A new chapter is currently being written in the cumbersome tome The Futility of Being Civil To Liberals by John McCain and Nelson Rockefeller, with contributions from Gerald Ford and Lincoln Chafee (ghost written by Neville Chamberlain). Thinking he could finally get a well deserved free trade treaty with Colombia through congress, George Bush in his meeting with Barry Obama offered to support the economic stimulus package that Nancy "Am I smiling? I can't tell" Pelosi has been clamoring for in exchange for the agreement's passage. I know President Bush's intentions are honorable, but he should know by now not to trust a Democrat. Although there were no aides present in what was supposed to be a private conversation between the current and future Presidents, Obama's aides have managed to promptly leak this information to the press.
Its time we stopped treating negotiations with liberals as if they are conducted in good faith. There is always an ulterior motive. These are not honorable people. Its time we stood up and fought them. Else we end up like Gerald Ford, begging Democrats for money while South Vietnam burns.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
You'd Think That Amendment Would Be His Favorite. . .
John Derbyshire at National Review Online points out some scrubbing going on at Obama's policy website change.gov:
I dunno if it was me, but the Obama's Change website has undergone some fast changes of its own.
Perhaps someone in the Obama camp glanced at the 13th amendment:When I commented on Friday about the pretty-much-compulsory-looking "national service" plan proposed there, the site said this:
… developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year …It currently says this:
… setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free …
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. . ."
Liberty is Doubleplusungood
In case anyone of a conservative bent hasn't realized it yet, liberty is fading in America. Progressive liberals are winning and pressing their advantage. Don't pretend to be shocked when you wake up one morning and find that you're in a fascist Nanny State.
The Arizona Supreme Court is on the verge of banning certain terms from all Arizona State courts. What terms, you ask? Surely they must be crude, vulgar terms that have no place in a court of law, correct? Not quite. Here is the list of potentially outlawed words:
Aliens
Illegal aliens
Resident or non-resident aliens
Illegal immigrants
Illegal immigration
Illegals
Immigration epidemic
Immigration crisis
Immigrant invasion
Pro-illegal immigration activists
Open borders advocates
Anchor babies
Proponents for amnesty
Now we can discuss the horrible implications this policy would have for American security if it were adopted broadly, but I think we're facing something much more sinister, and idea that goes beyond the immigration debate. This isn't about winning a debate, this is about stopping a debate. Elements of the liberal movement are literally banning language that is opposed to their ideology. The Newspeak of Orwell's dystopia was largely created by culling the language of politically incorrect words and phrases. How is this any different? If one political group or ideology control the language, how do you argue against them? How do you debate an idea when you're forced to concede the language of your argument at the outset?
Americans and conservatives in particular need to come to a realization and fast: An increasing proportion of the American left are becoming openly fascistic. "Fascist" itself has been coopted by the left. No longer does fascist refer to a Statist who sees totalitarian limits on freedom of speech, the press, and association, among other civil liberties, as preferable in a well run progressive/socialist state. Now days, of course, "fascist" refers to any conservative who happens to have drawn the ire of liberalism. I'm pained to admit that most Americans don't realize that fascism is an offshoot of progressivism, and it doesn't always come with jack boots and patriotic songs. It does however, come with less freedom and more State control over as many aspects of a citizen's life as possible. Controls, for example, like words you may or may not use to refer to undocumented persons who have broken Federal law to enter this country and the issues related to them.
The right had better wake up and prepare for a fight. Otherwise one day when they do choose to stand and fight, they'll find that words have literally no meaning to the left or the American public we'll need to persuade.
The Arizona Supreme Court is on the verge of banning certain terms from all Arizona State courts. What terms, you ask? Surely they must be crude, vulgar terms that have no place in a court of law, correct? Not quite. Here is the list of potentially outlawed words:
Aliens
Illegal aliens
Resident or non-resident aliens
Illegal immigrants
Illegal immigration
Illegals
Immigration epidemic
Immigration crisis
Immigrant invasion
Pro-illegal immigration activists
Open borders advocates
Anchor babies
Proponents for amnesty
Now we can discuss the horrible implications this policy would have for American security if it were adopted broadly, but I think we're facing something much more sinister, and idea that goes beyond the immigration debate. This isn't about winning a debate, this is about stopping a debate. Elements of the liberal movement are literally banning language that is opposed to their ideology. The Newspeak of Orwell's dystopia was largely created by culling the language of politically incorrect words and phrases. How is this any different? If one political group or ideology control the language, how do you argue against them? How do you debate an idea when you're forced to concede the language of your argument at the outset?
Americans and conservatives in particular need to come to a realization and fast: An increasing proportion of the American left are becoming openly fascistic. "Fascist" itself has been coopted by the left. No longer does fascist refer to a Statist who sees totalitarian limits on freedom of speech, the press, and association, among other civil liberties, as preferable in a well run progressive/socialist state. Now days, of course, "fascist" refers to any conservative who happens to have drawn the ire of liberalism. I'm pained to admit that most Americans don't realize that fascism is an offshoot of progressivism, and it doesn't always come with jack boots and patriotic songs. It does however, come with less freedom and more State control over as many aspects of a citizen's life as possible. Controls, for example, like words you may or may not use to refer to undocumented persons who have broken Federal law to enter this country and the issues related to them.
The right had better wake up and prepare for a fight. Otherwise one day when they do choose to stand and fight, they'll find that words have literally no meaning to the left or the American public we'll need to persuade.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
God Must Have A Sense Of Humor
i⋅ro⋅ny [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies.
1: Indianapolis - Lines were long and tempers flared Wednesday not to vote but to get paid for canvassing for Barack Obama. Several hundred people are still waiting to get their pay for last-minute campaigning. Police were called to the Obama campaign office on North Meridian Street downtown to control the crowd.
–noun, plural -nies.
1: Indianapolis - Lines were long and tempers flared Wednesday not to vote but to get paid for canvassing for Barack Obama. Several hundred people are still waiting to get their pay for last-minute campaigning. Police were called to the Obama campaign office on North Meridian Street downtown to control the crowd.
The line was long and the crowd was angry at times.
"I want my money today! It's my money. I want it right now!" yelled one former campaign worker. . .
"It should have been $480. It's $230," said Imani Sankofa.
"They gave us $10 an hour. So we added it. I added up all the hours so it was supposed to be at least $120. All I get is $90," said Charles Martin.
"I worked nine hours a day for 4 days and got paid half of what I should have earned," said Randall Waldon.
Some people weren't satisfied with filling out a claim form for money they felt was still due to them. . .
No Collaboration
The opening shots of the war for the soul of the Republican Party have been fired. . . by the moderates. Not two days after the election, McCain aides are viciously attacking Sarah Palin in a move that seems to me very preconceived, as if this was their contingency plan all along if they lost. Regardless of the validity of their claims (I am skeptical) these attacks have nothing to do with Palin's shopping habits or her intelligence. These attacks are coming this quickly because she's a right wing conservative. The moderates are panicked. They need a scape goat other than McCain in order to keep their grip on the party going into Obama's administration. Palin is an up and coming conservative star ripe for the targeting. If the moderates can succeed in painting the election as a referendum on Palin, they can deflect blame for the plight of the Republican Party.
This is where 2012 starts for us. Conservatives have to win back this party. We cannot let the moderates create a narrative that destroys Sarah Palin and whitewashes their own complicity in our ignoble defeat. If the moderates succeed in reaffirming their grip on the GOP, the consequences would be devastating. Already Democrats are conspiring with Republican moderates to have McCain lead the "opposition" in the Senate. This is what I mean when I say McCain should be nowhere near party leadership in the Senate. This ugliness serves to remind me why I never liked John McCain and why it pained me so much to vote for him. He is no conservative and no friend to conservatives. He is self serving and will destroy party unity to serve his own ends (see the gang of 14). This new found congeniality between McCain and Democrats is telling:
"Before resting from the grueling presidential race, John McCain began discussing with senior aides what role he will play in the Senate now that he has promised to work with the man who defeated him for president."
Hmm. . . I wonder what he discussed with his senior aides?
"The attacks on Ms Palin are set to intensify, with McCain aides keen to dish the dirt on their boss's running mate. One aide estimated Ms Palin had spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $US150,000. . . Another aide offered the "Wasilla hillbillies" comparison and said the truth would eventually come out."
This is the real, nasty, John McCain. The one who has hated conservatives at least since the 2000 campaign This is the John McCain that I didn't know if I could vote for. This is the John McCain we're now getting. Let me say it one more time: NO. WHERE. NEAR. PARTY. LEADERSHIP. McCain's quasi-liberalism is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Our opposition will be difficult enough without our party leadership openly colluding with liberal Democrats. Remember, "cooperating" with liberals never means that they make concessions. It means you adopt their liberal position or else you are a bitter partisan. Ann Coulter's definition of stare decisis is a perfect description of the liberal attitude toward negotiating with conservatives: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." This is what a McCain/moderate leadership means for us. We don't persuade or oppose them, we concede and abdicate in the hopes of getting part of the credit for whatever Pelosi/Reid/Obama do. In short, "me too" liberalism.
This of course is the opposite of what we need. We must be opposition in the fullest sense of the word. No "bipartisanship" or cooperation. Are we conservatives or not? The whites could have avoided many conflicts with the Bolsheviks if they had acted in a "spirit of bipartisanship", but they still would have all ended up living under communism. We must fight them, tooth and nail, and it starts now with the defense of Sarah Palin and unapologetic conservatism.
No Collaboration!
This is where 2012 starts for us. Conservatives have to win back this party. We cannot let the moderates create a narrative that destroys Sarah Palin and whitewashes their own complicity in our ignoble defeat. If the moderates succeed in reaffirming their grip on the GOP, the consequences would be devastating. Already Democrats are conspiring with Republican moderates to have McCain lead the "opposition" in the Senate. This is what I mean when I say McCain should be nowhere near party leadership in the Senate. This ugliness serves to remind me why I never liked John McCain and why it pained me so much to vote for him. He is no conservative and no friend to conservatives. He is self serving and will destroy party unity to serve his own ends (see the gang of 14). This new found congeniality between McCain and Democrats is telling:
"Before resting from the grueling presidential race, John McCain began discussing with senior aides what role he will play in the Senate now that he has promised to work with the man who defeated him for president."
Hmm. . . I wonder what he discussed with his senior aides?
"The attacks on Ms Palin are set to intensify, with McCain aides keen to dish the dirt on their boss's running mate. One aide estimated Ms Palin had spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $US150,000. . . Another aide offered the "Wasilla hillbillies" comparison and said the truth would eventually come out."
This is the real, nasty, John McCain. The one who has hated conservatives at least since the 2000 campaign This is the John McCain that I didn't know if I could vote for. This is the John McCain we're now getting. Let me say it one more time: NO. WHERE. NEAR. PARTY. LEADERSHIP. McCain's quasi-liberalism is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Our opposition will be difficult enough without our party leadership openly colluding with liberal Democrats. Remember, "cooperating" with liberals never means that they make concessions. It means you adopt their liberal position or else you are a bitter partisan. Ann Coulter's definition of stare decisis is a perfect description of the liberal attitude toward negotiating with conservatives: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." This is what a McCain/moderate leadership means for us. We don't persuade or oppose them, we concede and abdicate in the hopes of getting part of the credit for whatever Pelosi/Reid/Obama do. In short, "me too" liberalism.
This of course is the opposite of what we need. We must be opposition in the fullest sense of the word. No "bipartisanship" or cooperation. Are we conservatives or not? The whites could have avoided many conflicts with the Bolsheviks if they had acted in a "spirit of bipartisanship", but they still would have all ended up living under communism. We must fight them, tooth and nail, and it starts now with the defense of Sarah Palin and unapologetic conservatism.
No Collaboration!
Missouri Backs the Other Guy Against the Communist
I have to say, nothing makes me more proud to be a Missourian right now than the fact that we didn't drink the kool aid. I could care less that we've lost our "bellwether" status. We've gained a "rational" status. My only issue is in the coming War Between the States, Missouri will be allied with Kansas. Damned redlegs!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
