Posts Tagged ‘Lies’

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.

 

 

Americans Died, Obama Lied

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2012

Would I Lie to You? Next Question...

On Tuesday evening, Greta Van Susteren reported the astonishing but predictable news: The Obama administration knew within hours or even minutes who had perpetrated the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, ultimately killing Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.  The cover story about an anti-Islamic video was merely a scapegoat of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with the attack on our consulate, but the sickening fact is that President Obama’s administration, including the State Department, and high level national security officials were well aware of the truth even as they continued to try to sell its cover story to the American people.  The reason is simple:  The Benghazi attack was the first successful strike on American soil by organized radical Islamic supremacists since September 11th, 2001, on its 11th anniversary.  Fourteen days after this attack, Barack Obama was still telling the American people it was about a video, desperately hoping to disconnect the events from the obvious failures in his leadership and foreign policy.  Barack Obama has deceived the American people.  For seven hours, in full possession of the facts, as the attack raged and Americans were slaughtered, this President and his administration did nothing except to concoct a cover story.

Perhaps the most galling meme put forward by the Obama administration in the wake of this dismal failure was the attempt to accuse Mitt Romney of politicizing the event.  The facts speak for themselves: The Obama administration commenced the politicization of this attack by lying to the American people on the basis of politically motivated calculations about the impact the truth would have on the upcoming election.  Barack Obama and his administration clearly have no shame, but while they have sought to hide the truth, on Tuesday evening, emails were disclosed that should put an end to the obfuscation.  From FoxNews:

The emails obtained by Fox News were sent by the State Department to a variety of national security platforms, whose addresses have been redacted, including the White House Situation Room, the Pentagon, the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence.

Fox News was told that an estimated 300 to 400 national security figures received these emails in real time almost as the raid was playing out and concluding. People who received these emails work directly under the nation’s top national security, military and diplomatic officials, Fox News was told.

That Candy Crowley would give Obama cover on the cover-up during the second Presidential debate is bad enough, but to now discover that the whole administration was quite well aware of the source of the attack means that we not only have a President willing to lie to the American people, but that he has surrounded himself with a cadre of bureaucratic henchmen who share his contempt for Americans.  The Obama administration may be amateurish with respect to its handling of foreign policy, but they are first-rate professionals when it comes to lying to the nation.  The mainstream media continues to cover and hide the lengths to which this administration has gone in its disinformation campaign against the American people.

Joe Wilson was right when he yelled at Obama during a State of the Union address: “You lie!” Worse, however, President Obama isn’t a man who once told a lie and got away with it: He is a reprobate.  He is a liar by trade, and nothing he says may be trusted.  Cataloging the lies of his debate appearance on Monday night would take many pages, but suffice it to say that even some in the mainstream media are having a difficult time covering his tracks.

What readers need to know about Barack Obama is this: There is no lie he won’t tell, and no American whose life and memory he will not sacrifice to his political desires.  This President yammers about the politicization of a tragedy as a pre-emptive strike against the shocking truth that political calculations were and remain the motive for the cover-up of the events in Libya.  Obama hopes the American people will be fooled again, and that when he says he has “kept us safe,” they will forget the deadly attack on our consulate, and the Fort Hood shooting, among other acts of terrorism he refuses to acknowledge as such.  That’s all this really is, and all it’s intended to do.  His entire administration is convicted of a lie, and he’s betting the American people will be too.

Terrorism?  What terrorism?

 

Obama Says Energy Costs Beyond His Control; Not So Fast

Thursday, March 8th, 2012

Something Stinks

Barack  Obama has been on the campaign trail mocking Republicans, particularly Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin(although not by name,) who advocate an energy policy of increasing domestic energy production.  This is a bit odd, because while Obama mocks “Drill Baby, Drill,” he has already undertaken policies with the same effect in mind.  If increasing the supply can have no effect on prices, as the President claims, why did he order a release from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve late last summer?  It’s now rumored that he will soon do so again in response to rising pump prices.  Does Barack Obama think we’re idiots?  Releasing oil from the SPR merely accomplishes the same thing as producing more oil domestically:  It provides more crude oil to the market, and that bump in supply tends to bring prices down over time.

Either Barack Obama doesn’t understand basic economics, or he thinks we’re too stupid to notice the contradiction implicit in the difference between his words and his actions.  Here’s what he’s saying:

 

 

Notice that he continues the lie about the so-called “hand-outs” to “Big Oil.”  You may hear his thesis that “there’s no silver bullet,” but what you must understand is that he fully understands that the silver bullet is supply, and when he has order releases from the SPR, it’s an acknowledgement of the fact that an increase in the supply available to the market is a downward pressure on prices.  This is pretty basic, and I assume even President Obama understands that concept, despite frequently demonstrating a a general ignorance of economics.  If he knows better, then there must be a reason he’s misstating the facts in this case, and there is:  He’s in political hot water over the issue, and he knows it.

This is his attempt to stave off criticisms over escalating fuel prices, but it’s not going to work when the electorate realizes that in other ways, Obama is working to constrict the supply of oil available to the United States.  On Thursday, even Mitch McConnell seemed to get it, and from the well of the Senate, he pointed out that Barack Obama is still obstructing the Keystone XL pipeline, and all of the jobs it would create, and the effect it would have on pump prices domestically:

 

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GJ_GfcOv2o]

 

Unloading On The Campaign Trail

This is a plain debunking of Barack Obama’s thesis, and Obama knows it.  You can’t expect fuel prices to come down so long as you’re restricting the growth of exploration and development of new productive fields.  Why does Saudi Arabia, in particular, but OPEC in particular regulate its production?  The answer is obvious: To prop up the prices oil brings in the market.  They intentionally restrict supply, and what increased production of domestic oil resources will do is to take away the ability of Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations to effectively dominate the question of global supply delivered to the market.   Doing so will begin to have an immediate effect, as the oil market, like any other sees dramatic moves on the basis of even small marginal changes in the quantity supplied relative to demand.

Obama can’t talk his way out of this one, and worse, he’s been caught lying. You can’t legitimately claim that to increase  supply won’t effect prices while having undertaken measures to artificially prop up supply in order to drive down prices.  This is the nature of Barack Obama’s dishonesty, and it’s all political. I leave you with this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpdjt3hSRnY]

Update: I just received this link via email. It’s a story on RightScoop, same basic subject.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Fighting Liberal Professors – Time to Go Back to School

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

Should We Fill These Seats?

We all know how useless many of our public schools have become, but have you examined the things that are now delivered as “education” in our publicly-funded universities?  You might believe the worst of had been confined to the elite schools of the Northeast, but in fact, leftists have taken over nearly all the country’s universities and colleges, from the large bustling campuses to the tiny community colleges in middle America.  My adult daughter attends a community college, as she works to finish her degree, but the problem is that even in our small town, the liberals are running the community college.  In a history class this week, she was taught that capitalism is bad, that unions are good, and that socialism is good for workers,  and all of this in the context of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  Too many paying adults throw their money too casually to the institutions of “higher learning” in which their children are propagandized in the destruction of their own beliefs.

My daughter prides herself on the fact that she confronts these sorts of things.  A few semesters ago, she got herself into some trouble for contesting another history professor’s malevolently biased portrayal of historical events, and worst of all, doing so in the classroom setting.  The professor, unaccustomed to being challenged by students, was dumbfounded and became angry in typical leftist fashion.  It resulted in a bit of an issue that wound up before the Dean and ultimately led to a withdrawal from the class and a refund of tuition for it.  These thuggish professors continue to shove their left-wing views down our kids’ throats, and almost nobody is there who can or will challenge them.  When somebody does challenge them, they bully, cajole, and mock, and hope to swing the class to their support, essentially hoping to shut down any dissent or questioning that may go on.

There is an answer, and in the name of justice, and all that is good in the world, I for one will pursue it, but I want to suggest to you that you consider the same action.  We of more experience and knowledge should enroll in classes, basic history, government, and economic classes we’ve taken before, and sit in those classes with the specific goal of challenging very leftist talking-point of the professor.  It would help to know in advance which are the leftist professors, but even if you throw darts at a class schedule, you’re likely to land on a leftist, because they constitute the vast bulk of professors.  When the summer term begins, I am going to see about enrolling in such a class, and I have the professors all picked out.  It will cut down on my blogging two nights per week, but it will certainly give me more about which to blog.

Somebody must oppose these people.  They’ve been wrecking the political understanding of our children for generations, and if we are to have any hope of stopping the bleeding, we must do it here.  This is where the propaganda is hammered in, and it’s why we’ve lost control of our culture. It’s been a long while since I’ve sat  in a college classroom, and even then, since I went to college as a well-informed adult, I intimidated professors by virtue of the fact that in my early thirties, I was more than willing as a husband, father, businessman, and employee to challenge whatever a college professor might say if I suspected it was biased or false.  Now, nearing fifty years of age, I am not only willing, able, and informed for the chore, but now I know fully how they have been abusing their tenure, and I look at it as sport.

The college professors who infect our universities with their leftist bilge had better worry if this sport catches on.  Rather than mocking conservatives, the free market, and the rest of American culture, for once, we have every chance to turn tables on them.  I hope you’ll find time to do similar in your own communities, and join me in starting upon our long road back.

Ann Coulter Lies About Romney-Care

Wednesday, February 1st, 2012

Caught!

It’s horrible when you realize that one who you had thought had been conservative makes a point of proving your belief wrong, while insisting otherwise.  The meaning of the word “disappointment” hardly covers what has gone wrong with Ann Coulter’s writing over the last year, but when you realize that she has sidled up to the GOP establishment, the truth becomes undeniably clear.  Proving that Ann Coulter is willing to forsake all her principles in favor of the latest establishment candidate, she has written a piece that is not only manipulative, but purposefully omits several important facts.  Worse still, at one point, Coulter flatly lies, and no excuse of incomplete information can possibly cover it.  Coulter wishes Three Cheers For Romneycare, but I know her cheers are really for Mitt Romney, and this cobbled-together nonsense constitutes a lie Ann Coulter ought not to have told.

Coulter couldn’t wait to posit the lie, but it’s such a well-known lie, she buried it at the end of a paragraph leaning on Rick Santorum for out-of-context, irrelevant support:

“Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally.”

This is demonstrably untrue, but what is stunning about this claim is the un-writing of history it proposes.  My readers will doubtless remember the flap over the line pulled from the second printing of Mitt Romney’s book, where he originally made this very argument.  This was of such controversy that it has been mentioned in the debates, so how is it possible that Ann Coulter ignored this while depositing this steaming pile in your midst.  The original text of Romney’s book(H/T ABCNews) included the following text:

We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.” –No Apology – Mitt Romney (emphasis added)

As you can plainly see, Ann Coulter lied, and it angers me that not only did she lie, but that I was forced to dig up a link from the ABCNews site to prove it.  This also demonstrates another point, and it’s an important one you should note:  While Ann Coulter tells lies on Romney’s behalf, the radical left will give him no such pass in the general election should he become our nominee. Shame on Coulter for this lie in obstinate denial of well-known and widely-viewed fact. If Coulter doesn’t know this, I can only wonder how, since it’s clear that she reported watching the debate in which Governor Rick Perry(R-TX) raised the issue.

“No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.”

Really?  I am claiming it.   I am.  Several states and individuals are suing over this requirement of Obamacare. That Coulter doesn’t seem to notice that many Americans aren’t claiming a right not to buy it, but that this is the result of the opposite concept – that government has no authority to force us to buy it – makes it perfectly clear that Coulter now holds a view of individual liberties perfectly compatible with Barack Obama’s views on so-called “negative rights.”   That Coulter is now reduced to making the backward argument of leftist filth-mongers should tell you all you really need to know, but I am still shocked by it.  Nevertheless, unable to deal with reality, she throws out this laughable tripe:

“The only reason the “individual mandate” has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product.”

One might wonder what is controversial in conservative circles about the idea of the unconstitutionality of an individual mandate, except for the fact that Ann now seems to support the notion.  I almost cannot believe that Coulter has written this, as she urges the nomination of Mitt Romney as our only chance to repeal Obamacare. Why?  Why repeal it, Ms. Coulter?  Her article suggests she has absolutely no problem with it.  I’ve told my readers over the last few days that I believe the GOP establishment doesn’t want to repeal Obamacare, and that Mitt Romney is the Trojan horse to make sure repeal never happens, but now Coulter comes along to virtually flaunt this in our faces.

Incredibly, she concludes her article after paragraphs of misdirection, manipulation, and at least one flat-out lie with the following:

“The problem isn’t health insurance mandates. The problem isn’t Romneycare. The problem isn’t welfare reform. The problem is Democrats.”

The problem is the health insurance mandate.  The problem includes Romneycare.  Democrats are indeed a party to this problem, but by this incredible piece of dishonesty posted under the banner of what had been thought to be a conservative writer, what we now know the real problem is that we can no longer tell how Ms. Coulter is any different from those who would rule over us.  If this is Ann Coulter’s version of conservatism, she can keep it along with the rest of her lies.

It’s getting so that we can no longer discern when Coulter is telling the truth or a lie, since she now carries Romney’s water in ludicrous pieces like this one, but less than one year ago, before Christie bowed out, Coulter insisted to us that Mitt Romney could not win.  Take Coulter with a grain of salt. This episode makes me question all the things she has ever written, never mind what she’s said.  I remember her attacks on Sarah Palin, but at least we now know why, don’t we?  Of course, I did believe she meant it when she implied that the Tea Party consisted of emotionally driven morons.  Coulter has a sad obsession with the GOP establishment, but we have known that for some time.

Do I believe you, Ms. Coulter?  No, I must state emphatically now that the real problem we face as conservatives lies also in part with you.

Karl Rove is a Villain – Those He Serves Are Worse

Thursday, August 25th, 2011

Still Rove

Tonight, the master manipulator, and Sith Lord, Karl Rove went on FNC’s “On the Record” with Greta Van Susteren in an attempt to continue his theme of disinformation, asserting Sarah Palin is thin-skinned, and that he had nothing to do with an attempt to sabotage Sarah Palin or her supporters:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G2ggNKmkOw]

Hey Karl, newsflash, pal: I accused you. Me. Right here on this blog. Don’t go spinning this off on Sarah Palin. Don’t blame others. Blame me. I called you out. I called you a manipulator. ME. I looked at SarahPac’s statement, posted elsewhere on this blog, but I cannot find your name in that statement, anywhere.

No sir, what you’ve done is to make a confession, but let’s demonstrate that, shall we?

First, let’s read the SarahPac statement:

Setting The Record Straight: Wrong & Misleading
Posted on August 23, 2011

Three years ago DC pundits predicted with glee the demise of Sarah Palin’s political career. This past weekend their tune changed, citing false information that she has made a decision and set a date regarding a future campaign. Any professional pundit claiming to have “inside information” regarding Governor Palin’s personal decision is not only wrong but their comments are specifically intended to mislead the American public. These are the same tired establishment political games that fuel the 24 hour news cycle and that all Americans will hopefully reject in 2012, and this is more of the “politics-as-usual” that Sarah Palin has fought against throughout her career.

PS – Kudos to CNN for setting the record straight and including Governor Palin’s own words.

Now Karl, it’s not possible that you’ve read this and then told Greta that Sarah Palin was the one making  it about you.  I made it about you, Karl.  Me. To my knowledge, nobody published on this developing story before me.  Nobody else that I had heard anywhere made these accusations against you until some time later.  What’s worse Karl is that I know that you know it.  Others followed, but I went with the story when I began to suspect something watching the footage and re-reading your statements, but in nowhere that I’ve seen (and I’ve looked) is there a single instance of Sarah Palin mentioning your name with respect to this incident.  Nice try, Karl.  I said it here in this blog.  Mark Levin said it to a much larger radio audience later on Monday on his radio show.  You are now reacting in an attempt to rescue yourself from the cesspool of your own making.  Are you suggesting you came upon SarahPac’s statement out of the blue, read it, and simply assumed yourself to be its object?  No Karl, that’s not credible. If somebody else informed you that you might be its object, how did they form that conclusion?  Surely not from SarahPac’s statement?

No, you must have heard the accusation of sabotage from some other source.  How else would you have concluded SarahPac’s statement was aimed at you?  Which source, Karl?  Much as I might like to think it was from my little blog, it was more likely Levin’s pronouncement on this own show, with a large audience that might even include you.  If so, your statements to Greta were bold-faced lies.  If you did actually just happen upon the statement, and having read it cold, concluded it must be pointing at you, I would ask only: Why?  There’s only one reason that comes to mind:  You knew it was aimed at you because this was indeed your intent.  As I said, you’re either confessing to your motives, or your admitting you lied to Greta.  Take your pick. Neither alternative sits well with me.  Don’t be concerned as that means damnably little to you.

You implied by your original statement on FNC that Palin had to get in by Labor Day, or not at all.  You said that. You may attempt to weasel the words, but we have the video.  Here it is again:

“This is her last chance,” Rove said.  “She either gets in or gets out [after the Iowa visit].  I think she gets in.”

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

Having seen this quote, or the original footage, most people would naturally conclude that the simplest interpretation of what you said is your honest opinion.  The problem is, Karl, you don’t speak in honest opinions publicly, and you’re trying now to back out from under this load before it lands on your head, but it’s too late, this time.

Let’s cut the crap, Karl: For whom are you shilling, this time?  You always have clients, or at least prospective clients, so who is it this time?  You see, I’m finished dealing with you.  I’m going to discover the identity of  the client(s,) and I don’t care the identity, because I am going to expose all of this if I can, to the embarrassment of whomsoever may be involved.  I will devote a good deal of text to that relationship, and it doesn’t matter to me who your client(s) may be.  Said person(or persons) will be exposed along with you.

You might wonder how you could have raised my ire this way, because to you, I’m just another piece on the field, to be played and manipulated.  I’ve got news for you Karl: It’s not going to work, this time.

For my audience, let me explain to you what Mr. Rove really is.  He’s the kind of creature politicians use for their worst, most devious dirty work.  Mr. Rove has analogs all over DC, and around the country.  In fact, it’s fair to say there’s a Rove equivalent in every corner of the globe.  You may remember my previous discussion of the mindset of these people, but if not, let me explain it again:

Mr. Rove wins when he can push a narrative to the advantage of his client(s.)  Mr. Rove doesn’t give a rip about you, any of you, except to push you in a direction that serves his clients’ interests.  The easiest way to negate the influence of Karl Rove is to ignore him, completely.  Cover your ears and say “blah-blah-blah” until he’s done speaking.  Karl Rove is a man who makes his living getting inside your head.  Anybody who associates with him or retains his services intends to wage Machiavellian warfare against your minds.  Anybody.  Read that again.  I said “anybody.”

You might wonder how my judgment of Mr. Rove and all who consort with him could be so scathing.  After all, he’s just a political hack doing the bidding of some master, right?   Well, yes, but also no.  As I’ve said before, Rove is the sort who manages narratives in the service of his clientele.  Part of the problem with the class of people that Mr. Rove is, and the sort he represents, is that they are of the mindset to manipulate people en masse without any concern for the lives of the people they’re manipulating.

For example, this recent narrative put in play by Rove, and then pushed by Morris, would have led tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands and perhaps even millions of people to believe that Sarah Palin intended to announce over the Labor Day weekend at the Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa.  Let me ask you: Had some many tens of thousands of people arrived in Indianola, Iowa, expecting to hear a campaign launched, what would be the cost if it were not then launched?  Would it destroy that potential candidacy?  Perhaps, but here’s what raises my blood pressure the most, and it has nothing to do with the politician(s) involved:  What would have happened to those individual people?

What would it do to them?  Mr. Rove and his clients regard all those people as pawns in their game.  The emotional investments, the tireless efforts, the hopes, the dreams, and the aspirations of all those who in such a scenario would arrive expecting an announcement of a campaign would surely be crushed.  I think of the young women like my own daughter, who adore Mrs. Palin, who would begin their transformation into political cynics at much too young an age.  I think of all the independents who, in this scenario, would have been willing to give politics one last try in the name of all they love about their lives and their country, and how this would permanently disaffect them.  To Mr. Rove, and those he serves, all of these would be mere pawns.  Not individual people.  Not thinking human beings with lives and loves.  Just another mass of people to be “played.”

Let me tell you what else this means, in the concrete and honest facts of the matter:  Anybody who consorts with Mr. Rove is willing to use and dispose of you like stage props.  I mean that.  Have you considered how many additional people might flood the roadways leading to Indianola, Iowa, if it had been believed widely that Sarah Palin intended to announce her candidacy for President there?  Thousands more?  Tens of thousands more?  How many more gallons of gasoline?  How many hours of labor spent?  How many dollars would have been spent in futility, by people some of whom cannot afford to let their money go easily?  Sadly, what might have happened on the roadways so packed with people, some of them hurrying from great distances to be there?  How many would perhaps not make it home again, all in pursuit of something that might well not occur, because Karl Rove created that expectation?  Would Karl Rove or his master(s) be blamed?  No.  If anyone would be blamed, who would it likely be?  Yet who agitated in the direction of such a thing?  Who tried to create that impression? Karl Rove, Dick Morris, and any number of their brethren, along with their clients were begging for it.  Those clients would be safely well away, blameless.

Now, it’s fair to say that with any large event, even a football game or rock concert, there will always sadly be some number who don’t make it to the event, or having made the event, never make it home.  That’s reality.  That’s our world, and nobody can be held responsible, right?  Sure.  That’s easy to say if it wasn’t somebody you knew, but instead some faceless person in the crowd about whom Rove and his master(s) couldn’t possibly care less.

It is this willingness to view people as segments and blocs and masses and numbers that brands Rove and his colleagues as immoral.  When he was in the midst of a divorce, he sent out Dana Perino as his spokesperson to handle the press.  You may not remember it, but I do, and it was done very much in a manner to maintain the privacy of Rove and his family.  I have no issue with that, yet I also know that Mr. Rove demonstrates by that instance that he holds his own life in one respect, but yours in another entirely.

You see, this is the vulgar mindset of crass indifference to your lives that dominates Mr. Rove’s thinking.  He doesn’t care about you or even the country.  He cares about getting paid and wielding power.  He cares about exercising influence on masses of people by shaping narratives for the sake of his clients.  You?  The individual?  You’re just another brick in his wall.  He’s building his own tower of Babel.  He and those like him care not whether it is built on your corpse, or the rotting hulk of a nation.  Neither do those who retain his services.

The Left Declares War on Reality

Thursday, August 11th, 2011

Amilya Antonetti - Fierce Advocate for Truth

If you rely upon the news media, you’d never know a few simple facts about our nation’s credit-rating downgrade debacle.  To listen to the media, you’d believe that Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and the House Republicans were the source of the problem.  The truth is a good deal different than their narrative would have you believe, and since the signing of the Boehner-Reid Budget Control Act, it has become apparent that the media is content to lie, knowing most people lead busy lives and their attention is spread too thinly to notice the dishonesty. It’s the nature of the left and their shills in the media to ignore reality, but this time, they’ve decided not only to deny reality, but with the stakes are so, they’ve declared open war.

Their war is being pressed along three axes of attack.  They deny the facts, invent their own, and misrepresent the logic by which you should evaluate their conclusions.  On Wednesday night, Erica Payne appeared opposite Amilya Antonetti(who gained notoriety for an impassioned tirade against Obama on FoxNews,) and Payne again insisted that a lack of demand was the root of our economic woes.   Ms. Antonetti let Payne make her statement, and then responded, however Payne kept interrupting, in typical leftist fashion, trying to shout down Ms. Antonetti.  Not to be deterred, Antonetti let the fur fly when Payne continued to insist that the economic troubles stemmed from a lack of demand.  As I detailed last week when Erica Payne made the same essential argument, Payne’s argument is an economic and logical impossibility.

Afterward, on Hannity’s show, Kirsten Powers appeared opposite from Sandra Smith to carry on the leftist war on reality by arguing that housing, higher education and health-care ought to be fundamental rights.  This argument passes neither the logical nor the moral sniff-test.  What she and other leftists contend is that all of every person’s essential needs ought to be provided by the government if the individual person cannot provide it for himself.   What this demands is that some people become the slaves of others.   The protests and riots in Europe, and probably soon in the US, are a direct result of the slaves saying “No more” to their masters, who are thugs and ne’er-do-wells rioting in the streets.

Never able to admit the fallacies inherent in their advocacy, the political left stands firmly shaking its collectivized fist at the markets.  After all, the market is their mortal enemy, and they cannot abide its terrible judgments against them.  A free market speaks to an objective standard of morality that will always get around to punishing the cheats, and the foolhardy.  It will always  identify the charlatans and frauds.  Just look at Monday morning’s news:  S&P also downgraded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Now it appears that individual states may be next.  How long before this effect works its way down to local government institutions?  Rather than continuing to skirt the consequences of the reality they’ve created, the left is going to find that there is no place in which to hide their eyes from the growing calamity they’ve created.  As I’ve detailed elsewhere, the only plan presented that would have prevented the downgrade was Cut, Cap, and Balance.  The media continues to sell the broken notion that it’s because of conservatives, the Tea Party, and Sarah Palin, but the truth is that the left caused all of it, and they know it. The only blame to assign to any of these would be to chastise the House conservatives who bent to Boehner’s will and joined in support of the BCA, thus helping to guarantee the downgrade.

The simple fact of nature that the left cannot evade is the simple requirement to produce as much as one consumes.  What the left promises to some people is the ability to to live off the excess production of others, but the premise is both illogical and immoral.  Consider it this way, if you prefer: If a person were to earn $5 million this year, still the left would say that taxing him at some outrageously high rate is justified.  All of this is a lie.  What if it’s the last money that person were ever to earn? What if that person subsequently became disabled and was no longer able to earn more?  The left would suggest that this poor soul simply apply for government benefits, yet if they had left him to his own devices, he might have had sufficient wealth to sustain him with diligence for the remainder of his life.

In any case, all of this relies upon ignoring one factor of morality from which there is no possible escape:  The money was his, by right.  Once you admit this fact, all of the remaining sorry justifications evaporate.  This is the notion with which this nation must eventually contend.  It isn’t possible for people to be so perfectly ignorant as the acceptance of this theory requires.  Instead, it must be a matter of conscious choice, and we must not omit this in our arguments against the statists and their so-called “solutions”.  They know what they’re doing, and their motive is made plain by the fact that they insist upon doing it.