In Which Obama Campaign Manager Unintentionally Provides Blogger With Awesome Opportunity To Do Tea Party/OWS Compare/Contrast

The President’s porcine and thuggish campaign manager, Jim Messina, has unintentionally afforded me an opportunity to engage in one of my favorite past times - comparing the ragtag collection of confused/violent/radical malcontents who make up the Occupy movement to the benign, patriotic, and genuinely peaceful tea party.

Here is his latest fundraising letter, via Weasel Zippers:

Last night, the President went to Congress and defined in clear terms what we’re going to be fighting for in the months ahead.

That means that right now, it’s on us to get his back and work like hell to build this campaign. If we want to see this President re-elected, it’s time:

Add your name and say you’re standing with the President — and our shared vision for this country.

We don’t know which Republican is going to be our opponent yet, but here’s what we do know: Whoever wins the Republican nomination will have done so by adopting the extreme Tea Party agenda.

Whatever could he mean by the “extreme” tea party agenda?

Here is Jenny Beth Martin of The Tea Party Patriots, voicing her “extremist” support for fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets in response to Obama’s SOTU speech. . I’ve already posted this, but in case you missed it:

So, wow – yeah – that was pretty scary. God help us all if extreme principles like those are ever adopted by any Republican in government.

Meanwhile, here’s the Obamacrat endorsed Occupy Wall Street manifesto of “demands”:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Yes, just to be clear, Democrats have openly and enthusiastically endorsed these out of the closet Marxists. See The #OWS Hall Of Shame: Democrats Who Support/Supported The Occupy Wall Street Movement for a non-exhaustive list. This is not your parents’ Democrat party – it has swung to the hard left in recent years, and the most extreme leftist wing of the Democrat party now occupies the White House.

So for the party that is in the process of destroying our capitalist system in the name of  “fundamentally transforming” our nation, to be calling people who want to get back to fiscal responsibility and a constitutional form of government, “extremists” is just too rich.

“If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard,” Messina once instructed Obama supporters. I believe in punching back twice as hard, rhetorically.

The Obamcrat mob, not so much. Here, once again, created and kept updated by the Jawas, is the Tea Party Versus (Dem endorsed)#Occupy Checklist:

They’ve got a hell of a nerve trying to paint the tea party as “extremist”  under these circumstances.

PS: There are some interesting opinions on the Messina photo, above, shared in Weasel Zippers’ comment section.

Share

Dear Paul Krugman: Examples Please

In Paul Krugman’s lame follow-up  to his despicable and now infamous 9/11 column, he writes:

The fact is that the two years or so after 9/11 were a terrible time in America – a time of political exploitation and intimidation, culminating in the deliberate misleading of the nation into the invasion of Iraq.

It’s probably worth pointing out that I’m not saying anything now that I wasn’t saying in real time back then, when Bush had a sky-high approval rating and any criticism was denounced as treason. And there’s nothing I’ve done in my life of which I’m more proud.

Since comments are once again turned off, I’ll use this space to beg the question: Can we please see some examples of this intimidation – these accusations of treason from the Bushies – any of them – Rumsfeld, Rove, Cheney, any Bush Republicans in the wake of 9/11?

The reason I ask is because  while I distinctly remember the howls of outrage from Democrats that their patriotism was being questioned, I don’t remember any  Republicans in power actually doing it. Who is he talking about? Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter doesn’t speak for the Republican party, and she certainly didn’t speak for the Bush administration. Limbaugh may call himself  “the titular head of the Republican party”, but obviously, he speaks for himself, too. The Democrats’ howls of outrage were directed at the Republican party.  I’d like to see some examples of this “terrible” intimidation of which they speak.

Krugman linked to Greg Sargent, who was able to dredge up a few examples of what could be deemed “political exploitation” of 9/11 by Bushies:

Here’s Karl Rove in the runup to the 2002 midterm elections (via Nexis):

President Bush’s top political adviser said today that Republicans will make the president’s handling of the war on terrorism the centerpiece of their strategy to win back the Senate and keep control of the House in this year’s midterm elections.

“We can go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America’s military might and thereby protecting America,” Karl Rove said at the Republican National Committee meeting here.

Here’s Rudy Giuliani, at the 2004 Republican National Convention (via Nexis):

I looked up and seeing the flames of hell emanating from those buildings and realizing that what I was actually seeing was a human being on the 101st, 102nd floor that was jumping out of the building, I stood there; it probably took five or six seconds. It seemed to me that it took 20 or 30 minutes. And I was stunned. And I realized in that moment and that instant, I realized we were facing something that we had never, ever faced before…At the time, we believed that we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Without really thinking, based on just emotion, spontaneous, I grabbed the arm of then-Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and I said to him, ‘’Bernie, thank God George Bush is our president.’’ I say it again tonight, I say it again tonight: thank God that George Bush is our president.

Here’s top McCain adviser Charlie Black, during the 2008 campaign:

A top adviser to Sen. John McCain said that a terrorist attack in the United States would be a political benefit to the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, a comment that was immediately disputed by the candidate and denounced by his Democratic rival.

Charles R. Black Jr., one of McCain’s most senior political advisers, said in an interview with Fortune magazine that a fresh terrorist attack “certainly would be a big advantage to him.”

So we have Karl Rove, (the Architect)  noting the obvious, and Giuliani’s honest recounting of what he (and  a whole lot of people) were thinking on 9/11. What McCain’s adviser said in 2008 was certainly crude, but I thought we were talking about the period of time immediately following 9/11 when this atmosphere of intimidation and gross political exploitation was so palpable.

And I, of course,  could cite Democrat operatives saying  equally crude things, such as: Obama needs event ‘similar’ to OKC to ‘reconnect’ with voters. Nowhere will we find Republicans scheming with Hollywood to release a movie in October 2004, positioning the “gutsy” President as the hero of 9/11. Now that would be some political exploitation worth mentioning!

Given how the Democrat Media complex  really knows how to play up the missteps of Republicans, you would think Google with be rife with examples of Bushies accusing the Krugmans of the world of treason.

I can certainly  cite for you examples  of the Obami accusing Republicans and/or the Tea Party of treason, terrorism, (or worse).

Democrats have verbally maligned their opposition in the most shockingly abusive terms imaginable, and much of it has come from Democrats in Congress and in the Obama administration. Yes, they have literally questioned Republicans’ patriotism in very overt, stark, impossible to misread terms.

Within hours of the tragic Tucson shooting in which nine people were shot, six fatal, last January, Paul Krugman himself, leaped to the outrageous conclusion that the shooter had to be a Tea Partier. He blamed conservatives for the attack that critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, accusing them of fomenting “a climate of hate.” I can’t think of a more shameful way to exploit a tragedy than to immediately, and without any evidence what-so-ever,  blame  political opponents for it. You could even call it an attempt to “intimidate” the opposition into silence.

Of course,  the Democrats were, as usual, wrong. The gunman turned out not to be a conservative Tea Party supporter. His writings and obsessions indicated if anything, the deranged, disordered mind of a left-wing lunatic.

I’d love to see some similar examples of unhinged venom and hatred against the opposition from Republicans during the Bush era.

But I’m not going to hold my breath. Because it didn’t happen.

As James Taranto noted in 2004:

Surely it is fair for any politician to take issue with his opponent’s official acts. And if those acts were motivated by something other than antipathy toward America–as any fair-minded observer must presume they were–they could have been defended on their merits. Instead, Democrats themselves raised the issue of patriotism by defensively denying that they lacked it. A cardinal rule of political communication is never to repeat an accusation in the course of denying it (“I am not a crook”). These candidates “repeated” a charge no one had even made.

The Democrats doth protested too much.

Share

Video: Glenn Beck Show Flames Al Gore For Civil Rights/Global Warming Comparison

Glenn Beck’s sidekick, Pat Gray,  alternated between a high pitched Sam Kinison screech, and a slow, condescending Al Gore drawl, to lambast Goracle for comparing Climate Change skeptics to racists.

It’s relentless, unforgiving, and hilarious — Al Gore so deserves this.

Will Al Gore and his warmist friends ever go away? The wheels have come off the global warming scam. The jig is up.

They’re just embarrassing themselves, now.

SEE ALSO:

Breitbart TV: Major Garrett Lays into Al Gore and Global Warming Hysterics

In a candid and revealing interview with Dennis Miller, National Journal’s Major Garrett recalls the imperious, arrogant and condescending bearing of Al Gore as a Senator. Garrett believes that his recent statements comparing global warming skeptics to racists are a reflection of that same attitude.

SWEET:

Weasel Zippers: House Republicans Seek To Cut All U.S. Funding For U.N. Climate Change Agencies…-

WASHINGTON —House Republicans are applying a search and destroy tactic to international funding for global warming this budget season. It goes like this: Ax any line items with the words “climate change.”

Their primary targets are a pair of crucial United Nations initiatives designed to slow warming worldwide and educate policymakers about the evolving science of climate change.

We’ll see how far this goes. They also attempted to defund the Obama’s Czars in their $38 billion budget cuts bill, last April, but Obama prevented it in a signing statement, (which he had previously promised he’d never do.)

Share

Turning a Yawning Chasm into a Growing Gulf

“Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”

-Johnny Rotten, at the close of the last Sex Pistols concert.

I’m starting to feel this way every single day.

 Each day, the cries that people who are rejecting or have rejected the status quo “Are stupid, insane, or my personal favorite, “handing the election to Obama” because they just don’t see the wisdom in any debt ceiling fix that gives more spenditol to the hopelessly addicted in D.C. without honest, true (not gimmicky) and most importantly immediate cuts to the Federal Government’s spending grow louder, and I find myself growing more annoyed with people I have more similarities than differences with, not because of the differences, but because their inability to convince me that the compromise they are rallying behind will prevent the calamity they fear has driven them to derision, name-calling, insults, and questioning our patriotism.  In other words, they are acting like the Democrats do when we tell them “No.” too.

Whether it’s the New York Times’ favorite “maverick” referring to the Tea Party as Hobbits, and claiming that “Others know better” than the Tea Party Freshmen in the Congress, or people I respect telling me in serial FB postings that anyone who isn’t for Boehner’s plan to raise the credit limit again in exchange for promises to make some piddling cuts at some time that history tells us will never be made anyway, and then bring us back to this point yet again during election season is the same as a Democrat such as the President, contempt is the tune played with the complete expectation that we will dance, and its put me into a position I never wanted to be in.  I’m being pushed into declaring for the Tea Party.

It isn’t that I had any particular beef with the Tea Party.  My objections have really been more dealing with the movement’s long-term prospects.  As I said to a Republican Tea Party basher on FB:

‎1. I am not a Tea Party member. I enjoyed the fact that it was grassroots and genuine. I never signed on, because I knew that it was destined to be co-opted or marginalized because it threatened the political establishment and their power base.
2. Your willingness to appoint them with a responsibility to “shut people up” chills me a bit. The appeal of the tea party was a central message, and the ability for people who had felt marginalized or removed from the mainstream political process to participate and bring some of their own ideas to the fore. A “leadership” would be counter to that idea.
3. Much of what I’ve feared has come to pass…a degree of co-opting, both actual, and presumed by those for whom it would be handy to do so, and marginalization…by a corrupt media that needed a group of “extremists”, and a political establishment that needed a boogeyman to save us from.
4. And even though I don’t agree with a lot of them, I’d rather have a political system that doesn’t “silence” the fringes, or anything outside the mainstream, largely because I firmly believe that we HAVE to trust the people, in the firm knowledge that they are going to make mistakes (Thanks, 52%ers!) or that none of this political system means anything and we can simply officially appoint those who presume to be our betters as such, and dispense with the charade.

And how did we arrive at this point, anyway?  Really, before we entrust these responsible stewards of the public purse with the ability to spend even more money, isn’t that a question we all should be asking?  If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result, then the “compromise” they are offering doesn’t make any damn sense.

The Tea Party owes its existence to government’s reckless and irresponsible spending, and the way that government demonstrated its feeling of entitlement to not only continue spending more money than it takes in, but to continually increase this spending in order to mitigate the consequences of really poor decisions. (Too Big To Fail, anyone?)

It was a terrific thing to behold as it gathered steam, because people who had never given politics a second thought, or only considered it when filling out a ballot were now looking at the ways their elected officials had squandered their trust, and enhanced their own power and finances at the expense of our own personal sovereignty and wallet.  They had realized that government by the professional and the expert first benefits the professional and the expert, and then trickles down only to the extent that doing so will also benefit the professional and the expert.  But this newfound clarity threatens not just the chattering class, whose false narratives and very selective reporting kept the majority of the nation slumbering and dreaming dreams in which every man woman and child was a lottery winner, and never had to be asked to pay for the welfare state that continued to grow in its quest to provide for them from cradle to grave, and so the new narrative began, about these “extremists” who opposed what government hath wrought not because it stifled freedom and opportunity, and confiscated wealth on an enormous scale to redistribute it to others who did nothing to earn it , but because they were “racists who didn’t want a black President to succeed.”  They were haters, who if given an opportunity to do so, would commit unspeakable acts of violence against those who disagreed with them, even kill them if they thought it necessary. 

It was certainly a surprise to the everyday mothers, fathers, grandpas, and grandmas who came to the rallies, and participated in the peaceful protests.  It was a surprise to those who came to townhalls to confront their elected officials about the trust that they so casually abused, only to find themselves shouted down, disrespected, and questioned by their public servants, and their supporters, many of whom freely feed at the public trough.  I know many people who consider themselves part of the Tea Party, one of who graciously lets me co-blog with her when I get the urge to speak up, and the media portrayals of them couldn’t be farther from the truth.  And as irritating as that is, its ok.  One of the things that came clear during the emergence of the Tea Party and the rush of the legacy media to portray them as unhinged extremists is the fact that the self-appointed cognoscenti were defending a power base, and the shriller the denunciations, the more obvious it became to observers that the media members, and their patrons in the Democratic Party were the ones standing naked while commenting to each other about their resplendent wardrobes.  The more they condescended, complained, and projected, the more hollow their lofty pronouncements rang.

And it had a result, as the elections of 2010 proved, and the consequence was a series of election gains in the House of Representatives that completely changed the make up of that body. 

Now we find ourselves facing yet another crisis.  Another in a string of crises that miraculously can only be solved by the federal government spending more money that it does not have, to pay for consequences that it bears the responsibility for.  The only truly good comparison that I can think of is the domestic violence victim who keeps going back to her abuser, because he promises that this time, things will be different…after he tells her that it is her fault that he beats her.  We keep going back, and if we hesitate, we’re told to “get our asses back in line.”  And for all the noise about the approaching deadline, “inflexible ideologues”, and swift and certain financialgeddon, and the absolute and positive need to address this RIGHT NOW, OR ELSE!  and the only option, no matter how it is dressed up, is to increase the credit limit now, and make cuts later, or whenever they can get around to it, if they feel like it, and the moon is in the right phase, with the only real distinctions being how much, and whether or not the timing is politically beneficial to one side or the other, several key facts and follow-up questions keep getting lost.

1.  We actually hit the debt ceiling in May of this year.  In all the hysteria, hyperventilation, finger-pointing, and name-calling, that fact seems to get lost.  One might ask how this got to be a “crisis”, considering the fact that it couldn’t have been a surprise.

2.  The US’s credit rating has already been downgraded.  While I don’t expect it to be a harmless event if the other rating agencies follow, I also noted that the sky didn’t fall, and I didn’t have to take a wheelbarrow full of $100,000.00 bills to the Safeway to buy a loaf of bread after it happened. 

4.  The Democrats have not passed a budget since 2009, despite the fact that it is one of Congress’ duties.  This works to their advantage.  No budget means no parameters on spending.  Anything goes until you hit the ceiling.  Besides, they were too busy with Spendulous, Cash for Clunkers, and Obamacare to actually attend to their duties.  And who do you think you are for asking pointed questions about it anyway, peasant?

5.  Do your creditors maintain your credit score when your debt to income ratio is already too high and you decide that you can and should borrow more?   So why should we believe that a government that is characterized by an abject avoidance of restraint when it comes to spending the public’s money will not suffer the same fate when if they pass a bill that bumps out that limit, and purports to address a portion of the spending problem, somehow, some way, some time?  It would be like believing that the chronic alcoholic will be ok if the bartender doesn’t serve him the last two shots he’s used to downing nightly; the real problem is in the 5 shots he was served before.  And yet the Tea Party is now the enemy of America, and actively working for the re-election of Barack Obama for recognizing that what is being offered and discussed is a “more of the same” of what we’ve had before, and declining to go along with it.

6.  Teh Fred! and others keep crowing about a victory in shifting the conversation away from tax increases, and demanding we take that, and ignore the fact that even with the “cuts” being proposed, the leviathan that is Fedzilla still grows.   More and more people are getting clued in to the magical growth formula in government accounting based on premise that Zero = Last Year’s Budget.  Taxes weren’t negotiable because despite what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi believe, this was NEVER a revenue problem; it is a spending problem, and taking away what never should have been on the table to begin with, and then rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic will not prevent a really, really cold swim.

It comes down to this:  Government Spending first empowers the government.  Democrats have known this for years, and used it to their advantage to cultivate a block of constituents beholden to them for their sustenance due to the advent of multigenerational welfare, and they have carefully nurtured it until we have reached a point where nearly 50% of the citizens in this country don’t have any of the precious “skin in the game” that the Teleprompter President likes to babble on about, because they pay no taxes.   They have no intention of changing this state of affairs.  TPOTUS himself has all but admitted that his idea of “shared sacrifice” is that the people who are paying the check need to pay even more.   The real-life warnings that the failed welfare states of Europe pose do nothing to change any of this.  They will spend it, even when they don’t have it, and they will do anything for their fix.  If unchecked, this can only end one way.

Get used to scenes like these, because if we don’t address the festering sore that is Federal Spending now, we lose choices. There won’t be an option that helps Granny get the check that the Federal Government has no business paying her. The government will probably not have the ability to perform its enumerated duties, let alone pay for mohair subsidies, studies on the flow rate of catsup, or refurbishing mosques in foreign countries.   This nonsense cannot be sustained.  Enacting special welfare and calling it general welfare is a path to ruin.  Growing a federal bureaucracy that must continue to worm its tentacles further and further into all aspects life and business in order to justify itself is not conducive the maintenance of freedom and liberty.  This is what “go along to get along” has gotten us…legions of experts who prove day in and day out that there is no problem that government cannot create, and then make worse with its “solutions”.  Learned professionals without any practical experience who pass laws and regulations without a thought to the cost that it imposes on those who they would regulate, because they only choose to see what they have done as a goal that they have fulfilled.

We aren’t stupid for deciding that more of the same isn’t a serious answer.

We’re not unpatriotic for not trusting a professional political class peopled by Republicans as well as Democrats when they tell me that if we just do this for them this time, then they can get majorities in the next election and things will be different.  Tell it to Newt Gingrich.  We’ve swallowed that turd sandwich before.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

And calling me a Hobbit because I see the snare and refuse to step into it doesn’t change my mind or my heart in the Reagan tradition.  It just tells me that you know you’re more concerned with your power than you are for the future of this country, and that lacking a convincing argument, you believe that I’m as willing to compromise as you are, in the pursuit of being loved, of course.  Just ask “the maverick”.

My friends…

No thanks. The madness can’t continue if enough people just opt out.

Am I the Only One…

…who wants to choke the s*** of the people on “our side” of the political spectrum when they keep attacking the non-expert/experienced politicians who have decided to endure hostile, partisan reporters spelunking in their sphincters and uteruses, and the scorn and derision of pundits, who often have done nothing remotely risky in their lives other than ordering iffy fish at swanky restaurants or daring to buy a suit off the rack, rather than visiting their tailor for their latest Armani.

I’d like to know when so many conservatives bought into the idea that our leaders must be drawn from the pool of experts and experienced politicians.  A careful reading of the Federalist Papers and other assorted writings make it clear that the Framers certainly never envisioned a government consisting of career politicians and professional experts rich in “knowledge” largely or completely unsupported by real world experience.  But honestly, as far afield as we have strayed from so many other things that they intended, I find this gradual acquiescence less frustrating than the unrestrained contempt that so many of these so-called conservative ”journalists”, talking heads, and their devoted followers have for people like Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, or even Michelle Bachmann.

Whether it’s the vacuous and groundless criticisms leveled at Sarah Palin, (She’s dumb, she’s a hillbilly, Trig isn’t hers, OMG, she didn’t give a polished and pat answer to the hostile reporter’s query, its her fault the nutbar shot Gabby Giffords, or that she’s a quitter because she decided to stop costing the taxpayers of Alaska money fighting boundless and, ultimately frivolous ethics complaints and resigned the governorship), the “he doesn’t have a policy plan for every single contingency” leveled at Herman Cain, someone who I would wager has more ideas that would actually grow the economy and jobs in his little finger than The President and all of Congress have between themselves and their legions of advisors and staff.  Besides, I’m quite sure that the only reason an “electable candidate” like Mitt Romney can cogently answer a specific foreign policy question because at least one or more paid advisor has advised him on a safe, or expected answer to such question.  Be honest, do you think at his first inauguration, George W. Bush was planning to spend the majority of time in office in charge of conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, or that he thought that we would suffer a devastating terrorist attack on our soil that would kill thousands of American civilians, or that a cadre of career Democratic appointees going through a revolving door at Freddie and Fannie would feed an unsustainable bubble by guaranteeing bad loans and personally enriching themselves in the process, despite it being brought to his attention once in office, and his numerous warnings to Congress about their dreadful oversight after it was brought to his attention.

The fact that these criticisms come from people who haven’t decided to subject themselves to the inevitable criticism and scrutiny directed at these candidates is irritating.  These people aren’t making the decision to run because they want power.  Despite the claims to the contrary, they don’t do it for “the fame”.  I’m quite certain that Governor Palin hasn’t appreciated “the fame” that has made her daughters the focus of David Letterman’s creepy sexual innuendos, or Andy Sullivan all but petition the courts to make his own gynecological examination of her nethers.  I’m equally certain that Herman Cain didn’t decide to move into the public eye and run for office because he’d like to be President.  Representative Bachmann on the other hand, clearly enjoys driving partisan hacks like Chrissy “Tingles” Matthews insane when she purposely doesn’t play the role that he hamfistedly tries to maneuver her into.  But then, to hear some talking head with a complete lack of understanding of the tax code prattling on and pretending to know more than her would lead me to frustrate the sputtering simpleton at every opportunity as well.  No, these people made the decision to step away from their lives because they could no longer ignore the fact that decades of leadership by the experienced and the experts isn’t working.  And what thanks do they get?  A complete eclipse of consideration by self-appointed deciders obsessed with talking points, elaborate plans which may or may not survive the events of the potential candidate’s administration, ‘electablity’-otherwise known as the careful positioning that ensures that the candidate doesn’t really have a position that would evoke a strong feeling by any potential voter, and policy expertise informed by, well, more experts.  And then they lament months later the fact that the new boss is largely undistinguishable from the old boss.

I have an idea.

How about you journalists, pundits, loyal followers and other deciders who purport to be on our side try a novel strategy this time?

Shut the hell up and let us decide, m’kay?

Share

The Palin Conundrum

The question being debated in my Sarah Palin’s WTF Moment thread: Can she do it? Can Sarah Palin somehow be able to go over the heads of the MSM, (a la Reagan) and win over the fickle independents, many of whom believe the media narrative that she’s a dangerous loose cannon, and a ditz?

The answer: I don’t know. Before Mike Pence bowed out, I was hoping she would spare herself (and us) the spectacle of what will turn out to be all-out bloody warfare between herself and the left, the media (but I repeat myself), and the elites within our own party.

Commenters, trying to talk me into a Palin candidacy have been making some great points.

Saber says Palin is the woman for this epic battle:

Sarah is Sarah and Ive known her for years and my wife is friends with her in Alaska. You folks are dealing with something that America has not seen in many years, a true patriot and a woman who grew up on the frontier. She is more then a master of a pithy soundbite, she is a master of Blood sports and she tells the WHOLE truth and to those who have wallowed in the world of PC induced socialism her words sound harsh. Wake up before we do not have a country for yourselves to be nice in. Look around you, who excites the American people, who does the heartland love, who is the left afraid of most…Sarah Palin.

Quinn says:

We’ve been pointing out that any actual conservative in her shoes will get demonized to hell and back by the media. You say you already know this. Okay, great.

But the difference is, 99% of the time when the media does this – it works. And it works -completely-. The conservative in question simply disappears off the face of the earth one way or another. Remember Fred “no fire in the belly!” Thompson? He would’ve been a freaking magnificent President. And can you think of anyone with -less- “fire in the belly” than the candidate we wound up with? Doesn’t matter. The media began the meme, even conservatives fell for it, and now…. when was the last time you heard from Fred?

You think their campaign against Sarah has been too successful for her to run. I think it’s exactly the opposite – they’ve thrown EVERYTHING they have at her – really, what else could they do? – and she’s still in a very solid position, with a large base of very devoted fans. That’s remarkable. And add to that that the left’s attacks on her have now gotten so over the top (which they won’t need to be with other conservatives) that it really -is- turning a lot of people off to the left and getting her a fair amount of sympathy. That’s also invaluable. Nominate her, and the left will implode in its attacks on her by revolting everyone with their mysoginistic dripping hate. THAT’S what’ll get the independents to either vote for her or stay home.

So, in summary: You seem to think Sarah is “damaged goods”, that the damage she’s taken has been too great. I think it’s the opposite – she’s endured the left’s savagery better than anyone else I can think of possibly could. Save maybe Reagan, and when you find another one of him, we can discuss this again, but until then – she’s easily the most resilient conservative we’ve got. ANY other real conservative you can think of will be completely destroyed in the minds of everyone before they’ve suffered 10% of the venom she’s taken.

My response:

Quinn, you mentioned some of the powerful plus sides of a Palin candidacy that I fully agree with.

She has “fire in the belly”. She doesn’t shrink from a fight – in fact she seems to relish it. And yes, they have thrown everything but the kitchen sink at her, and she’s still standing. If 1/3 of the guys in congress had her guts we’d be in a much better position, today. (I had this very same conversation with Smitty, last year at CPAC).

Did you see Eric Cantor shrink when grilled about the “birther” issue last Sunday on Meet the Press? Heaven help us. Palin took an amazing amount of heat for answering the question honestly in Dec, 2009, (if you have time do click on link and read the comments – very entertaining-ed.) when it was much more un-PC to talk about it. Now, even Tingles is asking about it, and these guys still can’t find the stones to deal with it.

Pawlenty couldn’t even “stand up” to defend Palin against the vicious Tucson smears when asked about her cross-hairs map. He’s another one off my short list. Republicans need to man up and recognize when the media is engaging in pack behavior, and call them out on it. Aren’t there any strategists in DC who know how to handle the media? Total stoneless wimp submission to the BS isn’t a winning strategy.

The thing is, I’m looking at the handwriting on the wall, and thinking she’s sustained too many hits to be viable at this point.

If you can explain to me how she wins over the middle, most of whom appear to be back in Obama’s camp, I will change my mind. I understand these people are fickle. Many of them won’t make up their minds until they’re in the voters booth.

Sarah Palin said she would jump in if she thought there was a need – meaning there were no conservative fighters in the mix.

With Pence out, that just may be the case. Herman Cain is a fighter, but unfortunately he has never held elective office and that would be a negative for a lot of people.

So it may just come down to Palin. Which is why she should listen to my advice. Don’t give the Jackals scraps to feast on. (And please stop saying “lamestream media”!) That, I can guaran-damn-tee you turns a lot of people off.

The danger is the undecideds who may have some sympathy for her will grow so tired of it, they will decide to vote for Obama to avoid more drama.

Lily links to this American Thinker piece by JR Dunn.

In it, he discusses how the left has been using the same tactics they’re using against Sarah Palin for over 60 years:

When liberalism mutated into an ideology in the wake of the New Deal, it also adapted the “enemies” mindset of its model ideologies, fascism and communism. No longer was politics the grand democratic game. Opponents of liberalism were enemies of progress, of justice, and of the People, deserving no consideration or mercy. The old rules of decorum and civility went out the window, replaced with any below-the-belt move that worked.

He lists victims from Joe McCarthy to the present time. Another must read article on this theme comes from Jack Cashill at The American Thinker: Sarah Palin and the Legacy of Republican ‘Idiocy’.

Dunn suggests how Palin can rise above the attacks:

Until recently, Sarah Palin hewed closely to the Reagan method, dismissing attacks with a joke and a smile (even when such slanders were aimed at her disabled infant child, a display of personal strength that would inspire anyone not blinded by ideology). She needs to return to that method. She need not comment on attacks of this level. She has no deep personal flaws such as Nixon’s neuroticism or Gingrich’s egotism, and she will not experience any similar downfall.

Palin also has something else, something not possessed by previous targets. She has a following. All previous figures had their admirers, and Reagan led a movement. But none had or has what Palin has — a large group of people who look up to her, who view her as an example and a role model, who bleed when she bleeds and hurt when she hurts. It is those people who should be left to handle Palin’s attackers.

We conservative bloggers don’t mind getting a little dirty fighting these swine, but she really needs to remain above the fray.

The new technologies, together with the political will embodied in the Tea Parties, offer us a means of breaking this squalid liberal tactic and restoring a sense of balance to the political debate. It is never a good thing when a political party has access to non-political means to achieve its goals. The liberal Democrats have been abusing their exclusive access to media for close to sixty years. It’s past time they were pulled up short.

And I respond:

Lily, JR Dunn has his finger on the essence of the problem – the media.

Now the question is – between now and the election, can conservative activists go over the heads of the MSM and somehow reach those people who don’t pay much attention to politics..Those folks who believe what they’re spoonfed by the MSM. That’s the stumbling block…that’s the thing I don’t know how we do.

I’m trying to think within the framework of what is currently possible.

And that’s where we’re at. We have from now until election season to figure out how to undo the media narrative that has already hurt her in the eyes of too many, and to somehow win the info wars in the months to come.

And she also needs to win over elites within our own party who don’t think she has “gravitas”.

I welcome your ideas.

Matt says:

Imagine Katie Couric’s face on a billboard, with a line like ” Is she biased? ……Who does she vote for?” If we take the fight to the media figures and CAN expose them as untrustworthy conduits of information, would this be an effective strategy? What if it had a website at bottom of each billboard with excellent links to videos demonstrating their bias….this would have to be extremely professional and well documented….

You can vote for your preferred candidate in a poll this morning at AoSHQ.

RELATED:

Smitty, who I referenced above as having discussed a Palin run with me at CPAC last year, took the pro-Palin position at the time, in fact made many of the same arguments Quinn made, yesterday.

Today, over at The Other McCain, he says:

Tim Pawlenty totally merits consideration. Sarah fan though I am, the Left continues to pile up the negatives on her and poison the well. Sure, it’s intellectually dishonest, and we’ll support her as far as she decides to go, but there it is. The lying bastards who go on about ‘fairness’ are themselves the least fair of the lot. Did Shakespeare predict her coming triumph? I don’t think so, either, but maybe the Bard knew something we do not.
In contrasting Sarah to Tim, I’m deeply respectful of both people for their courageous stands in the face of dishonest opposition. Pawlenty’s book recalled the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, and the media frenzy to connect conservative policy to the tragedy. Maybe Sarah and Tim can flip a coin to see who occupies the upper portion of the ticket.

I guess Smitty can join me among the ranks of those who are no longer “true conservatives”.

As for Pawlenty, I’m willing to take another look at him. I probably shouldn’t be judging him so harshly based on his weak responses to the MSM, re Palin. But it did seem like a disturbing harbinger to me.

Linked by Doug Ross in Larwyn’s Links, thanks!

Re: Civil Discourse

Byron York is rethinking  Obama’s much lauded Tucson speech. Even conservatives have been swooning in its wake, because  the President of the United States didn’t take the moonbat bait, and blame conservative rhetoric for Jared Loughner’s shooting spree.

But as York asks, how could he?

By the time Obama spoke, there was irrefutable evidence that shooting suspect Jared Loughner was deeply mentally ill and acted out of no recognizable political agenda.  Obama simply could not have made the case that Loughner’s acts were in any way the product of political rhetoric from right or left.

He didn’t need to. The point Obama wanted to make was not that political rhetoric caused the violence but that such rhetoric — like, for example, criticism directed at Barack Obama — should be toned down.  So even as he conceded that rhetoric did not cause the violence, Obama argued that it should be muted anyway.  And he cloaked his appeal in so much emotionalism, in so many tear-jerking references to the recently departed, that some in his audience might not have noticed he was making the political point he wanted to make all along.

Read his entire piece.
-
Tammy Bruce’s first impression was the right one. As “uncivil” as she was in making her case -she was 100% correct, and she had every reason to feel appalled. We all should.

Why is it that whenever conservatism is on the ascendancy – we are chided by the left to tone it down? We saw it happen in the ’90′s when conservative talk radio was on the rise, and we’re seeing it today with the tea party movement.

“Be civil”.

When the the left is losing all the arguments, what do we hear?

“Be civil”.

As Rush Limbaugh said on his show, Friday; “civility” is the new word for “shut up”.

We are brow-beated by the most uncivil of civilians. We are told to “watch our tone” by people who look the other way when conservative leaders are threatened, or  verbally abused in the most obscene and unspeakable terms, or hung in effigy. How many leftists have been willing to defend Sarah Palin against the Tucson blood libel? Most have instead, attacked her for using the term, “blood libel”.

How many have been willing to discuss at any length, threats of violence and hate speech against her?

Be civil?

I’m with Don Surber:

For two years now, I have been called ignorant, racist, angry and violent by the left. The very foul-mouthed protesters of Bush dare to now label my words as “hate speech.”

Last week, the left quickly blamed the right for the national tragedy of a shooting spree by a madman who never watched Fox News, never listened to Rush Limbaugh and likely did not know who Sarah Palin is.

Fortunately, the American public rejected out of hand that idiotic notion that the right was responsible.

Rather than apologize, the left wants to change the tone of the political debate.

The left suddenly wants civil discourse.

Bite me.

The left wants to play games of semantics.

Bite me.

The left wants us to be civil — after being so uncivil for a decade.

Bite me.

There is grown-up work to do now. Liberals ran up the federal credit card, destroyed the American medical system and undermined the rule of law — which is the foundation of capitalism — with a bunch of unconstitutional fiats from the president and his bureaucracy.

The economy is a mess. The president “inherited” a 7.6% unemployment rate. It’s now 9.4% — after we spent a record $787 billion on a stimulus.

I was not consulted on that stimulus. I had a very good argument against it. I said the money supply was too large and printing more money would fail. I said let the economic downturn run its course.

Lefties were too busy celebrating the 2008 election to listen.

When people protested lefties made vulgar remarks about tea-bagging and giggled.

So screw you and your civil discourse.

BlackisWhiteImperialConsigliere has a similar message for the left:

Your civility, for decades, has to been to tell us that we are stupid.  To mock those who speak for our views.  To paint anyone who believes as we do as being stupid, ignorant, and hateful.  You have poured scorn, derision, and condescension upon us with the obliviousness of those who never gave a thought to what they were doing.  Any attempt at a dialogue which doesn’t require those on our side to start with a premise that you are correct on any of these characterizations has been met with a vehement ”Shut Up!”, and now, after days of engaging in savage slander and blood libel, now you wring your hands, and speak softly of civility, either as again, trying to control the speech of others, or in hopes of being treated with greater restraint than you and yours showed me and mine since Saturday morning?

Go to Hell.

Your orgy of hate and blame that started before the bodies even hit the floor of that Tucson Safeway last Saturday revealed everything important to any who still had doubts about who you really are.  And I’ll be damned if I’ll be silent and polite about the people who I think are the real danger to America.  Especially after they pantsed themselves in front of the country last week.

Here’s what I’ll do: I will continue to love my country and obey its laws as I always have. I’ll continue to not hang people in effigies, or wish death or destruction on anyone. I will continue my political dissent against the  Obama regime, and I won’t shy away from words like, “Socialist” to describe it. I will also call far left nutjobs, “moonbats” when I feel it’s warranted. And it will be warranted.

If the past week has proven anything to me at all, it’s that liberalism/leftism really is a mental disorder.

MORE:

Bloggers who are politely declining the the left’s  invitation to engage more civilly:

Zilla of the Resistance: Take Your “Civil Discourse” and SHOVE IT!

Wolf Howling: Civility & Other BS

Matthew Vadum, Newsreal Blog: This Is What You Can Do With Your ‘Civility’!

Linked by Michelle Malkin, and Doug Ross, thanks!

Share

The Reason

For all the sound and fury about America not being a Christian nation, once again, we have come to that time of year when the government, and the retail temples for which little is sacred will close early, and then remain closed for a whole day to observe the holiday of Christmas…a day which bears the name of Christ.

While some outlets of government, such as public schools have chosen to remove his name from break which they take, his name is still attached to the holiday that the schools dare not name as it tumbles from the lips of excited children, who cannot be blamed for their jubilation and exuberance about all that the celebration brings, even if it does tend to detract from the reason we observe the celebration with his name.

This is a singular phenomenon. Government does not observe other religions in this fashion. It does not shut down for Muslim holy days. The birthdays of Buddha or Confucius are not marked with empty offices and closed stores. The radio is not filed with Zoroastrian carols at any time of year.

And while those who stridently believe in “a wall of separation between church and state” that the architects of our government never envisioned, and that would have indeed shocked and dismayed them attempt to erase these links in the name of preserving the wall that did not exist until 1949, we continue as if there is nothing at all arrogant in presuming that people more than one hundred and fifty years removed better understood what was intended than the people who wrote the blueprint. It is a fiction laid bare by what occurs this time of year, when we celebrate the birth, life, and death of a man who was God in the flesh, who came to freely give the ultimate gift, knowing that there would be too many who would reject what he gave, and would condemn themselves to a life of bondage, and an eternity of suffering before they would accept that which was freely given.

And during this time of year, when things fall still and silent, in his name, it is an occasion to reflect of the real harbinger of hope and change, humbly born, exalted and abandoned, and resurrected in real transformation. I know that people can still be sobered by the account of this life which came to save all others. I first heard this song a few years ago, and I still feel the gravity of it every single time I hear it.

Merry Christmas to all, even those who doubt or reject the gift…it is freely offered just the same.

The Case Against Cleaver, Part 3: Democratic Socialists Of America

I should have mentioned this in part one, but it totally slipped my mind.

Emanuel Cleaver is one of 70 House members who caucus with Democratic Socialists of America. They proudly made the announcement in their October 2009 newsletter (but it’s been conveniently scrubbed for the election season).  The list is also posted on Scribd.com. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone in light of the fact that on his return from Cuba,  he had nothing but praise for Castro’s island paradise.

Here, via Gateway Pundit, is the list:

Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

Hello, Missouri district 5 voters?…..Please pass this around, and VOTE on November 2nd.

See also:

Right Side News: Naming the Enemies Within Our US Congress

NRO: Just How Many Avowed Socialists are Ohio & Illinois Congressmen?

Key Wiki:  Congressional Progressive Caucus

RELATED:

New Zeal: DSA Celebrates new book on “ACORN’s Kick-Ass Activism”

No Sheeples Here: Democratic Socialists Of America: The Special Interests Behind Congressional Policies

PREVIOUSLY:

Midwest Voices: Watch out, Cleaver, here comes Jacob Turk

The Case Against Cleaver, Part 2: Spittlegate

The Case Against Cleaver: Part One

Can We Call Them Democrat Socialists, Now?

North Attleboro Republican Committee Member Asks Suspected Fake R Candidate, Marty Lamb (MA-3) To Step Down

A couple of weeks ago, I alerted readers to a suspected fake ” tea-party” candidate, Marty Lamb  in MA-3.

This devastating audio from his appearance on The Howie Carr Show gave Massachusetts tea partiers good reason to doubt  his conservative bonafides:

Sunday, North Attleboro Republican Town Committee member, James Lang, wrote an oped in The Sun Chronicle, asking Lamb to step down for the good of the party:

Ex-Democrat poor choice for Congress A Republican is a Republican is a Republican, not a duck that quacks, not a wolf in sheep skin, but a Republican! And some of us have been for a very, very long time with pride.

It seems that Martin Lamb, Republican candidate for Congress in the third district, switched from the Democrat to the Republican Party only last fall and has contributed in the recent past to the campaign of Rep. Ed Markey (in 2004) among three other very liberal Democrats.

It is difficult to see how Mr. Lamb can maintain credibility as a conservative at this point.

A look at Lamb’s speeches and writings provides no evidence showing his actual thought process to support Mr. Lamb’s claim of having “seen the light,” as he now claims. His bulging learning curve is rather thin on specifics. This does not necessarily mean Mr. Lamb has not undergone a “conversion” to conservatism as he claims. Conservative voters searching desperately for an alternative to Rep. James McGovern this fall have little reason to risk that Mr. Lamb’s philosophical conversion isn’t, in fact, merely an opportunistic career conversion. As a dyed in the wool Republican, I appreciate Marty’s effort; however, Mr. Lamb would best serve the conservative movement, to which he claims to belong, by withdrawing immediately from the race.

James Lang, North Attleboro

Let’s hope he takes Mr. Lang’s advice. There are better candidates out there, with longer Republican resumes, including, true blue conservative, Mike Stopa.

Stopa’s views on the ground zero mosque, here.

PREVIOUSLY:

RINO Alert: MA Republican Candidate Marty Lamb Donated To Liberal Dems???

Saturday Political Matinee

Introducing Mike Stopa (R-MA) For Congress




Share

On It…From Day One!

From First Things:

Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP’s oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk.

“These barges work. You’ve seen them work. You’ve seen them suck oil out of the water,” said Jindal.

So why stop now?

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

I’m glad they got their priorities straight.

H/T : EddieBear the Magnificent

How Much Disrespect Is Too Much?

And now to an interesting little controversy in my own backyard.

First, the video:

And then the story.  From the Seattle Times:

In Monday’s incident, Officer Ian P. Walsh grabbed the arm of a 19-year-old woman who tried to walk away from him after he stopped her for jaywalking on Martin Luther King Jr. Way South near Rainier Avenue South. A pedestrian overpass was nearby. As he was trying to handcuff the woman, the 17-year-old girl intervened, grabbing and pushing Walsh, who responded by punching her in the face.

And this isn’t the first incident of its kind in Seattle lately.

Auditors who oversee complaints against Seattle police officers have repeatedly expressed concerns about jaywalking stops and minor street confrontations that escalate into physical altercations, and they say better training is needed.

Diaz said that although police officers hold a dangerous job and need citizens to act civilly, the department needs to take the “extra step” of maintaining good relations with the community. Police say they ticket jaywalkers because a number of people in Seattle have been injured and killed dashing out into traffic in areas where drivers can’t see them.

Because if you say “Please”, criminals and their associates will be happy to submit to authority.  Of course, with a crowd like that, if someone had grabbed Officer Walsh’s gun and decided to ventilate him, they would be perfectly justified in doing so, because he didn’t take the “extra step” of “maintaining good relations with the community”.

Of course, this is also feeding a complaint that a blind man could see coming from 100 miles away…

Leaders of Seattle’s African-American community called Walsh’s punch an overreaction, while also criticizing the 17-year-old’s behavior. Both the girl and woman are black, while Walsh is white.

Maybe they need to think a little harder about the 17-year-old’s behavior.  It seems to me that the “Static Rule” was in play here.  Perhaps it was because I went to school with and worked with the sons of the police officers back in the mid-Michigan community where I grew up, and therefore I was familiar with what they did before the became police officers that would make me think long and hard about interfering with a police officer who is clearly trying to subdue and cuff a suspect.  Police have a tougher job than most, and they really shouldn’t have to deal with attitudes from teens that they are trying to arrest. And it is the little things that are blowing up into these confrontations in Seattle right now.

In a 2006 report, Pflaumer [Seattle P.D. Civilian Auditor 2003-2009] wrote that she found it “distressing to see how many of the excessive force complaints begin with minor street confrontations: Over jay walking, possible impounding of a car, or even, in one case, refusal to show an officer a ‘receptacle’ for disposing of dog waste.”

Pflaumer noted that citizens “often do not show officers respect or attention” when confronted over minor offenses.

“When they verbally challenge or disregard orders given, it often leads officers to respond more harshly than warranted,” she wrote.

The solution?  “De-escalation training”, and a lot of second-guessing by people who weren’t present.

Last year, a new auditor, Michael Spearman, who had served as a King County Superior Court judge, cited similar concerns. “What stood out most often was the number of instances in which citizen/officer contact escalated from innocuous to the use of force situation,” he wrote in a report.

Spearman, who left the job after being appointed in March to the state Court of Appeals, noted that on many occasions, the initial contact stemmed from a jaywalking allegation that escalated when the citizen failed to comply with an officer’s order to stop.

In some cases, Spearman wrote, the failure to stop resulted from inattention or bad judgment and, in other instances, from a belief — right or wrong — that the officer was motivated by racial bias. He also urged the Police Department to intensify the training of officers in de-escalation techniques to minimize the use of force.

“Certainly, when an officer observes a jaywalking or other minor infraction, there is some obligation to make an effort to either cite the offender or in some way encourage compliance with the law,” Spearman wrote. “However, whether the use of force in this situation is a best practice is questionable.”

I like Judge Spearman.  While I have never tried a case before him, I have attended CLEs at which he lectured, and he has consistently demonstrated the demeanor and the character that I expect a judge to exhibit.  However, I think he gets this wrong.

In a crowd like the one in the video above, the officer already has to have his senses heightened that much more than normal, because he has to be watching not just the suspect, but the other people all around him.  It would be easy for this to go badly, and the 17-year-old could have just as easily been an aggressive male, or someone determined to grab the officer’s sidearm.  We charge these officers with enforcing the law.  That means the little ones as well as the big ones.  The 19-year-old may have thought it silly to be stopped for jaywalking, but it isn’t just about her.  There is a reason that there was a pedestrian overpass in the background, and it wasn’t so someone could get killed and cause significant property damage by crossing the street illegally there.  It makes a tough job that much tougher.  When the officer is in that situation, he or she needs to be able to deal with interference in a direct manner that sends a clear message and discourages other bystander participation. 

In a state where we just recently buried 4 officers killed at the same time in my community earlier this year, you wouldn’t think that this would be such a difficult concept to grasp.

The President Thinks We’re Stupid…

…in fact, he’s counting on it.

That can be the only explanation for a speech that didn’t fail to disappoint this evening.  Maybe his regular teleprompter was on vacation. Or maybe yet more talk about action simply fails to satisfy.  Or maybe linguistic slight of hand isn’t convincing on this subject when his advisors forget to tell him to take off his golf glove.  It’s so hard to say.

“Good evening. As we speak, our nation faces a multitude of challenges. At home, our top priority is to recover and rebuild from a recession that has touched the lives of nearly every American. Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al-Qaida wherever it exists.”

 Of course the recession is nothing compared to the economic effect of insane borrowing to create more government jobs, and the incalculable damage that will be wrought by the burdens of Health Care “Reform”, and Cap and Tax.  And I haven’t figured out why its ok for you to play golf while those brave men and women fight, and even come home in boxes, but not when your predecessor did it.  Why is that, Mr. President?

“And tonight, I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.”

You can try to ascribe a motive to it, but it remains a natural phenomenon.

“On April 20th, an explosion ripped through BP Deepwater Horizon drilling rig, about 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana. Eleven workers lost their lives. Seventeen others were injured. And soon, nearly a mile beneath the surface of the ocean, oil began spewing into the water.

Because there’s never been a leak this size at this depth, stopping it has tested the limits of human technology. That’s why, just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge, a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s secretary of energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.”

A plug for the expertocracy.  Lovely.  Are we naming names so they can be tossed under the bus later, or am I supposed to be reassured that a physicist turned politician is trying to determine how to stop a leaking oil well a mile beneath the sea?

As a result of these efforts, we’ve directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that’s expected to stop the leak completely.

Which I’m sure BP resisted right up until The Government™ stepped in and told it to do something that might help mitigate a public relations nightmare for them.  Of course, this does nothing to explain why you turned down offers of help from other governments who made sincere offers to mobilize their own specialized resources designed to do just that days and weeks ago.  And why is BP drilling a relief well, anyway?  Is there something that you have likely been told that would make your tough talk seem all the more foolish and staged?

“Already, this oil spill is the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced. And unlike an earthquake or a hurricane, it’s not a single event that does its damage in a matter of minutes or days. The millions of gallons of oil that have spilled into the Gulf of Mexico are more like an epidemic, one that we will be fighting for months and even years.”

Made much worse than it had to be, not just by Federal inaction, which was considerable, but also by a failure to approve state mitigation and prevention efforts in a timely fashion.  Never has “We’re from the government, and we’re here to help” sounded so much like a cruel joke.

But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

Make no mistake.  I knew this speech would be good for at least one “make no mistake”, your now infamous preface to saying something insincere or condescending.  As for making BP, there is that whole dealio with, um, you know…the law, which already makes BP’s obligations in this matter perfectly clear, with or without general tough talk from you.  And as for the rest, why start now?  Over 60 days, Mr. President.  That’s a lot of golf and fund raising.

“Tonight, I’d like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward: what we’re doing to clean up the oil, what we’re doing to help our neighbors in the gulf, and what we’re doing to make sure that a catastrophe like this never happens again.”

If you’re doing what you can, then we should resign ourselves to black beaches and dead marine life for the foreseeable future.  And preventing any further offshore drilling isn’t an answer either.

“First, the clean-up.

From the very beginning of this crisis, the federal government has been in charge of the largest environmental clean-up effort in our nation’s history, an effort led by Admiral Thad Allen, who has almost 40 years of experience responding to disasters. We now have nearly 30,000 personnel who are working across four states to contain and clean up the oil. Thousands of ships and other vessels are responding in the gulf. And I’ve authorized the deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast. These servicemen and women are ready to help stop the oil from coming ashore, they’re ready to help clean the beaches, train response workers, or even help with processing claims, and I urge the governors in the affected states to activate these troops as soon as possible.

Because of our efforts, millions of gallons of oil have already been removed from the water through burning, skimming, and other collection methods. Over 5.5 million feet of boom has been laid across the water to block and absorb the approaching oil. We’ve approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try to stop the oil before it reaches the shore, and we’re working with Alabama, Mississippi and Florida to implement creative approaches to their unique coastlines.”

Why did the approvals take so long?  The EPA is an executive agency.  You could have cut a lot of red tape with one of those executive orders you’re so fond of.

“As the clean-up continues, we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance our coastal states may need.

Now, a mobilization of this speed and magnitude will never be perfect, and new challenges will always arise. I saw and heard evidence of that during this trip. So if something isn’t working, we want to hear about it. If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them.

But we have to recognize that, despite our best efforts, oil has already caused damage to our coastline and its wildlife. And sadly, no matter how effective our response is, there will be more oil and more damage before this siege is done.”

You didn’t really think that looking over BP’s shoulder and screaming “plug the hole” while the stain grew unabated was really going to prevent damage to the coastline, did you?

“That’s why the second thing we’re focused on is the recovery and restoration of the Gulf Coast.

You know, for generations, men and women who call this region home have made their living from the water. That living is now in jeopardy. I’ve talked to shrimpers and fishermen who don’t know how they’re going to support their families this year. I’ve seen empty docks and restaurants with fewer customers, even in areas where the beaches are not yet affected.”

At least you didn’t whine about doing it in the rain this time.  I guess the focus group analysis that said “wussy” stung a bit.

“I’ve talked to owners of shops and hotels who wonder when the tourists might start coming back. The sadness and the anger they feel is not just about the money they’ve lost; it’s about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost.”

No thanks to you and your merry band of incompetents.

“I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness.”

I don’t recall any details that support the claim of recklessness.

“And this fund will not be controlled by BP. In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party.”

Law, meet non-practicing lawyer.  Non-practicing lawyer, meet law.  I know, you read about these kinds of things in law school, and therefore must think them to be quite extraordinary, but it really isn’t a new concept, Mr. President.

“Beyond compensating the people of the gulf in the short term, it’s also clear we need a long-term plan to restore the unique beauty and bounty of this region. The oil spill represents just the latest blow to a place that’s already suffered multiple economic disasters and decades of environmental degradation that has led to disappearing wetlands and habitats.

And the region still hasn’t recovered from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That’s why we must make a commitment to the Gulf Coast that goes beyond responding to the crisis of the moment.”

Aaaaannnnddd the implied dig at your predecessor.  Brilliant. 

“I make that commitment tonight.

Earlier, I asked Ray Mabus, the secretary of the Navy, who’s also a former governor of Mississippi and a son of the Gulf Coast, to develop a long-term Gulf Coast Restoration Plan as soon as possible. The plan will be designed by states, local communities, tribes, fishermen, businesses, conservationists, and other gulf residents. And BP will pay for the impact this spill has had on the region.”

Which is what the law requires.

“The third part of our response plan is the steps we’re taking to ensure that a disaster like this does not happen again.

A few months ago, I approved a proposal to consider new, limited offshore drilling under the assurance that it would be absolutely safe, that the proper technology would be in place and the necessary precautions would be taken.

That obviously was not the case in the Deepwater Horizon rig, and I want to know why. The American people deserve to know why. The families I met with last week who lost their loved ones in the explosion, these families deserve to know why.”

Nothing is absolutely safe, Mr. President, and only fool believes otherwise.  As for what was and was not the case, I suggest that you consider the declaration without facts you made after the arrest of your buddy Skip Gates.  Your certainty in the lack of facts there left you with egg on your face, and since the Deepwater Horizon had only recently received a government award for its operations, it sounds a lot like you throwing a bunch of dead oil workers under your famous death bus.

“And so I’ve established a national commission to understand the causes of this disaster and offer recommendations on what additional safety and environmental standards we need to put in place. Already I’ve issued a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling.”

Because gasoline isn’t expensive enough.  We know.  We heard you the first time.

“I know this creates difficulty for the people who work on these rigs, but for the sake of their safety and for the sake of the entire region, we need to know the facts before we allow deep-water drilling to continue.”

Because there is no disaster, no harm that can’t be made worse by government determined to pass inane tax bills masquerading as energy bills, and who would gleefully use an accident to make that a reality.

“And while I urge the commission to complete its work as quickly as possible, I expect them to do that work thoroughly and impartially.”

Because if the hatchetjob is too quick, people might ask questions.

“Now, one place we’ve already begun to take action is at the agency in charge of regulating drilling and issuing permits, known as the Minerals Management Service.

Over the last decade, this agency has become emblematic of a failed philosophy that views all regulation with hostility, a philosophy that says corporations should be allowed to play by their own rules and police themselves.”

After all, there is no aspect of life that cannot be made more costly and burdensome with regulation.

“At this agency, industry insiders were put in charge of industry oversight. Oil companies showered regulators with gifts and favors and were essentially allowed to conduct their own safety inspections and write their own regulations.”

Probably because prize-winning physicists know so much more about about the oil business, and can therefore craft regulations that achieve their stated goal while imposing the lease onerous burdens and costs on an industry that affects every aspect of daily life.

“And when Ken Salazar became my secretary of the interior, one of his very first acts was to clean up the worst of the corruption at this agency. But it’s now clear that the problem there ran much deeper and the pace of reform was just too slow.

And so Secretary Salazar and I are bringing in new leadership at the agency: Michael Bromwich, who was a tough federal prosecutor and inspector general. And his charge over the next few months is to build an organization that acts as the oil industry’s watchdog, not its partner.”

Yay!!!!  Another Harvard Lawyer!!!  Whatever did we do without Harvard Lawyers to tell us how we’ve been doing it wrong?

“So one of the lessons we’ve learned from this spill is that we need better regulations, better safety standards, and better enforcement when it comes to offshore drilling. But a larger lesson is that, no matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days entails greater risk.”

More than it should, actually.  but that’s what happens when The Government™ won’t let us drill closer to shore, or in much of our on land oil reserves.

“After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more than 20 percent of the world’s oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves. And that’s part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean: because we’re running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.”

No, we aren’t, as the USGS and MMS data show.  Seeing as they are part of your “team”, you really shouldn’t be saying things that are so easily proved wrong.

“For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires.”

And for decades, or technology has improved, allowing us to access more and more previously unrecoverable oil.

“Time and again, the path forward has been blocked, not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.”

The only path that is being blocked is the path that says The Government™ gets to spend millions in taxpayer dollars developing “green” technologies of its choosing, once again deciding who will win and who will lose in an industry, and using the power of the public purse to make it so.  What is astonishing is that you really don’t expect us to see this for the incredible opportunity for graft and corruption that it is.

“The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. Countries like China are investing in clean-energy jobs and industries that should be right here in America. Each day, we send nearly $1 billion of our wealth to foreign countries for their oil. And today, as we look to the gulf, we see an entire way of life being threatened by a menacing cloud of black crude.”

Of course, the Chinese are also buying hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil, and the fact that they are clearly jockeying for blue water supremacy in the Pacific shouldn’t be cause for concern.  I’m sure our military aircraft will be powered by solar panels in the future.

“We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean-energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.”

I agree.  Inexpensive, domestically controlled and produced energy will be vital to our future.  And we have those resources, but have been prevented for decades by conservationists and environmental wackjobs from making use of the incredible bounty that we sit atop.

“This is not some distant vision for America. The transition away from fossil fuels is going to take some time. But over the last year- and-a-half, we’ve already taken unprecedented action to jump-start the clean-energy industry.”

The transition from fossil fuels will take as long as it takes us to get to $7 a gallon gasoline.  Then the blackouts and prohibitive energy costs, and higher food prices can combine to winnow away the most vulnerable of us.  I’ll miss Granny, and the poor folks down the street, but the savings to Medicare and Medicaid should be tremendous!

And there’s the “unprecedented”.  I dare you to step in front of a microphone and NOT use this word when you are applying it to yourself or your administration, Mr. President.  If you could do that even just once, that would be unprecedented.

“As we speak, old factories are reopening to produce wind turbines, people are going back to work installing energy-efficient windows, and small businesses are making solar panels. Consumers are buying more efficient cars and trucks, and families are making their homes more energy-efficient. Scientists and researchers are discovering clean-energy technologies that someday will lead to entire new industries.

Each of us has a part to play in a new future that will benefit all of us. As we recover from this recession, the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs, but only if we accelerate that transition, only if we seize the moment, and only if we rally together and act as one nation: workers and entrepreneurs, scientists and citizens, the public and private sectors.”

The public sector makes a dandy leech.  Not such a good innovator or wealth creator.

“You know, when I was a candidate for this office, I laid out a set of principles that would move our country towards energy independence. Last year, the House of Representatives acted on these principles by passing a strong and comprehensive energy and climate bill, a bill that finally makes clean energy the profitable kind of energy for America’s businesses.”

Demonstrating once again that there is a difficult gulf between the government declaring something, and it actually being reality.

“Now, there are costs associated with this transition, and there are some who believe that we can’t afford those costs right now. I say we can’t afford not to change how we produce and use energy, because the long-term costs to our economy, our national security, and our environment are far greater.”

Because making the most of our resources at the same time, rather than clinging to silly notions that solar panels alone will save us is just crazy.

“So I’m happy to look at other ideas and approaches from either party, as long as they seriously tackle our addiction to fossil fuels. Some have suggested raising efficiency standards in our buildings, like we did in our cars and trucks. Some believe we should set standards to ensure that more of our electricity comes from wind and solar power. Others wonder why the energy industry only spends a fraction of what the high-tech industry does on research and development, and want to rapidly boost our investments in such research and development.”

How dare we be “addicted” to our cars, air travel, shipping goods and food to stores where we can buy them, rather than having to grow them ourselves, and having heat and air conditioning.  How silly of us.

“All of these approaches have merit and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet.”

Yes, because fair hearings are important.  Unless I don’t want to hear it.  I won, you know.

And inaction is not acceptable.  I couldn’t stay in the Oval Office and do my job.  I heard about the spill, and I decided that inaction wouldn’t be good.  You’d be surprised how much better I felt after sinking some tough putts.

“You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon.”

No, it wasn’t.  Instead, they rolled up the sleeves, sharpened their pencils, got their slide rules clicking, and brought the P-51 Mustang from the drawing board to flight in less than a year.  We cranked out Liberty Ships and yards of ammunition, and we did it without bitching, whining, blaming other people, or doubting ourselves.  It wasn’t easy, but it was never impossible.  But it also wasn’t done by saying “Screw Petroleum.  I want a ray gun.” either.  But thanks for reminding us of the American Exceptionalism that you have been so eager to talk down at every opportunity.

“And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom.”

Just conventional politicians. Like taxes and stupidity, they too, will always be with us.

“Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny, our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like, even if we don’t yet precisely know how we’re going to get there, we know we’ll get there.”

I don’t want the same future you want for my children.  I don’t want them to settle for second best, a fading star in a world that hates and despises us.

“It’s a faith in the future that sustains us as a people. It is that same faith that sustains our neighbors in the gulf right now.

Each year, at the beginning of shrimping season, the region’s fishermen take part in a tradition that was brought to America long ago by fishing immigrants from Europe. It’s called “The Blessing of the Fleet,” and today it’s a celebration where clergy from different religions gather to say a prayer for the safety and success of the men and women who will soon head out to sea, some for weeks at a time.

The ceremony goes on in good times and in bad. It took place after Katrina, and it took place a few weeks ago, at the beginning of the most difficult season these fishermen have ever faced.

And still, they came and they prayed.

For as a priest and former fisherman once said of the tradition, “The blessing is not that God has promised to remove all obstacles and dangers. The blessing is that He is with us always,” a blessing that’s granted “even in the midst of the storm.”"

Of course, hearing from the President who still hasn’t chosen a church more than a year into his presidency, but considered God a partner in the effort to ram through health care reform brings a grin to my face.

“The oil spill is not the last crisis America will face. This nation has known hard times before, and we will surely know them again. What sees us through — what has always seen us through — is our strength, our resilience, and our unyielding faith that something better awaits us if we summon the courage to reach for it.”

No, the biggest crisis we face is your continuing presidency.  But it is evidence that prayers are answered.  Jimmy Carter can sleep better knowing that he is no longer the worst President in recent memory.

“Tonight, we pray for that courage, we pray for the people of the gulf, and we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day.”

I pray that someone in your administration can actually step up, and start doing what you should have been doing all along.

“Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.”

If only I could believe that you meant it.

Appeasing Ignorance

“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”–Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

“No people in history have ever survived who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies.”– Dean Acheson

A freind of mine said something disturbingly flavored with the taint of truth today:

I predict that a time will come in the very near future when black becomes the new n-word. It will be considered the equivalent of calling someone a nigger if you call them black.

Write it down:
Hotspur
June 11, 2010

Well, we haven’t reached that point yet, but we are getting close.  Who could forget this stunning display of political correctness in action?

 

Now this wasn’t all that long ago.  And this guy is still says it is racist.  Why?  Because it’s “black”.  Duh!

And the “explanation” only gets stupider the longer he talks.

Where to begin?  Do we start with the idea of perpetual victimhood that requires not only the purported victim to identify something that victimizes them, but also requires others to find victimization on their behalf like the famous addition of the word “Boy!” to Congressman Joe Wilson’s outburst “You Lie!” as the President stood before Congress and…well, lied?  I know I saw the clip numerous times, and I never heard the word, but seeing as how I’m not “enlightened” enough to shovel shit write for the New York Times, like the correspondent who claimed she heard it nonetheless, maybe there is a secret ability of such people to hear things never said.  She didn’t say Congressman Wilson was thinking it, but the implication was there just the same, and he was tarred with it, as the following controversy demonstrated.

This pretending to know what people are thinking and not saying would be reprehensible enough…we can expect a certain level of conduct in the daily discourse of civility, but this tacit notion that some people have a right to declare their knowledge of what people they don’t like are thinking, and ascribing these unsavory thoughts to people who have never said them smacks of a craven cowardice seeking to avoid an honest discussion.  And yet the rest of society entertains this notion that the victims have a right not to be offended by things that were never said, or by how they wish to interpret them, rather than the plain (and sometimes stated) meaning of the speaker.  And like many good intentions, it can lead us to places we don’t want to go.

So today, as I drove home from the office, I heard this story:

Once is a coincidence, twice is a trend.  And once again, a card that has been on the market for three years has been pulled from the market to appease the ignorant victimhood of the a civil rights group that has clearly lost its way.  Reading the news story only made it worse.

It is a graduation greeting from Hallmark that says, “Hey world, we are officially putting you on notice.”

Members of the Los Angeles NAACP did take notice. As characters known as “Hoops” and “Yoyo” banter on, African American leaders hear offensive language.

“And you black holes, you are so ominous. Watch your back,” the card vocalizes.

“That was very demeaning to African American women. When it made reference to African American women as whores and at the end, it says ‘watch your back,’” said Leon Jenkins of the Los Angeles NAACP.

Who knew the study of the Universe could be so racist? I never suspected that Stephen Hawking was actually “very demeaning to African American women”.  Of course, seeing as he’s actually a British subject, one might reasonably ask if his intent was actually to be very demeaning to the female British population of African extraction.  And it only gets more embarrassing from there.  He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009.  Who will Barack Hussein Obama throw under the bus for this? 

Once the claws were out, the NAACP decided to flex its muscle.  And once more, concessions were made to appease the offended.

When Hallmark was reached by phone, they said the card is all a misunderstanding. The card’s theme is the solar system and emphasizes the power of the grad to take over the universe, even energy-absorbing black holes.

The card company says the card speaks about the power the grad will wield.

“The intent here is to say that this graduate is not afraid of anything,” explained Hallmark spokesman Steve Doyal.

But that’s not what some people heard.

Meaning be damned.  This was about POWER, damn it!

Hallmark is now notifying all of its stores to pull the card. Walgreens and CVS are doing the same.

“In any situation where there is a circumstance that we need to be sensitive to, we try to learn from that experience,” said Doyal.

Ok, it is about a greeting card company.  I get it.  They are in the business of catering to emotion.  That’s how they make their money, but really.  They have a card that features the phrase “”Black Hole” a term first used in 1967 to describe a cosmological phenomena that was first theorized in 1783.  What the Hell else do you call a gravity well so powerful that not even light can escape?  The 2011 Budget?  And now it is offensive?  I don’t recall the boycotts and picketing of this:

 

Truly, the opposition to the use of the phrase is ridiculous.  Black people do not have ownership of the word “Black” like they have taken the ownership of the word “nigger”, a word that no one and everyone have simultaneously determined that is automatically racist and evil if someone who isn’t black utters it, but perversely acceptable and celebrated if it passes the lips of a black person.  (And I use the word “black” because not everyone in this country with black skin considers themselves “African-American”.  I had a Haitian classmate who got very offended when anyone called him “African-American”. )  This hypocrisy aside, there is a marked difference.  The former is a word that defines a color, and therefore is used to describe any number of things that have that color as a characteristic; the latter was always meant as a derogatory term, even if at one time, it was not used to refer to blacks.  That said, it should be apparent to many readers that this isn’t just a case of political correctness gone amuck in the hands of people who have conflated “advancement” with “victimhood” and its thuggish cousin, “denunciation”, it is a symptom of a soft tyranny that is characterized by such petty displays and enthusiastic endorsement of dubious notions such as “hate crimes” which seek to make crimes more criminal by inferring intent based on the race or sexual orientation of the victim.  These notions rob all Americans of the genius and promise set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In a world with hate crimes legislation or protests based on a descriptive word, there can be no equality before the law, because such things make some people “more equal” than others.  This perversion is pernicious.  It is pervasive.  And it will criminalize your thoughts, even if authority cannot know your thoughts, because they will be attributed to you regardless.  And even the well-meaning will learn that appeasement doesn’t work, as the last line of the story tells us:

However, NAACP members say they do not want to see the card on store shelves ever again.

This kind of victimhood, much like the license of the Congress and the Administration to blame their own shortcomings and failures of leadership on George W. Bush, must be revoked.  If they are not, they will destroy us.

Share

Thin Skinned Community Organizer Bristles At Being Called A Socialist

John Ward has a piece at the Daily Caller on President Obama’s Commencement Speech at the University of Michigan in which he displays his now-famous sense of irony to decry the demonization of both sides of the American political spectrum.

The choice bit:

RELATED (ND):

More on that new book by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott at No Sheeples Here: The Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s Ties To Communists, Socialists And Other Anti-America Extremists

The Real Barack Obama website has an interview with Elliott. Here is an excerpt:

For decades Obama has surrounded himself with a large number of radicals of many stripes. It does truly boggle the mind.

Elliott: We discovered a lot of socialists of many stripes, including Marxists and Maoists. Although never claiming to be one of them, Obama is certainly a fellow traveler in that he was, and still is, constantly surrounded by them, and has been more than willing to share political space and ideology with them.
Pundita: Was there a specific alliance, or set of alliances, in Obama’s personal or political life that caused you to revise your initial view of him? If I recall your initial view was that he was a fairly typical corrupt Chicago Machine politician.

As Marxist professor Manning Marable wrote in the December 2008 ‘Socialist Review,’ a lot of people working with Obama have a background in Marxism and socialism and communism. Obama, Marable says, is a “progressive liberal.” However, he writes, Obama “understands what socialism is.”



Share

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 158 other followers