Sunday, September 30, 2012

He's Baaaaaaaaack

I've been out of town, out of state, largely away from civilization and certainly away from instant communication for a couple of weeks.   It was nice.

Now what has America been up to while I was gone?  What's this about a 48/44 lead for the O camp?   When I left it was virtually tied.  What have you guys been doing?  Can't a guy take a quick vacation these days?

Looks like we're still asking silly questions we should all know the answers to by now ... saw this graphic on facebook.

It's easy. They're Marxists. You have to know how they think. To them, there's a war going on between the "haves" and the "have nots". They put themselves in the position of self-appointed Robin-Hood Gods here to set things straight, and in their eyes, there is no "terrorism" outside of the "oppression" the haves supposedly foist upon the "have nots". Therefore, in their eyes, Libyans et. al. are "freedom fighters" and not terrorists. Note that the only time they'll call someone a "terrorist" is if it is a western power acting in any kind of ... well I was going to say "forceful" manner, but many of these people consider the global proliferation of McDonalds a form of "terrorism", and you can't argue with twisted logic like that. They believe what they believe.

Then some numb-nut comments:

"ya and Romney really cares? Oh ya he only cares about the 53% of Americans."

Oh yeah. That's right. No, what he said was he wasn't going to try to convince the 47% that wealth redistribution isn't what America is about. This is not the same thing as "not caring" about them. It's akin to not worrying about convincing a 4 year old that it is time to go to bed, or that he needs to eat his green beans.

It's been said again and again America will be over when people figure out a way to vote themselves money from the public treasury. Well we've been there for a while, but to keep it going we're borrowing nearly half the money we spend now. And with this latest QE, we may have pushed it to 73%.

Those of us who know who Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven are, and who know who Obama's influences and peers are believe that this may actually be by design ... there's lots of evidence to support it. "Transformation" is the warm fuzzy word for "Revolution" in Alinsky Speak, and the Cloward and Piven strategy to collapse the system and send people running to the state begging for a "solution" appears to be being followed whether by design or not.

The collapse of America would be bad for 100% of Americans, 47% and 53% ers. The only people it would be good for is those who have placed themselves as those self-appointed Robin-Hood Gods and their friends.

Besides, it's not the president's or the federal government in general's charge to "care" about Americans by taking from some Americans and giving it to others.  It's Americans in general, you and me and your neighbor, specifically, that are charged with that ... but that charge is to give of ourselves and not of others via government force.

Had someone comment a while back that they just couldn't imagine not wanting to help those in need, as if by rejecting Robin Hood-ism I was against helping the needy.   So many have been conditioned to think that social assistance is the job of the government that they just can't see it any other way.  And apparently, they think there's this endless font of free money to fund it with.

Thursday, September 13, 2012

You Know You're Winning

When all they've got is ... "Raaaaaaacist!"

They're not trying to argue with you at this time.  They're trying to shut you up.

It must be so frustrating for them that it isn't working anymore.

I went to see 2016 a couple of weekends ago.   I had read Dinesh D'Souza's book, "The Roots of Obama's Rage" -- upon which the film was based, so there were no surprises there.

It was very well put together.   Dinesh narrates it, and comes off as his amiable, even-headed, thoughtful self.

Go see it, if at all possible.

And try to bring a friend or two.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Affordable Care Act, in one... sentence

It's been beaten to death, but I can't help it.

"So, let me get this straight. This is a long sentence.

We're going to be gifted with a healthcare plan that we're forced to purchase 
and fined if we don't, 
which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people 
without adding a single doctor 
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,
passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a President who smokes
with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect,
by a government that has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese
and finally, financed by a country that's broke."

Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Sunday, September 02, 2012

The Parties Switched Sides/Names in the 60's Meme

I keep hearing people say "the parties switched sides in the 60's" when it comes to the issue of civil rights and racism. Everybody just nods in agreement.  The first time I heard this I didn't know how to respond to it. I tried my hand at it in "The Party of Racism" post, but didn't quite get it right (I may just go back and revise it now). But it came up again today, and the proper response sprang into my head like a cat on a field mouse. See, no explanation is given to how or why the parties supposedly "switched sides". "Everybody knows" it's true. But how does "everybody know" that?

Same reason we "know" so many other things that just aren't so. The people who promote the idea repeat it until over and over and over again until it takes root and gains a life of it's own. People have forgotten. The Republican party was established as a party in opposition to slavery. It took the name "Republican" in recognition that this is not Democracy, but a Republic which uses Democracy as one of its tools. And in 1965, the party was largely responsible for the passage of the 1964/1965 Civil Rights Act.

The idea that they then did a 180 in just a couple of years is absurd. Why, just a few years after 80% of Republicans (vs 64% of Democrats) voted for the Civil Rights Bill of 1965 would they suddenly say, "nope, screw it, we were wrong ... they were right. Let's get back to the racial oppression the Democrats institutionalized over the previous 100 years that we fought so hard against"?

As long as rights are based on race, whatever the race, it's not equal protection under the law... which is the principle. When it just becomes a way to get your Not A Racist for the Next 4 Years™ card punched by doing things that highlight and underscore race rather than you know, treat all men equally ... it's gonna be what it is today. Post Racial my a**. Racial is the bread and butter of the Democrats, followed closely by Gender. Division is the the tool. Divide and conquer.