Archive for the ‘Leftist Cabal’ Category

How to Defeat Liberals in Arguments About Guns – Video Goes Viral

Monday, January 14th, 2013

Hard-Hitting Facts

If you ever wanted to know how thoroughly bankrupt the arguments of the gun-grabbers are, all you need to do is watch this video.  Watch the liberal host, Bray Cary, get sucker-punched repeatedly by WVCDL President, Keith Morgan on the State Journal’s Decision Makers. The WVCDL is the West Virginia Citizens’ Defense League.  If Alex Jones had been the model for how not to win an argument, then Morgan’s calm and collected demeanor is an excellent example of how to corner the left with their own nonsense, rather than coming off like an unhinged lunatic.  What this video reveals is the fear-driven mindset of liberals in media who want to get rid of guns.  Cary doesn’t really want to have a rational discussion, for all his posturing to that effect.  Listen carefully as a plainly rational man de-fangs this leftist vampire who eventually looks as though Morgan had been wielding holy water, a stake and mallet:

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDvwObwZk]

Here is a perfectly reasonable man attempting to have a logical conversation with a leftist who turns out to be simply another ignorant talking head.  As the host ultimately admits, he simply doesn’t think private citizens should be armed.  More, the moment Mr. Morgan corners him, he becomes almost desperate to go to break and end the segment, particularly once Morgan begins to describe the lie that is the claim that so-called “assault weapons” have never been used in defense against criminals.  This is a blatant lie, and it been debunked so frequently that it’s astonishing it keeps being re-told.

Here’s one example, from 2011, in which a 15-year-old in Houston defended his home and his sister from home invaders with an AR-15.  The original story and video posted here at KHOU’s website. You can watch the video below:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE]

So much for the faulty assertion that none have ever defended their homes with an AR-15.  The truth is that most instances of defense never involve the discharge of a weapon, but merely the display of one.  There is no statistic on how many times guns were brandished or displayed causing would

 

The Return of the Wall

Wednesday, December 12th, 2012

Soviet Union Part Deux

After witnessing the fall of the Berlin Wall, and indeed, the collapse of the entire border frontier between East and West firsthand near the end of my military service, I thought those days marked the final death-knell of communism around the world.  In more than two decades since those days of hope, as it seemed the globe might begin to abandon the plots and schemes of the central planners, what I witnessed is that rather than take the hard-learned lessons forward with us from then until now, we’ve forgotten them.  Discredited and defeated, communism should have been dead, but it’s not gone away after all.  In the last several years, it has made a resurgence, as the generational memories of the terror it brought upon the globe fade, and younger generations fall prey to the song of the socialist sirens.  With communism and its more socially acceptable forms, “socialism” and “progressivism” making a comeback, it should be a surprise to read that the French Prime Minister, Jean-Marc Ayrault, announces in spittle-laden bellicosity that the rich fleeing France for Belgium to escape the high taxes should be considered less than patriotic.  Reading the translation of his remarks, one can only wonder how long it will be before France, like the Soviet Union before it, erects walls to prevent its most successful people, or even people seeking simple freedom from leaving.

When one reads of remarks like this, when armed with even a modicum of historical understanding, one must recognize the frightening threat of a return to the darkest days our world has yet known.  How far from Prime Minister Ayrault’s thinking are the gulags and concentration camps?  Certainly, he’s not proposed such a thing…yet.  Still, in the manner of his speaking, one can see the manifestation of the same old demons being raised up, under the same old guise, and with the same ugly motive. Perhaps worst of all, in castigating those wealthy people leaving France, among them notably the famed French actor Gerard Dépardieu, Ayrault’s accusation is that the wealthy who flee are suffering from a lack of generosity.  This is quite obviously a sick attempt at reversing the guilt onto the innocent, but it’s no surprise from a government now headed by President Francois Hollande, who declared infamously that he didn’t “like the rich.”  The reeking pomposity of socialist dictators-in-waiting has never known more hypocrisy.

In our own country, Barack Obama is continuing that same trend, and the long-time leftist slogan “Eat the Rich” seems near to being implemented in full.  At the rate things are progressing toward a complete worker’s paradise here in the United States, it’s only a matter of time before he decides we need a border fence after all, not to keep illegals out, but to make sure that none may leave. As the Europeans continue to build their coming continental concentration camp, from which only the powerful like Hollande and Ayrault will be afforded the chance to flee, Obama is building another right here, and he’s feeding the lap-dog press the same deceptive and hypocritical banter about the rich, as his family enjoys a multi-million dollar holiday in the state of his [alleged] birth. (Like most Marxists, I suspect he was actually hatched.)

How long will it be before we see the return of the barbed wire and fortifications, complete with machine gun nests, not to defend a country, but to keep its enslaved people from leaving?  With the spreading, grotesque mindset of communism once again spreading like black mold on a too-long neglected basement wall, it seems history is poised to once again repeat itself, because while a people may learn a given lesson by living it, they do a poor job of conveying those lessons to their children.  Worse, they pay for their children to be indoctrinated by the very mindset they overcame, and more is the pity and travesty that the education establishment will  have served not as the instrument of our protection, but the weapon by which the communist sappers undermined our cultural and intellectual fortifications.

You might have come to think it is an exaggeration to suggest that those now in power in France could build a wall, but one ought to consider the words of some of their politicians, as quote in the Telegraph:

“Socialist MP Yann Galut called for the actor to be “stripped of his nationality” if he failed to pay his dues in his mother country, saying the law should be changed to enable such a punishment.”

The idea that a politician is seeking to punish people in this way is not a novelty, but it isn’t lost on most conservatives that the underlying meaning is purely tyrannical.  Meanwhile, another government official had this to say:

“Benoît Hamon, the consumption minister, said the move amounted to giving France “the finger” and was “anti-patriotic”.”

Setting aside the fact of this man’s preposterous title, one must wonder at the sheer idiocy of a country that revels in revolution but cannot rise even to defend its own borders.  Being partly of French heritage, I can’t but imagine that my ancestors who came to North America sought the freedoms their countrymen now forsake, and I am mightily grateful that they saw fit to do so, but I am simultaneously disgusted at the fact that so many of their descendants now seem willing to forsake liberty here.  Communism isn’t dead after all, but tempting us to believe it permitted them to make inroads, and I don’t know if they can be stopped.

With darkness and depression enveloping the globe, it is time to remember the wall between East and West, because we may yet see its resurrection on a global scale.  It’s also time to reconsider whether we should have let so much of the wall be destroyed.  Demolishing it meant that the visible scar upon the face of civilization has been removed, and while the wall itself may have gone for a time, the mindset that had built it now thrives around the globe.  If we are to dismantle communism again, it must not be its mere instruments that we remove, but its entire philosophical base. It must be placed and kept on ice like a virus stored as a hedge against the need to redevelop new vaccines in case of a new outbreak.

 

Confessions of the Left

Saturday, November 17th, 2012

His Lips are Moving...

In almost any issue at controversy in the sphere of domestic politics, you can invariably forecast what the radical left is doing, has done, or plans to do by simply listening to what they accuse the Republicans of doing, having done, or intending.  When Howard Dean proclaimed on the eve of the election that the only way Mitt Romney could win would be to steal it, I knew without further deliberation that this was precisely what the left was doing.  When Barack Obama accused Mitt Romney of politicizing the Benghazi attacks, what any observer who had been as astute and sophisticated as a twelve-year-old would have recognized is that this had been precisely what Obama and his administration had already done.  If the mainstream media were half as objective or one-tenth as honest as they pretend to be, they would have noticed this trend long ago, and used it as a “hot tip” on where to focus their investigative talents, but since they’re in league with the left, they merely joined in on the fun.  Whatever a leftists say in public, when they allege some ill motive of their adversaries, you can dependably assume they’ve already done what they now decry.

If you think about it carefully, it extends into every political debate and issue before the country.  Who will forget the obscenely dishonest television commercials that depicted Paul Ryan as wheeling Granny to a cliff and then pitching her over the precipice? Yet with the advent of Obamacare, who really threw Grandma and Grandpa to the wolves?  The simple fact is that the Affordable Care Act, apart from relying on a three-quarter-trillion dollar cut to Medicare, also put into law a panel made up of people with no medical expertise whatever who would determine what procedures seniors could receive as a matter of economic cost-benefit analysis.  These were appropriately termed “Death Panels” by Sarah Palin, who was again spot-on about both the intentions and the effects of the law, but she was derided as a lunatic by the mainstream media and popular culture for having pointed this out.  The problem is that she had been right, and as the law now edges toward full implementation, the facts have become apparent.  Once again, what we can learn from this debate is that the left would do what it accused others of intending, and that the media would predictably help to cover this up.

You can apply this to virtually every argument the left initiates with its accusations of vile intentions on the part of some conservative or Republican.  This election season, the left spent a great deal of time and energy pushing the farcical notion of a “Republican war on women.”  The problem with this is that one party has been undermining women for generations, and it isn’t the Republicans.  More women than ever now live in poverty.  More women than ever must now rely upon government to feed their children.  More women than in the history of America have found themselves unable to maintain independence despite extraordinary efforts to do so.  More women find themselves facing six-figure debt burdens in pursuit of education that provides them with fewer available opportunities.  They see their children less.  They have less time for the things important to them.  How is it possible for Democrats and associated leftists to proclaim that there is a Republican “war on women” when the conditions and culture in which women must now live is worsening?  The real “war on women” has been waged endlessly by Democrats who work to divide families, and who use the whole of their machinery to drive as many women as possible into their welcoming arms. Look at what they’ve done to wreck this economy.  How can it be that they are permitted to get away with this narrative?

It’s not possible to ignore that whatever the Democrats allege, the reverse is almost invariably true, and the ill will they project upon conservatives or Republicans are really simple confessions of their own.  Another area in which this is undeniably true is the matter of race.  No party in history has been so consumed with racism as the Democrats, and no other ideology so thoroughly lends itself to racial demagogues.  They can’t wait to use the race of Susan Rice as an excuse to forgive her of any wrongdoing in the matter of Benghazi, but I am certain that race had absolutely nothing to do with the outcry against Rice’s misleading of the American people.  Whether she was merely following orders, or had been a co-conspirator who had known the truth, her race was no part of the outrage against it.  How am I so certain?  Apart from the fact that I had been outraged by it, but never considered her race, the simple fact is that when Democrats used race as the basis for dismissing criticisms of Rice, I realized they were simply confessing their motives in selecting her for the untidy work from the outset.  I don’t think this way, but I’ve come to learn Democrats do.  They put her out front because she was a woman, and black, and it was expected that they would use this defense when later challenged.  Had they sent Axelrod or Gibbs to the Sunday shows to profess a lie, they could not now hold forth a defense based on race.  Many had wondered why Rice had been made the face for this discussion at all, and herein lies the reason.

This ought to tell you a good deal about the real motives and thinking of the left.  They chose Rice as their patsy, if she was one, precisely for her race and sex.  The media would naturally follow the lead as soon as they cried foul on the basis of race or sex, so it could be counted on that what you would have is the spectacle of Lindsey Graham and John McCain, two “old white guys” ganging up on a young black woman.  Naturally, the media cleverly omitted Kelly Ayotte from the picture, despite the fact that she too was a participant in the criticisms from the Senate.  She wouldn’t have fit so neatly into the narrative of racism and sexism.  No, two “old white guys” would suffice.  This is the manner of everything the left does, so that when they come along with an argument or accusation, you can flip it and examine them under its light, nearly always discovering the real truth of the matter.  People of a more conservative viewpoint need to do a better job educating those who don’t know how to recognize these hucksters for what they are, and teach them to perceive it on their own.  People are always a bit skeptical of any politician, and it’s time we exposed them all.  When a Democrat proclaims: “My opponent wants to feed children dog-food,” it isn’t an exaggeration so much as a confession that if left to his agenda, that’s precisely what he will do.

 

 

Obama to Stand Down On Military Pay and Benefits

Sunday, November 4th, 2012

Forgetting Them Again

My son-in-law is getting set for deployment to Afghanistan. His departure is imminent, and while I am proud of the young man’s continuing service to this country, this being his second deployment, I am startled by the manner in which the current administration treats all our soldiers.  The truth is that the Obama administration doesn’t even like the military, and except for instances in which they can be used as a campaign prop, they haven’t any regard for the men and women who volunteer to serve this nation.  One Obama-friendly group has come out with its proposal for trimming military pay and benefits, and it’s shocking to realize how little regard they have for our service-members based on what they’re advocating.  The Center for American Progress, a completely maniacal left-wing cohort of Obama’s, largely funded by George Soros, has actually suggested that our government should cut the pay and benefits of soldiers dramatically.  It’s disgusting.  It’s despicable.  It’s another example of how the left doesn’t understand or appreciate our military men and women, but if Obama is re-elected, it’s probably the blueprint for what will happen.  It’s time to consider the disastrous consequences of another presidential stand-down.

They’ve actually proposed cutting military retirement, and they’ve also proposed changing the rules for when one can begin drawing a military retirement.  Rather than commencing retirement benefits upon retirement, the madcaps at the Center for American Progress are pushing the notion that benefits shouldn’t commence until 60.  I want those of you who haven’t served in the military to think about this very carefully.  If a young man or woman serves twenty years in the military, on average, it’s not like working in the civilian world for two decades.  The abuses of one’s body, the toll it takes on one’s family, and the miserable conditions under which two decades of life are conducted is something for which there are no direct analogs in the civilian world.  One person I know, a police officer, who works hard and is dedicated to public safety, likened his profession to the military, and I stopped and corrected him.  There is a vast difference, and it comes down to this: Our service-members live under martial authority.  It’s not like being a cop, much as I respect so many in that profession.

Let’s be blunt about it: If you are a police officer, and you arrive at a scene, and your Sergeant or Lieutenant tells you to carry out some ludicrous order that puts you in danger, you can refuse.  The worst thing that can happen to you is that you will be fired.  In garrison, or on the battlefield, a soldier really has no such discretion, because failing to follow orders can get you dead.  You see, in the military, there really isn’t room for such discretion, and those who volunteer to serve have set aside the ordinary right to refuse all of us in the civilian world enjoy, in favor of the mission set forth by their commanders, but since they do not get to pick the term of their enlistments according to who is in command at the time, either nationally or locally, they simply must comply.

To get capable, smart, qualified people to do the jobs we ask our service-members to do in peacetime at their miserable rate of pay is hard enough, but multiplied and magnified by the rigors of war-fighting, and a simple existence under martial authority, we need to offer an enticement.  That’s why we offer at least somewhat enticing retirement benefits, but this is also why the left, despite all their previous anti-draft protesting, is very much pro-conscription:  They wish to be able to force people to serve in these conditions.  Imposing the pay and benefits cuts that CAP proposes would assure that the United States would either impose a draft to fulfill its defense needs, or simply cease to defend the nation.  Either is acceptable to leftists, but in truth, they’d like to have both.

Remember, if a young person 17-21 volunteers for military service, assuming they carry out a twenty year career, that means they will return to the civilian world in their late thirties or early forties, and despite the propaganda to the contrary, most will be effectively starting over.  You see, very few specialties in the military actually translate directly to civilian uses.  Working on artillery pieces doesn’t really translate to working on Fords.  Some of the underlying skill-sets may, but the truth is that it’s not a simple transition in most cases.  There aren’t really many positions for infantrymen in the civilian world.  Therefore, you have a group of people transitioning into a civilian workforce who may well have delayed their higher education, and otherwise set aside those developments in order to protect us.  Then, having completed two decades, they exit the military into a civilian workforce where they may be at significant disadvantage.  There is discrimination against veterans in many cases, and they step into this world precisely in what ought to have been their peak earning years.   The Center for American Progress thinks we should delay their retirement benefits until they’re sixty.  The truth is, we should pay them upon retirement because it’s the ethical thing to do in helping them catch up, and in order to thank them for their honorable service.

I’m not going to touch the part about active military pay, lest I launch into a stream of profanities over CAP’s proposals, but I think it’s time we understand, all of us, that when we ask young men and women to serve, we’re asking that they do so in our stead.  How much is that worth?  As my son-in-law prepares to fly to a distant and God-forsaken land, to help a people who may not want it, and to defend them against their own, knowing that most deaths in that country are the result of our alleged allies turning on our people, I can’t help but reflect on my own military service, and all the things I saw.  I wonder if the day will ever come when the American people will universally understand what it is we ask of these young people, and whether there will ever be a time when the left is willing to pay the costs of maintaining the defenses of the liberties they so blissfully enjoy in brutally indifferent ignorance.  If Barack Obama is re-elected, the undue suffering of our men and women in uniform will increase dramatically.  As I prepare to see my son-in-law depart on another deployment, we must take care of affairs here at home.  We must prevent this.

The Morality of the Left

Saturday, September 29th, 2012

What the Left Seeks

Listening to Mark Levin on Thursday evening, I wondered if the Great One fully understood quite what he was saying.  He went on a bit of a rant about the immorality of the left, and their willingness to bankrupt the country in the name of their Utopian dreams, but as I listened, I began to realize that Dr. Levin doesn’t understand the root of the left’s central motive.  As I listened to him damning their behavior and tactics, cursing the statists as immoral, I think he missed the whole truth.  You see, it isn’t that the left is immoral, or even that they are amoral, but instead, the left adheres to a completely different moral system with an alien motive at its root.  There are all sorts of moral systems, some religiously based, while others are entirely secular.  The question is always: What is the root of one’s morality.  For most people, morality is an expression of their fundamental values, and this is where the difference manifests.  Some have noticed that the left seems to readily ally with the Islamist front, both domestically and internationally, and to the degree this is true, it is because they share a central value:  Theirs is the morality of death.

It’s easy enough for most Americans to understand that the militant Islamists value death over life, and indeed, one of their now-deceased leaders made the matter plain:

“We love death. The U.S. loves life. That is the difference between us two.” – Osama bin Laden

Osama bin Sharkbait was at least honest about it, but even had he been inclined to lie about it, his actions and those of his cohorts would still make the truth obvious.  Theirs is a system of morality that places the value of the paradise in death they pursue above the value of anything here on Earth, but since guaranteed entry into paradise is only obtained through martyrdom, they are quite motivated to pursue both through mass murder in suicidal acts of monstrous proportions.  Their rabidly single-minded pursuit of this end gives rise to the grim spectacle of a mother raising her children to be future suicide bombers.  This is a value base so thoroughly removed from what we in the West would consider “normal” that we have a good deal of difficulty accepting that any person, never mind a loving mother, could so callously send her children to their deaths. In falling prey to this naive view, it permits us to overlook the fact that the equally rabid left is no less committed to the cause of death, though they don’t seem to be strapping-on suicide vests at the moment. Or are they?

What separates the virulent statist left from the garden variety “liberals” is that they are equally willing to impose death and mayhem, to include mass murder, if it is in the service of their aims.  It is true that the average “liberal” is what might be termed a “useful idiot,” inasmuch as he or she is unwilling or unable to form the thoughts necessary to consider the ultimate meaning of their advocacy, so that they become true tools of the more virulent sort who happen to know full well what it is that they intend, and why.  It’s at this point that some of my more moderately conservative friends will interrupt me to suggest that I really couldn’t possibly believe this of some of my fellow Americans, and yet I will be blunt with you as I am with them: I not only believe it to be true based on the logic, but know it to be true based on their actions.

The drooling left composed of the dictatorial thugs-in-waiting are much more discreet in many cases, and much less honest than bin Laden about their aims.  They know that many of their useful idiots would abandon them if they fully understood the meaning and intent behind their actions, so that while they are no less enamored of death than their Islamist friends, they are much less willing to state it openly to the hearing of the world.  The left’s intelligentsia cannot wait, however, to inflict their vision upon the rest of us, and it is chafing them something terrible to wait to see if Obama is re-elected.  If he is, we might well expect them to try to have their way, and depending upon how you read this President, he may not be the least bit unwilling to go along or even lead them.

I am asked for evidence, and so I will give you a few morsels, of which you are already aware, but that you have permitted yourself to set aside as evidence of intent.  I would ask my readers simply:  What is the meaning of a mandated health-care law that destroys the private insurance market, imposes government-run death panels, decides who will get treated and under what conditions, and holds all people who work to pay for all people who do not?  What is the meaning of a health-care law that will, by its sheer budgetary gravity, wreck the whole of the health-care delivery system of the United States of America, that for all its flaws, had been the most modern, the most capable, and the most thoroughly life-giving implementation of health-care anywhere on the planet, and had provided more treatments, cures, and therapies than any other on the entire planet?  What must be motivating any person who knows this will be the result of their system, and yet goes on with it in what we perceive as defiance of the naked truth?

I allow that we conservatives perceive their desires as being in spite of the facts because I firmly believe, and indeed now know that this isn’t the case at all:  They know their system will result in disaster.  They know their economic practices are lies intended to destroy the country.  They know that their view of criminal justice merely lets criminals off the hook, while making their victims doubly accosted.  They know all of this.  I speak not of the useful idiots, who don’t know much of anything except that they want their “Obama-phones” or “Cash for Clunkers” or “EBT cards,” or their truckload of free contraceptives, or whatever they’re after on any particular occasion.  Instead, I am talking of the cloistered, ivory-tower intellectuals of the left, who fancy themselves geniuses of social organization, but who without the forcing hand of government could not assemble an afternoon tea for lack of practical knowledge and experience.  These are the people who sit about thinking over the problems of what to do with millions of intractable, un-rehabilitated conservatives and capitalists once the statists finally attain their end-to-end control.  Their answer is the same for this problem as for any other: Death.  Kill them.

When it comes to the environment, the radical left tells us in coded language that the Earth can only happily support some fifty to one-hundred millions of us.  What they do not state is their intention to reduce the global human population to that number, and the way to accomplish that will be…what?  They also tell us we must reduce our energy consumption, but how is that to be done without reducing our condition and standard of living?  If our standard of living is an expression of the pursuit of life, what must be the intention at the heart of the desire to diminish it?  What you will find as you study the radical left is that their every policy is not merely anti-American, but anti-human, and anti-life.  It is not merely the unborn who they wish to abort.  Their blood-lust knows no bounds, and their hit-list stretches to the limits of the globe.

You might readily understand how the Islamic Supremacists values agree with their actions, as well as their words, but you might still wonder what sort of value system constructs the ethos of the left.  You might not understand why their anti-human reflexes translate into anti-American sentiments.  These are people who seek the finality of death, not because they imagine themselves in a paradise accompanied by some arbitrary number of virgins, but because at their heart, they hate themselves in the most fundamentally thorough way.  These are the people who hate their own lives with the passion of the radical Islamists, but who lack the courage of their convictions.  The best analogy might be the depraved, maniacal man, who murders his wife and children before turning the gun on himself.  In a social and psychological sense, this is the motive of so-called “intellectuals” of the left.  It is as irrational as the distraught young woman who aborts her child because she cannot bear the thought of giving the child up for adoption, to live on without her in the care of other parents.  This, she pleads, she does from her heart, a motive she claims is born of motherly love(!)  but what motivates it is something else entirely: “If I can’t have you, no one will.”  We once institutionalized people of that mindset, but now they serve openly in government, and we have a society that has been rigged to produce bumper crops of them.

You might argue that I had been wrong about all this, and that the evidence lies in their “compassion” for the poor as expressed through their welfare state.  It is true that there is evidence within the welfare state, but it supports my thesis, and it can be seen in the manner in which the welfare state is funded, administered, and executed.  As lavish as our welfare state has become, it still represents a degradation in moral underpinnings that is lethal.  When a welfare recipient’s morality is reduced to “I want what I want because I want it, and somebody should be compelled to provide it,” what you’re really witnessing is a human being who has had their entire purpose in self-efficacy replaced with a government hand-out.  This person may be free to move about, to speak, to worship, and to own their persons, but they are no longer free. At the same time, all those Americans forced to pay for the welfare state do so only at the point of a gun, because it is to their own gruesome detriment to have such a monstrosity in existence.  Their standard of living is reduced, which means that their lives and their trajectories are diminished, advancing the leftists’ cause of accosting their lives. There is a reason that every socialist or communist revolution begins with its aim of destroying the “middle class.”

The favorite target of the statists is “the rich,” and they pretend that there is some natural dishonesty implicit in the accumulation of wealth.  They set about to destroy wealth wherever they find it, for the pleasure of having done so, but their reason is the same: An unending hatred of life.  A person of wealth has made it easier to sustain his or her own life against the circumstances nature may impose.  Wealthy people are every bit as subject to cancer or other diseases, but their wealth enables them to fight on against it with a greater arsenal of weaponry.  More treatments are at their ready disposal, and in the end, barring some unforeseen accident, their lives will be extended.  The truth is that we all have a finite amount of time, but what wealth permits any of us who obtain it to do is to extend that time marginally, but also to more thoroughly enjoy such time as we have, enjoy more frequently the company of those we love, and to pass along such wealth as we leave unused to our heirs and to the causes we value.  In that sense, the value of our wealth can live on in perpetuity.  One could argue that such men as Bill Gates obtain a sort of immortality because the foundations they establish can theoretically go on as long as society endures.

The institutional left abhors that notion.  The sort of people who comprise the hard-core left will never obtain wealth by creative, life-giving means.  Instead, they must trick and coerce, and the ready vehicle for such schemes is government.  It is this reason that has always led leftists to seek positions in governing authority.  They wish to be able to impose their schemes, and the pile of bodies they leave in their wake is a historical proof of my thesis.  From Stalin’s “Five-year Plan(s),” to Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” and now Obama’s “Forward,” they always have the same approach, and the identical means as their tool: The naked force of coercion and the threat of death.

When a man lies about his infidelity, you can easily guess his motive is to conceal the truth from his wife and to preserve his reputation.  When a man lies to all the people of a country about the results of his course of actions undertaken on behalf of the country, you might guess his motive had been to conceal his failures, while preserving his job.  When a man lies to the country about the whole body of his intentions, attempting to disguise not merely what he has done, but what he is going to do, you must wonder about his motives.  If a man’s plan is to destroy the wealth of a nation, and the evidence lies in his past performance, and in his continued advocacy of the same policies, there can be only one possibility:  The destruction of the country is the object that man seeks.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have been told that the radical left is immoral, but I caution you that they are immoral only by our standards and values.  By the values they hold dear, they are perfectly consistent, and unflinchingly “moral.”  Barack Obama doubtless views himself as a moral paragon, because in his system of values, diminishing America is the good.  America has been through most of its history the country of life.  America had been that place and that system of laws and morals in which men and women have been free to establish their own futures, by their own efforts.  It was this self-efficacious characteristic of the American culture that had made ours the most prosperous nation on the planet.  For you and I, who hold life as a value to be pursued and cherished, America had been our place.  Millions of immigrants from around the globe have come here, most in pursuit of that same basic value system.

The morality of the left recognizes in that America an enemy that must be defeated.  It must be throttled.  It must be diminished and bankrupted and ultimately abolished.  What they value is death, and for more than two centuries, America had been death’s most lethal opponent.  A life-giving prosperity had spread slowly across the land, but it spread only because its people had valued life.  In its relations around the globe, the United States had gone to war many times, always in the name of punishing the wicked, and always in the name of life and its prerequisites: Justice and Liberty.   It is sad that by his twisted moral standards, Osama bin Laden recognized in America a simple truth its own people have too often neglected:

“The U.S. loves life.”

 

What kinder compliment could he have paid our nation?  He thought it a smear.  He believed life a trivial matter. It’s among such men that life is always a disposable quantity, particularly the lives of others, and it’s why when Barack Obama says “there will be bumps in the road,” your curiosity should be piqued.  Those “bumps” are lives, Americans, but he dismisses their deaths as “bumps in the road.”  What moral system permits a man to view his countrymen in this way?  What kind of ethos views life as a trivial matter?  If you wonder why the left has an obvious affinity for the Islamic Supremacists, wonder no longer.  While the Islamists do not hide their contempt for life, the leftist intelligentsia seeks to conceal it lest their useful idiots recoil in terror at their motive. That is their grim secret.  That is the truth all their euphemisms are designed to shade. If you wish to defeat them, you must not hesitate to unmask them.

Sarah Palin Is Right: We Shouldn’t Surrender “Blue” States

Saturday, July 28th, 2012

Every Reason to Fight

At the Ted Cruz rally at The Woodlands on Friday, Governor Palin made mention of a candidate who hasn’t been getting  a great deal of national attention, but who deserves the support of conservatives and Tea Party folk everywhere.  One of the things her remarks made clear is that too often, we surrender supposed “blue” states on the basis that we should not waste our precious resources campaigning in places that have been written-off as simply too far gone.  Governor Palin is right about this, and going back even to 2008, when she wanted to spend some time in Michigan, but the McCain Campaign had decided it was not worth the effort, Governor Palin has never been one to cede anything to the left, leaving them a victory by default. In fact, this is what has made her so precious to many on our side, because it is this unrelenting fighting spirit that we have often lacked.  It’s been the habit of the GOP establishment to write-off such places, but she’s right:  We must fight for every one.  In her speech on Friday, she mentioned a candidate for Senate in the State of Maryland, a deep, deep blue state in which mathematically, no victory should ever be possible for a Republican, never mind a conservative, but maybe that’s our problem.  Perhaps we abandon the men and women like Dan  Bongino too easily, and maybe that’s why we seem to be perpetually on the defensive.

We fight over our “Red” states, and some “battleground” states, and we walk away from “blue” states because it just seems so impossible, but we must ask at some point: Is it?  Is it really impossible to deliver a message of freedom and liberty and the vast potential that is the America we love to all her people?  More, aren’t we committing a grave moral error when we abandon the people of those states as veritable Don Quixotes, damned forever to tilt at the windmills of a hopeless political imbalance in their states?  Yes, I am fortunate enough to live in a “red” state, but then again, I am actually a transplant from a “blue” state via a “battleground” state and my service in the Army.  The reason I decided together with my wife to remain in Texas two decades ago is because I looked at the increasingly hopeless prospects of the states in which I had spent my youth, and decided there could be no way I would willingly damn my young family by dragging us back there.

The problem is what Mark Levin likes to point out, likening the left to a swarm of locusts: Once they strip a place and make of it an economically barren and politically devastated wasteland, they move on to more promising areas, turning them each in their turn to the sort of disaster they had created on their previous stops.  I often meet folk who have come to Texas from other places around the country, and some of them ask me how I have adapted to Texas.  My response is always the same: “Don’t try to make Texas into the same sort of place you had left behind, but instead make yourself into a Texan.”  Many of them are taken aback at the notion, and they ask me what I mean, and I explain to them that so many come here from deep blue or battleground states, arriving here to set about the business of turning Texas into what they fled, never stopping to consider the insanity of the notion.  Why would one try to recreate here the very things one has so recently escaped?

Another problem we face is that in leaving these “blue” states to the left, not only are we abandoning some of our most stubborn brethren, who refuse to be run-off from their homes, and who fight tooth and nail for every inch of political ground, but we are also rejecting our own thesis with respect to warfare, whether real or political.  You see, one of the things we conservatives have acknowledged vis-à-vis the war on terror is that for the sake of our country’s safety, it is far better to fight the thugs and terrorists and tyrannical despots on their ground, rather than waiting for them to arrive here, on ours, because naturally, given the time, they will attack us at home. By our failure to contest ‘blue’ states, they needn’t spend any time or effort defending their own ground, because we don’t press our attack there any longer, leaving them free to go on the offensive in every red precinct in the country.

As I have explained before, our political strife in this country is a war, in fact, restrained for the moment to the sphere of politics, but the strategies employed are no different.  Governor Palin mocked Barack Obama for suggesting that Texas would be a blue state, and for the time being, that’s true, but as her words also warned, the only thing preventing that from coming true over the longer run is us.  If we permit the GOP establishment and all the Austin cronies to turn Texas to their purposes, and if we don’t begin to fight the radical left, not only in Texas, but in places like Maryland too, we are going to slowly lose.

It is stunning to think that only a generation ago, California voted for Ronald Reagan, the most conservative president of my lifetime, and perhaps the lifetimes of most Americans still living.  Conservatives don’t seem able to win in California any longer, and it is the locust-like nature of the left, combined with our own unwillingness to battle them that explains the problem.  We ceded that ground, as we have ceded New York, Illinois, Michigan, Maryland, Massachusetts and a number of others.  We’ve simply walked away.  We’ve effectively said “tough luck, we’re saving our own skins” to our conservative brethren in those states, leaving them to grasp at the last straws of their political and economic freedoms, yet we wonder why we see the left infiltrating those places that had been our great strongholds.  There had been a time not so long ago when places like Virginia or North Carolina would never have been in question.  Now?

Ladies and gentlemen, as I write this post, I am re-watching at the video of Dan Bongino, linked by Governor Palin on her Facebook page, and I want you to see this too. Here is the video, and at its end, he makes the same point:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf78iOXx1wY]

Here is a man who is fighting like Hell for the last bit of logic and the last bit of sanity remaining in his state, and when you hear his passion, and when you see the fire in his belly, I want to ask all of you, my conservative brethren, most of us ensconced in deep red territory, how is it that we walk away from fighters like this man, abandoning them to a hopeless battle in which we had surrendered the flanks:  Is he not championing precisely the things in which we believe?   Like many of my readers, and like Gov. Palin, I’m not much inclined to give anything to the left, and I’m certainly not of a mind to leave such a man standing alone, speaking the truth in a state in which, without our help, he will never be heard over the din of the locusts.  It’s time we do something about that, and being conservatives, our country and our culture under attack on all fronts, there is no time like the present.  We shouldn’t wait for somebody else to rescue us, because if we don’t do it, none will.  If you’re in Maryland, go help get this guy elected, and if you’re not in Maryland, contribute to that effort any way you can.  Start here.  Then, let’s fight the left everywhere.  All we’re doing at present is “holding onto our positions,” but we’re not advancing the war by pressing our assault on their leviathan.  It’s time to change the formula.  It’s time to make the case.  It’s time for us to reinforce our flanks, but surge and break through at the front.  This is total war, waged for now in words and votes, but if we fail to engage on all fronts, we will lose the country.

 

WRAL(Raleigh) Releases N.C. Conceal Carry Database

Tuesday, July 24th, 2012

Unarmed? Here's Your Sign

Unarmed residents of North Carolina should be livid.  On the other hand, criminals operating in North Carolina must be ecstatic because CBS affiliate WRAL(in Raleigh) has posted a complete searchable database on its website through which you can look up people by name and address to see if they have concealed-carry permits.  Some are understandably afraid that concealed-carry permit-holders may be singled out by criminals, but in fact, what I expect is that criminals will search to see if their intended targets are gun-owners.  In one sense, this is like placing a “Gun-free zone” sign in all the places that don’t show up in this database.  All of the people who have benefited from the deterrent effect of neighbors who have armed themselves under the law will now likely lose that free ride.  Trying to embarrass or pressure concealed-carry permit holders, and certainly opening them up to harassment on a political basis, what WRAL has succeeded in doing is to help criminals avoid armed citizens.

Guess what that means for everyone else?

While the absence of a concealed-carry permit-holder hardly guarantees the absence of guns in a given business or home, it could be an indicator, and for criminals, if the address they’re about to hit isn’t in the database, there is a higher likelihood of catching a business owner or resident unaware and unarmed.  Ladies, you will be the first targets of this, because violent sexual offenders can now look to see if their intended targets are apt to be packing heat.  We know victims of sexual assault frequently know their attackers, prior to the attack, and now such fiends will be able to verify whether their intended victim is a permit-holder.  Consider that what WRAL has actually done is to point violent criminals in the direction of probable unarmed victims.  Despite the political harassment North Carolinians with permits might now endure as a result, I would not fail to be join that list if I were a resident of that state.  I would want every thug in the state who is aware of WRAL’s database to know that I am armed to the teeth and will defend myself vigorously. It won’t take long for the word of the existence of the database to spread to and among the criminal element.

This shows the foolishness of the left. In attempting to target gun-owners and concealed-carry permit-holders politically, what they may ultimately succeed in doing is to cause criminals to target everyone else.  When that happens, more and more law-abiding citizens will go get a concealed-carry permit, or at least arm themselves in their homes, and that will be a good thing for the free people of North Carolina.  This is typical of the manner in which leftists function:  Their immediate concern was how to score political points against a class of citizens in North Carolina who they hold in contempt, and upon whom they had hoped to heap derision and scorn.  Instead, they may well damn every other citizen of the state by helping criminals to filter out the concealed-gun carriers.

In fact, every resident of North Carolina should be outraged, because what WRAL has just done is to aid and abet the criminals.  On the other hand, the one thing law-abiding citizens of that state should do in response is to get their concealed-carry permits.  As is the norm, there will be unintended consequences of this action by WRAL, and one may be to impel more residents to procure their concealed-carry permits.  As bad as this is, for those who like to look for “silver linings,” this story may actually offer one over the long run.

Politics Is the Continuation of War Through Words

Sunday, July 22nd, 2012

Hold Onto Our Position?

War is a state of conflict existing between persons, parties, nations, or the alliances made up of any of these.  The object of war is to dominate one’s enemy, and to impose one’s will over them, even if one’s will is nothing more complicated than naked destruction.  Carl von Clausewitz observed that “war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.”  That being the case, it must also be true to say that politics is the means by which the hostilities of open war are concealed behind words.  If all is fair in love and war, it is likewise fair in politics, and considering the radical left, at war with America for more than a century, we conservatives ought to expect that there is no scheme or connivance that exceeds their capacity for ruthlessness.  In stark contrast, while they know they’re at war, many of  us have innocently believed it was “just politics,”  as though the object of politics had been something less destructive. History has shown us that politics is merely the extension of war, a pretty face painted on Death, and we ought to recognize its true nature.

Some won’t understand how “mere politics” can be the other side of the same philosophical coin as war.  Let us refrain from the mincing of words:  Politics is the means by which some people are coerced to obey the will of others.  Slavery was a legal institution, created in politics, and backed-up by force.  You might find that Obama-care is immoral, as do I, but in order to enforce it upon us, the government has claimed the authority to compel us to participation.  When I say “compel,” I mean quite literally “force.”  If you refuse, they will use the legal system to pursue you, and if you refuse to submit and surrender, they will ultimately kill you.  Yes, I said “kill.” Have you any illusions about it?  Do you not see that this is ultimately all government has in order to impose its dicta?

The more virulently oppressive government becomes, the more commonplace the use of coercion and force becomes.  In a civilized state, the use of force is limited only to use against those who have committed wrongs, or crimes against other individuals.  It is not used as an aggressive tool by which to compel others to servitude.  This had been the essence of America in its earliest decades, and in those times, the left did not exist as such, and certainly did not have access to the reins of power, and yet their forerunners set up loopholes through which they would later slither.  Make no mistake: The force of government is no longer an instrument of defense of the American people, but is instead the weapon of brutal invaders who use laws written against us, and for their protection.  The statists of the left have captured the law, and it is the great continuation of their war against us.

People have been stunned at the rapidity with which the left and its media mouthpieces began to blame Rush Limbaugh, or the Tea Party for the shooting overnight in a theater in Aurora, Colorado.  We have seen this before: It is the immediate reaction of every leftist on the planet who has access to the media in the aftermath of any human tragedy.  This is another form their war takes.  Their hope is to create an impression as a matter of propagandizing the audience.  Brian Ross likely knew there had been a low probability of a connection between the 24-year-old shooter and the Tea Party, and he knew he would be forced to issue some form of apology, but he also knew the apology would be swept onto some obscure page on ABC’s website, long after the people who heard his earlier remarks had long gone. “Mission Accomplished!”  The object of his “reporting” was the smear aimed at the Tea Party, so when a fifty-something man from Aurora Colorado heard himself being identified as the shooter, he understandably responded by disconnecting his phone to protect his own life and family.  Let us hope that he retains a legal shark who will eat ABC News and Brian Ross for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, but even if he does, he will face a law that will offer Brian Ross et al protection, while obstructing his pursuit of justice.

You might think that Ross had merely been anxious to scoop the story on the gunman’s identity, but while I am certain there was some element of journalistic competitiveness driving the erroneous and premature identification, the truth is that his methodology was to immediately begin surfing the Internet looking for a James or Jim Holmes related to Tea Party groups in Aurora Colorado.  He found one, and when he did, he ran with it, because he saw it not only as an opportunity to get the “scoop,” but also as an opportunity to score a propaganda coup against his political opponents.  What Brian Ross did was to make the innocent Jim Holmes the victim of political profiling and media malpractice.  Since the left is at war with America, however, the innocent fifty-eight year-old man will be considered by Brian Ross, George Stephanopolous, and ABC News as mere collateral damage.  Besides, he is a Tea Party guy, so to Hell with him.  Whether there is a lawsuit, it is irrelevant to the media personalities involved: They’re at war, and in war, sometimes there will be mistaken targets, but if those mistaken targets are aligned with one’s enemies, so much the better.

This is how the left functions at all times, and they are shamelessly convinced that they must carry out the war against America without mercy.  For the moment, that war is mostly one of political rhetoric and subterfuge, but conservatives should understand that their objective is no different than that of actual combat.  They exist to compel and coerce you to their ends, and ultimately, if they cannot convince you to voluntarily submit, they will revert to open warfare.  This is the meaning of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  The Occupiers comprises one part of the intended army of dupes to carry out the violence if need be, even as a justification for governmental force.

Statists are not without values, although they vary dramatically from yours.  Their  love complies with their values quite consistently, and it is this continual devotion to purpose that drives them forward and has allowed them to win, more or less, throughout most of the last century.  Even when we have won the occasional temporary victory over them, they still managed to advance the ball somewhere, somehow, in some issue upon which we had surrendered.  The conservative movement has been winning a lot of battles, but it’s been losing the wider war. The institutional left has been at war with America since the late 1800s, whether or not Americans at large recognized it as such. While we’ve been trying to maintain some sort of polite debating society, the left has been planning how to undermine our constitution, the republic it had established, and the culture of independence that had made it possible.

I am going to convey something that will likely be rewarded with scorn from some quarters, but I believe that out of respect for simple, plain-spoken truth, it must be said:  Due to their shocking similarities, as a result of the basic, underlying roots of their system of morality, the institutional left has become the ostensibly secular equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood, or al Qaeda.  You might think I’ve gone a bit daft, but I assure you that the comparison is valid in all ways.  You might insist that they’re  not strapping bombs to their chests, and running into crowds of infidels to their cause, but I assure you, this is only because at present, they are winning, slowly, but steadily.  When Brian Ross presented the preliminary results of his “investigation” into James or Jim Holmes, he did so knowing that his information was weak, and he knew it could be damaging and destructive, but so intent upon “scoring” a victory against his political foes was he, that he strapped on the story and charged onto your television screen in order to detonate his propaganda bomb.  Would he face sanctions?  Probably not, but even if so, he’d be picked up by MSNBC or some other leftist outlet that is more concerned with his commitment to the cause than with his journalistic integrity.

This is the form of the war at present, but I am warning you to pay attention because it may not always be restrained to our current political warfare, and if the coin flips, you will quickly learn how committed this cabal of leftist true believers is to dominate you, and how willing to rule you by naked force they are once you scrape away the veneer of their words.  Do not be deceived:  We already have all the evidence necessary to convict this group of radicals as charged, only they own the courts, the law, and the power to enforce it.

The left loves power, and specifically, the power over life and death of others, but since they cannot create life, and instead can only steal it, they are consumed by the instrumentalities of death.  War is death’s greatest implement, and what you had ought to recognize is that there can be no middle ground in this war.  Bystanders and fence-sitters are every bit as apt to be destroyed as the participants.  They pursue their objective relentlessly, and it is this consistency of effort that affords them long-term victories.

Consider it in another way, if you please:  As conservatives, by and large, we are a people satisfied to live our lives by our own efforts and on our own merits, come what may.  Ours is not the philosophy of coercing the innocent – people who had done no wrong – but instead the philosophy of rejecting coercion as the basis for human relations in a civilized society.  Conservatives expect that amongst honest men, there may be competition without conflict in its basest form.  Ours is a philosophy that generally avoids imposing coercion on others as a tool of exchange.  We believe in volitional exchange from mutual strengths to mutual advantage.  This is why capitalism can succeed at all, and what conservatives generally expect is that one should be left alone to his own devices so long as he is not outwardly harming others.  Not quite libertarian, but close cousins to be sure, conservatives are generally willing to prohibit some actions they believe destructive of the civil society. In the main, conservatives wish to be left alone, unimpeded by the capricious desires of others, whether directly or through governments.  Conservatives do not seek, in principle, to make gains by force that they could not make by the voluntary exchange with others.

The left does not admit of any restraint upon their claim to coerce others.  In their view, coercion and force are merely tools used to get their way, and they use them aggressively.  Leftists must always attack, because they seek to make gains from their coercion.  The reason for this dramatic difference is implicit in the nature of the sort of person who is conservative, or “liberal.”  Conservatives are willing to rely upon volitional exchange, because in point of fact, they most frequently have plenty to offer, and are willing to create the material value necessary for said commerce.  In stark contrast, the left is not satisfied to rely upon volitional exchange, because with respect to their fellow man, they create nothing of value. If one has nothing to offer in exchange for things of value rightfully possessed by others, one has but a single alternative:  Expropriation, and naked theft, with coercion as one’s means of exchange.

Leftists believe no weapon is superior to the possession of the largest and/or most ruthless mob.  They are willing to substitute a club or a gun for a syllogism at the first evidence that logic and reason will fail them, and there is no rationale that exceeds in quality their estimation of the primitive consideration that condenses at long last to: “I want it.”  They are takers by profession, and they will take with a gun in one hand, a smile firmly affixed to their faces, all on the basis of the premise that “might makes right.”  These are the modern cavemen who would club their mates into submission, dragging them to the cave, not interested in wooing but merely in dominating others to achieve their ends.

Those who fail to recognize this deadly basis for the century-long war the left has waged on America do so at the predictable expense of their own values.  The left struggled one-hundred years at least to seize control of the law, knowing that you would obey each new dictum without much resistance, because you innocently believed that this would be enough.  Now, fully a century after the attack was first launched, you’ve begun to notice that their demands never end, and that there is no compromise you may make that will finally satisfy their claims.  It is the perpetual motion machine of goal-lines: No matter what you surrender, and irrespective to what degree you may have already folded, they have not had their fill, because, as they predict on the basis of your past retreats, you can be prodded into yet another.

In 1994, when Hillary-care went bust with the American people, they did not cease.  Before a decade would elapse, they had an allegedly conservative President enacting their programs in small segments.  By the time Barack Obama signed his Affordable Care Act into law, much of the worst of socialized medicine already existed in fact.  This was merely the act in completion of a strategy stretched across a century of warfare.  They do no yield, and they will not surrender.  There is no time in which you can expect them to simply give up as defeated and go away with their horrid ideas, no matter how many times you may tell them “no.”

What they have succeeded most of all in doing is to convince you that you will always ultimately lose, because over the long march of time, you have innocently moved from battlefield to battlefield, never noticing that these are not isolated attacks, but the full collaboration of a war waged against you on all front.  You may rush to the defense of one battlement, or to the strengthening of another flank, but they continue their war always and relentlessly.  At the rank-and-file level, they don’t know or care that they’re each part of a coordinated attack.  Some of them even believe foolishly that they are in defense of the citadel of liberty, on all fronts but perhaps some one exceptional issue they care not to defend, and against which they may even join in the attack.

The war is real, and victory will go only to those who had recognized it as such.  With the 1993 WTC bombings, we should have known.  With the embassy bombings in 1998, and the attack on the USS Cole, we should have realized this was a wider war.  It shouldn’t have taken the attacks of 9/11 to wake us to this reality.  In the same way, we should have known when the 16th Amendment was ratified, that this would be the opening salvo.  When the New Deal came along, we should have noticed that it was a war against us all, and by the time the Great Society was proposed, the American people should have rejected it all, but we did not.  Instead, we have come to accept those programs as a baseline of our existence, when we should have battled to cast them off, but weary from each engagement, defeated and demoralized, we instead took up a position in an attempt to hold the line.  We have never succeeded because we have never recognized it as a war.  We never charged the enemy, but always clung instead to a wilting defense.

If we are to win this war, we must recognize it as such, first and foremost, but rather than try to defend walls that have been breached already, it is time that we must consider a bold counter-offensive.  The enemy(I do not use this term lightly) is already rallying for another attempt against our Second Amendment in the wake of the Aurora Colorado shooting.  They take no days off, and no days at ease, and have begun already to advance legislation and regulation they’ve kept in their arsenal for decades.  Rather than trying to stave off another attack on the 2nd Amendment by claiming your right to bear arms, about which they do not care, and that will not slow them, we must launch a counteroffensive.  We must push for the wider extension of gun rights.  Now. We must claim the moral high ground by championing the self-efficacy of arms possessed by the law-abiding in their self-defense. Rather than letting them seize the moment, as they will, we must seize it first.

Another great warrior admonished us:

“I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything, we’ll let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly, and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We’re going to hold onto him by the nose, and we’re going to kick him in the ass. We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time, and we’re going to go through him like crap through a goose.” – George S Patton

If you wish to win the war against the statist left, you must know it as such. You must rise to fight it as such. You may not recognize it as a war, but your enemy does, and while you exchange thoughtful pleasantries, the enemy is scouting your flanks. It’s time to realize that their words are weapons of war, and we are under attack.

” All right now, you sons of bitches, you know how I feel. I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle anytime, anywhere. That’s all.” – George S Patton

Romney’s Tax Returns Revisited

Thursday, July 19th, 2012

How Credible?

Let me begin by saying that the veracity of the people involved in “reporting” this story is suspect, and as a consequence, I am bringing the story to you on the assumption that it is probably garbage. Nevertheless, if it should turn out to have some basis in fact, it would be an electoral disaster for the GOP if disclosed in late October, for instance, and having encountered it, I would be remiss if I failed to at least mention it.  Catherine Crier, who I don’t see as a particularly credible source, was on the race-baiting moron’s show(Al Sharpton) on MSNBC.  She admitted it was sheer speculation, but I bring it to your attention precisely because this is the sort of thing about which many conservatives have worried with respect to Mitt Romney’s candidacy.  We’ve been told he’s “squeaky clean,” and that may well be the case, but the Democrats are driving at this Tax Return disclosure business relentlessly.  Crier suggests that Mitt Romney might have been one of those who took amnesty in order to stay out of legal jeopardy back in 2009, when Barack Obama put the IRS on the trail of Americans with undisclosed Swiss bank accounts.

What I found peculiar at the time was the focus on a single banking entity.  When the government does something of that sort, they’ve either been tipped-off, or they have a specific target in mind.  Of course, we are talking about Catherine Crier, appearing as a guest on Al “Tawana Brawley” Sharpton’s show on MSNBC, which is to say that it isn’t exactly iron-clad, and Crier in no way offered a source, but the theory was advanced on Slate on Tuesday and over at the ludicrous HuffingtonPost as well. HuffPo is continuing its coverage as I write this.

Here’s video of Crier on Sharpton’s circus(H/T Mediaite):


Let us imagine for a moment that all of this were true.  What would it mean to the elections?  If disclosed now, I don’t see how Romney would avoid withdrawing from the campaign.  If disclosed post-convention, this would simply cause the end of the GOP’s hopes of capturing the Presidency in 2012, and would almost certainly ruin the down-ballot prospects of retaking the Senate or strengthening in the House, with Romney going down to flaming defeat.  If disclosed after a Romney victory, it would dog him throughout his Presidency, and the Democrats would spend the entirety of his term agitating for his impeachment.  Of course, Democrats would do that in any case, but there’s no sense giving them ammunition.

As is clear, conservatives should view this allegation with the appropriate skepticism.  The source of the information is far too unreliable to be taken all that seriously, never mind at face value.  Still, it should be a concern, and it is one of the reasons that early in the primary season, I was pushing for the disclosure of Romney’s tax returns.  He ultimately provided two years, being the 2011 and 2010 returns.  The return that would reveal whether he had been one of those accepting an amnesty deal from the IRS would have been from 2009, so we do not know with certainty.

We also know the Democrats want ammunition to use against Romney, and that in part, this demand for more years of tax returns is primarily a fishing expedition, and an attempt to get him to disclose that which might hurt him.  He doesn’t need to have done anything illegal, but simply something Democrats can paint as morally questionable or hypocritical.   That would be enough to severely damage the Romney campaign.  That said, I wouldn’t be inclined to comply with the Democrats’ demands for additional disclosures, particularly if I hadn’t anything to do with the allegations Crier tried to imply.  Here is the problem, however, and it is the only nugget in all of this that would suggest there could be some actual smoke, if not fire:  Back in January, when Romney disclosed his 2010 return, it included a disclosure of a Swiss bank account.  That account was indeed with UBS, the bank that had been examined and bullied by the IRS into disclosing some 4,400 American customers. BusinessInsider is now carrying the story, and they’re pushing it further still.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why I urged the release of Romney’s returns following his father’s example, way back in January.  If there is any connection here, Romney might well be able to conceal it a while, but I would fully expect this to become Obama’s “October surprise,” his last hole-card.  Even if it were true, Romney wouldn’t have violated any laws, because he would have accepted the amnesty to avoid legal consequences, but I must also say that if he actually has this problem, and if Obama’s campaign leaks it to the press in the closing days of the campaign, Mitt Romney will not be elected.  There will be no time to spin it, soften it, or clear up the fact that he had ultimately complied with the law.  Instead, it would be a 24×7, non-stop “Breaking: Romney is a Crook,” with the media fairly jeering on Obama’s behalf, and the Obama administration would have its second term.

This explains why the Democrats are on this fishing expedition, but then again, if it is true, the Obama campaign already has that information, and is sitting on it for the big ambush in late October.  I can understand why Governor Romney wouldn’t want to disclose his tax returns, even if he had done absolutely nothing wrong, but the problem here is that if it were true, and if such a disclosure were to occur late in the campaign, we would have no viable horse for this race, and we will see Obama destroying the country another four years.  Of course, Governor Romney doesn’t need to release his entire 2009 tax return. In my view, if he wants to answer any question, this would be it: “Did you accept amnesty under the 2009 Voluntary Disclosure Program?”  Naturally, even if he answers “no,” there are those who will play up the “denial,” but here’s the other problem:  Given the sorely lacking credibility of the sources in this story, and on the highly dubious proposition that Romney does has some “splainin’ to do” with respect to this so-far unfounded accusation, should Obama catch him out in late October, the Republican Party will burn, and I will be among those wielding torches.

When you consider all of this, you might wonder why I’d report it at all, but my reasoning is simple:  The Republican Party has exhibited a habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and with all that is at stake in this election, I’m now accustomed to being disappointed by the GOP establishment.  With all of my friends who have swallowed their pride and grudgingly gone along with Romney for the sake of defeating Obama, if Mitt blows it now over something like this, there will be literal Hell to pay.  I am in no way willing to take the word of this collection of leftist ghouls for anything, but ladies and gentlemen, trust Mitt Romney if you please, but I’ll be keeping an eye on this.  I fully recognize the Obama campaign’s desire to trap Romney with this, but I also know that if there’s anything to it, I don’t want my readers to be blind-sided in October.  If Romney can refute this, he should, because while it would never alleviate the clamor in the press, it would at least put at ease the minds of those he expects to support him in November.

 

Harboring the Enemy

Saturday, July 7th, 2012

Is the GOP Bearing Us Gifts?

My friend Carl likens the GOP establishment’s strategy to the idiotic way in which the US lost in Vietnam.  Too often, the Republican Party creates a safe haven for the left by placing off-limits to attack such programs as education in which they hold complete sway.  More than this, the party adopts rules of engagement that hamper the effort, for instance when John McCain refused to use Obama’s middle name, or when Romney used every Alinskyite tactic to secure the nomination, but will not use them in the general election campaign.  I’m prepared to take it one step more:  When we elect establishment candidates, we provide the left with a safe haven in government, as most of them are permitted to remain in place.  Permitting establishment Republicans to call themselves “conservative” without challenge, we encourage the denigration of actual conservatism.  Mitt Romney isn’t conservative.  He’s a “moderate Republican,” which is to say he is a liberal.  If he takes the White House in November, it will remain staffed by people who are statists.  There will be no change in philosophy, but merely a slow-down in the rate of its pursuit. We shouldn’t expect to restore our constitutional republic by harboring the enemy.

Mitt Romney says he’s been “severely conservative.”  I don’t know how one who knows the first thing about conservatism could begin to make such a claim.  If anything, his history as Governor of Massachusetts tells us something quite different.  Romney-care is an abomination to any free people, and the mere fact that he helped enact such a program as law puts the lie to his claim of conservative credentials, much less a “severe” one.  No, he enacted regulations that pushed the entire farcical global-warmist agenda, and he helped to create and fund programs such as “Welfare Wheels” that are all in keeping with a big-government statist.  The most telling part of his claim is the use of the word “severe” as his adjective of choice.  It is only the most liberal Republicans who attach the impression of severity to conservatism.  For mainstream conservatives, we believe we do not need to say we are “compassionate” because compassion is implicit in our policy ideas.  To the degree we are “severe,” it is in the realm of truth-telling and logical analysis.  To apply the modifier “severely” to conservative is to admit that he doesn’t know what conservatism is all about.  It confesses a philosophical distance from conservatism that cannot be bridged by our desire to win in November.

There are those who would take issue with my description of Republican establishment types as “enemies,” but this is at long last  why some might refer to me as a “severe conservative.”  I’m not willing to gloss over the reality, either for the sake of an election, or for the sake of some false sense of party unity, much less to condescend to other conservatives who will have known better all along.  The simple truth is that establishment Republicans repeatedly damage conservatism in two fundamental ways, and I won’t apologize for pointing them out:

  • They actively seek to undermine conservatives, conservative ideas and principles, and frequently side with the radical, statist left.
  • They frequently attempt to disguise themselves as conservatives, such that when their own versions of statist programs go awry, the wider universe of conservatism in general takes the blame, despite the fact that conservatism had exactly nothing to do with the failures.

I’m going to prove the first method by the use of a single name:  John Roberts.   John Roberts undoubtedly sees Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as  examples of  “severe conservatives.”  His own abandonment of constitutional principles and precedents marks him as precisely the sort of enemy we face in the GOP establishment.  Following along behind him is a cadre of Republican(but not conservative) excuse-makers who will try to convince you he had ruled correctly, somehow.  What John Roberts did by his ruling marks him as an enemy of free men everywhere, and I frankly don’t give a damn what some spouting geyser of human incompetence says to the contrary.

They often disguise themselves as “conservatives,” and you can often see this when they begin to attach all sorts of modifiers to the label “conservatism.”  They will tell you they are at least “moderately conservative,” or practitioners of “compassionate conservatism.”  What these really mean is: “Weak-kneed, non-conservative conservatism.”  In practice, what these translate into are simply more statist programs, regulations, and market-manipulations.  What the programs born of these will reveal is a contempt for principled conservatism.

Some will immediately throw in my face that my own favored candidate, whose candidacy didn’t materialize in 2012, likes to talk about “common-sense, constitutional, conservative ideas.”  Permit me to explain why I see this as significantly different.  When Governor Palin uses that particular phraseology, I believe she is describing the nature of the ideas. I also think she’s describing the nature of conservatism accurately.  Conservatism is rooted in a respect for common sense, or if you will, simple logic.  Conservatism is rooted in a reverence for the constitution as written by our founders, but not necessarily as reinterpreted by subsequent lawmakers or judges.  Based on such evidence as her career in politics makes plain, I don’t believe that Governor Palin is trying to re-define what conservatism is, but instead, simply explaining it those who haven’t understood it, or have been misled about it by some of the alleged practitioners(who weren’t.)

Enemy identification is a difficult task at times, and it’s made all the more difficult by enemies who try to position themselves as allies.  The GOP establishment doesn’t love any liberty so well that they’re willing to stand on its behalf if they perceive a popular movement of any dimension against it.  The truth may be worse, because just as many of my readers have perceived over time, there are instances in which it has been perfectly clear that establishment Republicans are part of the left.  Consider the issue of immigration, or the implementation of new entitlement programs, or their willingness to go along in many cases with further restrictions on firearm ownership.  See how they pander to the environmental movement, another front for radical leftists.  It is becoming apparent that in all meaningful ways, they are absolutely committed to undermining our republic, just like the leftists. The only significant difference I can see is that most of them will claim a committed faith, whereas the leftists distance themselves from faith in most instances.

There are those for whom such an apparent difference is enough to make a distinction, but as I have observed, I cannot know what a man truly believes simply because he declares it.  What I can know is what a politician has done, and what it says about the views held by virtue of their practice.  If this is the measure, and I firmly assert that there must be no other, I do not know why I would view the establishment of the Republican Party as anything other than an enemy, every bit as committed and intractable as the rabid left to the dissolution of the American republic as we have known it.  In the final analysis, this is why I am walking away briskly from the Republicans.   I am still “severely conservative.” I haven’t changed my views, but one: I no longer believe that the GOP can serve as a vehicle for the restoration of the republic.  I will no longer be tempted for short-run political advantage to adopt the old notion that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”  I will simply hereafter acknowledge that I may have more enemies, and that the only real battle between them is akin to the struggle between rival gangs.  They might fight with one another, but in practice, they’re all the same, and either will happily pillage, plunder and poach my life when the opportunity arises.

Rather than we conservatives looking for ways to join the Republican Party, I think it’s time for conservatives to move on, and let Republicans try to join with us.  I’m not willing to let the latest Republican Trojan horse through the gates of our city, bearing statists.  Be not deceived, conservatives.

 

Governor Palin on Hannity Discussing Vile Attacks (Video)

Saturday, March 24th, 2012

Governor Palin on Hannity

On Friday evening, former Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin appeared on Hannity on FoxNews to discuss a range of topics, relating to the vile attacks she and her family have endured over the last four years since John McCain chose her to be his running mate.  Hannity prefaced the segment with a number of disturbing video clips of various media personalities saying the most obscene and ridiculously insulting things about Gov. Palin and other members of her family, and given the nature of some of the things that have been said, I remain amazed at her poise and strength of resolve in confronting it all.  Bill Maher, and David Letterman, among others headline this bunch of shameless media vermin, but Governor Palin was most perturbed by the attacks on her children.

Perhaps the most shocking of attacks has been on her young son Trig who was born with Down Syndrome, and has been the focus of disgusting ridicule and ridiculous conspiracy theories.  As a parent, it’s horrible to witness attacks of any kind on your children, but the despicable attack on a child with special needs is particularly abominable. Frankly, I consider the purveyors of this alleged “comedy” aimed at defenseless children the signature of pure evil.  Here’s the video:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrT6fxcuwmY]

Naturally, there have been attacks on all her kids, and some of them stunningly vile.  The question of President Obama’s hypocrisy came up, since one of the SuperPACs supporting him accepted one million dollars from professional pig Bill Maher.  Hannity also highlighted Bristol Palin’s blog in which she asked President Obama directly:  Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call?  The hypocrisy is evident, but that’s not particularly bothersome to leftists, who must adopt every manner of contradiction in logic and morality to hold their positions.  The Governor’s eldest daughter did an excellent job of demonstrating the clear hypocrisy through his remarks to the press on the Sandra Fluke story.

The left loves to profess their love and reverence for the rights and dignity of all women, but when it comes right down to it, what’s really important to leftists is ideology.  Women only qualify for their respect if they happen also to be leftists.

Why Conservatives Must Challenge the Lies and Narratives of the Left

Wednesday, March 21st, 2012

Why We Must Stand

I am frequently asked why it is that I bother debunking the arguments of obvious leftist shills, or establishment hacks.  The reasoning of those who ask me this question is approximately: “The people who fall for it aren’t inclined to support conservatives or conservatism anyway, so why bother?”  I think this is a serious mistake, and it has a companion that asks: “Why would we stoop to responding to these vile people?”  As a conservative, my answer for these questions is simplicity itself: I believe in the truth, and doing what is right, and I don’t think that permitting lies to propagate is a proposition that serves my interests, the interests of my family,  friends, or neighbors, and indeed, the country.  Call me old-fashioned, but I think that the truth is demonstrable, and that it is incumbent upon we who value it to fight on its behalf.

Propagandists of the left expect us not to challenge them, and theirs is a shrill reaction when conservatives begin to question them.  They’re not accustomed to being challenged, and most conservatives aren’t accustomed to the rough-and-tumble of the engagement.  We conservatives need to harden-up a bit, and be a bit less flexible in our resolve to expose the lies.  It’s important because when the next generation comes along, the propagandists of the left have been working on them since early childhood in many cases, so that by the time they are exposed to a conservative thought, it’s frequently so foreign, and has been so thoroughly denounced throughout their early education that if we don’t set the record straight, nobody will, and over time, we will have lost the country.

There’s another way conservatives should view this, and it’s something I taught my own daughter: Permitting a lie to go unchallenged is widely seen as an endorsement of sorts.  If nobody ever challenges a lie, it becomes the perceived truth, because it’s been permitted to go unchallenged.  Some will counter that to react in defense is seen as a denial, but that’s not necessarily the case.  One can point to far too many examples in which a lie was confronted not with a mere denial, but with the actual truth.  This is something conservatives must begin to do on behalf of capitalism.  Too often, capitalism is smeared with the sins of statism, and far too often, conservatives are willing to let it go.  I’m not.  When another leftist launches a screed against capitalism, I am willing and anxious to point it out, because I know that capitalism is the only system in which free people can function.  I am not inclined to yield the means of my existence so easily.

When it comes to politicians, like many, I have a hard time defending any of them.  Over my lifetime, I’ve seen politicians betray their supporters in so many ways and with such frequency that it’s almost to be considered “normal.”  The notion is ever that “all politicians are corrupt,” but this isn’t so, and it’s simply not proper to paint with so broad a brush.  More than this, however, is the very focused attacks aimed at particular politicians.  When it’s done by the left, what you come to realize is that it has but a single aim and that is to tarnish the conservative in question without reference to facts, history, intentions, or truth.  This is how the left functions, and what it offers you is a window into what they see as a threat.

This morning, I pointed out the vacuous attacks of Stanley Crouch on Sarah Palin.  Nowhere in his entire piece did he offer even bare substantiation of his claims, but that wasn’t his aim.  His aim was to add one more column to the growing pile that all seem to confirm what every other one has said in some form: “Sarah Palin is no good.”  None of them really offer readers an explanation.  They don’t bother with explaining it, and it’s always offered in the form of a confirmation of previous stories, all of which are no better in terms of their actual journalistic merit.  They pile them up, referencing one another, but none of them really explaining the reasons behind their claims.  The truth is that which I explained:  They oppose conservatives, and anything they say or write about them is permissible on this basis alone.

It’s why I’ve defended every Republican who has been part of this primary campaign at some point or other, because along the way from then until now, each of them has faced these sorts of attacks.  The most egregious of the attacks are those spawned by their fellow competitors for the nomination, and it is for alleged conservatives who employ such tactics that I reserve special contempt.  It’s why Mitt Romney doesn’t get my support:  His entire campaign is a load of out-of-context attacks against his rivals, designed to smear by impression rather than confront with facts.  This isn’t to say that the others have been perfect in this respect, but it is to admit that Romney has the distinction of being the worst of the lot by a wide margin with respect to this sort of campaigning.

The reason all of this matters, and the reason one should not permit lies to stand without challenge is that it will always come back around to haunt you, one way or another, in due course.  If you can’t grasp that simply doing what is right should be sufficient motivation, remind yourself that in the end, if you don’t stand up for the truth now, when it is easier, you’re going to have a hard time later when the lies have been established as truth, and you now find yourself confronting the products of the lies.

A practical example of this is evident in the health-care debate, and I want it stated bluntly whether people wish to read it or not:  When you accept the lie that the only institution that can provide for healthcare for the aged, the disabled, and the poor is the Federal government, and you don’t challenge it out front and immediately, what you permit is the notion to creep in that this is the proper role of government.  Once established as “the truth,” why is anybody surprised when this later manifests in a complete government takeover of all health-care?  You permitted the lie to remain in place, but now that it affects you directly, now, and only now do you raise your voice in opposition to the lie?  It’s a little late to try to debunk what you permitted to be accepted as the operative truth so long ago.

This can be extended into other matters.  Consider how Newt Gingrich was treated in the press in 1995-96.  Many in the conservative movement abandoned Newt Gingrich, because they didn’t want to accompany him on a magazine cover, portrayed as the Grinch, so they permitted the lies about Gingrich to fester and to build, and whatever else you may say about him, it was a damnable lie to suggest Newt Gingrich didn’t care about people then, or now.  Now you are surprised when Democrats run ads depicting Paul Ryan pushing granny in a wheelchair over a cliff?  The moral cowardice implied by the lack of a defense of Gingrich in 1995-96 has now come home to visit us, all based on the false proposition that he was a mean guy back then because he thought it wrong to permit one American to rob another with government as the stick-up man.

In 2008, or since, you may not have defended Sarah Palin when she was accused of spending wildly on wardrobe for she and her family though she had nothing to do with it, but now you enjoy the Obama family’s wild-eyed spending on vacations.  Still, the lie prevails in media, but the truth is that we’ve never had a first family who made use of the public treasure for their personal amusement like the Obamas, while Sarah Palin actually objected to the hefty price-tags on some of the clothing, to the extent that campaign staffers actually got rid of tags and concealed the costs from her at the time.   When conservatives permit these lies to be told, re-told, repeated and widely propagated without substantial challenge, what happens is that the less attentive populace perceives their silence as agreement or at least acknowledgement.   This is the premise that Andrew Breitbart lived to overwhelm: We conservatives, if we love our country and our way of life so much as we claim, must be willing to defend the truth about it, and to do so loudly and often.  We must do so in every context and venue as consistently and fearlessly as the left propagates its lies continuously and remorselessly.

Nothing we claim to value is served by permitting the left’s propaganda machine to spew lies without challenge.  Some times, it will require of us that we get down into the gutter with them, at least long enough to kick their asses and let the truth be known.  There’s only so much we should be willing to tolerate, and it should be a good deal less than has been our practice.  Refuting the left isn’t merely a matter of politics, but is instead a pressing necessity in preserving our republic.   Lies mustn’t be permitted to flourish, and the lament of of Sir Edmund Burke should echo in our minds as we respond:

“All that is necessary for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing.”

It shouldn’t surprise us when we do little or nothing to combat the left’s lies that they prevail in the long run.  Their perpetually dishonest narrative is merely subsidized by our unwillingness to combat them.  If you want to save the country, start here, and challenge everything they say or write.  Chances are, there’s good cause for your challenge if only you are willing to run the truth to ground.  A funny thing happens when you debunk the left:  They quickly change the subject lest too many observers gather the impression that this may not have been their only lie.  Most people understand that dishonesty is habitual, and once they see a few instances of the left’s lies, they simply walk away and the lies have no more effect.

When I’m asked why we conservatives should bother to debunk dishonesty of the sort that Stanley Crouch purveys, I’m inclined to remind my readers that to let the lies remain without stern refutation is to assent to their narratives by silence, but as Andrew Breitbart spent the last years of his life reminding us, conservatives should remain silent no longer.  To save this country, we’ll need to be as vocal as the left, but when we do our homework, we’ll have unassailable truth on our side.  It’s the difference from which the left should never be permitted to hide.

 

Obama-Fan Sentenced For Death Threats Against Sheriff Joe

Friday, March 16th, 2012

Deliver us from Evil

There are nuts, and then there are loco-weeds.  This man, Adam Cox, a self-described Obama fanatic was sentenced for his threat on the lives of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, AZ.  You’re likely familiar with “Sheriff Joe” for his various exploits over the years, including pink jail jumpsuits, the revival of chain gangs, and the tent city in which he housed inmates.  Last month, it was his “Cold Case Posse” that had been investigating allegations about Barack Obama, and had made a determination that the birth certificate published by the White House last year in response to Donald Trump was likely a forgery based on the image the Obama administration posted on the Internet.  In short, leftists think Joe Arpaio is the villain, and the institutional left throw insults at him constantly, and the DoJ under Attorney General Eric Holder has investigated Arpaio’s department half to death.  I suppose this liberal loon simply wanted to finish the job.

Maybe some of that is why Adam Cox decided to make threats against Sheriff Joe on the Internet, but whatever the case, as Fox Phoenix reports, he’s now been sentenced.  Unfortunately, he won’t be doing any jail time, instead facing probation instead.  According to Fox Phoenix:

PHOENIX – A man described as a President Barack Obama fanatic pleads guilty to threatening to kill Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Adam Eugene Cox appeared in a Tennessee courtroom on Wednesday. He was arrested last year for a death threat that began on the Internet. Cox threatened to kill the sheriff and his family.  Cox will not go to jail. He was sentenced to supervised probation.

This is troubling, because the man actually threatened multiple murders.  I’m not sure we should take such people so lightly that we turn them loose in society.  Supervised probation certainly seems a small price to pay for levying murder threats against one of the best-known and most popular law enforcement officers in the country.  Besides, look at him.

And to think that Obama’s supporters make fun of conservative Republicans as a bunch of “inbred rednecks” and so on?   When I look at this guy, a movie comes to mind.  Deliverance?

 

The Real Woman-Haters Aren’t Conservatives

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Lefties Need Not Apply?

Over the last week, we have been regaled with the notions of respect that Democrats have for women, and the love and compassion liberals always show them, while simultaneously being told that those mean old white guys in the GOP simply don’t understand women, their issues, or why misogyny of the sort they allege Rush Limbaugh displayed ought to be considered a generalization about all conservatives.  Of course, while offering all of this, they conveniently ignore a few things that might be relevant to this argument.  For one thing, they ignore all the leftist men who have done much more horrendous things to women in recent memory.  For another, it’s clear that despite all their posturing, the independence of women is not their actual concern.

Do we hear about how Anthony Weiner treated women on Twitter or his own wife?  No.  Do we here about John Edwards and how he treated both his wife and his mistress?  No.  Do they mention Bill Maher’s disgusting remarks about Sarah Palin?  No.  Do they bother to say a word about how Bill Clinton treated a long line of women?  No.  Do they say anything in defense of the women abused by leftist men in ways far worse than anything Rush Limbaugh ever said?  Hell no.  Teddy Kennedy? No way.  Chris Dodd? Not a chance.  Worse, when any of these liberal men came under fire, the general theme was to attack the women and question their credibility, and attack their character, in a bid to portray them as “gold-diggers” or, yes, “sluts.”  Where were the “slut-walks” in protest of all of this, then?

What you quickly realize when evaluating all of this is that while Rush Limbaugh seems genuinely sorry about his remarks, his remorse is frankly unmatched by the others mentioned above.  More, it’s astonishing how few feminist activists went after any of those mentioned above, but who can’t wait to slam Rush Limbaugh.  There is one reason for this disparity in treatment, and the answer is as plain as the nose on your face:  It’s all about politics.  These feminists who drop their professed principles when it is a liberal man involved are simply guilty of renting themselves out for the sake of ideological brothers.  There’s a name for that, but at the moment, it escapes me…

You see, the problem is that these alleged proponents of the rights of women quickly forget all of that when they think the source from which their bread is buttered may be under threat.  At that point, all of their haughty talk about their ideals and their principles most frequently goes out the window.  What you realize is that they’re really all about one thing, and nothing more: Abortion.  Anthony Weiner, and Bill Clinton, as well as Bill Maher, are rabidly pro-abortion.  Rush Limbaugh has two strikes against him, and they are that he is conservative, and he is pro-life.  This makes him a target for them from the outset, and his pro-life views have always made him a target.

Limbaugh has long poked the feminist front, casting out terms like “femi-nazi” to describe the most virulent of the post-modern feminist movement.  He’s right about them, too, and that’s the reason he’s been the object of their scorn since he first took to the airwaves.  They monitor him closely for any indication that they will have a new excuse to renew the vigor of their war against him.  The truth is that Limbaugh has a good deal of fun at the radical feminists’ expense, and truth be told, I think that’s what he set out to do in this case.  Clearly, he didn’t think it through, and said two words that have begotten all of his current troubles.

Now comes the story that Bill Maher has effectively donated one million dollars to an Obama SuperPAC.  This is the same sick man who flung the “t-word” at Sarah Palin.  Shouldn’t Obama urge the SuperPAC to return the funds, not wanting to take cash from a misogynist like Maher?  Of course, this dual standard is evident most of the time.  Occasionally, as in Maher’s case, the National Organization for Women will make some token statement about the leftist, but that’s where it generally ends.  There are no boycotts, and no demands to get the offender off the air, or any of those things, and let’s be honest:  The things Maher has said about some women make anything Limbaugh said seem quite tame by comparison.

The left claims to care about women and their issues, but the truth of the matter is that rather than seek independence for women, what the radical left seeks is to simply change upon whom it is that some women are dependent.  They seek to make government into a sugar-daddy for dependency, as a way to usher more women into the hands of socialism.  This is part of the left’s desire to re-order society in their Utopian vision, where women will be reduced to walking bearers of babies who will then become the next generation of worker-bees in the hive that is their model society.  As they posture in false bravado on behalf of Sandra Fluke, let’s not forget what these people really seek and who it is that they will ultimately harm most deeply if they have their way, and it’s not men.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Sandra Fluke’s Curious Activism and More Curious Recommendations

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Dumb Luck for the Left?

Isn’t it odd that the Democrats have been pushing this contraception theme as the means by which to derail the heated issue over the Obamacare mandate on religious institutions as a breech of their religious freedoms, and just as Rush Limbaugh stepped into the well-laid snare, the trap was sprung with a ferocity that no talk-show host should warrant, who should rise to the top but Sandra Fluke, 30 year-old Georgetown University law-school student and radical feminist advocate to catch Limbaugh off guard.  I think Rush is a target of opportunity, because I believe they were hoping Rick Santorum would get caught up in all of this.  Having failed to ensnare any of the Republican presidential hopefuls, but having managed to catch the big radio voice they would most like to destroy, they seized upon the opportunity to attack Limbaugh for his imprudent use of the words “prostitute” and “slut.”

Fluke isn’t the innocent she’s been portrayed as having been.  She’s been presented as a bit of a patsy, and a well-meaning young woman, and all of that, but the truth is that Fluke has been a radical activist for years.  In fact, her entire rationale for enrolling at Georgetown University was to try to force this fight.  She’s not some poor, helpless student who was set upon by big mean Rush Limbaugh.  By all reports, she’s a coldly-calculating left-wing conniver who is actively pursuing the goal to compel colleges and other religious institutions to cover not only contraception, but also gender reassignment surgery for transgendered people.  That’s right, Ms. Fluke is hardly some wide-eyed victim of the evil right-wing and other alleged woman-haters. Here’s an excerpt of the article at TheCollegePolitico:

The title of the article, which can be purchased in full here, is Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ Persons and was published in the Journal’s 2011 Annual Review. I have posted a transcript of the section I will be quoting from here. In a subsection of the article entitled “Employment Discrimination in Provision of Employment Benefits” starting on page 635 of the review Sandra Fluke and her co-editor describe two forms of discrimination in benefits they believe LGBTQ individuals face in the work place:

Discrimination typically takes two forms: first, direct discrimination limiting access to benefits specifically needed by LGBTQ persons, and secondly, the unavailability of family-related benefits to LGBTQ families.

Their “prime example” of the first form of discrimination? Not covering sex change operations:

A prime example of direct discrimination is denying insurance coverage for medical needs of transgender persons physically transitioning to the other gender.

This so called “prime example” of discrimination is expounded on in a subsection titled “Gender Reassignment Medical Services” starting on page 636:

Transgender persons wishing to undergo the gender reassignment process frequently face heterosexist employer health insurance policies that label the surgery as cosmetic or medically unnecessary and therefore uncovered.

To be clear, the argument here is that employers are engaging in discrimination against their employees who want them to pay for their sex changes because their “heterosexist” health insurance policies don’t believe sex changes are medically necessary.

Additionally Sandra Fluke and her co-editor have an answer for why exactly these “heterosexist” insurance policies, and the courts that side with them, deem sex changes as medically unnecessary:

In Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., an employee who was denied such coverage brought claims under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA) and Title VII. The court rejected the ERISA claim, finding the plaintiff’s mastectomy and hormone therapy were not medically necessary. The court’s ruling was based upon controversy within the medical community regarding that treatment plan. Much of that controversy has been linked to ignorance and bias against transgender persons, and the American Medical Association has declared the lack of coverage to be discrimination.

You see, all opposition to the determination that sex changes are medically necessary, and therefor must be covered by private employer provided health insurance, is based on “ignorance and bias against transgender persons”.

This gets more absurd, as she appeared Monday on The View with the gaggle of gawking leftists(minus Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who is probably moderately conservative at best.)  Fluke rejected Limbaugh’s apology, as read in part by Barbara Walters, and when asked about Rush Limbaugh, launched into another thing and made a website recommendation.  Guess which one?  (It’s at around the 1:03 mark in the video)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIg18I1bAD0]

Barbara Walters went out of her way to mention that this isn’t about tax-payer money, and this is somewhat true, but in fact, it’s much worse than this: It’s about compelling religious institutions to pay for coverages that are contrary to their deeply held religious views.  As bad as it would be if Fluke were merely demanding public money, what she’s actually demanding is that the First Amendment rights of religious institutions be over-ridden by her demands.  She’s worse than a welfare moocher for contraception:  She’s a full-on tyrant who doesn’t give a damn for the rights of people and institutions that will be compelled at gunpoint to provide this coverage.  In my view, this doesn’t make the case for Fluke, but merely damns her all the more.

Her recommendation of Media Matters as a source for information is troubling, because what this reveals is a hardcore radical-left activist and advocate bent on an agenda.  The longer this goes on, the more thoroughly I’ve become convinced that it’s a lefty set-up al the way, and that unsuspecting Rush Limbaugh ran headlong into it merely means this was engineered at the highest levels.  As it turns out of course, the testimony happened with Minority Leader(and former Speaker) Nancy Pelosi presiding, while Obama’s administration was pushing this desperately as they were beginning to lose ground in the polls due to the controversy over their violation of the protections of the free exercise of religion.

Now comes word that a push is ongoing in the Senate to get Rush Limbaugh off the radio altogether, and the White House has posted a link to a petition to get Limbaugh off of Armed Forces Radio, while political hack Steny Hoyer(D-MD,) runs around talking up the possibility of Fluke filing suit against Limbaugh.  I doubt such a suit would ever occur, because as Mark Levin pointed out on his show Monday evening, this would open up the matter of discovery, and soon we would find out all the details of Ms. Fluke’s personal life. I can imagine attorneys asking things like:

“Have you ever participated in the events known widely as “slut-walks?”

Of course, nobody knows the full details about Ms. Fluke’s life, never mind whether she’s ever participated in such an event, but that is the way she and the White House would probably like to keep it, because it would cause great harm to this little storm they have swirling around Rush Limbaugh, and it’s for this reason that I doubt she’d file suit.  By testifying before Congress, she’s entered into the realm of public persons by her own volition.  The standards there would be much higher, and she’d be hard-pressed to show that Limbaugh’s questions, little more than opinions, were anything more than any of the millions of other opinions issuing forth about public personae each and every day in media. In short, she’d probably lose, and for her trouble, would be placed into the position of having to air her own laundry, however clean or dirty it might be.

One thing is certain about Fluke: She’s not the poor little school-girl the media has made her out to be, and while Limbaugh probably shouldn’t have used the words he did, it’s clear to me that the left is using this to gin up another false narrative, and more, they’re continuing to push the notion that some alleged entitlement to contraception trumps religious liberties.  It’s a lie, it’s a sham, and if they expect me to forget this, they’re wrong.  Oh, and don’t expect me to abandon Limbaugh to the leftist hyenas. I’m not like those weak-kneed Republicans last seen running for the tall grass.  Not a chance.

Here’s some more interesting background on Fluke.

 

Poll: Was the Fluke Fiasco a Set-up?

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Whether Rush Limbaugh was the target or not, many are wondering if this entire charade with Sandra Fluke has been a well-conceived and perfectly-executed set-up.  Some have conjectured that the real target had been Santorum, but that Limbaugh tripped the snare first.  Do you think this is pure opportunism on the part of the left or is it a perfectly executed plot?  I wonder if they’re more lucky in this case than smart.