Archive for October, 2010

…it’s what the underlying motive is.

It started with this moment in a speech in September:

Its just awkward.  He stops, then he starts blinking, almost as if he’s trying to scroll past that pesky “by their Creator” part.  If this was one time, it would have probably been forgotten by now, but he’s left it out two more times since.

As a matter of speculation, I don’t think he is doing it to spite the “bitter clingers”.  When he is showing his spite, his mannerisms come across like someone who thinks that they are being clever, and that only he and his buddies are in on the joke.  Who could forget these images:

I think he actually has trouble with the concept of a Creator.

It’s one thing to invoke God when you’re talking to the rubes. It doesn’t require any serious consideration for any politician to toss out a “God Bless America” when there is an open mic. It’s cotton candy for the believers in the electorate, and the speaker can invest the phrase with the same enthusiasm that they might otherwise reserve for a “And That’s Why I’m Asking For Your Vote!” It’s as reflexive as sitting in the same pew for twenty years and never actually thinking that a Christian pastor wouldn’t say “God Damn America”, and preach about “chickens coming home to roost” as a nation mourned at the sight of smoldering rubble where 3000+ Americans and commercial air travel as we knew it died because members of the Religion of Peace did an unspeakbly unpeaceful thing. Unlike these things, the Declaration of Independence is a difficult thing. More than a “We want a divorce” letter to King George, this was the Charter, albeit like no other, that spoke a new nation into existence.

It put into words the truth that unalienable rights exist for every person, and that they come from no man or government, but from a Creator, who empowered his creations to abolish any government that abdicates its duties to safeguard those rights. It is a milestone in the concept of limited government with the limitation being the will of the people who the government exists to serve, and that this is by design.

We know that the President already has a problem with the idea of limited government. He told us so when he talked about what he perceived to be the fundamental flaw in the Constitution…that it is a “Charter of negative liberties”. (at 1:15)

Never mind that he gets the concept wrong, given the nature of his approach to it, this simply isn’t surprising. It isn’t a Charter at all. A Charter is a grant of rights from the sovereign. It is a recognition of the authority inherent in the Sovereign and the basis for the rights granted by it. The best modern-day equivalent would be the Articles of Incorporation issued by the state to a corporation. The Constitution states the rules by which the entity will operate. That makes it akin to the bylaws of a corporation. But as you hear him tell it, his concern with government is what it can do for you. On its face, that fails to recognize that the idea of limited government at the heart of the Founders’ and Framers’ core philosophy. They believed that they were very clear about what government was to do, and equally clear that the rest was for us. They knew that this was the best means of preserving our liberties. The only party being “negatively” affected by this philosophy and these bylaws as they were originally written was government itself. That’s what makes this audio so telling about his approach to thinking about this, and it is why I believe that he has a problem with the concept of a Creator.

These words are probably the weightiest written by any American.  Even he cannot read them aloud and not feel the conviction of their meaning.  If he reads the offending passages aloud, then he is acknowledging that there is a limitation to government.  It means that government’s role is a limited one.  It means that the rights that matter do not come from government; government can preserve and defend these rights, or government can impede them, but government cannot be the source of them.  And it means that if government does impede them, then government is answerable to the people themselves, because its rights originate with them…they are the creator.  This turns his philosophy on its head, and threatens not only his worldview, but the grand plans he has for us all.  This is why he doesn’t get it.  This is why he can’t understand our attitude when he thinks we should be thanking him.  And this is why a man who campaigned as a uniter is probably the most divisive figure ever in American Politics.

Read Full Post »

Unless you have been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard about Juan Williams getting the boot from National Public Radio for remarks he made on the Bill O’Reilly show.  Just to refresh everyone’s memory, the statement that compelled NPR to shoot itself in the foot by firing Williams was the following:

Well, actually, I hate to say this to you because I don’t want to get your ego going. But I think you’re right. I think, look, political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don’t address reality.

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

It seems excessive to me.  He didn’t say “As an analyst for a large liberal radio broadcaster that accepts taxpayer money, I think those darn muslims should be strip searched and singled out for that “extra” scrutiny that we usually reserve for caucasian grandmothers and small children…you know, the kind that involves rubber gloves and lube, just because they are dressed like muslims and praying before boarding the aircraft, just like the 9/11 hijackers.” 

No, for once Mr. Williams actually said something that had the unmistakable ring of truth and sense to it, and that was apparently a bridge too far for an organization that had just been the recipient of one million dollars from Dr. Evil himself, George “Shut Down FOX News” Soros.

This had nearly every talk radio host I heard today thrilled, each host gushing more than the last about how they were a friend of Juan, and how NPR would rue the day it deigned to fire Mr. Williams.  As I drove home, I heard that his role on FOX would be expanding as a result, which excited the host to no end.

My question for all of them is “What the Hell is wrong with you people???”

I have never been a fan of Juan Williams, even when I was young and dumb and listened to NPR religiously because I thought it was both neutral and smart.

I should probably disclose that during that time, Juan Williams had a short-lived show on NPR.  I remember this because I used to be a Tom Clancy fan (back when Clancy still wrote his own books) and I heard the promo for an upcoming episode where Mr. Williams was going to interview Tom Clancy.  I rearranged my lunch break that day so I could hear the show.

The appointed hour arrived, and I tuned in, munching my sandwich while sitting in my car.  What I did not know is that while I was a fan of Tom Clancy, Mr. Williams was not.  I know this because by the third question, it was painfully apparent to anyone listening that Mr. Williams did not only not read the novel that Clancy was promoting (I think it was Debt of Honor, but its been over ten years, so give me a break), but hadn’t ever read anything that Clancy had written.  What saved the interview from being a crashing bore was the fact that it was apparent to Clancy, too, and he didn’t just sit back and take it.  Again, after all this time, I’m paraphrasing, but what I recall was Clancy asking him point-blank if he’d even read the book.  The tone was somewhat impatient, which I understood, as Mr. Williams’ questions were insipid.  Williams’ with all the defensive guilt of a teenager caught sneaking in after curfew, brusquely made a remark about how busy he was, and how he hadn’t had the time to read more than a few pages.  Clancy wasn’t having any of that, noting that the questions he’d asked indicated that he’d never read anything Clancy had written, and so he somewhat sarcastically asked how it was Williams could help his listeners to understand anything about the book or the character if he hadn’t done his show prep.  He also threw in a bit about Williams’ lack of professionalism.  Williams remained defensive and defiant, and Clancy walked out.  

Again, if I got some of that wrong, I do beg forgiveness.  This was broadcast around 1996-1997, so exact words faded from my mind some time ago, but the general gist has always remained.  Lest you think that this a hatchet job by a conservative, let me repeat something in case you missed it:  At that time I was young and dumb; that is to say, I identified as a liberal, and Clancy’s impressions were the same as mine; the only difference being that he could actually say so to Williams’ face.  

Shortly thereafter, Williams’ show was cancelled, but he remained as a commentator long after I left NPR behind.  I never did lose the impression of Williams.  Some people I know might say that the interview with Clancy was an example of how the left does things.   Fail to do your homework, yet pretend to know what you’re talking about, and when you get caught, be defensive and try to redirect.  I know I have never really lost that impression of Williams, and with good reason.

I’m not a big FOX watcher.  I will occasionally watch Hannity for the Great Great Great American Panel.  When he gets the right mix, it sometimes reminds me of Politically Incorrect when it was on cable.  Entertaining and sometimes thought provoking.  Williams is a regular guest.  He’s never dazzled me with his keen intellect, as more often than not, I find much of what he says to be what I would expect any left-leaning pundit to say.  In other words, it could be anyone from the New York Times, any other alphabet network, the KOStards, the Dummie Underground, or the DNC.  Sometimes he employs the other tactic, the “Yes, but…” so as to not completely surrender his integrity like a certain rotund and grinning-like-an-idiot Press Secretary who ignores things that that the lifelong blind can see, which is the one thing that sets him apart from the Left’s other talking heads, but frankly, it still isn’t enough for me.  He may bring the Left’s perspective, but there is nothing fresh in the way that he does it, and he doesn’t entice me to reconsider my own views when he dutifully repeats what I can hear from any other lefty.  Case in point:

Admit what cannot be denied.  Obfuscate what can.  Redirect to Leftist boogeyman.  Repeat.

I admit to savoring this moment.  How awful it must have been for the True Believers in the MulticultiPoliticallyCorrectIdentityPolitics Crowd at NPR to have to make such a decision.  Fire one of the only two black on-air personalities they have and run the risk of offending black Americans and the large crowd of non-blacks who are often offended on their behalf, or keep him, and run the risk that his “offense’ to members of the Religion of Pieces is imputed to them.  Trapped between two different groups of the perpetually offended when you want nothing but to champion them both.  What to do?  But in the end, their fear of the perpetually offended who cut people’s heads off (and Soros cash) won out.  Either way, it was a popcorn-worthy moment for conservatives, as the left ate one of their own for parting from the Official Dogma™ in a public forum.

But I still remain suspicious.  By making his very public termination a cause celebre’ for Conservative talking heads, NPR draws renewed attention to itself in a time when the public is restless over government spending.  Public broadcasting has never been a favorite of the right, representing as it does, a government expenditure that does not obviously fit into the enumerated powers of Congress that so many pissed off voters are rediscovering.  In some quarters, the growling about cutting off the taxpayer funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has already started, and given the public’s mood, is likely to be an agenda item for several of the new members of Congress who will be elected in November.  It seems to be the NPR would be a sucker to keep relying on that Soros cash to continue to make up what they have to lose by being cut off from the taxpayers.  Especially after they either succeed or fail in the objectives that their new master has set forth for them, and they are no longer useful to him.

And for Williams himself, this may end up being a payday, as FOX will “expand his role”, whatever that means.  I’m not sure I like the idea of more Juan. In twenty years, he’s never impressed me and never left me with a “Things that make you go “Hmmmm”” moment.   Sure he represents a different view, but why move into “the belly of the beast” if your intention is not to bring the other side around to your way of seeing things?  And if that is his intention, can we expect a change in his style?  I suppose we’ll all find out, but as conservatives tire of pointing out how this firing demonstrates exactly the kind of tolerance that can be expected of a viewpoint that makes much more out of preaching it than delivering it, and the left gets tired of pretending they have no idea what conservatives are talking about when they point this out, what then?

Read Full Post »

I have finally figured out how the left wins votes. They insult voters (implying they are stupid, afraid, etc…) and the voters say, “Thank you for the insults. Here is my vote. Will you insult me again?”

(Thanks, Cathy!)


That's right, you f@!*ing peasants! Without me, you are nothing.

A friend posted this status on Facebook today, and it set me to thinking.

It is easy to dismiss this attitude as arrogance, mock it, and move on, but I think that the underlying causes of this behavior are worth deeper consideration.

Just what would lead a politician to say something like this?

“And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

or something like this:

“We will restore science to its rightful place…”

or something like this:

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared, and the country’s scared.”

Or try so very, very hard to sell us something we don’t want and they don’t have the authority to force with images like this:

Who are you to question me, peasant?  The smart people obviously support ME.

Do these examples display an arrogance?  Certainly.  In any other era, to insult the electorate would be the kiss of death for a politician.  In this day and age, it is becoming remarkably commonplace.  What’s changed?  The common belief that “experts” are necessary to address every problem, and 80 years of the government providing “solutions” to a whole host of issues, only a few of which were actually within its enumerated powers.  The result is decades of tending to trust these “experts” to have the right answers, a habit only recently questioned by a society waking up to the abuse of trust perpetrated by the experts and government officials, who are increasingly wearing both hats.  This development should surprise no one.  Afterall, politicians at their core are about amassing power.  There simply is no other reason to endure the mudslinging and life in a fishbowl that characterize life in the profession for most of today’s politicians.(Recognizing, of course, that questions that are fair game for any other politician are magically transmuted to the status of “hateful” and “racist” when applied to the current occupant of the Presidential golf course.) And what better way to gain and build power than be being an “expert”.   America usually makes people work for its attention and assent.  You don’t generally get political power simply by being born into the right family (yes, I realize I might think differently if I ran for office against someone named “Kennedy”, but they are blessedly the exception and not the rule), we have no crowned heads, and no nobility, but we do have notoriety and wealth, which is not the same thing.

And that’s the way it should be.  People running for office should ask us for the job, rather than presume it is their’s for the taking, and they should never assume that they have our votes because of the party they belong to, or the things that the party claims to represent.  Unfortunately, this is where reality has taken a left turn in recent years.  The left, with an established history of applying its expertise to a compassion that just happens to coincide with dependence in the recipient class, has come to the conclusion that only people who are trained or have experience in government are fit for office.  In their estimation, political office is a profession, to be trained for and studied for in the right schools, where the students can be carefully inculcated with the “proper” viewpoints and attitudes about the profession that they are readying themselves for.  They believe that government is an end to itself, and that it is so hopelessly complicated that the average person should only be allowed to chose from those who have chosen the vocation, and never be allowed to thing that they themselves can do the job.

It doesn’t trouble these people, many of whom have spent their entire lives on the public payroll, that they have never had to punch a timecard, and put in the sweat and effort required between punching in and punching out.  They still believe that they understand you and can “feel your pain”.  It doesn’t bother these same people that they have never owned a business, created a job for another person, or had to be able to meet payroll.  For many, the closest they have come to adversity is a contested election.  And yet, at the core of their being is not a belief in Americans, and their ability to solve problems and create innovated advancements in technology and jobs; instead, they believe that no achievement can be had without their benevolent guidance, and they are threatened whenever they are met with evidence to the contrary.  That is why, in an election cycle where more Americans than ever have been shaken from their complacent acceptance of the expertocracy’s dictation to them, the left has demonstrated a failure to comprehend what drives the average American’s anger, or the arrogance to assume that we are simply children who are acting out, like teenagers who are chaffing at the authority and wisdom of their parents. 

 I can think of no idea more contrary to the nation’s founding principles than the idea that the success of the American people is dependent upon the government’s assistance and guidance.

 The government was never contemplated to be a substitute parent for each citizen, helping us to make “good choices”(as determined by those in government, of course) and meting out punishment when we fail to choose from any of the options government and our “leaders” (who work for us) offer us, and it was never granted the authority in the consent of the governed (our permission) to decide which of our endeavors are worthy (AIG) and which are not (Bear Stearns).  The government was never meant to decide what was good for us, and then force it upon us like small children resisting taking medicine (you’ll have to pass it to see what’s in it).

The Declaration of Independence stated the purpose of government plainly:  To secure the unalienable rights granted to man by his Creator, and that these governments are instituted among men deriving their power from the consent of the governed.  Presuming that you are better than those who elect you, and that you can dictate to them starts to stray from this purpose.  The Federalist Papers expanded on this purpose.  John Jay discussed the government’s role to provide security for the citizens of the nation, both by ensuring domestic tranquility within and protection from foreign arms and influence without:

Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their SAFETY seems to be the first. The SAFETY of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.  At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against HOSTILITIES from abroad.

-John Jay, The Federalist No. 3

Madison discussed the aim of keeping factionalism at bay:

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

-James Madison, the Federalist No. 10.

Madison also recognized that government must protect property no less than individuals:

Government is instituted no less for protection of the property, than of the persons, of individuals. The one as well as the other, therefore, may be considered as represented by those who are charged with the government. Upon this principle it is, that in several of the States, and particularly in the State of New York, one branch of the government is intended more especially to be the guardian of property, and is accordingly elected by that part of the society which is most interested in this object of government. In the federal Constitution, this policy does not prevail. The rights of property are committed into the same hands with the personal rights. Some attention ought, therefore, to be paid to property in the choice of those hands.

-James Madison, The Federalist No. 54

And Alexander Hamilton stressed that the object of the government was the happiness of the people:

A good government implies two things: first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained. Some governments are deficient in both these qualities; most governments are deficient in the first. I scruple not to assert, that in American governments too little attention has been paid to the last. The federal Constitution avoids this error; and what merits particular notice, it provides for the last in a mode which increases the security for the first.

Alexander Hamilton, the Federalist No. 62.

The more we are talked down to and insulted by our elected officials, the more I am convinced that they have not read the Federalist Papers, and do not respect the foreshadowing in the Declaration of Independence:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

But the men principally responsible for the Constitution understood it perfectly, and considered it a check on the potential excesses of our employees:

But it may be again asked, Who is to judge of the NECESSITY and PROPRIETY of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer, first, that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause; and I answer, in the second place, that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 33

The architects of our government did not envision a government that ruled over subjects, nor did they envision a nation of people who were not equipped to rule themselves:

But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!

-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 28

And what about “Putting science in its rightful place”?

It is notable that science is mentioned in the Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

-Article I, Section 8

Of course, this by no means indicates that science’s rightful place was to be a tool to amass data to be used to bully and cajole people into changing their behavior and preventing any discussion about it.  Nor does it indicate that science was ever meant to do anything other than elevate and improve the life of man.  In contrast, there are members of the current administration who would use science to diminish man’s primacy, and to rob him of his dignity by denying the sanctity of life.  One need look no further than Science Czar John Holdren:

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

-John Holdren, Ecoscience

Our current rulers are right; they are facing a revolt.  The revolt of a people that have remembered that they are not supposed to be in service to their government, and are angry that their employees presume so very, very much, and have so astonishing confidence in themselves and astonishingly little confidence in us.

Read Full Post »

…it causes me worry.

NOOOOOO!!!! Hope and Change!!! Yes We Can!!!! Yes We Can!!!!11!!!

Its bad enough that for nearly 8 years, the most passionate on the American Left were reduced to one word declarations of their anger and frustration, leaving the rest of us cringing with the tortured cries of “CHENEY!” and “HALIBURTON!!!” constantly ringing in our ears like the buzzing of fluorescent lights casting an eerie green glow over the room.

Some of them were a bit more together, and attempted to express the juvenile and shallow shadows of thought trapped in their mushy skulls, like hamsters trapped on their own personal wheels. These comparative geniuses delighted in stringing their pointless and idiotic expressions together like “CHIMPYMCBUSHITLERHALIBURTON!!!!11!!!” Occaisionally, one would feel really profound and belch out a “NO BLOOD FOR OIL!!!11!!!” at the top of their lungs, before retreating to the high-fives of their equally submoronic compatriots, all apparently oblivious to the fact that they were paying more for gasoline than they were at the beginning of the second conflict in Iraq, with a steep rise occurring after the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2006 and crowned Queen Pelosi speaker.

When these same people got the opportunity to vote for a first-term Senator from Illinois who managed to have published two different biographies despite having accomplished nothing of import in his short life, but who happened to be black and managed to read a teleprompter with all the conviction of a modern-day Diogenes, they simply melted for this man whose only record was that of voting “present” unless he needed to protect the right to make sure that the children who survived their mothers’ attempts to kill them died alone, and without even basic comfort that he would surely offer to his Portuguese water dog. They were remarkably uncurious about his past. They couldn’t be bothered with the fact that his friends were questionable. They remained untroubled at his unfettered lack of loyalty to any associate whose politics and views could not be concealed or explained away. Every single body he tossed under the bus simply provided more traction for a campaign that occasionally slipped, and offered a view the real ideals swirling just beneath the smiling facade that constantly offered the vague promises of “HOPE!” and “CHANGE!”.

Reason no longer mattered, and the standards that any other candidate would be expected to meet with nary a question or protest simply didn’t apply. And 52% of the electorate, assisted by an uncertain percentage of voters like “Mickey Mouse”, registered by good public service organizations like ACORN, gave him his chance at the Big Chair. These true believers remain undeterred. They are still as eager as ever to repeat the lie, with all the conviction they deem necessary to sell it to the American people. Case in point? This lovely comedic piece from Cynthia Tucker, in which she asserts the amusing theory that Obama tried too hard to work with Republicans. Here’s the link, just so you know that I didn’t make that up.

Not one to lose the opportunity, Cynthia tossed the lie out in the opening paragraph:

Amplified by the right-wing message machine, Republicans paint President Obama as an unyielding left-winger, an unreconstructed liberal who refuses to compromise. The president’s critics have turned the truth inside out: One of Obama’s greatest political weaknesses has been his stubborn — and unrequited — love for bipartisanship.

No, Cynthia, no one had to paint him that way. He did a fine job all on his own. Who could forget this shining moment of bipartisanship, which came after Republicans had been shut out of the closed-door meetings where the Healthcare Takeover was being written, and then in an attempt to satisfy those pesky people who would just not forget that the President promised transparency in the process, called a meeting to which the Republicans were invited, but refused to go along with the script in which they were obviously expected to rubberstamp what the Dems had wrought, and nod in agreement to the lies coolly delivered by an accomplished liar.

Or maybe it was this moment of shining bipartisan spirit:

“…but don’t just stand there and say that “You’re not holding the mop right””…

Of course not. The Dems did it for much of the Bush Administration. Oh, the war is lost! The surge isn’t working! We can’t win! Declaration after declaration, but never the courage to actually act on such convictions. And when proved wrong, the most convenient cases of amnesia ever.

Or maybe she means this moment of bipartisanship:

What makes this especially funny is he’s including Patty Murray in this. I will be happy to vote for her opponent, Dino Rossi, in November so she isn’t there in DC helping this “Savior of the Economy” continue to spend trillions more than the government takes in so the 99th Congressional district in Montana can get millions in Spendulous ca$h.

The fact is that the Republicans haven’t had the numbers to stop a damn thing, so if something didn’t get passed, it had more to do with the members of the Dems own contentious and greedy family, as demonstrated by the success in getting health care passed after the special deals cut by Dems like Louisiana’s Mary “Will vote for special deal” Landrieu and Ben “Let’s make a deal” Nelson.

There really is so much in the piece worthy of mocking and ridicule, but for me, the money quote is this gem:

“Unlike Ronald Reagan, whose poll ratings were slightly lower than Obama’s just before the 1982 mid-term elections, Obama didn’t take every possible opportunity to pin the economic mess on his predecessor.”

[Emphasis Added.]

Apparently she’s forgotten the Obama Administration’s Mantra:

But as I read this article, and others like this, I wonder what people who are so deeply under the sway of such a deep delusion will do on November 3, 2010 when the cruelty of reality eats their lunch in a way they can no longer ignore.

Read Full Post »

Obama’s half brother in Kenya says he married teen

Of course he did. Why should Barry O get all the fun of fucking more than one person at a time?

Read Full Post »

…just busy.

Lots of stuff, including litigation, and while there is a lot going on politically, I really haven’t been motivated to say much. Just waiting to see how much voter fraud tampers with the righteous curbstomping the Dems are getting come November 2.

Read Full Post »

Dick and Kelly have been terrific hosts, and thanks to Dick, I have seen a side of Dallas Ft. Worth that most tourists never see.   Michael and Cathy have a beautiful home which was a wonderful place for a leisurely breakfast and an afternoon of drinking before a dinner that was fit for a moron horde.

Oh, and Rutherford?  I was standing next Cathy at the gun range today.

You do not want to get on her bad side.


She has the nicest .45, and she definitely knows how to use it.  I’ll post the pic of her target when I get home.


Ms. Cathy and the guy who shouldn't oughtta messed with her.

And here is my target.

Cathy was firing a Lady Kimber. I borrowed Dick’s .40 and ran a magazine through it. It felt good. Not too much kick, and it made big holes. Then I shot his Ruger .22 single action revolver. It took me a few times to get adjusted to it, but I kinda liked it.

Read Full Post »