Federal government bombs Pearl Harbor...

--awakens sleeping giant with a terrible resolve?

How many times have I said over the last few months that Hussein Obama and the Socialist Democrats are moving the ball forward way too fast, way too aggressively on such items as the infamous 'stimulus' package, 'federalizing' health care and etc., resulting in the alarm they've engendered within a significant and growing proportion of the general American populace?

There's a good discussion ongoing at VFR in which commenter Mark P. touches on this exact point.

Mark P. writes:

Basically, the Left is attempting to do too much, too fast, with way too many changes occurring in too short a time, with results experienced too sson to allow memories to fade. They are too impatient, probably due to the short-term thinking of the new cohort of liberals.

Yep. And though Auster's entry concerns itself with health care specifically, and which Mark P. is mainly speaking to, I suspect that like me Mark understands that it goes beyond federalizing health care.

The Democrats are -- under Hussein, Pelosi, Reid -- fast and furiously, and with reckless abandon such as we've never witnessed in this country, trying to ram every God-forsaken leftist-communist item they can while they can down our throats. And they somehow expect Americans (particularly self-governing producers) to simply lay down and take that b.s.?

I personally think they overestimate the extent of the damage liberalism has already done to the American spirit and psyche. Perhaps not on a conscious level, but the world is to them as they perceive it to be anyhow. I'm not saying that liberal dominance hasn't caused a lot of practically irreparable harm to the country, such as creating a large dependent class, fostering an entitlement mentality amongst certain and sundry demographic groups, constitutional and civic illiteracy and a host of others. I'm simply saying that government indoctrination hasn't quite worked out the way they planned it for a bunch of us. Some of us, evidently, and in spite of all of their efforts to train us up in the ways of the all-encompassing ideology of liberalism, were just too stupid (or hard-headed), evidently, to get it.

I've said before that my education just didn't take because I wasn't that interested in it to start with. No one ever expected or otherwise demanded me to achieve academic excellence, so I didn't because I had no reason to. No; I just did what I had to do, nothing more, nothing less. Which is to say that I maintained something like a B- average throughout my educational career because that was all that was required of me. And as you probably already know, it takes very little effort to maintain a B- grade average, so little in fact that one rarely needs to take a book home or "study" in any meaningful sense of the word. Indeed, I missed so many days of school, so many assignments and tests one year in H.S. that about 2/3 of the way through the semester I finally decided to start attending classes on a regular basis and pull my average up from an F to a high C. That is all it took, going to class, completing my assignments, memorizing test answers and such.

Anyway, I don't rightly know how I got off on that tangent, except to say that I think I was trying to lead to a point, which is this -- perhaps liberalism is, unbeknownst to itself and its wild-eyed kooky advocates and promoters, its own worst enemy what with its low expectations and standards. You know, if you begin with low standards for academic achievement, and you create an entire educational apparatus (curriculum, methodology, philosophy and so forth) lining up with those low standards, then maybe it contains its own inherently self-destructive mechanism which is bound to self-initiate at some point along the way. Generations come and they go, and liberalism continues its march forward until it reaches its apex. After which point, what? -- that which goes up must come down, following the laws of physics? I don't know, but it's an interesting thesis that might be worth pursuing further.

Y'all be sure to read the VFR discussion linked above.

Read More

When a low-level grunt goes way too far

(Note: The entry has undergone some revision since first posting.)

Allow me to set the stage for you: On three separate occasions while driving across a bridge near my home, a bridge currently under fairly intensive constructive maintenance, a certain flagman has copped an attitude with me in particular. With me! I mean, if you're a flunkie flagman and you feel the irrepressible urge to cop an attitude with someone while in performance of your duties, I'm definitely not the one to do it with.

These incidents became progressively worse each time, culminating in the events that unfolded below.

The first was fairly innocuous; the flagman did cop a slight attitude with me, but since (I flatter myself) I'm a pretty fair-minded person with experience enough to know that sometimes people just have bad days, or bad moments as it were, I just let it go, acting as though it never happened. As an old friend and mentor used to say to me, "you can never be sure what's going on in an otherwise decent person's life that may be contributing to his acting abnormally or out of character on certain occasions, under certain circumstances or pressures." In other words, I gave the flagman the benefit of the doubt on this first occasion. The second incident was significantly worse, and I responded only by giving him one of those "don't let it happen again" looks as I passed by him. His glaring response on this occasion indicated that he wasn't smart enough to know when he was up.

The third incident was, by far, the worst. Having gotten behind a rock-hauling truck and trailer on my way to work several mornings ago, I was traveling at a very low rate of speed. When the truck stopped in front of the flagman's station, the flagman began waving it forward. At least this was my impression. Seconds later, and with the truck not responding, the flagman began to flail his arms in the air as if to say "go, dammit go!" I wasn't sure whether he was telling me or the trucker to go, so I erred on the side of caution given that the road in question is very narrow under normal circumstances, not to mention while under construction. Anyway, a mere two or three seconds later, the flagman began to flail his arms into the air even more aggressively, apparently cursing in the meantime to add insult to injury, and pointing directly at me. At this point there was no question about who his aggressive posturing was intended for. So, here's what I did in response...

I very calmly pulled up beside this belligerant little (actually he was about a hundred pounds over weight, by my estimation) punk, rolled my window down, and proceeded to give him a stern and forceful piece of my mind, to wit:

"Hey, son!, I strongly advise you to drop the attitude ... NOW!" He replied: "why?" "Because, whether you realize it or not, you're working in the capacity of a public servant, and I'm the damn public, first off," I said. "I was waving at you to go," said he. To which I replied, "I thought you were waving at the truck ahead of me. But that's irrelevant, your display was completely uncalled for and unacceptable." His response?: "What are you going to do about it?"

Now, no more than ten years ago (ask anyone that knows me) I'd have unloaded out of my vehicle and thrown him into the lake -- with extreme prejudice -- without even a second thought at such a display of inappropriate, provoking behavior. But, of course, he's ten years too late, in my particular case, for that manner of dealing with his over-the-top, belligerant attitude. So I replied, as he turned and began walking away, "I'll have a talk with your boss, do you understand me?" He replied over his shoulder, "he's right there," pointing at a vehicle parked on the side of the road behind and to the right of me. I said, "no; you don't understand -- I don't want to talk to a flunkie supervisor on the job site, I'll be talking to the man!" At which point I drove away.

I didn't want to talk to his immediate supervisor because I'm versed enough to know that there's a lot of inter-company loyalty that exists between flunkies like that. So, I simply began calling the main office of his employer. No one answered that day as everyone was out of the office. But they called me back early next morning, and we got it all straightend out over the phone (apparently mine isn't the first incident they've had to deal with involving this particular individual). But I also explained to the caller that I either know or am acquainted with everyone who lives in my neighborhood; that at least three of these individuals, off the top of my head, would worry about the consequences of their literally wiping the pavement up with him, as a response to his same belligerance towards me, after they'd already committed the act. Much like I likely would have done ten or more years ago. That is, assuming I could have caught him (my experience is that overweight does not necessarily mean slow in the running sense). Some of these people can move fairly fast, depending on how threatened they feel. But anyway,...

What's the moral of the story? I don't know. I know that several days later the flagman in question is no longer working at that particular job site. It was never my intention to have him lose his job, nor to have him moved to another location, though I did suggest to his superior that if he couldn't handle the job's public service related requirements, then they might look to finding him another position, more suitable to his ... peculiar talents.

Anyway, another day, another dollar, and another product of liberalism brought low. Such is the burden that falls invariably on the shoulders of those of us who still understand that "tolerance" of certain anti-social behaviorisms can be as destructive, if not more destructive, than any form of intolerance. Both on an individual and a societal level.

Read More

Sarah and Barack, peas in everyone's pod

What is the single, common(est) denominator between Sarah Palin and Hussein Obama? In a comment to the VFR entry, The Freepers on Laura Wood on Sarah Palin, frequent commenter Clark Coleman explains his recent epiphany of sorts about Sarah Palin,

It suddenly occurred to me when reading this blog entry that Sarah Palin is the conservative version of Barack Obama. Many of us (even Obama himself) noted that Obama was a blank canvas on which his followers could project their political hopes. Why? Not because of his political experience or capabilities or clearly stated policy positions, but because of his personal life story. E.g., Obama is going to be a post-racial unifier. What was there in his past to indicate such a thing? Nothing. In fact, just the opposite. But his followers had hopes, you see. Ditto for numerous other policy areas where people had hopes not based on his statements or past actions.

Sarah Palin is a dyed in the wool conservative who will lead the GOP out of the mushy moderate wilderness. How do we know this? By reading her pronouncements on immigration, feminism, etc.? Obviously not. Rather, it is because of her personal life story. She is a small town girl, one of us flyover-country types, who identifies with us and not the Beltway elite. We can project all our conservative hopes on her. Because of her personal qualities, she is a conservative political blank canvas, ready for us to paint to our liking, just as Obama was for white liberals.

LA replies to Clark Coleman:

I think this is an important, basic insight into the Palin phenomenon..

Further, your analysis also explains the left's overwrought reaction to her. Earlier today I was saying to a friend, "Why do people love her so much, and why do people hate her so much? Neither makes sense." In fact, as your comment makes me realize, the left loathes and fears her for the same illusory reason that the right loves and adores her: both sides imagine her to be some super conservative. Both sides are taking her biography, her symbology, as representing something real about her politics.

The right and the left are having this huge, bloody battle over Sarah Palin in Plato's Cave, fighting over illusory images.

In a short follow-on entry directing readers to comments in the discussion, LA boils it down even further:

Clark Coleman has a good explanation of why so many conservatives believe—without any evidence or record to back up the belief—that Sarah Palin is a great conservative. She is the conservative version of Barack Obama, a blank screen on which people project their hopes. I add that liberals hate her for the same reason that conservatives love her. (emphasis mine)

It's a good point and it ought to be stated with as much simplicity as often as opportunity arises. Liberals hate Sarah Palin for the exact same reason that conservatives love her, and without what?, without any evidence or record to back up the belief about her that they both hold in common.

Not to toot my own horn (I wouldn't do that! ;-)), but I said as much very early on in one of several short exchanges between Auster and I in the Great Palin Debate of 2008:

TM to LA:

Here's the subject line of an email I received yesterday from Dr. Dobson's CitizenLink newsletter:

Dr. Dobson: McCain's choice of Palin: "Outstanding."

Outstanding?

I don't get the immediate display of enthusiasm among "conservatives" for this choice. Not only does she not have a political record to speak of, but nobody really knows anything of substance about her. Is it that they were just so dismayed and disgruntled by their nominee that McCain's choice of a pro-life, pro-gun, anti-homosexual rights (female) running mate far exceeded all their expectations?

It seems like President Bush's phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations" could be easily customized to fit this situation.

LA replied:

It's not true that she does not have a political record to speak of, and that nobody really knows anything of substance about her. The issue is whether she has the background to be president, not whether she has a political record to speak of.

TM replied:

Okay, she has a political record that consists of her time as governor of Alaska, and as mayor of the city of Wasilla (population: ten thousand).

You're right about what the issue is. And in my opinion she definitely does not have the background to be president. But who does in this race?

By the way, I never did, that I recall anyway, follow up on my statement in the exchange where I said that Bush's phrase could be easily customized to fit this situation, so allow me to do so here. We may call it, if you like, "The false conservatism of high expectations."

As has been said so many times before, modern Americans are so utterly steeped in liberalism that very often they don't know that they're liberals; that their words and actions are almost altogether liberal. Which is probably a good partial explanation for why study after study has shown that most Americans identify themselves as more conservative than liberal. And yet. But then again, I don't put too much stock in the results of most "studies" anyhow. So the point, at least as far as I'm concerned, is probably a moot one. Which begs the question, why'd I raise it in the first place? :-)

End of initial entry.

**********

I should like to add that we now know quite a bit more about Sarah Palin, her politics, her family life and so on, than we did during the initial stages of the Great Sarah Palin Debate conducted between August and September of 2008. Indeed, the debate itself revealed, or helped to reveal, or put in proper perspective, a lot about Sarah Palin that was not formerly known or understood by the average American, conservative and liberal alike. It's one of the things I most appreciate about VFR, and why I read and participate in the discussions there on a daily basis.

Read More

Dr. Phil and Medicine Woman tell us how a guy like Hasan can snap at a moment's notice

(H/T: GoV)

First of all, let me apologize to my readers for hosting such mindless nonsense. But this kind of attitude, this kind of suicidal idiocy, my friends, is what we're up against in modern, liberal, suicidal America.

So, is Medicine Woman, aka Shoshana Johnson, telling us in her own way that she could snap at anytime too since she apparently feels ... deeply? Nice that she declares herself to suffer from PTSD. Not only is she another government welfare case, but she's got herself a crutch to lean all the days of her life.

Read More

Oath Keepers shooting themselves in the foot. Or, SPLC and leftism 1 -- Oath Keepers 0

(Note: The entry has undergone some minor revisions since first posted.)

(Note: Robert Gomez has posted a thoughtful response to my critical comments under the Oklahoma Oath Keepers discussion thread mentioned below. And I reply.)

While browsing the Oklahoma Oath Keepers message forum last night, I ran across this discussion started by Oklahoma State Director Robert Gomez.

Mr. Gomez writes:

Since I joined the group I have not seen nor gotten the impression from any writings on our group’s forum to suggest that any of the Oklahoma group members have any feelings other than a deep love of our Republic and its foundation the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

With that said.

The media and former President Carter’s comments along with Speaker Pelosi’s innuendos are stirring up the notion that anyone opposed to the current administration and its policies are racist.

The Oath Keepers as an organization cannot nor will not be linked to anything other than the truth.

We are a group of concerned citizens that took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution and we vow to continue to uphold or reaffirm that oath.

We must stay focused on the real issues that threaten the Republic and not be distracted or fall into the traps they are setting for opposition groups. Racism or any type of discrimination will not be tolerated by the Oath Keepers.

Later in the thread Mr. Gomez mentions the SPLC and its depiction of the Oath Keepers as a "racist" organization. Other commenters quickly join in to the "Racism or any type of discrimination will not be tolerated by Oath Keepers" solo began by Robert Gomez in his initial entry. And the thread accordingly deteriorates into a leftier-than-thou chorus of commentators singing the worshipful praises of the ruling principles of modern American society -- absolute equality and non-discriminationism. One commenter in particular declares that she not only supports and celebrates racial and cultural diversity (and the more the better!), but that she cannot possibly function well without it, nor can this society presumably by her reasoning, or by inference. She follows up on the point, saying that she cannot understand why anyone would want to surround themselves with people ethnically, culturally, religiously like themselves, adding "yuck!" Of course, she's probably not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on this point, but whatever. After all, she isn't under oath here. Or is she?

After reading the comments in the thread last night and sleeping on it, I returned to the thread this morning and posted the following "racist" comment:

TM writes:

Well, first of all, the hate-obsessed leftist SPLC wouldn't garner to itself the slightest attention, positive or negative, in a healthy, self-confident (as opposed to self-loathing) society not dominated by the destructive influence of liberalism. Second, the race-baiters and hate-baiters at organizations like the SPLC et al, are always going to deem such organizations as this one as inherently racist, homophobic, xenophobic, ad infinitum. That is their job.

Since there aren't enough real racist haters out there for the SPLC and others to concentrate their efforts on, they accordingly go after groups like this. But the onus is on them to prove their charges, not on the Oath Keepers to prove its innocence. Speaking of which, some of you seem to be convinced that the latter is the case, not the former. Hence, you expend all kinds of effort trying to prove your non-racism and the non-racism of the Oath Keeper organization by extension, showing why you can't possibly be a racist and etcetera ("I love diversity," "I don't have a racist bone in my body," "I have a lot of friends who are black," and the like.). This approach of yours, which gets repeated over and over and over again in a variety of ways tends to place severe restrictions on the ability of such organizations to tackle the tough issues.

Personally, I ain't real sure what the term "racism" means anymore, or whether it has a fixed meaning that we can all rely on at any given moment under any given set of circumstances. It can't possibly mean the hatred of a fellow human being based entirely on the color of his skin because the term is constantly applied to people who are anything but. But speaking for myself, and only for myself, being realistic about and speaking candidly about racial and cultural differences, about the destructiveness of mass immigration and multiculturalism and etc., cannot be said to be "racist." If it can, then at least 80% of Oklahoma's population is "racist" by definition, since it supports the provisions of H.B. 1804 by that very margin.

But anyway...

I'm beginning to understand now why the Oath Keepers chose, from the great abundance of far stronger examples of their supposed point, to include the footage from the aftermath of Katrina in N.O. in their promotional video that I posted the other day. They're trying to show how non-racist they are, which seems to be a main, if not THE main focus of the group as it stands now. (Actually, I realized this several days ago, so it's technically not accurate to say that "I'm beginning to realize...," but that's beside the point)

But my overarching point is really very simple -- if "racism" and if "discrimination of any kind" (I ain't real sure whose definition of these terms we're applying, but I have my suspicions) will not be tolerated by the Oath Keepers, which is to say that open and candid discussion of racial and cultural differences, of mass third-world immigration to the U.S., of the comparative dependency of one group of people vs. the comparative independency of another group of people, of one group's relative dedication to the principles of the constitution and our form of government vs. another group's relative hatred for those principles, and etc., will not be tolerated by the Oath Keepers, then what purpose can they possibly serve more than being enablers for the SPLC and its destructive, America-hating agenda?

I could say a lot more on the subject, but I'll save it for the comment section.

Read More

Where the rubber meets the road on "equality"

In a new entry today at VFR, Lawrence Auster gets down to it in two paragraphs:

Lawrence Auster writes:

Everyone wants to be superior

Contemporary America says it believes in the equality of all groups and cultures, but in reality none of those groups or cultures believes in equality. Each group wants to be superior and dominant. Blacks don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Homosexuals don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Hispanics don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Muslims don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. Feminist women don’t want to be equal, they want to be superior and dominant. The only group today that doesn’t want to be superior and dominant, the only group that sincerely believes in the equality of all groups, is the historic Anglo-European majority population and culture of the United States.

The non-liberal truth is that in any given society, one group or culture must be dominant and set the tone and standards for the rest. There is thus no substitute for making the decision as to which group or culture will be dominant, or, by continuing to bleat about the wonders of equality, passively letting that decision be made for us by others. Liberalism has no answer to this problem, because its only answer to all problems is to call for more equality. I therefore propose that the traditional, Anglo-European majority culture of this country, shorn of its suicidal liberal belief in the equality of all groups and cultures, be the dominant culture.

Mr. Auster's entry reminds me of several related entries, both recent and not-so-recent, archived at this blog. As to the latter, there was the entry dealing with the Congressional Republicans' ecstasy at now being in the minority. As to the former, there was the entry where we concluded that school segregation was the answer to the dilemma of having whites-favorable rules applying to non-white school students.

Read More

Another bludgeoning waiting to happen

What did I say the other day about worthless parent-figures who indulge and actually encourage unacceptable behavior from their children? Something about their bragging about how head-strong or strong-willed (re: undisciplined) their children are, as if to say that (1) this is a quality unique to that particular child (Newsflash: it ain't!), and (2) that being a strong-willed, disrespectful, unruly, assertive smart-mouth is a particularly laudable quality for a five year old to possess. But then of course, if these people thought otherwise they would have nipped that little problem in the bud long before little Grace turned five.

Well, anyway, apparently this sort of thing is so commonplace today that they actually pay people to write columns to the effect, letting all of the other negligent parent-figures off the hook for abrogating their authority and creating ungovernable monsters then turning them loose on a semi-conscious society. Here's a snippit from the article in question:

In the end, it's all for naught. Sooner or later all of us fathers of daughters arrive at the same place: time is fleeting, and our precious little girls are leaving, and too soon, and more than likely on the arm of some scheming longhair who isn't good enough for our angel and doesn't have the sense to know that the bill of a baseball hat goes in the front.

In all actuality this type is very likely perfectly suited to your little angel. You know, the same precious little girl who at five years old had already begun to borrow lines from her mother's playbook:

Like all fathers, I don't want to be left behind, but looking back I realize that Grace had already begun to pull ahead when she was about 5 years old. I was a Mr. Mom back then, and she got mad at me one day because I stepped on her My Little Pony or some other egregious act. She yelled: "Daddy, you're stupid!" I sternly [TM: yeah, I bet] told her that sort of behavior was just not OK and she needed to say she was sorry. She put one hand on her hip, looked me in the eye, and said, "I'm sorry you're stupid."

What?! You didn't realize that little Gracie picked up that attitude towards you from her mother-figure? What planet are you on, man?!

By the way, when's the next big horrorcore rap concert, ummm, dad? Not to worry though. I'm sure you'll sternly inform Miss Gracie that horrorcore rap music is bad, bad, bad. Just before she, hand on flinched hip, looks you square in the eye and informs you that you'll be taking her or she'll find herself another ride. After all, she's sorry you're too stupid to understand that she likes what she likes and that's all the justification she needs for doing it. But your stupidity ain't her problem now is it.

Best of luck to you, sir. You're definitely going to need it.

Read More

The Constitution according to Nancy

Nancy-baby (H/T: Tenth Amendment Center):

The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "the powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states… or to the people. But the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce. Congress has used this authority to regulate many aspects of American life, from labor relations to education to health care to agricultural production. Since virtually every aspect of the heath care system has an effect on interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited. (bolded in original).

Translation (as if you needed one):

The Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution is inoperable and meaningless, and has been for a long long time. Why this obstructionist, divisive amendment was ever added as part of the Bill of Rights is anyone's guess. Surely the founders didn't expect the states to make the mistake of ratifying it. But whatever. That was then, this is now. And the joke's on them.

Since Congress has successfully used the commerce clause to control various aspects of American life, building line upon line, precept upon precept, the sky is now the limit. Indeed, given that virtually (qualifier added as merely a matter of form) every aspect of everything done in America effects, in some way, shape, form, interstate commerce, the power of Congress to regulate all aspects of American life is unlimited. Challenge my authority and I'll bury your sorry constructionist, literalist, originalist, traditionalist *ss!

She forgot to mention that Congress only need "occupy the field" and "intend a complete ouster" in order to take absolute control over any subject matter. But she's clear enough methinks. The central government is [essentially] all powerful, and by its good graces alone does it allow the states and the people to retain any portion of their sovereignty and autonomy. Thus, if you care to retain what little you have left, you had better bow down before the U.S. government and its Communist power brokers and beg for its mercy and forgiveness. For has it not been written, "if the People ask bread [their government] will not give them a stone."

Read More

Et tu, Joe?

Again I ask this fundamentally critical question: What the hell, and by what legitimate authority, is the central government doing nationalizing healthcare?! Secondly, what possible usefulness is the Republican party to the preservation (or restoration, as it were) of limited Constitutional government when everything we hear from it and its acolytes concerning this healthcare business, among other things, amounts to no more than the equivalent of "we're moving too fast in the right direction."?

As I've said numerous times before, if the Republican party is not a viable vehicle for conservatism, then it is useless. Period. After all, it's a poor dog that won't wag its own tail, a poorer dog still that bites the hand that feeds it. But beyond that, and perhaps more importantly, if the Republican party and its acolytes are nothing more than liberal progressives at heart donning the specious mask of conservatism, then it and they are my avowed enemies, more dangerous even than Hussein and the openly Communist Democrats.

Which is the more dangerous enemy to a free people and their constitutional form of government -- an openly Communist Democrat or a covert Communist Republican?

Though regrettable, it's also understandable that the average Joe isn't fully aware until it's too late of how his government is systematically destroying his fundamental liberties, even as he pays obedient, patriotic tribute to it. But Joe Wilson isn't your average Joe. Joe Wilson is a Republican U.S. Congressman supposedly trying to represent the best interests of his constituents, namely South Carolinian citizens in particular and the larger U.S. citizenry in general. He knows what's going on legislatively in the U.S. government, and he knows what's been going on under other administrations. Indeed, before he was vocally against illegal alien healthcare coverage per his "You lie!" outburst last week, Kerry-like Joe Wilson was silently for it, as Ilana Mercer brings out in this WND article.

To be fair to Mr. Wilson and his Republican colleagues, it is possible, I suppose, that he has experienced a genuine change of heart or some kind of epiphany on this illegal alien question. I'll very cautiously give him the benefit of that doubt because it actually does happen, albeit I'm also quite sure that leftier-than-thou Joe Wilson is a strong proponent of the principles of absolute equality and non-discriminationism. At the same time I think it's very safe to say that Joe Wilson and most other Congressional Republicans actually agree with and advocate the principles of nationalized healthcare, they just think, as I said above, that alien-in-chief Hussein and the openly Communist Democrats are going too far too fast, which is the exact definition of the U.E., which we apply exclusively to liberals. If we're right in doing so, then what does this make Joe Wilson?

While Wilson was right to call out the alien/liar-in-chief for his blatant lies and his provocations of the opponents of 'Obamacare,' Joe Wilson and his RINO colleagues ought to be severly reprimanded for passing themselves off as conservatives, which they're clearly not. But then again, Wilson and his RINO colleagues very likely don't have a clue about what conservatism and its fountainhead is in the first place. In the unlikely event that they do understand what conservatism is, they obviously disagree with it. They have, in other words, the form of conservatism but deny the power thereof.

What, then, is the solution to this rampant problem of non-conservative, non-Republican Republicanism, which is epitomized in the former RINO Arlen Specter? To be quite honest I don't rightly know, except to say that a return to Balanced Constitutional Government, whereby destructive liberal progressivism attempting to pass itself off as something else -- conservatism -- would be more easily recognizable and thus manageable, is essential. But any genuine "conservative" position on nationalized healthcare must begin with the premise that centralized healthcare is not only constitutionally inconsistent, it is, in point of fact, self-destructive and unAmerican if the objective is in fact "to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" through the creation and maintenance of a "more perfect Union." Of course, many of us know perfectly well by now that this is not the objective of Congressional Democrats OR Republicans, who are all (admitting as always the occasional exception) demagogues well versed in paying an obsequious court to the People. Meanwhile they systematically do everything in their power to destroy the Peoples' lives, their liberties and the means of their wealth.

Read More

Repeat after Bob

I don't like the guy, I don't have to like the guy, I'm not going to like the guy." -Bob Beckel on G.W. Bush

Actually, that's probably not an exact quote, but it's close enough. I did a quickie google search for it, but couldn't find it in the allotted time. Anyway, he said it, trust me.

Allow me to say the same as an expression of my personal opinion of the Alien-in-Chief Hussein Obama. I would say more, but it wouldn't be appropriate for a G-rated blog.

Hey!, it's (somewhat of) a free country still!

Read More

Got 'Game?'

I haven't read all of the articles collected under this entry, not to mention the outside articles linked up under certain titles, and I didn't really involve myself in the debate at all, though I thought it was interesting, albeit disturbing in certain respects. I did send Auster a couple of emails on the subject, however, one in which I seconded his description of the 'Gamers' as "these kids", saying that I thought that description pretty well summed it all up and going on to explain how a real dominant male (something these man-children (male adolescents trapped in a man's body) have apparently never actually been exposed to) such as my dad (among certain other dominant males I've had in my life) would have handled me as a young man had I ever expressed to him the low view of women which seems to be the basis of the gamers' approach to, well, "manhood." Which, and as I explained to Auster, after my dad quite literally hit me so hard that I would have had to unzip to spit, he would have gone on to remind me of all the female loved ones in my life.

To refer to women in general in such offensive, degrading, and dare I say unmanly terms as the gamers use is to refer to my grandmothers, my mother, my sisters, my aunts, my female cousins ... my own wife and daughters in such terms. My dad's way of handling it is the way a real man handles that class of ungovernable punks of which we speak. Let them hope they never meet up with one and mistakenly choose to share their view of women with him. In the first place, they wouldn't know how to recognize a real dominant male, because, as I said, they've unfortunately never been exposed to one. Thus, they don't know when to speak and when to shut up; when to 'let their yeas be yea, and their neas be nea.' But in any event I suspect that about 98% of them, give or take, are just full of sh*t to start with. You can make lemonaide out of a lemon, but you can't make a real man out of an arrested (male) adolescent.

Read More

Farah goes too light on Kennedy electors

Joseph Farah writes at WorldNetDaily concerning the sick revelation about Ted Kennedy and his twisted approach to Chappaquiddick. Farah asks the question in the title of the article, "How sick was Ted Kennedy." Let me answer that:

About as sick as the moral ingrates that elected him to the U.S. Senate time after time after time after time.

Someone wrote once years ago something to the effect of "If Teddy Kennedy is a murderer, a moral ingrate, a drunk, and all the other negative things people say about him, then how is it that he keeps being re-elected to the U.S. Senate?" The answer given went like this: "You've just described his constituency." To which I said, and say, Amen.

Farah concludes his article this way:

And that's all Ted Kennedy ever did with regard to Chappaquiddick – pretend that he was sorry. He was only sorry he got caught. He had no way out. So he threw himself on the mercy of the misguided people of Massachusetts, and they had the bad judgment to accept it and foist him upon the rest of us for far too long.

Well, that's all fine and good, but if we refer to the ingrates who elected Kennedy over and over again in nicey-nice terms like "misguided," and attribute to them nicey-nice conditions as merely displaying poor or "bad judgment," then we're simply not being honest about it. And why? Because we fear that being too brutally honest in a matter that requires brutal honesty in order to get to the root of the problem will earn us some ugly descriptive that we haven't been called already a thousand times before? God forbid!

Anyway, R.I.H. (you can figure it out) Ted Kennedy. I have no doubt that the people of Massachusetts will elect someone in your place just as bad or worse than you ever thought of being. For I very highly doubt that there is any shortage of Ted Kennedys in Massachusetts, and I'm quite certain that there exists no shortage of voters there eager to put them in national political office.

Read More

The antithesis of liberty -- the anti-liberty 'Obamacare' opposition

Dr. Keyes has written an article for WorldNetDaily called "Unhealthy for Liberty" from which I excerpt the following passage:

Though even some of the critics of the Obama faction's health sector proposals speak as if the problem with it lies in the fact that they are reaching for too much too quickly, this criticism begs the most important question: What are they reaching for?

Thanks to Dr. Keyes for pointing this out, it is a vital point to make.

From my point of view there is at least some advantage to our side due to the administration's aggressive, radical 'overreaching' (and I use the term very loosely here), but it does nothing to change the facts that what they're reaching for, at its very roots, is dictatorial totalitarian government, which is altogether unAmerican and must be stopped -- not merely resisted, stopped!

Dr. Keyes puts it in very simple terms:

The problem isn't that they are overreaching.

Again, thanks to Dr. Keyes for pointing this out. It is precisely correct. Indeed, as I've intimated above, that they're aggressively 'overreaching' works more to our side's advantage than theirs. And as I've said before here and elsewhere, I do not believe that they have the mental (or moral) capacity necessary to recognize that they need to scale it back IF they are to have any hope of advancing their agenda, ummm, peacefully. Not that advancing their agenda peacefully is necessarily their goal. Nonetheless, Keyes is right to point out that the perception which attributes to them the sin of 'overreaching' is mired in a false premise, namely that it's not what they're reaching for that is wrong, but the breakneck speed and wreckless driving in pursuit of the what that is wrong. This is, I believe, a great example of what Lawrence Auster has denominated the unprincipled exception. In the event that you're not familiar with the term, read Auster's explanation here.

Dr. Keyes continues:

It is quite simply that what they are reaching for is wrong – wrong for the quality of health care, wrong for the individual liberties of Americans, wrong for the preservation of constitutional government that secures the liberty of the American people.

Amen! A right principled position if there ever was one -- as opposed to taking an unprincipled opposing position wherein the best (albeit flawed) argument one can articulate 'against' government takeover of the healthcare industry (among others) is that we're not quite ready for a complete government takeover of xyz industry just yet. In this case there's no higher principle on which one founds his opposition to a given thing. No; he isn't necessarily opposed to government-run anything per se, he just thinks everyone is better served if totalitarianism continues to be implimented bits-and-pieces at a time, or, that the rate of speed at which it is advanced should be increased by slight yet steady increments. Because, you see, he thinks that that is the American way.

Read More

Vindication

Regarding the preceding blog entry, I wrote to Mr. Auster this morning:

What a great article (or discussion) Tyrannical Atheism has turned out to be! Excuse me while I bask in being vindicated citing that particular VFR article as my prime example of why VFR is the premier Trad-con site. ;-)

Outstanding work! Thank you.

Perhaps it is simply a matter of, as they say, beauty being in the eye of the beholder. There is certainly an element of truth in that statement, and I don't deny it. But I saw this coming early on with Tyrannical Atheism, partly because I'm familiar with the quality of readership at VFR, partly because it's (that is, Tyrannical Atheism) a subject of intense interest for yours truly.

As has been said before, "extreme individualism is as dangerous to liberty as any form of collectivism." See Mr. Auster's reply to a reader whose answer to the collectivism he sees in our society is the aforementioned extreme individualism. The reader supposes he wishes for a society that, well, isn't a society; a society that has no identity, no purpose, no nothing but a universal recognition and following of extreme individualism. He supposes this only because he's never lived in such a ruthlessly individualistic society.

As I've suggested before, why don't we build these extremists a city somewhere off in the mountains, self-contained, self-'governed', completely independent of our society and check in on them from time to time to see how they're coming along in their 'development' away from the extremes of extreme individualism and all that that implies. Make it so number one.

Read More

On the intolerablest of all possible sins

There is a semi interesting discussion ongoing at Dr. Keyes's site Loyal To Liberty in which the intolerablest sin imaginable -- intolerance -- is mentioned several times back and forth between posters. (Might this be yet another case of leftier-than-thou posters sparring with one another about who is, well, the leftier of the two, which are always fun and entertaining exchanges? Well, not exactly, but close.)

I thought a word on tolerance was in order, so I posted a comment to the thread. It also seemed appropriate that I should mention in the comment the blatantly false liberal idea that we can't (or shouldn't) legislate morality. If liberals truly believe that we can't/shouldn't legislate morality, then why do they do it? The answer is that they don't really believe in the concept. What they actually believe is that legislating specific kinds of morality (i.e., non-liberal morality) is absolutely not permissable, liberal morality being excepted, of course. As I've said many times before, here and elsewhere, it's not a matter of whether we can or should legislate morality, it is rather a matter of whose morality will be legislated.

Anyway, here's what I wrote in the post:

A word on "tolerance" if I may:

Perhaps it needs to be pointed out to some in this conversation that people don't tolerate that which they agree with, they embrace it. Tolerance implies disagreement, thus those who embrace a thing and (self-righteously) count it as the highest form of tolerance are simply lying to themselves. Likewise, people who say that a person is intolerant because he expresses opposition to, or non-embrace of a thing, indict themselves. But if anyone can show me an ideology that is more intolerant (not to mention destructive) than liberalism in any case, I'd sure like to see it.

Then there's the liberal fallacy that says "we cannot legislate morality."

For our purposes here, let's throw the illegitimate word "amorality" on the ash heap where it belongs and act like adults with some semblance of common sense. As if moral beings can be morally neutral.

But if it's true that we cannot legislate morality, as liberals are so fond of saying, then why do liberals (they're the ones that incessantly make the statement, and I'm including among them right-liberals), well, legislate morality, liberal morality?

Whenever you make a distinction between right and wrong, good and evil, you've just taken a moral position. Does anyone know of any law on the books that is not founded in a moral position, someone's moral position?

Let's take abortion as our example since this thread is about abortion. Correct me, but isn't the argument, at bottom, that it is wrong, thus immoral, to deny a woman's right to choose? Isn't that what we constantly hear from the pundits, the talking heads, and our illustrious liberal politicians ("Republicans" included)?

Read More

Can there possibly be a more ridiculous figure...

...than the likes of 'Speaker of the House' Nanci Pelosi?

Can anything political possibly be more embarassing to that segment of the general public which makes anything resembling a contribution to the betterment of the society at large, than Nanci Pelosi as the Speaker of the House of (United States) Representatives?

Just a thought.

Read More

Conservative vs. Libertarian - what is the source of the problem?

Under Dr. Keyes's excellent post United by Right, I attempt to identify the root cause of the confusion and disagreement between libertarian commentator Silent Consensus, and the majority of commenters under that and earlier threads at the site.

Here is an excerpt from my latest comment to the entry:

Re the irreconcilable differences between Silent Consensus and the majority in this forum:

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. Yes, yes, it's an overused line, but that doesn't negate the fact.

There are three minimal requirements for intelligent conversation to occur: 1) an intelligent mind capable of transmitting a thought, 2) an intelligent mind capable of receiving a thought, and 3) a common mode of communication between them (a common language).

I personally find that it is almost always that third one that gets in the way of carrying on an intelligent conversation between minds. We speak the same (English) language, yes, extracting our words from a common store or reservoir, but at the same time we assign to them different significations, primary and secondary, depending on our philosophical beliefs. Thus, we're really speaking different philosophical dialects of the same language, which acts as a barrier or an impediment to our being able to transmit and receive thoughts with normal clarity. And it goes without saying that a high degree of clarity is an absolute must when attempting to carry on intelligent conversations with someone else, political, religious, whatever.

I, of course, encourage you to follow the link to the entry and read the entirety of the comment in which I quote John Jay from Federalist no. 2 where he lays it down as essential to, and inseparable from, the growth and development of the founding generation into a body politic sufficiently prepared and uniquely qualified to establish "general liberty and independence," the societal cohesion necessary to accomplish the formidable task.

Which, of course, has implications for us and our ability to maintain general liberty and independence, in our time, as well. Something I ultimately chose not to delve too far into in the post, opting rather to keep my focus primarily on the confusion, and what I deem to be the source of the confusion, that Silent Consensus is creating in the forum. Jay's observation is important as it applies to us nonetheless. And I'll have more to say on it here later.

**********

Loyal to Liberty commenter chiu chunling writes in part:

Silent Consensus isn't a libertarian, though he makes free to mouth such arguments. He simply is trying to set up a straw-man idea of freedom to establish a problem that can only be solved by totalitarianism.

I believe that self-government means self-determination, and further that self-determination depends on self-control and self-restraint. I simply use a conceptually consistent idea of "self" as being an entity which has the potential for independent existence, which is to say, I do not mean only the body, which is dependent for its composition and continuation on circumstances.

This response to my comment is, on some level, meant to refute what I said concerning libertarianism's idea of what the term self-government primarily signifies. But in fact it solidifies the point. Where chunling indicates that he believes that self-government means self-determination and further that self-determination depends on self-control and self-constraint, he's simply acknowledging my simpler version of the exact same idea, namely that the primary signification of self-government is self-control, self-constraint, not self-determination. This is not what Silent Consensus believes, and his IS a libertarian understanding of the term self-government.

Now, maybe chunling counts himself among libertarians and was thus offended by my comments. Fine. But as I've said many, many times before, there are libertarians, and then there are Libertarians. A pure Libertarian like Silent Consensus has a strong sense of the absolute autonomy of the individual, or, extreme individualism. Chunling is not a pure libertarian, Silent Consensus is.

Read More

The mainstream media loves anti-conservative conservatives

Take a look at this brilliant piece of satire addressed to the mainstream media, by Kyle Smith writing for the New York Post.

Read More

Is Wikipedia politically neutral?

When it comes to its biographical article on Barack Hussein Obama, some are saying not. Indeed, if you access the current Wiki piece on Obama you will find a note at the top of the page declaring that the article has been closed to editing pending the resolution of disputes over the inclusion in the article of less than glowing facts about Obama's questionable past associations, political, religious and otherwise.

Okay, okay, they don't quite put it that way, but what else are we to make of this protection of the page as it now exists given the glowing nature of the article but that the page is being "protected" from the inclusion of facts about Obama's past that don't speak particularly well of him? The principle expressed in the adage "birds of a feather flock together" is universal, thus it applies equally to Barack Hussein Obama and George W. Bush. What then is a supposedly objective information outlet doing whitewashing the associations of one high profile individual while not granting the same privelege to the other, if indeed it is objective and strives to be objective?

Otherwise, however, the article seems to be a pretty good biographical sketch of Barack Hussein Obama, his personal life and professional and political careers. So it's not that the article is completely useless. It's just not very reliable as a source for Obama's questionable activities and past associations. And I personally have my doubts that it ever will be. Liberalism again wins the day, which is precisely what one would expect in liberal dominated society.

So it is that Wikipedia is yet one more example among many that liberalism is the dominant and ruling ideology in modern America.

Read More

Senator declares Snopes to be last word on Obama citizenship issue

Senator Jon Kyl, (RINO) Az., is the man in question. Apparently he believes Snopes is the final authority when it comes to "internet rumors" concerning this and other matters of national import. All Hail Snopes!:

From WND's article:

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has referred constituents raising concerns over President Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office to an online "fact" organization that relies for its answer partly on information from the Obama campaign.

The response from Kyl to an Arizona constituent was revealed just one day after a Florida WND reader alerted WND to the fact Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., had told him that Obama's eligibility was affirmed by voters who supported him in the Democratic primary and general elections in 2008.

The response from Kyl to a voter who asked about Obama's ability to meet the constitutional requirements for president said:

Thank you for your recent e-mail. Senator Obama meets the constitutional requirements for presidential office. Rumors pertaining to his citizenship status have been circulating on the Internet, and this information has been debunked by Snopes.com, which investigates the truth behind Internet rumors.

See what I mean when I say that the U.S. Senate, as it currently exists, is a filibuster-proof Senate? It doesn't matter what the specific piece of legislation or issue is, Obama and the (openly) socialist-democrats will be able, in any case, to peel off enough "republicans" to get their measures through.

By the way, we need this designation (RINO) placed beside the names of all elected Republicans who are, rather than the usual (D)/(R) that we're accustomed to getting. Shame on any and all who refuse to use this alternate designation.

Read More