Rock The Vote Redux

"Liberal strategists have convinced themselves that if we just got everyone to vote, the people would force through policies held at bay by our antiquated and undemocratic system.  Hence the various schemes to return the franchise to felons, lower the voting age, or let people vote online.   Not surprisingly, these efforts are invariably aimed at constituencies they have good reason to believe will vote Democratic.  What it says about the Democratic Party that boosting the ballots of the criminal, the less educated, and the lazy will deliver liberal policy victories is something to ponder.
[..]
But at a broader level this obsession with expanding democracy by making it easier to vote is deeply unhealthy.  Making voting easier is synonymous with making voting cheaper.  Do we really think the level of democratic discourse would be greatly improved if people who could not otherwise be bothered to vote are afforded the opportunity to do so on their iPhones during a commercial break of Jersey Shore?"  - Jonah Goldberg, The Tyranny of Cliches

Hyperbolic Heroism

I just saw another post on the Obama Gay Marriage thing... an excellent Ramirez cartoon, and it made me think of that Time magazine cover again, and why it made me laugh, and how it sums up this whole ridiculous identity politics thing and the heroes liberals cast themselves as.


Here we have Obama's smug mug on the cover of a major national magazine, a [fallen] American institution, with this shot of our proud narcissist in chief, with the headline "The First Gay President".  He does not look comfortable with the title. :-)

Here we have the first real black president, but he can't be called that because liberals had already dubbed the very white Bubba president Clinton "The first black president", and our first actual black president, who is by all accounts and evidence decidedly not gay, claims the title from whoever the first actual gay president might be.  And these are the very liberals who insist that no white male [or probably female for that matter] could possibly be sympathetic to, say, a latino because they're not [wise] latinas.

Apparently he's also our first Cherokee president, along with his ardent supporter "nobody ever got rich on his own" Elizabeth Warren, neither of whom can actually show they have a drop of any American Indian blood in them anywhere .... and then you see it clearly.

They're not about lifting up the minorities they claim to be lifting up.  What's important is the victimhood.  It's so important they'll lie about it, or bestow it upon their heroes, to bless themselves with the power they believe they wear on behalf of the downtrodden.

Because it's really not about the downtrodden.  It's about the mantle.

GM.  Gay Marriage.  Hmmmm.... coincidence?  ;-)

The Bain of Obama's Philosophy

Obama, in Chicago yesterday:

"When one is president, as opposed to the head of private equity firm, then your job is not simply to maximize profits, your job is to figure out how everybody in the country has a fair shot. Your job is to think about those workers who get laid off and how are we’re paying for their retraining…. My job is to take into account everybody not just some. My job is to make sure the county is growing, not just now, but 10 years from now and 20 years from now. And so, to repeat, this is not a distraction, this is what this campaign is going to be about.”

No.  When one is president, one's job is NOT figure out how everybody in the country has "a fair shot", especially the way you, Mr. President, define "fair" (that would be in the Marxist sense).   Your job is to worry about the general welfare, not the individual welfare.  The individual's job is to think about his individual welfare, and that of his family and of his immediate community, and so on up to larger and larger social circles.  It's a bottom-up thing.  Not a top-down thing.

The Things We Do for Love

"Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together."

Thus sayeth, it seems, Barney Frank and others.

Sounds great, but like most nuggets of progressive psuedo-wisdom, it really falls apart upon cursory inspection.  I mean, everyone does not agree on "the things we do together", so "we" means whoever agrees with "me".   And if  "we" decide to force our will on those who disagree ... which is ultimately what government enables ... then government is simply the name we give to the thing that lets us force others to do the things "we" choose to do together.

Which doesn't sound nearly as sexy.  But it's the truth.  Instead of the Barney (and I mean the dinosaur ... wait, that's not much of a distinction, either is it ... oh well) "I love you, you love me" mamby -pamby crap Mr. Frank et. al. spew.

This is why the Marxists for whom they thinly disguise their admiration have always ended up killing massive numbers of those who disagree with them.   Not only does it physically reduce the dissenters numbers, it gets most of the rest of them suddenly on the bandwagon.

At any rate, it is for this reason that we have a Constitution, and it is why it is important to distinguish between a democracy and a democratic republic.    The Constitution lays out the rules by which we may decide on what to do together, and spells out what things the government is allowed to do to facilitate it.   Which is ultimately the catch 22 of government.  It has in its very nature an inherent conflict of interest.  Which there's no real way of getting around, unless We the People insist on keeping it  honest.

And aren't kept from keeping it honest.  

Which is why we have the second amendment.

Patriotism

Reading Jonah Goldberg's latest, "The Tyrrany of Cliches" ... which I HIGHLY recommend.   It's an easier and shorter read than Liberal Fascism (and by his account much more fun to write), and it's peppered with wisdom and humor.

But this chapter I've just hit on ... "Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson ... one of the first fun things he points out is that... there's no record of Thomas Jefferson ever having said this.  Plus Jonah goes on to say that even if he did say it it wouldn't make it any less dumb.

He gives an example of a soldier who falls on a grenade to save his buddies, and someone saying "hey, that guy sure was patriotic.  Almost as patriotic as that college professor who, from the comfort of his air-conditioned office called the Marines 'baby killers' and 'war criminals'".

he brings up John O'Sullivan's observation "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.  Treason is the highest form of dissent.  Therefore, treason is the highest form of patriotism.  QED."

But what tipped the scales and actually made me come here to post was this paragraph:

"When America elects a left-wing president, the tendency for conservatives is to like the government less and the country more.   This is because liberal presidents want th change America while conservative presidents want to change the government.  And when America elects conservative presidents, the Left tends to express its love for government more (and lament how it is being discredited by conservatives) and its fondness for America less."

I liked it right away, but had to put the book nook down for a second to let that sink in, and I just said ... "wow".   "Wow".   Like when you see an Escher drawing flip.  To conservatives, America is an ideal, a philosophy of how to look at what the balance of liberty and governance should be.   To the Left ... America is the government.   When they don't like the government, they don't like America.  When they like the government, they like America.  

Again, it's like those women who love you so much they want to change you into something completely different.  To the left, not only is the government "America", it is the means through which they want to make "America" what they want it to be.... which is distinctly not what America (see above paragraph) is to conservatives.

It's like rain. On your wedding day.

After Martin Bashir goes on a half minute tirade spelling out allegation after searing allegation about Mitt Romney's religion while chastising a Republican group for considering an ad pointing Rev. Wright's tirades and Obama's choice of churches  -- Joan Walsh, oblivious to the irony in her response says "Well, this is 'Hate Porn', Martin, it's just 'Hate Porn'".

(yes, I realize there's nothing ironic about rain on your wedding day unless maybe you specifically moved the date to avoid a day when you thought it was going to rain.  It's just a cultural reference.  Yeah and a pretty lame one.  But this is my blog :-) )

Chicks on the Right

They're smart.  They're pretty.  They're pretty smart.  They wear red-bottomed heels.  And they're Bill Whittle fans.

So ... why not give them a visit?

Chicks on the Right

They're Right.  Conservatism does need a makeover.  But not because the chicks are dumpy.   Chicks know makeovers.  Have at it!

Election Distractions

• The war on women
• Dog-Gate
• The war on bullies
• The Bain of Romney's existence
• The "evolution" of Obama
• The first "gay" president
• The "second" black president
• The likability factor
• The Jesus Jammy Factor

.... believe me, the list will grow.   None of it important.  Not that there haven't been some great responses from  this side of the political divide to many of these.  And I'm not saying that it's not worth briefly addressing the stupid sideshow, especially if it can devastatingly highlight how stupid the sideshow is.

But the conversation must always quickly and soberly be brought back to, in this day and age of rampant government excess --

What are the views of the candidates on the role of government, and which one aligns more closely with original intent?   That's it.   No matter how many people Romney fired or how many gays feel good that Obama thinks the government should bless them. No matter how many involuntary haircuts Romney and his friends gave to other kids when they were young and brash, no matter how many girls Obama bullied when he was little. No matter where the Romney's dog rode on family vacations or what seasoning was used on Obama's canine delights ....

What do they think the role of the Federal Government is, and how closely do these views align with the original intent of the Constitution?

If that's the question ... and it ultimately is the question -- there's NO contest.   Obama loses big.  

Which means two things.

1. People need to be at least briefed on what our Constitution is and why it says what it says, and
2. People need to be reminded again and again what the real question is, every time another distraction is brought up.

So whatever headline the Obama campaign coordinates with the MSM headline writers tomorrow, sure, fire a snark back at them if you've got one, but right back to the question:

What do they think the role of the Federal Government is, and how closely do these views align with the original intent of the Constitution?

Because if that's the question we're asking, we're having the right discussion.

Who is surprised?

I predicted this as soon as I heard the announcement.  Didn't think it'd make a magazine cover this quickly, but it shouldn't surprise me.   These people are coordinated, there's no doubt about that.  After watching the "War on Women" thing, the "Mitt Romney is a Bully" thing ... Journolist was just a bold symptom of this phenomenon.

On the other hand ... looking at this picture, and the headline, and the fact that we know he is not, in fact, gay ...

This could backfire on him.  Big time.  :-)

Zombie Disconnect

Can I say it?

I don't get the Zombie thing.  At all.  

And some of my best friends love it.

Call it Zombie Disconnect.

Bias? What Bias?

Mark Halerpin shows us why the Obama Campaign is so confident.  Only not the way he think's he's showing it.  The real reason is that the Obama Administration still has most of the MSM in it's back pocket, as he shows so readily in the article.  It's a huge and largely free -- extension of his campaign staff.  It's what got him elected in 2008, and the Mark Halerpins of the world are doing their best to see that it happens again.

After you've read the article, your takeaways are --  Obama: "Hip", "casual", college-style ["dorm room"], and is "vibrant" and "stylish" has a campaign that "hums" for long hours and run by 20 somethings who have "uprooted" themselves from their lives in Washington to work on something "worthwhile".

Romney, on the other hand has Super PACS (but apparently Obama does not) filled with money from "conservative" "millionaires and billionaires" (while George Soros and Obama's other wealthy liberal donors and Wall Street tycoons ... not mentioned) that will be laundered through banks and such and "shuttled" through "balance sheets" and "targeted" to "battleground states" (words which, when they come out of the mouth of Sarah Palin et. al are "violent" rhetoric) and will have "right wing" "plutocrat" supporters. Obama's supporters, on the other hand, apparently bear no such lables, as it's just understood that they're reasonable centrists with no discernible political leanings. No "left-wing" supporters to deride.  (Does "left-wing" even exist in their vocabulary?  Probably not.  Relative to where they are, there is no "left" -- which tells you a lot about where they are.)

We get a laundry list of potential Romney controversies spelled out, but apparently there is nothing controversial about Obama's record and rhetoric worth mentioning.

Bias? There's no bias in the media. Why do you ask?

Julia Ghoulia

Of course, under Barack Obama’s plan, the Small Business Administration’s real budget completely collapsed when China decided buying more of America’s debt to fund this creepy cradle-to-grave fairy tale leaving America to buy the other 60% of it’s debt by printing dollars Weimar style. This was a 100% drop rather than the relatively modest but at least somewhat fiscally responsible 20% the Obama campaign claimed Mitt Romney "might" have cut programs "like" to possibly avoid the economic catastrophe that we kept moving "Forward" to instead.

Inflation went through the roof, and Zachary died of dehydration and malnutrition while Julia stood in line in front of the now closed government handout office. All the people she might have hired were put  in the same boat, and America looked a lot like a third world country.

Under Mitt Romney, we gained a few more years to avoid this fate by not spending as much money we don’t have to buy votes from people like Julia. Ever read Cloward and Piven? Get enough people on the government dole, and cause a [Socialist] revolution?

But Obama's not a Socialist, no.  Just had a socialist mother and grandparents and mentor in Frank Marshall Davis before his college career that he's kept completely secret with the help of a compliant media that cheers him on, then worked as a  "Community Organizer" for a heavily socialist-leaning Saul Alinsky inspired organization, launched his political career in Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn's livng room and went to Reverend Wright's gospel of social[ist] justice church for 20 years, appoints self-admited communists and socialists to cabinet positions, has the support of the Socialist Party, had campaign offices where the workers had large Che Guevara posters on the walls ... and wants to lead Julia by the hand cradle to grave with Other People's Money, the OPiuM of politics.  Oh, and if you connect this absolute spray of dots, you're a racist conspiracy theorist who hates poor people.  So let's move FORWARD, shall we?  Over the cliff.

As Margaret Thatcher famously said ... "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money".

Well that's not the only problem with socialism, but it is certainly one of the bigger ones.