I've heard of something going on next Tuesday. Something about some election or something. Anyway, I'm sure ya'll tell me all about it on Wednesday.
Paul, the Psychic Octopus, has gone to that big aquarium in the sky. With a detour into a frying pan first, no doubt. We hardly knew ye...
Tell me, do you feel...lucky? Israeli lottery hits same numbers twice in one month.
I''m sure this has nothing to do with Halloween. A class at the Universtiy of Baltimore is entitled Zombies 101. Nothing at all.
It's Bring Your Daughter to Work Day. "OK honey, here's how you pick a lock."
Duude. Like Officer, this weed just doesn't cut it, man. You try a hit and tell me what you think.
Really, really old toothpaste.
Alotta Felina.
This demands action! The looming Bacon Crisis.
And finally, Johnny Cash reincarnated...
Hang your head and cry. Have a good weekend, y'all.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Barack Obama, We Regret to Inform You Your Learner's Permit has been Revoked
From: The United States Department of Motor Vehicles
To: Barack Obama DL # 11082008ALINSK01
Mr. Obama,
We regret to inform you that we are revoking your Learner’s Permit effective November 3, 2010 at 12:01 am. From that day forward, you will not be allowed to drive any vehicle anywhere for any reason, not even in an emergency. You are only allowed to be a passenger in a vehicle and are not to interfere with the operator of said vehicle in any way.
We have several reasons for this, which we will outline below.
You driving record during the short time since you passed your Learner’s Permit examination demonstrates that you have yet to master, nor fully understand, the rules of the American road. Whomever is responsible for teaching you to drive is either unaware of those rules or displays the same blatant disregard for those rules as you. The numerous wrecks you have been involved in have resulted in sensational headlines in the local newspapers and, we are certain, great consternation to your family and friends.
For our first example, we remind you of when you ran your grandmothers’ car into the emergency room at the local hospital and your inexplicable behavior afterwards where you ran around the scene yelling “Single payer!” until you were subdued by orderlies with an injection of Valium.
The next week you ran your mothers’ car into the front door of the bank. The impact from that crash was so severe that it set off every single dye pack behind the counters. The bank is still closed for cleaning.
By now, the entire town is familiar with your reckless driving. Everyone still remembers when you made the local television news the day you announced that you were opening your own used car lot, which you called “Cash 4 Clunkers” despite your lack of any business experience. The video of your laughter as the bank foreclosed on your lot resulted in many local dressing up as you on Halloween that year. Your insistence that one day you would buy General Motors and Chrysler to quote, “show them how it’s done” has become the butt of many local jokes, causing many in the community to question not only your driving, but also your stability.
Such impudence by someone who should be learning how to drive safely gives us great cause and concern not only for your safety, but also the safety of others on the road with you. It is for these reasons that we are revoking your Learner’s Permit on the date above. If, after a suitable time, you should wish to reapply for a Permit, you will be allowed to do so, but only after a rigorous examination in order to assure this agency that you are no longer a danger when you are behind the wheel.
We remind you that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that safety is our primary concern. That is the reason for obtaining a Learner’s Permit, so that inexperienced drivers such as yourself can learn to drive in a responsible manner.
Sincerely,
G. Washington
Director, US Dept. of Motor Vehicles
To: Barack Obama DL # 11082008ALINSK01
Mr. Obama,
We regret to inform you that we are revoking your Learner’s Permit effective November 3, 2010 at 12:01 am. From that day forward, you will not be allowed to drive any vehicle anywhere for any reason, not even in an emergency. You are only allowed to be a passenger in a vehicle and are not to interfere with the operator of said vehicle in any way.
We have several reasons for this, which we will outline below.
You driving record during the short time since you passed your Learner’s Permit examination demonstrates that you have yet to master, nor fully understand, the rules of the American road. Whomever is responsible for teaching you to drive is either unaware of those rules or displays the same blatant disregard for those rules as you. The numerous wrecks you have been involved in have resulted in sensational headlines in the local newspapers and, we are certain, great consternation to your family and friends.
For our first example, we remind you of when you ran your grandmothers’ car into the emergency room at the local hospital and your inexplicable behavior afterwards where you ran around the scene yelling “Single payer!” until you were subdued by orderlies with an injection of Valium.
The next week you ran your mothers’ car into the front door of the bank. The impact from that crash was so severe that it set off every single dye pack behind the counters. The bank is still closed for cleaning.
By now, the entire town is familiar with your reckless driving. Everyone still remembers when you made the local television news the day you announced that you were opening your own used car lot, which you called “Cash 4 Clunkers” despite your lack of any business experience. The video of your laughter as the bank foreclosed on your lot resulted in many local dressing up as you on Halloween that year. Your insistence that one day you would buy General Motors and Chrysler to quote, “show them how it’s done” has become the butt of many local jokes, causing many in the community to question not only your driving, but also your stability.
Such impudence by someone who should be learning how to drive safely gives us great cause and concern not only for your safety, but also the safety of others on the road with you. It is for these reasons that we are revoking your Learner’s Permit on the date above. If, after a suitable time, you should wish to reapply for a Permit, you will be allowed to do so, but only after a rigorous examination in order to assure this agency that you are no longer a danger when you are behind the wheel.
We remind you that driving is a privilege, not a right, and that safety is our primary concern. That is the reason for obtaining a Learner’s Permit, so that inexperienced drivers such as yourself can learn to drive in a responsible manner.
Sincerely,
G. Washington
Director, US Dept. of Motor Vehicles
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
George Monbiot Can’t Comprehend the Tea Party
George Monbiot seems to be famous. I’d heard of him, but had never run across any of his writings until today.
So I’m perusing the various blogs this morning when I find this little gem - The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by millionaires.
Naturally, I’m intrigued. I consider myself a member of this movement, even though there’s no formal way to confirm that since there’s no formal organization to belong to. Which is one of the reasons I like it. To quote Marx, I wouldn’t belong to a club that would allow me to be a member.
I’ve watched as pundits in the traditional media have tried to dissect the movement without success. Their well-known and built-in liberal bias gets in the way of their analysis, as it always draws some incorrect conclusion or nefarious inference. All their arrows miss their marks wildly.
I’m accustomed to that, as is everyone else in the Movement. After a while, it became a grand sport: seeing who can come up with the most fallacious and outrageous article to describe the greatest populist movement in recent American history.
And today, we have a winner! May I have the electronic envelope, please?
George Monbiot.
Let me start by saying, George, please introduce me to your drug dealer. You are getting some seriously primo stuff. I’ll keep it under wraps, just between you and me, ok?
Nothing else explains the wild-eyed, insane rantings contained in his post at the Guardian. I can say without reservation that I’ve never read such bullshit in my life.
Normally, an outside viewpoint is welcomed when you’re trying to figure something out. Not in this case. In a very odd way, it’s comforting to see that the insanity of progressivism knows no national boundaries, and that there are raving leftists in England too.
Monbiot starts straight out of the gate this way,
Monbiot gives us the benefit of the doubt for a nanosecond before he calls us dumb hicks, who are too stupid to figure things out for ourselves,
Monbiot then launches into his version of a conspiracy theory that would make Vince Flynn proud, as he outlines the influence of the Koch brothers in American conservative politics. To Monbiot, the Koch brothers are just the embodiment of evil,
So, George, keeping more of our own money (which we made by working) is a bad thing? What’s your dealer’s name again?
The curious thing that Monbiot ignores is that George Soros does many of the same things that he excoriates the Koch brothers for, except Soros is doing it in order to bring America, and Americans, to their knees, thereby hurting untold millions of innocent people who want nothing more than to quietly live their lives in peace. He's done it before.
Monbiot's overall comprehension skills are soreley lacking when it comes to the Tea Party Movement, as is the case with other leftists. There is a reason for this: they cannot understand something simple. The Tea Party is simple because the concepts of freedom and liberty are simple. There's nothing to figure out, no great secret to decode, and no layers of nuance to wade through. Just a few very basic principles that have lived in the hearts of people since the dawn of time.
Sadly, those ideals are not embraced by all.
So I’m perusing the various blogs this morning when I find this little gem - The Tea Party movement: deluded and inspired by millionaires.
Naturally, I’m intrigued. I consider myself a member of this movement, even though there’s no formal way to confirm that since there’s no formal organization to belong to. Which is one of the reasons I like it. To quote Marx, I wouldn’t belong to a club that would allow me to be a member.
I’ve watched as pundits in the traditional media have tried to dissect the movement without success. Their well-known and built-in liberal bias gets in the way of their analysis, as it always draws some incorrect conclusion or nefarious inference. All their arrows miss their marks wildly.
I’m accustomed to that, as is everyone else in the Movement. After a while, it became a grand sport: seeing who can come up with the most fallacious and outrageous article to describe the greatest populist movement in recent American history.
And today, we have a winner! May I have the electronic envelope, please?
George Monbiot.
Let me start by saying, George, please introduce me to your drug dealer. You are getting some seriously primo stuff. I’ll keep it under wraps, just between you and me, ok?
Nothing else explains the wild-eyed, insane rantings contained in his post at the Guardian. I can say without reservation that I’ve never read such bullshit in my life.
Normally, an outside viewpoint is welcomed when you’re trying to figure something out. Not in this case. In a very odd way, it’s comforting to see that the insanity of progressivism knows no national boundaries, and that there are raving leftists in England too.
Monbiot starts straight out of the gate this way,
The Tea Party movement is remarkable in two respects. It is one of the biggest exercises in false consciousness the world has seen – and the biggest Astroturf operation in history.Then the contradictions begin,
An Astroturf campaign is a fake grassroots movement: it purports to be a spontaneous uprising of concerned citizens, but in reality it is founded and funded by elite interests. Some Astroturf campaigns have no grassroots component at all. Others catalyse and direct real mobilisations.So, George, which one is it? In the aftermath of the Obama coronation, we discovered that that David Axelrod was one of the first practitioners of this thing we call Astroturf. We found out just how he did it, with well-placed operatives engaging in an electronic whispering campaign, much like someone setting up a dishonest scam at an art auction. So, yes, if you include Axelrod, then this is certainly accurate.
Monbiot gives us the benefit of the doubt for a nanosecond before he calls us dumb hicks, who are too stupid to figure things out for ourselves,
It is mostly composed of passionate, well-meaning people who think they are fighting elite power, unaware that they have been organised by the very interests they believe they are confronting.
Monbiot then launches into his version of a conspiracy theory that would make Vince Flynn proud, as he outlines the influence of the Koch brothers in American conservative politics. To Monbiot, the Koch brothers are just the embodiment of evil,
The Kochs want to pay less tax, keep more profits and be restrained by less regulation. Their challenge has been to persuade the people harmed by this agenda that it's good for them.
So, George, keeping more of our own money (which we made by working) is a bad thing? What’s your dealer’s name again?
The curious thing that Monbiot ignores is that George Soros does many of the same things that he excoriates the Koch brothers for, except Soros is doing it in order to bring America, and Americans, to their knees, thereby hurting untold millions of innocent people who want nothing more than to quietly live their lives in peace. He's done it before.
Monbiot's overall comprehension skills are soreley lacking when it comes to the Tea Party Movement, as is the case with other leftists. There is a reason for this: they cannot understand something simple. The Tea Party is simple because the concepts of freedom and liberty are simple. There's nothing to figure out, no great secret to decode, and no layers of nuance to wade through. Just a few very basic principles that have lived in the hearts of people since the dawn of time.
Sadly, those ideals are not embraced by all.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Think Taxes are High? Government Regulations Cost Even More
We are overregulating ourselves to death. It’s not really us, it’s the people in Washington making the regulations, and there are an awful lot of them. It’s their job. It’s what they’re paid to do. But we elect the people in Washington who then appoint the people to the regulatory agencies who make the regulations, so, when you look at it that way, we are doing this to ourselves.
And it’s killing us economically.
When we Tea Partiers start fussing about big government, this is what we’re talking about: the increasingly costly burden placed upon us by governmental rules and regulations. It’s one of those things that we suspect is happening because we see prices rise, but we don’t know exactly why.
If you’ve been in a grocery store lately, you know what I mean. Here in the Backwards household, I do the grocery shopping, and I’ve noticed how much prices have increased in the past four years or so. Many items have doubled in price during that time. I remember this began when gasoline prices approached $4 dollar per gallon. This made everything that was transported by truck more expensive, because the businesses that deliver their products had to pay more money in the form of higher fuel prices, which got passed along to the people who buy those products, namely you and me.
We all understand how and why that happens. And we’re not too angry about it as long as we understand that there may be a valid reason for a price increase, and providing the increase isn’t too much. Business owners don’t necessarily like price increases, as it tends to make them less competitive. After all, the whole point of capitalism is to have low prices for high quality goods.
But when a business incurs an increased cost for no valid reason, then we have a problem. And we have a big problem when it comes to the costs of government regulations. As the size of government increases, the more regulations are created. The more regulations are created, the more they add to the cost of doing business. This can only happen for so long until we can no longer afford to do business.
We’re at that point today.
Finding the actual core cause for any price increase can be difficult. But there are some cases where we can find the cause relatively simply. Let’s go back to the price of groceries for a moment. When the price started going up, most folks knew why: increased transportation costs. But when the price of gas went down, the cost of groceries stayed high. Why? Because around that time, Washington wanted us to start making fuel out of food, namely corn. This sounds like a good idea on paper, but when you understand that most of the meat we buy in the grocery store is fed corn prior to being slaughtered for market, and that corn is present in a great many foods, and that corn is now being made into fuel, then the price of corn goes up. That increase is passed along in the form of higher prices. So we wind up paying for every new governmental regulation.
Every single one.
This hasn’t gone unnoticed. Gus Van Horn over at Pajamas Media has a great article about this very thing. He also links to this study of the cost of regulation for businesses and households in America. It should concern everyone that the cost is high and increasing every year. As one chart in the study shows, the cost per American household to comply with regulation rose at an annual rate of 2.4%. If you compare that with the inflation rate of around 1% (excluding groceries and gasoline), then you can see why prices are going up for everything. Regulatory compliance now costs us almost as much as do taxes. For example, in 2000, the regulatory cost was $10,300. By 2008 that cost was over $15,000. That’s almost a fifty percent increase in just eight years.
Is there any question why our economy isn’t expanding?
Did your salary go up that much during that time? Yeah, mine neither.
However, there are many in Washington who want us to pay even more for the things we need. Do you remember how candidate Obama said that his plan for a cap-and-trade energy bill would make everyone’s utility bills “necessarily skyrocket?”
Why would you want that for the nation, Mr. President? Do you really think that, after a while, you’ve made enough money but you haven’t paid enough for electricity? Why would you want to impose that sort of suffering on your fellow citizens?
Unless, of course, you don’t consider us your fellows at all, and instead consider us an enemy?
And it’s killing us economically.
When we Tea Partiers start fussing about big government, this is what we’re talking about: the increasingly costly burden placed upon us by governmental rules and regulations. It’s one of those things that we suspect is happening because we see prices rise, but we don’t know exactly why.
If you’ve been in a grocery store lately, you know what I mean. Here in the Backwards household, I do the grocery shopping, and I’ve noticed how much prices have increased in the past four years or so. Many items have doubled in price during that time. I remember this began when gasoline prices approached $4 dollar per gallon. This made everything that was transported by truck more expensive, because the businesses that deliver their products had to pay more money in the form of higher fuel prices, which got passed along to the people who buy those products, namely you and me.
We all understand how and why that happens. And we’re not too angry about it as long as we understand that there may be a valid reason for a price increase, and providing the increase isn’t too much. Business owners don’t necessarily like price increases, as it tends to make them less competitive. After all, the whole point of capitalism is to have low prices for high quality goods.
But when a business incurs an increased cost for no valid reason, then we have a problem. And we have a big problem when it comes to the costs of government regulations. As the size of government increases, the more regulations are created. The more regulations are created, the more they add to the cost of doing business. This can only happen for so long until we can no longer afford to do business.
We’re at that point today.
Finding the actual core cause for any price increase can be difficult. But there are some cases where we can find the cause relatively simply. Let’s go back to the price of groceries for a moment. When the price started going up, most folks knew why: increased transportation costs. But when the price of gas went down, the cost of groceries stayed high. Why? Because around that time, Washington wanted us to start making fuel out of food, namely corn. This sounds like a good idea on paper, but when you understand that most of the meat we buy in the grocery store is fed corn prior to being slaughtered for market, and that corn is present in a great many foods, and that corn is now being made into fuel, then the price of corn goes up. That increase is passed along in the form of higher prices. So we wind up paying for every new governmental regulation.
Every single one.
This hasn’t gone unnoticed. Gus Van Horn over at Pajamas Media has a great article about this very thing. He also links to this study of the cost of regulation for businesses and households in America. It should concern everyone that the cost is high and increasing every year. As one chart in the study shows, the cost per American household to comply with regulation rose at an annual rate of 2.4%. If you compare that with the inflation rate of around 1% (excluding groceries and gasoline), then you can see why prices are going up for everything. Regulatory compliance now costs us almost as much as do taxes. For example, in 2000, the regulatory cost was $10,300. By 2008 that cost was over $15,000. That’s almost a fifty percent increase in just eight years.
Is there any question why our economy isn’t expanding?
Did your salary go up that much during that time? Yeah, mine neither.
However, there are many in Washington who want us to pay even more for the things we need. Do you remember how candidate Obama said that his plan for a cap-and-trade energy bill would make everyone’s utility bills “necessarily skyrocket?”
Why would you want that for the nation, Mr. President? Do you really think that, after a while, you’ve made enough money but you haven’t paid enough for electricity? Why would you want to impose that sort of suffering on your fellow citizens?
Unless, of course, you don’t consider us your fellows at all, and instead consider us an enemy?
Monday, October 25, 2010
Economics 104, the Creation of Wealth
I know it’s Monday and maybe our mathematics synapses aren’t fully functional yet, but I ran across another video by Bill Whittle the other day over at Big Government that’s worth your time. It’s short and sets out to dispel the myth that capitalism has somehow failed, or doesn’t work, or does nothing but make the rich richer and the poor poorer. If you believed any of those fallacies, you probably wouldn’t be reading this blog in the first place.
Actually, this is pointed more at the likes of noted economist Paul Krugman. The only reason he’s noted these days is for his wild declarations and overall lack of knowledge about free market economics. So this is a type of indirect fisk of his latest column. I could perform a full-fledged, point-by-point refutation of his false notions, but I’d rather let someone else do it for a change.
Cue our cousins from across the Pond: Will someone please shut Krugman up?
We're trying, we really are. Perhaps this video will help.
I’ll try to keep this next explanation simple so that maybe Mr. Krugman can understand it.
Here’s our problem: one day, someone somewhere in the dark recesses of Washington decided to “help guide” our society. This person decided that we would move away from an economy that made things to an economy that didn’t make anything. This not-making of things was called a “service economy.” People would no longer get dirty doing things like making cars and washing machines and computers and tires and desks and clothes and roofing shingles. Their logic was, if people were making money doing things for other people instead of making things, then everybody would be happy. The planet would be cleaner and all the animals would be happy.
The whole world would be one big, happy world and we would all live happily ever after.
But what about all those things we used to make that people wanted? People still want them, but someone else can make them, then they will have more money and the planet will be cleaner and the whole world will be one big, happy world and we can all live happily ever after in a global economy.
So they set about to make sure that we didn’t make anything anymore for anyone. So we stopped making things like cars and washing machines and computers and tires and desks and clothes and roofing shingles. And we started doing things for other people like, uh, cooking. That’s right, we started cooking for each other. And doing each other’s taxes. And doing each other’s’ lawyering. Oh, and gambling, we started gambling. And growing marijuana so we could tax it. And in the case of Paul Krugman, we started doing each other’s confusing for them, too.
And this worked, at least for a while, until we ran out of the money we used to have back when we made things. Now, things are bad. How bad, you ask? This bad.
We now have people with advanced degrees who once created things in Silicon Valley who wonder where their next meal will come from.
So we get to ask ourselves some questions: Are we happy? Is the planet cleaner? Are we better off than when got dirty making all those things we made? Are all the other people in the world happy that we don’t make anything for anyone anymore? Do we have plenty of money to pay for things like retirement, or new roads and bridges and airport runways like we used to?
Is Paul Krugman happy?
Is the person in Washington who thought we would be happy with a global economy happy?
Well, the rest of the world seems to be happy. They have the money that we used to have back when we made things. They love us for that and they would never think of being mean to us since we gave them all our money. They make all the things we want now like cars and washing machines and computers and tires and desks and clothes and roofing shingles.
And we have Paul Krugman.
And Nancy Pelosi, who says "We really haven't gotten the credit for what we have done."
Yay.
Actually, this is pointed more at the likes of noted economist Paul Krugman. The only reason he’s noted these days is for his wild declarations and overall lack of knowledge about free market economics. So this is a type of indirect fisk of his latest column. I could perform a full-fledged, point-by-point refutation of his false notions, but I’d rather let someone else do it for a change.
Cue our cousins from across the Pond: Will someone please shut Krugman up?
We're trying, we really are. Perhaps this video will help.
I’ll try to keep this next explanation simple so that maybe Mr. Krugman can understand it.
Here’s our problem: one day, someone somewhere in the dark recesses of Washington decided to “help guide” our society. This person decided that we would move away from an economy that made things to an economy that didn’t make anything. This not-making of things was called a “service economy.” People would no longer get dirty doing things like making cars and washing machines and computers and tires and desks and clothes and roofing shingles. Their logic was, if people were making money doing things for other people instead of making things, then everybody would be happy. The planet would be cleaner and all the animals would be happy.
The whole world would be one big, happy world and we would all live happily ever after.
But what about all those things we used to make that people wanted? People still want them, but someone else can make them, then they will have more money and the planet will be cleaner and the whole world will be one big, happy world and we can all live happily ever after in a global economy.
So they set about to make sure that we didn’t make anything anymore for anyone. So we stopped making things like cars and washing machines and computers and tires and desks and clothes and roofing shingles. And we started doing things for other people like, uh, cooking. That’s right, we started cooking for each other. And doing each other’s taxes. And doing each other’s’ lawyering. Oh, and gambling, we started gambling. And growing marijuana so we could tax it. And in the case of Paul Krugman, we started doing each other’s confusing for them, too.
And this worked, at least for a while, until we ran out of the money we used to have back when we made things. Now, things are bad. How bad, you ask? This bad.
We now have people with advanced degrees who once created things in Silicon Valley who wonder where their next meal will come from.
So we get to ask ourselves some questions: Are we happy? Is the planet cleaner? Are we better off than when got dirty making all those things we made? Are all the other people in the world happy that we don’t make anything for anyone anymore? Do we have plenty of money to pay for things like retirement, or new roads and bridges and airport runways like we used to?
Is Paul Krugman happy?
Is the person in Washington who thought we would be happy with a global economy happy?
Well, the rest of the world seems to be happy. They have the money that we used to have back when we made things. They love us for that and they would never think of being mean to us since we gave them all our money. They make all the things we want now like cars and washing machines and computers and tires and desks and clothes and roofing shingles.
And we have Paul Krugman.
And Nancy Pelosi, who says "We really haven't gotten the credit for what we have done."
Yay.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Friday Bits of Tid, Juan Williams Edition
Boy, did NPR step in it when they fired Juan Williams on Wednesday. There are many lessons to be learned from this debacle, among them, what freedom of speech means, how intolerant the left is of ideological impurity, and why George Soros is the enemy of American values. You can click just about anywhere on this Intertubes thingy and read all about it.
Personally, I think Juan has learned an important lesson, and that is that the left, where he says he was practically born and definitely raised, can turn against you for the very slightest of reasons. I also hope he comes out on top of this situation, and he has already with a contract extension from Fox. I'd also like to see him sue NPR for violating his civil rights. His former boss was extremely insulting to him by insinuating that he was somehow mentally imbalanced for speaking against the party line, just like old-world Communists did.
Most revealing are his facial expressions. In the many interviews he's held since his firing, you can see the disappointment on his face. He knows he's been betrayed and that hurts him. He'll be all right in the end, I believe. He has a new fan base, which includes me. I haven't agreed with his views on many occasions, but he's certainly allowed to speak his mind. Opposition gives me a chance to more fully examine my own views, some thing I think is valuable in order to be intellectually honest about one's beliefs and convictions.
Anyway, if you're out tonight and have the opportunity, hoist a drink in Juan's honor and wish him well.
And speaking of honor, everyone stand up and welcome our newest follower, Flounder. Stand up there, Flounder, and let everyone see you.
To watch you readership increase by 33% overnight is truly amazing.
I am deeply humbled once again.
On to the bitting.
Today in 1797, is the first time anyone willingly jumped out of a perfectly good aircraft. Frenchman André-Jacques Garnerin made the world's first parachute jump from an altitude of 3200 ft above Paris. In 1799, Garnerin's wife, Jeanne-Genevieve, became the first female parachutist.
Duude. High Times writer is busted for pot possession. And it took them how long to find him?
Dear Santa Claus, I've been a really good boy this year and I want one of these for Christmas. But if your elves can't make one in time, I'll take one of these. Thanks.
Maybe they just got bored. Ten garden gnomes found on hiking trail.
A robber with a case of OCD robs the same bank four times.
Neither rain, nor snow, nor the passage of time, will stay the courier from his appointed rounds. Postcard finally delivered after 64 years.
Obama Underappreciation Syndrome. Possibly related to the Williams Syndrome. Not to be confused with the Juan Williams Law.
I wouldn't stand too close to one of these. A Japanese vending machine sells live crabs. Oh wait, they're not those kinds of crabs? Never mind, then.
Via David Thompson, what to do when you've read everything in your *ahem* library.
And finally, from Ace of Spades HQ come these words to live by. "Don't talk back to Darth Vader, he'll get you."
I'll see ya on Monday. In the mean time, have a good weekend.
Personally, I think Juan has learned an important lesson, and that is that the left, where he says he was practically born and definitely raised, can turn against you for the very slightest of reasons. I also hope he comes out on top of this situation, and he has already with a contract extension from Fox. I'd also like to see him sue NPR for violating his civil rights. His former boss was extremely insulting to him by insinuating that he was somehow mentally imbalanced for speaking against the party line, just like old-world Communists did.
Most revealing are his facial expressions. In the many interviews he's held since his firing, you can see the disappointment on his face. He knows he's been betrayed and that hurts him. He'll be all right in the end, I believe. He has a new fan base, which includes me. I haven't agreed with his views on many occasions, but he's certainly allowed to speak his mind. Opposition gives me a chance to more fully examine my own views, some thing I think is valuable in order to be intellectually honest about one's beliefs and convictions.
Anyway, if you're out tonight and have the opportunity, hoist a drink in Juan's honor and wish him well.
And speaking of honor, everyone stand up and welcome our newest follower, Flounder. Stand up there, Flounder, and let everyone see you.
To watch you readership increase by 33% overnight is truly amazing.
I am deeply humbled once again.
On to the bitting.
Today in 1797, is the first time anyone willingly jumped out of a perfectly good aircraft. Frenchman André-Jacques Garnerin made the world's first parachute jump from an altitude of 3200 ft above Paris. In 1799, Garnerin's wife, Jeanne-Genevieve, became the first female parachutist.
Duude. High Times writer is busted for pot possession. And it took them how long to find him?
Dear Santa Claus, I've been a really good boy this year and I want one of these for Christmas. But if your elves can't make one in time, I'll take one of these. Thanks.
Maybe they just got bored. Ten garden gnomes found on hiking trail.
A robber with a case of OCD robs the same bank four times.
Neither rain, nor snow, nor the passage of time, will stay the courier from his appointed rounds. Postcard finally delivered after 64 years.
Obama Underappreciation Syndrome. Possibly related to the Williams Syndrome. Not to be confused with the Juan Williams Law.
I wouldn't stand too close to one of these. A Japanese vending machine sells live crabs. Oh wait, they're not those kinds of crabs? Never mind, then.
Via David Thompson, what to do when you've read everything in your *ahem* library.
And finally, from Ace of Spades HQ come these words to live by. "Don't talk back to Darth Vader, he'll get you."
I'll see ya on Monday. In the mean time, have a good weekend.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
While Obama Dismisses War on Terror, Muslim Brotherhood Declares War on US
There is a disturbing trend among many in Washington to dismiss the War on Terror as a fabrication of knuckle-dragging right-wing-nuts who drool at the prospect of creating some non-existent boogieman to skewer. This trend reaches to the top of the Obama administration who has famously renamed the War on Terror with the vapid term “Overseas Contingency Operations.” Acts of terror are now referred to as “Man-caused disasters.” Even our military forces must contend with the lack of seriousness emanating from the poison of political correctness in the Pentagon in the form of rules of engagement that make no sense and seem designed specifically to place our fighting forces in a position of weakness.
This trend is a disturbing one because it ignores a very fundamental truth: We have enemies.
Part of this dangerous psychology is denial. Some folks just cannot accept the fact that others don’t like them. The false ideas contained in the concepts of political correctness are also to blame. There is a catch-phrase the ignorant left loves to use to disregard any warning concerning the real intentions of radical islam – when faced with actual arguments, they invariably start screeching “islamophobia” with all the idiocy they can muster. Even after the massacre of 9/11, there are those who deny what is right before their eyes.
However, all of the arguments and all of the new-age pop psychology that is employed by the leftist have just been tossed out the window.
The Muslim Brotherhood has officially declared war on America.
That means you and me.
The history of islam is one of a constant effort to conquer the world through any means available. By the sword. By the word. By the courts. By patience. By cunning. By using our assets against us.
Every day, there is some example of the oppression of islam somewhere in the world. Whether it be “morality police” forcing men to cut their hair a certain way, forced clitorectomies, honor killings, brainwashing children and teaching them to hate others, the list of barbarities is long. How long must the world tolerate these things? What will it take before we awaken from our national slumber to the realization that there were many in the Arab world who danced in the streets upon learning that Moslems plowed two American airplanes into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001?
Maybe this will do it.
Some of us are starting to fight back. A group vowing to fight "Islamofascism" has launched a media blitz in Oklahoma supporting a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit the courts from considering Islamic or other international law when ruling on cases in Sooner State courtrooms. Naturally, the muslim superiority group CAIR rose up out of their slime to denounce the initiative as, you guessed it, “islamophobia” and another example of muslims being unfairly targeted.
I ran across this little piece over at National Review Online that is worth your time, especially if you have yet to decide if the Ground Zero mosque is a good idea. Here’s the intro,
Indeed.
This is a war the Obama administration clearly does not know how to fight. Or does it? In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama clearly states that he will “side with muslims should the political winds of war shift in an ugly direction.”
Is there any other way for the wind to shift during the hell of war, Mr. President?
What then are we to expect of you, Mr. President, given your published intention to side with our enemies? Should we really expect anything except rules of engagement that favor the enemy? Should we expect anything except mislabeling what is clearly a war? Should we expect that you would want to give our enemies the hard-won rights and liberties that our forebears died for inside our very own courts?
What should we expect from you?
This trend is a disturbing one because it ignores a very fundamental truth: We have enemies.
Part of this dangerous psychology is denial. Some folks just cannot accept the fact that others don’t like them. The false ideas contained in the concepts of political correctness are also to blame. There is a catch-phrase the ignorant left loves to use to disregard any warning concerning the real intentions of radical islam – when faced with actual arguments, they invariably start screeching “islamophobia” with all the idiocy they can muster. Even after the massacre of 9/11, there are those who deny what is right before their eyes.
However, all of the arguments and all of the new-age pop psychology that is employed by the leftist have just been tossed out the window.
The Muslim Brotherhood has officially declared war on America.
That means you and me.
The history of islam is one of a constant effort to conquer the world through any means available. By the sword. By the word. By the courts. By patience. By cunning. By using our assets against us.
Every day, there is some example of the oppression of islam somewhere in the world. Whether it be “morality police” forcing men to cut their hair a certain way, forced clitorectomies, honor killings, brainwashing children and teaching them to hate others, the list of barbarities is long. How long must the world tolerate these things? What will it take before we awaken from our national slumber to the realization that there were many in the Arab world who danced in the streets upon learning that Moslems plowed two American airplanes into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001?
Maybe this will do it.
Some of us are starting to fight back. A group vowing to fight "Islamofascism" has launched a media blitz in Oklahoma supporting a state constitutional amendment that would prohibit the courts from considering Islamic or other international law when ruling on cases in Sooner State courtrooms. Naturally, the muslim superiority group CAIR rose up out of their slime to denounce the initiative as, you guessed it, “islamophobia” and another example of muslims being unfairly targeted.
I ran across this little piece over at National Review Online that is worth your time, especially if you have yet to decide if the Ground Zero mosque is a good idea. Here’s the intro,
Imagine that there really were these fundamentalist Christian terror cells all over the United States, as the Department of Homeland Security imagines. Let’s say a group of five of these terrorists hijacked a plane, flew it to Mecca, and plowed it into the Kaaba.
Now let’s say a group of well-meaning, well-funded Christians — Christians whose full-time job was missionary work — decided that the best way to promote healing would be to pressure the Saudi government to drop its prohibition against permitting non-Muslims into Mecca so that these well-meaning, well-funded Christian missionaries could build a $100 million dollar church and community center a stone’s throw from where the Kaaba used to be — you know, as a bridge-building gesture of interfaith understanding.
What do you suppose President Obama, Mayor Bloomberg, the New York Times, and other Ground Zero mosque proponents would say about the insensitive, provocative nature of the proposal?
Indeed.
This is a war the Obama administration clearly does not know how to fight. Or does it? In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama clearly states that he will “side with muslims should the political winds of war shift in an ugly direction.”
Is there any other way for the wind to shift during the hell of war, Mr. President?
What then are we to expect of you, Mr. President, given your published intention to side with our enemies? Should we really expect anything except rules of engagement that favor the enemy? Should we expect anything except mislabeling what is clearly a war? Should we expect that you would want to give our enemies the hard-won rights and liberties that our forebears died for inside our very own courts?
What should we expect from you?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Left’s Illogical Logic
When Christine O’Donnell debated her Democrat opponent Chris Coons earlier this week, an interesting subject arose. When Coons argued that schools should teach science instead of religion, O’Donnell asked where the Constitution outlined the separation of church and state.
It was readily apparent from the reaction of the audience (laughter and hoots) that no one in attendance knew the correct answer. No one except Christine O’Donnell, that is.
Understand, this is Delaware. The same part of the country that gave us the political equivalent of Forrest Gump, Joe “Bite Me” Biden. Slow Joe. Plugs. The Sheriff. The Vice-President who oversaw the distribution of some $800B in Porkulus Funds to Democrat cronies, various left-wing activist groups, and non-existent “shovel-ready jobs.”
That guy.
The “bearded Marxist” Coons cited the First Amendment in response to COD’s question. To which the incredulous COD replied, “You’re telling me the First Amendment does?”
Coons, thinking he had COD on the ropes, proclaimed this:
Now, these are simple points that any middle schooler would know, if civics were still taught in school. But a more important item is missed by the left in their gleeful excoriation of O’Donnell’s answer: Coons doesn’t know them.
Now, Delawareans can ask themselves an important question. Would they want to send as their duly elected representative to the Senate someone who doesn’t know the basics of our Constitution?
Which brings me to another article concerning our Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment over at Foxnews.com. I’ve touched on this before and you may want to reread that post (or read it, if you’re new here) so you’ll have a bit of background. In short, Arizona lawmakers want to clarify the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, which it already does.
The Fox article quotes an alleged constitutional law professor at Arizona State University, Paul Bender, who states that if the lawmakers focus their argument on the "subject to jurisdiction" wording, they won't get very far because the founders only meant it to apply to the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S.
Hmmm. Really, Mr. Bender? Let’s take a look at that section and see what it actually says, shall we?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Funny, I don’t see the word “diplomat” anywhere, do you? In fact, when I read the rest of that section, that word is curiously absent. So, how, Mr. Bender, if diplomats aren’t specifically excluded (or cited, for that matter) in the language of the law, do you know what the Founders meant? They used the case of a visiting dignitary as an example in case law, but that doesn’t begin to cover the entire meaning.
What is implied in the Constitution at all times, and is conveniently overlooked by those on the left who want it to mean whatever they say it means (The Living, Breathing, Constitution Clause) is that it’s meant to protect the rights of native-born American citizens first. Only when you become a naturalized citizen are you afforded the rights and protections that are guaranteed in it.
But I digress.
Our First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion like the Church of England. And it has been adhered to, hasn’t it? Has Congress created a Church of America?
So, that’s clearly what the Founders meant when they made it the very first right, right?
But they clearly didn’t reference illegal immigrants when they wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to say “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? How can anyone who isn’t a naturalized citizen be subject to our law when they haven’t gone through the process of becoming a citizen?
Pardon my confusion, lefties. You logic escapes me.
It was readily apparent from the reaction of the audience (laughter and hoots) that no one in attendance knew the correct answer. No one except Christine O’Donnell, that is.
Understand, this is Delaware. The same part of the country that gave us the political equivalent of Forrest Gump, Joe “Bite Me” Biden. Slow Joe. Plugs. The Sheriff. The Vice-President who oversaw the distribution of some $800B in Porkulus Funds to Democrat cronies, various left-wing activist groups, and non-existent “shovel-ready jobs.”
That guy.
The “bearded Marxist” Coons cited the First Amendment in response to COD’s question. To which the incredulous COD replied, “You’re telling me the First Amendment does?”
Coons, thinking he had COD on the ropes, proclaimed this:
“I think you’ve just heard from my opponent in her asking ‘where is the separation of church and state’ show that she has a fundamental misunderstanding.”
“That’s in the First Amendment?” O’Donnell again asked.
“Yes,” Coons responded.
O’Donnell was later able to score some points of her own off the remark, revisiting the issue to ask Coons if he could identify the “five freedoms guaranteed in the First Amendment.”
Coons named the separation of church and state, but could not identify the others — the freedoms of speech, press, to assemble and petition — and asked that O’Donnell allow the moderators ask the questions.
“I guess he can’t,” O’Donnell said.
Now, these are simple points that any middle schooler would know, if civics were still taught in school. But a more important item is missed by the left in their gleeful excoriation of O’Donnell’s answer: Coons doesn’t know them.
Now, Delawareans can ask themselves an important question. Would they want to send as their duly elected representative to the Senate someone who doesn’t know the basics of our Constitution?
Which brings me to another article concerning our Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment over at Foxnews.com. I’ve touched on this before and you may want to reread that post (or read it, if you’re new here) so you’ll have a bit of background. In short, Arizona lawmakers want to clarify the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, which it already does.
The Fox article quotes an alleged constitutional law professor at Arizona State University, Paul Bender, who states that if the lawmakers focus their argument on the "subject to jurisdiction" wording, they won't get very far because the founders only meant it to apply to the children of foreign diplomats born in the U.S.
Hmmm. Really, Mr. Bender? Let’s take a look at that section and see what it actually says, shall we?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Funny, I don’t see the word “diplomat” anywhere, do you? In fact, when I read the rest of that section, that word is curiously absent. So, how, Mr. Bender, if diplomats aren’t specifically excluded (or cited, for that matter) in the language of the law, do you know what the Founders meant? They used the case of a visiting dignitary as an example in case law, but that doesn’t begin to cover the entire meaning.
What is implied in the Constitution at all times, and is conveniently overlooked by those on the left who want it to mean whatever they say it means (The Living, Breathing, Constitution Clause) is that it’s meant to protect the rights of native-born American citizens first. Only when you become a naturalized citizen are you afforded the rights and protections that are guaranteed in it.
But I digress.
Our First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion like the Church of England. And it has been adhered to, hasn’t it? Has Congress created a Church of America?
So, that’s clearly what the Founders meant when they made it the very first right, right?
But they clearly didn’t reference illegal immigrants when they wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to say “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? How can anyone who isn’t a naturalized citizen be subject to our law when they haven’t gone through the process of becoming a citizen?
Pardon my confusion, lefties. You logic escapes me.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
The New Compromise in Congress
In the spirit of the coming conservative tsunami that is about to hit Washington, I’d like to suggest a new meaning of the word “compromise” in the American political dictionary.
For the past forty years or so, this word has meant, as Arizona congressional Republican candidate Jesse Kelly put it, "Bipartisanship in Washington means Republicans selling out their conservative principles in order to appear nice on MSNBC."
He has a very valid point.
The word conjures up an image of two political opponents hammering out details, first one and then the other, reaching some sort of middle ground acceptable to both, with the underlying supposition that what results is in the best interest of the country. However, candidate Kelly is quite correct to point out the reality of what actually happens: radical, big-government leftist lay out a plan to spend more of our money in order to make themselves look good to the people back in the home district so he or she is better able to be reelected. The conservative then must give in to whatever the liberal wants or else be smeared as “partisan” or “obstructionist” or some other name so the people back in the home district will reelect the radical, big-government leftist.
This is about to change.
The rise of the Tea Party in American politics is about the formerly “Silent Majority” speaking up to demand that our representatives in Washington start doing what we ourselves are being forced to do, namely "tighten their belt" and reduce spending. The days of wasting taxpayers’ dollars are nearing an end. Today’s voters are more engaged than ever and have more means at their disposal to monitor what Washington is doing. So the word “compromise” must change to accommodate the will of the people to reduce federal spending and cut out waste, fraud and the abuse of power.
So, here is the new meaning of the word.
In the future, liberals will be giving up their priorities to conservatives, who will start crafting common-sense allocations for programs. The compromise will now come from the left to the right side of the aisle, not from the right to the left, as is now currently done. Liberals will start cutting their budgets and justifying the remainder in an honest accounting of where the money will be spent. Budgets will no longer be based on the previous fiscal year, but will start from scratch to determine how much is actually needed. Zreo-based accounting, I believe, is the proper term for this.
Compromise will now mean that any government expenditure must be fully justified and meet a real need, or else it will be reduced or eliminated. The conservation of tax dollars will be the rule, not the increase. Big-spending, big-government liberals will begin to pare down their requests for funds in accordance with the new paradigm of a smaller, more responsible Federal government.
This new definition of compromise will also include a new twist on the words “partisan” and “obstructionist”. These terms will now be used to describe anyone on the left who wants to squander tax money. Things like the waste of taxpayer dollars on the study of ants will be brought into the light and those who propose such insults to the American people will be derided as the irresponsible spenders that they are.
The attitude of the American people is changing. Politics in Washington will change as a result. Business as usual will no longer be tolerated. We’ve tried the vapid promise of hope and change and it has been shown to be a gigantic failure, resulting in record high levels of unemployment, poverty, and federal debt, things that should never happen in the worlds’ number one economy. It's time to halt this very dangerous veer towards the radical left that Obama and his cronies in Congress have engineered.
As a reminder, if you haven’t already, pick a day to vote and let your voice be heard in Washington. And be sure to tell all your Democrat friends to vote on November 3rd.
Send an undeniable message to the corrupt elitists that we are coming to take back our nation. Bend to our will or get out of the way.
For the past forty years or so, this word has meant, as Arizona congressional Republican candidate Jesse Kelly put it, "Bipartisanship in Washington means Republicans selling out their conservative principles in order to appear nice on MSNBC."
He has a very valid point.
The word conjures up an image of two political opponents hammering out details, first one and then the other, reaching some sort of middle ground acceptable to both, with the underlying supposition that what results is in the best interest of the country. However, candidate Kelly is quite correct to point out the reality of what actually happens: radical, big-government leftist lay out a plan to spend more of our money in order to make themselves look good to the people back in the home district so he or she is better able to be reelected. The conservative then must give in to whatever the liberal wants or else be smeared as “partisan” or “obstructionist” or some other name so the people back in the home district will reelect the radical, big-government leftist.
This is about to change.
The rise of the Tea Party in American politics is about the formerly “Silent Majority” speaking up to demand that our representatives in Washington start doing what we ourselves are being forced to do, namely "tighten their belt" and reduce spending. The days of wasting taxpayers’ dollars are nearing an end. Today’s voters are more engaged than ever and have more means at their disposal to monitor what Washington is doing. So the word “compromise” must change to accommodate the will of the people to reduce federal spending and cut out waste, fraud and the abuse of power.
So, here is the new meaning of the word.
In the future, liberals will be giving up their priorities to conservatives, who will start crafting common-sense allocations for programs. The compromise will now come from the left to the right side of the aisle, not from the right to the left, as is now currently done. Liberals will start cutting their budgets and justifying the remainder in an honest accounting of where the money will be spent. Budgets will no longer be based on the previous fiscal year, but will start from scratch to determine how much is actually needed. Zreo-based accounting, I believe, is the proper term for this.
Compromise will now mean that any government expenditure must be fully justified and meet a real need, or else it will be reduced or eliminated. The conservation of tax dollars will be the rule, not the increase. Big-spending, big-government liberals will begin to pare down their requests for funds in accordance with the new paradigm of a smaller, more responsible Federal government.
This new definition of compromise will also include a new twist on the words “partisan” and “obstructionist”. These terms will now be used to describe anyone on the left who wants to squander tax money. Things like the waste of taxpayer dollars on the study of ants will be brought into the light and those who propose such insults to the American people will be derided as the irresponsible spenders that they are.
The attitude of the American people is changing. Politics in Washington will change as a result. Business as usual will no longer be tolerated. We’ve tried the vapid promise of hope and change and it has been shown to be a gigantic failure, resulting in record high levels of unemployment, poverty, and federal debt, things that should never happen in the worlds’ number one economy. It's time to halt this very dangerous veer towards the radical left that Obama and his cronies in Congress have engineered.
As a reminder, if you haven’t already, pick a day to vote and let your voice be heard in Washington. And be sure to tell all your Democrat friends to vote on November 3rd.
Send an undeniable message to the corrupt elitists that we are coming to take back our nation. Bend to our will or get out of the way.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Sorry, Mr. President, But We Are Thinking Clearly
We read what you had to say at that little fundraiser over the weekend. You said that your Democratic friends in Congress are having difficulties in this election because we aren’t thinking clearly. You said,
You’re wrong. Very wrong. In fact, you couldn’t be more wrong even if you tried to be.
We’re not scared. We know what you and your Democrat party are trying to do to us. We’ve watched you and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi very closely ever since you took office.
We watched as you went around the world and apologized to our enemies. We watched you disrespectfully return the bust of Churchill to our British allies. We watched you put your feet upon the Presidential Desk. We watched you bow to leaders of foreign countries as though you were their servant instead of standing before them as their equal.
We watched you play golf while our fighting forces made the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefields of a war you refuse to name. We watched you force one unpopular law after another through Congress against our will. We watched while you criticized those in business who dared to make a profit. We watched you disparage doctors as greedy people who can’t wait to chop off someone’s leg. We watched as you tried to give our sworn enemies the same rights as normal Americans in our court system instead of treating them as the animals they are.
We watched as you looked down your nose at everyday Americans and we heard you call us “bitter clingers” for adhering to our faith in American values. And now, we have to hear you say that we’re scared and can’t think for ourselves.
I’m terribly sorry if that’s what you think. You see, we are thinking very clearly because we aren’t scared.
We’ve learned a lot since you took office. We learned that you don’t think very much of your own country, although we don’t know why. After all, you should thank us for electing you even though you haven’t had much in the way of experience, either in politics or in everyday life. We know you’ve never had a real job with real responsibilities and real people depending on you for their families’ livelihoods. We know that you don’t want us to know anything about your time in college since you won’t release any of your records. We know you voted “present” a lot. An awful lot.
No, Barry, we can see a few things for ourselves. We know when we’re being lied to. What you call “facts and science and arguments” we call “radical left-wing progressive talking points”. Just words, really, with no truth in them, designed to manipulate us into giving you and your party more power over us in order to satisfy your incredibly large and arrogant egos.
No, Barry, we’re thinking very clearly and we aren’t afraid at all. In fact, we’re defiant.
We’re defiant of you and your efforts to “fundamentally transform” the country into something far less that it was. That’s why your party is in trouble. We’re going to send you an unmistakable message in a few weeks that we don’t like the place where you want to take us.
And you’d be wise to listen to us.
We want our government small and responsive to our needs. What we need right now aren’t vague platitudes and socialist talking points. We need a return to American principles like personal responsibility and accountability. We need to get the economy going again so we can have a future to give our children and their families.
We want a government that is honest and listens to us. We want a government operated by folks like us, that understands what we want from life and that will write laws that benefit us all, and repeal the laws that don’t. We want a government of, by and for us. And we know that’s not what you want.
So, pardon us if we don’t live down to your mistaken ideas and false notions of what we are or aren’t thinking.
We can think for ourselves, as you will soon see.
"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now, and facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day all the time, is because we're hard-wired not to always think clearly when we're scared," Obama told the assembled Democrats, who paid $15,200 a person to attend. "And the country is scared."Hmmm. Is that what you think? Really? Well, I have some news for you.
You’re wrong. Very wrong. In fact, you couldn’t be more wrong even if you tried to be.
We’re not scared. We know what you and your Democrat party are trying to do to us. We’ve watched you and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi very closely ever since you took office.
We watched as you went around the world and apologized to our enemies. We watched you disrespectfully return the bust of Churchill to our British allies. We watched you put your feet upon the Presidential Desk. We watched you bow to leaders of foreign countries as though you were their servant instead of standing before them as their equal.
We watched you play golf while our fighting forces made the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefields of a war you refuse to name. We watched you force one unpopular law after another through Congress against our will. We watched while you criticized those in business who dared to make a profit. We watched you disparage doctors as greedy people who can’t wait to chop off someone’s leg. We watched as you tried to give our sworn enemies the same rights as normal Americans in our court system instead of treating them as the animals they are.
We watched as you looked down your nose at everyday Americans and we heard you call us “bitter clingers” for adhering to our faith in American values. And now, we have to hear you say that we’re scared and can’t think for ourselves.
I’m terribly sorry if that’s what you think. You see, we are thinking very clearly because we aren’t scared.
We’ve learned a lot since you took office. We learned that you don’t think very much of your own country, although we don’t know why. After all, you should thank us for electing you even though you haven’t had much in the way of experience, either in politics or in everyday life. We know you’ve never had a real job with real responsibilities and real people depending on you for their families’ livelihoods. We know that you don’t want us to know anything about your time in college since you won’t release any of your records. We know you voted “present” a lot. An awful lot.
No, Barry, we can see a few things for ourselves. We know when we’re being lied to. What you call “facts and science and arguments” we call “radical left-wing progressive talking points”. Just words, really, with no truth in them, designed to manipulate us into giving you and your party more power over us in order to satisfy your incredibly large and arrogant egos.
No, Barry, we’re thinking very clearly and we aren’t afraid at all. In fact, we’re defiant.
We’re defiant of you and your efforts to “fundamentally transform” the country into something far less that it was. That’s why your party is in trouble. We’re going to send you an unmistakable message in a few weeks that we don’t like the place where you want to take us.
And you’d be wise to listen to us.
We want our government small and responsive to our needs. What we need right now aren’t vague platitudes and socialist talking points. We need a return to American principles like personal responsibility and accountability. We need to get the economy going again so we can have a future to give our children and their families.
We want a government that is honest and listens to us. We want a government operated by folks like us, that understands what we want from life and that will write laws that benefit us all, and repeal the laws that don’t. We want a government of, by and for us. And we know that’s not what you want.
So, pardon us if we don’t live down to your mistaken ideas and false notions of what we are or aren’t thinking.
We can think for ourselves, as you will soon see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)