You Can Keep the Change

Five Ways Liberals Deflect Obama Criticism

2012-02-07T06:25:00.000-08:00

Treat his failures as accomplishments. Hey, Obama got his health care reform passed! What an awesome achievement! Bush didn't do it, and McCain wouldn't have! That makes Obama better! So what if nobody in America outside of the far left and illegal immigrants actually wanted it. Speaking of illegal immigrants, Obama sure showed all those racists in Arizona, right? He sued them and...well, that didn't go anywhere, but he sure showed them! And how about that Solyndra debacle? Would you have even heard of Solyndra if it weren't for Obama? And man, did he rock the Green world when he killed the Keystone pipeline, not to mention all those moritoriums on drilling! If he hadn't accomplished so many great things there, we might actually have single-digit unemployment...I mean, we would have raped the environment further than we already have!

Take credit for things Obama did not do. Obama killed Osama bin Laden! Yes sir, it was Obama, not Bush! Who cares that we learned of bin Laden's location thanks to those "enhanced interrogation techniques" that Obama repeatedly disparaged in public. It doesn't matter that if Obama had his way we never would have learned where bin Laden was; what matters is that when the American military did its job, unimpeded by PC regulations, and obtained this critical information, it was Obama who bravely sat in his office and said "Uh..yeah, sure. Go ahead. Bound to be good publicity." Seal Team 6 and our military can still be routinely disparaged, but Obama is a hero for using them to get bin Laden. Oh, by the way, you know the Bush tax cuts that we hated Bush for implementing? Well, Obama extended them, so now they're the Obama tax cuts, which are great, because they give the American people a break! Isn't he wonderful?

Place blame on others for Obama's faults. Yes, I know, things aren't great right now, but that's not Obama's fault! It's Bush's! He left such a mess that nobody could possibly have cleaned it up in just three years! People are on food stamps because of Bush. Who cares that the food stamp explosion happened after Obama took office and unemployment rose; what matters is that there were people on food stamps while Bush was in office. And if it wasn't Bush who's at fault, it was...Congress! Yes! That obstructionist group Obama routinely finds ways to do an end-run around; they're the reason the economy is in the toilet, NOT the over-spending or the job-killing entitlements and legislation. It's that this obstructionist Congress won't let Obama do MORE. Why, they haven't even passed a budget in over a thousand days and...oh, wait. It's the Senate that passes the budget and that's run by...us. But...but...Congress killed the new jobs bill! Who knows how much money that could have raised that we would have squandered on special interest groups, money-pit "green" endeavors or unions...I mean, created jobs with!?

Behave as if any criticism of Obama automatically makes the critic "Pro-Bush". You know what, it doesn't matter what Obama's done wrong because Bush was a horrible president! Any time you point out Obama's miserable record, we know what you're doing. You're trying to praise Bush! That's right, so any time you start talking about how awful Obama's record is, we can simply point out all the ways we hated Bush and your argument immediately evaporates! High spending? Bush spent too. Bad economy? It started under Bush. Wars? BUSH! Who cares that Obama's spending eclipses not only Bush but every president before him, or that the economy was starting on a downward turn at the end of Bush's presidency, but took a complete nose-dive during Obama's term that resulted in the loss of our AAA rating, or that Obama has started TWO wars that Bush had nothing to do with! You can't complain about any of that, because we're gonna keep reminding you how much we hated Bush!

Accuse the critic of racism. Okay, listen, we tried reasoning with you people. We pointed out all of Obama's failures that we arbitrarily decided are actually triumphs. We gave credit to Obama when good things happened IN SPITE of him. We showed how easy it is to place blame for Obama's faults on others. We showed you how criticism of Obama is really praise of Bush. And you still just don't get it, do you? Well, guess what? That makes you...RAAAAAAAAAACIST! Yes, everything you do and say is now racist! You're so racist you say racist things that only we can hear! Calling people by their first name is racist! Pointing your finger at someone during a spirited debate is racist! Talking about "work ethic" is racist! Any reference to food stamps, even though there are more white people on them than black people, is racist! Any reference to the founding fathers is racist! Or "the constitution" or "core American values"; racist, racist, racist! Keep talking, say whatever you want. We're just gonna cut you off by yelling "RAAAAACIST!" And you know what? Because we're saying it, it's automatically true! Hell, we can even say racist things, like how Obama is "clean and articulate", as if that's something rare in a black person, or how he's electable because he's "light-skinned with no negro dialect", or how "a year ago this guy would be getting us coffee" or point out how he's so articulate that we "forgot he was black for an hour" or that we thought a real black president would solve problems with a gun and ghetto talk! That's not racist because only WE get to decide what's racist. And you are definitely RAAAAAAACIST!

I Love This

2012-01-31T07:20:00.001-08:00

Over at Patterico's Pontifications, he talks about Juan Williams defining everything a GOP candidate says as thinly-concealed racism.

Williams says:

The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are “entitlement society” — as used by Mitt Romney — and “poor work ethic” and “food stamp president” — as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the “Founding Fathers” and the “Constitution” also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core “old-fashioned American values.”

Patterico's response is pretty good, and you can read it here, but I especially like what commenter "Milhouse" had to say in reply:

"...The game the left is playing is an old one: get universal agreement that X is bad, and then slowly shift the definition of X to include more and more things that were never agreed to be bad. The syllogism goes “If X is bad, and Y is X, then Y must be bad.” But the correct response is “Y was never bad before, and it doesn’t become bad by defining it as X..."

YES. That HAS TO be our message. If, like me, you're sick to death of liberal democrats defining any idea or statement they can't fight or refute as "racism", then we need to take that message as wide as we can. Talking about food stamps, entitlements, work ethic, etc. were never racist before, so they're not now.

All presidential candidates have faced opposition before, but now all opponents to Obama, either in 2008 or 2012, are racist? No, because opposition to the president was never racist before, so it's not now.

President Obama has been a cataclysmic failure as president. It wasn't racist to point this out about George W. Bush, or any president before him, so it isn't racist to do so about Obama.

Why the Hell Aren't You Running?!

2012-01-30T06:15:00.000-08:00

So why aren't you running for President?

So why aren't you taking this message national?

I've said in a previous post that the reason we now have a field of four candidates that no one really wants to vote for is because the right people aren't running. Senators Allen West and Paul Ryan once more have shown that they are two people who should have been in this race to begin with and yet they chose to sit this fight out.

Senator West, your declaration of war would sound so much more convincing on the national stage. Senator Ryan, are you aware that most people believe Republicans control the Senate and are therefore responsible for the current "do-nothing" Congress?

Get your hat in the ring, guys. America is too important to let this election just be a regular battle between the lesser of two evils.

West/Ryan 2012 for America!

I'm Not Threatened By a Romney Presidency

2012-01-17T06:50:00.000-08:00

Nope. You didn't read that wrong.

Make no mistake; I'm not FOR Romney. I actually really dislike the guy. I'll never support him whole-heartedly. It breaks my heart that we seem willing to once again settle for the lesser of two evils, especially after we saw what happened in the last election, where a mere politician with a record slimmer than a greeting card and a sketchy past was blown up to be a modern messiah, only to be used as a rubber-stamp to approve the sort of America-killing legislation, crony capitalism and social programs the Left has been wanting for decades, while hiding behind the accusation of racism against any and all critics.

After three years of Obama, I really expected the fighters of the Right to come out and run for office, just like they did in the House/Senate/Gubernatorial races of 2010. Maybe that was my mistake. Maybe the Tea Party candidates really thought they'd do the most good at the state level, or in Congress, rather than the White House. Well, now that Obama has shown that he's willing to illegally bypass Congress to get what he wants, we know how effective our Tea Party candidates are there.

So, the Allen Wests, Marco Rubios, Sarah Palins, Paul Ryans, etc. of the Right decided to sit this one out, allowing the same old Rockefeller Republican candidates to emerge from the woodwork; most of them sitting on their fat asses and making money for the past several years, and quickly the only ones worth voting for were removed from the field. Most shot themselves in the foot (I maintain that what lost Herman Cain support wasn't that allegations were made against him, but how he reacted to the allegations) and now we're left with five men that nobody--NOBODY--is exactly thrilled to have to vote for.

And, in the current crop of candidates, really only one man has the support to go the distance. By now, if Mitt Romney isn't the nominee, I'll be surprised. It's horrible, but it's true. Our fighters chose not to fight, so now we're running a capitulator; one that I feel truly has no chance to win.

But on that note, assuming that Romney is the nominee, I hope he DOES win, and assuming he's the nominee he has my marginal support. Why? Because he's not Barack Obama.

While Romney is certainly a flip-flopper who is, for the most part, a moderate RINO guilty of some horrible acts of leftism, he is not at all a driven socialist with an agenda to "fundamentally transform" America. At heart, Romney is driven by a passionate love for, and need to protect and defend, Mitt Romney. If he feels that he will be loved more by the people by being conservative and undoing the harm Barack Obama has done, if he genuinely feels like that will earn him two terms, then that's what he'll do. Of course, he will engage in the sort of quid pro quo appeasment of his leftist opponents, he will allow Congress to shift to the Left again, he will probably not do too terribly much to undo Obamacare (considering it's based on the model he created for Massechussets) and he will probably not be liked by most people.

But between a man who's out for himself and wants the adulation of America vs. a man with a clear agenda to turn America into Greece or China, between a man who will secure our borders vs. a man who advocates open borders and bows to our enemies, the choice there is clear, and I'm not threatened by it. I'd rather have a caretaker president who doesn't really improve things than an activist president determinedly making things worse. Romney will attempt to make conservatives happy some of the time. Obama will continue to treat us as if we don't exist, or are a "fringe" movement.

Again, it saddens me that Romney is really the best we can do, and let me re-iterate; I don't think he'll win. I think he's the kind of squishy candidate Obama won't have a hard time destroying. It's already begun, and considering that there's a lot wrong with Mitt Romney, by the time he's the nominee his candidacy will already be down for the count. But if he's the nominee, I hope he does win. At least under him, things may not get any better, but they won't get worse.

How Liberals View Things

2012-01-11T06:28:00.000-08:00

I was inspired by John Hawkins's "How to Speak Liberal" post over at rightwingnews to take a look at how a liberal views things in society as a whole vs. how a conservative views things.

Here are a few examples:

The News: CNN or the Alphabet networks, or if you're in the car, National Public Radio. On the net, cnn.com or Yahoo or MSN. These people tell you the news. You can tell it's really real news because they all report on it the same way and from the same perspective. MSNBC is also news but with a bit more opinion thrown in. Fox News is not news at all because they report on things the others don't, and from a different perspective.

Lies: Something that is different from what I believe or what I think I know to be true. If I see something on the News, I know that's true. When I see something on Fox, I know it's a lie because it's different from what I saw on the News. If I read The Huffington Post or The Daily Kos, I know they're telling the truth because they say the same things and from the same perspective as the News, so it must be true. Other truth-tellers out there are Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, Bill Maher and any Hollywood actor who gets political, because they say the same things too. Other sites like townhall.com, American Thinker, the BIG websites, etc. and Hollywood has-beens like Jon Voight, Kelsey Grammer or Dennis Miller are liars.

Racist: Someone who is against Barack Obama, or the Democrats in general. After all, Americans have always embraced higher taxes, socialism, Big Government, universal health care that you cannot opt out of, stricter gun control, etc. But elect a black president and suddenly all of those core American values go out the window, all because of evil racists on the Right.

Extremism: Right-wing philosophy of any sort. Some examples of extremism include, but are not limited to: keeping marriage defined as the union of a man and a woman (regardless of whether or not they're okay with civil unions for others), belief in God (unless it's Allah), a wish to be allowed to own a gun for personal protection, exhibiting skepticism, based on a lack of hard evidence or conflicting evidence, about global warming, believing in lower taxes and unobtrusive government, cherishing civil liberty for everyone, not just themselves and their friends, and teaching children about sexual responsibility while questioning the wisdom of handing out condoms to children after teaching them just the mechanics of sex. Some non-extremist positions include: changing the definition of marriage to whatever we want it to mean, refusing to believe in any sort of higher power, and ridiculing those who do, outlawing guns (because if they're outlawed, nobody will ever be able to get one), believing wholesale in global warming while denying any conflicting evidence exists, and calling skeptics "deniars" just like Fundamentalists do to atheists, wanting to raise taxes on "the rich" while having government decide our lives for us, cherishing our own civil liberties while wanting to limit those liberties for anyone who doesn't agree with us, and teaching children all about sex, how to be good at it, handing them condoms, and then sort of muttering "butwaituntilyoureolder" somewhere toward the end of your lesson.

The Rich: Greedy, selfish corporations who made all their money on the backs of the poor. None of them got where they are honestly, and all of them keep the poor downtrodden by outsourcing all their jobs overseas. They should be taxed higher and higher, because the fact that they keep hoarding all their money and not letting anyone else have it is entirely the reason why poverty exists and why the US is in debt. We should force them to give us all their money. Then there will be no rich, and everybody will be poor..and we'll all be...happier...

Religion: Something only weak-minded, non-modernized people engage in. Basically, they're stupid enough to believe in the invisible sky fairy, but not open-minded enough to believe in the unquestionable reality that unless we stop using light bulbs and cars, the earth is going to become a frozen, arrid, flooded, dryed-out ocean waste land. We tolerant liberals should mock and degrade them for their beliefs, because in a free society where everyone can do as they like, there is no room for religion. Besides, religion is restrictive, and doesn't let everybody do what they want. Oh, I almost forgot; this entire paragraph does not apply if the religion in question is Islam, Buddhism, Zen, Taoism, Wicca or...well, any religion except Christianity, Catholicism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witness or Judaism.

Science: Something that is always right. As long as it continues to affirm global warming and deny creationism.

Why Haven't our GOP Hopefuls Beat This Drum?

2012-01-09T11:28:00.000-08:00

The president's campaign strategy is to distract attention from his record of failure by attacking a do-nothing Congress. He has pointed his finger (yet again) at Republicans for putting the interests of the rich one percent over the welfare of the rest. President Obama has used this bogeyman to justify actions that, had a Republican taken them, would be bandied about the media as grounds for impeachment.--Ed Lasky

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/obamas_political_ploys_could_backfire.html#ixzz1izVKIumb

So...WHY AREN'T ANY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES SAYING THIS VERY THING!!!

We bloggers, and others in the New Media, have been saying this for years now. Look at Obama's laundry list of failures, the scandals that have cropped up, the power grabs, look at all that! Obamacare, the Stimulus bill, Cash for Clunkers, Solyndra, Fast & Furious, Lightsquared, Crony Capitalism, Class Warfare, the Cordry appointment, and I could go on and on an on. If this kind of crap were committed by a Republican president, he'd be a one-termer, I have no doubt. Yet Obama may swing a second term, and it's because his competition isn't taking the fight to him.

One of the Republican candidates is openly an Obama supporter; that would be John Huntsman. We can't expect him to bring the fight to Obama because he's on Obama's side. Why this man is running for president is beyond me.

Ron Paul, aside from the same personal talking points he's been repeating for years, isn't concerned with anything. At all.

Newt Gingrich has put the press on the defensive in the past, but has so far failed to hammer home the above points about Obama.

Rick Perry probably forgot the third thing Obama is guilty of.

Rick Santorum doesn't seem to understand this isn't a fight between morality and unmorality but the destruction of America vs. those who are fighting to save it.

I call on all our candidates to excoriate Barack Obama's systematic undoing of America, and pointing out all the areas where Obama has broken the law and gone against the consitution. Fail to do this, and welcome him back for four more years.

In fact, fail to do this, and you aren't worthy of the office of president.

Romney and the the Not-Romneys

2012-01-09T06:34:00.000-08:00

In my last post I concluded that of the current men still in the race, nobody wants to vote FOR any of them, but would only be voting AGAINST Obama. I also said that's not good enough.

It was, essentially, what happened in the last race. My father said once "There were no votes for John McCain. There were only votes against Obama." And as we all saw in Nov. 2008, that wasn't enough.

So here we are in the last year of Obama's first term. We've seen quite a few fighting Tea Party politicians rise up on the right in that time. Now we have Allen West, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, Rand Paul, Jeff Landry and Tim Scott, among others; politicians who can all directly thank the Tea Party for putting them where they are. When was the last time a grass roots movement affected that kind of change?

As I also said in my last post, that enthusiasm appears to have dampened and the fighters we saw in 2010 have given way to the same old establishment Fat Cats the GOP always trots out to run for president. The names change (sometimes) but the players remain the same.

Currently left in the race are Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, John Huntsman and Rick Santorum.

Of the six of them, only John Huntsman has yet to be a serious challenger to the Anointed Candidate, Willard Mitt Romney, a man whom the GOP establishment likes, whom the Left wants to see nominated, and who the conservative base could not possibly dislike more. The only problem is, out of six lumps of shit, how do you decide which lump is the least shit-like?

It seems the latest Not-Romney is Rick Santorum, a man I've personally never really been behind. I will say this to start off with; in a contest of Santorum vs. Obama the better choice is clear. However, we haven't gotten there yet, and Santorum's ability to convince the center-right that he's worth voting for has yet to be proven.

See, here's the thing; while the GOP establishment is focused on who's going to bring in independent or undecided voters while pretty much ignoring anyone who appeals to the base, the arch-conservatives now seem to be getting behind one of their own, despite the fact that many of the conservative base doesn't really care for him.

It's pretty clear that Santorum's rise is really nothing more than the latest attempt to have a Not-Romney for our candidate, but there's a reason it's taken this long to get to him. Santorum may be an arch-conservative, but he also seems to be the kind of arch-conservative the Left would like people to think all of us are. In a couple of the books he's written he DOES seem to be advocating Big Government...run by arch-conservatives. He's staunchly anti-gay marriage, to the point where he seems to actually be against the right of people to live their private lives as they want. Agree or disagree with homosexuality; it is a basic human right in America to be gay. Start trying to take that away and you're no better than an arch-liberal, just from the other side.

Now, whether or not Santorum would actually attempt to enact legislation that would "ban gayness" (I don't think he would), having an openly anti-gay president probably just won't happen in today's world, and for what it's worth, it shouldn't happen. If Santorum's religious beliefs state that homosexuality is a sin, that's up to him. But that should remain a personal religious stance, not a political stance from which he would dictate policy. Bottom line is; the government should stay out of everybody's bedrooms, not just the ones where the activity within is one they approve of. It's part of limited government and personal liberty. Sometimes people are going to do things with that liberty, and the limits of government to impede upon it, that said government doesn't like. Whether that's christians worshipping freely or dudes having sex with dudes, a conservative government would not attempt to legislate it one way or the other, nor should it.

The other problem with Santorum is that he doesn't come off as likable, in large part from what I said above and in equal part the way he's come off as a whiner and a wimp in debate performances. Complaining about the placement of your podium? That's supposed to be presidential?

Now, between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, yeah, okay, let's go with Santorum. At least he stands for something. But is he really the best we can do? Is he even the best one running?

Rick Perry recently ticked off a lot of people with his gay soldiers ad, but that may have been a poorly-calculated move to engraciate himself with the Republican base, not realizing that the Republican base is mostly okay with gay soldiers serving openly. We do have a problem when they abuse the system and claim it's because of being treated unfairly as a gay man (or woman) but by all means, if you're a gay man or woman who wants to serve their country, why would any sane person seek to prohibit that?

Personally I don't think Rick Perry would attempt to legislate against homosexuality. I don't even think he'd attempt to outlaw gay marriage on a national scale. I DO think Santorum might try that, or at least, he would speak openly of wanting to. Believe it or not, that's not a conservative stance; it's a religious fundamentalist stance. And while there are a ton of conservatives in America, religious fundamentalists are getting fewer.

Rick Perry, however, does seem like George W. Bush II in all the wrong ways. I don't know if I can still support him. He's also sinking in the polls. I know I'm not a Santorum fan. I think Gingrich is a fighter and knows this is a war, while the others think it's just a presidential election, but he's starting to under-perform. Ron Paul and John Huntsman are beneath consideration.

So are we really at Romney vs. Santorum? And how long will it be before Santorum falls? Are we really stuck with Romney as our given candidate?

If so, we're screwed.

Why the Lame Parade? The Right People Refuse to Run.

2012-01-04T11:59:00.000-08:00

Hey, Allen West. Hey, Marco Rubio. Hey, Paul Ryan. Hey, Bobby Jindal. Hey, Sarah Palin.

Guys, really. Where are you? Why are you hiding in your cozy little states, refusing to affect the kind of positive change you have enacted on a state level on a national one?

Allen West is a fighter and a true hero, in every sense of the word. Marco Rubio is the kind of solid conservative who seems to understand what conservative values are all about (unlike Rick Santorum). Paul Ryan is THE guy to curb government spending and put the economy back on track. And yet...they won't run.

Instead, we get leftist empty suits like recent Iowa Caucus winner Mitt Romney, or Jon Huntsman.

Or radical idealogues with dangerous ideas about foreign policy like Ron Paul.

Or men who've spent the last two decades making themselves a stink in everyone's nostrils like Newt Gingrich (whether he deserves it or not isn't the issue of this post).

Or men who don't even seem to know what kind of campaign they're running, like Rick Perry (seriously, what was up with that "gay soldiers" ad?).

Or men who want to replace oppressive liberal big government with oppressive CONSERVATIVE big government (as if that's not an oxymoron) like Rick Santorum.

Where have all the good men gone?!

Why are good conservatives, who seemed to understand the importance of voting the bums out of Congress and the Senate in 2010 suddenly sitting back and letting men like those I described all but ensure that the bum currently sitting in the White House WON'T be voted out this coming November?

One of the only reasons I still kinda hope Newt pulls this one off is that he's a fighter, and we need fighters. Romney's an appeaser, not a fighter. Rick Perry doesn't even know what he is. Jon Huntsman is a liberal. Ron Paul is all about himself. Rick Santorum is a whiner who thinks he's a fighter.

The fighters who took back congress last year have decided this is one fight they won't get involved in. Why not? Is it because so many are recent electees? Who cares? Obama had yet to finish one term as a junior senator before he became President. Sure, we talked about his lack of experience, but it was his short term in office, COMBINED with his complete lack of accomplishments or record of any real meaning, little to no real world private sector experience and just the mysteriousness of why anyone, black or white, conservative or liberal, should vote for him, that we made issue of.

If Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio or Allen West (my top three picks) were to run, nobody would question their records. Oh, sure, they'd all be excoriated by the press the way all GOP candidates are, and almost certainly Rubio's "natural born" status would be questioned, but they could, and would, fight it. They'd turn it around on the press and come out looking like the winners they are. They are as close to a modern-day Reagan as we currently have.

And any of them would have won in a landslide. But they quit fighting.

Now we only have the one fighter, and he's losing. So, 2012 will either give us four more years of President Worst Ever, or introduce President Not-Obama. Because of the men left in the race, nobody wants to vote FOR THEM, they only want to vote AGAINST OBAMA.

Not good enough. I weep for the nation.

Would I Have to Hold My Nose to Vote for Newt? Maybe a Nostril.

2011-12-06T10:54:00.000-08:00

It does seem like in the comments section of every article I've read about Newt Gingrich becoming the likely contender, there are commenters here and there that are viciously opposed to this, and immediately accuse anyone who seems to be supporting him, even just considering it, of being a RINO.

Others have said that if he's the nominee, they'd hold their nose and vote for him, but still wouldn't be happy about it. Many of them, when asked to give their choices, either continue defending Herman Cain, or voice their continued support of Rick Perry or Michelle Bachmann, or reveal themselves to be Ronpaulians, which is what I call the cult of personality that has mysteriously surrounded this Gollum-like old fart.

They do seem to be in the minority, but nonetheless it's weird to see; people who, for whatever reason, are so opposed to Newt Gingrich that they're clinging to any sinking ship they can, as if they can row it to land just by claiming it's not sinking.

The problem is, a lot of these people are seeking the "perfect conservative." Anything questionable about a candidate is immediately grounds for dismissal as far as they're concerned. Mention Newt's name and they froth at the mouth over his infidelity, divorces and endorsement of the global warming facade. Bring up the Contract with America or the fact that the only time in the last 30 years that we managed to actually move Congress to the Right, as opposed to merely keeping it from getting any more Left, was when Newt was speaker, and they'll scoff as if that means nothing, because he cheated on his wife.

Now, when it comes to infidelity, I should mention this article by Dennis Prager, a devout Jewish social and political conservative, who is the first man of this persuasion I've seen take this position on adultery; it doesn't actually imply anything about your character as a whole.

Upon reflection of this column, I find myself agreeing with him. After all, the reason conservatives villify Bill Clinton wasn't because he had affairs, but because he raped one woman (Juanita Broaddrick), indecently propositioned another (Paula Jones), had an affair with a third (Ginnifer Flowers), and finally, was caught having one with a fourth (Monica Lewinsky) while president, and, when questioned, both under oath and not, LIED ABOUT ALL FOUR. We know, or at least have reason to believe, all of the allegations against Clinton. We know he lied about Monica Lewinsky, and since we know threats were made to Broaddrick, and all the women who came forward were called ugly names by the Clinton Administration, who seemed to think merely making comments about "trailer parks" in regards to the Clinton accusers, acquitted Clinton in toto.

That is our issue with Clinton; not the serial affairs, but the fact that they all three; distant past, recent past and current, and that Clinton did his best to hide them, instead of acknowledging they happened and that he was wrong, and that he's changed since then. Of course, if he had said those things, it would have been laughable, but with Newt, the fact that he had a faith change and seems to have truly changed since then, including no more affairs, does resonate with me.

Good people can do bad things. They can do things that people very close to them would never have thought them capable of, and while the reasons may be numerous they're never good reasons. However, when it comes to sexual sin, primarily adultery, we approach it hypocritically.

First of all, no transgression should ever be treated as "better" or "worse" than another, because who could we trust to draw those lines? All of us are human, none of us are perfect, and everyone has something in their past they're not proud of. What matters isn't that it happened, but whether they were able to acknowledge their wrong-doing, learn from their mistakes, completely turning away from past bad actions, and growing as result. It seems Newt did this, but it's clear Clinton did not. This is also the case with Herman Cain, assuming the allegations against him are true, and they seem to be. At least SOMETHING untoward appears to have gone on there, and the fact that Cain started off denying anything and everything shows him to be unrepentant, whereas Newt, to a majority of voters, seems repentant.

Second of all, I would like to take a step back for a second and look at how society views adultery...when committed by a woman. Speaking as a man who has been cheated on by my former spouse, I'll tell you what happened in my case.

My ex-wife lost not a single friend. In fact, many came out on her side once this came to light. They assumed I must have been beating her (I wasn't) or unfaithful first, which I wasn't, unless you count the fact that I did, on a few occasions, look at pornography.

While I also didn't "lose" friends, once it was revealed that I'd had a problem with porn in the past, nearly everyone told me that I had a pretty large share of the blame regarding what my ex-wife had done. My disrespect for our marriage had "driven" her to commit adultery. Many even trotted out the old (and false) idea that a man who looks at porn is the same as a man who cheats. I am quite certain that if the details were the same but the situation was reversed, it would have played out as follows:

Our friends would ask what could possibly have driven my wife to look at porn, and would decide that the fact that I was physically unfaithful once (as my ex-wife continues to insist was true of her) was in and of itself proof that I had been unfaithful numerous times, and was not attending to her emotional and/or physical needs, therefore it was my fault I cheated, and also my fault she was driven to looking at pornography. I would bet anything that I would have lost friends.

I want to stress that I am not defending my actions. I am merely saying that I am not guilty of adultery, while my ex-wife is. I can guarantee you that if the reverse were true, the idea that "once a cheater, always a cheater" would be brought up, or the idea that the one act (which is usually an act of desperation, not deviousness, even on my ex's part) defines everything about who I am as a man.

Going further; while my ex did feel guilty enough to eventually tell me what happened, she felt justified enough to tell me a very sanitized version of the event, making it sound like she was seduced in a moment of emotional fragility, when in fact it was planned well in advance and she knew exactly what she was doing. At the same time she hid from me the fact that she was making plans to meet with this man again, and was having an emotional affair with her ex-boyfriend, an affair that only wasn't physical because he lived on the opposite side of the country.

Bringing that back to the topic at hand, it seems like society, or at least conservative society, is all too willing to tar and feather a man for sins they brush off when committed by a woman. Nobody asks why a MAN commits adultery. It's enough that he did; we know all we need to know about him. A woman must have had a reason. Think these commenters engaging in moral outrage would be any easier on Newt if the reason for his affairs was that his wife was emotionally manipulative or verbally (or even physically) abusive? Would the excuse work that "she wasn't attending to his emotional or physical needs"? Think they'd be any more forgiving if it were his WIFE that was guilty of the physical affair, and he was only guilty of looking at porn?

I understand their issues run a bit deeper with him, but my point is many of them act like he's the anti-Christ; a worse candidate than Romney by far, and not a true conservative, and when asked why, they bring up this or that minor quibble (which they would totally excuse from, say, Sarah Palin, not that I'm anti-Palin at all), but save their true vitriol for talk about his personal life.

Another topic, which I'll only touch on briefly here, is how willing leftists are to completely ignore or gloss over the scandals their own side engages in frequently, and how often we are told that a candidate's private life is none of our concern (as long as he's a Democrat). I understand the gut instinct to be the opposite of that, to the point where an affair committed by a conservative could almost be a career-killer, as opposed to the resume enhancer it almost seems to be on the left.

But we may have taken it too far. Yes, adultery is wrong. There's never an excuse for it. But there can be forgiveness, if repentance is evident.

So, linking this back to the title of my post, I'll admit, Newt's not my first choice for our next presidential nominee. But my first choice isn't running, and neither is my second, third, fourth or fifth. My sixth turned out not to be what I thought he was (and he dropped out), and my seventh and eighth will, I can almost assure you, drop out.

But the "hold your nose and vote" candidate, to me, isn't Newt. Romney is so foul to me that I couldn't pull the lever because one hand would be on my nose and the other covering my mouth to contain the vomit.

With Newt? I might have to cover a nostril thanks to a few political blunders. But he is continuing to make me think I won't even have to do that.

An Article you will Never See Written by a Democrat About Obama

2011-12-02T07:24:00.000-08:00

Interesting article.

Every time I've read someone defending Cain in recent weeks, I've found myself shaking my head. In this case, I was nodding along. And I was EAGER to see Cain vindicated of all charges.

First off, Cain's recent admission does indeed seem like a guilty man trying his best to let just enough of the truth out that we stop asking him questions. Clinton did that too. This breaks my heart, because I liked Cain and wanted to support him. But, Simon has hit the nail on the head. The real issue here isn't "is Cain guilty" but "has he behaved in a trustworthy manner that gives anyone, regardless of political persuasion, the feeling that he's not hiding something?" and the answer is "No."

In his first two paragraphs, Simon DESTROYS Cain's credibility with honest voters. Cain has been caught in several lies already. I listed them in a previous post, but I'll briefly go over them again.

1. He first claimed that at no time had there been an accusation, or a settlement, or if there had been, he didn't recall.

2. He claimed that he had never met Sharon Bialek when impartial witnesses saw them meet, and apparently saw her shamelessly flirt with him. It would be unlikely that he wouldn't recall that.

3. Mark Block, apparently with Cain's blessing, claimed that Karen Kraushar's son worked for Politico, when not only was the man in question not her son, but he worked for a different publication.

4. Block would later accuse a Rick Perry campaign staffer of leaking the story, claiming he "new" it was him. It wasn't, and it turned out Block had no proof at all.

And now, Cain has admitted that not only did he give Ginger White money on several occasions, but his wife not only didn't know about the money, she DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THEIR FRIENDSHIP.

If it was innocent, why wouldn't Cain tell her? What minister would think it was appropriate for a married man, particularly one with the amount of power, influence and public persona Cain has had for most of his adult life, to have a friendship with a person of the opposite sex that he could not tell his wife about? Any time you're doing ANYTHING with a person of the opposite sex that you cannot inform your spouse about (especially if money is changing hands) you are cheating on your marriage. Maybe it isn't a physical affair. Maybe it's not an emotional one. But if you can't tell your wife about it, something is up.

You married men out there; how many of you could do something like that and not feel like you were breaching your wife's trust? Okay, now how many of you who raised your hand are still married and NOT having an affair? That's what I thought.

Roger L. Simon is a political conservative but a social libertarian, and he still recognizes the significance of this. All people with a conscience would. But this actually helps to illustrate exactly why I'm glad to call myself a conservative, and why I now believe liberals are fully corrupt and racist at the core of their philosophy. Why? Because not a single article like this was written by a liberal about Barack Obama.

"But he didn't have any affairs!" I hear liberals screeching. And I'm not suggesting he did. Of course, John Edwards did, and we didn't hear about it for a year after it was first discovered, when a lovechild was the result. But that's another story.

Obama may not have been a philanderer, but the man's closet is so full of skeletons that he had to expand the presidential bedroom to include another for his empty suits. Obama's past is shrouded in mystery. He has deliberately concealed his school records. We don't know what nationality he travelled under. We know he had friendships with people like Tony Rezko and William Ayers, which in itself is suspect, but that's all we know. We know he attended a racist church for 20 years. All these things struck the left-wing media as uninteresting and not news-worthy. Obama is the equivilent of finding out that Mitt Romney is regularly attending KKK rallies and having behind-closed-doors meetings with the Unabomber and Bernie Madoff. And yet, not a single liberal media personality took a step back and decided that he would not be blinded by Obama's race and would instead actually take seriously just how little we know about Obama and how troubling what we do know is.

This is an example of liberal racism. They are so blinded by race that the rest to them doesn't matter. In the case of black liberals, it's literal racism; we will vote for him because he's black, no matter what. For white liberals, it's a case of the kind of "feel good" absolution of white guilt they accused us of having with Herman Cain. They wanted Obama, not only as a mouthpiece to use in order to enact legislation they've wanted to enact for decades, but couldn't because they knew the American people would never accept it, but also as a way to feel good about themselves for being so "progressive".

If the Tea Party and American conservatives were really just trying to make themselves feel like they weren't racist by rallying behind Cain, as Janeane Garofalo accused us, then it wouldn't matter to us about his past because we wouldn't care about him as a man. He would be nothing but a symbol; either a symbol we can use to our advantage or a symbol of "how far we've come"--that skin color used to hold you down and is now the very thing that moves you up. His past? What does that matter, everyone has affairs! Isn't that what they said about Clinton? Why should we believe the idea of Cain having affairs and covering them up has any bearing on what kind of president he'll make?

Of course, conservatives don't believe that at all. They didn't believe that about Clinton, they certainly didn't think Obama deserved to be absolved of any past associations just because of his skin color. But they're liberals. Cain is a conservative that we all liked and wanted to see succeed. And when we found out about this, he lost support. This kind of thing hurts conservatives when it doesn't hurt liberals precisely because we care about values and character, while liberals are blinded by meaningless things like race, sex/sexuality and party affiliation.

This goes even for rank and file liberals who claim to have a moral compass. I run into liberals daily who claim to be moral people. I'm sure they would tell you in a minute that cheating on your wife is wrong, yet they love Bill Clinton. They'd also tell you that a candidate's past is important and they all need to be fully vetted, yet Obama has their vote in his pocket. The reason there is no right-wing candidate we can truly say that about is that we care first and foremost what the candidate stands for and immediately second what kind of person they are. You simply cannot be a liar, an anti-American, a racist, a socialist, a sympathizer with America's enemies, etc. in your personal life and NOT be one as president, as Clinton and Obama have both proven.

The difference between conservatives and liberals is that we understand this to be true ON BOTH SIDES.

Going After Newt's Baggage is Barking Up the Wrong Tree

2011-12-01T09:52:00.000-08:00

How do you defeat a political opponent? You ridicule them. Alinsky 101.

And the best ridicule is the kind an opponent can't really fight; the kind that's true. When people bring up Mitt Romney's record; Romneycare, pro-choice advocation, belief in global warming, pro-gay marriage, numerous flip-flops back and forth on almost any issue, saying he's a RINO who will say whatever he thinks will get people to vote for him is not simply ridicule, it's truth. It's the kind of truth that will get him to lose the election, assuming he even gets nominated, because his strategy so far is to defend his record and still claim he's somehow a conservative; and not just a conservative, but the best one running.

Newt Gingrich also has a spotty record and questionable past. We've heard most of them ad nauseum; his divorces, particularly leaving one of his wives while she was cancer-stricken, his infidelities, his sitting down with Nancy Pelosi to talk about combatting global warming, etc. And there are more.

The fact is, though, Newt seems to be the one candidate in the Republican race who is not trying to get voters to ignore his past. He talks about it himself. He says he's made a lot of mistakes and is far from the perfect candidate. He also says he's learned from his mistakes and that his position global warming has changed, not because he suddenly realizes it has to in order for him to get elected, but because he's been made aware of new facts that caused him to doubt it.

Plus, he's shown himself to be a candidate with guts, one that can think on his feet, one who can give an intelligent, reasoned response to any question asked of him and one who knows who the real enemy is in this race. His fight is against the socialistic left, not against his fellow candidates. He (correctly) calls out the media as antagonistic against any and all conservative candidates. He stays on message. He has made no missteps in this race (and no, I don't count his amnesty statements, because it was clear what he meant and he has since clarified it further for anyone who didn't get it the first time).

Of course the mud is being slung nonetheless. Leftist media hacks are already sharpening the knives and getting ready to go after Gingrich's spotty past, but here's the problem; they won't uncover anything we don't already know. Back at the beginning of this race I thought Newt's chances were laughable because of his record and personal history, but I also figured he'd just do what all other politicians do and gloss over his past as though it didn't matter, or wasn't as bad as we think. You know, like Obama. He hasn't done that, though, and that's made all the difference.

Newt's not a Tea Party candidate, and many of us dismissed him as an old establishment type from the get-go. We were wanting a younger, fired-up Tea Party activist, even though I think we knew deep down the GOP wasn't gutsy enough to actually go for such a candidate.

However, what Newt has turned out to be is a smart, obviously capable man who is just as fired-up as any Tea Party candidate would be, and clearly knows how important it is that we not only vote out this current administration but that we repudiate their entire agenda. Romney won't do that, or at least not as full-scale as Newt is obviously prepared to do. Romney will remain as squishy as he's always been because he thinks like an establishment type; playing both sides is the key to re-election. Which of course it isn't.

Newt, who has been around long enough for the establishment to be comfortable with, and whose name is known to almost any American, has proven in this race that he thinks for himself and his line of thinking seems to echo the Tea Party, even if he still can't be called a Tea Party candidate. Some are still saying his past will hurt him in the general election, but as we've already seen with Herman Cain, if that were the case, it would be hurting him now.

Personally, I'd love to see Obama try and debate Newt. It would be a gong show. Newt would mop the floor with him. It very well could be a complete campaign-killer for Obama; the moment when any average American who isn't a die-hard leftist but who was still considering voting for him says "No, no more of that. I like the other guy."

Does this mean I'm a Gingrich supporter now? I don't know. I really don't know. Newt needs to keep doing and saying more things that prove he really has learned from his past mistakes and really isn't saying what he thinks will get him elected. But I love that he's upfront about his baggage. I love that he isn't pulling "politician" tricks. He's acting right now like a man I could support, and if it keeps up I just might.

Besides, it's not like there's anyone better currently running.

President Gingrich?

2011-11-29T07:36:00.001-08:00

For the past three years America has been governed by the worst Administration in living memory, possibly the worst ever. Many liberals have asked, "If opposition to Obama isn't motivated by race, why are you only protesting him? Why didn't you protest Bush too?"

Well, for starters, we DID protest Bush, but probably the main reason we didn't take to the streets is that, first of all, they were already well-crowded with liberals whose average protests against Bush were so violent and angry that we wonder how anyone could use those words against the Tea Party. We also didn't take to the streets because while we didn't care for Bush's expansion of government or spending, we knew that if we elected a Democrat in his place, that kind of thing would only continue, and get worse.

By the time Bush went whole-hog Democrat, endorsing the Wall Street bailout, etc., he was practically out of office anyway.

The reason we are protesting Obama is that he is everything we didn't like about Bush, everything we don't like aboud Democratic ideals, and practically an open Socialist all rolled into one. What's there to like about him? Even his most vocal supporters are starting to turn on him. If he's no longer giving Chris Matthews a thrill up the leg, why on Earth should conservative Republicans have ever liked him?

Leftists act like Obama's race is the only reason anyone could have to dislike him because they know that's all they've got to run him on. His record, pre-office and current, is a joke. America is entrenched in two new wars (so much for Obama being the anti-war president), has lost its AAA rating, the economy is in the toilet, joblessness is at an all-time high, and all the Left can do is continue to beat the same drum they've been beating from day one; support Obama, or you're a racist.

Of course, that's one of the reasons the Obama administration is so bloody awful. The whole point of Obama was to be the black puppet to speak for the party while they began enacting their economy-killing legislation that they've been pushing for for decades. Under Clinton, they couldn't get away with it. Under Gore or Kerry they wouldn't have. Obama is what they've been waiting for; a handsome, well-spoken black man who looks good on a collector's edition memorial plate, under whom they can begin the undoing of America, and blame any and all dissent on racism.

Like never before, it is vitally important that a true conservative be elected next year. Ann Coulter is famous for saying "any Republican is better than any Democrat." In previous years, that might have been true. Bush wasn't a good president but he was better than Kerry or Gore would have been. Bob Dole would have made a horrible president, but he likely would have been a better one than Clinton. Lord knows there would have been fewer sex scandals. And John McCain, as much as I don't like him, would have made a marginally better president than Barack Obama. Although, as an aside, I'm kinda grateful he lost, because if he hadn't, Obama would be running in this next election and probably would have creamed him. President Obama has woken up the right-wing heart of America by being who he is, and President McCain would have further put it to sleep.

But in this election, we aren't just running against "any" Democrat. We're running against a deeply divisive, demagoguic figurehead who represents every devious, evil practice and policy America's far-left wants to see enacted. The liberal fantasy of turning America into a Socialistic "paradise" where leftism is the only religion, where the poor are rich and big businesses are broke, where everything is free even if that means total anarchy, etc., is the whole reason President Obama even exists. If this was just any Democrat, I'd probably agree with Coulter; any Republican would be better.

But let's look at the field we have for a moment. First, let's discount the candidates who have no chance at winning; Rick Santorum, while a good man, doesn't appear to be able to excite anyone about his candidacy. He'd make a good deacon, but that doesn't necessarily translate into "good president". Sure, he'd be an asset to the new president's cabinet, but the idea of him being president himself is something only the most religious of the religious right wants to see.

Michelle Bachmann shot herself in the foot with poor debate performances early on, after starting off as the Golden Girl.

Rick Perry became the front-runner the instant he announced his candidacy, but sank like a stone after ridiculous debate performances, his stance on amnesty and the "you don't have a heart comment", and his recent blanking during a debate.

Herman Cain...man, has there been a more heart-breaking story than that? He looked like a dream candidate, and as you can see if you look back in my posts, he had my unqualified support. He HAD it. He lost it after his pathetic finger-pointing in the wake of the sexual harassment allegations against him. I'm not sure I believe the allegations. They're fishy, and they people who made them fishier still. Cain, as far as I'm concerned, could be and most likely is 100% innocent. But he has not behaved like an innocent man. First, he denied that there was ever a charge laid against him (when there was), that there was never a settlement granted (there was) and that he never saw Sharon Bialek before her public allegations against him (he had). Then, Mark Block, his chief strategist, initially stated that the first accuser's son worked for Politico (the man in question worked for a different publication all together, and though he had her last name he was not her son) and then claimed he "knew" a Rick Perry campaign staffer had leaked the stories when he had no proof of any such thing. If the above is an example of how Cain would run the country, I don't want him to. Rush Limbaugh came to his defense, arguing that if the right way to handle sex scandals was the way Clinton did, then he's glad Cain did it the wrong way. Unfortunately, there is more than one wrong way to handle it. Cain didn't handle it like Clinton did, but he didn't handle it in a good way either. More to the point, he showed how disorganized his campaign is.

Jon Huntman. That is all.

So that leaves two candidates; Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. I never thought I would ever type that sentence. This is our top tier. Just over a month away from our first primary, and these two are the most likely to emerge victorious from it. Really?

Now, let's talk about Mitt Romney for a moment. Just for a moment, because it seems like all anyone does these days is talk about him. It's clear, as I've said, that the GOP establishment really wants him to be our candidate, because he is supposedly the most "electable". By which they mean, the one most "liberal-lite" who could reach across the isle and bring in independents and Democrats disgusted with Obama. But when has this ever worked? Seriously, when? Bob Dole? John McCain? Why do men like this routinely end up being touted as "electable candidates" only to lose (and in Dole's case, lose big), yet the GOP establishment predictably backs them again? If Romney were to drop out of the race tomorrow, would they suddenly start backing Huntsman? (answer: probably)

They call Romney the most electable, and while he did start off as the highest polling candidate, that can be chalked up to name recognition. Since the campaign really started, he's been at a permanent polling plateau with literally every other candidate (except Huntsman and Santorum) at one point or another rising above him. Presently, Gingrich is ahead of him. Gingrich. The guy who lost his first campaign staff wholesale. If he falls, I guarantee Santorum will rise to first place. And that's because--pay attention, GOP establishment--Republican voters DO NOT WANT MITT ROMNEY. They want ANYONE but him (again, with the possible exception of Huntsman). If the guy can't beat Newt effin' Gingrich, doesn't that clue you in that your base is not at all excited about him? That if they can find any suitable conservative, they'll go for that person first?

Now, here's the thing; after taking a closer look at Gingrich, I'm not sure I'm against his presidency. I was at first, but with no Marco Rubio, Tim Pawlenty or Allen West in the race, with Bachmann and Cain down for the count, Gingrich may be my man. Yes, he's got skeletons in his closet but he acknowledges them, and says he's learned from them. They're not hidden from view, like Cain's may have been. Gingrich recently said one of the greatest things he could have said: "I'm not the perfect candidate, but I'm better than Romney and I'm a genuine conservative." No, Mr. Gingrich, you're not the perfect candidate, and the best thing you could have done for yourself is acknowledge that, which you have. Romney is trying to sell himself as the perfect candidate, when he's anything but. For you to be so honest and plain-spoken about yourself and your candidacy is refreshing.

To be honest, after the very first debate, when Gingrich was the first, and only, to say openly that the press was hostile to all the candidates and hoped to get them in-fighting so that the focus could stay off Obama's record, I paid attention to that. Most did. We've known Gingrich was a smart man for decades now but I don't think anyone expected him to be so...ballsy. And he's run that kind of campaign since then.

In 2012, we need, nay, we MUST HAVE, a presidential candidate who won't just beat Obama, but will actively work to restore America back to economic and financial stability, and put us back on the road to growth. This person must not be someone willing to appease his opponents, flip-flop on issues or make quid pro quo deals with people who are out to destroy them. Romney has proven over and over again that he is that kind of politician. He's a power-seeker. He's a back-scratcher. He's a suit. Could he beat Obama? Maybe. Would he be appreciably different? No.

Another aside; we have to know by now that race WILL be an active issue on the table in this election. Whoever we elect will unquestionably be called racist by the leftist media. It's gonna happen. It's just simply not a question. Ask yourself what Mitt Romney would do to fight that. He'd probably waste time trying to prove he's not a racist by visiting black neighborhoods or having his picture taken next to black congressmen or some other shameless "politician" move. Gingrich would turn that accusation right back on his accusers and, while it probably wouldn't shut them up, it would kill their message to all but the most committed leftist race-hucksters.

We need someone with guts. Someone who isn't afraid to piss people off and get the job done. And although I never thought I'd say this, I think Newt Gingrich could be that man.

Will we be electing President Gingrich next November? Only time will tell.

Would it Derail the Obama Campaign?

2011-11-01T09:27:00.001-07:00

Wow. What a storm can start from one poorly sourced, uninformative article, or at least when it's about a conservative.

Picture this; several years ago, like a decade plus, you made a comment that you thought was innocent, but the person you made it to, who was of the opposite sex, took it the wrong way and got offended. She then files a complaint which totally blindsides you, because you know nothing happened and you certainly didn't intend for it to. The matter gets settled and because you're in a position to delegate to others what to do to satisfy this person, you say do it, and you're glad to have it done with and behind you. I know that if I were in this position, I would likely forget it. After all, I know that I meant nothing by the comment, I know I did nothing wrong, and I know that even if there was video of the incident in question, such a video would prove my innocence.

I have been accused of something I was not guilty of. I even had to consult a lawyer, who assured me that the accusing party had no case and I shouldn't worry. Because my accuser didn't work for me, I was in no position to give them money to leave me alone, but if I were, I know the outcome would have been the same, which was, I promptly put it behind me. I was innocent, nothing came of it, and it was only after racking my brain to think of a time when something like this might have happened that I recalled the incident.

Something like this apparently happened to Herman Cain. Now, Cain has had multiple careers, each of which has been successful. He was a ballistics expert for the military, chairman of a state Federal Reserve, eventual CEO of a chain of Burger Kings and then Godfather's Pizza. In a position like that, allegations of sexual misconduct can come out of left field. Most highly-placed men in any field will tell you that even complimenting a woman's new hair-do can open you up to allegations of sexual harassment or some other form of misconduct.

When the story first broke, the following is literally all we knew: Sometime in the late 90's, a woman who worked for or with Cain in the National Restaurant Association accused cain of "unwanted comments of a sexual nature" and "gestures that while not overtly sexual were nonetheless unprofessional and troubling." Also according to the article another woman had made allegations. The article implied that a monetary settlement had been reached.

That's it. That's all Politico said to start with, and that's all they've said at all so far. When pressed to say more, Jonathan Martin, the author of the article, stated that he was not prepared to reveal more out of "sensitivity" to the "victims" involved.

Uh-huh. Tell me another funny, Mr. Jonathan Martin, author of a thousand Palin hit-pieces that go after her family just as much as they go after her. Jonathan Martin is not a sensitive man, so what his sudden reticence says to me is that he doesn't have more than he's already released. An unknown source, two nameless women, vague allegations that could mean anything, and...that's all.

Tell me, would such allegations derail the Obama campaign, if something like that had come up in 2008? I can tell you right now they would not have, because we knew about Obama's William Ayers connections and his 20 years in Rev. Wrong's church, and none of it mattered. If the Left can get Bill Clinton off the hook for his own (many) marital infidelities that he LIED ABOUT UNDER OATH, then they would definitely rally to Obama's defense, had an allegation like that surfaced.

But with Cain, there is much hemming and hawing because this is a serious issue that bears looking into more closely.

Now, Cain, unfortunately, has not responded well to those accusations and quite frankly I can understand why. Like I said, had it been me in his position, even if I'd had to sign off on some sort of settlement, I would have quickly forgotten it because why dwell on something that is settled and that you know had no merit to begin with? Now, one can argue that in his position, he should have been prepared for this, but Cain is not a career politician, always prepared with a statement about anything, no matter how true or untrue, that may come to light from his past. If anything, that may be what hurts his campaign. He is a businessman first, and while that means he brings common sense real world solutions with him it also means he's not thinking in terms of self-promotion or defense, at least not yet. George W. Bush was the same way, and he had some political experience.

Up until now I've seen Cain be able to let any accusations made against him slide off, and I would have hoped that in this case he could come forward right away, say what happened, and let that be that. The way he's handled this is the only thing that I take issue with; not because I think he's lying but because he has made it easy for his attackers to make it LOOK like he's lying, and in the game he's playing, and on the team he's playing for, that's bad.

If he were a Democrat this wouldn't even be a story. Politico wouldn't have touched it and they would have poo-poo'd any attempts from the Right to bring this up. Only if we'd discovered such a non-story as this we probably wouldn't have touched it either.

Cain's first response was to say that he's never harassed anyone nor did he remember paying anyone a settlement. I admit, if I were in his shoes and thinking like I think (and like he was likely thinking), that would have been my gut response. But the fact is, Cain later came back and said "Okay, I guess there was a settlement", while still denying any wrong-doing took place on his part. I'm prepared to believe him, as in America you are still innocent until proven guilty, but if there was a settlement, Cain should not have implied there wasn't, or that he doesn't remember, even if he did forget. He should have released no statement until he had researched or remembered the incident.

This sorta goes back to all I've said about Cain being in this race for America, and not for himself. He was never thinking of this race as a popularity contest or about promoting himself. It likely never occurred to him that an overly sensitive woman deciding something wrong happened when it didn't would ever come back to haunt him. A career politician would have found her and paid her still more money not to talk to reporters.

What Cain finally ended up saying was that the only incident he could think of after spending a day wracking his brain trying to think of what this incident could have been, was a woman that he off-handedly stated was the same height as his wife, while holding his hand under his chin, to indicate the woman's height. If that's truly it, then there is no story and I can confidently say that had this happened to a Democrat, no media outlet would have touched it. Cain stated that he thinks there may have been a settlement, but if it was it would have been part of a severance package and he thinks it amounted to less than three months' salary, possibly less than two months', and that she definitely didn't get all the money she had started off demanding. It's not unreasonable to assume that Cain is telling the truth here. He also says he doesn't recall a second incident, nor was there another settlement. This I can believe right away because it doesn't take much at all for the accusing woman to suddenly have a friend she can get to make up a story in order to seem more credible.

Like I said, if this was me, and I was signing away for the woman to get a slightly larger severance than normal after she asked for a lot more than she got, I probably wouldn't have thought of that as a "settlement", either. In fact, I'll go further; it's entirely possible that this woman was already thinking of resigning but figured there was no reason she shouldn't do so without a substantial pot of money coming with her. So she asked for a huge severance package, and in order to get it, she makes more out of a past incident than is warranted, claiming she's owed the extra money due to psychological duress. The National Restaurant Association conducts its own investigation, realizes what happened amounts to nothing, and let the woman go with a slightly larger package than normal just to get her to go away, and Cain himself, who in a case like that would have been involved peripherally, completely forgets about it. After all the man probably signed off on plenty of severance packages, and this likely wasn't the first time one of them was slightly larger.

So, in summary, it sounds like the allegations against Cain are minimal at best, which apparently even Jonathan Martin and Politico know, since they're not milking the story.

Despite that, Cain's response was less than perfect.

However, despite THAT, if something like this wouldn't hurt Clinton or Obama, why on Earth should it hurt Cain?

Decoding Lib Double-Talk on Race

2011-10-30T19:37:00.000-07:00

They Say: "Republicans are nothing more than racists."

They Mean: "We can't run on issues or we lose. Hurling accusations is the only way we have to defeat them. Besides, maybe it will distract from our own racism."

They Say: "Republicans are your enemy. They want to see you swinging from trees."

They Mean: "PLEASE don't vote for them! If we don't carry your guaranteed vote in our pocket we lose!"

They Say: "Black conservatives are self-loathing Uncle Toms."

They Mean: "Uh-oh. If black Americans start listening to black conservatives we're screwed."

They Say: "Herman Cain is not an authentic black man."

They Mean: "OMG HERMAN CAIN IS SO AUTHENTIC HE MAKES OBAMA LOOK LIKE A SALTINE! Quick, let's do all we can to discredit him!"

They Say: "Republicans talk down to black people."

They Mean: "That's our job, dammit."

They Say: "Tea Party Republicans are only pretending to like Herman Cain so they can hide their racism and convince you to vote for him while he entertains them with minstrelsy."

They Mean: "Hey, they're stealing from our playbook! We already tried that with Obama!"

GOP Establishment, By All Means Continue To Trash Cain

2011-10-25T09:20:00.000-07:00

It's pretty clear who the GOP establishment wants for the nomination. They want Romney.

They may not have wanted him at first, but they certainly wanted what they consider an "electable" candidate, and they began hunting for one the minute the race began.

Early in the race, it was Pawlenty vs. Bachmann, with establishment critics on either side prepared to call one or the other "the one to beat", depending on who emerged on top. When Pawlenty dropped out, the spotlight began to shine solely on Bachmann. You'd never have realized others had begun running.

When Bachmann showed that she was unable to handle herself with grace and aplomb during debates, the new "golden boy" upon whom the race centered became Rick Perry. Then Perry, who was always seen as soft on illegal immigration, made that completely uncalled for "you don't have a heart" comment, regarding those who opposed his support of the DREAM act, and that pretty much killed him.

Yes, liberals, it was his embrace of the DREAM act and his left-esque defense of it that sank his campaign, not that stupid rock. So you can shut up about the rock now.

So without Pawlenty, Bachmann or Perry, the only establishment choice left that has any momentum is Mitt Romney. Now, it's clear Americans don't want Mitt Romney. They just don't. And it's not hard to see why; he's not a conservative. He doesn't stand for what we believe in, and up until this race he's pretty much been a liberal in conservative clothing. No, we don't care about his religion. We don't see anything necessarily creepy about Romney's approach to his Mormonism. But we definitely don't want a man who created the diagram upon which Obamacare is based, who seems to support the idea of anthropogenic global warming (and would continue the attempt to force America to "go green"), who is pro-TARP and would be open to more bail-outs and who seems to be just as much an empty suit as Obama.

But the establishment wants him because he's "electable", whatever that means. So, in the absence of other "electable" candidates, Romney is their man. You hear RNC member after RNC member (the latest is Karl Rove) showing their support of Romney by trashing the only man who's beating him: Herman Cain.

Cain has polled ahead of Romney now in three major polls, and also won the Florida Straw Poll, which is also known as Presidency 5, in which Romney was a distant third. That's incredibly impressive for a man who's never held elected office. Hell, it's impressive for anybody. But all you hear from GOP leaders is Romney, Romney, Romney, and why Cain isn't our man.

Their complaints against him are ridiculous. "He's never held public office." So...holding an elected office is a guarantee you'll do a great job? Then explain Obama.

"He has no foreign policy knowledge." This is based on his flubbing of the question about the "right of return". Here's a question: if anyone had asked Obama about that before they'd asked Cain, do you think he would have been able to give an intelligable answer? Also, I think Cain can be counted on not to commit multiple offenses and breaches of protocol with visiting British dignitaries and the freaking Queen, will not bow to foreign dictators, refer to languages that don't exist, etc. If we can allow Obama to be president with his joke of a foreign policy, I think we'll be okay with Cain, who will at least listen to the experts, as he has said on numerous occasions.

"There are issues with his 999 plan." Any time I hear someone attempt to discredit the 999 plan, their reasoning seems very vague. The plan is there at his website and it makes sense. It's written in plain English a layman can understand. Why are people acting like it's a big mystery? And why, since the plan is laid out in point form on the site, do the criticisms sound almost intentionally vague? Also, why is no one suggesting another, better plan?

"He's flubbed some debate responses/interviewer questions." So far, Cain has not uttered a campaign-derailing comment like "You don't have a heart" or "If you turn the 999 plan upside down, the devil's in the details." His "flubs" are no worse than anything Clinton or Bush, Jr. said on the campaign trail. You know, those two-term presidents?

I suppose it isn't all that surprising that the "movers and shakers" within the GOP want another RINO to be nominated. Most of them are RINO's themselves, and have utterly failed to grasp the fact that a majority of Americans want to see a genuine conservative in power this time, and not just another power-seeker we're all told we should vote for. They continue to believe that the only way to win elections is to be "moderate", which means "Liberal lite". To them, we can only run people who seem to appeal to liberals, not understanding that as long as an "R" comes after a politician's name, a liberal is never going to vote for them.

Because they can't really defend Romney, they instead trash Cain. At first I was upset by this, but now I think I'd rather they kept at it. After all, they praised Pawlenty, Bachmann and Perry. Now every time another establishment GOP'er comes out in support of Romney (or trashes Cain), Cain's poll numbers go up. If they started praising him now I'd be worried.

Some say that Cain has peaked too soon, but in all honesty, this is not like the peaks we saw for Bachmann and Perry. They had the support of the GOP establishment. Cain, like so much else he's done in his life, has succeeded in his consistent lead in the polls entirely on his own. America has finally come to know Herman Cain, and they like what they know. And the more attempts there are to take him down, on both sides, the more his numbers continue to rise.

So, establishment hacks? Keep it up. Talk up Cain's lack of experience, this idea that 999 is unclear or hurtful, and keep building up Romney. You'll badmouth Cain right into the White House.

Liberal Projection

2011-10-20T13:35:00.000-07:00

The Liberal Position on Obama: "If you don't support Obama, there can be no question you're a racist. Oh, yes, we know that every now and then one of us conscientiously objects to something he says or does, but they still support him, because they're not racist. The only reason to not support him is race."

The Liberal Position on Cain: "If you support Cain, you're a racist, because you don't support Obama. You want to replace Obama with another black man, a black man who dances your dance and says what you want to hear, so therefore you prefer him to a black man who doesn't dance your dance or say what you want to hear. And that's racist."

Could this be a better example of liberal projection? The reason they support Obama is apparently the reason we're supporting Cain. After all, does anyone think liberals would support Obama if he were exactly the same kind of man and the same kind of president, but had run as a Republican?

We care about issues. They care about race. They project, therefore, their own thought process onto us. We couldn't possibly be supporting Cain because of his stance on the issues. It must be race. Except we're racists. So therefore we support Cain because we're hiding our own racism and we enjoy his "mistrelsy". What?

So, let's get to the heart of the matter. Obama (who is half white) is an authentic black man because...he...stands for black issues? Like...universal healthcare? Big government? Socialism? High taxes and increased gov't spending? Yeah, those sound like issues near and dear to the hearts of black Americans. Of course, Obama also responds with great understanding when addressed with concerns about his lack of attention to America's black population, as follows:

“I expect all of you to march with me and press on. Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes. Shake it off. Stop complaining, stop grumbling, stop crying. We are going to press on. We’ve got work to do, CBC.”

Yeah...real concern for the best interest of black Americans there. Don't focus on how things are getting worse for you, just support me.

Just how is Barack Obama an "authentic" black man? Oh, that's right, because he's a Democrat, and everyone knows the Democrats have always been the champions of equal rights for black Americans.

Always.

So Obama is "authentic" because he...dances the Democrats' dance and says what they want to hear.

Herman Cain, however, is not authentic. Because...he's successful, self-made and doesn't sit around blaming "The White Man" for keeping him down. In fact he refused to let himself be kept down. He did things black people were told they couldn't do, succeeding in mathematics and business despite being told he shouldn't bother. He made something of himself with no help from "whitey", and certainly no help from Democrats, who would have offered him social assistance in order to keep him poor and dependant on them.

In other words, Cain is living the dream Martin Luther King fought for. And that...somehow makes him not authentic.

Oh, wait, actually it's because he is running as a Republican and supports the Tea Party. We all know the Tea Party is racist. They can't stand the thought of a black man in the Oval Office, which is why they're...totally supporting the idea of a black man in the Oval Office. It's just a black man who agrees with their positions on lower taxes, smaller government, job growth, etc. Okay, that settles it. They must be racists.

It is time for Black America to wake up. They have been handing their votes to Democrats for decades now and what has it gotten them? Sweet f--k all, that's what. "But they got a black President!" Yes, a black president who couldn't care less that while unemployment has risen for everyone across the country, it's near double for blacks what it is for whites. A black president whose response to his own poor performance in actually helping the community he claims to care so much about is to literally tell them to "stop grumbling." A black president who routinely rolls over and does the bidding of the white men who pull his strings; name a single issue Obama appears passionate about that isn't also a long-time Democratic "progressive" talking point?

Black Americans, listen. Obama may share your skin color but in what other way has he earned your vote? Name a single thing Obama has done that helped you? Has your life improved under his leadership at all? Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Are you worse off?

Herman Cain also shares your skin color, and he wants to help. Unlike Obama, whom the Democrats pushed on us transparently so they could cry "racist" against any nay-sayers, Herman Cain has beat the odds to get where he is and has had no help from the establishment on either side. He is in the race because he cares about America, and all her people, of all colors. And it's a message that is resonating. Maybe it wouldn't have if Cain had run in 2000, or even 2008. But now people are understanding; we can't just keep putting our support behind the same old "electable" candidates just because the establishment SAYS they're electable. Cain is a true grassroots presidential contender who can, and will if he's allowed, make a real difference. The fact that he also shares your skin color can be thought of as a bonus if you want to think of it that way, but in a much more important way, Cain has already earned your vote in a way that Obama simply never will.

And please, for the love of all that's holy, stop worrying about feeling like an Uncle Tom just for voting for a Republican. First of all, this Republican is one of you in every way he can be. Second, the only reason any of you feel this way is that the mainstream media, Democrats all, have told you that you should. In no way is this true. It's far more "Uncle Tom-ish" to keep voting for Democrats year after year because your parents did and you keep being told that's what you should do--by WHITE Democrats. I know, I'm white, too. The difference is, I'm not suggesting you should vote for Cain, or anyone, because they're black. I'm saying vote for Cain because he stands for your issues and will actually help you. Just that now the only reservation you would have had (should he be nominated) is gone; you won't be voting against the black man. You'll simply be picking the better of two.

Realize what more black Americans are realizing all the time; the Democrats don't give two sh-ts about you and have done nothing to help you. All they care about is your vote, which they feel they own. They are the modern day plantation owners. It's time to emancipate yourselves from their condescending rhetoric.

Raise Cain. He's the authentic black man, and more importantly, the authentic American.

Leftists: Ideology First, Race Second, Sex Third, Everything Else: Doesn't Matter

2011-09-29T12:20:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I wrote an entire post about my support of Herman Cain and the only time I mentioned race (other than to tell potential race-baiters that my use of the term "spades" as in "he has it in spades" was not a racial joke and not to make it into one) was to say that the Democrats wouldn't forego the race-baiting in the 2012 campaign even if Cain were to be the nominee, because they feel they own the black vote.

If anything, the fact that I wrote a pretty long piece about my support for a black man and never mentioned his race as a reason to support him or not support him should show where my head is where race is concerned; it's just not a factor. I'd be an idiot to think it wouldn't be brought up by the mainstream media during the campaign (it already has) but it doesn't affect who I support one iota.

But to Democrats it's a trump card; sorry, it's THE trump card. Why are critics of Obama called racists? It's not because they are, but rather it's because the Democrats are obsessed with race, and for them, all that mattered about Obama was that he was a leftist, and he was black. For a true leftist, it's ideology first, race second, sex or sexuality third, and everything else hardly even matters. Why else would they run a man with literally nothing remotely presidential or leadership-ready on his resume?

I've written many times about how I feel that true racism today is mostly on the left, so when I hear a right-winger suggest that we wouldn't get behind Herman Cain if we were really racists, I wonder why they don't address the reasons why the party of true widespread racism DID get behind Obama. But it hit me as I was thinking about it that while today's left is just as racist as it's ever been, it's a different kind of racism. Rather than the kind that lynches them or burns crosses on their yards, it's the kind that says people of color should all think, act, talk, dress and vote alike, or that black people can't succeed without white man's help, or that black people who are able to speak eloquently and have good hygene are somehow exceptional (as if most black people are not those things), or that any person of color who would ever consider voting Republican is a traitor to his or her race, because Democrats are supposed to own their vote.

All of the above are truly racist positions, and they define leftist views on race to a T. But they aren't about hating black people, per se. Instead they are about considering people of color to be a sub-class of human who have their uses, but need to be kept in their proper place.

So why would such a group willingly follow a black man? Simple; they're NOT following him, nor is he acting like a leader. He also isn't acting in the best interests of black Americans. Everything Obama's done since taking office is basically "Force legislation through Congress that the left has been trying to enact for decades now, while totally ignoring the black community he claims to care so much about." Obama's policies aren't about advancing black America. They're about advancing LEFTIST America. Socialist America. He pays lip service to the idea of supporting the cause of black Americans, but nothing he's done since taking office suggests he really cares about it. Poverty, single parenthood, wellfare, food stamp use, etc., all have risen among black Americans under Obama's watch. And it's not just "racist" right-wingers who've noticed; Maxine Waters herself, and many of the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus, took Obama to task over his total shafting of black Americans.

Now, I'm not saying Obama SHOULD focus on just black Americans. He's president of the country, not president of its black population. I mean, it's not that he doesn't care about black America; he doesn't care about America as a whole. But this proves that Obama was not campaigned or elected by people who give a rodent's hirsute hindquarters about black Americans or their plight. Obama was not elected because the Democrats want to advance people of color in America. He was elected because the left can now do what it's always wanted to do, and claim that any opposition to it is due to racism.

Which is exactly what they're doing.

In effect, this makes Obama the ultimate Uncle Tom; he's sold out his people for the leftist cause. He's allowed himself to be the black face the left puts on all its actions so that it can keep playing the race card every time they face reprisal. He's joined those who are doing all they can to keep black people in their place, and if he ever starts actually thinking for himself (that is, coming up with a thought or plan that wasn't straight out of the leftist playbook), the left will turn on him in a hurry. Heck, they've already done that every time he was forced to concede to the Republicans on any issue. Not only that, but Obama got where he is entirely because of white people. I've said before that establishment Democrats are just as white as establishment Republicans, and have actually done less to show they care about black Americans.

Leftists cannot fathom that right-wingers love Herman Cain because we feel like he's one of us, or agree with his stance on the issues, or think he's got some good ideas to get this country back on track. They can't fathom that because that's not how they think. They look at Herman Cain and they see A BLACK MAN. A black man who IS A REPUBLICAN! And then they lose their head. Policies? Positions? Ideas? Motivations? These do not matter. And it gets worse. Cain is a self-made black man who took responsibility, worked hard and made something of himself, never demanding a hand-out from white America or whining about how his personal journey was harder than it should have been because of his color. Clearly, this man does not know his place. And that terrifies the left.

Because we're supposed to be racists, a meme the left will flog until the end of days, leftists struggle to come up with a reason we love Herman Cain that makes sense alongside the racist meme. But it DOESN'T make any sense; supposedly we love Cain because we're trying to hide our racism. Projection?

I'm afraid it can't work that way. The left hasn't claimed that we're the kind of racists they are, allowing that black people have their uses as long as they know their place. They started off claiming we HATE black people and that the only reason we oppose anything Obama does is that we can't handle the idea of a black president. You can't claim on the one hand that we hate black people and then also claim that we're getting behind a black man now so that we can hide the fact that we hate him. In what universe does that make sense?

If we really were the kind of people the mainstream media would have you believe we are, we'd laugh at Cain's attempt to ingratiate himself with us, mock him and then throw our support behind the KKK.

If we were the kind of people the left truly are, then we would politely scoff at his efforts to become president, pat him on the head and advise him it would be in his best interests to keep voting for us despite how little heed we pay anything he says. Just like the Democrats did with every black presidential candidate they've ever had who threatened to be even slightly more than a puppet for the hardline left.

All Aboard the Cain Train

2011-09-28T07:09:00.000-07:00

Okay, I'm a Herman Cain supporter again.

I've always liked Cain. I always felt he was the only man in the race who was in it for America, and not for himself. I never lost that sense of him. What lost me was his pathetic show of ignorance when it came to a crucial matter; foreign policy.
I'm no expert on foreign policy either. I wouldn't have known what the "right of return" was either. But then, I'm also not running for president (and couldn't legally do so until a year from now anyway). I kept hoping, after Cain's poor performance in that area, that a candidate would emerge who was everything Cain was, as well as more prepared to lead America on the international scene.

Such a candidate has not emerged.

I've asked myself many times over the last few days since Herman Cain's stunning victory in the crucial Florida straw poll what's a larger concern; a president with a detailed resume full of national and international experience who will, without losing any sleep, consistently do what is best for his continued presidency at the expense of the American people, and fail to make any real change, or do we want a tough, smart man who really knows what's best for this country (ei. his 999 plan) who will NOT compromise with self-serving Democrats, who will NOT just roll over and take it when the media makes up lies about him, who will NOT pander to special interest groups and/or unions, and who WILL stand up for America, and average Americans?

Having taken into consideration who's running, and leaving out anyone conservatives seem to WISH would run (like Sarah Palin or Chris Christie), I have to say that Herman Cain is truly the only one I really want to see get the nomination. There are others running I would settle for, like Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum, but I would be settling. I wouldn't be happy with any of them.

Mock the idea of debates-as-American-Idol all you want; the fact is that if you can't perform well on that stage, you can't perform well as president. And Bachmann is performing very poorly. Rick Perry started off well, but I'm becoming more convinced than ever that Perry cannot win this unless he changes his position on immigration, and pronto. But instead he's doubling down on it. Mitt Romney? Are you kidding? I've said before, and I'll say again, that if Romney wins the nomination we may as well not even bother having an election at all, and just hand Obama another 4 years. Can Romney get conservatives to come out in droves to vote? Can he sway independants? In both cases I'm convinced the answer is no. A Romney campaign will be just like John McCain's; there were no votes FOR McCain in 2008. There were only votes AGAINST Obama. I know of no one who really wanted a President McCain. All we wanted was to ensure we wouldn't get a hard-left socialist in the White House.

And while I'm at it, let me say that I'm not really that fired up about a Palin presidential run, and don't want Christie to run at all. I love Sarah Palin. I love everything about her. But I'm not convinced she could run a solid campaign and actually defeat the ongoing smear campaign the left has running 24 hours against her. There are right-wingers the left hates, there are right-wingers they are afraid of and then there are those they hate AND are afraid of. Sarah Palin definitely fits into the third category, whereas I'm convinced even George W. Bush only fits into the first. The anti-Bush smears were awful, but the smears against Sarah Palin were and are the most reprehensible thing I've ever seen. They wanted you to think W. was stupid. They want you to think Palin is sub-human.

As for a Christie presidential campaign, there are exactly two things I like about Chris Christie, and two things only; he's willing to stand up to unions and he's willing to speak the truth as he sees it plainly and not pretty up his speech with PC bullshit. No one can accuse Christie of talking like a politician, and there's little doubt that his unwillingness to cater to unions has helped clean up New Jersey. Unfortunately in all other matters, Christie doesn't at all speak to the conservative base. He's spoken out in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque, he believes in anthropogenic global warming, he's for raising taxes and the debt ceiling, and I may be wrong but I also believe he's pro-choice. No, I do not want to see a President Christie, and every time he denies that he'll run, my first thought is "Good!"

Unlike Christie, Cain is a true conservative, and won't hide that fact. He also has the two factors I like about Christie in spades (no that's not a racial joke, and if you try to make one out of it, you're pathetic). Also unlike Palin, he seems able to rise above the smears. Not one smear against him has stuck, and a large part of that is that Cain (unlike Bush) actually--gasp!--RESPONDS to the smears against him but it's the way he responds that I like; he laughs at them. His stance for most is that the leftists who make the smears don't really believe those things themselves, but are afraid of his momentum and are trying laughable ways of bringing him down. And the Florida straw poll results show that he might in fact be right; both about his momentum and about how afraid he's making the Obama campaign.

Some are suggesting that running Cain against Obama in 2012 will take the race issue off the table. I say they're fools if they believe that because race will NEVER stop being a campaign issue for Democrats. They are convinced that they own the black vote, and will do all they can to hold on to it. They call white Republicans racist, but for Cain they'll bring out the "Uncle Tom" hat and try to make him wear it. Heck, they already are. I say to them: good luck. Cain doesn't wear the smears as well as Palin did. I'm not saying the Palin smears were or are true; most of them are provably false and those that aren't amount to little more than salacious gossip. But for some reason she had a really hard time fighting them off, and there are even conservatives who believe the smears against her (one website I saw claimed that her record as governor was littered with controversy, which is completely bogus; one of the reasons McCain picked her was she was a solid conservative with a remarkably sterling record).

Cain? I have yet to encounter even the most hardline leftist who can really say something against him other than vague "this man is a joke" rhetoric they lob against any conservative. Yes, there have been "Uncle Tom" smears. Yes, Jon Stewart tried to claim doesn't like to read (with a routine that would have been unquestionably racist to the left if it had been, say, Dennis Miller making the same sort of joke against Obama). But Cain seems to rise above it. None of it seems to affect his popularity, none of it has slowed his momentum even a hair. Now that he's won the Florida poll, maybe the media will start treating him like a serious candidate and we'll see some real effort on the part of the MSM to take him down. I say bring it on; I think Cain can take it and make them look ridiculous for trying.

Add that to the reasons I support him. While the Republican establishment continues to try and convince us that we should go for an "electable" candidate like Romney or Perry (or Christie) when we know they mean "someone who's not a real conservative because we stupidly believe people like that can't win", we the people have been waiting for a candidate who really speaks for us, who listens to the average American and who is not just concerned about getting elected and keeping his position, who has common sense solutions that will work. Cain is that man.

And to all of those who hem and haw and say "the presidency is not an entry-level position", I repeat what Cain says: "We've had career policitians in power for the past twenty years. How's that working out for you?"

PS: Besides, Cain may not have held elected office before, but he brings more real world experience with him than any president before him. Obama barely ever worked in the private sector; he lives in a different reality than most Americans. It's Obama that's the entry-level president, not Cain.

It's Becoming Clear: When it Comes to Slagging Conservatives, the Left is Losing its Touch

2011-09-26T05:46:00.000-07:00

During the 2008 campaign, so much negative was said about Sarah Palin that even people who would ordinarily have supported her, if even half a second of news coverage had actually been about her views, record or planned policies, believed she was stupid.

Meanwhile, the press allowed Obama to get by with having known associations with Tony Rezko, William Ayers and the explosively racist "minister", Jeremiah Wright.

The 2008 campaign trail was a mud-slinging fest, or at least it was from one side. The McCain/Palin campaign, and by extension ALL Republicans and conservatives, were painted with a broad brush as insane, dangerous, angry, stupid, racist, sexist, facist Islamophobes who want nothing more than to impose a Christian theocracy in America and who deserved to be crushed.

And it worked. Obama became president and Sarah Palin, on whom most of the attacks were focused, ended up having to resign even as Alaska's governor, due to a concerted effort to destroy her with baseless "ethics violations" charges.

So...what happened? This month, TWO Palin-bashing books were released; Joe McGinnis's The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin and Deer in the Headlights: My Time In Sarah Palin's Crosshairs by Bristol Palin's baby-daddy Levi Johnston. No, I'm not going to link to them. If you're really that curious, google them.

But what's funny is I'm sure most on the Left expected these books to be massive best-sellers and would further bury Palin as an American pariah. After all, the reason Palin's two books, Going Rogue: An American Life and America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag were such best-sellers just has to be because Americans were just rubber-necking at the train-wreck that is her life, right? It certainly can't be because they wanted to read what she has to say. But she's a controversial figure, and that sells. So certainly books that trash her will sell too, right?

Wrong. The Rogue isn't even in the New York Times's top 50 (whereas Going Rogue topped it for weeks) while nobody even knows or cares that Levin Johnston wrote a book about anything. Even LEFTISTS of all people have been critical of McGinnis, while barely even ackowledging Johnston.

And there's good reason. McGinnis's book is a collection of unsourced, unverifiable yellow journalism that could grace the page of National Enquirer, and in fact many of the stories McGinnis collects initially appeared in the Enquirer. The Rogue is less a gritty exposé of Palin and more like a novel about the Palin the left WISHES existed. I've said before that the "journalists" of the left went after Palin with both barrels, determined to shame her on the National stage, and when they couldn't find anything to smear her with, they started making stuff up or taking very minor public gaffes of Palin and blew them up as if only a moron could possibly make such blunders.

You know, like pronouncing the word "corpsman" as "Corpse-Man", claiming to have visited "57 states" or signing the Royal British guestbook with the date of 2008 in 2011. Oh, wait, my mistake; those gaffes were committed by our genius president Barack Obama, the man who is reportedly so cool that there's nothing about him one can mock.

Palin's "gaffes" include supposedly believing America was founded in 1773 (when she was actually talking about the year of the Boston Tea Party, and was correct), supposedly believes we're allied with North Korea (when she actually meant South Korea, whom we are allied with, and immediately corrected her mis-wording without being prompted), or believing that Paul Revere warned the British (which he did).

But the left wasn't content merely to blow her very minor (especially when compared to genius Obama) gaffes out of proportion. They also managed to legally obtain tens of thousands of Sarah Palin's personal emails, which they were certain would blow the lid off the Palin family and expose Sarah Palin for the fraud they were all certain she was. The emails revealed nothing scandalous whatsoever. So many attempts to tear her down and she was still standing proud. I would imagine that many leftists were hoping that Joe McGinnis would finally deliver the crushing blow that would destroy her.

And this is what they got. That's the vaunted liberal establishment known as the New York Times slamming McGinnis's book. When even the New York Times is as unkind as that to a liberal writer trashing a woman the left loves to hate, you know you've lost. I gotta say I'm surprised. Oh, I'm not surprised that McGinnis's book amounts to salacious gossip intended to do no more than cement in the minds of people that already hate her that Sarah Palin is a fraud, a liar and a creep. That much was obvious the moment it was announced that McGinnis had managed to rent a home next door to the Palins. But McGinnis is no idiot, so I at least expected that he would manage to produce something that somebody, ANYBODY, could take seriously. I expected leftist establishments to be behind him 100% and to repeatedly assert that Palin's cover had been blown, and that anyone who doubted she was stupid, evil, narcissistic, hypocritical, etc. would now be "proven" wrong.

Instead, they recognize McGinnis's book for what it is. They realize that you can't just write down a sordid collection of rumors, many of which contradict each other, source them all to "a friend of the Palin family" or "someone who knew them well", etc. and expect anyone to believe it. You can't postulate that Palin was promiscuous while also stating that she was so sexually repressed she would barely let her husband touch her, or simultaneously claim that Palin is a fake Christian while also saying she is setting up a theocracy, or that everyone who knew her was aware of her promiscuity and drug use, etc., while also stating that it was a well-kept secret.

McGinnis's book, however, isn't even close to the only example of how the left's smear tactics are beginning to fail. The Tea Party continues to grow, despite the doubling down on Tea Party smearing the left is currently engaged in. Right now leftists look like the little boy who cried "racist!" as more and more average Americans realize that the Tea Party isn't a Klan-like group but is in fact the true voice of America. While Democrats in national and local Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc. behave like a bunch of thugs, or petulant children, more and more people are understanding that the Tea Party is right; that they are not some racist group trying to get rid of Obama, but are instead a group thoroughly disgusted with the current state of congress and the actions of this administration, and are dedicated to getting rid of ALL those who are causing the current problem, including not only Obama, but anyone connected with this reprehensible party, black or white.

The insults are no longer sticking. The left can gang up on one woman, but when they try to apply the same tactic to literally EVERYONE who opposes them, their mud-slinging looks more and more hollow, and more and more people are understanding that the smears of the left aren't based on anything approaching reality, but are the schoolyard taunts of a failed administration that is scared they're actually going to lose.

President O-BLAME-a

2011-09-09T05:52:00.000-07:00

So while the pageant of lies
Still rolls from your tongue
Don't blame me for your Kingdom come

When you're willing to render
The the guilt you concede
When truth is your reason
THEN lay the blame on me

When you unveil a conscience
And with peace you agree
When love is your constant
THEN lay the blame on me

--Ed Roland, Blame

Has any president ever spent so much time blaming his predecessor? And for as long?

There's no doubt Obama didn't have a perfect economy and 8 years of peace handed to him the way Bush did. But, heck, Clinton was handed an unfinished war, a weak economy, etc. Many of the things Obama has been handed. Did he spend an inordinant amount of time blaming Bush Sr.?

Now, I'm not praising Clinton. He was not a good president. But he was A PRESIDENT. He wasn't a martinet put into a position he was uniquely unqualified for who then spent his entire first term blaming his poor performance on his predecessor. He may have been a leftist, who, if left to his own devices, would have crippled the economy almost as bad as Obama, who almost certainly would have introduced the same kind of healthcare bill, and who is most certainly guilty of ignoring Al Quaeda activity which lead to 9/11.

Bush Jr. wasn't a good president, either. Unlike Clinton, I believe he is a good man, but a good man and a good president aren't the same thing. His spending, in the name of "compassionate conservativism" and his expansion of government are unforgivable, and almost certainly contributed to the recession. Of course Congress is chiefly to blame for that, but let's not get into that here.

My point is that while neither man was a good president, at the very least they behaved like they were president. Bush could have pointed fingers at Congress all he wanted, and he partly would have been right to do so, but he shouldered the blame himself. Clinton also didn't waste time pointing fingers. When Clinton was in charge, right-wingers may not have liked him, or agreed with his policies, but they never accused him of acting like anything less than our president. Okay, maybe during his trial, when he danced around his guilt, but I'm talking about his performance in office.

Obama doesn't act like he's president. He acts like he's king. His every speech, his every action since obtaining office is to act like he can do no wrong, and if something is going wrong, it must be SOMEONE ELSE'S fault. It's Bush's fault, or it's congressional Republicans who are at fault, or it's Sarah Palin's fault, or, hey, it must be the Tea Party's fault! It's ANYBODY'S fault but mine!

Seriously, this has got to be some kind of record. I'm not historically studied enough to know if any president has ever blamed his predecessor at all, but I feel like I can safely say no president in living memory has ever done it this much or for this long.

During his first 100 days, okay, I can understand why so many people were still saying "give him a chance". After all, he hadn't been in office for even half a year, yet. I still get gaulled by the fact that the same people yelling "give Obama a chance" were the same people who were calling for Bush's head during HIS first 100 days, but all the same, it's true; you can't judge a man's performance based on 100 days in a job.

But the "give him a chance" cry was still going strong one year into his presidency, as was the "it's not Obama's fault; Bush left a mess and he's still trying to clean it up" cry. As if Obama was the first president to "inherit" a large deficit, a failing economy and an ongoing war. People blame Bush's war and spending for Obama's inherited problems, but during the first two years of his presidency, Obama's spending eclipsed Bush's (and pretty much every other president) and he engaged us in TWO new overseas conflicts (Afghanistan and Libya), before the first one was won. Liberals also (wrongly) blame the "Bush tax cuts" for increasing the deficit and worsening the economy, but Obama has extended them. So at what point will he stop saying that literally every problem that's occurred during his presidency is the result of his predecessor, or Congress, or the Tea Party?

After last night I'm convinced the answer is "never". No blame must touch The Golden One. We're nearly three years into his presidency. THREE YEARS. That's almost a full term. Can we expect that the "hope and change" we were promised on the campaign trail would be evident by now? YES WE CAN! But we're worse off than we ever were under Bush. Why is that Bush's fault?

At this point, a majority of Obama's supporters, even the "give him a chance" and the "he inherited this" crowd are forced to admit that Obama can no longer blame anyone but himself and his own administration for the US's current state of affairs. But a few diehard supporters in the media and within his administration are still trumpeting the "it's someone else's fault" meme, and from his speech last night it's clear that Obama will continue to flog that dead horse for as long as anyone echoes it, or as long as he can convince himself that people still believe it.

Don't buy it. Anyone thinking of voting for Obama in the next election, I caution you to think hard. HARD. Don't let fear of a "Republican theocracy" (you know, that thing that's never happened despite generations of Christian Republican presidents) or whatever it is you're afraid of make you decide that as bad as Obama is, he's less scary than the alternative. Remember how angry you were that Bush earned a second term and ask yourself what Obama's done during his first term that's made him more deserving of a second than Bush. And for the love of God leave skin tone out of it! Nobody but Obama's camp cares about skin tone, because they know that's all they have left to run on!

Civility? Are you kidding me?

2011-09-07T05:57:00.001-07:00

Okay, the Left can officially no longer lecture about "civility" as long as this is allowed to exist with no comment from them.

Let's review: You cannot put up a map with cross-hairs over congressional districts "targeted" as potential Republican victories. (Wait, you mean a map like this one?) If you do this, you are inciting violence and you are entirely to blame when a lone gunman, a man with a history of mental and emotional problems who was described by acquaintances as "creepy" and who never showed a hint of being political at all, let alone right-wing, starts shooting in a public area and those he hits include a Democratic congresswoman.

However, you can create a freaking online game where you get to mow down "tea party zombies", including likenesses of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, all without comment from those "so concerned" about civility. Horse-shit. I'm sorry if I offend those who don't like four-letter words, but this is so much more offensive than a mere "profanity". This is an unprecedented level of repugnance from a political affiliation I thought could sink no lower.

What's next after this? A game where you get to be President Obama mowing down all the GOP presidential contenders? A game where you're planned parenthood and you get to shoot up zombie unborn fetuses? A game where you play as members of the Congressional Black Caucus gunning down all the white people you can find?

Now, just imagine for a moment that instead of "Tea Party Zombies", somebody made a game where you get to shoot at likenesses of Michael Moore, Barney Frank, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and even Barack Obama himself. I don't even have to write potential headlines for this; they write themselves. The makers of the game would be sued, the site taken down, and they would then be investigated by the DOJ as potential threats to the President.

Don't tell me they wouldn't. When a pastor at a tiny church with just over 100 members apparently prays for Obama's death, the DOJ pays him a visit. Now, I hate this pastor as much as it's possible to hate a human being, because he is basically a Fred Phelps in training, but let's be honest here; how much power does this man really hold? And how seriously can you take a man like this?

Plus, Bush protesters repeatedly showed up at rallies with signs calling for Bush's murder. Not kidding. Not one of those assholes was ever investigated by the DOJ, not one was arrested, not one was taken seriously. This is perfectly acceptable, apparently, while stupid men praying in a tiny church that used to be a convenience store apparently warrants a visit from the DOJ and nightly news coverage.

And now it's gone beyond mere signs and parade floats, and a game has been designed where you get to mow down likenesses of real human beings you disagree with politically. This is the Democratic picture of civility.

Barack Obama needs to make a speech right now repudiating this game and its designers and demanding it be taken down.

While he's at it, he needs to condemn the Congressional Black Caucus, specifically Maxine Waters for saying the Tea Party "can go straight to Hell and I'm gonna help 'em get there", and Andre "Hears Racial Slurs in his Head" Carson, who recently said the Tea Party "would like to see [black people] hanging from trees."

He needs to condemn Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. for declaring that he and others should "take those sons of bitches out!", referring to the Tea Party.

He needs condemn his own Vice President for calling the Tea Party "a bunch of terrorists".

Either that or he should make a speech saying he really doesn't care about "civility", because it's clear that no one on the left does. At least when it's against Conservatives.

Rules for Debating Liberals

2011-08-31T12:42:00.000-07:00

Liberals don't debate. They attack. This is important to remember. Don't attempt to engage in any debate with a liberal unless you're willing to fight back, because the Liberals' goal isn't to prove you wrong; it's to shut you up. If they can scare you into silence, they will.

Liberals don't refute your points. They sneer and condescend. If scaring you doesn't work, expect them to immediately dismiss your arguments as the ravings of a total loon. "No one with half a brain could possibly believe that!" they'll sneer. Phrases like "Riiight..." or "Oh, come on" will be used frequently. At no point will the Liberal feel the need to actually cite where you're wrong, or what made you wrong. You are wrong simply for disagreeing with them. It's a classic Alinsky tactic; ridicule is a powerful weapon. They hope to make you feel stupid or part of a fringe element because of your views. Failing that, they hope anyone listening to you will feel that way about you.

Liberals are generally the first to resort to personal attacks. Don't even think of debating a Liberal unless you are prepared to hear personal remarks about your intelligence, gender, weight, age, alleged promiscuity, education and possibly even your sexuality.

Despite supposedly being race-friendly, gay-friendly and feministic, Liberals nearly always accuse their black opponents of being "house slaves", and accuse others of being gay, and attack the womanhood of female conservatives. This goes back to personal attacks, but deserves its own point because Liberals trumpet their tolerance loudly, but always--ALWAYS--attack their opponents with smears against their gender, race and sexuality.

Liberals do not appeal to facts or precedent. They appeal to emotion and "fairness". They always start out claiming to be the side that has all the "facts" but in any debate, they always fall back to claims that your position is "cruel", "fascist", "angry", "heartless", "unconscionable" or "unfair". Present facts, get emotional outbursts in response. Every time.

Tolerant Liberals who claim to be open to a wide range of views will attack anyone they feel is too religious (other than Muslims or Buddhists). They will question the rationality, sanity and brain power of any person who concedes anything remotely like a belief in God, or support of any faith-based organization.

Even if a Liberal has failed to prove you wrong on any point, they always claim to have won. That's because to a Liberal, they are right by virtue of being Liberal. If they say racist or sexist things, well, they know they aren't really racist or sexist because they're Liberal, and nothing a Liberal does is racist or sexist, including saying racist and sexist things. By contrast, ANYTHING a Conservative says is racist or sexist, probably both. You lose because you are Conservative.

You know...come to think of it, debating Liberals is a lot like engaging in flame wars with Internet trolls!

Seven Things Liberals Do and Conservatives Don't

2011-08-29T06:17:00.000-07:00

Liberals and Conservatives are just opposite sides of the same coin, aren't they? When it comes right down to it, there's no real difference between them other than which side of the political pole they're on, right?

Not so fast.

There are many things Liberals do all the time, and see as perfectly acceptable, that Conservatives just don't do.

Oh, they're accused of doing them all the time, and that's due to projection (more on that later). How do you know what Liberals are up to? Look at what they're accusing their competition of doing.

All the same, here's a list of things Liberals do habitually, that Conservatives just plain don't do.

7. Engage in misogeny, racism and religious intolerance while claiming to be against such things. Conservatives are routinely accused of racism, sexism, etc., but at this point the argument is essentially "They have to be racist/sexist! They're Conservatives/Republicans! Everybody knows they're racist/sexist!"

Of course, can there be anything more sexist than the way leftists routinely talk about Sarah Palin, and of late, Michelle Bachman? Look at the Newsweek cover calling Bachman "The Queen of Rage", and how purposefully they made her look crazy and frail. The left HATES women who don't fall under their definition of "feminism" which is basically "treats men badly, has promiscuous sex, is pro-choice, and puts their careers ahead of their family, assuming they have a family." In other words, a true "woman" tries to be as macho and pig-headed as the way they see men. Nothing could be more mysogenistic. And despite the way Maureen Dowd, Gloria Steinem, etc. repeatedly tear down Conservative women, you never see Conservatives of either gender going after left-leaning women this way. You just don't. Find me the article where a Conservative calls Maxine Waters a "c#nt" or Hilary Clinton a bitch. Many people were calling Hilary a bitch while she was Obama's competitor for the Democratic Nomination, but guess who was doing that? Not Republicans, Conservative or otherwise.

And you just don't get more racist than the sort of bile the left spews at Black Conservatives. I've already discussed this at length, so I won't bother going over it again, but you know what I'm talking about. You just don't see this kind of vitriole from Conservatives against Black liberals. We hope they change their minds, and we hope they'll understand that just because Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, etc. share skin color with them doesn't mean they share ideals or have their best interest at heart. But we don't hate them and we don't use racist language against them. Liberals use that kind of language against black Conservatives all the time.

6. Approve of literally everything, even illegal things, if it means they win. See Journolist. See the fact that there is no Conservative equivilant. See the Democratic efforts to pass Obamacare. They made it clear they would pass it no matter what. The fact that so many Democratic Senators suddenly changed their minds is highly suspect, or would be if they were Republicans, whose every act is suspect.

Conservatives are strongly law-bound. When a conservative gets caught in a scandal or breaking the law, their career is over. Liberals can be guilty of murder, or at least manslaughter (Ted Kennedy) and go on to have long careers. Consider that nobody connected with Journolist lost their jobs. Consider that East Anglia University's Climate Dept. is still the research centre of record for Global Warming BS despite the leaked emails. This would be unacceptable to Conservatives.

5. See opposing viewpoints as "the enemy". Obama literally told Latino Americans that Republicans were their "enemy". In fact, read any article by any left-winger talking about any right-winger. To them, we're not simply "wrong" or "arrogant" or "misguided" or "stupid" (we're all those things, too), but we're also "evil". The way they always talk about us is the way you talk about an opposing force to be wiped out. Liberals don't want to change conservative minds; they want conservatives DESTROYED. How else do you interpret their literally calling for our deaths, and rejoicing when we do die?

Conservatives often make fun of liberals, often suggest that their stupid policies are what got us headed on the wrong track in the first place, etc. but I've rarely if ever seen a conservative wish death on a liberal, or rejoice at a liberal's death. We see them as the opposition, but not a literal "enemy". Maybe we should.

4. Change the meaning of words like "tolerance" or "hate". To a liberal, "hate" means "you disagree with me". How else to explain liberals' constant complaint that the Tea Party "hates" Obama, and by extension all black people? But before the recent race-baiting spate began, liberals were already using "hate" to describe anyone opposed to gay marriage, regardless of what grounds they disagreed with it on. Strongly held religious convictions? No, it must be HAAAATE! Of course, the opposite of "hate" is "tolerance", and "tolerance" is a virtue that all liberals claim to hold dearly, despite proving over and over again that they are only willing to tolerate what they find tolerable, which is pretty much nothing outside the umbrella of liberalism.

Conservatives may not claim to be tolerant, but they at least use the word correctly, and don't claim to be something they're not.

3. Accuse others of doing things they do themselves. Projection is one of the watch-words of modern liberalism. Remember what I said above? The best way to find out what liberals are up to is look at what they accuse conservatives of doing. Bush "stole" the election? Sure. The far more likely scenario is that Gore was trying to win at any cost, including voter fraud, and failed. Why do you think Democrats hate the idea of needing ID to vote? Because it makes voter fraud harder! Why else?

But nowhere is liberal projection more obvious than the recent "new tone" of "civility" the Democrats are all insisting we go by now. Remember when President "Punch Back Twice as Hard" demanded that we all begin "using words that heal rather than hurt" in the wake of his own comments getting Kenneth Gladney a beatdown from SEIU thugs? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. This was in the wake of the Jared Loughner shootings that happened to hit Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The way the media tried to spin it, Loughner was a right-wing extremist who was inspired by Sarah Palin, who had put a map on her facebook page with cross-hairs over electoral districts "targeted" as potential Republican victories. The map was obviously a call for violence in these regions, so Loughner was not to blame for the shootings. Sarah Palin was.

Never mind that Loughner was described by all who knew him not only as "a-political" but as "creepy" and "unbalanced", and he had once made a joke in a college classroom about strapping aborted fetuses to bombs. Never mind that at no point could anyone on the Left provide any direct link between Palin's map and Loughner's decision to get a gun and start shooting up Tuscon.

This meant that a "new tone" of civility was called for, so that the "violent rhetoric" of people like Palin, and Glen Beck, et al, would never inspire another crazed right-winger to violence like that again.

Of course, liberals have violated the new tone all over the place. And they don't care at all that Obama's encouragement to his followers to "bring a gun to a knife fight", "get in their faces" and "punch back twice as hard" were made THE DAY BEFORE the Gladney incident.

Got that? Sarah Palin makes a map with cross-hairs on it, targeting electoral districts, and months later a lone nutcase with a history of mental issues shoots several in Tuscon and hits a Democratic congresswoman = Sarah Palin is DIRECTLY at fault.

While Obama in a speech uses violent words to encourage his followers to beat down conservatives, and the NEXT DAY his own followers do exactly that = nothing to see here.

2. Name-call, accuse, and use "yeah right" or "oh, come on" instead of refute. I have no doubt that by this point any liberal reading this has made several comments like "Oh, whatever" or "Can you believe this idiot?" or "He probably pleasures himself to a picture of Mitt Romney" or "I bet he's a racist" or any number of things. In fact, I would imagine that if anyone leaves a comment (assuming anyone is reading this), I can probably tell whether you're liberal or conservative just by how dismissive your tone is. I mocked liberal's "debate" style in my first post. This attitude is deliberate; it's a classic Alinsky tactic. That way they put us on the defensive, or make it look like what we say is so "obviously" ridiculous that no smart person would dare pay it any heed. Think all those "ethics violations" Sarah Palin was sued for had anything to do with actual ethics violations on her part? No, but she wasted time, money and effort fighting them to the point where she could no longer successfully govern, so she resigned. Which was the entire point.

1. Evade the slightest possibility of debate. Of course all of the above lead to this one. Liberals know that if they actually debate the issues, and not engage in any of the former, they'll lose. Everything liberals do is designed to stop a debate with conservatives before it even starts. Anthropogenic global warming is "settled science". Obamacare will fix everyone's problems and we don't need to know what's in the bill. Period. Our economy sucks because of Bush, the Tea Party, the Republican Congress not "compromising" (ie: just doing what the Democrats want), etc. and that's all there is to it. Don't debate us, just agree with us. If you don't, you're an idiot, probably racist, uncivil, etc.

Liberals, I welcome your response. I guarantee you will prove me right.

"Tax cuts: How they Really Work"; A lesson all liberals should learn

2011-08-23T14:54:00.000-07:00

I found this, and it's just so, so true. Recently the villifying of "the rich" from liberals has been ratcheted up a notch (again), so it's time for a refresher, courtesy of the brilliant Dr. Kamerschen:

Sometimes Politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help. Please share this with your friends as you see fit.

Tax Cuts - A Simple Lesson In Economics

This is how the cookie crumbles. Please read it carefully.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

So, now dinner for the ten only cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share'?

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being 'PAID' to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D
Distinguished Professor of Economics
536 Brooks Hall
University of Georgia

The Three Types of Liberals

2011-08-23T11:07:00.000-07:00

In my day-to-day life living where I do, in a sea of liberalism, I have noted that there tend to be only three types of liberals.

Liberals are all around me, and like any group, they tend to come in many shapes and sizes, and while no two are exactly alike, they tend to fall into these three groups.

Type 1 liberals are probably the most common. They don't really think about politics much, but they know enough to know they are certainly not conservative. Why? Because conservatives are mean, and they wanna take away our rights, and they hate black people and gay people, and they're sexist, and stuff. "Like, whenever I watch the first few minutes of The Daily Show if I accidentally leave the TV on after watching South Park, I see all these stories about how mean and evil conservatives are. Most of my friends hate conservatives and just...ew, Sarah Palin is ick!" Type 1 liberals are only liberal because...that's all they know. They've never had their opinions challenged, and in fact may not even have an opinion on most issues. They don't usually like talking about politics and most of them will probably tell you they don't care about politics at all. But get them talking, and watch liberal talking points they overheard from their friends, or news soundbites they heard on the radio at work spew forth, and you will quickly discover that's all they know. They don't know the how or why of anything; all they know is what they've been told, and in today's environment, that means regurgitating liberalism on cue. There is "the news" and then there is "Fox News", which they've been told is stupid and evil, so when they hear the news at all, they get it from one of the "mainstream" news networks. What you'll discover is, if you get them thinking about the positions they think they should take, that when forced to think about it, they realize it doesn't make much sense. Not that it matters because they hate thinking about politics, and they'll likely just keep thinking the way their friends do.

Type 2 liberals are the second most common. They know liberal positions and they are liberal on purpose. They hate prominent conservatives and absolutely would never vote for one, or even listen to what the conservative side has to say. And the reason is not that they've done their homework and know conservatives have nothing of value to add to the national discourse. It's because they absolutely cannot abide having their viewpoints challenged. They made up their mind a long time ago, and they usually have specific reasons for doing so, and they are loathe to think too much about it lest they either have to change their viewpoint or continue living illogically. Many of them might have had someone in their family who had an abortion, or maybe they had one themselves, and because of this they could never side with a (mostly) pro-life party. Perhaps they have a gay relative and would never dream of listening to the viewpoint of a side that is (mostly) against gay marriage. Or maybe they just like to party, have indiscriminate sex, or live with their significant other outside of marriage, or whatever, and they think conservatives would all be against that. Maybe they're militant atheists and hate that most conservatives believe in God. And here's a shock; many are actually conservatives, but don't know it. Get them talking and you'll discover that many of them are against big government, higher taxes, limits on free speech, gun control, even abortion. "But that doesn't mean I'm conservative! Conservatives are racist, like Rush Limbaugh, or crazy/stupid like Ann Coulter!" In this, they are a lot like Type 1 liberals. They honestly believe, mostly because they only ever hear the liberal take on conservatism, that all conservatives are evil/racist, or stupid, or crazy, or all of the above. They believe that in order to consider themselves "good people", they simply must be liberal. And they really don't want to think differently.

Type 3 liberals are the kind I talk the most about on this blog. They are the Capital-L Liberals. They are liberal to the core, and proud of it. They are proudly pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-big government, anti-"rich", ready to pronounce anything to do with race "racist" if it doesn't line up sharply with their views, on the lookout for "sexism", while being as mysogenistic against female conservatives as they want, etc. This is the least common type, because you'll find so few of them among the "rank and file" (even though their attitude and activism CREATE the other two types). Most of them are activists, journalists, novelists, screenwriters, actors, directors, college professors, teachers, and, of course, politicians. To them, there is nothing that is wrong, nothing that is unforgivable, nothing that is impure, with the sole exception of being insufficiently liberal. You might--MIGHT--convince a Type 1 or Type 2 of the error of their ways. Not this type. They are wrapped in a blanket of cold certainty that liberalism is the only right, and non-liberals are therefore not only wrong but evil. They may be compared to religious fundamentalists in their devotion to their cause, their conviction that no one could possibly disagree with them and be good, moral people and their inability to see that the rest of the world does not fit into their worldview, and never will. To a Type 3 liberal (and this attitude filters down into the others to varying degrees) as long as you feel good about yourself, or if other liberals see what you're doing as "good", you're okay. Even if what you're doing is very, very harmful.

Now, you may notice one thing all these types have in common, and that is, everyone they know is a liberal. How did it get like this? Why have we allowed liberalism to dominate the news, entertainment and education systems in America? And why, when you're in a public place and you hear someone spouting off a liberal talking point or two (and you will), do you keep silent? It's the reason why, even though liberals make up not even a third of American society, they continue to have the loudest voice in public discourse. Type 1 and 2 liberals likely DO know conservatives, possibly several. But their conservative friends never speak out like their liberal friends do.

So let's cull the herd; the next time you hear a liberal spouting off in public, don't stay quiet. Let your voice be heard. You may find that in doing so, you make your Type 1 and Type 2 liberal friends think, and even maybe, just maybe, become conservative.

And as for Type 3's? Well, the more we can succeed in changing the minds of Type 1 and 2's, the sillier and less consequential this group will be, and the less utterly stupid policies and practices of liberals in power we'll have to deal with.

It's not a "Tax Break for the Rich"; It's a Tax Break for Everybody

2011-07-05T07:00:00.000-07:00

There's a term liberals love, and use every time they attempt yet another tax-hike in order to fund their precious social programs, give themselves raises, or pay off the special-interest groups that helped them get elected.

They claim that Republicans are only interested in "tax breaks for the rich." The "rich" is that famous boogeyman the left loves to use in order to make the average voter hostile toward the liberals' competition. After all, if the left is so against "the rich", then they must be for the poor, right? Never mind that most of those angrily disparaging "the rich" are usually quite rich themselves. In fact, they may be richer than the average person they're including among "the rich".

"Rich" apparently means you make $125,000 per anum, or more. I'll admit that's more than I make, but for a small business owner, that's barely enough to scrape by. One thing lefties don't like to admit is that business owners have to spend money to make money, and the only way "rich" people remain "rich" is by ensuring money is being spent in the right places in the businesses they own. A guy who owns a donut shop and earns $125,000 a year has to buy inventory, pay employees, pay rent on the building his shop is in, pay custodial staff, pay for ad space in the yellow pages and any other marketing costs, etc. And that's before any take-home pay, which he uses to pay bills, put food on the table, provide for his children, etc. Your average "rich" person probably sees less "excess" money than the average joe working a 9-5 entry-level or middle-management job.

But Left looks at a gross income of $125,000 or more and immediately decides that person is "rich" and should therefore pay their "fair share", ei: pay more in taxes than a person making less money.

Okay, you say, maybe he shouldn't be taxed so much, but what about the millionaires and billionaires in this country? Shouldn't they pay more? After all, they won't miss it.

Did you forget what I said about spending money to make money. There was a well-known businessman who is easily a millionaire who once said that in order for his business to BREAK EVEN, let alone make a profit, he had to spend $2 million every day. Think about that. I mean, this guy's millions didn't come from nowhere, and he doesn't store them in some vault and never touch them. The money he makes goes right back into his business. And if the donut shop owner has to pay 10-20 workers in addition to all the other money he has to spend, an auto manufacturer, for example has to pay millions if not billions of employees, and he still has all the other expenses the donut shop man has, plus more besides. He's not sitting on a pile of money somewhere. That money is circulating, making sure his business can stay afloat, and a surprisingly small (comparative) percentage of that money actually lands in his pocket to be used as he sees fit.

Liberals must have this idea of "rich" people being a little like Scrooge McDuck, or other cartoon rich people who literally sleep on piles of money and light their cigars with $100 bills. In real life, I'm sure these people exist, but those aren't the people the Liberals are targeting. Instead they're going after business owners, who are already struggling to stay in the black, and insisting they pay more in taxes because it's "fair".

How's this for "fair": A rich business owner is taxed heavily, and has less money to put into his business to ensure it stays afloat. So he has two choices; raise prices or downsize. Does either choice sound fair to the person of average income? The left are so busy villifying "the rich" that they don't even ask themselves what getting back at the rich will actually do to the middle-class and poor.

So, really, a tax cut for the rich is a tax cut for everybody. Punishing those who are successful simply never makes the less successful better off. Not to mention that every time liberals have raised taxes, it's never just on "the rich", but on EVERYBODY. Conservatives believe that everyone should be taxed the same percentage of their income because that's as much as they can easily afford. Yes, that looks on the surface like the poor pay more because the percentage on the dollar is higher, but ultimately it benefits everyone as it keeps prices down and keeps jobs going.

After all, we're currently seeing how well liberals and their high taxes work for unemployment rates...

If They Were Republicans: Jon Stewart

2011-07-04T06:21:00.000-07:00

It's time once again for my monthly segment "If They Were Republicans". It's a look at how prominent Democrats and liberals are treated by the press, Leftist politicians, and leftists in general and how that would change if the Democrat in question had been of the opposite political persuasion, and nothing else was different; not the circumstances, not the individual's actions--nothing but what political stance they espouse.

Recently I've been picking on Jon Stewart for his woefully inept attempt to deflect criticism for his side of the media, claiming they aren't biased and that Fox News viewers are "uninformed". Both statements are provably false but you'll never find the so-called mainstream media dissecting his statements the way they frequently do of any prominent right-winger.

Another thing you won't find the mainstream media grilling Stewart over is this (starts at the 2 minute mark):

The Daily Show - C#@k-Blocked Roundup - Tim Pawlenty & Herman Cain
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Left is falling all over itself trying to excuse this. "Is it racist?" They ask. "Can't Herman Cain take a joke?"

The first question isn't even worth considering. Of course it's racist, by the standards set up by Jon Stewart's own mainstream media! Now, let's be honest here. Most politicians' verbal quirks or mannerisms or speech patterns get mocked by comedians from both sides all the time. That's par for the course of being a politician in a free country. I'm all for it. Mock Bill Clinton (which he was). Mock George W. Bush (which he really was). Mock Barack Obama...wait. We can't do that. Not because there's nothing to mock; the man is a comedy goldmine. But he's black, therefore any mockery of him is unquestionably due to racism. That's the argument the left uses all the time.

Mock George W. Bush? Hilarious. Mock Obama? Racist!

I will say that I personally don't have an issue with Stewart's mockery of Cain's speech patterns. It's apparent the mainstream media doesn't either. But that's because Stewart is a leftist Democrat. Let's imagine for a moment that he's a Republican.

How quickly do you think he would lose his job? The answer is probably instantly, and more to the point, how do you think the headlines would look? Right now they say things like "Jon Stewart Racist?" or "Do YOU Think Stewart's Impression of Cain was Racist?" or "Herman Cain Upset over Stewart Routine". If Stewart were a conservative Republican, they would say "Stewart Fired over Racist Routine". Or, if he weren't fired, the headlines would read "Outrage over Racist Routine may Cost Stewart His Job".

He would be eviscerated by the press. Calls for his resignation would be loud and frequent. He would never work in the public eye again.

Oh, but he wasn't mocking Herman Cain's blackness! He was mocking his "down-home" speech style! He'd do the same if Cain was white but talked like he was from the deep south!

Uh-huh. And James Hudnall was only poking fun at Obama's jug-ears. Obama does have jug-ears, and it's not racist to say so. But according to Laurence O'Dumbass, you can't draw a caricature of President Obama and not have racial intent.

But Jon Stewart does an Amos 'n Andy act at the expense of a prominent black conservative, and he's a-okay. Why is it racist to poke fun at a black president for issues that have nothing to do with his race, but completely acceptable to make fun of a black conservative because he talks with a southern "black" accent?

On top of that, what Stewart was mocking Cain for was Cain's insistence that bills not be so long that there's no time to read them before it's time to pass them. This is reasonable, and the left would never accept a bill 800 pages long with a two-day deadline to pass it from George W. Bush, or any other right-winger. But with Obama it's okay, because "Who reads bills, anyway?"

Stewart mocked this by suggesting that Herman Cain just doesn't like to read. Yeah. Think this would be acceptable if he were a Republican? "Stewart Suggests that Black Conservative Can't Read", the headlines would say.

The leftist double-standard rears its ugly head again. "We can mock black conservatives, suggesting they're dumb and illiterate, but you can't mock anything about Obama, or even point out the real flaws in his policies and actions, or you're a racist."

This is our "post-racial" world.

The Press Hates Republican Candidates. So Why do They Like Jon Huntsman?

2011-06-28T06:22:00.000-07:00

Whenever the mainstream media starts backing a candidate I immediately get the impression there's something they're not telling us about him or her.

Think about candidates the media gets behind. Do you trust any of them? Bill and Hillary. John Kerry. Rahm Emmanuel. Harry Reid. Nancy Pelosi. Barack Obama.

You name a candidate they love, and I guarantee you they'll be proud leftists. So when the mainstream media start treating a Republican candidate nicely, I get nervous.

In 2000, the left-wing media were kind of okay with a John McCain presidency. They suggested he was the kind of moderate our party could benefit from listening too more often. They even brought up his name in 2004 as someone they wish they had the honor to run against. By 2008, when he actually was the Republican candidate, they excoriated him. Suddenly, he was now a hateful right-winger who was just Bush in new packaging.

This year, a few Republican presidential hopefuls have begun their campaigns, and for the most part, the media lambasted them. Herman Cain was a joke. Ron Paul was a bigger joke. Tim Pawlenty was a...wait, Tim who? Now they're savaging Michelle Bachman and it should be no surprise that even though she hasn't announced that she's running, the media prepared a few preemptive strikes against Sarah Palin, too. The only one they left alone was Newt Gingrich because the response from both the left and the right on Newt Gingrich's campaign was BWA HAHA HAHAHAHAHA!

In fact, early on, the only Republican hopeful that wasn't raked over the coals by the press (other than Gingrich) was Mitt Romney, who in 2008 when it began to look like he might be nominated, was subjected to the same treatment Cain and Bachmann are getting now. This time, however, it was pretty clear from the beginning that they really hope he does get the nomination because not only is he guaranteed to lose (like McCain), but if he wins, at least a real conservative won't be in the White House (the same hope they had with McCain).

But now Jon Huntsman's come along. Now, Jon Huntsman calling himself a conservative is kinda like Jack Black calling himself an olympic swimmer. There is not a single issue he agrees with conservatives on, and conservatives, let's face it, are the Republicans' base. Instead, Huntsman seems to want to reach out to independants. Quite frankly I'd love to see him run as an independant, because it's not unlikely he could siphon votes from the Obama campaign.

But instead, he's running as a Republican. Why? Do you know a Republican who would actually vote for him? Is there a single issue he agrees with conservatives on? He's pro-gay marriage. He believes in anthropogenic global warming. He's pro-choice. He wants to raise taxes. He believes in big government. How is this man running as a Republican?

More to the point, why does the media seem to like him? They pillory Republican candidates no matter who they are, don't they? They repeatedly slammed McCain, or, well, they did after he became the nominee. Until then they kinda liked him.

Ah, I think I get it now. Let's think like a leftist. Somebody's gonna be running against Obama, but who would we like it to be? Palin? Oh, god no. Pawlenty? He's weak, but we can't run the risk of him actually winning. Cain? No, if we have to call him an Uncle Tom on the national level it could reflect badly on us, plus we're gonna have a hard time making the racist charge stick to the other side if they run a black man. Bachmann? She's like a Sarah Palin only without the pregnant daughter and downs syndrome baby! Yuck! Romney? He'll be easy to defeat, so maybe. Huntsman? A Republican who agrees with us on everything and loves Obama? GET THAT MAN ON THE PHONE!

And now we come to the conspiracy theory. Here's the thing; Huntsman has to know he's not gonna win. He has to know that. Everyone knows that. So why's he running? He also loves Obama. He's stated publically many times how much he respects and admires the president. So why run against him?

I think it's pretty clear. Someone on the Left, possibly a group of someones, convinced him to do so. They specifically asked him to run a weak campaign for the Republican nomination wherein he would make a point of ignoring the conservative base and remaining "civil" the entire time. "I greatly respect and admire the president, and feel that he's done a remarkable job so far. I agree with him on all points. You will never hear me say anything bad about him. Uh...vote for me." In turn, the media would play him up as a candidate who could turn things around.

The next step: mobilize the liberal base through groups like Media Matters, MoveOn.org and what's left of ACORN and get the vote out in the Republican primaries! Get liberals to nominate Huntsman in droves! In other words, do what they did for McCain in 2008. And then? Trash him. Tear him down and make the world think he's another Bush, or another Palin, or Glenn Beck as a politician. Or, maybe, this time they don't really have to do that. After all, they actually don't have to worry about losing to him, and even if they do he's basically one of them.

Afterward, Obama may grant him an appointed position of power, like he did with Hillary. But heck, the only reward a guy like Huntsman needs is knowing Obama is back in office where he belongs.

Now, I do have some hope. Conservatives are mobilized right now in a way that we just weren't during the 2008 campaign. We let McCain get nominated through sheer apathy. Bush disappointed us almost as much as he did the left, so we really kinda sat that one out. We're not doing that this time. My only worry is that there is yet to be a candidate the true right is getting behind. Personally I think a Bachmann/Pawlenty ticket is the way to go, but her campaign just started and we need to see how she handles the hatchet job the left is already starting on her. She's got ten years on Sarah Palin, and more experience, so she might be ready for it.

At this point, I think that while Herman Cain is a great man with a lot of good ideas, he's just not presidential material. He has, unfortunately, been proving that foreign policy is his Achilles heel, and he may never actually get past it. I'd love to see him as a presidential advisor, but not as president himself. It's a shame because I really like the guy, and I was really hoping I could get behind him 100%. For a while he had me. I would be 100% behind Palin if she ran, were it not for Bachmann.

But while we figure out who we want to get behind, we gotta remain vigilant of the Huntsman campaign, and don't allow it to gain ground just because we can't decide who we like. We can't afford another 2008. Let's hope that the right mobilizes behind a genuine conservative candidate ASAP, or we might be facing Huntsman vs. Obama 2012. And I think we all know who'd win that fight.

What did I say!

2011-06-27T13:04:00.000-07:00

Last week in the wake of the Jon Stewart interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News, I challenged the lefty claims of Fox News viewers being "uninformed" by suggesting that poll questions and answers are reported based on the pollster's opinion of what the answer should be. It's one thing to ask "Which party controls the Senate?" but entirely another to ask "Is Obamacare going to fix the current issues with medicare?" The first question is one that has a definite wrong answer. The second is basically asking one to predict the future, and judging the answer right or wrong depending on whether it matches your prediction.

And now we have proof that the polls are asking that very kind of question.

Chris Wallace:

The Pulitzer Prize-winning website PolitiFact looked into that statement, and on its Truth-O-Meter it rated Jon’s claim false. But the details are even more interesting. In a survey called “Misinformation in the 2010 Election,” people were asked a series of fact questions like which president signed tarp? But the poll also asked questions like this. “As you know, the American economy had a major downturn starting in the fall of 2008. Do you think that now the American economy is ‘a,’ starting to recover or ‘b,’ still getting worse?” "Starting to recover" was the so-called right answer. If you said, "still getting worse" you were officially misinformed. And if you questioned whether climate change is occurring or whether ObamaCare will add to deficit, you were also mistaken.

What did I say? Didn't I say exactly that?

Liberals say "You disagree with our completely un-verified stance that we will continue to cling to no matter the mountain of contradictory evidence, therefore you are uninformed."

Irony at its highest.

Concludes Wallace:

Then there was last year's Pew Poll which asked four fact questions like what job did Eric Holder have? It turns out Fox News scored better, not worse, than MSNBC, CNN, the network evening news and the network morning news. As for individual shows, 31 percent of “Hannity” viewers got all four questions correct. 29 percent for “O'Reilly.” And all the way down near the bottom viewers of Jon Stewart’s “Daily Show" at 22 percent.

So folks, all that talk about you’re the most consistently misinformed viewers? I guess the joke is on Jon Stewart.

Media: By All Means, Continue to Deny Your Bias

2011-06-24T05:51:00.001-07:00

Jon Stewart says the mainstream media, including his own shows, are not biased in favor of liberalism. It would appear a large portion of the population disagrees with him.

But Stewart, please continue to deny it. That goes double for you, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, Laurence O'Donnell and others of your ilk. The more you deny it, the more you reveal yourselves as the liars you are. Soon the only people who will trust you will be those who already are as far to the Left as you.

For MSNBC, that's not much of a loss. But CNN? Can they even still call themselves "the most trusted name in news"? The loss of credibility they are suffering right now is humiliating, or should be. But they probably visit group therapy where they are taught to repeat the mantra "Only fringe right-wingers watch Fox News, Only fringe right-wingers watch Fox News, Only fringe right-wingers watch Fox News..."

One more thing; I'm not the first to comment on this, but many have pointed out that Fox News isn't really as "fair and balanced" as they claim to be. Well, maybe not, but they do serve as the only TV news outlet that even discusses the views of the Right. All three alphabet networks, plus CNN, C-SPAN and MSDNC...I mean MSNBC are all dedicated to presenting just one side of the story.

Fox News and its "Uninformed" Viewers

2011-06-21T14:34:00.000-07:00

Let me start by saying I don't generally watch Fox News. I tend to get my news online. I have watched it on occasion, though, and I've seen the Left go after them numerous times for "lying", which generally means "occasionally getting its facts wrong", which could be said about any news network.

However, Jon Stewart recently braved actually being interviewed by Fox News's Chris Wallace, where he brazenly sat there and defended himself and the mainstream media, claiming that neither was biased. In his case, he's a comedian first, which excuses everything he says, in his mind and the minds of liberals. He accuses the mainstream media of tending toward "sensationalism and laziness", not bias. Right.

Anyhoo, among the more outrageous statements he made was the claim that "In the polls" Fox News viewers are consistently found to be the least informed. Folks, I've never put too much stock in polls, but Stewart doesn't even cite any actual poll results. He just says "in the polls" and we're supposed to just believe him that the polls say what he says they say. Had I been Wallace, I would have asked "What polls? Who conducted them? What sort of samplings did they take? Did they balance those who watch Fox News exclusively with those who watch both Fox and, say, CNN? What kind of questions were asked to reach the conclusion that a person polled is uninformed?" And so on and so on.

See, you can make poll results skew however you want to, depending on the kinds of questions asked. When polling about how informed viewers are, there's all kinds of ways to play with the data.

For example: if the poll asks "Do you believe anthropogenic global warming is a real threat and that something must be done about it right now?", the question isn't what defines an "uninformed" viewer, and neither for that matter is the answer. It's whether the pollster agrees with that answer. If I answered "no" (and I would), CNN or MSNBC would call me an uninformed viewer, despite the existence of the East Anglia emails and all they imply.

Another example: "Do you believe President Obama's health care plan will improve our current health care situation or make it worse?" Again, depending on what the Pollster believes, either response could mark the replier as "informed" or "uninformed".

That's just one way data can be played with. There are dozens more. Depending on who I worked for, there are numerous ways I can make viewers of my News network the smartest, most informed people in America.

If CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, Harvard or Stanford or any other "respected" University, Time Magazine, etc. conduct these polls, you gotta ask yourself: "What would these leftist institutions consider uninformed?" The answer, as should be obvious, is "Those who don't believe their side of the story."

It's one thing to suggest that someone is "uninformed" because he believes there's proof we didn't actually land on the moon, or that he's "uninformed" because he genuinely believes the earth is flat. But those aren't the questions I'm sure these pollsters ask.

Here are some things Leftists believe:

George W. Bush stole the 2000 election.

Sarah Palin thinks she can see Russia from her house.

Rush Limbaugh is the originator of the phrase "Barack the Magic Negro."

9/11 was an inside job.

Response to the Bush administration by the media and left-wing politicians was moderate.

Response to the Obama administration by Fox News and right-wing politicians is inflamatory and dangerous.

The Tea Parties have displayed openly racist signs and slogans.

Tea Partiers shouted racial slurs at the members of the Congressional Black Caucus during the healthcare debates.

Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina was "slow" and the Federal government under Bush's watch is entirely responsible for that tragedy.

See? And this is just the tip of the provably false things they believe and report every day.

Stewart's remarks harken back to what I said in a previous post where I objected to a noted author simply stating "Fox News is lying to you", and expecting that we would believe he was right simply because it's Fox News.

To a leftist like Jon Stewart, "uninformed" simply means "not a leftist."

EDIT: Turns out even the supposedly objective (but left-leaning) website PolitiFact disagrees with Stewart. Stewart's claim is that "in every poll" Fox News viewers are "consistently" rated the least informed. This is not true at all. The polls in general are decidedly mixed, with a few actually showing CNN and MSNBC viewers as being significantly less informed, or at least less up-to-date in their knowledge, than Fox News viewers.

If They Were Republicans: Anthony Weiner

2011-06-12T13:28:00.000-07:00

A new feature I'm introducing on this blog is a monthly (hopefully) segment called "If They Were Republicans. It's a look at how prominent Democrats and liberals are treated by the press, Leftist politicians, and leftists in general and how that would change if the Democrat in question had been of the opposite political persuasion, and nothing else was different; not the circumstances, not the individual's actions--nothing but what political stance they espouse.

Because he's topical now and likely won't be in a month's time, this first edition of ITWR will focus on: Congressman Anthony Weiner.

Now, for those of you who just arrived from the next galaxy over, I'll explain a little bit about what Congressman Weiner did, and what happened afterward. Basically, in the wee small hours of the morning late in May, a photo appeared on Weiner's twitter feed of a man wearing only grey briefs with a noticable erection. It was uploaded from Weiner's yfrog account and appeared to be meant for a 21-year-old female college student, but apparently the congressman had prematurely shot the upload out and forgot to make the message private. A right-wing website, breitbart.com, saw the incident immediately and ran with it.

On the morning of June 1, Weiner rose early to spit back at Breitbart and others now reporting on the story, claiming his twitter and yfrog accounts were "hacked", that his hands were full doing the job he was paid to do, and that he saw no reason to expose himself to the press any further. However, the congressman's attempts at deflection were woefully limp, and the story continued to grow bigger and longer. While some in the press got on top of this story and rode with it, others came...to Weiner's defense, most notoriously old college pal Jon Stewart and the ladies of the View, who were no doubt impressed by the size of Weiner's credibility.

After a few more women came forward stating that Weiner had also sent them inappropriate photos over the years, Weiner was forced to poke his head out his office door where he was busily tackling his long, hard workload, and admit that indeed he had sent the tweet, and there had been no hacking, and could this story now acheive its climax.

I myself was surprised at how long this story could sustain itself, expecting that the press would handle Weiner with velvet gloves, as they did Bill Clinton, and any other left-wang--WING! I said WING!--politician caught with their pants down. Weiner also evidently believed the press would stroke his ego and swallow any lie he came up with. As far as I'm concerned, however, they did. It was fairly clear most of the journalists covering this story were in Weiner's tent. Just look at what guys like Stewart, Jimmy Fallon and David Letterman tried to pass off as "jokes". "It was Weiner's weiner," commented Fallon, who should have followed up with "What has four wheels and flies?" Come on, a Member of Congress named Weiner showing his caucus on twitter? The jokes practically make themselves.

As far as the news coverage surrounding this scandal, well, it couldn't have been more limp. Howard Kurtz of CNN's "Reliable Sources" refused to even touch Weiner's story, saying that it "appears to be faked", a remark that later came back and went off in his face. Others like Salon's Joan Walsh suggested that Andrew Breitbart was the real villain, here, for daring to break the story in the first place. Even Ed Schultz had to admit that wasn't true.

Now, oddly enough, Reuters falsely labeled Weiner a Republican in their headline on the story, either confused or willfully trying to paint him as if he could not possibly belong to the "good" party. However, one has to wonder what would have happened had Weiner actually been a Republican?

First of all, breitbart.com would still have carried the story, but so would CNN, MSNBC, The Huffington Post, the Daily Kos, CBS, NBC, and pretty much any other news outlet that could get their hands on the Weiner piece. The press would not have worried about whether or not the story was possibly "faked", and absolutely would not have bought Weiner's "hacked" lie, nor his later "prank" description. They would immediately begin digging for more, and would have turned up all those other women on their own, without waiting for them to come forward. Olbermann, assuming he still has a TV show, would label him "The Worst Person in the World" and demand his resignation. Janeane Garofalo would probably suggest he should be arrested, as opposed to being elected "Mayor of New York". The ladies from the View would have a field day with this story.

Also, they would never shut up about it. Until he resigned (which, if he were a Republican he would likely do the day after the first photo was leaked), there would be endless round-the-clock coverage and Weiner's weiner would receive more exposure than anyone would possibly want, and after his resignation, we would see him referred to and remarked upon any time the Left wanted to deflect us from a scandal on their side. Don't believe me? Well how long do you think it will be until we stop hearing about the "scandals" surrounding men like Newt Gingrich, John McCain, Mark Foley, Chris Lee, etc.?

I could see the collective members of the so-called "mainstream" media referring to any Right-wing politician who can keep it in his pants described as "pulling a Weiner" from this point forward. But, unfortunately, we'll never hear that about Anthony Weiner the Democrat, because, well, he's of a leftist bent, so the press dutifully reported on Weiner's flaccid apology and let him go right back to his job.

The Left vs. the Right on Race: Everything They've Said about Us, We can Say about Them

2011-05-31T09:26:00.000-07:00

By now we're all well-used to the Left calling everybody on the Right "racist" because of our opposition to the Obama Administration and its harmful, Leftist policies. We cannot oppose their Dear Leader on any ground, not because we're so obviously wrong and he's so obviously right, but because he's black, and therefore any negative thing we say about him is clearly motivated by race.

However, in their effort to prove that we're a bunch of scumbag racists who can't stand that a black man is president, despite reality showing a marked lack of racism coming from our side, the Left has a few well-worn phrases they use constantly, and insist that these statements "prove" our evil racism, when in fact not only do they not do that, but all these phrases can be turned around and used successfully on Leftist Democrats. The main difference is, when we use those phrases against them, they are grounded in factual reality, not liberal fantasy.

"Your party has a history of racism."
I love this one, because it's so opposite of reality it's almost funny to hear people still clinging to it. The reality is that the Democratic Party was founded on racist ideals; keeping slavery going, keeping the White Man in his proper place as ruler and the Black Man in his proper place as subserviant, etc. The KKK was founded by Democrats in order to frighten and defeat abolitionist Republicans. The Democrats are the ones who thought up the Jim Crow laws. Meanwhile, from Abraham Lincoln's freeing of the slaves to the Republicans fighting hard for the Civil Rights movement, the fact is that from its founding, the Republican Party has been the anti-slavery, anti-segregation, pro-equal rights party in its entirety. The argument Leftists like to use is that the Democrats of today are more like the Republicans of Yesteryear and vice-versa. This convenient little switching-of-histories is thanks to the myth that the "Dixiecrats" (Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act and left the Democratic Party when LBJ signed it into law and formed their own party) all became Republicans after their own party was defeated. They cite that former Dixiecrats Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms are proof enough that the racist elements in their own party went over to the Republicans.

However, the fact is that the Democratic Party doesn't have, and never had, racist "elements". Their whole mission statement was pro-white, pro-segregation. LBJ went against the Party Line when he signed the Civil Rights Act into law. Democrats of the time hated LBJ (for that and also the Viet Nam war, another thing modern Democrats blame Republicans for). The Dixiecrats weren't kicked out of the Democratic Party for being the remaining "racist elements"; they left because they thought the Democrats had strayed too far from their racist roots thanks to LBJ's siding with the Republicans on this issue.

Pictured: A DEMOCRATIC political cartoon

Another thing; the Dixiecrats may have included Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, but they also included George Wallace, Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd and a number of others, all of whom went right back to being Democrats after the folding of their party. This is where the Leftists respond "That's because they changed their minds! They understood racism was a thing of the past and rejoined their party to fulfill the equality dream!" Ummm....no. First of all, the Democratic Party as a whole still supported segregation and Jim Crow laws. Second of all, if you can so easily suggest that men like Robert Byrd (a former Grand Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the KKK) and George Wallace changed their minds, despite evidence to the contrary, what's to say Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms didn't change theirs? And for that matter, how can anyone suggest that two men could transform the Republican Party into a frothing lynch mob when they never were before?

So, whose party is it with the history of racism? Not the Republicans. Not then and not now.

"You use racist code words to hide your racism."
I used to think there was no such thing as racist "code words" and that true racists don't hide. I don't believe that anymore. Whenever I hear the Left talk about Black America, I hear code-words all over the place; and, unlike what the Tea Party says, when the Left use these words they actually are referring to black people.

Ever hear Leftists talk about "urban" areas? They mean "populated largely if not entirely by black people." "Urban music" is the new way to say "race music." "Urban housing" is the new way of saying "n----r quarters". How about when they refer to "welfare recipients"? Welfare isn't just for African Americans but there are currently more black people on welfare than white people, so "welfare users" is another term for black people the Left likes to use. In fact, the Left loves the poor urban-dwelling black person, because not only do they see this as where African Americans belong, but they also love harvesting votes from this type of person by selling the Republicans as racists who put them where they are. "You're poor and on welfare and living in slums because of Republicans!" they tell the poor urban-dwelling black man. They don't bother to point out that the cities where this problem is the worst are unfailingly Democrat-controlled cities like New York City, Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, etc. That's because Democrats don't actually want black people to succeed; they just want them to vote Democrat. They've managed to convince African Americans to keep voting back in the same system that keeps them poor and dependant.

They don't see "welfare recipient" or "urban dweller" as the racist code words they are because they think those are proper terms, but that doesn't make them any less racist code words.

"When you look at Obama, you see his skin color first."
Again, the exact opposite is true. When I looked at Obama the first time, I saw a somewhat handsome man with a nice speaking voice who I thought looked fairly presidential. Then his true nature was exposed, and he became president anyway. Now I see a far-Left liberal who hates what America is and hopes to "fundamentally transform" it into a socialistic nightmare; a man whose failed policies are threatening to destroy America, and a man who the Left will side with no matter what. I did notice, however, that pro-Obama people around me who learned that I opposed him, immediately asked if my opposition was racial.

Leftists, on the other hand, see him as a shield against criticism, as his presence in the Oval Office allows them to use the race card. If they didn't see his skin color before anything else, they never would have campaigned him. After all, besides his skin color, what did he bring to the campaign? Did anyone have any reason to vote for him that wasn't racial, other than to get rid of Republicans? No, voters who voted for Obama did so either out of Black Solidarity, White Guilt or Hatred of Republicans. Those where the only reasons to vote for him. Racism didn't keep Obama down; racism helped raise him up.

Obama got elected because the Left saw his skin color first.

"You don't care about the plight of the Black Community."
This is a baseless accusation that stems from the totally false belief that Republicans created the plight of the Black Community. Not only didn't they, but they care far more about them, and every other American. See, Republicans see black people as just more Americans, no different in any meaningful way than white Americans. Leftists see black Americans as victims, which to them means "people we can exploit". They talk a great game about the plight of African Americans and don't seem to notice the incongruity between their words and their actions. Or at least, they hope you don't notice it. I've already mentioned that the cities where the problem for black Americans is at its worst are all Democrat-controlled cities, and have been for decades. Could that be because...the Left doesn't really care about the plight of African Americans?

Republicans say "Yes, there is a plight, and the way to solve it is for black men and women to get a good education, to get good jobs and to provide for themselves the way all other Americans do." But to a Leftist that's telling them to act like they're white. In other words, telling a black person that it is possible for them to succeed on their own without help from white people is...racist. Huh?

Black Americans, to the Left, are to be pitied, mollified, infantilized and patronized. In other words, they don't see black people as equals, and that in itself has created the plight of the Black Community.

"There are so few blacks among you ( conservative Republicans)."
Actually, this is partly true and partly false. But in neither case is it because we're racist.

Here's a fact: the Left controls a vast majority of the public narrative in this country. They control CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, the NPR, the New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, etc. and all of America's more prestigious colleges and universities. And each one is absolutely dedicated to broadcasting this message to African Americans: "The Republicans hate you. They may like it if you start talking like them, but they'll never see you as equals." Of course, as I've said, this is far more true of Democrats than Republicans, but imagine for a moment that all you ever heard about a certain political group when you turn on the news, or go to school, is that they hate you and want to keep you down. Do you think you'd want to go check it out? After all, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. As I'll say more about below, the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus have sold out to the Democrats, as have professional race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, and they help to push this message.

The other fact is (and this is what makes the claim partly false), most black people are themselves conservative. Poll after poll has shown that the average African American is pro-Christianity, pro-family, pro-life, against the government having more power and anti-gun control. Whereas the Left is anti-Christianity, says there's no such thing as a traditional family, are pro-choice, feel the government's powers should be expanded and they invented gun control. So why do black Americans vote for them in overwhelming numbers? Is it because the Republicans are horribly racist? Not at all. Is it because they have all been convinced that that is the case? Absolutely.

I am not saying that black Americans are stupid or easily duped. I'm saying that every human being likes to be told what they want to hear, and if the Democrats do one thing well it's tell people what they want to hear. And you can't sell yourself as the solution to all of their problems without saying they have a problem and pointing to a cause. Like I said, liberals control the narrative in America, and he who controls the narrative controls the masses. Plenty of white Americans have also bought the "Republicans are racist" lie. I mean, heck, I've even heard conservative Republicans talk about "purging the racist elements from our party".

Democrats point out how few black Republicans there are as proof that we don't like them. In reality it's proof of how many African Americans they warn away from us, constantly calling us racists until enough people believe it. Unfortunately they don't seem to understand that the black people among us are here because they realize we really are on their side. The blacks among them mostly don't stand for what the Left stands for.

In other words, in reality there are very few blacks who truly side with the Left.

(On a side note, just how many prominent Democrats are black? At present, the answer is one, and as we're about to see, that's meaningless.)

"______(Insert black Republican here) is nothing but your House N----r."
I hate this term, and I detest that it's still being used today, but nonetheless, it is, and it says more about the person who uses that term than those they accuse. Conservative brains aren't even wired to think in terms of "field n----rs" and "house n----rs". It's just not in our make-up. It's the Left who keeps injecting those terms into the discourse.

See, there is nothing a racist liberal black person hates more than what they see as an "Uncle Tom". As they see it, any black Republican is trying to act like a white man in hopes he'll be invited to enjoy...I dunno, the perks of being called an Uncle Tom. They see this metaphorically as coming out of the fields to live in the white man's house--still a slave, but one with all the comforts of the white man. Any prominent black Republican (Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Allen West, etc.) has been referred to as an Uncle Tom, or the horrible smear of "House N----r". The argument is, they try to ingraciate themselves into our "inner circle" and although we will never see them as equals, we'll let them come to our Party if they say what we tell them to say. "You only like (fill in name of black republican) because he says what you want to hear," say black racist Democrats.

But what does that say about black groups that do nothing but repeat what the Left says? Are not establishment Democrats just as white as establishment Republicans? What are the NAACP if not a group of Uncle Toms for the Left? Or what about the Congressional Black Caucus? I admit these weren't founded as Leftist groups, but they've certainly become that. Name a position either group has taken in recent years that isn't also the Leftist position. Name a prominent African American they've supported who wasn't a Democrat (and usually a far-Left Democrat). If the NAACP ever starts living up to its name and actually starts advancing people of color, regardless of Political affiliation, don't tell me the Democrats won't throw them under the bus. How do I know that? Just look at how the Left treats any black man or woman who dares to call themselves conservative, or Republican. Anybody see the video where a group of people was asked their opinion of Clarence Thomas? These weren't KKK members. No. They were Leftist Democrats. They certainly acted like Klansmen. All that "racism" you're supposed to see at a Tea Party rally? It was on full display at a Left-Wing protest.

You can watch that video here, assuming you can stomach it.

So it's not the Right that only loves African Americans who say what we want them to say. Sure, we love it when African Americans side with us. We love it when anyone sides with us. Who doesn't? But we don't have "house n----rs". We don't use that term, and we don't believe in segregation. It saddens us when people would rather just believe what they're told and continue to support those who don't support them, but we don't hate them for it.

It's the Left who makes race an issue. It's the Left who only support African Americans who parrot their talking points. It's the Left who are guilty of having "House N----rs". Oh, and don't try and sell President Obama to me as proof that I'm wrong. Obama is the ultimate "House N----r". Think the Left would love him if he suddenly became a conservative? Hardly. As proof, look no further than the fact that the only thing they've called him out on is not being Left enough. Obama is the black face they put on their party in order to garner the votes of the Black Community; their shield to deflect criticism (or accusations of racism). In other words; the very thing Bill Maher accused Herman Cain of being.

So, in conclusion, let me say, as I've said so often in life, that racism isn't defined by politics, but anyone who considers the color of one's skin before what they say or do is a racist. And which party does that far more often?

I encourage Republicans and conservatives of all colors to rise up and expose the fact that every accusation of racism the Left has lobbed at us is in reality far more descriptive of them.

What We Have to Do to Win 2012

2011-03-02T10:02:00.000-08:00

The Obama 2008 campaign won for a lot of reasons, but one of the biggest is that it used Alinsky-esque tactics to demean and belittle its opponents. It smeared them as racists. It smeared them as scared little morons clinging to their guns and religion. But all of that can be summed up in three words: "They ridiculed us."

It's hard to stand up to ridicule. It's hard to fight it. It's a classic playground tactic, and the Left have proven they have a playground mentality. Bullies insult your looks, your size, your intelligence, your (ahem) prowess, even your sexuality. And Liberals insult Ann Coulter's looks, Rush Limbaugh's size, Scott Brown's sexuality and the intelligence of EVERY conservative, but probably Sarah Palin's the most often today.

I want everybody to read the following words: SARAH PALIN. Now, what went through your mind? That's easy. If you're a Leftist, or even a centrist, the first word you most likely thought was "idiot". If you're a right-winger, you probably thought "It's a shame so many think she's stupid."

The Left used ridicule on her intelligence non-stop, and continue doing so today. She cannot deliver a five-minute interview without it being picked apart, and anything that even appears to be a gaffe making headlines. If Sarah Palin were to say that the sky is blue, there would be story after story saying that Palin is obviously not intelligent enough to know that the sky changes colors and anyway, it's actually black and we only see it as blue during the day. These stories would likely come with mis-leading headlines such as "Palin Can't Tell What Color the Sky Is" or something along those lines.

Ridicule worked on Sarah Palin. While it energized her base, it has successfully polarized the rest of the country, with many who would otherwise agree with her political standpoint believing she simply must be an idiot.

Contrarily, we constantly hear about how much of a genius Obama is. Any thinking man can look at the last two years and ask "Just what about his performance as President makes you think he's a genius?" The man can't talk without a teleprompter. Every one of his plans to save the economy has only made it worse. He says one thing and does another. Worse yet, he somehow fails to see that more than half the country HATES what he's doing. They didn't want Obamacare, for example, and his approval rating shot down to 47%. Now that there's talk of repealing it, suddenly it's "skyrocketed" to 53%, but I expect that to drop as Obama continues to pursue his agenda, oblivious to the repudiation of said agenda the American people have routinely shown.

2012 is now less than one year away. The time to get serious about who's going to run against Obama is getting closer all the time. At this point, nobody from the Republican party looks to really be surging ahead. None of them really have the base or support they'd need to actually win the nomination, much less the race. But whoever we choose, whoever ends up as Obama's opponent next year, I know what they need to do.

They need to ridicule Obama. They need to laugh at him. They need to make him look foolish. They need to point out just how many times this joke of a president has screwed up.

Can you imagine? On the debate stage, Obama gives his "scholarly"-sounding lecture, uses words like "hope", "change", "winning the future" and other nice-sounding meaningless platitudes...

...And then his opponent will openly laugh and say "Listen to yourself! Even you don't know what you're saying! So I'll spell it out for you. You are responsible for unprecedented levels of government spending. You have not made good on a single campaign promise. Every plan you've put in place to improve the economy has only made it worse. Unemployment has risen on your watch. You have made us appear weak and subserviant to our enemies and you have offended and alienated our allies. The only thing you set out to do that you actually accomplished is creating a bank-breaking healthcare bill that the American people didn't want, and now you appear to be trying to take credit for its repeal. You are a disgrace to the office of president. And you are a joke."

Of course, racism charges, or Uncle Tom charges should the nominee be Herman Cain or Allen West, will be levelled against whoever has the guts to do that. The response should be? More laughter. "You can't seriously believe the race card is still gonna work. If you honestly believe that calling everybody racist will automatically silence all opposition, you really are pathetic."

Right-wing talk-show hosts, columnists, bloggers and TV personalities have been doing this for the last three years. It's time to take it on the campaign trail. Whoever we nominate, should it be Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Chris Christie, etc. has got to make it their mission not just to get their own arguments across but to leave Obama humiliated by the time they're done. People like Ann Coulter or Andrew Breitbart understand that Liberals don't see this as political discourse but ideological war, and they've been treating it like a war for decades now. It's time for us to do the same thing. The best way to win a war is to take the best defense your opponent uses and turn it against them.

Let's be the laughers in this next election, rather than the ones allowing ourselves to be laughed at.

Why I am Not a Birther

2011-02-08T12:42:00.000-08:00

There's all kinds of controversy over Obama's birth certificate. He says he has one, but a verifiable paper copy has yet to be produced. Hawaiian officials deny that they have one for him on record. There's significant cause to believe that he was born under the name "Barry Soetero", meaning that a birth certificate naming him "Barack Obama" would be fake. Then of course there's the fact that Obama spent a significant amount of his youth in Kenya and Indonesia.

However, despite all that evidence pointing to the idea that he may not be a natural-born US citizen, I am not a birther.

In fact, I think the birther movement is hurting us, much like the 9/11 Truther movement hurt Van Jones and nearly any other public official with ties to that group. It isn't that I don't think there's a viable possibility that Barack Obama was born somewhere other than Hawaii, or US soil in general. I'm just saying it doesn't matter.

I have a couple of questions for my birther friends.

1) If it were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama was indeed a natural-born US citizen, would it no longer matter that he is over-spending, doing nothing to secure our borders and socializing the auto and banking industries, and of course, health care? Would you no longer care that he is anti-American?

2) Does it matter to you that were he to be impeached for being found a naturalized citizen, his policies and party would remain?

3) Do you really feel any better about President Joe Biden?

And now a thought question: When there are already a host of reasons to fight against Obama's agenda, do you think making an issue of his birthplace makes you look like we are against his policies, or do you think it makes you look like a bunch of racists? Do you think you look as sad and desperate as the Truthers when you cling to clearly faked "evidence" that supports your claim, such as the now-proven fake "birthplace of Barack Obama" sign in Kenya or the supposed Kenyan birth certificate? Do you feel it opens the door for people to ask if we would care so much about his birth certificate if he wasn't black, or was named something more American-sounding?

When we focus on where he was born, it's very easy to be labeled racist, and in this case I have to agree with the Left (GASP!) and say it does often feel like it's motivated by race. I don't at all think that the Tea Party movement was founded on racist ideals, but that's because the Tea Party was founded to try and stop or at least slow down this entire Administration's socialistic goals. The Tea Party is about halting the expansion of government, the raising of taxes, the increasing of government control of the private sector, etc. The birther movement is about getting rid of Obama, any way they can.

Think about this, too. Let's say Obama does get impeached based on his birthplace. How quickly do you think the Dems would leap upon this and claim the documents were fake and rally around Obama in support? After all, impeachment requires a trial by Congress, and we all know there's enough votes on the Left to overturn his eviction from office. And then he would claim racism, again, to guarantee enough Americans vote him in for a second term.

Impeaching Obama won't send a clear message to the Left that America repudiates the actions of this administration. Heck, they chose not to listen to the last clear message we sent them. An impeachment on ANY grounds, and especially this sort of grounds, will cause them to state that they are the majority and the Right just can't stand a black President, to the point where they'd go against the will of the American people and impeach him on false grounds.

This Administration is a Hydra, not a snake. We try to cut off its head and it won't die; it will just grow a new one, and we'll be right back where we started.

But they'll have a much harder time fighting back against a humiliating defeat in 2012. That's the goal we should be trying to attain; uniting Americans against the socialistic, anti-American policies of this Administration. VOTING them out; the entire Administration. Not trying to knock one man off his pedestal because we don't think he was born here.

What You Have to Believe to be a Modern-Day Leftist

2010-09-08T14:22:00.000-07:00

While most public schools teach kids about sex by stressing condom use, birth control and the mechanics of sex, the fact that teen pregnancy and the spread of STD's is on the rise can be linked directly to the fact that some politicians favor abstinence-only education.

It is insensitive to the rights of Muslims to object to their building of a Mosque anywhere they want. It is not insensitive for Muslims to want to build a giant Mosque less than two blocks from the site where their people massacred thousands of Americans.

Black men and women should not be defined by skin color, but it is important that they talk, dress, think and vote alike. Otherwise they are not "true" black people, but instead are "self-loathing Uncle Toms."

A white police officer asking a black man seen attempting to force a door open to produce ID is racist. A black man saying it's time to "kill some cracker babies" is not.

Showing an admiration for the female form is sexist. Calling a right-wing female politican a "slutty flight attendant" for no particular reason is not.

Protesting a right-wing president's policies is patriotism. Protesting a left-wing policitian's policies is domestic terrorism.

There is no such thing as evil. Right-wingers are evil.

Sharia Law permits, and in fact encourages, the murder of infidels, apostates and women who talk back to their husband. Islamic jihadists have committed cold-blooded murder in the name of Allah on American soil three times within the past decade, along with several unsuccessful attempts. With that in mind, Islam is a religion of peace.

The solution to welfare having created a generation of dead-beat parents who refuse to work and don't provide for their kids is more welfare.

A white prisoner is a criminal. A black prisoner is a victim.

In light of the fact that there is statistically less crime in areas where private citizens can carry guns in public, the solution to lowering crime in crime-ridden areas such as New York, Chicago and Los Angeles is stricter gun control.

The fact that there are more black single-parent families than white is due to racism.

Despite the fact that cities where homelessness is at its worst (such as Baltimore, Detroit and Chicago) have been run by Democrats for the past several decades, homelessness is the fault of evil, greedy Republicans.

You would have to be a crazy, stupid idiot to believe that Obama was not born in the USA, despite the existence of a Kenyan birth certificate, a sign on the town he grew up in proclaiming itself his "birthplace" and the lack of a hard copy of a real Hawaiian birth certificate. However, 9/11 was unquestionably an inside job.

Bush is an idiot because he used words like "nucular." Obama is not an idiot for thinking America has more than 57 states.

Bush was to blame for a hurricane that wiped out an entire city that occurred during his presidency. He is apparently also to blame for an oil spill that happened nearly two years after his presidency.

In a world where Radical Islamists have flown planes into buildings, shot up American Army bases while shouting "Allahu ackbar", have attempted to suicide-bomb other airplanes and have left car-bombs in Times Square, the real danger is from Tea Partiers.

Martin Luther King's dream of black children and white children holding hands means that he saw white people as the enemy.

The fact that the American Right are pro-MLK makes them racist.

Celebrating diversity creates unity.

Global warming is unquestionably real despite a lack of confirmed evidence but Christians are silly for believing in God.

Statistics matter only when they make Democrats look good. The fact that only 35% of Americans consider themselves "liberal" is unimportant. The fact that only 12% were in favor of gay marriage is unimportant. The fact that Obama's approval rating is at 45% and dropping is unimportant.

Obama is a genius despite the fact that he can barely deliver a coherent answer to a question without a teleprompter telling him what to say. Sarah Palin is supposedly an idiot because she wrote four words on her hand to deliver an hour-long speech with no other notes.

The Tea Partiers would have no problem with America's slide into socialism if the Democrats had elected Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid instead.

Will a GOP-Controlled Congress be a Good Thing?

2010-09-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

I won't lie. I'm no fan of modern-day Republicans really any more than I am Democrats. The best thing I can say about the current GOP is that they aren't actively trying to turn America into a socialistic nightmare. But that's also part of the problem. They aren't actively trying to do anything. They stand for nothing, they do nothing and their primary strategy seems to be currying favor with the current Democratic leadership. Michael Steele went from a bold-speaking leader to an appeasing power-seeker. John McCain always was that. Are the current crop of GOPers seeking election to Congress any better?

Whether or not they are, there's a larger question; one that I've seen few on the Right asking. That is, what will really happen if the Right overtakes the Senate this November?

Up until now, Obama's chief tool to deflect criticism has been what again? Say it with me: "Blame Bush". Obama's White House predecessor has been blamed for literally every stumble (or outright faceplant) Obama's administration has faced. We were promised the Stimulus bill would show imediate improvement in our economy. It didn't. Who got blamed? Bush. We were promised unemployment would not rise above 8%. It's now over 10%. Who's at fault? Bush. A BP tanker spills crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico a full year and a half after Bush left office. And yet...who's more to blame, Bush or Obama? Do you even have to ask?

BTW, as an aside, I know that the reason people blame Bush for the oil spill is that he deregulated the Oil Industry, so this is the effect of his cause. However, whatever regulations they think Bush should have put in place would not have affected this situation one whit. It's just another instance of Democrats thinking the Government should have their hand in every pie. As if Government regs would have stopped the spill! For that matter, Bush was blamed for EVERYTHING that happened while he was in office, even the recession. Any idiot knows the economy is affected by actions taken by Congress, not the President. Who controlled Congress in the months leading up to the recession? I'll give you a hint; not Republicans. If we can blame literally everything that happened during Bush's term in office on Bush, then why are we not blaming everything that happens during Obama's term on Obama?

But whether or not we should be, the fact is that the mainstream media is not. Obama is taking no responsibility. He, and the media, are riding out the idea of blaming the ghost of the now-departed previous administration and clearly plan on doing so until it's ridden into the dust. Then they'll ride it further. But only if they have to. If another horse, equally rideable, comes along, they'll jump on that one.

What better horse could there be than a Congress diametrically opposed to your agenda? I can see it now: "I'm trying to do some good work here, but I'm being blocked at every turn by a Congress opposed to change." I mean, he already blamed what few Republicans there are in the Senate for the issues he had passing the healthcare bill. That was a laugh; the Republicans didn't have enough votes to stop anything.

Now, some might say "Good! That's the whole reason I'm voting Republican this November: to break the Left's stranglehold on all legislation!" And for the short term, this is good. Maybe with eight years of GOP-controlled Congress keeping Obama from driving us closer and closer off the cliff of socialism, the Left's re-structuring of America might at least be slowed down, if not totally stopped. But then, what of Obama's re-election chances?

You see, the general mood I get from America is that they don't trust Obama, they don't know if they can believe in him, but they want to. Those who voted for him don't want to think they misplaced their trust. Those who didn't are waiting for him to prove himself. And then there are those on the far Left who will love him no matter what. Obama has managed to keep the Left on his side for this long, thanks to his "Blame Bush" mantra, but now he's starting to lose support even from them. I think he knows his go-to position for passing blame is starting to sound tired, even to his supporters.

But if we give him a new demon to point his finger at, what will happen? His supporters, even the fringe supporters, will leap back on board the Obama wagon with no hesitation whatsoever. You will no longer hear about Bad ol' Bush from the media. Now you will hear, day and night, how awful that obstructionist new Congress is.

And Obama could ride that pony to a second term.

Now, no matter who controls Congress, a second term for Obama will be bad news. First off, this administration has already proved that they'll use whatever means they can to pass their legislation, even if Congress is stopping him. If they need to use reconciliation, they will. They've already threatened to use it. We suspect very strongly that they're already using bribes, and we know for a fact that many of the weaker GOP candidates may very well go along with the Obama agenda to prove they're trying to get along. So as long as Obama's in power, he will continue to push his socialist agenda, and he will continue to gain ground there.

The best thing that could happen from a second Obama term will be that America's love affair with him will go from just cooling to boiling over with irritation, and we won't end up with a President Biden (or worse, Pelosi). The worst that could happen is that Obama will pass so many new laws, sue those who make laws he doesn't like (such as Arizona) and turn America irrevocably into another Russia, China or North Korea. At absolute worst, he could attempt to overturn term limits for the office of President, and manage a third term. Don't laugh; there actually is a movement on to let him have a third term, even before he's managed a second!

And you just know that any opposition to ending term limits will automatically be labeled racist.

So, here's my problem; I want the GOP to win the House and Senate back as much as anyone, but at what cost? I think the most ideal situation is for the GOP to win a few more seats that they can block Obama's worse ideas but few enough that Obama can't blame a GOP-dominated Congress for all his mistakes.

In this case, I truly am not rooting for a GOP sweep. Primarily because it will give Obama a new target for passing blame, but also because I don't really trust the GOP anymore, and I won't until they start representing the voice of their constituents and stop worrying about making us look better to Democrats. Liberals aren't going to vote for a Republican, period, no matte what they do or say. They don't want Conservatives to be more like them; they want Conservatives eradicated. I don't mean literally, but if Spencer Ackerman proved one thing in his proposal to "remind those on the Right the cost of going after the Left", it's that Liberals are not trying to change our minds, but are instead trying to humiliate us and bring us down. Conservative politicians have yet to understand this, but the Tea Partiers do, and hopefully the GOP will understand that our vote for them comes with the expectation that they will stand up against this bullying government, not just adopt "Liberal lite" policies.

It's the only way we'll ensure Obama won't get his second term.

Why I Truly Feel the Right is in the Right

2010-08-28T17:19:00.000-07:00

Every now and then I'll hear a friend, or an online commenter, say something along the lines of "There's no difference between liberals and conservatives; they're both corrupt." This may be true if you're speaking of the general idea that there are corrupt politicians on both the Left and the Right, but the generalization misses the point.

To say they're both the same just because there are bad apples in both bunches is unfair to both sides. What you need to do is look at both sides' corruption and decide for which one the corruption is the exception, rather than the rule.

I won't deny that every now and then a right-wing politician is caught in a scandal, be it sexual, criminal or otherwise. I will, however, state that the frequency of this occurance on the Right is far, far less than what you see on the Left. The higher a left-wing politician rises, the more corrupt you can be sure he or she is. Just look at the initially proposed Presidential Cabinet. Nearly all of them turned out to be tax cheats. Look at Rod Blagojevich. Look at Al Gore or John Edwards. Look at Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters. Look at Van Jones.

And that's just recent!

But to really cut to the heart of the matter, you've got to look at what morality they're willing, in daily business practice, to view as acceptable.

On the Right, any politician caught in any sort of wrong-doing is out of a job. Anyone caught conspiring with them is similarly out of a job. Uusually it's a resignation in disgrace, but sometimes they are fired. Either way, right-wingers don't take kindly to their fellow conservatives not living up to expectations.

We certainly do not encourage each other to tell blatant lies about the other side in an effort to bolster our cause. We don't accuse those on the Left of behavior or views they are not guilty of. Our politicians can't even say "you're lying" when they tell bald-faced falsehoods about us. Well, some can, but not all politicians are as gutsy as Joe Wilson.

See, that's the thing about the Left; they don't really believe what they're saying. Oh, they have the courage of their convictions (to a point, anyway; see James Cameron). But they certainly don't actually believe the things they say in their own defense. They stick to their guns, but their positions are built on lies and half-truths that they need in order to arrive at the conclusions they want.

A Rightist takes all the facts he can gather into consideration, listens to arguments made by all sides, and then makes up his mind what he believes. You can tell this because among right-wingers there is no clear consensus on issues like God, abortion or gay marriage.

On the other hand, a Leftist takes a position, and then clamors for any support he can to retain that position. You can tell this because if there's one thing that's strong about the Left, it's their uniformity of opinion.

If the Leftist cannot find any facts to support his case, he either pretends that doesn't matter or makes those facts up. For proof of this, you need look no further than the JournoList, a listserv of left-wing journalists created by Ezra Klein for the purpose of keeping the left-wing narrative in the old media alive. Among some of the choicest comments made on the JournoList was one made by Spencer Ackerman in response to the question of what to do about Jeremiah Wright. This comment was made during the 2008 Presidential campaign, when it began to look like the racist, anti-America, pro-Farrakhan minister that Obama called his "spiritual mentor" might hurt Obama's campaign. The matter was hushed up right away, and hardly spoken of in the old media, and those on the Right who kept the issue alive were, surprise! Labeled racists.

Here's what Ackerman had to say about how to deal with the Jeremiah Wright problem:

It’s not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.

If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.

Wow. Just...wow. In essence, Ackerman has said "Our position is indefensable, so let's do our best to put the other side on the defensive instead."

There's a reason you have never heard of a right-wing "JournoList" secretly saying this kind of thing to each other. Because it doesn't happen. I'm not saying nobody on our side lies, or tries to deflect criticism. I'm saying that when this does happen, this is the exception, not the rule.

If Ackerman had been a right-winger, and had been on a pro-McCain board posting this kind of horseshit, he would have been kicked off. He would have been told "Listen, we're not going to lie. We're going to do this clean or we don't do it at all."

I hear all the time people accusing the Right of lying. "Bush lied, people died." "Fox News is nothing but a bunch of liars." "Rush Limbaugh is a big fat liar."

But it seems like, when pressed, left-wingers can't really point to a time when we've been caught actually lying. Oh, we've gotten our facts wrong. One or two journalists or politicians may have overlooked stuff in the past, but as I've been saying, these are the exceptions, not the rule. But I keep hearing that the Right is nothing but a pack of liars. It's as if they're liars by virtue of being right-wingers. Of course Fox News lies! I mean...they're Fox News! Of course Limbaugh is lying! He's Rush Limbaugh! That's their only defense.

A while back, an author whose work I admire was discussing the healthcare bill on his blog. He was gung-ho for it and felt that anyone against it was against humanity, more or less. He then responded to a few commenters who were against it with another post, in which he concluded:

I also found it striking that so many of the objections to the health bill (NOT all, please note, some of the arguments against the bill were polite, cogent, and well reasoned, so please note that I am saying SO MANY and not ALL) seemed rootly firmly in misunderstanding as to the actual provisions of the bill. They were based on Republican talking points and the biased accounts of Fox news and hysterical right wing talk radio. Guys, really. These people have lied to you. Change the channel. I won't ask you to watch MSNBC, which has its own slant, but go at least to one of the centrist channels like CNN or the old line networks, or better still, read a good newspaper.

As [Partner]'s Uncle Pat -- known to most of the rest of you as the late, great Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Needless to say I was somewhat irritated by his blanket statement that Republican talking points or anything spoken by Fox News or "hysterical" right-wing talk radio was automatically a lie. He didn't say what proof he had that these people have "lied to you"; as far as he was concerned, if a right-winger said it, it's a lie. (As an aside, I gotta wonder what right-wing talk radio personalities he doesn't consider "hysterical".)

I decided to challenge him, so I sent him a letter asking what proof he had that the lying came from the Right, and only facts came from the Left. I reminded him that CNN, which he says is "centrist" and therefore supposedly more truthful, had run a story about some racist quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh that turned out to be totally fake. I stated that they had quoted a website that offered no sources, and that it seriously called their journalistic integrity into question. I was not asking him to list his credentials or by what grounds he declares himself an expert, but he felt compelled to do so anyway in his response to me:

I have a master's degree in journalism, from one of the leading journalism schools in the country (Northwestern's Medill School of Journalism, to be exact). I've worked as a journalist from time to time during my life, I have dealt with many journalists during my career, and I know quite a few working journalists. So please accept that I have considerable expertise on this subject.

Sure, you have knowledge. Doesn't mean you're not biased. He also goes on at length about how he states that it is the goal of the journalist to be objective. No one's arguing that, but he still offers no proof that CNN is objective, merely that he doesn't think Fox News is:

A couple points about that. Being objective is NOT the same thing as being "balanced," which Fox likes to tout. (Actually, Fox is wildly unbalanced, but that's another matter). The objective reporter strives for truth, not for balance. A "balanced" reporter when writing about the solar system will give equal time to the Copernican and Ptolemiac theories, and claim he was being fair by presenting "both sides." An objective reporter will report that Copernicus was right (more or less) and that Ptolemy's ideas have all been disproven. Sure, the cliche says that "there are two sides to every story," and a good reporter is aware of that... but that does not mean each side has an equal portion of the truth.

He then goes on to criticize Fox News by blaming them for the Tea Parties:

But Fox News has changed that equation. From the first Fox has been slanted heavily to the right -- not only in their commentary, which is perfectly respectable (newspapers have always had editorial pages, where opinions were expressed, but those same opinions were always kept OUT of the news columns)... but also in its NEWS reporting, which was and is a shock to anyone who takes the tenet of the professional seriously. Consider, if you will, the way Fox reports on these "Tea Parties," events which the network itself was instrumental in starting and promoting. That violates every canon of journalistic ethics that I was ever taught. You report news, you don't create it.

The F--K???!!! The Tea Parties were not started by Fox News, and to say they are is to create your own facts. Notice he offers no proof of this statement, either.

After that, he talks about MSNBC and admits that it's not objective, either, but then concludes this way:

In between you have CNN and the three traditional networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC, which are still striving to hold to the old standards of objectivity. If you want to get your news from television, those are the places to get it. (Admittedly, even those stalwarts are not what they were. The days of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Eric Sevareid, and Edward R. Murrow are sadly gone).

Where in any of that do you see an answer to the question I put to him? I was not asking which stations are more objective; he could not have been more clear about which stations he felt were the most objective. What I was asking was why. When did he objectively decide that CNN (and the alphabet networks) was more objective than Fox News? How did he decide that there was no left-wing slant to CNN? He's able to recognize that about MSNBC due to how overt it is, but thinks that CNN is "centrist" and therefore not lying to us. How does he know this?

Oh, and he had nothing, literally nothing, to say about CNN's lying about Rush Limbaugh (or, to be fair, repeating lies as if they were true).

I asked him to defend his side and point to the proof of lies from the other side. He did neither.

Then there's the Congressional Black Caucus. Back near the end of the debate, the CBC walked through a crowd of Tea Partiers, flip-phones held high, clearly waiting for a racially-charged incident of violence to take place. None happened. Undeterred, Rep. Emmanuel Cleaver claimed one man spit on him. Video of the incident shows him walking close to a man who is chanting "Kill the Bill" and it's possible that some spittle flying from the man's mouth might have struck Cleaver, but this hardly constitutes being spat upon. Rep. Lewis claims he heard the n-word fifteen times. To this day, no one can produce video of this occurring, despite the fact that, as I said, flip-phones were in abundance. There's been a $100,000 reward offered by conservative online media mogul Andrew Breitbart, that remains unclaimed. The Left would rather accuse Breitbart of lying (about what? He didn't make any claims.) than offer any proof that they aren't.

I don't see this on the Right. Right-wingers don't evade the questions they're asked. We don't claim things and then refuse to give proof of our claims. We don't skip out on debates we started when the going gets tough. We don't rely on data from institutions caught falsifying their research. We don't make up conspiracy theories and then act like the mere fact that we made them up is proof of their veracity. We're not perfect, but we're trying to be honest and lawful, while the Left is trying to win. At any cost. It's probably why in the court of public debate, we appear to be losing.

I Am a Liberal

2010-01-26T08:34:00.000-08:00

I am a modern American liberal.

I am liberal because I believe in tolerance. I'm so tolerant that I hate hearing intolerance coming from anyone, and I refuse to tolerate anyone who does not conform to my standard of tolerance. My standard of tolerance is me. If you disagree with anything that I, a picture of tolerance, have to say, then by definition you are intolerant, and I cannot tolerate you.

I am a liberal because I believe in freedom of speech. I believe that anyone who agrees with me on every issue should be free to speak as much as they want, wherever they want, and use as much inflamatory language as they want. After all, it's a free country. If you don't agree with me about everything, however, you are intolerant, and should not be free to speak a word.

I am a liberal because I believe in freedom of expression. I believe that any attempt to censor freedom of expression is inherently evil, and those who side with it should not be free to express themselves. That includes anyone who believes in traditional ideas like Christianity, capitalism, marriage, or family.

I am a liberal because I believe the word "marriage" has no true meaning. Marriage is about love, and nothing else, and any people who love each other should be able to express that love by getting married. Be it a man and a woman, two men, two women, a brother and sister, etc., I say, let's give them all equal marriage rights! I'm so committed to dulling the meaning of the word "marriage" that I don't even care that across the country gay men and women have all the same rights and benefits extended to all common-law couples, or that most people in this country don't want to legalize gay marriage. I just want to make it illegal for anyone who disagrees with gay marriage to be able to say so in public.

I am a liberal because I believe in freedom of choice. That means that I want all women across America to be free to choose to kill their babies, and I want those who choose otherwise to just shut up about it. I believe that choice to kill is so important, that I think it's perfectly acceptable for a doctor to pierce the neck of a partially-born baby and stick a tube in the hole to suck out its brain. After all, a baby isn't a baby until it can vote.

I am a liberal because I want more government presense in my daily life. After all, when I get in trouble, the people I turn to to get me out of it is the government, so why shouldn't they run my life? Besides, they're much better at deciding how to spend my money, raise my kids and decide what kind of products I am or am not allowed to buy or eat than I am. I'm very much in favor of making the government an omnipresent entity that watches my every move, and I don't even think I should be allowed to own a gun to defend myself if they get too power-hungry! All hail Big Brother! (Note: This is only true if the Government in question is Liberal. Despite the fact that I spent eight years complaining that Bush was turning the country into the very thing I just described, I'm all for handing Obama as much power as he wants.)

I am a liberal because I care about the environment. I care so much, in fact, that I am willing to sacrifice humans in order to bring about a better environment. I believe it is paramount that we stop questioning the fact of global warming and start actively fighting against it. And if that means higher taxes and sacrificing some of our freedoms, well, heck, it's worth it to fight global warming, which unquestionably exists. Don't even talk to me about those stupid emails that were uncovered that showed leading climatologists freely discussing the falsification of their research; these guys know what they're doing and I will swallow anything they say. It's a much bigger issue that their lies were exposed by that evil, criminal hacker. We shouldn't focus on what was in the emails; we should instead find that hacker and put him to death. Those scientists are brilliant men, and a few lies from them doesn't change the fact of global warming!

I am a liberal because I truly believe that Hollywood actors and comedians are the smartest people in the world. If Sean Penn, Matt Damon, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart say something, then gosh-darn it, they must be right. I mean...they're on television.

I am a liberal because I hate George W. Bush. I'm not sure why, exactly. He...uh...took away our freedom! Like...he wiretapped people and stuff. No, I never heard of anybody being wiretapped, arrested or detained who wasn't a terrorist, but that doesn't mean he didn't have the power to do that if he wanted! And...uh...he was pro-life! Okay, so he didn't overturn Roe vs. Wade, but he wanted to! And...and...ah...he was against gay marriage! Okay, so's Obama. And Bush stumbled over his words! Only an idiot does that! All I know is that Bush was bad, Obama is good, and we've got a good president now. I mean, my sociology professor told me that Bush was evil, and he wanted to, like, take over the middle-east to get its oil. And he wouldn't lie.

I am a liberal...because I prefer to let other people do my thinking for me.

Liberals are Masters of Dishing it Out, but Can't Take It

2009-09-16T23:45:00.000-07:00

I once compared liberals to that annoying kid in grade school who sits behind you in class and does things to provoke you, like slapping the back of your neck with a ruler or poking you in the ribs with a pencil. At first, you ignore him, hoping he'll get bored and stop, but after a while he really starts to piss you off, so you turn around and pop him one, whereupon the kid immediately yells "Teacher! Teacher, he hit me!"

But recently, I think that's being generous. Now, I think the following comparison is more apt:

Liberals are like the bully who beat the shit out of you all through junior high. Then, once you get into high school together, and he is no longer the large fish in the pond but one of the smallest, he starts acting like he now wants to be your friend and can't understand why you might not want that. He may even react like you're the jerk if you tell him off.

What's funny about this comparison is that the Liberals won. Twice. Quite recently. Their guy got to be president, and now they control both houses of Congress. So, what gives? Why are they still on the defensive? Why is it one cannot read the news without more charges of racism and "lies" being shot at the Right by the angry Left? They got what they were bitching about for eight years under Bush. So shouldn't they be happy?

The reason they're not happy is plainly easy to see, and it has nothing to do with racism, no matter what they'd have you believe. The reason is simply: They thought all they had to do was win, and everything would be okay after that.

Shortly after Obama's inauguration, I can't count how often I heard the phrase "Conservativism is dead" or words to that effect. One youtube poster that I had the displeasure of reading claimed on several channel message boards that Conservatives were "out of touch" with the mainstream of American thought, which was going to lead them to major defeats in 2010 and 2012. It's pretty clear from the punkish, boorish behavior of the current administration that they never expected to meet with any opposition, and are totally clueless as to how to proceed when they do encounter it.

In some "man on the street" interviews I've seen with Liberals, who don't realize that they are talking to average Americans and not members of their own elite, they have claimed that they speak for the majority, but a quick look at polls for (pick one; Obama's approval rating, public opinions on Obamacare, you name it) shows that Americans by and large do not want what Obama is trying to force feed them. The Left clearly wasn't expecting that. They thought that now that they were in power, the rest of the country would simply fall in line.

It's easy to understand how they might feel that way. After all, Bush's approval ratings fell steadily throughout his terms. Television programs that showed a Leftist skew were drawing wide audiences. The GOP seemed weak and leaderless (and still do) in the face of the impending conclusion of Bush's term in the White House. The best ticket they could come up with for the 2008 race was an elderly man who wasn't even liked by most of his party, and a dumb hick from a podunk state who barely qualified as American (at least, that's how the Left viewed her). Congress had recently been taken over by the Democrats. As far as they were concerned, the country had revealed its true heart, and it was blue.

But that just wasn't the case. Oh, it's true that the GOP is weak and leaderless, mostly because those willing and able to stand up and lead are being told to sit down and follow, but also because the current "leaders" of the GOP seem to think that the key to success is to try and make liberals like us. But that's not because America is rejecting the Right. It's because the Republicans, who have always stood for the Right, don't know what to do with themselves anymore, or who they want to be. It seems that at every turn, the Republicans want to do the thing that will most guarantee its destruction. The liberals don't like Rush Limbaugh? Let's tell them he doesn't speak for us. The liberals are trying to destroy Sarah Palin? Let's help them. The liberals are trying to force through a bill in Congress that we haven't read and don't want to support? Let's just sign it anyway, it shows that we want to get along. The liberals are calling Joe Wilson out for his "you lie" comment? Let's make sure they understand we don't like what he did.

But I digress. While the GOP may have painted themselves into a corner with their own bureaucracy, Americans have stood up for themselves and told the Left, we won't pick up what you're lying down. In the face of this, liberals don't know what to think. They won, so shouldn't all of America be throwing palm leaves under Obama's feet wherever he goes? After all, the only people who didn't vote for Obama in the last election were racists, and...hey, wait! That's it! That's brilliant! We'll just call all dissenters racists!

Problem with that is, if all dissenters are racist, that now includes more than half the country. And that, of course, is the big problem with the Left's one and only tactic to counteract dissent of the Obama administration; throw the race card in the ring. That might work if you're attacking a person, or even a political party. In cases like that, people might even be tempted to try and fight the allegation, which is foolish because once a public figure has been called a racist in a public forum, any attempt to fight back is of course just more proof that they are indeed a racist. But now that they have started throwing that at average citizens, it's backfiring big time. After all, those tens of thousands who stormed Washington this past weekend can't all be racist, and what's more, I don't think for a minute that anybody believes they are. It's just easier for the Left to call them all racists than to actually address the fact that Americans actually might not agree with their agenda.

For those Liberals who still don't know, let me break it down for you exactly why Obama won.

First, let's not forget that he won with only 53% of the vote. That by itself is, or should be, a large indication that a large chunk of Americans did not want the Obama presidency. So right there, we are whittling down the country to less than 53% of its population, because we have to count votes that went to third parties, or citizens of voting age who did not vote at all.

(BTW, when Bush won in 2004 with 52% of the vote, the media reported it as a near miss. But Obama wins with only a slightly increased margin, and suddenly he has "creamed" McCain. How does that work?)

Now on to the actual campaign:

Most conservatives did not want John McCain as the nominee. It's a mystery how he got it, but most blame open primaries. I'd suggest that's the most likely answer. After McCain's nomination, large numbers of conservatives stated that they simply would not vote this year, or vote for a third party.

The media got behind Obama like they've never gotten behind any presidential candidate before. The message blasted at Americans night and day was that if you didn't vote for Obama, you were a hopeless, stick-in-the-mud, change-opposing loser, and most likely racist to boot. Nobody likes thinking of themselves as racist.

Obama ran on the platform of being a centrist. Well, actually he ran on a platform of the meaningless words "Hope" and "Change", but essentially, he sold himself as a centrist, and urged the public not to worry too much about his voting record, his past associations, and whatnot. And with the media floating along on a lovestruck cloud, they passed that message on. Most Americans do not identify with the Democratic or Republican parties lately. They mainly continue to vote for one or the other because they've been told voting for a third party is throwing your vote away. And for all intents and purposes, it is, because which of the umpteen third parties stands a chance of dominating the votes? So, centrists by and large voted Democrat.

Upon the nomination of Sarah Palin, the Left could not wait to take her down. Now, I still wonder why your average citizen has never asked themselves "Wait a minute. If Sarah Palin is so stupid and so inconsequential, why are the Democrats so determined to shut her up?" But of course, most people are willing to assume that if the media doesn't like someone, there's a good reason, and they clearly hated Sarah Palin. It's true that Sarah Palin brought out the true conservatives to vote, who otherwise might have sat this one out, or voted third party, but the media's repeated message of hate for her swayed away centrists, libertarians, moderates and even some Republicans who honestly believe what they see on CNN to be the unadulterated truth.

Obama seemed like such a nice guy, and he was such a good public speaker. After the last president, a guy who could speak without stumbling over or mispronouncing every third word seemed like enough. He was also young (the third youngest president of all time) and when deciding between him and the potential oldest first-term president ever, it seemed like a no-brainer.

Enough centrists, libertarians and moderates who were tired of the limpness of the GOP changed horses, thinking that there was a chance this one might actually succeed (after all, like I said, they thought Obama was one of them).

Voter intimidation by hate groups like the Black Panthers kept voters who might have voted Republican away from the voting booths.

And, it has to be said, a lot of people voted for Barack Obama based on skin color. Yes, in this world of "radical racism", I'm positive that a good majority of people who voted for Obama did so because they were enthralled with the idea of a black US president. The time had come to break down that last barrier. After all, if either party had run a junior senator with less than a full term in his concurrent position who had a virtually empty voting record and not one accomplishment to his name, and the guy had been white, there's simply no way he would have won.

But liberals don't want to hear that. They don't want to face the fact that as of the last poll, only 35% of the country identify themselves as "liberal". They want to believe that Obama's win means the rise of liberalism, and get so angry at those rubes who come out and protest because can't they see that they've lost!!!!????

And here we come back to my title statement. For eight years, liberals whined, bitched and protested about the Bush administration. Forget the fact that he won two terms, and that from 2002 to 2008 Republicans controlled Congress. All that mattered is they didn't like him, so that must mean America didn't, either. I've never seen so many grown men and women acting more like children than witnessing the behavior of the Democratic party during the Bush administration. They boo'd his speeches, greeted his departure speech with cat-calls and raspberries. In short, they behaved like the schoolyard bully who beats the crap out of you every day. Not to mention that the whole time they were doing this, they hid behind the "dissent is patriotic" mantra and encouraged all protesters who showed up wherever the president went, pelting the presidential motorcade with stones and carrying signs saying things like "Bush: Wanted Dead or Alive" with a cross-out over the word "alive". Mainstream media rags like LA Weekly ran cover stories with Bush painted up like the Joker, or with a Hitler mustache. It's impossible, in fact, to round up every instance of Bush being lambasted with as much hate and ire as it was possible for a person, or group of people to hold. The hatred against Bush wasn't just strong, it was spiteful. He wasn't just attacked, he was attacked with no class.

Now, it's Obama's turn in the spotlight, and like Bush, he's turning a lot of people against him. Some of it's for what he's done, some of it's for what people believe he's going to do, and some of it's for what people are sure he is, no matter how strenuously he denies it. The fact is, dissent is here. It has touched the Golden One. It is not some dunce cap reserved only for Republicans. And what's funny is, the Left can't even see that this behavior, which has yet to reach the level of crassness that the anti-Bush fervor reached, is exactly the kind of behavior that they encouraged during Bush's presidency. They can dish it out, but they can't take it. They gave it to Bush with both barrels for eight years, but now they're in power, and they're the ones receiving the backlash. For eight years they were convinced they spoke for the majority, and are just now getting their wake-up call.

And they can't handle it.

Who lied? You lied!

2009-09-11T02:31:00.000-07:00

My first reaction to Sen. Joe Wilson (R) yelling "You lie!" during the president's speech on health care is a solid "good for him." Somebody had to have the guts to say it, and to the president's face. It's about time some GOP officials started calling the president's administration on all the BS it's been handing America for the last eight months.

Now, at this point there's been a lot of fist-shaking and hem-hawing of Wilson's behavior, from both sides, which I find both hilarious and sad. It's hilarious because this administration has been more bullying than any US Presidential administration in living memory. Barack Obama has been the most arrogant and divisive president we've ever had, and I have no qualms in saying that. No other president has worked so hard to alienate a large percentage of the country he claims to represent. No other president has spent so much time bad-mouthing, and apologizing on behalf of, the country that elected him to lead it. No other president has encouraged Americans to feel ashamed of who and what they are. No other president has so openly demonized his opposition. And no other president has tried so hard to force upon the American people bills and plans we reject vehemently, because he "knows best."

In the past year we have seen the House Speaker openly lie to the press about her knowledge of what went on at Gitmo, and then accuse private citizens of being "astroturfers" and "carrying swastika's" and "being unamerican" because they dared to organize in protest against the president. Let's not forget this is the same lady who called dissent "the highest form of patriotism" while Bush was in office.

We've seen this administration gang up on a talk show host who dared to suggest that he's against President Obama.

We've seen this administration force an economy-killing "stimulus" bill through Congress, with no time for congresspersons to read it, which so far seems to have done nothing but give money to Obama-supporters like ACORN.

We've seen this administration set up an email address encouraging private citizens to send in "fishy" statements they hear in private conversation, or read in emails they're sent, etc., the most blatant attack on free speech yet seen in America.

And nobody's called them on it because to do so would be "racist."

I've been ashamed at the limpness of the GOP in response to this administration's steamroll over the American people on its way to total socialism. I've watched John McCain and Michael Steele try to get along with our new president by essentially folding whenever Obama tells them to shut up. The GOP, as a party, has fallen far and fast not because their ideals are wrong but because we no longer have leaders and the one person on our side who seems to be fighting back (until last night) is the same person that most of the GOP is trying to distance themselves from at all costs. I refer, of course, to Sarah Palin.

What the Democrats, and by proxy, the mainstream media, did to Sarah Palin was the most shameful smear campaign I've ever seen. I've seen attempts to bring down politicians before, but mostly it was the politicians who were attacked, and for their views, but it seems that with Sarah Palin it was personal. Not only was she an uneducated hick who deserved mockery and derision, but her family was fair game, as well.

But she didn't back down, and I'm grateful that she didn't. And now, finally, another voice in the GOP is speaking up, and loudly. Senator Wilson, I applaud what you did last night, and I don't think you have anything to apologize for. The Left has, for years now, employed the same tactics on a grand scale and I don't think we have anything to win by continuing to make nice with them. We need more men and women like you and Ms. Palin to stand up and say "You're lying, and we're not going to take it anymore."

9/11 Truthers: We've Sheen it All

2009-09-10T22:21:00.000-07:00

In the wake of Charlie Sheen's masturbatory fake interview with Barack Obama, and the "resignation" (read: firing before he makes the administration look bad) of Van Jones, the "Green Czar" who signed a 9/11 Truther petition, I'd like to say a few words to the Truthers, and address their concerns as follows.

Just how f--king stupid are you people?

Let's see, what's your little theory again? Oh yeah...somehow, the Bush Administration, within less than a year of taking office, manage to plant dozens of explosive devices within the World Trade Center. Then they manage to hire Al Qaeda, give them CIA training, have them take over four commercial flights (or, according to some theorists, stage these flights with empty planes), and plow them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon (why no explosive devices there? The plane hit, it just didn't do as much damage) and the White House (this plane managed to be brought down by the fake passengers).

The explosives went off as the planes hit, just to ensure that the buildings really would fall, because, as everyone knows, a giant motherf--ker of an airplane wouldn't be able to do the job by itself.

The goal of the administration was to blame Iraq, or the middle-east in general, and use this as a means to secure the country's approval of going to war. The war, essentially, was for oil. But then, even the oil was a means to an end. Apparently they would use the oil to effectively take over the world.

Now, I know a Truther would probably say, after reading what I just wrote, "Well, when you put it that way, it sounds stupid."

To that, I would respond, paraphrasing Red Foreman of That 70's Show, "Okay. Say it so it doesn't sound stupid."

Every time I hear these idiots spouting these insane conspiracy theories, I just have to shake my head. Apparently these people have no idea that they sound just like the tin-foil-hat-wearing, aliens-are-coming-for-us crowd.

They say things like "All you have to do is connect the dots of who profits the most from this..." without realizing that they're not just connecting the dots but inventing them.

They say that 9/11 was concocted in order to free up the Bush administration to begin dismantling our constitutional rights. How many rights were taken away during Bush's administration again? Oh, that's right; NONE. It always makes me laugh when people freely talk about the "criminal" Bush administration "taking our rights away" and "trying to silence us" and never see the irony that nobody has come to lead these people away in handcuffs. They're still free to speak their slander, and never seem to understand that if it wasn't actually slander, they wouldn't be free to speak it!

Now, the thing is, all one really has to do is sit down and think about things for a moment, after first removing their Bush-hatred goggles, to realize that there's no way 9/11 could have been a massive conspiracy. But that's the problem. These people start with open hatred of Bush. How on earth can we be expected to believe that they're bi-partisan, open-minded intellectuals who are just smart enough to see the big picture, when they clearly are bringing their presuppositions to the table with them?

See, to them, Bush, Cheney and the rest represent the ultimate in Evil White Men. They are the rich elitists (of course, all Republicans are rich money-grubbers, while all Democrats are hard-working wage slaves), and they are consumed by the need to make themselves richer. That's all they want; money and power. Once you assume that it's impossible for them to have pure intent; that they never do anything unless it profits them directly and allows them to take more control, it becomes entirely believable that they could stage an event like 9/11.

Gee, and people say the Obama Birthers movement is crazy. Obama could shut the birthers up in two seconds. So why hasn't he?

Now, once you remove the idea that Bush is automatically to blame for all that's wrong with the world, you start to notice several gaping holes in the 9/11 Truth idea. And what's funny is, not believing in the Truther movement doesn't mean you have to like Bush! You can still hate him for all the other reasons you hate him; why the need to manufacture a conspiracy as shoddy as this one is?

Here are the key problems:

1. Bush is either an idiot, or an evil genius, but he can't be both. The same people who claim that Bush is too dumb to read, or tie his shoes, apparently want you to believe that he can come up with this foolproof plan, and actually convince some people of its veracity!

2. "Okay, so Bush is an idiot, but he didn't plan 9/11! He was just the puppet; the fall guy. The men behind 9/11 are Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Karl Rove." Using that logic, we have three men who apparently were able to destroy two very tall buildings, set up terrorists as the fall guys, decide to invade Iraq on the principle that they have weapons of mass destruction, and in all that planning never think to themselves "You know, we'd better go plant some WMD's over there, just in case he really doesn't have any." I find it impossible to believe that men capable of planning and successfully executing 9/11 were totally unable to plant evidence. That would have been child's play to men like that.

3. However smart they might be, their plan didn't work. The country did not unite in a single voice declaring for war. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove are no closer to controlling the world than they were in 2000. And, despite the fact that they supposedly concocted this scheme on their own, you know they couldn't have acted alone because there's no way they could have rigged up those fake planes and explosives all by themselves. They would have had hundreds of lackeys, lackeys that for eight years watched as their plan was revealed by the Truthers, and watched as the families of their victims eulogized them tearfully...and not a one of them blew the whistle. Folks, a cover-up this size cannot possible have gone on this long without a whistle-blower. You think everyone who worked on this scheme was so completely devoid of conscience that they would cling to this lie eight years later despite the fact that A) their plan didn't work and B) the Truthers have seen through them and exposed their plan for what it is.

Now let's talk about the supposed explosives that were used. According to some Truthers, there was nano-thermite dust found in the rubble from the collapsed buildings, which is an explosive device. This despite the fact that no official source has ever confirmed that this was indeed thermite residue. In fact, all the discussion about thermite has come from pictures of the scene during cleanup. This site illustrates the idiocy of the entire thermite theory, but I'll boil it down for you to the most common-sense deduction:

Thermite is an explosive device, but a four-pound blob isn't enough to explode a car battery. Therefore, you would need tons of the stuff, nearly as much as the building itself weighs, to destroy the WTC with it.

Then there's the problem of: how did it get there? And how did it sit there for weeks on end (as claimed by the Truthers) and fail to be discovered by maintenance workers? Apparently, the maintenance workers in the WTC are unobservant enough to not only not notice several strange maintenance workers who were never there before suddenly lurking everywhere, but to not notice tons and tons of strange chemical wrapped all around the support columns once these mysterious workers had disappeared.

All in all, I'd say that there are only two reasons to ever believe the 9/11 "Truth"; you're certifiable, or you hate Bush so much that you'll believe anything as long as he's the villain of the piece.

If you belong in the former category...well, then frankly there's no point in talking to you further.

But if you belong in the second category, I find it really sad that you cannot disagree, even disagree vehemently, with a politician without turning him into the embodiment of evil. You remind me of a poster I saw of Stalin, with a caption underneath saying "I killed 20 million of my own people, but ask an American college student who the worst leader in the world is, and all I hear about is this Bush guy."

Your Astroturfing, My Grassroots

2009-09-03T00:34:00.001-07:00

Does anyone else feel that our current administration has been conducting itself in a manner that shows it never expected to meet with any resistance?

I mean, even during the campaign Obama balked at even the attempt to make fun of his ears. Is it childish and stupid to make fun of him for a physical defect? Sure, but no more so than to constantly riff on his predecessor's tendency to mispronounce words.

After getting elected, Obama has begun pushing through his agendas like there's no tomorrow--literally. He pressed the Stimulus bill through Congress like it was on fire, demanding it be signed immediately with no time to read it.

When the Tea Party protests began, the administration poo-pooed them as "tea-bagging" racist rednecks, with Janeane Garofalo as the mouth-piece for that smear campaign. The official word was that these protests were racially motivated and concerned entirely with the idea that a black man was now President. Reporters who covered the scene talked over or cut off the people they interviewed, alleged that they were paid to be there by Fox News, and refused to show interviews with the articulate, erudite protesters, choosing only to show men like the guy who drew up a likeness of Obama dressed as Hitler (Of course, Bush-Hitler posters, effigies, etc. were all perfectly acceptable).

This shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone. After all, demonizing the opposition was the Obama Administration's primary tactic during the election. First attack John McCain, then go after Sarah Palin with both barrels. Now the problem is Rush Limbaugh. Libtards in the media learned that tactic as well (hell, they taught it) and used it against Carrie Prejean.

This tactic works pretty well when you use it against a single person. Now, people who would probably agree with Sarah Palin on most issues, were they to actually bother to figure out what she was all about, call her an idiot and laugh at the idea that she ever thought she could be Vice-President. They actually believe that she said she could see Russia from her house, or that she refused to answer Katie Couric's question about news sources because she doesn't read the news. It couldn't have been that the question was an obvious attack question. Let's say Palin had answered it. If it had been primarily right-wing news sources, such as Fox News, Couric could have used that to show that Palin didn't have an open mind. If they were left-wing news sources (ie: mainstream media), Couric could have used that to show that even she doesn't believe her own message.

But the tactic starts to break down when you apply it to a whole group of people. For example, the Tea-Party rallies. What you probably don't know is that most of the people who showed up don't call themselves Republicans. I base that on the numerous interviews conducted by various right-leaning journalists who did cover the events and actually let the interviewees talk. Most of them thought of themselves as independent, centrist or libertarian. In other words, the very people Obama says he's a part of! Obama ran on a platform of being a centrist, and won quite a few votes from people who assumed he meant it. Now, here are his people, his centrists, attending a rally to protest the burden of debt he's leaving for our children, and the media, with full approval of this administration, dismisses them as racists.

This is all not even to mention that a large number of Tea-Party protesters were black as well as centrist. Shouldn't Obama have been in their midst, considering he ran on a platform of speaking up for these very people?

Now that Obama's healthcare plan is sparking the same sorts of revolt, Obama's administration is at it again, only this time they're not relying on washed-up comediennes to spread their slander. The House Speaker herself has gotten in on the act, suggesting that town hall protesters are showing up with swastika's on their signs, and that they are not actually protesters at all, but "astroturfers" who were paid by insurance companies to be there.

Let's first of all talk about the supposed swastika's at these rallies. To hear Pelosi, and the Left-parroting mainstream media, tell it, these swastika-carrying loonies are right-wing nutjobs who don't really give a flying fig about healthcare; they just can't stand it that a black man is President.

What Pelosi and her posse won't tell you is that the only confirmed swastika's showing up at these meetings are being carried by supporters of far-left weirdo Lyndon H. LaRouche. That's a far cry from the "right-wing" conspiracy that Pelosi is trying to warn us of.

Now let's look at her term "astroturf." What is astroturf? It's fake grass. As such, it's also become a term for when a lobbyist group pretends to be a grass-roots movement of concerned citizens when it's actually a hired group, well-funded by an industry that stands to lose (or gain) something in the concurrent debate.

The argument that the town hall protesters must be astroturfers stems from Pelosi's statement that the protesters showing up were far too well-dressed to not be on some insurance company's payroll somewhere. According to her, if someone shows up to protest anything the Obama administration is for, then they'd better be unwashed bums or that's a sure sign that they're just in it for the money.

Well, Nancy, let's examine the two sides and see which one looks more like a grass-roots movement and which looks more like the astroturf.

On the one side, we have ACORN, SEIU, MoveOn.org, HCAN, and numerous other special-interest groups, all of whom either helped Obama get elected (ACORN, MoveOn.org) or who have openly thrown themselves into the tank with Obama during and after the election. To try and claim that these groups are bi-partisan is to show yourself to be blantantly blind to reality. These groups don't even claim to be bi-partisan themselves, but they don't mind if you believe it. It just makes their message more sellable.

When these groups show up at protests, they arrive in style in four or five sleek buses, and they file out with their matching, professionally printed signs. They have sound systems and organized chants. Infiltrators into their organizations have proven that these supposedly grass-roots groups are well-funded by charitable contributions from various government officials. Many of them will admit that they are on staff with these organizations, and are therefore being paid to show up.

Is there anything wrong with getting paid to spread your party's message? Not at all. That's capitalism. But the problem comes in when they, and the party they represent, claim that they're just a concerned citizens group who have no official connection to the Democratic party. When they say that these protests are just spontaneous uprisings against the deliberate "misinformation" being spread by the right, they prove themselves liars when the amount of money, organization and professionalism that goes into these rallies is evident upon casual observation.

And of course, it goes without saying that every member of these groups is a card-carrying Democrat, and they all voted for Obama in the election.

Now let's look at the town hall protesters (see, already they're less professional; they don't even have a name). They seem to show up at these protests, but they're not bused in. They have to drive themselves. They might be organized, but more in the manner of a church picnic than a political rally. The signs they carry are all hand-made. They may have bull-horns, but they don't typically have the kind of sound-system you'd usually associate with expensive DJ's. Ask any of them if they are being paid; they'll all say no. They're there because they're concerned about the kind of healthcare the Obama Administration is forcing on them. They're concerned that while the bill may not expressly state that the old, or those with pre-existing conditions, will not be covered under the new plan, the wording of the bill suggests that if the government decided these people were too much of a burden (and you know they would) they could immediately cut funding, or refuse to provide it. If you talk to these protesters, rather than talk over them or cut them off mid-sentence (Take note, MSNBC and CNN) then you figure that out rather quickly. Not only are they not claiming to be paid by anyone to be there, but the only evidence offered to say that they are is Nancy Pelosi's banal claim that "they're too well-dressed" to be a legitimate grass-roots organization.

And let's not forget that relatively few of them were McCain-voting Republicans. Most, like the Tea-Party rallies, call themselves independent, centrist, or libertarian. Many even say they voted for Obama, believing him to be centrist.

When you examine all that evidence, it's pretty clear that the Obama Administration's definition of "astroturf" and "grass-roots" needs to be tweaked slightly. Or swapped.

But that's what an administration does when it expected to encounter no resistance, when it fully believed that a huge majority of Americans had fallen in love with President Obama, and would never question him about anything, but instead meets with resistance almost immediately from the very people they claimed to be speaking for.

Let's examine just for a moment how scared Obama and his cronies must really be by this "astroturfing" movement. They've planted people at their town-hall meetings with questions pre-approved by the administration. They've endorsed "doctors" who supported this plan, who turned out not to be doctors at all. They've pre-screened which private citizens get to come into the building and actually speak with their congresspersons, and when those who manage to pass the screening get in, and actually ask a question challenging the health-care bill, they are either ignored, shouted down, or told to shut up or they'll be escorted out.

The media has, no surprise, gotten in on the act. On MSNBC, Contessa Brewer shows us a clip of a man at a town hall meeting with a gun, and drones on in this "tsk tsk" voice about "white people" showing up at town hall meetings with guns now that a "man of color" is in the White House. The video clip she runs suspiciously doesn't show the man's face, and it's no wonder why when you see the full clip. The "white" man with a gun who surely must be a racist angry at the "man of color" in office turns out to be...a black man. A black man who, by the way, did not identify himself with the Republican Party.

Now, when it comes to showing up to these town hall meetings with guns, I have to say that's foolish at best. First of all, the meetings are about health-care, not second amendment rights. Second of all, the gun-hating left needs no more ammunition to paint us all as gun-toting rednecks out for violence, or ready to lynch the new President, so why give it to them? Thirdly, it distracts from our message and allows the media to focus on the one or two aberrations rather than focusing on what our message really is. They don't listen to us anyway; why give them more reason to pull the focus away from what we are actually saying?

Despite that, it is criminal dishonesty to attempt to incite a race-riot by editing footage to match your preferred narrative. It is all the more revolting when you consider the absence of cameras when a group of SEIU thugs surrounded and attacked an unarmed black man, called him "nigger", and put him in the hospital, for the "crime" of handing out yellow flags saying "don't tread on me".

These are the actions of administration that is afraid and will stop at nothing to silence any opposition rather than risk their message getting out. It is clear that Obama and his cronies don't want you to know what's really in this health-care bill. They themselves haven't read it and claim that there is "no need to". They offer vague niceties when questioned directly, but nothing substantive. They try, vainly, to demonize the opposition, not realizing it's the folks they're trying to court who are the opposition now. It's how they've been running their campaign from the beginning.

And now the sheep they so thorough fed on "hope and change" are starting to wake up and realize that this is not the change they hoped for. And this administration is totally unprepared for that.

Government Informers, on the next Episode of the Obama-pranos

2009-08-27T03:23:00.000-07:00

I thought informants or street-snitches were only good for dirty cops and Batman. But as it turns out, the government thinks they'd be useful, too.

Now, were this a communist country, or a third-world pisspot, I'd probably expect this. I'd be watching my tongue every time I spoke because I'd never be totally sure that government stool pigeons weren't around the corner. But this is America.

In times past, America has elected some leaders it regretted giving any power to, or at the very least thought were handling things wrong. They were free to speak out. This was AMERICA, where the government served at the will of the people, rather than tried to force its will upon the people. Be it Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, Kennedy, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton or Bush Jr. (some might say especially him), all those presidents had their naysayers. They all had to put up with some things they said or did being unpopular with the people.

But President Obama apparently holds himself to a higher standard.

You see, since taking office, Obama has done almost none of the things he said he would do that caused people to vote for him. Despite his claim of having the troops home by March of this year, they're still out there, and no closer to home, despite it being almost September. The Patriot Act, which the left villified Bush for, is still in effect, and Obama hasn't even talked about rescinding it. Gay people still can't get married, but I had to laugh at all the gay people who voted for Obama on the hopes that he would legalize gay marriage, because that, at least, is one promise Obama never made.

But that's just what Obama has not done. Now what about what he has?

Well, he rushed through a bill that raised the level of government spending to unprecedented levels, trying to claim that it was to stimulate the economy. Not only hasn't it, but many who were promised stimulus money haven't gotten it, even though ACORN and other special-interest groups already firmly in Obama's pocket have gotten theirs. He managed to slip this bill through Congress without even giving anyone the time to read it, claiming that it was time sensitive and needed to be done now! And then he took his sweet time signing it himself.

Then he appointed numerous cabinet members, each of whom turned out to be a tax cheat.

Then he tried the same rush job through Congress on a cap-and-tax energy plan that would cause the cost of energy to skyrocket. Americans, even those who voted for Obama, stood up and took notice. Some of them may have thought the stimulus bill was an abberation. Turns out that it's BO's modus operandi.

Now he's trying to rush through a "public option" healthcare bill, which is supposed to bring costs down and make healthcare available for everyone. Folks, I've lived under a system like the one Obama's proposing. It's not cheap, it doesn't make healthcare available for everyone, and it doesn't even cover most stuff you'd really need.

This article expresses perfectly what's wrong with Obamacare, as the right-wing media has dubbed it. These reasons are the reasons most Americans do not want this bill. You heard me: most Americans. That Obama has to stoop to name-calling and derision to try and claim that all these dissenters to the bill are being paid by insurance companies or that it's all just a race issue is deplorable.

But now he's gone too far. He has removed free speech from the people. I'm frankly shocked that there hasn't been a march on Washington about this. Perhaps there will be.

For those of you who haven't heard about this, the White House is afraid of anyone talking about Obamacare in anything less than glowing tones. One would think that if their claim of "misinformation" being spread were true, that they would encourage public debate, that they would show up at Town Hall meetings and assuage fears. That they would invite people to read the bill, or read the relevant sections of it themselves in an attempt to show private citizens what the plan really entails.

But instead, they've offered vague, happy-sounding answers that don't really say anything. They tell you that they have all the facts, and you don't need to read the bill to know that. They tell you that the president himself has not read the bill, but it doesn't matter because you should just trust that he knows what's in it. And then they tell you this:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

Wow. Just...wow.

Now, here's the thing. Whether you trust Obama or not, whether you think the American people need to lighten up or not, this should scare the daylights out of you. The White House, the home and office of the President of the United States, is asking private citizens to inform upon each other.

The thing is, this cannot merely be a way to fight the spread of misinformation. This is hardly the first time a sitting President has had to fight misinformation. The response is usually something like "If you have any questions or anything you are not sure of, please contact your congressperson."

But that's the problem. The congresspersons are more or less in hiding from their constituents, and when they show their faces, they refuse to take questions, talk on their cell phones while questions are being asked, tell dissenters that if they don't pipe down they'll be escorted out, etc.

So, while the government tries to pretend we don't exist, they're trying to get us in on the act. We are now to "flag" anyone we see spreading "misinformation", which can loosely be defined as "Information that the White House has not given you, not that the White House has been a fount of information on this topic, or is ever likely to become such."

This is suppression of our right to free speech, any way you want to look at it. For Obama, or anyone in his cabinet, to encourage us to report private conversations or emails is the height of despotic dictatorship. What's next? Re-education camps for those that refuse to be silenced? Public trials and executions so that "examples" can be made of those who dare to question the Golden One?

I hope the American people make their voices heard loud and clear on this. So far, the opinion polls are plummeting, but it's not enough. Obama is trying to convince you that the movement against his plan does not exist. If you are against it, and you're not on some insurance company's payroll, then you have been duped, and had better cross over to his side immediately.

Don't buy it. It's time for America to show Obama that we're not frightened of him, and if he wants to play mafia boss and have us report on one another, then we will stand up proudly and say "I'm a dissenter, and you work for us, not the other way around."

This is not the kind of hope and change America voted for. Let's wake up before Obama has altered all the rules and truly has turned into a dictator.

The New Racism

2009-08-24T01:38:00.001-07:00

I've been hearing that word an awful lot recently. Particularly since Obama began his run for President, and even more now that he has taken office. The cry of "racist!" or "racism!" is so strong now that nobody on the Left questions the absurdity of labeling thousands of people (people of numerous and varied ethnical backgrounds) as racist just because they showed up at a meeting protesting unwise govn't spending.

"Racism" is real. I grew up around it, and so did my mother. I went to school and church with children who tossed the word "nigger" around as if it were the technical term for "person of color"...and actually believed it was. When I took a childhood friend to task about using the word, she told me that it wasn't a put-down; that's just what they were called.

My mother, as a child, went on a shopping expedition with an aunt. After nearly hitting a young black woman with her cart, my mother said "Oh, excuse me." Her aunt pulled her aside and casually admonished "We don't say 'excuse me' to niggers."

However, despite being raised around it, neither my mother nor myself was raised to think it was normal, or good. My grandmother taught my mother to treat everyone equally, regardless of their skin color. And in turn, my mother taught me the same. My mother was shocked at her aunt's casual dismissal of another person based on nothing but skin color, but as a result she was able to warn me that my friends, and possibly even adults in authority over me, might behave in the same way. And they did.

I had childhood friends show me their KKK membership cards. I lived in a town where it was a big joke to shout race-baiting trigger words at black people from your car. (Where I lived, the trigger word was "Rayfield", which I think was the name of a prominent racist family, or something.)

Trust me, I know racism. I not only have witnessed it, I've been the victim of it. And I'm white.

From ages 0-9, I lived in the southern US, in very small, isolated towns with the exception of Memphis, Tennessee, where I arguably encountered less racism than in the smaller towns I lived in. One of the smallest towns was a little redneck paradise called Holly Grove. This was the place where the friends I made used the word "nigger" as casually as they would "blonde" or "freckled." It was also where I was placed on the receiving end of racism.

Most of the white families in town, even those who couldn't afford it, sent their children to a prestigious private school in the next county. My parents couldn't afford it, either, but wouldn't have sent me to that school even if they could afford to, as the only reason the other parents did so was because this school didn't let black children in. Oh, they didn't state this outright, but they had a screening process, and they always found ways to deny black students admission. So the black students, and the poorer white ones, went to the same public school that my mother taught in. The school was 90% black. The teachers were about 50% black. I was one of two white students in my class, the other being a boy whose parents managed to get him transferred to the private school before year's end. I'll confess it felt intimidating to be the only white kid surrounded by black students, but it was less their skin color that I was afraid of and more the fact that being the lone student who is noticeably different is never a comfortable experience.

I didn't care about my classmates' skin color, or my teacher's (who was also black) but you better believe they cared about mine. I recall once that when my teacher was teaching us about adjectives, she used an example by using three adjectives to describe a female student in our class: "Latonya is tall, sweet and beautiful." She then decided to move on to another student to make an example of: me. "Josh is long, fat and white." I didn't even realize that I was under verbal attack then, but I can remember the incident as if it were yesterday.

Another time, several students in my class, boys I had always treated with respect and considered most of them to be friends, gathered around me and started demanding that I call them "sir." I didn't understand what was going on, and couldn't fathom why they would want me to call them that, but I could tell this was not friendly and went the principal about it. The boys were made to apologize, but before that they tried to accuse me of saying things I did not say. What saved me, besides the fact that my mother worked as a teacher at that school, was that the principal had gotten to know me and understood that I would never talk that way.

Oh, yes, I'm very familiar with racism. From both ends. Which is why I can't understand why the word "racism" has been warped and twisted and no longer resembles anything like the kind of racism that has existed previous to the reign of His Majesty Obama.

In the age of Obama, asking a presidential candidate to release his birth certificate, which all presidential candidates before him have also been required to produce, is racist. So to is protesting giant tax increases to fund reckless government spending, a police officer asking a man seen forcing open a door to produce ID, speaking up at town hall meetings because you don't agree with nationalized health care, and voting Republican. At all.

Other signs you might be a racist is if you listen to Rush Limbaugh, don't like Keith Olbermann, don't read the New York Times, watch Fox News and don't think the Stimulus bill was a good bill. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You can now be called a racist for nearly any action that might possibly go against the plans of the sainted President Barack Obama. Even mentioning his middle name is grounds for being dismissed as a racist.

Real racism, the kind I was exposed to often as a child, is mostly dead. No, it's not gone away entirely, sad to say. In isolated rural communities you may still find people like those I was raised with, both black and white racists. But they are hardly the majority. They are ridiculous, simple people who wield absolutely no power. And you've probably listened to more Rush Limbaugh and watched more Fox News than they ever will. The only radio they likely listen to is their police scanner and the only thing they watch is their back porch bug zapper.

But I keep hearing about "widespread racism". Where is it? I hear people talk about how racism is still a huge problem, but other than conservative politicians (who can be safely called racist just by virtue of being conservative), nobody can point these racists out, or figure out where they all go when the fingers are pointed. You hear the cry of "racist" every day, fingers pointed at several people, but where is the actual racism exhibited by these supposedly racist people? What is it they're doing to merit the dreaded title?

The simplest answer is: nothing. Because "racism" has lost its meaning. It is no longer a word that can be used to describe someone's beliefs or behavior where race is concerned. It is now an epithet. It is a trump card to be played in any debate wherein the Left is losing. It's an automatic win for those brave enough to play it. There is no way to recover from being called a racist.

You don't have to say anything racist. You don't have to behave in a way that suggests you believe white people to be superior to black people. All you have to do now is be on the conservative side of an issue. Don't like being taxed in order to fund programs that you don't agree with? That's racist. Don't like the idea of a bill that will cause the cost of energy to skyrocket? You're a racist. Don't think socialized medicine will fix the current problems with the health care system, and may in fact make them worse? Well, gosh-darn it, you might as well put a hood on and proudly admit that you're a Klansman.

Yes, this is the age of President Obama, the first black US President. The Golden One. The Dear Leader. The man who can do no wrong. You know he can't do any wrong because he never has, and he always has our best interests at heart, and he's such an eloquent public speaker, and he looks good on a commemorative plate, and he has such a warm personality and dammit, he's black! It's an automatic win for him in any situation. He's the liberal, the Democrat, and he's black. Therefore, he can't be racist, because no blacks are racist, and he can't be anything but a good man, because those racist fascists are all Republicans. In fact, Obama is such a symbol, such an embodyment of all that is good, that to disagree with him on any subject is to reveal yourself as the scum-sucking racist you are.

This is the new racism. It doesn't have anything to do with your actual position on race. You can be a CEO who hires black people by the score, and promotes them into positions of power. You can have as many black friends as you want. You can date, or marry a black person. Heck, you can even be black. It doesn't matter. If you disagree with President Obama, or anyone in his cabinet, you are a racist.

You may be wondering how a black person could also be called a racist. Well, they don't use the word "racist" when it comes to black people who dissent. Instead, they are called "self-loathing", "race-traitors" or "Uncle Tom's" or any combination of the three. It amounts to the same thing.

There are only two reasons to ever disagree with The Golden One.

1. You're a white person, and a racist.

2. You're a black person, and a self-loathing Uncle Tom.

Now, I could point out the juxtaposition of the Left, who scream for racial equality and then demand that all black people think, act and vote the same way or they're "self-loathing race-traitors" who must be suffering some form of Stockholm syndrome, but that's not the main thrust of this argument.

Instead, it's to introduce you to a new era that Obama calls "post-racial." It is a new era, where racism has nothing to do with race and everything to do with undesirable ideals. It is a world where a black professor can pretend to be the victim when he verbally assaults a police officer in the course of his duties, and then be vindicated by the President himself. It is a world where if tens of thousands of people all across the country, of all colors, are gathered to protest government spending, they can be dismissed as a bunch of racist rednecks. It is a world where a black man shows up at a town hall meeting with a gun strapped to his back, and the "news" reports this, after carefully doctoring the footage so that the man's head is never seen, as "white people" showing up to town hall meetings with guns now that we have a "person of color" in the White House. It is a world wherein a man can be called a "nigger" and have the life nearly beaten out of him by Presidential-backed SEIU thugs, and still be thought of as the instigator, when all he was doing was handing out flags that said "Don't Tread on Me."

In short, in Obama's "post-racial" America, "racism" is now defined as being a dissenter, conscientious or not, to anything President Obama has to say or do.

This, supposedly, is progress. Now, instead of white people oppressing black people, we have a black President who is encouraging the oppression of white people who disagree with him, by labeling them with the one epithet they can't fight, no matter what they do.

Typical Debate Between Conservatives and Liberals

2009-04-06T11:03:00.000-07:00

Conservative: President Obama's first term is already looking like a disaster. He's soft on terrorism. His stimulus bill is proposing more spending than all his predecessors combined, and is only going to make a bad economy worse. Now he's talking about closing Gitmo and setting all those admitted terrorists free! For that matter, no government should be so powerful that they can demand the resignation of GM's CEO, or any other company's CEO for that matter.

Liberal: You've got to be kidding me! You're such a racist. You just can't stand the fact that a black man is president.

Conservative: It's got nothing to do with his race. We're talking about a man who proposed revoking veterans' health care. These men fought for our country; fought to protect the very freedom you're now enjoying, including the freedom to badmouth them, and the former presidential administration. And the thanks these men and women get for laying their lives on the line is having their constitutionally-provided free health care revoked?

Liberal: Man, the more you open your mouth the stupider you sound. If you love those baby-killing soldiers so much, you should go be one. Otherwise, shut your stupid mouth.

Conservative: It's funny that you call the soldiers who protect you "baby-killers". Isn't your party the one that advocates killing babies, even the ones who have already reached nine months, and are on their way out? For that matter, didn't your president vote AGAINST a bill that would protect the lives of living, already-born babies who survived an abortion attempt? Didn't he vote against this bill THREE TIMES? So who's the real baby-killer?

Liberal: God, you're such an idiot! And apparently you don't support a woman's right to choose! An idiot and a sexist!

Conservative: Umm...this isn't about a woman's right to choose. We're talking about living babies, here. Babies that have been born. Babies that nobody disputes are alive.

Liberal: Can you believe this guy?

Conservative: And let's not get started on the hypocrisy in the media.

Liberal: Oh, no, let's. You call it hypocrisy, whereas I say the media is just being honest about what a scumbag George W. Bush was, and what a great guy Obama is.

Conservative: So, wait, wait. Bush had a drinking problem that was beaten for decades, and that meant that he would be a bad president because his brain was addled by drink. Meanwhile, Obama smoked pot and did cocaine while in college, but apparently that doesn't affect him at all. I'm not saying that Obama's drug habits make him a bad leader, but if Bush's decades-old problem is still relevant, why ISN'T Obama's?

Liberal: Yeah, yeah, whatever. Obama rules!

Conservative: And that doesn't even address the fact that the media were practically falling all over themselves to discredit Bush before he even took office. They even blamed 9/11 on him. But they couldn't say enough good things about Obama, despite his proven associations with a racist pastor and an unrepentant domestic terrorist. If Bush had kept company like that, his career would be over. But Obama is allowed to do almost anything.

Liberal: Man, I don't even know why I'm talking to you. You're so stupid it's making my head hurt. Why don't you go suck off Rush Limbaugh, or something.

Conservative: See, now, it's funny that you say that, because liberals are supposed to be the gay-friendly party, and yet the main people I see using gay stereotypes to slander others are liberals! If you were really so gay-friendly, if I were in a gay relationship you should be happy for me!

Liberal: So you admit you're a queer! Figures. Most homophobes are closet queers.

Conservative: Erm...I'm not gay, I was just pointing out your hypocrisy. I'm also not a homophobe, and I think it's very hateful of you to say that most homophobes are closet queers.

Liberal: Pssh! Come on!

Conservative: Pssh, come on? That's not even an argument. All you're doing is hoping to make me look stupid for questioning liberalism. You're not even backing up your statements with any facts.

Liberal: I don't have to make you look stupid. You ARE stupid! Anybody who's still a conservative in this day and age is stupid. Not to mention hateful, bigoted, racist, sexist, homophobic and probably a rich, white guy.

Conservative: What about Michael Steel? He's black.

Liberal: He doesn't count. He obviously hates his race, or he would be democrat. Republicans don't care about black people, so anybody who sides with Republicans is either racist, or self-hating blacks.

Conservative: What? Who says we don't care about black people? We care about everybody equally. We want true equality, in the sense that black people can stand right beside white people and nobody notices they're of two different colors. That's what Dr. Martin Luther King fought for, but unfortunately there are too many guilty whites and racist blacks still around for true equality to happen. Someday race will truly be no issue at all. That's what we're fighting for.

Liberal: I heard all kinds of race-baiting code words in there. You really must hate black people. Hater!