dramatic changes to how Californians live and travel.

The state has pledged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. To do so, Southern Californians will have to drive nearly 12% less by that date than they did five years ago, cutting their miles on the road every day from 22.8 to 20.2, according a Los Angeles Times estimate based on data from state and regional climate and planning officials.

These driving reductions mean that Californians will have to walk, bike and use mass transit much more frequently than they do now. By 2030, residents will have to travel by foot four times more frequently than they did in 2012, alongside a nine-fold increase in bicycling over the same time, and a substantial boost in bus and rail ridership, climate officials say.

Getting people out of their cars in favor of walking, cycling or riding mass transit will require the development of new, closely packed housing near jobs and commercial centers at a rate not seen in the United States since at least before World War II, according to a recent study by permit and contractor data analysis website BuildZoom.
“You can’t be pro-environment and anti-housing,” said Marlon Boarnet, chair of the Department of Urban Planning and Spatial Analysis at USC’s Price School of Public Policy, who has advised state climate regulators on land-use issues. “You can’t be anti-sprawl and anti-housing. This is something that has not been very well understood.”

The article ends by quoting a university professor who says this:

“To be blunt, the state’s going to have to take some leadership,” Boarnet said. “We’ve tried very strong municipal control, and in the case of Los Angeles, strong neighborhood control. And we’ve found that that doesn’t let us build the housing that we need in the locations that we need it.

Nothing like the raw power of naked government force.  Oh, unless Donald Trump seeks to curb lawlessness by requiring cities and states to end their “sanctuary city” rabid violation of federal law by withholding federal funds.  Liberals who LOVE government force call that “gun-to-the-head tactics.”  Liberals actually LOVE gun-to-the-head tactics.  Democrats LOVE imposing regulations that hold guns to the heads of people who don’t want anything to do with their agenda but are forced to by the raw, naked power of thugocracy.   They just scream like rabid wolves when they’re not the ones who get to hold the gun, is all.

Liberal intellectuals know that people who are allowed the basic freedom to live where they want to live will also have the basic freedom to think for themselves.  And anyone who looks at a political election map knows that such people vote REPUBLICAN and oppose these fascists’ agenda

But how do you sell such a load of crap?  By conflating it with a different load of crap, of course: the crap of the theory that humans are somehow solely responsible for climate change that was occurring billions of years before there were ever any humans on the planet and which scientists are actually measuring as we speak on other planets in our solar system.

Al Gore and the Democratic Party propaganda machine assured us we’d be underwater by now.  Strange, too, because I currently have neither gills nor a snorkel and yet I’m doing okay.

You want to end climate change on Jupiter?  Pack humans on earth into liberal utopias.  Isn’t the solution obvious???

Rat warrens are the final solution for the manufactured crisis of climate change.

It doesn’t matter that actual climate change has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with humans.  Because “climate change” is just a “final solution” to a different problem: the problem of human dignity and human freedom which keeps liberals from attaining their goal of total domination.

If you have an intelligence quotient above that of a grapefruit, you understand that “climate change” and “sanctuary city policies” have one thing in common: they are the result of incredibly cynical and profoundly dishonest Democrat Party ideology.  Because understand, if the immigrants pouring into America voted Republican, Democrats would be screaming that they be hunted down like BUGS.  But illegal immigrants ultimately end up voting Democrat and so they are like the sacred cows in India while the people around them starve.  Which is because the law of supply and demand can be a cruel thing when Democrats intentionally impose a giant increase in the supply of unskilled labor and are surprised that lo-and-behold wages tank because the supply of low skilled workers far exceeds the demand.  With the result being increased poverty.  Especially of the most vulnerable populations such as blacks.  Again, these aren’t stupid people: they know damn well what they’re doing.  They have a plan and they are working toward imposing that plan.  And their plan depends on poverty and ignorance.

Democrats turned black people into a sacred cow to advance their political agenda in the past.  But now they are more than willing to slaughter that sacred cow because there is another cow with more milk and more meat: Hispanics.  And it doesn’t bother these soulless social-engineers at all to sacrifice one sacred cow for one that will carry them forward into a blatantly anti-American America.

So let’s look at the new Democrat Party sacred cow and see how much ugly, vicious harm they are doing to the very heart of the Democratic bastions, the big cities.

Data from each of the DEA’s 20 domestic divisions shows that of the 767 fugitives with known birthplaces, eighty-three percent of them were born outside of this country.  In effect the US has imported a foreign criminal class that operates a multi-billion dollar drug trade within our borders.  In the U.S.’s most violent cities, foreign-born fugitives dominate lists of the most-wanted criminals. In one example, in Detroit, only 7 percent of the DEA’s fugitives were born in America. In some DEA divisions, such as those for Dallas, Seattle, Philadelphia, New Jersey and New York, most-wanted lists contain not a single U.S.-born person.

You find out that Mexicans ALONE out of all the Hispanics pouring into our nation make up 14% of our entire U.S. prison population – far, FAR out of any proportion to their actual numbers as a percentage of Americans.

Then consider how many damn pardons Obama gave to hard-core drug dealers who were foreign born.  Don’t tell me this isn’t intentional.

And under Obama we had a giant nuclear EXPLOSION of drug addiction and deaths by overdosing.

And that’s because it is simply impossible for any reasoning person not to conclude that Democrats WANT a predator class preying on people in big cities.  Because Democrats want people naked and afraid and dependent.  On THEM.  It’s like the gangs that I’ll talk about more at the end of this article: gangs come in and vandalize and rob, and then what do they do?  They offer to sell the businesses they prey upon “protection.”  And of course it’s protection from THEM.  The people who live in big cities are poor and ignorant and stupid – and that’s EXACTLY how Democrats want them.  And they feed them drugs to keep them poor and ignorant and stupid.  Because only truly evil or truly stupid people will vote for this party of evil and depravity and failure.

And it is no different with “climate change” in that it is nothing but a profoundly cynical attempt to impose self-serving Democrat-Party political social-engineering into “scientific necessity.”  Even though all legitimate science proves that temperatures in our past were FAR higher than they are today and that we have had fairly regular swings in climate that continue into our current time.  The Old Egyptian Kingdom and the Mayan civilization were ended by “climate change.”  Even though there wasn’t a single SUV or a single Republican politician or voter in those days.  And the same damn climate change that is part of our past before humans had any damn thing to do with our damn climate is all around us in the planetary bodies around us.

Have you ever heard of the Azusa Revival?  Fascinating story.  It was the story of the triumph of Christian faith and the miraculous results of Christian faith.

But ultimately Democrats took over Los Angeles.  And so today in that same location we have Skid Row.  And we’ve had Skid Row since the damn Democrats took over Los Angeles.

Christians are still there, like the Union Rescue Mission (where my friend Warren Currie used to serve as the chief executive officer) doing their best to help in the desperate poverty that ALWAYS results in the dense urban cities that are the dream of liberal Democrats.

It’s an amazing thing that there are many cities where the Democrat Party political machine took over a CENTURY ago and things are worse as a result than EVER.  But the Democrat Party political machine – just like the sucking ticks that these vermin are – once embedded are impossible to remove.  Because where there are cities, there is poverty, and where there is poverty, there is ignorance.  And where there is ignorance, rest assured there are DEMOCRATS.

The Bible talks about principalities and powers – demons and demonic strongholds.  Consider a gang (another guaranteed result of the Democratic Party platform).  It has a territory.  And the gang owns its territory.  You can feel the oppression – literally the spiritual oppression – in an area where a gang holds people down through fear.

Which party is doing everything they can to prevent the police from doing their job to serve and protect the American people?  The DEMOCRATIC Party.  In California they literally opened up the prisons and declared crimes not to be crimes while they have “sanctuary cities” and in the meantime Obama’s Department of Injustice rabidly investigated every police department they could as if it is the POLICE who are the real criminals and not the criminals who prey on people.

That is EXACTLY what Democrats are trying to create: larger, more powerful demonic strongholds.  Where they have total control, where they can oppress people and keep people down – literally down for a hundred years – through their lies within a system that resembles a fiefdom whereby the serfs are owned by the lords and receive just enough to live on while the rich continue to get richer.

The other night I was watching a liberal movie star decrying the fact that “police officers ought to be able to live in the communities they protect.”  Sounds nice, I suppose, unless you have a functioning brain cell.  Shouldn’t garbage collectors be able to live in the community they serve?  What about that fool movie star’s community?  Shouldn’t they be able to live in that multi-million dollar Bel-Air mansion of yours???  These leftist movie stars don’t have any intention of living in some tiny apartment surrounded by poverty and drugs and crime and gangs and risking their lives just to venture outside where they have to take the damn bus because they can’t possibly afford a car that would let them drive away to freedom.  That’s not for them.  No, that’s for YOU.

And just like their god Lucifer always does, Democrats have to package their lies from hell with something else that they can convince people to swallow.  Like “science” or like “tolerance.”  They intentionally and invariably deliberately conflate “illegal immigrants” with “immigrants” because they literally don’t want people to comprehend the difference and distinction so they can get them to swallow their lies.  Democrats are lying liars who lie and if their lips are moving or if they’re typing something it means they’re lying.  They intentionally and invariably conflate “climate change” with human causation in spite of the obvious history of planet earth and in spite of what is obviously going on in the universe all around us so they can fearmonger and demagogue people into complying with their self-serving agenda.  The left demands the United Nations receive – get this – $76 TRILLION to combat climate change.  So they can “change” the climate by like half a degree?  No.  You might be that stupid, but these people aren’t.  Rather, they have an agenda that comes right out of the heart of their god, the devil.

The crap that California liberals are peddling is INSANE.  Unless they can get their hands on that kind of money.  You give liberals that kind of money and you’ll get the Final Solution.

If you’re a Democrat, please have the moral consistency to invite at least one hundred illegal immigrants to live in your house with you and please feed them and take care of all of their medical needs.  Because that is the dream of the party that you rabidly support: the dream of cramming people together into dense “communities” and forcing someone to take care of all of those people.

Not that there has been a Democrat in fifty years who wasn’t a pathological hypocrite.

 

 

Advertisements

Democrat Campaign Expert Joe Trippi Says That Republican Online Registration DOUBLED 20 Minutes Into Debate And Is STILL GOING STRONG

October 5, 2012

Joe Trippi is a career Democrat campaign adviser.  Here’s a surprising tweet from him:

Now, you need to understand these guys.  They are on contract with networks for their expertise and analysis.  And so conservative commentators may well say, “Romney is in trouble because” or “If Romney doesn’t do X he’s done” and liberal commentators will do the same thing with Obama.  That’s their job and it’s what they’re paid to do.  On top of that, if news like this is true, and your side buries its head in the sand and refuses to acknowledge it, how many of you think that that will  help your side?  In other words, somebody’s got to point this out from the other side and admit it or that side just loses because they refuse to recognize reality and try to come up with a strategy.

The mainstream media has shown that they are SO ideologically in the tank for Obama that just a week ago the narrative was, “This race is done and Obama is going to win.”  It was as overwhelming as it was amazing and dishonest.

Now, Rasmussen (THE most accurate national pollster in 2004, 2008 and again in 2010) has three swing state polls out.  In its first poll that includes post-debate results, Romney is only down by one in Ohio and he is ahead by one in Virginia.  And he is ahead by two in Florida.  And you can expect the numbers to improve for Romney at least until Sunday, which will be the first poll to include only post-debate results.

Romney is coming back.  Republicans are surging.

And Obama looked like a complete loser who could only look down and smirk in his debate:

Also in – and I have the article here – this: THE most accurate presidential predicting model that has picked eight straight winners and never a loser just updated it’s model.  And Romney wins 330-208 in the electoral college on November 6.

And that debate Wednesday night – in which more than 70 million people saw Obama as an empty chair while Mitt Romney looked every bit like the president this nation needs – was absolutely huge.

Will it matter if the most dishonest media since Joseph Goebbel’s Ministry of Propaganda tries to distort the narrative from “Romney is the winner” to “Romney is a liar”???  Time will tell.

In Hindsight Of Massachusetts, Who Presented The Truth: Obama, Or Fox News?

January 22, 2010

A lot of things will change because of the election – mostly by Independents and even Democrats – of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

A lot of things that Democrats and the lamestream media believed were irrefutably true have been shockingly and conclusively demonstrated to have been totally false.

Did the voters in even the bluest of blue states like the Obama agenda?  No.  Did they like his health care boondoggle?  No.  Did they like the Democrats’ massive spending?  No.  Did they like the huge tax increases they see coming?  No.  Did they like the way Obama was handling terrorism?  No.

And that is now a carved-in-stone fact.  It follows the reality demonstrated by the previous statewide elections in Virginia and New Jersey.  Three states that voted for Obama in large numbers have now turned against him and ignored his personal appeals to vote for Democrats.

Pretty much exactly what Fox News was accurately reporting all along.

The mainstream media, the Democrat establishment, and the Obama White House have been lying to you.  They have been spreading propaganda.  They have advanced demagoguery.  They have broadcast their agenda rather than reality.  Fox News, virtually alone, has been reporting the facts all along.

Barack Obama promised that he would change the poisonous political dynamic and create a new era of bipartisanship.  Back in March of 2008, the New York Times correctly identified this as the CORE of Barack Obama’s promise to the American people.  But he lied.

Did Obama even attempt to live up to his core promise?  Not even close.

“Don’t come to the table with the same tired arguments and worn ideas that helped to create this crisis,” he admonished in a speech.

That speech – with that hard core partisan attack – was delivered within less than THREE WEEKS of his taking office.  Obama was claiming that Republicans didn’t even have a right to present their ideas, much less have any of their ideas or contributions considered.  Some attempt at “bipartisanship.”

And it wasn’t long before he expanded his demagoguery to include ordinary Americans and the Fox News network.  Obama attacked Tea Party demonstrators who were already unhappy with the direction Obama was leading the country, and he attacked the only news network that was reporting the actual truth:

At first it was reported that President Barack Obama wasn’t even aware of the nationwide Tea Party protests that occurred on April 15. But now he’s out criticizing them and the Fox News Channel.

In a town hall meeting in St. Louis on April 29, Obama was asked about fiscal discipline and entitlement reform. In his response, he took a shot at the Fox News Channel and the tea party movement, insisting he’s “happy to have a serious conversation” with them.

So, when you see – those of you who are watching certain news channels that on which I’m not very popular and you see folks waving tea bags around, let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security,” Obama said.

As has now been conclusively demonstrated in three separate statewide races in states that Obama had easily carried, the Tea Party protesters represent the will of the people, and Obama represents what the people don’t want.

Obama said, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”  And then he launched one attack after another against the American people and the press that was accurately reporting the facts.

Obama was like a pathological narcissist who couldn’t emotionally handle even the most legitimate criticism from Fox News.

Interviewed on CNBC Tuesday, President Obama vented his displeasure with FOX News, the cable network whose own senior vice president of programming has called it “the voice of the opposition” to the Obama administration. Here’s Obama:

“First of all, I’ve got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration.”

Clearly referring to FOX, the president continued:

“Well, that’s a pretty big megaphone,” he said. “And you’d be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me on that front.

“We welcome people who are asking us some, you know, tough questions,” he continued. “And I think that I’ve been probably as accessible as any president in the first six months — press conferences, taking questions from reporters, being held accountable, being transparent about what it is that we’re trying to do. I think that, actually, the reason that people have been generally positive about what we’ve tried to do is they feel as if I’m available and willing to answer questions, and we haven’t been trying to hide them all.”

But Obama was lying then, too.

This is the guy who is on video promising on at least eight separate occasions that he would put the health care debate on C-SPAN.  He didn’t.

The Obama-led Democrat “negotiations” (read ‘bribe sessions’) have been so closed and so secretive that even senior Democrats confess that they have been “in the dark.”

In fact, his lack of transparency and openness is literally comical.  This is the administration that literally had this: “a workshop on government openness is closed to the public.”

A separate laughable incident of Obama’s total lack of transparency comes via the LA Times blogs:

After a recent public sighting, fears had mounted that the one-time, long-term senator might rebel against traditional White House strictures and start acting on all the administration’s oft-promised promises of government transparency and official openness running back into 2008.

But the VP’s public schedule today puts all those fears to rest. […]

DAILY GUIDANCE FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT, Thursday, January 14, 2010:

In the morning, the President and the Vice President will receive the Presidential Daily Briefing and the Economic Daily Briefing in the Oval Office. These briefings are closed press.

At 11:30 AM, the Vice President will meet with Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood to discuss the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. This meeting is closed press.

Afterwards, the President and the Vice President will have lunch in the Private Dining Room. This lunch is closed press.

At 1:00 PM, the Vice President will meet with Iraqi Vice President Adil Abd al-Mahdi in the Roosevelt Room. There will be a pool spray at the bottom of this meeting; gather time is 1:45 PM in the Brady Briefing Room.  [But note: the LA Times defines “pool spray” asa coded message to media that a few select members will be allowed in to take pictures briefly — possibly for only a few seconds — as Biden and his guest pretend to continue their previously private conversation as if the meeting was open.”]

(UPDATE 2:20 p.m.: The White House issued its own report on this closed meeting. Both paragraphs are added below at the end of the VP’s schedule.)

Then, at 2:15 PM, the Vice President will meet with Earl Devaney, chairman of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. This meeting is closed press.    ###

In October, Democrats hypocritically touted their transparency immediately ahead of a closed-door meeting in which they secretly hammered out details of their ObamaCare boondoggle.

There have been a LOT of secretive closed-door meetings from this most transparent of all administrations.

CBS eventually and correctly concluded that “Obama Reneges On Health Care Transparency.”

Fox News was so far ahead of CBS on that story that it was like a cheetah racing a goldfish at a dog track.

Obama dramatically escalated his demagoguery in October:

Updated October 19, 2009
White House Urges Other Networks to Disregard Fox News

Senior Obama administration officials took to the airwaves Sunday to accuse Fox News of pushing a particular point of view and not being a real news network.

The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.

Top political strategists question the decision by the Obama administration to escalate its offensive against Fox News. And as of Monday, the four other major television networks had not given any indication that they intend to sever their ties with Fox News.

But several top White House officials have taken aim at Fox News since communications director Anita Dunn branded Fox “opinion journalism masquerading as news” in an interview last Sunday.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want “the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox.”

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is “not a news organization.”

“Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way,” Axelrod counseled ABC’s George Stephanopoulos. “We’re not going to treat them that way.”

Asked Monday about another Axelrod claim that Fox News is just trying to make money, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that while all media companies fall under that description, “I would say sometimes programming can be tilted toward accentuating those profits.”

But by urging other news outlets to side with the administration, Obama officials dramatically upped the ante in the war of words that began earlier this month with Dunn’s comments.

So Obama official after Obama official, and then Obama himself, denounce Fox News as “pushing a particular point of view.”

For Fox News, that “particular point of view” has been the truth – something the Obama administration utterly fails to comprehend.

What Obama wants is for Fox News to advance the same pro-liberal propaganda that so much of the rest of the media has dumped onto the airwaves like cafeteria slime.

Again, the proven, documented results of elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and now the incredible result of Massachusetts, prove that Fox News was telling the truth about what was going on all along.

The replacement for White House communications director Anita Dunn – who attacked the credibility of Fox News even as she declared that mass-murdering communist tyrant Mao Tse Tung was one of her two favorite philosophersis right back to playing the demagogue for Barack Obama.

Based on their reaction, it is readily apparent that Obama cannot see through his ideological propaganda, and will therefore continue to sink in power and popularity.  Meanwhile, Fox News, as the dominant reporter of the truth, will continue to grow in both power and profitability.

Change We Can Believe In: Obama Turned Camelot Republican

January 20, 2010

I think there should be a new rule: when you write a title this good, you shouldn’t even have to bother writing the rest of the article:

Barack Obama’s change we can believe in: he has turned Camelot Republican
By Gerald Warner World Last updated: January 20th, 2010

Exactly one year ago today Barack Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States amid scenes more appropriate to the enthronement of a Pharaoh than the initiation of a democratic leader. Remember the hysteria, the gushing sycophancy of the liberal media, the Disneyland hype? One year later, it is all over for the Messiah. Obama has finally provoked change we can believe in: he has turned Massachusetts Republican.

Camelot has turned bright red. It is comfortably in the hands of the GOP. From early in the count Republican Scott Brown established an unassailable 5-point lead over Martha Coakley, the arrogant Democrat candidate who epitomised the sense of entitlement that characterises the members of the liberal establishment. She was a caricature of Democrat prejudices, down to being a cradle Catholic who championed abortion – like her rebarbative predecessor Edward Kennedy. At 2.15am (our time) the Boston Globe reported that Coakley had telephoned Brown to concede defeat. That historic conversation effectively called time on the Obama administration.

It takes a real mental effort to come to terms with the notion of a man named Brown being an effective and worthwhile politician, but in Massachusetts that is the reality. Brown created an electoral insurgency. He articulated all the resentment of decent Americans against the liberal establishment. In doing so he has overturned the Democrats’ 60-seat presence in the Senate which until last night made them invulnerable to a Republican filibuster and made it possible for them to railroad Obama’s insane, statist, totalitarian health care “reforms” through Congress.

No more. If the Democrats even attempted to use procedural tricks to rush the healthcare dog’s breakfast through before Brown takes his seat, America would not stand for such a blatant evasion of the popular will on so controversial a measure. It simply isn’t going to happen. Nor is any of the rest of the Obama fantasy. The Republicans are now poised to take control of the House in November. Obama has had his year of power, but now he is a busted flush.

And what a year it was. Retreat, abasement and blunders in every area of foreign policy, from North Korea to sell-out to Russia on nuclear weapons. This blog always insisted Obama would be a one-term president. Even I, however, had not counted on his being a one-year wonder. Even Anne of the Thousand Days had a longer run than that. Americans have proved they can spot a phoney in 12 months. That shames Britain’s record: the deluded electorate here voted three times for the Great Charlatan Blair.

To see the pricking of the Obama balloon is delightful. Congratulations, America. Happy anniversary, Mr President.

To paraphrase Dr. Phil: “How’s that hopey and changey thing working for you?

Here’s to hoping for the change of a Republican landslide, courtesy of Barack Hussein and his destroy America agenda.

Sanity Prevails: Scozzafava Drops Out of NY-23 Race

October 31, 2009

A lot of conservative attention is focused on defeating the Democrats’ health care “reform” that would put one-sixth of the economy – and literally peoples’ very lives – under the domination of a partisan, corrupt, and power-hungry federal government.  And that is clearly a good goal.

But the best way to accomplish that end may very well be to secure victories in the three major races in 2009, and allow Democrats’ own fears to jar them back to common sense.

To that end, the news that Dede Scozzafava has dropped out of the race for the 23rd district in New York is welcome indeed.

“In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I’ve come to accept is that in today’s political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money—and as I’ve been outspent on both sides, I’ve been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record,” she said in a statement.

“It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican.”

Her decision came as a Siena Research Institute poll released Saturday confirmed that her support has all but collapsed over the last month. In her statement, Scozzafava acknowledged that while her name will continue to appear on the ballot, “victory is unlikely.”

The Siena poll conducted Oct. 27-29, in line with other recent polls, showed Democrat Bill Owens holding a razor-thin lead over Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, 36 percent to 35 percent.

Scozzafava trailed far behind at 20 percent, with 9 percent of voters still undecided.

I take my hat of to Scozzafava.  She did the right thing for the right reasons.

What could have happened is my personal nightmare scenario, in which conservatives – who easily have the numbers to win – divide themselves rather than unite for the common good.

Obama won Virginia, won New Jersey, and won the New York 23rd district.  Now he is in danger of losing them all, standing as a strident referendum against his agenda.

Hopefully, the quite liberal Scozzafava’s example of withdrawing as the handwriting appears on the wall will be followed by other candidates running against Democrats — whether they be “Republican” or “Independent.”

The New York 23rd district is somewhat strange.  It hasn’t had a Democrat representative since the Civil War era, and yet Obama won it by 5 points in ’08.  The question in this race was clear: would Republicans be able to reassert control, or would Democrats use the momentum from the Obama election to take control?

One thing needs to be pointed out: one of the major reasons that Obama appointed John McHugh to become Secretary of the Army was so Democrats would be able to seize his district from the Republican Party.  Obama won the district in 2008, and the White House believed New Yorkers would say, “Yes, we can!” to Democrat rule.

Time Magazine had this to say:

But then, the race in the 23rd is no longer about local issues. It’s about a Republican Party with little power in the Beltway searching for a way out of the wilderness. And it’s about conservative Republicans sending a message: the future of the party is the conservative base. (It’s also, incidentally, about money; according to the Federal Election Commission, more than $650,000 has flowed to the candidates from independent groups just since Oct. 24.) “The 23rd has as little significance as Gettysburg. It’s just where the armies met,” says Bob Gorman, managing editor of the Daily Times and my old boss. “Everybody was looking for a fight, and that’s where they found each other.”

Well, it turns out that Lincoln’s Union defeated the Democrats’ Confederates at Gettysburg — and the Party that fought to preserve the union ended up winning the war against the Party that wanted to radically change it.

After Lincoln prevailed at Gettysburg, he was able to turn his attention to taking the war to the enemy in the South.  Gettysburg – that little nowhere locale – was the turning point.

I see such a turning point again.

Virginia, and now NY-23 (thanks to Dede Scazzofava’s doing the right thing), are now locks for the Republicans.  And I believe that Chris Christie will hang on to defeat Jon Corzine in the Democrat bastion of New Jersey.

No one can say with confidence what’s going to happen in the race for the New Jersey governorship, but I believe that Scott Rasmussen – who was the most accurate pollster in the 2008 election – will prove right again.  He has Christie up by 3.

Frankly, the right thing for independent candidate Chris Daggett to do is put the interest of the country over his own interest and do the right thing as Dede Scazzofava did.  Scazzofava dropped out to help push an independent over the top; it’s time that independent Daggett did the same to push a Republican over the top.

Ronald Reagan correctly pointed out that conservatives could not win if they divided against themselves.  It’s time we get back to basics and take his advice.

If you think that Chris Daggett staying in the race with his 8% support is more important than stopping the Democrat juggernaut’s drive to impose socialized medicine, then please don’t call yourself a “conservative.”

Dede Scozzafava was liberal on a whole host of positions, and incredibly, she was even more liberal than the Democrat candidate on many issues.  But I have a lot more respect for her integrity and character than I do Chris Daggett if he doesn’t put himself aside and put his weight behind the most conservative candidate who has a chance to win.  I can only hope that Daggett will demonstrate his own character and willingness to put the interests of the nation ahead of his own, and drop out and put his support behind Chris Christie.

What’s at stake in these races is whether we embolden Democrats to pass a liberal domestic agenda, or let them know that they will do so at their gravest peril.

It is widely believed that if Obama loses these races, Democrats will quit following him and start looking to their own political survival.  That will derail Obamacare; it will derail Cap-and-trade; it will put the kibosh on a whole host of incredibly destructive Democrat agendas.

If you are a Glenn Beck-style “conservative independent,” please realize that.

Glenn Beck No Friend To Conservative Cause

September 24, 2009

I’ve watched Glenn Beck and listened to his radio program.  Aside from his frequent snide attacks on Republicans, I’ve usually enjoyed the program and thought he brought out interesting facts and ideas.

But when he appeared on CBS with Katie Couric, he jumped off the cliff into crazy town located far, far below:

Fox News host Glenn Beck, whose ratings and profile have soared this year as he has pummeled the Obama administration and become a rabble-rousing protest organizer, once again demonstrated his flair for creating viral new media moments, if the widely reproduced advance video excerpt from the show is any indication.

“John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama,” Beck told Couric. He also said that he might have cast his vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton rather than McCain if he had been faced with a choice between the two.

“I can’t believe I’m saying this, I think I would have much preferred her as president and may have voted for her against John McCain,” Beck said, explaining that in his world view “McCain is this weird progressive like Theodore Roosevelt was.”

Well, Katie Couric is happy.  The left is happy with this latest fracturing within the conservative ranks.  “Conservative” independents are happy with the demonization of Republicans as a means to help their various “third party” causes.  And Republicans are trying to pull the knife out of the middle of their backs.

This morning on his radio program, a caller protested Beck’s damnation of Republicans as progressives and fakes.  Beck interrupted him repeatedly and ultimately implied that he was crazy for supporting Republicans (“What’s the definition of insanity?” he asked, with the obvious answer, “Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”).

When the caller tried to point out that Republicans have been the only opposition to the massive liberal agenda (the $3.27 trillion stimulus, the 9,000 earmark-loaded Omnibus bill,  the government takeover of 1/6th of the economy otherwise known as ObamaCare, and the terrible Cap-and-trade fiasco that would cost every American family $1,761 in additional regressive taxes.

For the record, ObamaCare would cost Americans a boatload of money, too.

Beck’s ridiculous answer was that the Republicans were only voting against it because they were out of power.  As though a sane and serious person believes that the GOP would have been proposing and passing these things if they WERE in power.  Does anyone seriously think that?  Socialist health care?  Cap-and-trade energy policy?  Seriously, Glenn?  Because that is just really asinine.

As for Beck’s bringing up the definition of insanity, let me just say this for that heckled caller today: rightbackatchya, Glenn.

You tell me when hoping for a third party victory amounted to anything other than a Looney Tunes fantasy.

Glenn Beck calls himself a Libertarian.  Do you know how many Libertarians there are in national office?  Zero.  That’s how many.  And there are only two independents in national U.S. politics, Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders.  Sanders, by the way, refers to himself as a “democratic socialist.”

Now ask me how many Libertarians have stood up against the massive liberal onslaught that can be exemplified by the following articles:

From the New York Post:

Under President Obama, the 2009 budget deficit is set to reach a staggering $1.8 trillion. It took President George W. Bush seven years to run up $1.8 trillion in debt And these deficits aren’t merely a temporary result of the recession; the president’s budget would run deficits averaging nearly $1 trillion a year for the next decade.The national debt would double. In other words, Obama would run up as much government debt as every president in US history from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. Put simply, he’d dump $84,352 per household of new debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren over the next decade.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

From Heritage:

The Office of Management and Budget has released its annual mid-session review that updates the budget projections from this past May.[1] They show that this year, Washington will spend $30,958 per household, tax $17,576 per household, and borrow $13,392 per household. The federal government will increase spending 22 percent this year to a peacetime-record 26 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). This spending is not just temporary: President Obama would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush.[2]Driven by this spending, America will run its first ever trillion-dollar budget deficit this year. Even worse, the President’s budget would borrow an additional $9 trillion over the next decade, more than doubling the national debt. By 2019, America will be spending nearly $800 billion on net interest to service this large debt.[3]

That’s right.  Zero.  Not one.

In fact, out of the 537 elected national politicians (President, VP, US Senators, US Representatives), the only two who are “independents” vote with the Democrats.

The conservative “Pipe Dream Party” that Glenn Beck thinks will one day sweep into power aint going to happen.  Except in the minds of the brain damaged.

And he’s mocking this caller as insane?

One of the things I concluded long ago was that, if we ever by some miracle got a third party off the ground with enough power to change things, it would become every bit as corrupt as the other two.  Or does Glenn Beck think his politicians would be sinless, morally perfect saints?

If you think a third party would do everything right, you seriously need to wake up and quit being so foolishly naive.

Another thing: Glenn Beck admires Sarah Palin, as I do.  But Sarah Palin RAN with John McCain.  She’s continued to praise him.  If McCain is that terrible, than Palin is terrible too.  She’s tainted by McCain.  We can do one of Glenn Beck’s chalkboard exercises and draw double arrows connecting Palin to McCain.

If McCain is worse than Obama, then Sarah Palin deserves to be thrown into the junk pile of history.

I’m perfectly consistent in continuing to support Sarah Palin; Glenn Beck is not.

Mark Levin, a man whose books I’ve read, and a man I respect, said this about Glenn Beck’s remarks:

“I think there’s enormous confusion and positioning and pandering. It may be entertaining, but from my perspective, it’s not. It’s pathetic.”

Beck is great at criticizing Republicans’ motivations.  Let’s see him justify his own damned motivations.  He is pandering to divisiveness and anger.  He is appealing to the type of people who would rather take their ball and go home than grow up and try to build the Republican Party into what real conservatives should want it to become.

Conservatives easily outnumber liberals, and have for some time.  And that conservative majority is growing:

(CNSNews.com) – Self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states of the union, according to the Gallup Poll.

At the same time, more Americans nationwide are saying this year that they are conservative than have made that claim in any of the last four years.

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either “conservative” (31%) or “very conservative” (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are “liberal” and 5% who say they are “very liberal.”

Conservatives overwhelmingly outnumbered liberals while Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over the House and Senate, and conservatives overwhelmingly outnumbered liberals while Barack Obama became president and liberals increased their stranglehold over our government.

And the simple fact of the matter is that they’re going to keep doing that unless “conservatives” decide they don’t want to keep eating liberal crap and start making their votes count.

As a practical matter, what Glenn Beck said on Katie Couric’s show was that he supports the hard-core liberal agenda more than he supports the conservative agenda.

Being able to work off the anger at the worst president in American history sure has done his pocketbook an awful lot of good.  Methinks Beck doesn’t want his gravy train to end with a conservative takeover.

This isn’t the first time talk of conservatives forming a new party has happened.  It happened in 1977, too.  Ronald Reagan responded:

I have to say I cannot agree with some of my friends—perhaps including some of you here tonight—who have answered that question by saying this nation needs a new political party.

I respect that view and I know that those who have reached it have done so after long hours of study. But I believe that political success of the principles we believe in can best be achieved in the Republican Party. I believe the Republican Party can hold and should provide the political mechanism through which the goals of the majority of Americans can be achieved. For one thing, the biggest single grouping of conservatives is to be found in that party. It makes more sense to build on that grouping than to break it up and start over.

What Reagan said is every bit as true today as it was in 1977.

It was Ronald Reagan’s philosophy – NOT Glenn Beck’s – which led conservatives out of the wasteland and into the promised land.

Barbara Boxer Caught In The Act Exhibiting Classic Liberal Racism

July 17, 2009

As we reflect upon the profound racial bias exhibited by Sonia Sotomayor in both her speeches (a wise Latina woman can reach a better conclusion than a white male) and her rulings (the New Haven firefighters case), stop and think that she is well within the liberal mainstream in her racism.

It’s liberal racism.  And liberal racism is multiculturalism, pluralism, identity politics, moral relativism, a profound hostility to American exceptionalism, and the most cynical kind of demagoguery for partisan political benefit all rolled into one incredibly self righteous package.

Reflect for a moment on a situation that was going on simultaneouosly to Sonia Sotomayor’s hearing:

Black Business Leader Charges Sen. Boxer With Racial Condescension
The president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce accused Sen. Barbara Boxer Thursday of racially condescending to him during an Environment and Public Works hearing.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, July 16, 2009
Recommendations by Loomia

The president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce accused Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday of racially condescending to him during an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing.

Republican members of the committee had sought the testimony of Harry C. Alford, an opponent of a climate change bill that narrowly passed in the House.

Alford said in his opening statement that he spoke on behalf of his organization when he argued that the bill would have devastating consequences for small and minority-owned businesses.

But he took offense when Boxer countered his statement by quoting an NAACP resolution that approved the climate change bill and putting it on the record.

Clearly agitated, Alford asked why Boxer would cite that group’s resolution.

“Sir, they passed it. They passed it,” Boxer responded. “Now, also, if that isn’t interesting to you, we’ll quote John Grant, who is the CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta.”

Alford protested that Boxer was condescending to him.

“I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me,” he said angrily.

Boxer claimed that if Grant was there, he would be proud she was quoting him.

“He should have been invited,” Alford exclaimed. “All that’s condescending and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I don’t like it. I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that.”

When Boxer asked if he was offended that she would quote Grant, Alford said, “You’re quoting some other black man. Why don’t you quote some other Asian. You are being racial here. And I think you’re getting to a path here that’s going to explode.”

Boxer defended herself by saying she believes statements by the NAACP and 100 Black Men, who acknowledge the threat of global warming, are relevant.

“There is definitely differing opinions in the black community, just as there are in my community,” she said, adding that she was trying to show the diversity of support behind the climate change bill.

But that didn’t satisfy Alford.

“We are referring to the experts regardless of their color,” he said. “And for someone to tell me, an African-American, college-educated veteran of the United States Army that I must contend with some other black group and put aside everything else in there. This has nothing to do with the NAACP and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce. We’re talking energy and that road the chair went down, I think, is god-awful.”

Boxer’s office later declined to comment about the exchange.

Harry C. Alford is a great American patriot.  And may God bless him for his integrity and his courage.

Why was he so outraged?

It bothered him that a liberal white elitist like Barbara Boxer would cite other blacks to dismiss and undermine him.  Like race is a card you can deal in a game and say, “I’ve got the Ace of Spades in my hand.  I win.”

What you say really doesn’t matter, Harry, because I’ve got blacks on my side, giving me political cover.  My blacks are better than your kind of black, Harry.  Just like Sonia Sotomayor’s conclusions are better than a white man’s – at least as long as both continue to oppose traditional or conservative principles.

What was Alford’s argument?  Let’s see that opening statement again:

Alford said in his opening statement that he spoke on behalf of his organization when he argued that the bill would have devastating consequences for small and minority-owned businesses.

It wasn’t, “Look how black I am.  Look how black my group is.”  He said, “You’re going to hurt small businesses, including minority-owned small businesses.”  And there are facts galore to back up the devastation Democrats are going to reap among small businesses.  And red or yellow, black or white, small business owners are going to get nailed by these massive tax increases.  They are going to experience a double whammy, seeing the taxes on their earnings shoot up with higher rates and surcharges even as they get nailed with an 8% payroll tax to fund health care.

And Barbara Boxer’s response was none of that matters, because she’s got even BETTER blacks (liberals universally agree the NAACP raises the best blacks, after all) on her side.  Her blacks cancel out Harry’s blackness and make it so it doesn’t even matter that Harry C. Alford happens to be black.

We’ve seen what liberals think of the “other kind” of black.  Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, and others: they’re “House negroes.”  They’re “Uncle Toms or Aunt Jemimahs.”  They’re “Oreo cookies.”  Or as Janeane Garofalo contemptuously dismisses them, they are stupid negroes with Stockholm Syndrome, slobberingly kissing the feet of their massahs.  Nothing to see here, folks.  These black people don’t count.  It’s okay to demonize conservative blacks in the most racist fashion imaginable because we’ve got our own blacks.

Colin Powell and Bill Cosby seem to leap in and out of their “house negro” status, depending on what they say on any given day.  Today, as long as they spout the language of global warming alarmism, they are not house negroes.  But they had damn well better tow the liberal line.

Barbara Boxer wants “her kind” of house negro.  And that nasty Harry C. Alford doesn’t want to be her house negro.  My gosh.  That uppity black man doesn’t want to be anybody’s house negro.  He wants to be his own man, if you can believe it, and stand up for legitimate business principles that will benefit anybody of any color.  That kind of attitude will get him in trouble.  Because liberalism is the new “bus.”  And conservative blacks had better get in the back and stay quiet if they know what’s good for them.

Barbara Boxer’s “kind” of house negro is Al Sharpton.  Think of Al when confronted by the fact that the Tawana Brawley “assault” was the worst kind of racist hoax:

‘The Brawley story do (sic) sound like bullshit, but it don’t matter. We’re building a movement. This is the perfect issue. Because you’ve got whites on blacks. That’s an easy way to stir up all the deprived people, who would want to believe and who would believe—and all [you’ve] got to do is convince them—that all white people are bad. Then you’ve got a movement…It don’t matter whether any whites did it or not. Something happened to her…even if Tawana don’t (sic) it to herself.’

Ah, now THIS is the kind of negro white liberal elitist like Boxer wants.  She can use them like laborers in the liberal plantation to spread the message of Marxist class warfare turned identity politics.  Bourgeoisie versus proletariat, white versus black, it’s all the same to us: We can exploit both versions in our big government narrative just the same.  “You’re a helpless victim!  Let us help you!  Let us grow government to encompass your entire world to create a cocoon of safety for you!”

Some years back, philosopher Francis Beckwith related a story of participating in a radio talk program with the subject under discussion being rape.  A woman calling in said Francis had no right to an opinion because he was a man.  And Francis asked her, “How do you know I’m a man?  My name is Francis.”  The woman said, “You have a deep voice.”  And Francis said, “So does Bea Arthur.”  Francis continued to object to being called a man, until finally the woman was resorted to shouting, “You’re a man!  You’re a man!” over and over again.

As Francis later related, actually that felt pretty good.

Francis Beckwith IS a man.  But his point was that arguments don’t have testicles.  An argument is true of false by virtue of whether it corresponds with logic and reality; it is not dependent upon the gender of the one making the argument.

Arguments don’t have melatonin, either.

Unless of course, you are a liberal.  If you are a liberal, nothing counts as being “true” unless it is said by a member of an official, certified victim group.  And then it becomes irrefutable whether it has anything to do with logic or reality.

Truth doesn’t matter.  Facts don’t matter.  The quality of the arguments being presented don’t matter.  Only the status of being a minority or a victim matters.  I am victim.  Hear me whine.

And if the fact is that a white male would have without question been crucified upside down for saying, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life,” so much the worse for the facts.  Blatant discrimination is fine, as long as the one being discriminated against isn’t a member of a liberal victimhood group.  Or as long as you have your very own blacks to draw upon.

Harry Alfred, thank you.  And not, “Thank you as a white man to a black man,” but rather, “Thank you as a man for standing up for values that transcend race because they equally apply to all men and women of all colors.

Allow me to say one final thing.  And if someone wants to tell me, “You’re just like Barbara Boxer, playing the ‘My black is better than your black’ game,” so be it:

Martin Luther King was a Republican who stood for the content of peoples’ character and the quality of their ideas being far more important than the color of their skin.  Does anyone believe that Dr. King would have been anything other than appalled that a man like Al Sharpton would be a leading figure in the movement he gave his life to advance?  Does anyone believe that he would have been anything other than outraged that a Latina woman could utter such profoundly racially biased words with such aplomb?  Tragically, Martin Luther King embodied transcendent principles that have largely been dismissed and even reviled by the left in favor of their near polar opposites.

‘Celebrating’ DEPENDENCE Day Under Barack Obama

July 4, 2009

As we survey the despotism of the world around us, we can admire our founding fathers – and celebrate their achievement – all the more.

Think of Iraq under Saddam Hussein; or think of Iran under the Ayatollah and the mullahs.  And then look around and see all the millions, even billions of peoples, under some form of tyranny and totalitarian rule.  It was not the Iraqi people, but the people of the United States of America, who threw down Saddam Hussein and instituted a democracy in place of tyranny.  And the Iranian people may have rioted in their streets, but they failed to throw off the shackles of their tyrannous and repressive regime.  And it is very unlikely that they ever will lest some free people liberate them from their own government.

Think of the history of human civilization, and realize just how few times peoples under such rule have thrown off the shackles of bondage for themselves.

We were one of that tiny number.  And our forefathers instituted in place of tyranny the greatest example of democratic and republican government that the world has ever known.

The rarity of America’s achievement, and the resulting greatness that has since resulted, should be celebrated with more than fireworks.  It should inspire Americans – and the world – to pursue freedom and liberty over any obstacle which gets in the way.

Many historians have argued that the British government, and the king who embodied that government, really did not seek to impose anything that tyrannous.  The king didn’t seek to impose an Orwellian-style regime; he merely wanted to modestly increase taxes to help pay for a war that had been fought for the Colonies’ behalf.

The British Empire had spent some 60 million pounds fighting the French and Indian War less than a decade previously.  And the British justifiably believed that the Colonies should share some of the burden for that massive cost.  They weren’t consciously attempting to impose tyranny; all they wanted to do was raise money.

But the patriots didn’t view it that way.  What they saw was taxation without representation.  What they saw was an imposition on their property without their consent.  They looked at taxes (such as the Stamp tax and the Tea tax), and asked themselves, “If they can impose this upon us, what else can they impose?”

And when their protests were met with thousands of British troops, the patriots believed they had their answer: the king believed he could impose power upon them at his whim.

Unlike most other peoples in human history, our founding fathers did not wait for the yoke of oppression to become so heavy that it could not be thrown off.  Rather, they were willing to fight at the very first signs of tyranny.  And in so doing, they not only won their freedom, and the freedom of their descendants; they won the freedom of millions and millions of peoples whom their descendants would subsequently fight to liberate.

Part of the problem with tyranny and totalitarian rule is that there will always be people who say, “It really isn’t that bad.  Why are you making such a nuisance of yourself by protesting?”  The analogy of the frog in water comes to mind: if a government takes away our freedoms little by little, it is very likely that won’t comprehend the deprivation until it is too late to do anything about it.

Alexis de Tocqueville – one of the great political thinkers who recognized the import and result of American freedom – also wrote about one of the most pernicious forms of tyranny in the second quarter of the 19th century:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

C.S. Lewis wrote about a century later:

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

The tyranny described by Alexis de Tocqueville and C.S. Lewis is the tyranny we face in America today: the tyranny of the nanny state; the tyranny of big government; the tyranny of the welfare state.  Naysayers can always continue to say, “It’s not that big of a deal,” or “It’s not that much worse than it used to be,” or “This is what we need right now.”  And they always will be able to say such things.  And that is precisely why most peoples find themselves in forms of tyranny that they have neither the power nor the will to free themselves from.

There is no question that the massive anvil of fiscal insanity will ultimately fall on the US economy due to the near doubling of the national debt as Barack Obama adds a projected $9.3 trillion to the $11.7 trillion hole we’re already in.  Obama is borrowing 50 cents on the dollar as he explodes the federal deficit by spending four times more than Bush spent in 2008 and in the process “adding more to the debt than all presidents — from George Washington to George Bush — combined.”  And what is most terrifying of all, Obama’s spending will cause debt to double from 41% of GDP in 2008 to a crushing 82% of GDP in 2019.

What will be the result of all this insane spending, and not very long from now? A quote from a CNS News story should awaken anyone who thinks the future will be rosy:

By 2019, the CBO said, a whopping 82 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP) will go to pay down the national debt. This means that in future years, the government could owe its creditors more than the goods and services that the entire economy can produce.

I look at the recent past, and see debts that our children’s children’s children will never be able to hope to repay; debts that will soon shackle us, and most certainly shackle our future generations.  And I realize that these debts have been accumulated in order to forge the very sort of society that de Tocqueville and Lewis warned us about.

The nanny state doesn’t celebrate the peoples’ independence; it celebrates their dependence.  As big government assumes more and more control of the economy, it creates more poverty and therefore more need for the government to come to the increasingly dependent peoples’ rescue.  It systematically and progressively creates a vicious cycle of dependency that becomes increasingly difficult for a once-free people to sever themselves from.

I think of two attempts by the Obama administration to seize government power that are most pernicious of all: health care and cap-and-trade.  Consider for a moment that if the government assumes control over our health care, it will have the potential to control everything that goes into our bodies, and even the activities of our bodies in the name of our “health.”  And as for cap-and-trade, what doesn’t require energy to produce or transport?  Under these two programs alone, nearly total control can be exercised.

What would our founding fathers – who were willing to fight over taxes on stamps or tea – have to say about these massive government power grabs?

Is Obama Closing Dealerships As Political Punishment?

May 28, 2009

I’ve been trying to sort out why it would be beneficial to shut down car dealerships when the auto industry is facing bankruptcy.  After all, more dealerships means more car sales.  And it would very much seem that more sales would be a good thing for a struggling industry.

It would be one thing if the dealerships were corporate-owned.  Corporations shut down underperforming locations all the time in order to consolidate cash and improve profitability.  But the dealerships that are being closed are NOT corporate-owned; they are private.  So you kind of have to wonder what is going on.

On possible reason is that fewer dealerships will be able to create more sales and therefore create more “buzz” by improving facilities and having more potential customers.  Call it the “wow” factor.

In any event, the real question is why some dealerships are closed and others are allowed to remain open.

One big example in my own local area is Dodge City Chrysler in La Quinta, the management of which was stunned to find the dealership on the closure list.  They are appealing the decision, but intend to remain open even if they are “closed” by Chrysler as a service department and as a pre-owned dealership.  The only thing that stands in the way of that plan would be that the current zoning laws don’t allow used car sales.  But the city promises to work with Dodge City if the appeal fails.

Why close down Dodge City?  It’s turning a profit.  It’s successful.

The answer, it turns out, may be “an enemies list.”

We find out the decision to close dealerships was made by the Obama administration’s task force, and NOT by Chrysler.  And we begin to find out a great deal more about the dealerships that were closed, and what political contributions they made to which political causes, as well as dealerships that are being allowed to remain open, and what political contributions they made to which political causes.

ChryslerDealershipShutdown examines the political donations of dealerships scheduled to close versus those that are being allowed to remain open and leads to a frightening conclusion: it very much appears that dealerships are being closed down because of their political contributions, rather than because of purely business considerations.

What follows is an article by Doug Ross dated May 27, 2009:

Dealergate: Stats demonstrate that Chrysler Dealers likely shuttered on a partisan basis

This work builds upon the research done by numerous parties, most notably Joey Smith. It is a follow-up to my original post, entitled “Did anti-Obama campaign contributions dictate which Chrysler dealers were shuttered?” The odds that these closings occurred without partisan bias are roughly equivalent to the odds that Jean Claude Van-Damme will grab a Best Supporting Actor Oscar next year for a remake of Terms of Endearment.

How did the U.S. government’s “car czar” decide which Chrysler dealers to close and which would remain open? No one appears to know, not even the President of Chrysler:

…Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan…

It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers,” Bellavia said. “It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President’s automotive task force.”

Follow the evidence trail, below, and judge for yourself.

Dealers on the closing list donated millions to Republicans, $200 for Obama

The initial pass at the list of shuttered dealers showed they had donated, in the aggregate, millions to Republican candidates and PACs and a total of $200 to Barack Obama.

In fact, I have thus far found only a single Obama donor ($200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Another review of all 789 closing dealerships, by WND, found $450,000 donated to GOP presidential candidates; $7,970 to Sen. Hillary Clinton; $2,200 to John Edwards and $450 to Barack Obama.

Now, and this is important, Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included “sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area.”

Dealer Jim Anderer told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto he can’t comprehend how his dealership can be among those killed: he stated that his sales volume ranking is in the top 2 percent of all dealers.

Furthermore, Anderer says explanations aren’t forthcoming. “They won’t tell us. They seem to be running for cover right now because they won’t give us a solid explanation. They come up with all these reasons, but none of them seem to make sense… This is insanity. The government is stealing my business. And they’re telling me there’s nothing I can do about it… There was no process that you could put your finger on and say, ‘Hey, we cut 25 percent of the lowest performing dealers.’ They didn’t do that. Nobody will give us a real clear explanation of the formula that they came up with.”

The odds of a non-partisan process being employed can best be illustrated by RLJ.

The Mysterious Case of RLJ

In Smith’s research, one company kept popping up on the list of dealerships remaining open. The company is RLJ-McLarty-Landers, which owns six Chrysler dealerships. All six dealerships are on “the safe list.”

RLJ’s owners “are Steve Landers (long-time car dealer, 4th-generation dealer), Thomas “Mack” McLarty (former Chief of Staff for President Clinton), and Robert Johnson (founder of Black Entertainment Television and co-owner of the NBA’s Charlotte Bobcats)… McLarty campaigned for Obama in 2008, and Johnson has given countless amounts of money to Democrats over the years.

Smith examined RLJ’s markets, which I’ve illustrated below.

Bentonville, AR Market

1. Bentonville, AR Landers-McLarty (RLJ owned)
2. Springdale, AR Springdale Chrysler-Jeep (owned by Harold Schwartz)
3. Springdale, AR Steve Smith Country

Springdale is about 15 miles south of Bentonville.

The 2 Springdale dealerships gave no money to any political candidates since 2004. The 2 dealership will close in June while the RLJ-owned dealership in Bentonville will remain open.

The Landers-McLarty dealership will have no other Chrysler dealers within a 20-mile radius of the dealership.

The closest competitors will be in Pineville, MO (22 miles away) and Fayetteville, AR (27 miles away).

Huntsville, AL Market

1. Huntsville, AL Landers McCarty D-C-J (RLJ Owned)
2. Athens, AL Champion Chrysler Dodge (owned by Jeffrey Hamm)
3. Decatur, AL Cloverleaf C-D-J (owned by Kevin Morris)

The dealerships in Athens and Decatur gave no money to any political candidates since 2004. Landers-McCarty and the Athens dealership will remain open while the Decatur dealership will close in June.

Here is a link to the document containing the information gathered on RJL-McLarty-Landers. It appears that the company will benefit greatly from the reduced competition in their markets. For the most part, the dealerships that are forced to shut down in the 5 markets have either given no money to candidates or have donated to GOP candidates in the past

Branson, MO

There are 4 dealerships within 30 miles of Branson, MO.

1. Branson, MO Tri-Lakes Motors (RLJ owned)
2. Ava, MO Davis Dodge (owned by Larry Davis)
3. Ozark, MO Heritage Chrysler-Jeep (owned by Kay Church)
4. Ozark, MO Ozark Dodge (owned by Kay Church)

Mr. Davis and Ms, Church gave no money to any political candidates since 2004.

The RLJ owned dealership in Branson will remain open while the other 3 dealerships will be forced to close in June.

Tri-Lakes Motors in Branson (RLJ owned) will have no other Chrysler dealers within a 30-mile radius of its dealership…

Lee’s Summit, MO

There are 5 Chrysler dealerships near Lee’s Summit:

1. Lee’s Summit Dodge-Chrysler-Jeep (Lee’s Summit, MO)
2. Crawford’s Raytown (Jeep) (Raytown, MO)
3. Mitch Crawford’s Holiday Motors (Chrysler) (Raytown, MO)
4. Raytown Dodge Company (Dodge) (Raytown, MO)
5. Milner-O’Quinn Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep (all 4 brands) (Harrisonville, MO)

#1 is located in Lee’s Summit and is owned by RLJ-McCarty-Landers.

#2, #3, and #4 are located 9 miles northwest in Raytown, MO and is owned by Michael Crawford.

#5 is located 19 miles south in Harrisonville, MO and is owned by Charles O’Quinn.

The Lee’s Summit dealership will remain open while the other 4 in Raytown and Harrisonville will close. The Lee’s Summit dealership will have no other Chrysler dealerships located within at least a 20 mile radius. All of the local competition will be wiped out due to the Chrysler closings.

Bossier City/Shreveport, LA Market

There are 3 dealerships in this market:

1. Bossier City, LA Landers DCJ (RLJ owned)
2. Shreveport, LA Roundtree Automotive Group
3. Shreveport, LA Bob Post/Hebert’s Town and Country

Marshall Hebert (owner of Hebert’s Town and country) gave $4,250 to GOP candidates, $2,500 to Dem candidates, and $1,300 to the NRCC since 2004. Mr. Hebert is also on the National Auto Dealers Association Board of Directors representing Louisiana.

Frank Stinson (owner of Roundtree) gave $24,000 to GOP candidates and $3,400 to Demcocratic candidates since 2004.

The Bossier City dealership owned by RLJ-McCarty-Landers and the Shreveport dealership owned by Marshall Hebert will stay open. The Shreveport dealership owned by Stinson will be forced to close.

But that’s not all

Smith and various tipsters also point to Lithia Motors. Sidney Deboer will “come out a winner” due to the shutdown of various competitive dealerships.

Of 29 existing dealerships, Smith reports that Lithia will likely have a net gain of three new dealers after the dust settles (they lose just two and may gain five). Debeor has donated nearly $15,000 to two Democrat candidates and approximately $8,250 to four GOP individuals.

What are the Odds?

All other factors being equal, what are the odds that RLJ’s dealerships would remain open while all other area dealerships would be shuttered? The approximate odds of such an occurrence can be calculated. 789 of the Chrysler’s dealerships are closing, which represents 25% of the total (according to MSNBC).

Recall that Chrysler claimed that its formula for determining whether a dealership should close or not included “sales volume, customer service scores, local market share and average household income in the immediate area.”

Thus, the odds that any, randomly selected, single dealership would remain open is roughly 75%. The odds that a single dealership would close is roughly 25%.

In the Bentonville, AR territory, the odds that RLJ would remain while its competition gets axed is .75 * .25 * .25 = .046875 (4.6%).

In Huntsville, AL, the odds are .75 * .25 * .25 = .046875.

In Branson, MO, .75 * .25 *.25 *.25 = .01171875.

In Lee’s Summit, MO, .75 * .25 *.25 *.25 *.25 = .0029296875.

In Shreveport, LA, .75 * .25 *.75 = .140625.

What are the odds of all of these RLJ dealerships remaining open while their competitors are wiped out? Maybe 1/10,000,000 of 1%. Yes, that’s one ten-millionth of one percent.

Approximately the odds that I’ll win American Idol. Or that you’ll land two frisbees, simultaneously, on each of Barack Obama’s teleprompters during one of his televised speeches.

Hello, mainstream media: anyone listening? How about you, class-action lawyers?

What we find is that RLJ dealerships whose ownership has close ties to the Democratic Party remain open in teritory after teritory, while competitors who gave to Republicans are closed down again and again.

Something isn’t right.

Red State has more, offering links to stories of dealerships that are closed, and clearly shouldn’t have been, as well as describing the Republican connections to dealerships that ended up on the closure list.

Richard Nixon created an enemies list of major political oppoenents in order to “screw” political enemies, by means of tax audits from the IRS, and by manipulating grant availability, federal contracts, litigation, prosecution, and by other means.

If the dealership closures are a form of political attack, this would be FAR worse than Nixon’s abuse of power, simply because Nixon and Colson used a scalpal to cut at enemies; whereas Obama and his Task Force are using the equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

We’re talking about somewhere around 20,000 employees at these 789 dealerships.

Let me repeat the words of the attorney to deposed the president of Chrysler:

“It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers… It really wasn’t Chrysler’s decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President’s automotive task force.”

Even Nixon never dreamed of abusing his presidential power like that.

Philadelphia: Liberal Judge Removes GOP Poll Watchers While lack Black Panthers Intimidate Voters

November 4, 2008

Philadelphia was the birthplace of freedom in this nation, given that the Declaration of Independence was signed there.  But things have a way of coming full circle when one reads history, and it is happening again:  the birthplace of freedom is proving to be the dying place, as well.

We can start with a liberal judge removing GOP Election Board members from “at least” half a dozen polling locations.  As Amanda Carpenter reports, “A Pennsylvania judge previously ruled that court-appointed poll watchers could be NOT removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, but that is exactly what is happening, according to sources on the ground.”

Denying access to the minority (in this case Republican) poll watchers and inspectors is a violation of Pennsylvania state law. Those who violate the law can be punished with a misdemeanor and subjected to a fine of $1,000 and sent to prison between one month and two years.

But in this case, that would only happen if one liberal judge put another one in jail.  Don’t hold your breath.

What is most frightening of all was the judge’s justification for removing Republicans:

A liberal judge previously ruled that court-appointed Republican poll watchers could be removed from their boards by an on-site election judge, citing their “minority” status as cause.

This along with the fact that the Democratic Ohio Secretary of State had to be ordered to verify voter registrations after huge numbers of falsified registrations turned up in the process.  Rather than do her duty, and basically do her job, Jennifer Brunner instead found a “better judge” to overturn the ruling of the first.

The official corruption, the court orders that enable voter fraud, the looking the other so the mice can play, is truly frightening.

ACORN (which is deemed “non partisan” when it comes to getting $126 MILLION in government funding but is as partisan as hell when it comes to putting itself behind Democrats) is being investigated for voter fraud in at least 22 states.  And, strangely, all the states in which fraud keeps being found are all battleground states, where a few thousand votes (or even just a few votes) could decide the election.

Our judges are corrupt.  They are using their power to open the field for Democratic corruption.  That is a truly terrifying thing.  Given the corruption of our judges and of our media, it is “GAME OVER” for our democracy.

Meanwhile, while all this corruption is going on, while judges allow liberals to commandeer the premises in vital polling places so that Democrats can start running bogus ballots through the machines, we’ve also got this:

BLACK PANTHERS WITH NIGHT STICKS BLOCK POLLING PLACE IN PHILLY

Two black panthers were blocking the doorway at a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Rick Levanthal of Fox News is reporting live.

One of the panthers said “the black man was going to win the White House no matter what.”

Brandishing a night stick, and swinging it menacingly, the police were called – one of the black panthers and his night stick were moved.

Do you think little old white ladies would want to walk past the black panther with a night stick?

That story continues:

Leventhal interviewed a Republican poll observer who offered details of how he approached the entrance to the polling location — what appeared to be a multi-family apartment building — only to see the men “close ranks” in an attempt to stop him from entering.  Describing himself as an Army veteran, he said he was not afraid of the nightstick-wielding men and proceeded to walk between them and into the polling place to talk with officials inside.

A few minutes later, he said, he exited through the same doorway, was confronted by the men with the nightsticks and told them he wasn’t going to get into a fist fight with them.  After walking away, he called police and they ordered the most aggressive man to leave the polling location.

It’s at least getting a little bit of legitimate news coverage (youtube video).  A man with a camera and a couple of questions confronted the uniformed, billy-club weilding black panthers (youtube video).

In this world-turned-upside-down, it’s okay to be a member of a radical leftist organization with a violent past standing in front of a polling location intimidating voters; it is NOT okay to be a Republican poll watcher conducting lawful obversation and trying to keep the process honest.

This nation is heading for a disaster.  It is only a matter of time.