This is the new wisdom. During the 2008 campaign, the Campaigner-in-Chief Bara Bama promoted his ideal of health care as a "right". Now, however, the current Democrap proposals indicate that if someone chooses not to be covered, they will be fined, no exceptions, as much as $3500. (Edit: as of 9/29/09 the proposed fine is $1900, but carries with it a federal misdemeanor charge and the potential for jail time. That's right, if you don't buy health insurance, you can GO TO JAIL.)
That's absurd. If it is indeed a "right" then someone has a right to not have it.
So clearly, in Bama's mind, health care is not a right but a government mandate, like buckling your seat belt. Do you need any more proof that democrats are trying to control every aspect of our lives?
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Quick Hit: Bama's "White House" and Bush's "Administration"
Have you noticed how the media refers to Bama's "White House", while they always referred to Bush's "Administration"?
This is a deliberate attempt in both cases to make Bush and Republicans seem like the bad bosses who control our lives and give us nothing, while making Bama seem like the guy next door, your friendly neighbor who just also happens to lead the free world.
Don't be manipulated by the press!!!
This is a deliberate attempt in both cases to make Bush and Republicans seem like the bad bosses who control our lives and give us nothing, while making Bama seem like the guy next door, your friendly neighbor who just also happens to lead the free world.
Don't be manipulated by the press!!!
Daniel Ellsberg's Legacy: 40 Years of Prejudice by the Press
After stealing 7,000 secret documents from the Pentagon and giving them to the New York Times, Daniel Ellsberg was popularized into a national hero and let off the hook on legal technicalities. Whistle-blowers have been attacking Republicans ever since, often manufacturing evidence to create stories that are completely untrue ala Dan Rather with the Bush documents in 2004.
Because the media makes celebrities of these people, and then major universities give them a lasting voice as professors of journalism and other nonsense, an artificial campaign has been waged against the security of this country.
Ellsberg's contention is that LBJ and McNamara concocted the incident in Tonkin as justification for the war in Vietnam, but strangely, Ellsberg was not compelled to come forward with information he knew from day 1 until he had an opportunity to take down Nixon. He claims it just didn't occur to him to come forward until years later when he was working for Kissinger.
I think it is very likely that if he had come forward while LBJ was pushing his Great Society, the Old Gray Lady would have turned him away, or at the very least they would have sat on it until they had a a more desirable target.
Ellsberg has been screaming to anyone who is forced to listen - his students - for the past eight years about the Bush White House's case for the war in Iraq. His only evidence, like almost all liberals, is that a) almost none of the WMDs have been found (they're in Syria), and b) Valerie Plame was outed as an act of political vengeance against Joe Wilson.
No one has ever seriously questioned Joe Wilson about anything - the press had everything to gain in their agenda to destroy Bush's credibility by just broadcasting all his outrageous statements without a single serious examination of his story. Wilson clearly went to Africa with the express purpose of not finding evidence to support the White House's claims. Surprise - he didn't find any. All accounts were that Joe hardly left the hotel when he was there. He did not prove that Powell lied, only that Joe Wilson had no particular interest in the truth. That's the real story, and the one we were never told.
Here's the thing - outing Plame, a desk jockey who did not have anything even remotely secret to do that would have justified her clearance, does not hurt Wilson, and it doesn't even hurt Plame. From start to finish, this was a manufactured story with the sole purpose of embarrassing Bush. It has zero credibility, and yet the media made a hero out of this guy. Meanwhile, national security is damaged not by some lie told by Bush (that didn't happen), but by the purposeful destruction of the credibility of our intelligence agency and of our president.
Nixon was right about Ellsberg, the guy was nothing more than another opportunist making a name for himself at the cost of the security of Americans abroad and at home.
Because the media makes celebrities of these people, and then major universities give them a lasting voice as professors of journalism and other nonsense, an artificial campaign has been waged against the security of this country.
Ellsberg's contention is that LBJ and McNamara concocted the incident in Tonkin as justification for the war in Vietnam, but strangely, Ellsberg was not compelled to come forward with information he knew from day 1 until he had an opportunity to take down Nixon. He claims it just didn't occur to him to come forward until years later when he was working for Kissinger.
I think it is very likely that if he had come forward while LBJ was pushing his Great Society, the Old Gray Lady would have turned him away, or at the very least they would have sat on it until they had a a more desirable target.
Ellsberg has been screaming to anyone who is forced to listen - his students - for the past eight years about the Bush White House's case for the war in Iraq. His only evidence, like almost all liberals, is that a) almost none of the WMDs have been found (they're in Syria), and b) Valerie Plame was outed as an act of political vengeance against Joe Wilson.
No one has ever seriously questioned Joe Wilson about anything - the press had everything to gain in their agenda to destroy Bush's credibility by just broadcasting all his outrageous statements without a single serious examination of his story. Wilson clearly went to Africa with the express purpose of not finding evidence to support the White House's claims. Surprise - he didn't find any. All accounts were that Joe hardly left the hotel when he was there. He did not prove that Powell lied, only that Joe Wilson had no particular interest in the truth. That's the real story, and the one we were never told.
Here's the thing - outing Plame, a desk jockey who did not have anything even remotely secret to do that would have justified her clearance, does not hurt Wilson, and it doesn't even hurt Plame. From start to finish, this was a manufactured story with the sole purpose of embarrassing Bush. It has zero credibility, and yet the media made a hero out of this guy. Meanwhile, national security is damaged not by some lie told by Bush (that didn't happen), but by the purposeful destruction of the credibility of our intelligence agency and of our president.
Nixon was right about Ellsberg, the guy was nothing more than another opportunist making a name for himself at the cost of the security of Americans abroad and at home.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Liberals and, well, Everything.
I've made the point before that liberals are emotional thinkers and conservatives are rational thinkers. Emotional thinkers can only think in the very narrow focus of now; it is impossible for a liberal to consider the long-term affects of anything because it's not possible to have a genuine emotional reaction to something that hasn't happened yet. You can attempt to think about how you will feel when a loved one dies based on past experience, but it doesn't work because thinking and feeling are distinct and autonomous functions. Until something happens you cannot have an emotional feeling for it.
That's why the future costs of all Democrat proposals are meaningless to them. They can't react to something until it has an emotional impact, which is why liberals always frame something in terms of its effect on people. We've all heard about people with autism who can do store all sorts of abstract information in their heads but if you ask them what a new house costs they would say $1. In that sense, autism is just a sever form of liberalism. You could also say that all liberals are "pre-autistic." :)
When considering the issue of enhanced interrogation tactics, or "torture", liberals can only define what they think today based on how they feel about the effect of the interrogation of the subject. They hear that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was "tortured" by simulated drowning, and they are horrified. There's no context - nothing that binds KSM to the deaths of thousands of Americans, only the isolated instance of the waterboarding event. So naturally they are appalled and cry out for justice - Bush and Cheney must pay a heavy price!
(BTW, "waterboarding" is when a subject is restrained on a board and tipped back and then water is poured over his face for exactly 45 seconds. One would think the drowning effect could be easily thwarted by simply holding one's breath.)
On NPR today the discussion included 3 "experts" in related fields, and one of the "experts", a woman, claimed that the "ticking time-bomb" situation, where information must be extracted from a likely subject immediately or something very bad happens, has never happened, so we must always view interrogation in the lens that whatever information there is to be gained should be gathered without time-constraint.
This argument is obviously ridiculous, because the natural implication that the ticking time bomb has never happened is that nothing bad has ever happened in the world - no terrorism or war or hurt feelings. It's delusional. There is always some period of time before a terrorist event which a reasonable person would obviously say is time-critical. Always.
The problem is that the good guys never know when that is - only the bad guys know it. So either you patiently work over a subject with the expectation that nothing bad will ever happen, or you actively and aggressively mine them for what you believe is time-sensitive information about the next big terror event.
A rational thinker understands that, because we cannot predict the future, we must always assume that, based on history, a terror attack may be imminent. Failure to do so is the only failure there is.
An emotional thinker fails to understand the potential for future events based on current action or lack there of because they have no emotional attachment to those potential events.
This is why liberals should never be in charge of the national security, why they don't get it when it comes to interrogation techniques, and why they need to be voted out of power at the earliest possible interval before their lack of foresight destroys what democracy remains for future generations of Americans.
That's why the future costs of all Democrat proposals are meaningless to them. They can't react to something until it has an emotional impact, which is why liberals always frame something in terms of its effect on people. We've all heard about people with autism who can do store all sorts of abstract information in their heads but if you ask them what a new house costs they would say $1. In that sense, autism is just a sever form of liberalism. You could also say that all liberals are "pre-autistic." :)
When considering the issue of enhanced interrogation tactics, or "torture", liberals can only define what they think today based on how they feel about the effect of the interrogation of the subject. They hear that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was "tortured" by simulated drowning, and they are horrified. There's no context - nothing that binds KSM to the deaths of thousands of Americans, only the isolated instance of the waterboarding event. So naturally they are appalled and cry out for justice - Bush and Cheney must pay a heavy price!
(BTW, "waterboarding" is when a subject is restrained on a board and tipped back and then water is poured over his face for exactly 45 seconds. One would think the drowning effect could be easily thwarted by simply holding one's breath.)
On NPR today the discussion included 3 "experts" in related fields, and one of the "experts", a woman, claimed that the "ticking time-bomb" situation, where information must be extracted from a likely subject immediately or something very bad happens, has never happened, so we must always view interrogation in the lens that whatever information there is to be gained should be gathered without time-constraint.
This argument is obviously ridiculous, because the natural implication that the ticking time bomb has never happened is that nothing bad has ever happened in the world - no terrorism or war or hurt feelings. It's delusional. There is always some period of time before a terrorist event which a reasonable person would obviously say is time-critical. Always.
The problem is that the good guys never know when that is - only the bad guys know it. So either you patiently work over a subject with the expectation that nothing bad will ever happen, or you actively and aggressively mine them for what you believe is time-sensitive information about the next big terror event.
A rational thinker understands that, because we cannot predict the future, we must always assume that, based on history, a terror attack may be imminent. Failure to do so is the only failure there is.
An emotional thinker fails to understand the potential for future events based on current action or lack there of because they have no emotional attachment to those potential events.
This is why liberals should never be in charge of the national security, why they don't get it when it comes to interrogation techniques, and why they need to be voted out of power at the earliest possible interval before their lack of foresight destroys what democracy remains for future generations of Americans.
Ted's Dead.
My only other comment is that the press is in the process of writing the history on its most beloved senator, and it's so typical. Of course the man is "humanized" for his faults, while any conservative would be demonized for theirs. Let's get it straight - Teddy was an irresponsible, womanizing drunk who was given his senate seat because of who his brother was and who, perhaps more than anyone else who has ever held power in America, exemplified the old saying, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Big Surprise: "Torture" Documents Declassified Same Day as WH Admits Deficits Predictions Were Low-Balled
The liberal press is running with the "torture" story with only cursory mention of the deficits. And of course Bama is saying he had nothing to do with it, and any prosecution of the issue has been left to "Independent" AG Eric Holder's discretion.
Yeah, right.
They've kept the torture thing in their back pocket for months just so they could pull it out when they needed to bury some bad news - like the fact that they knowingly low-balled deficit predictions and that the Bama spending blitz will cost at least $2 TRILLION more than the Candidate-In-Chief originally admitted to. But don't bother asking him about it - it's all Bush's fault.
Yeah, right.
They've kept the torture thing in their back pocket for months just so they could pull it out when they needed to bury some bad news - like the fact that they knowingly low-balled deficit predictions and that the Bama spending blitz will cost at least $2 TRILLION more than the Candidate-In-Chief originally admitted to. But don't bother asking him about it - it's all Bush's fault.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Americans Popularity Abroad
A friend of mine who voted for Bama recently suggested he was elected primarily to restore our standing with the rest of the world. My contention was that if that was the case that's a poor reason to choose one's president. Who cares what the rest of the world thinks of you as long as you are doing what's right by the people of this country?
Nevertheless, Candidate-In-Chief Bara Bama has accomplished exactly that. Almost every country in the world holds Americans in significantly higher regard, and believes Bama will do what's best for the world when leading the United States in global affairs, and often by as much as a 6:1 margin over Bush. And all Bama had to do was go on a world tour apologizing for the last 8 years and saying things like we neglected to acknowledge Europe's leadership role in the world... blah, blah, blah.
But ask the average American if they have a more or less favorable opinion of the French or Germans when those countries elect new leaders and you will get indifference. Why? Because the truth is that America is special - we are the lone superpower in the world and what we do is more important to world affairs than what anyone else does. Media in other countries carry he water for Bama just like the media does here, so of course public opinion abroad is tainted favorably toward Bama.
The liberal media is a global sensation, even when it is state-controlled, to slant toward an American President who is willing to capitulate to any other country and concede when the better course is to lead. Bama's weakness is what's popular, not his willingness to be part of the global diplomatic theater.
Collectively the world is being sold on this guy because by nature its nations are inherently adversarial, and what's bad for American interests is good for everyone else's, or so goes the perception and populist message abroad.
The real question is, is a stronger or weaker America better for Americans? Bama and the lefties leading the country right now believe the latter is true.
History will decide.
Nevertheless, Candidate-In-Chief Bara Bama has accomplished exactly that. Almost every country in the world holds Americans in significantly higher regard, and believes Bama will do what's best for the world when leading the United States in global affairs, and often by as much as a 6:1 margin over Bush. And all Bama had to do was go on a world tour apologizing for the last 8 years and saying things like we neglected to acknowledge Europe's leadership role in the world... blah, blah, blah.
But ask the average American if they have a more or less favorable opinion of the French or Germans when those countries elect new leaders and you will get indifference. Why? Because the truth is that America is special - we are the lone superpower in the world and what we do is more important to world affairs than what anyone else does. Media in other countries carry he water for Bama just like the media does here, so of course public opinion abroad is tainted favorably toward Bama.
The liberal media is a global sensation, even when it is state-controlled, to slant toward an American President who is willing to capitulate to any other country and concede when the better course is to lead. Bama's weakness is what's popular, not his willingness to be part of the global diplomatic theater.
Collectively the world is being sold on this guy because by nature its nations are inherently adversarial, and what's bad for American interests is good for everyone else's, or so goes the perception and populist message abroad.
The real question is, is a stronger or weaker America better for Americans? Bama and the lefties leading the country right now believe the latter is true.
History will decide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)