Archive for May, 2009
Posted on May 28, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Politics |
BRAVO!! This article is right on target!!!
20 Hypocrisies Of Liberalism
by John Hawkins
Everybody is guilty of being hypocritical sometimes. It’s just part of being human; however, modern liberalism has taken this concept to stunning extremes. The entire liberal belief system, from top to bottom, is a series of logical blind alleys, bottlenecks, and jaw-dropping contradictions.
To be a politically active liberal is to a be a person whose life is steeped in hypocrisy from the time he gets up until the time he goes to bed — and that’s despite the fact that many libs take morally abhorrent positions just so they can’t be called hypocrites if they ever get caught doing something degenerate.
That being said, I will freely acknowledge that every liberal isn’t guilty of all the hypocrisies that are on this list and that conservatives can be contradictory, too. Now, let’s see if that actually prompts some self-reflection on the Left as opposed to cries of “Here’s something conservatives are hypocritical about” and “I don’t believe this one.” (Sure it will. ha! ha! ha!)
Liberals believe that…
1) …it’s impossible to come to any sort of reasonable compromise with conservatives on anything, but that we can fix our problems with nations like Iran and North Korea by just sitting down and talking things out.
2) ..they’re the most compassionate people in society. Yet, in study after study, you find that conservatives give more of their money to charity than liberals.
3) …they’re not racist despite the fact that they consistently support policies that have been several orders of magnitude more devastating to black Americans than the Ku Klux Klan.
4) …we’ve all got to dramatically reduce our carbon footprint to save the planet. Yet, liberals like Al Gore live in big mansions and fly around in private jets while still maintaining their credibility with their fellow environmentalist libs.
5) …they’re the people who are really looking out for women, but they strongly support sexual predators like Bill Clinton and they regularly hurl grotesque sexist insults at feminist role models like Sarah Palin who don’t toe-the-liberal-line.
6) …we definitely need to have higher tax rates in this country. Yet many of Obama’s nominees and cabinet members, including the Secretary of the Treasury, don’t pay their taxes as is — and liberals are okay with that.
7) …guns should be banned! Yet, while they want to take guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans who live in dangerous neighborhoods, they believe liberal celebrities like Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donnell should be able to hire armed bodyguards.
8) …they’re the ones who really care about educating children; yet time and time again, they support policies that hurt our kids, but help their political allies in the teachers’ unions.
9) …running deficits are bad! After all, liberals ceaselessly took credit for the budget being balanced during the Clinton years and attack Bush for his profligate spending, right? Yet, despite the fact that Obama is running an unsustainable deficit so large that it threatens the future of the country, liberals are perfectly fine with it.
10) ...college campuses are supposed to be places of learning and intellectual openness, but they tacitly approve of conservative speakers being attacked and shouted down.
11) …they’re gay-friendly even as they work to out gay Republicans and they often accuse the Republicans they hate the most of secretly being gay.
12) …they’re the ones who are champions of free speech, but liberals want to silence their most effective critics on talk radio via the Fairness Doctrine.
13) …they’re the ones who really want to stick to the Constitution. Yet, liberals buy into a “living Constitution,” which is nothing more in practice than substituting your personal opinion for what’s actually in the Constitution.
14) …it was terrible for George Bush to detain terrorists indefinitely, to use extraordinary rendition to send them to other nations, and to withhold more photos of what happened at Abu Ghraib — but, when Obama did the exact same things, few liberals had anything to say about it.
15) …we have to move away from sources of energy like oil, coal, and nuclear power towards what they believe are more eco-friendly power sources like wind power. Yet, whenever anyone tries to build a wind turbine, it’s almost always a liberal that attempts to stop it — just as Ted Kennedy did because he was afraid his yachting view might be spoiled if the ideas he championed were put into practice.
16) …they’re courageous for speaking out against Republicans while Hollywood and the media cheer them on, but when the time comes to speak out against the abuses of radical Muslims, they’re terrified into silence.
17) …when someone despises America, we need to ask, “What have we done to make him hate us?” — but, when someone despises liberals for what they’re doing to the country, they conclude that person must be ignorant, bigoted, or evil.
18) …it’s morally abhorrent to put a serial killer to death, but that a mother killing her baby via abortion is merely a “choice.”
19) …we have to count every vote, except for members of the military serving overseas, most of whom are denied their right to vote because Democratic politicians deliberately delay in sending out their ballots until it’s too late for them to be returned in time.
20) ..when they looked at information from our intelligence agencies and concluded that Saddam Hussein had WMDs, they were just mistaken — but when George Bush looked at the same info and drew the same conclusion, he was lying.
LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2009/05/26/20_hypocrisies_of_liberalism
Read Full Post |
Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Posted on May 28, 2009. Filed under: Media Bias, Obama, Politics, Socialism/Communism |
WOW!! So true and so disheartening!! As we’ve known for a while, we can no longer trust the MSM. They are no longer journalists; they are propaganda machines for Obama and are complicit in his schemes.
The American Press Mainstream Treachery
By JB Williams Sunday, May 24, 2009
Canada Free Press
[Excerpted]
Honest unbiased reporting in the American news room has been so absent for so long that most Americans now seek information elsewhere. Americans no longer trust the free press to be their eyes and ears, to keep them abreast of the facts needed to make intelligent decisions about daily life or politics. Sadly, at this moment in history, even Russia has a more reliable free press than America. If Americans don’t read foreign news sources, they have no clue what is going on in their own country, much less the world.
“The American people continue to remain, for the most part, blissfully unaware of catastrophe looming before them and continue to believe the litany of Orwellian lies being poured upon them by their propaganda media organs, never once raising any objection to trillions of dollars that have been stolen from them and which continues to flow the pockets of their political and corporate overlords intent upon destroying, forever, their once great Nation and which the US Federal Reserve Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman stated brazenly before the US Congress that she has “no idea” where $9 Trillion of US taxpayer has gone, or who got it.” – Bilderberg Group orders destruction of US Dollar?—A pretty important story for U.S. readers I’d say, but it remains unreported by the U.S. press!
As a result of horrific news reporting, talk radio and the Internet have largely replaced the daily newspaper, and that’s why leftists currently running Washington DC are very focused on “bailing out” their friendly propaganda rags, while gaining editorial control over talk radio and the Internet.
Thanks to the Internet, one can access news reports from all over the globe, like this story also unreported by the American press, Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation—which reads like a Hitler social engineering horror story.
From the story, “The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.”
This story is not about the billionaire Bilderberg meeting in Europe, but a similar meeting of anti-American billionaires which took place in America during the same time frame, attended by none other than America’s biggest leftist heroes, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Jr., Warren Buffett, George Soros, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey. The Times UK reported it, but what American press room ran with the frightening headline?
Something VERY evil this way comes, and nobody in the American press wants to investigate or report a single word of it!
Beyond the No. 1-ranked Fox News Channel, few bother watching an overtly leftist mass propaganda system which has become little more than an outlet for leftist talking points. From every alphabet network news desk to every network morning show, and now even the late night comedy hours, TV media is full-tilt off the charts and hard left in their presentation. They have taken a side in the social engineering of America, indeed the world, and everything they produce today is designed to push an anti-American agenda for tomorrow.
Snip>
No Place to Run This Time
But the issue of Obama’s constitutional eligibility is such a huge powder keg, the idea of someone tricking congress, the Supreme Court, the news media and the American people into electing someone completely and fundamentally ineligible for office, leaves the press room no place to hide from such an overt act of treachery.
A man whose résumé is limited to a laundry list of ill-advised associations, a missing birth certificate and sealed college records, with no background of leadership anywhere, is the current president of the United States and not one single mainstream journalist has any interest in how this was possible.
However, in the end, there will be no place to run and no place to hide from the truth. Sooner or later, the truth will be known.
A Complicit Press—an uncommon Treachery
Americans have come to expect crime and corruption from their politicians. But they once expected their free press to hold the guilty accountable for their actions.
Today, the press is a complicit party to that crime and corruption. The press is overtly engaged in treachery. They are not ignoring the biggest story in US political history; they are actively working to keep it under cover.
Obama ran a 2-year campaign for leftist power and not one American journalist broke the story about how the man who would become president was in no way qualified for the position. More than six months after the election, still not one American journalist has investigated the growing charges that Obama fails the constitutional requirements for the Oval Office.
Their answer to public inquiry?—They checked it out at Snopes or FactCheck.org, both of which are propaganda tools owned and operated by the pro-Obama left, for benefit of the anti-American take over of the greatest free nation ever known to mankind, and they are satisfied.
Hogwash! Even Republican members of congress have used Internet postings by alleged “truth keepers” run by MoveOn.org or Code Pinko types, to escape their responsibility to properly vet a candidate for the most powerful office in the land, out of fear that someone in the press will label them a “racist” or “right-wing extremists” for asking the most obvious and pertinent question of our time.
Where’s the Birth Certificate?
Because the American press is MIA on the most important issue of our day, a very real constitutional crisis has left the American people to their own imaginations and devices. If Obama is constitutionally eligible, he can prove it. So why won’t he?
It is a very simple fundamental query, and it is entirely fair. Yet not a single member of the press, Congress or courts will ask the question, or allow any American to ask it, and Obama has spent $1 million bucks to keep all of his files Top Secret on the matter. Why?
The American press is entirely complicit in what will likely turn out to be the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people; one that in the end, has all the potential of destroying everything America has ever been.
To be complicit, “choosing to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, esp. with others; having complicity,” in the case of the American press, is an overt act of treachery, a “violation of faith; betrayal of trust; treason.”
Quite frankly, when the final truth is known about whom and what Barack Obama really is, every member of the press, Congress and courts who complicity refused to ask the question, should go down in flames with every member of the DNC who orchestrated the hoax from day one.
It is quite clear now that Obama’s agenda is in no way an American agenda for benefit of American interests of freedom and liberty for all. The notion that anyone needs to list all of the anti-American steps of the new president at this late date, just to prove that point, is beyond childish. If you don’t already know it, then you don’t know anything about America.
But the outright treachery of the American press is also wholly unacceptable. The decisions the people make can never be any better than the information used to make those decisions. The press is directly responsible for making certain that the American people are working with false or incomplete information, driven only by their overt leftist bent.
Since the outcome of their collusion with anti-American leftists will likely be not only a true constitutional crisis, but one of catastrophic magnitude, the press must be held accountable for their role in the destruction of the greatest nation on earth.
I pray that one mainstream journalist somewhere in the US will grow the patriotic backbone to ask the right people the right questions before it is too late. If the American people want somewhere to focus all of their anger, I suggest they focus it upon the traitorous press who has worked so diligently for so long to keep every American citizen of every political stripe in the dark, as their nation was being systematically raped and plundered by secular socialists. The TEA Party should be held on the front steps of every major news network, shutting down the American press until the news room is forced to report honest news again.
God Bless America and May God bless at least one American journalist with the honesty and courage to do the job entrusted to them by our Founding Fathers. They are either the unbiased eyes and ears of a trusting American populace under siege by political fraud, or they are an active participant in that fraud. There is no middle ground on a story this obvious and important.
God may forgive them for what they have done, but the American people never will!
The American people need just ONE mainstream journalist to step forward and accept the calling of their chosen profession, to make sure that the American people have access to the truth. Does any such journalist still exist today?
LINK: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11315
Read Full Post |
Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Posted on May 28, 2009. Filed under: Culture, Liberal Idiots, Politics |
This is infuriating!!! If you are offended by the American flag then get the heck out of the country!!!!!! There is NO place for you here!!!
Supervisor Asks Woman To Take Down American Flag
Is it okay to show your patriotism at the office?
For one Arlington woman, the answer was “no” after she hung an American flag in her office just before the Memorial Day weekend.
Debbie McLucas is one of four hospital supervisors at Kindred Hospital in Mansfield. Last week, she hung a three-by-five foot American flag in the office she shares with the other supervisors.
When McLucas came to work Friday, her boss told her another supervisor had found her flag offensive. “I was just totally speechless. I was like, ‘You’re kidding me,'” McLucas said.
McLucas’ husband and sons are former military men. Her daughter is currently serving in Iraq as a combat medic.
Stifling a cry, McLucas said, “I just wonder if all those young men and women over there are really doing this for nothing.”
McLucas said the supervisor who complained has been in the United States for 14 years and is formerly from Africa. McLucas said the supervisor took down Debbie’s flag herself.
“The flag and the pole had been placed on the floor,” McLucas said. But McLucas also said hospital higher ups had told her some patients’ families and visitors had also complained.
“I was told it wouldn’t matter if it was only one person,” she said. “It would have to come down.”
McLucas said hospital bosses told her as far as patriotism was concerned, the flag flying outside the hospital building would have to suffice.
Kindred Hospital Corporate Headquarters are located in Kentucky. They have yet to make a final decision on the matter. They have not returned our phone calls for comment.
The Kindred Hospital Corporation was chosen as Fortune’s most admired for 2009. McLucas hopes they’ll back her patriotism.
“I find it very frightening because if I can’t display my flag, what other freedoms will I lose before all is said and done,” McLucas asked.
LINK: http://cbs11tv.com/local/patriotism.at.office.2.1020415.html
Read Full Post |
Make a Comment ( None so far )
Posted on May 28, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Obama, Obama Corruption |
This is soooo true!! Libs are actually happy that he ‘says’ one thing to get votes or support and will then ‘do’ another. They don’t pound him on things they disagree with simply because they assume he’s lying just to get ahead and will then do the opposite. How pathetic is this??? They acknowledge that he’s a liar and are ok with it!!
Obama: Lying, But to Whom?
May 25, 2009 Posted by John at 6:19 PM
The idea that President Obama’s supporters trust him precisely because they believe that he frequently misrepresents his own beliefs is becoming more widespread. My friend Bob Cunningham was one of the first to explicate this phenomenon. Yesterday he sent us these thoughts:
It has long been noticed that Obama’s slipperiness had been accepted by the left during the Hope-and-Change campaign when He took positions, for example and notably, NAFTA and foreign trade generally, on both sides of an issue. They were willing to cut Him slack in most cases precisely because they just assumed that, of course!!…He was lying….to someone…about the issue. Since each side could reasonably assume this — the unions that when He made free-trade noises when He assured Canada (and then lied about THAT!) that He wasn’t protectionist, and the rational liberals when He pandered to the unions on NAFTA in Ohio, for example — they could all support Him thinking He was lying….but to the other side!….”Don’t worry….we can trust Him because He’s lying” was, in effect, left-wing Hope.
This has been particularly noticeable with the gay marriage issue….Carrie Prejean being exactly right when noting that her position is identical to that of His Oneness. But Obama gets a pass, of course, from the homosexual activists because they just assume He is lying!!!…to the conservative blacks, for example, 70% against gay marriage in California….
Today Frank Rich in the New York Times comes as close as I’ve seen actually to acknowledge openly the “we trust Him because He’s lying” view:
…Obama’s opposition to same-sex marriage is now giving cover to every hard-core opponent of gay rights, from the Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean to the former Washington mayor Marion Barry, each of whom can claim with nominal justification to share the president’s views.
In reality, they don’t. Obama has long been, as he says, a fierce advocate for gay equality. The Windy City Times has reported that he initially endorsed legalizing same-sex marriage when running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996.”
In reality, Obama is always, always lying….to somebody….and often it IS the left…Sistah Souljah-ing them on renditions, Guantanamo, wiretapping, etc…..but where are they to go?
“Trust me: I’m lying!” I don’t know, somehow it doesn’t sound like a tactic that will work over the long run.
UPDATE: A commenter on another post draws this analogy:
Many years ago, a friend of mine owned a bar in Alaska. Above the bar was a sign: “We cheat the other guy and pass the savings to you.” This encapsulates the Obama profile!
LINK: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023642.php
Read Full Post |
Make a Comment ( None so far )
Posted on May 28, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Obama, Politics |
What???? Regarding Supreme Court Justices Obama says, law and precedent should determine rulings in “95 percent of the cases,” but in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. So he would rather them be empathetic than impartial?? How scary!!! I guess they get to disregard the constitution if it ‘feels’ right to them??
Empathy vs. Impartiality
When they conflict, the Supreme Court must choose the latter.
By Jonah Goldberg
National Review Online
Excerpt:
Why make this complicated?
President Obama prefers Supreme Court justices who will violate their oath of office. And he hopes Sonia Sotomayor is the right Hispanic woman for the job. Here’s the oath Supreme Court justices must take:
“I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (title) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Contrast that with Obama’s insistence that the “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles” is the key qualification for a Supreme Court justice. According to White House talking points, Judge Sotomayor’s “American story” of humble origins — she was raised in the South Bronx — best prepares her for the high court because it shows “she understands that upholding the rule of law means going beyond legal theory to ensure consistent, fair, common-sense application of the law to real-world facts.”
Obama says law and precedent should determine rulings in “95 percent of the cases,” but in the really hard and important cases, justices should go with their heart. “In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
Now, keep in mind that 5 percent of Supreme Court cases isn’t everything, but it’s nearly 100 percent of what we argue about as a country. For the hard cases Americans care most about, Obama says empathy should rule.
So, what’s wrong with empathy?
Well, nothing. Empathy is a fine thing, and all decent people should employ it, including Supreme Court justices.
But Obama has something specific in mind when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice’s oath to in effect be rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be partial to the poor, and so on.
I don’t think this is open to much debate. When Obama voted against Chief Justice John Roberts’s confirmation, he said that Roberts didn’t have the “heart” to vote the right way in those 5 percent of cases. Rather than Roberts the Cruel, Obama explained, “we need somebody who’s got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.” Cue Sotomayor the Empathic.
The reasoning here is a riot of dubious assumptions. Obama and Sotomayor both assume that a firsthand understanding of the plight of the poor or the African-American or the gay or the old will automatically result in justices voting a certain (liberal) way. “I would hope,” Sotomayor said in 2001, “that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This is not only deeply offensive, it is also nonsense on stilts. Clarence Thomas understands what it is like to be poor and black better than any justice who has ever sat on the bench. How’s that working out for liberals?
LINK: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGM1Y2U0NTAzMjhkM2NlMGEyNDg2NTQwNzFiNzYxYWQ=
Read Full Post |
Make a Comment ( None so far )
Posted on May 28, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Obama, Politics, Reverse Discrimination, Socialism/Communism |
I couldn’t care less what color Obama, but the libs are the ones who made this past election about race, and one of the only reasons he got elected is because they used that race card! I can only hope and pray that Obama does not get a 2nd term!!!!
The Last Black President
As a resident of Massachusetts, I see real parallels between the rise and fall of our first black governor Deval Patrick, and the rise and coming fall of the first black president, Barack Obama. Let’s get to some politically incorrect, uncomfortable-to-say for some, specifics.
1. The Ballot Becomes The Race Card
Both Deval Patrick and Barack Obama had the same campaign guru: David Axelrod.
Using white liberal guilt to his political advantage, Axelrod created candidates that were immune from the normal political vetting process, as any attempt to do such would be called veiled racism. With that, they ran with vague slogans that touched at progressive heartstrings, and they did. Patrick’s “Together We Can” and Obama’s “Yes We Can” slogans offered what the beholder thought he or she wanted, without the nasty details.
Again hiding behind the race smear, virtually no one pestered the candidates for details of what they planned on doing once in office. Patrick and Obama were allowed to say whatever they wanted to make the voters feel better about making history. The beauty of this strategy was that any opposition to these candidates had the typical politically correct response in the waiting: racism.
With Patrick’s victory, Axelrod found his template and with Barack Obama, took it national.
2. The Non-Threatening Black
Granted, it’s neither of their fault, but liberals really like Halfrican Americans. If you think that’s an over-the-top assertion, take a look at all of the so-called pretty people Hollywood celebrates. A vast majority of the “black” female singers and actresses are light-skinned. With the exception of gangsta’ rappers and hip-hop thugs, a good number of black males in entertainment aren’t dark.
This is not a true reflection of the preferences of the American people, but of the liberal racists who “discover” the new talent. Take a look at President Obama’s inner circle and with one or two exceptions, almost all are light-skinned black people; a trait someone must consider more visually acceptable to the American people.
Both Deval Patrick and Barack Obama are halves. When choosing clients, that had to have weighed in on Axelrod’s decision: how to use race politics that will be the least offensive. Despite all the civil rights gains over the decades, there are still people who’d never vote for a black man, but if he weren’t so black…?
So by finding black candidates that spoke proper English and weren’t “threatening”, we had two candidates for high office that could be embraced by the mainstream while still maintaining the fear of a race label on those who would oppose.
3. History In The Making
Both Obama and Patrick had something going for them that few enjoy in their whole political career: historic firsts.
As potential historical pics, this would also be used to their advantage. Think about it: voting against Barack Obama and Deval Patrick could be seen as voting against progress and sticking with the horrors of America’s past. Voting against Barack Obama and Deval Patrick would be seen as backward thinking and worse, you’re a racist.
Media criticism during their campaigns was like watching someone walking over glowing coals. Each step was painful, but the anticipation of the next step was worse.
Deval Patrick was dogged by an issue during the campaign about his unapologetic advocacy of a convicted black rapist. The perp was black, the victim was white. Now if all the parties were white and the candidate were a Republican or Democrat, we all know how this would’ve ended up. But because two of the three involved were black, the media simply reported the issue, made no assertions, few follow-ups, and it went away because to push it…? Well, you know what that would’ve been called.
Barack Obama had his share of controversies, the thickest of which was that surrounding the Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s rather racist statements from the pulpit.
Because of the instinctive racial recoil, we were actually told to believe that Obama went to Wright’s church for twenty years and just happened to take selective Sundays off when Jeremiah went off. And leave-it-be the media basically did. Now, if John McCain or Sarah Palin’s pastor said “goddamn America”, that could have been a disqualifyer, but as we were talking about a candidate that had to be treated with sensitivity, “goddamn America” was intellectually justified by the left and their media.
4. Inexperience Excused
The normal criteria for being a chief executive and/or Commander in Chief, is someone who had to have the prerequisite experience. Normally governors are people who’ve held statewide office and whose track record was an open book. Normally presidents are people who’ve held congressional or senatorial office, had been engaged in the Capitol Hill battles, and have the scars to prove it.
Neither Barack Obama or Deval Patrick had such experience, thus is why I’ve called them both Affirmative Action hires and will continue to do so, as they both fit that make-up-for-history criteria.
Prior to becoming the governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick had NO elective office experience. Besides previously being an attorney and businessman, Patrick was a United States Assistant Attorney General under President Bill Clinton. Not to outright demean the value of such experience, but most gubernatorial candidates at least have had some election victories in the state they wish to lead. But where Affirmative Action applies, direct experience doesn’t matter. An opportunity for racial justice does.
We’ve all seen and heard about John McCain for decades. Who even knew Barack Obama existed two years ago, and who would’ve ever thought an unknown community organizer from Chicago would ever be president? If someone in Vegas can look into what the odds were when Obama first announced, I’d love to know. Can you imagine what a $50 bet on those odds would have paid off on November 4, 2008?
From what we know, Barack Obama was not the talented, skilled candidate we’ve all be told he is. Apparently, he used technicalities to have seasoned opponents removed from the ballot, whupped a principles-challenged, carpetbagging Alan Keyes for the US Senate race, and after not even showing a molecule of humility in gaining some relevant Capitol Hill experience (basically a short-term party yes man), Barack Obama decided it was HIS time and made his move on the presidency.
Again, having white liberal guilt as his trump card, the only experience both these candidates needed was that of oppressed minorities that lived in a world few in the mainstream could ever understand, or dare question.
That’s all they needed.
5. Humility-Challenged
Both Deval Patrick and Barack Obama came into their respective offices with trumped up “mandates”. It was a glorious time of change and hope and together we can, and that’s all that mattered. We were all told to sit down, shut up, and give these men a change to make things right.
Deval Patrick’s newfound power almost immediately went to his head.
His initial state budget-busting with a Democrat legislative super majority wasn’t helped with his overspending on his office makeover. I mean, c’mon. What self-respecting black man spends $12,000 on drapes?
Deval Patrick did, as well as ditching the traditional Crown Victoria ride for the stereotypical, way more expensive Cadillac. Obviously as the first black governor, “Coupe Deval” believed he was entitled to these (and many other) perks of power, while lacking the humility to see how others not as fortunate viewed his excesses.
Barack Obama didn’t even wait for his election to declare “this is the moment, as Nancy (Pelosi) noted, that the world is waiting for.”
Barack Obama wasted no time as well. While his personal gains weren’t as pronounced, his hubris has been duly notated.
His numerous Executive Order overturns of Bush Administration policy was a clear illustration of his disdain for what many of us consider respect of the previous occupants. But as his short term continued, he found himself continuing those liberally-hated policies because there was wisdom Candidate Obama wasn’t privy to during the campaign. Obama’s youthful arrogance continues to play out on a daily basis as he takes every opportunity to blame the former administration for the tough decisions he has to make, his penchant for talking down to the American children he leads, while taking credit for having the smarts to stay the course, even though by doing so he’s continuing where Bush left off.
Deval Patrick was essentially reigned in by the embedded Massachusetts Democrat machine. Barack Obama has been a bull-in-the-china-shop when it comes to his “reshaping America” promise. The long term problem for Obama is that the people aren’t digging what he’s turning America into.
Despite the use of the race card to get him elected, would anyone of us believe that in less than four months the Obama Administration would be taking over banks, dictating how automakers would make product, taking over auto companies, changing Cuba policy, and getting away with foreign etiquette gaffes expected of George W. Bush?
Of course not, and if Barack Obama ran on that, even with RINO McCain as his weak opposition, he’d never have gotten elected.
6. The Future Is Not Bright
A recent Rasmussen Poll shows that there is a very strong possibility that Deval Patrick will be a one-term governor. Note his using any and every opportunity to be seen with fellow Chicago homie Barack Obama in D.C.
Patrick repeatedly says he’s not interested in accepting a cabinet position in the Obama Administration, but as of November 2010, he may find himself out of work like the rest of us.
President Obama could face a similar fate in 2012.
In four months, Barack Obama has done more damage to the nation we once called The United States of America than any president we’ve been alive to witness. Imagine how bad things may get next month, let alone next year, and the American people will soon tire of his “I inherited this” excuse.
And despite all the hype, I don’t believe Barack Obama is this outstanding orator and politician.
Barack Obama is a good reader but as evidenced by his tendency to um and ahh when off prompter, we can be justified in questioning his intelligence as we really don’t know who’s writing the glowing passages he reads. Just what would the media and the left be saying about George W. Bush if he had to read answers in a press conference off a teleprompter, and everyone would be speculating who was scripting him.
Deval Patrick may be the first and last black governor Massachusetts sees for a long time. Barack Obama may also be the first and last black president as well.
Let me take that back.
The next black person who runs for those seats, if they have any hope of winning, will be Republicans, because memories of those who broke ground before them will be an open wound. Barack Obama and Deval Patrick will quickly become stereotyped adjectives, and we all know most stereotypes have a basis in truth.
LINK: http://www.black-and-right.com/2009/05/23/the-last-black-president/
Read Full Post |
Make a Comment ( None so far )
Posted on May 22, 2009. Filed under: Obama, Socialism/Communism |
Excellent article!! He makes some excellent points!!
Economic Equality Is Neither Just Nor Fair
by Michael Medved
Liberals love to emphasize their deep commitment to “social justice” but their obsession with economic equality produces policies that count as neither just nor fair.
Only in a fantasy world would the reasonable, impartial and evenhanded distribution of society’s rewards ever result in roughly equivalent incomes.
If individuals got paid strictly according to their contributions to the economy then the outcome will be radical inequalities, every time. When the left insists on “closing the gap between rich and poor” they’re not pushing for justice but rather promoting unjust favoritism for the least productive and competitive members of society.
Consider an imaginary instance in which a homeowner hires a crew of workmen to paint the four walls of his perfectly square living room. The painters don’t get along at all during the job so they come to the householder and demand separate payment. If they each contributed equally to the finished product – if each the painters, for instance, covered one of the walls – then it makes sense for the guy who hired them to pay them equally.
But what if one member of the crew devoted three full days to the job, while the others spent less than a single day? Advocates for equality might insist that all painters receive identical payment, since they all spent time some time on the same project. But paying the workers the same fees when they worked vastly different schedules would produce unfair discrepancies in terms of their hourly wages.
And then there’s the even trickier situation that arises due to inevitable differences in levels of skill and productivity. What if three painters each clocked exactly the same number of hours on the job, but one of them managed to paint two whole walls, while the others completed only one wall each? To pay the participants equally in this situation would amount to a gross injustice –attaching far less value to the two walls painted by the one worker, than to the single walls painted by each of his colleagues.
Since even identical investments of time can bring sharply different consequences, justice and fairness demand very different rewards. Justice requires that contributors on different levels receive unequal payments. Equal rewards, on the other hand, demand unfair treatment to the most skillful and productive participants.
Liberals may argue that higher goals than fairness require equivalent rewards, even if individuals make very different contributions. They can make the case that “closing the gap between rich and poor” will bring about greater social harmony, since workers who are paid identically will feel less envy or resentment toward one another. According to this logic, “savage inequalities” (to use a favorite phrase of the redistributionist left) can lead to social instability, or even violent revolution. But that rationale breaks down if slackers receive the same money as pluggers—thereby providing even more obvious grounds for bitterness.
The left also preaches the need for compassion—urging special consideration for those who, through no fault of their own, can’t produce enough to fulfill their own needs. But asking for disproportionate rewards for the unfortunate argues for kindness or charity, not for justice. Forced compassion– in the form of confiscatory taxes and bureaucratic initiatives– crowds out the healthy human impulse to assist those in need. Generosity represents a marvelous human quality but when the generosity is enforced by weight of law it undermines other values – private property, hard work, pride and self-respect. Few of us feel virtuous because the government takes part of our weekly paychecks while the beneficiaries of official programs (like the idiotically ill-conceived “Food Stamps” bureaucracy) seldom feel grateful for the largesse they receive, or determined to end their dependence. The very idea of “entitlements” works against the old notion that public assistance should representative a temporary lift rather than a way of life.
The battle of ideas surrounding the radical elements of the president’s economic program to some extent amounts to a battle over language. Barack Obama and his followers describe their budgetary increases as “investments,” for instance, while Republicans see “wasteful spending.”
With the upcoming struggle over a new appointment to the Supreme Court, conservatives must never surrender the crucial word “justice.” The Obama agenda may pursue many things – greater regulation, a stronger social safety net, a leveling of the inequalities between the wealthy and the destitute, but it hardly amounts to a pursuit of fairness.
Leveling, after all, generally involves lowering peaks rather than lifting valleys. To some, the resulting equality may represent an end in itself, but in a world of hugely unequal talent, virtue and effort, that goal has nothing at all to do with justice.
LINK: http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2009/05/13/economic_equality_is_neither_just_nor_fair
Read Full Post |
Make a Comment ( None so far )
Posted on May 22, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Media Bias, Obama |
Need I say more?? I read this somewhere and I’m not sure who the author is, but I agree with their sentiment. The double standard of the left get’s very old!!
WOULD YOU HAVE APPROVED IF GEORGE W. BUSH DID THE FOLLOWING?
If George W. Bush had…
-made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
-given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have approved?
-bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?
-visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
-filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?
-ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
-a Republican Congress allocate 5.6 Billion dollars for a civilian volunteer security force, as strong and well equipped as the regular Army and under his personal authority, would you have been concerned?
-proposed doubling the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved? Then proposed doubling the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
-promised detailed tracking of the spending from a $785 Billion Stimulus Bill and then postponed that oversight until 2010, would you approve or would you think something “smelled fishy”? If Bush had promised 48 hour advance posting of the same bill on the internet and only released it two hours before congressional approval, would you wonder what was being hidden from the public?
-been “addicted” to using a TelePrompTer, and was afraid to give a speech without having one, would you have approved ? Would you think he was intelligent?
-pre-approved/pre-picked the list of reporters allowed to ask questions at his press conferences and refused to call on the correspondent from MSNBC (FOX with Obama), would you have approved? Is that a Fair and Balanced news conference?
-moved the Census from the Dept. of Commerce into the White House and put his Chief of Staff in control of the counting?
If George W. Bush and a Republican Congress had given hundreds of millions of dollars to a group (the right-wing equivalent of ACORN) after its members had been convicted of voter registration fraud, would you approve of them to doing the 2010 Census, which will determine congressional districts for 10 years? Will you trust ACORN in 2010?
If Bush’s White House Staff had spent over $300,000 flying Airforce One low over New York (for a publicity photo flyby with the Statue of Liberty) frightening the city, wouldn’t you have expected Bush to make the pictures public? Would you have approved? Obama won’t give them up, but he will release the secret “torture memos”.
Obama has done all this in 14 weeks — so we still have three years and eight-and-a-half months full of surprises to come.
Read Full Post |
Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
Posted on May 22, 2009. Filed under: General, Healthcare, Obama, Politics, Socialism/Communism |
I feel like the libs have all the proof they need that socialized medicine will NOT work, but they are just ignoring it!!!! What will make them listen???????????????
Karol Sikora: This health care ‘reform’ will kill thousands
One of the more unproductive elements of President Obama’s stimulus bill is the $1.1 billion allotted for “comparative effectiveness research” to assess all new health treatments to determine whether they are cost-effective. It sounds great, but in Britain we have had a similar system since 1999, and it has cost lives and kept the country in a kind of medical time warp.
As a practicing oncologist, I am forced to give patients older, cheaper medicines. The real cost of this penny-pinching is premature death for thousands of patients — and higher overall health costs than if they had been treated properly: Sick people are expensive.It is easy to see the superficial attraction for the United States. Health-care costs are rising as an aging population consumes ever-greater quantities of new medical technologies, particularly for long-term, chronic conditions, such as cancer.
As the government takes increasing control of the health sector with schemes such as Medicare and SCHIP (State Children’s Health-care Insurance Program), it is under pressure to control expenditures. Some American health-policy experts have looked favorably at Britain, which uses its National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to appraise the cost-benefit of new treatments before they can be used in the public system.
If NICE concludes that a new drug gives insufficient bang for the buck, it will not be available through our public National Health Service, which provides care for the majority of Britons.
There is a good reason NICE has attracted interest from U.S. policymakers: It has proved highly effective at keeping expensive new medicines out of the state formulary. Recent research by Sweden’s Karolinska Institute shows that Britain uses far fewer innovative cancer drugs than its European neighbors. Compared to France, Britain only uses a tenth of the drugs marketed in the last two years.
Partly as a result of these restrictions on new medicines, British patients die earlier. In Sweden, 60.3 percent of men and 61.7 percent of women survive a cancer diagnosis. In Britain the figure ranges between 40.2 to 48.1 percent for men and 48 to 54.1 percent for women. We are stuck with Soviet-quality care, in spite of the government massively increasing health spending since 2000 to bring the United Kingdom into line with other European countries.
Having a centralized “comparative effectiveness research” agency would also hand politicians inappropriate levels of control over clinical decisions, a fact which should alarm Americans as government takes ever more responsibility for delivering health care — already 45 cents in every health-care dollar. In Britain, NICE is nominally independent of government, but politicians frequently intervene when they are faced with negative headlines generated by dissenting terminal patients.
For years, NICE tried to block the approval of the breast cancer drug Herceptin. Outraged patient groups, including many terminally ill women, took to the streets to demonstrate. In 2006, the then-health minister suddenly announced the drug would be available to women with early stages of the disease, even though it had not fully gone through the NICE approval process.
A more recent example was the refusal to allow the use of Sutent for kidney cancer. In January, NICE made a U-turn because of pressure on politicians from patients and doctors. Twenty-six professors of cancer medicine signed a protest letter to a national newspaper — a unique event. And yet this drug has been available in all Western European countries for nearly two years.
In Britain, the reality is that life-and-death decisions are driven by electoral politics rather than clinical need. Diseases with less vocal lobby groups, such as strokes and mental health, get neglected at the expense of those that can shout louder. This is a principle that could soon be exported to America.
Ironically, rationing medicines doesn’t help the government’s finances in the long run. We are entering a period of rapid scientific progress that will convert previous killers such as heart disease, stroke and cancer into chronic, controllable conditions. In cancer treatment, my specialty, the next generation of medicines could eliminate the need for time-consuming, expensive and unpleasant chemo and radiotherapy. These treatments mean less would have to be spent later on expensive hospitalization and surgery.
The risks of America’s move toward British-style drug evaluation are clear: In Britain it has harmed patients. This is one British import Americans should refuse.
Karol Sikora, a practicing oncologist, is professor of cancer medicine at Imperial College School of Medicine, London, and former head of cancer control at the World Health Organization.
LINK: http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Karol+Sikora:+This+health+care+%27reform%27+will+kill+thousands&articleId=46dca304-6d08-432c-84e4-f7992e75e77f
Read Full Post |
Make a Comment ( 3 so far )
Posted on May 22, 2009. Filed under: Culture, Reverse Discrimination |
Oh my word, are you kidding me?? If we started a movement to only ‘buy white’, we’d be crucified!! I am getting so fed up with this tolerance of racism against whites! This woman states that ‘my people have been here 400 years and we don’t even have a Walgreens to show for it.” Hey, it’s not our fault if not enough blacks use the opportunities presented to them in this country! You have the exact same opportunities to own a Walgreen’s as the rest of us, so do the work and own one!! Wahhhhh, wahhhhhhhh, wahhhhhhhhh, blah, blah, blah. I am so sick of the ‘poor me’ mentality. If you worked half as much as you whine, you’d be filthy rich! I want someone to start a ‘Buy White’ movement and let’s see how quickly the double standard comes into play.
Couple’s ‘buy black’ experiment becomes a movement
5/12/2009, 3:08 p.m. EDT
ERRIN HAINES
The Associated Press
(AP) — ATLANTA – It’s been two months since 2-year-old Cori pulled the gold stud from her left earlobe, and the piercing is threatening to close as her mother, Maggie Anderson, hunts for a replacement.
It’s not that the earring was all that rare-but finding the right store has become a quest of Quixotic proportions.
Maggie and John Anderson of Chicago vowed four months ago that for one year, they would try to patronize only black-owned businesses. The “Empowerment Experiment” is the reason John had to suffer for hours with a stomach ache and Maggie no longer gets that brand-name lather when she washes her hair. A grocery trip is a 14-mile odyssey.
“We kind of enjoy the sacrifice because we get to make the point … but I am going without stuff and I am frustrated on a daily basis,” Maggie Anderson said. “It’s like, my people have been here 400 years and we don’t even have a Walgreens to show for it.”
So far, the Andersons have spent hundreds of dollars with black businesses from grocery stores to dry cleaners. But the couple still hasn’t found a mortgage lender, home security system vendor or toy store. Nonetheless, they’re hoping to expand the endeavor beyond their Chicago home.
Plans are under way to track spending among supporters nationwide and build a national database of quality black businesses. The first affiliate chapter has been launched in Atlanta, and the couple has established a foundation to raise funds for black businesses and an annual convention.
“We have the real power to do something, to use the money we spend every day to solve our problems,” Maggie Anderson said recently at a meet-and-greet in Atlanta. “We have to believe that black businesses are just as good as everybody else’s.”
Now, the Andersons are following up with 4,000 people who signed up for the experiment on their Web site to gauge their commitment and set up online accounts to track their spending. Hundreds have also joined the experiment’s Facebook page, Maggie Anderson said.
Gregory Price, chairman of the economics department at Morehouse College, said black visionaries like Booker T. Washington and Marcus Garvey made similar calls to action.
“The idea is a sound one, given that black Americans are still underrepresented in the ranks of the self-employed and that entrepreneurship is a key component to wealth,” Price said.
There are one million black businesses in the United States accounting for more than $100 billion in annual sales, according to the National Black Chamber of Commerce. The latest U.S. Census numbers report that blacks have more than $800 billion in expendable income each year.
The Andersons track their spending on their Web site and estimate about 55 percent of their monthly spending is with black businesses for things like day care, groceries, car maintenance and home improvements.
One of the businesses highlighted by the Empowerment Experiment is Brenda Brown’s Atlanta wine boutique, a shop with a growing black clientele. She said the project can help overcome the problems many black consumers lament.
“When we were a community of black folks who could not go to the white stores, our community of black stores flourished,” Brown said. “When we were given the opportunity to go into the white store, it was like nothing else mattered anymore and we wanted to go to the white store, regardless of what the black store provided. We could have the same or better products if we supported (black businesses) in the same way.”
Lewis Peeples, 45, lives in a black neighborhood in southwest Atlanta but didn’t think to spend his money with black businesses until a friend told him about the project.
“So often, we make purchases and decisions and aren’t even mindful that there is a a need to support our own businesses,” said Peeples. “Now, I’m reaching out and making sure I know that I have an option when I look to make a purchase.”
Two months ago, he committed to patronizing black businesses and found a black dry cleaner 10 minutes from home. Even when he was dissatisfied with his black doctor, he was able to find a new one. He suggests both to friends and refers others to the experiment’s Web site, where he tracks his expenses.
Dallas Smith, who owns a commercial real estate firm in Atlanta, said mainstream retailers have undervalued black consumers. He lives in a black neighborhood in southwest Atlanta, where he tries to dine at black restaurants. He lamented the lack of quality businesses catering to black customers and said blacks should appreciate such businesses more.
“We’ve still got that ‘the white man’s water is colder’ mentality,” he said. “We can’t take us for granted. When we go to our establishments, it’s almost like we’re doing a favor. That ought to be a given for us.”
The Andersons remain encouraged by their momentum online and in the media. At the end of 2009, they hope to show $1 million in spending with black businesses among supporters across the country.
“The response has been so huge,” Maggie Anderson said. “We think so much can come out of this. We’re in movement-making mode now.”
Price, the Morehouse professor, said defining the project’s success won’t be easy, since the real barriers to black advancement are poor access to capital and lack of training opportunities.
“It would be nice to see some real, hard data,” Price said. “Otherwise, it could just be an episode of ethnic cheerleading.”
LINK: http://www.silive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-5/1242158477171360.xml&storylist=new_topstories
Read Full Post |
Make a Comment ( 6 so far )
« Previous Entries
Don't Get Me Started... 