« Imus In The Morning | Main | The O'Reilly Factor »

May 12, 2009

Comments

xbjllb

Don't feel bad Monica. I'm not invited either.

Although I did just bounce an e-mail invitation to a Harry Reid/Obama party at Caesar's Palace.

But if you ever want to meet the Clintons, just holler. I think you might find a kindred spirit with Hillary. Strangely enough.

Dgscol

Has anyone else heard that Carrie Prejean, who likes politics and Perez, who likes publicity, might have rigged up the question, and the photos? I suppose catching them would be like finding Ann Coulter in a gay bar.


gringoman

Surprise, surprise. GRINGOBRO The Cracker Rapper did not get an invite either. Perhaps such a sign of "National Unity" in the White House awaits another occasion. However, just to show how un-offended The Old Cracker feels, he submits to POTUS Obama the following excerpt from an ongoing Politically-Incorrect-in=progress, and authorizes anyone at the progressive shindig to use it....

YOU LIBERAL RACIST, YOU

Why, why, why
Must you lie, lie, lie?
Know you,
You Liberal Racist, you,
Yes, know you

You lie about the dream,
Your lie is so supreme,
That you even lie about Martin Luther King
Turning the promise into spam,
Like it's just another scam.
Why do you not understand?
He said it's not pigment,
It's character content.
So why do you lie about his intent?
Why do you lie about what the man meant?
He never said the right way to win
Is to hide behind anyone's skin.
Must you lie about anything and most everything---
Even old Martin Luther King?
So come out, come out, come out of your tents,
Stop talking jive, start talking sense.
It's not the pigment,
It's character content.
Repeat what I said or take it to bed,
But get it through your double standard head.
It's not the pigment,
It's character content.
No need to thank me for a thing,
Just stop lying 'bout Martin Luther King.

Why, why, why
Must you lie, lie, lie,
You Liberal Racist, you?

Black, brown, mulatto and white
They are all numbers in your sight.
You live on quotas
Like kids drink sodas.
It lets you prattle,
Using people as cattle.
You are so quick and politic,
With your Identity arithmetic.
It makes you tick. it makes you slick,
Now tell me, doesn't it also make you sick?

Know you,
You Liberal Racist, you.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, know you, know you, know you.
My, My, My,
Tell me why, why, why
Must you lie, lie, lie?

M/M

Who needs an invitation to the White House when one of your fans is a creative genius? The REAL talent is listening to YOUR radio show. Look YOU ARE today's featured blog.
http://eminemsrevenge.xanga.com/
Can you DO SOMETHING about his views on illegal immigration?

M/M

Has anyone else heard that Carrie Prejean, who likes politics and Perez, who likes publicity, might have rigged up the question, and the photos? I suppose catching them would be like finding Ann Coulter in a gay bar.
Posted by: Truther | May 12, 2009 at 07:38 PM
________________________
Who cares? The issue is the way she WAS TREATED by the media and the pagaent officials for stating her opinion. Look how opponents of gay marriage were treated. Look how Rick Warren was treated.

M/M

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.
The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.
_______________________________________________________
I hope Obama taxes sugared beverages because I don’t drink them, but a lot of Obama voters do. I just LOVE to hear people who voted for Obama complain. A tax on kool-aid. YES!!!!!-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124208505896608647.html

gringoman


(No WH invitation for Monica from the likes of Sykes and outstanding liberal racists? Golly.)


JAMES TARANTO: What makes Wanda Sykes’s witless vulgarity amusing to the president? “In Obama’s wide grin as Sykes was telling her joke, we saw the smug look of a man who enjoys seeing his critics dehumanized. The president of the United States should be better than this.”

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens: “‘The president should be squirming in his seat. Not smiling,’ he said. ‘The black dyke got it wrong. No one told her the rules.’”

xbjllb

"Has anyone else heard that Carrie Prejean..."

----

Who???

SteveOk

Monica, I'm sure you would be bored to tears if you attended. It sounds like a motely group of socialists who will discuss "diverse experiences" as long as they revolve around expanding the welfare state and nationalizing everything from GM to education. To Obama diversity of thought means going from Fidel Castro to Chavez to European socialism.

This continues his lifestyle from Chicago when he chummed it up with people like Jeremiah Wright, Blago, a broad assortment of 60s radicals, and other socialist, pinko, and nutjobs.

Dgscol

Yes, but Rick Warren was actually converting gays using the bible. I give more credit to conservative women that attract gay men (because they feel more comfortable around them) that then convert them to heterosexuals - causing them to drop the hair gel, the earring, and .. the sparkling personality. These are the new women of the American Revolution.


mjfell

How the Democratic Party Went from Thomas Jefferson to Karl Marx

By Daniel Greenfield

“That brought us to our essential difference, the difference of the Evolutionary Collectivist and Marxist, the question whether the social revolution is, in its extremity, necessary, whether it is necessary to over throw one economic system completely before the new one can begin. I believe that through a vast sustained educational campaign the existing Capitalist system can be civilised into a Collectivist world system;” - H.G. Wells, Russia in the Shadows

This quote comes from H. G. Wells’ conversation with Vladimir Lenin. Wells was highlighting the difference between Lenin’s radical revolutionary program and Wells’ own “Open Conspiracy” evolutionary collectivist program.

What that means is that Lenin and H. G. Wells didn’t disagree on the final destination, a collectivist world system… socialism on a global scale applied to everyone and every single country. What they disagreed on was how to get there.

Lenin favored a violent overthrow of the existing free market capitalist systems, putting an end to democracy and individual freedoms by armed force, and replacing them with a revolutionary people’s government that would administer social justice.

As a Social Liberal, Wells favored a slow gradual takeover from within, using every cultural and political tool available to shift society over to a socialist system. He called this the “Open Conspiracy”, because social liberals would openly work to end capitalism and replace it with socialism.

Bill Ayers, Obama’s close associate, is a good example of Lenin gone Wells, or a revolutionary socialist becoming a social liberal. The difference is that the revolutionary socialist plants bombs, the social liberal works from within the system to achieve the same ends over a longer period of time.

The major shift from classical liberalism to social liberalism, required redefining government power
In the United States, Social Liberalism took over the Democratic party in the early 20th century. That fundamental shift can be seen by comparing Grover Cleveland to Woodrow Wilson and FDR.

As the last Classical Liberal Democratic President, Grover Cleveland was a firm believer in controlling the size of government, cutting taxes and vetoing most spending bills. He worked to reform the Federal government when needed, had little liking for unions or socialists and believed the Federal government should stay out of most affairs. This did not make him unusual, but in line with classical liberals all the way back to Thomas Jefferson.

A mere twenty and forty years later, the next two Democratic Presidents, Wilson and FDR, were enthusiastic about expanding government and using its power to bring about social justice. The newly transformed Democratic Presidency believed that government should be in the business of regulating everything and poking its nose in everywhere. By the time FDR was using government regulation to control the price of meat and putting unions in the driver’s seat, socialism was well and truly here.

The Democratic party had gone from being classically liberal to socially liberal. Where the classical liberal thought that big government should leave people alone, and treated rights as freedom from government tyranny… the social liberal thought that government should control people to enforce social justice and disdained rights as “negative freedoms”, instead favoring “positive freedoms” that would involve government abridging rights to create social and economic equality.

The major shift from classical liberalism to social liberalism, required redefining government power. Where classical liberals saw government power as a tyrannical force that needed to be controlled, social liberals saw government power as a benign tyranny that could be used to check the greater danger of unregulated social and economic systems.

Classical liberals believed freedom came from ending government intervention that created inequality. Social liberals believed that equality was more important than freedom, and that it could only be achieved by curbing anything that prevented equality.

FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society
The Social Liberal takeover of the Democratic party was not complete with Wilson or FDR. It isn’t complete today either, as there are Classical Liberal Democrats still in Congress and in various state governments. But with Obama, the Social Liberal takeover has reached almost revolutionary proportions.

The two great Social Liberal moments in the 20th century came as political opportunities resulting from crises. FDR’s New Deal and LBJ’s Great Society were agile exploitations of an economic and social crisis that enabled them to push through a Social Liberal agenda that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the Federal Government.

Obama’s ascension to power represents the Third Wave of Social Liberalism in America, exploiting the so-called economic crisis to execute an equally far reaching Social Liberal program. What the Marxists in Russia or Latin America have tried to do in a matter of years, Social Liberals in Europe and America have waited decades and even over a century to push through.

With a free market economy and a long tradition of stubborn individualism, America represented the Social Liberal’s greatest challenge. The Open Conspiracy has slowly worked to undermine that, emphasizing the security of government collectivism, pushing community over country, class and race over citizenship, and collectivization based thinking over individualism. Meanwhile America’s cultural values and national standards have been chipped away at, making it possible for the vulgar adolescent charade that was the 2008 election to take place.

By embracing social liberalism, the party of Jefferson broke down the “wall of separation” between government and the individual that served as the Constitutional guarantee of civil liberties against a tyrannical government. Social liberalism meant the end of individual rights and the beginning of civil rights with government authority placed above all else. And by doing so the Democratic party replaced individual freedoms with an all encompassing bureaucracy, and liberty with socialism, and now with Obama, America stands on the verge of closing the gap between Wells and Lenin, between the Evolutionary Collectivist and the Marxist.

Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior
Nationalization, the Welfare State and Bureaucracies to control every aspect of human behavior are just some of the building blocks of the emerging “Great Society”, the socialism with a human face that Social Liberals have aimed at for well over a century. Unlike Lenin’s revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, our transition to a Marxist system was meant to be gradual and seamless. Like a lobster in a pot of boiling water, the temperature was being turned up slowly and gradually. Even now when banks are being nationalized and major automakers turned over to union ownership, it is mainly people over 40 who are even noticing that anything is wrong.

The Revolution as it turns out will not be brought to you by Coke, but by Pepsi. Flags will be waved, even though they are no longer American flags. A new symbol has been created, a new seal has been set and a new America is being planted over the protesting remains of the old. But the struggle remains the same.

The question is, will we choose to be free or slaves. Will we protect our freedom from government, or give up our freedom to government. Will we come out of the shadows of Obama and the Social Liberal revolution of 2008, or will a new Iron Curtain rise over the land of the free and the home of the brave.

mjfell

"Has anyone else heard that Carrie Prejean..."

----

Who???

Posted by: xbjllb | May 12, 2009 at 10:19 PM

------------------------------------------------------

Ask Donald Trump, you mindless piss ant.

mjfell

Letter of Amends from a Recovering Liberal in Berkeley
By Robin


Dear friends, family, loved ones, conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, my brother in law, Sam, and my cousin Joe: I am sorry and you were right.


These are not easy words for anyone to utter, much less a leftist from Berkeley, or a recovering leftist, that is. Even though I've been in recovery for 14 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days, leftists are always right in your face, in an I-hate-you-if-you-disagree sort of way. Hence, this letter of amends to all the people I've lectured, scolded, ranted and raved at, and otherwise annoyed during my 30 plus years of "progressive" politics.


My recovery program urges a fierce moral inventory, a cleansing of heart and mind (kind of like a "forgiveness tour" but without the scary dictators), so here goes:


To my brother in law, Sam, for blasting you in that Chinese restaurant for voting for Reagan, mea culpa.


To my cousin Joe for calling you a traitor when you became an MBA, started holding a real job (as opposed to most of us Berkeley types who are psychotherapists, massage therapists and aromatherapists), and became a conservative, my bad.


To my goddaughter whom I told when she was l0 years old that Republicans were bad, Democrats were good (yes I really did say this), and who got confused and tearful because she lives in a suburb where most people are Republicans, kid, what in the world was I thinking?


To my leftist friends, with whom I agreed that 9/ll was the US's fault, you and I were all such jerks.


To those potential friends whom I dumped when I found out you were conservative, your gain is my loss.


To all those columnists and editors whom I harangued with angry letters and e mails, sorry, sorry, sorry.


And finally to me, Robin, for installing you for the last 27 years in the far left cult of the People's Republic of Berkeley, where Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the SLA, where the Black Panthers had their violent beginnings and the heads of the Black Muslims are jailed for murder and rape, my apologies, girl.


I didn't know any better. I thought the whole world lived in areas where the streets are filthy, aggressive street behavior is allowed because the perps are victims of capitalism, and where you can easily get mugged walking down a street or eating in a restaurant at noon. (By the way, with the Left in charge, expect gangs, crime, indoctrination of 5 year olds and general anarchy to be coming soon to a neighborhood near you.)


Given that the media is pretty much censored (good luck finding a conservative book in your local "independent" book store or hearing a Republican speak anywhere), you didn't know that a party of grown ups even existed that didn't advocate screaming at others as the preferred mode of communication. So to my dear Robin, apologies for what I put you through, what I deprived you of, and my pledge to do better.


Cousin Joe, Sam, et al, you may be wondering how I did a l80 in 1 1/2 years. How did I go from a rabid, sanctimonious liberal whom you steadfastly avoided at family gatherings to a fan of Limbaugh, Hannity, and Savage? Recovery encourages us to share our story, so here's mine:


In February of 2008, I saw a new client, a bright and sensitive young woman who came in looking like she just escaped a war zone. In some ways she had; she had innocently shared with others at her job that she voted for Hillary rather than Obama. Immediately she was being targeted for abuse that put her in fear for not only her job, but her life.


We both suddenly became aware that something had grown really dark in the Democratic Party. I started hearing about many other incidents where loyal Democrats were being physically and emotionally threatened for supporting Hillary. A woman in Berkeley had her front window broken because it displayed a poster of Hillary. Randi Rhodes, an Air America talk show leftist, called Hillary a f______ witch. (Rhodes was recently promoted to a national talk radio show, illustrating another disturbing trend: the deafening silence about what Rush Limbaugh has dubbed the new "thug-ocracy.)


An acquaintance had her car broken into, and the only item stolen was a NoObama bumper sticker. A South Park episode featured an episode where a nuclear weapon was being aimed at Hillary's genitals. My local greeting card store sold very flattering cards about Obama, insulting ones about Hillary, and a Hillary "nutcracker." When I complained, the young male manager literally laughed in my face.


Things went from bad to worse when Sarah Palin entered the scene. When Geraldine Ferraro ran for Vice President, there was no debasement of her character, no sexual threats. But with Palin, a full scale "wilding" ensued that chillingly reminded me of the random sexual attacks on women by gangs of men in New York. She was called every vile name in the book by both male and female liberals.


Actress Sarah Bernhardt hoped a gang of black males would rape her. When Palin's church was torched with children inside, the press was missing in action (somehow I imagine the press would have been all over this if Obama's church were torched). Not only was the misogyny disgusting, but the classism was abhorrent. The Democrats, by ridiculing Palin's voice and her education, were acting like arrogant snobs. The party had changed, I had changed, and the differences looked irreconcilable.


The final straw for me was when a close friend flew into a rage at me when she learned I wasn't supporting Obama. The political became personal when she began impugning my character. Worse yet, she tried to intimidate me into changing my mind by threatening to dump me.


Suddenly a light went on. The peace and love and flower power of the old left was dead and gone (if it even existed to begin with except in my imagination). The Democrats had morphed into a power hungry Thought Police, and I was done with them. My new motto in life: don't PC on me.


So this is my letter of amends, and I hope that I can be forgiven by all whom I've offended. I knew not what the heck I was doing. But now the problem is: how in the world does one be a conservative these days? How to stay brave and committed when conservatives are being targeted, punished, and shunned on a daily basis? How to sleep at night knowing that the country I have finally come to love may be destroyed from within by a massive Big Brother government?


I guess I'll just have to do a step one, as we 12 stepper's call it, and turn it all over to my Higher Power.


Love,


Robin

mjfell

elderly black man gets a clue; realizes he was tricked by barack obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16_nVaslkIk&feature=player_embedded

xbjllb

"Ask Donald Trump, you mindless piss ant."

----

I will, next week when he, Joan, and Melissa are over for business brunch.

Thanks! Great idea!

M/M

“The forces of diversity and inclusivity are lying. There is no room in this country for difference of opinion.”

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05132009/news/columnists/justice_is_oh_so_blond_168977.htm

EminemsRevenge

Maybe he's scared you might be running against him in 2012?

gringoman

Yes, but Rick Warren was actually converting gays using the bible. I give more credit to conservative women that attract gay men (because they feel more comfortable around them) that then convert them to heterosexuals - causing them to drop the hair gel, the earring, and .. the sparkling personality. These are the new women of the American Revolution.


Posted by: Truther | May 13, 2009 at 12:08 AM

Interesting point, but could even our Monica turn Perez Hilton into a man? Does she have the time, even if she had the inclination? Could he have any feeling for a blonde without facial hair? And what would he be without the Day-Glo?

M/M

"It began with the threats. Almost immediately after Proposition 8 – the anti-gay “marriage” amendment – was overwhelmingly passed by California voters, homosexual activists began threatening to burn down churches and other violence:"

'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban
"Burn their f---ing churches, then tax charred timbers"

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=219303widget=1

Two lesbians parked this car next to a home of parents and five children that supported Proposition 8.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=219303widget=1

M/M

Glenn Beck is "taking me to the woodshed". He just said: "First they came for transfats and I did nothing, next they came for sugared soda and I did nothing, and now they're coming for diet soda."

FK

Is Monica assuming that the Obamas have ever even heard of her? She's not quite as famous as Ann Coulter, or even Laura Ingraham.

xbjllb

Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are not famous; they're INfamous.

Big difference.

Through the patronage and tutelage of John McLaughlin, Monica is becoming famous.

Not INfamous. The conservative right is in dire need of anti-fascists who make sense, not fascists who repeat nonsense.

FK

Do people still watch TMG? What's the point without Jack Germond there?

mjfell

"Ask Donald Trump, you mindless piss ant."

----

I will, next week when he, Joan, and Melissa are over for business brunch.

Thanks! Great idea!

Posted by: xbjllb | May 13, 2009 at 04:14 AM
------------------------------------------------------

You know Donald Trump in your gleefully spooging wet dreams.

mjfell

Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham are not famous; they're INfamous.

Big difference.

Through the patronage and tutelage of John McLaughlin, Monica is becoming famous.

Not INfamous. The conservative right is in dire need of anti-fascists who make sense, not fascists who repeat nonsense.

Posted by: xbjllb | May 13, 2009 at 09:39 AM
------------------------------------------------------

Say there, mr imposter Christian, why don't you goose step back to Soros headquarters and enjoy an extended circle jerk with your Nazi cohorts?

It's so sad to see mentally challenged impotents express their sexual frustration by launching unwarranted attacks on intelligent, thoughtful, Conservative women.

mjfell

Fearing Our Government

By David Limbaugh
May 12, 2009

Of the dozens of reasons to be concerned about the ever-growing and unchecked power of the federal government under President Barack Obama, the upcoming assault against conservative talk radio may surpass them all.

It's not enough that liberals dominate the executive and legislative branches, liberals are poised to control the judiciary, and, at liberals' direction, government is absorbing ownership and control of large chunks of the private sector. They must also shut up the opposition.

We have genuine cause for alarm on multiple fronts -- and actual alarm indeed exists among increasing numbers of people, not all of whom are predisposed to excitability.

The government has declared war on innocent life in the womb in the name of "free choice." It is spending unconscionable amounts of money it doesn't have and can't possibly acquire without taxing the primary producers in this nation into abject servitude. It's set to impose "cap and trade" taxes in the name of protecting an environmental threat that exists mostly in the data-resistant prisons of their ideological minds, which will yield no environmental benefit but will cause irreparable economic harm.

It has passed constitutionally repugnant and morally odious legislation, carving out new crimes for violent acts motivated by "hate" against certain protected groups. Neither military veterans nor conservative males are among the protected groups, but pedophiles very well may be. The proscribed "hate" under the statute may not be "hate" at all, but mere political or theological disagreement with the view of the dominant media culture and the ruling class on, for example, the normalcy of homosexual behavior. Meanwhile this same ruling class and its enablers, who are so selectively indignant about certain majority opinions they mischaracterize as "hate," openly bask in the kind of behavior no one can rationally dispute as hateful at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner.

The government, through President Obama, has trotted the globe, painting the United States, the most magnanimous nation in the history of the world, as an international pariah and disgrace for which he must presume to apologize.

The government would have prosecuted officials of the previous administration for conducting enhanced interrogation techniques they reasonably believed were legal -- and the lawyers who furnished the legal opinions approving the techniques -- until it discovered, with egg on its face, that in a recent case, an appellate court -- and the Justice Department, in another -- had endorsed the prior administration's definition of torture.

The government threatens and intimidates creditors into transferring wealth to the administration's friends in labor. It uses taxpayer money to fund nefarious enterprises, such as ACORN, to engage in widespread illegal activities designed to corrupt and skew the census, elections and other democratic processes as we watch, with mouths agape, seemingly powerless -- for now -- to stop it.

The government is a heartbeat away from nationalizing health care based on deliberate misinformation about the nation's uninsured and despite the 100 percent failure rate of such fantastic reforms elsewhere on the globe.

This government has declared a false moral equivalence between the respective behaviors of democratic Israel and Palestinians committed to the extinction of Israel. It will attempt to force the Israelis to accept the twin suicidal concessions of relinquishing strategic real estate vital to its security and agreeing to the "return" of millions of Palestinian refugees. It appears to have abandoned any pretense of preventing Iran -- a nation also committed to Israel's extermination -- from acquiring nuclear weapons while encouraging Israel, instead, to disarm.

But of all the unfolding outrages, I doubt any will ignite true patriots more than the imminent resurrection of the government's war on conservative talk radio. If we can't even express political dissent, the nation we've known as a bastion of individual liberty will be no more.

President Obama, in classic misdirection, has proclaimed that he will not support efforts to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, through which the government would silence conservative talkers in the name of achieving "balance."

But he doesn't have to support the Fairness Doctrine to accomplish the same sinister goal when Congress and the Federal Communications Commission will do his dirty work for him. WorldNetDaily reports that Michael J. Copps, acting FCC chairman, has denounced the lack of racial and gender diversity in the broadcast industry as "a shameful state of affairs." Unsurprisingly, his proposed corrective is to force the transfer of station ownership to greater numbers of minorities, who are statistically more likely to carry liberal talk shows.

Let the record emphatically reflect that conservatives have never tried to use government to shut down the liberal media monopoly in network television and major newspapers, under the deceitful pretense of achieving balance or otherwise.

Let the record also reflect that if this administration presses forward with this overreach, it might finally jolt the complacent among us out of their stubborn naivete and apathy.

mjfell

Woman is forcefully arrested for trespassing on her own property

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubHlWjIGAfI

mjfell

Chuck Norris's One Wish (with the Help of Ron Paul)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6efKKFFLZJs

mjfell

Ron Paul's rEVOLution Versus the "One Ring" of the Federal Reserve

http://www.nolanchart.com/article6417.html

Frodo Baggins is no other than Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). For most of his political career spanning 30 years, he has been isolated, sounding the clarion call for honest money from the fraudulent bankers upon the deaf ears of his fellow lawmakers. He has been struggling to place the banker's precious Ring in the fires of Mount Doom, and return prosperity to the land by ridding it of an evil, barbarous, immoral relic, the FED.

mjfell

Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU

mjfell

Tax Increases Could Kill the Recovery

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217336075913063.html

Historians and economists who've studied the 1930s conclude that the tax increases passed during that decade derailed the recovery and slowed the decline in unemployment. That was true of the 1935 tax on corporate earnings and of the 1937 introduction of the payroll tax. Japan did the same destructive thing by raising its value-added tax rate in 1997.

The current outlook for an economic recovery remains precarious. Although the stimulus package will give a temporary boost to growth in the current quarter, it will not be enough to offset the combined effect of lower consumer spending, the decline in residential construction, the weakness of exports, the limited availability of bank credit and the downward spiral of house prices. A sustained economic upturn is far from a sure thing. This is no time for tax increases that will reduce spending by households and businesses.

mjfell

Take the Limbaugh Challenge

Liberals who hate Rush Limbaugh -- why don't you actually listen to his show before bashing him?

Opinion
Take the Limbaugh Challenge
Liberals who hate Rush Limbaugh -- why don't you actually listen to his show before bashing him?
By Andrew Klavan
March 29, 2009

If you are reading this newspaper, the likelihood is that you agree with the Obama administration's recent attacks on conservative radio talker Rush Limbaugh. That's the likelihood; here's the certainty: You've never listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Oh no, you haven't. Whenever I interrupt a liberal's anti-Limbaugh rant to point out that the ranter has never actually listened to the man, he always says the same thing: "I've heard him!"

On further questioning, it always turns out that by "heard him," he means he's heard the selected excerpts spoon-fed him by the distortion-mongers of the mainstream media. These excerpts are specifically designed to accomplish one thing: to make sure you never actually listen to Limbaugh's show, never actually give him a fair chance to speak his piece to you directly.

By lifting some typically Rushian piece of outrageous hilarity completely out of context, the distortion gang knows full well it can get you to widen your eyes and open your mouth in the universal sign of Liberal Outrage. Your scrawny chest swelling with a warm sense of completely unearned righteousness, you will turn to your second spouse and say, "I'm not a liberal, I'm a moderate, and I'm tolerant of a wide range of differing views -- but this goes too far!"

There is more untruthfulness in that statement than in a speech by President Obama. Even the commas are self-deceiving. You're not a moderate or you wouldn't be reading this newspaper. You're not tolerant of a wide range of views; you are tolerant of a narrow spectrum of variations on your views. And, whatever you claim, you still haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh.

Which leads to a question: Why not? I mean, come on, the guy's one of the figures of the age. Aren't you even curious? I listen to all your guys: NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Times, the New York Times, the New Yorker -- I check out the whole left-wing hallelujah chorus. Why are you afraid to spend a couple of hours listening to Limbaugh's show and seriously considering if and why you disagree with him?

Let me guess at your answer. You don't need to listen to him. You've heard enough to know he's a) racist, b) hateful, c) stupid, d) merely an outrageous entertainer not to be taken seriously or e) all of the above.

Now let me tell you the real answer: You're a lowdown, yellow-bellied, lily-livered intellectual coward. You're terrified of finding out he makes more sense than you do.

I listen to Limbaugh every chance I get, and I have never heard the man utter a single racist, hateful or stupid word. Do I always agree with him? Of course not. I'm a conservative; I think for myself. But Limbaugh, by turns insightful, satiric, raucously funny and wise, is one of the best voices talking about first principles and policy in the country today.

Therefore, I am throwing down my gauntlet at your quivering liberal feet. I hereby issue my challenge -- the Limbaugh Challenge: Listen to the show. Not for five minutes but for several hours: an hour a day for several days. Consider what he has to say -- the real policy material under the jokes and teasing bluster. Do what your intellectual keepers do not want you to do and keep an open mind. Ask yourself: What's he getting at? Why does he say the things he says? Why do so many people of goodwill -- like that nice Mr. Klavan -- agree with him?

The mainstream media (a.k.a. the Matrix) don't want you to listen to Limbaugh because they're afraid he'll wake you up and set you free of their worldview. You don't want to listen to him because you're afraid of the same thing.

Don't believe me? Well, then, gird your loins. Gather your courage. Accept the Limbaugh Challenge. See what happens.

I dare you

mjfell

LEFT CAN'T STAND RIGHT-THINKING BEAUTY
ANTI-GAY-NUPS CARRIE PREJEAN KEEPS CROWN

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05132009/news/columnists/justice_is_oh_so_blond_168977.htm

mjfell

The Obama Administration - Tyranny Begins With A Single Benign Act Of Lawlessness

Start small: dispose of a pesky corporate CEO, who is not compliant and objects to your grand design for the U.S. automobile industry. Who could object to the summary dismissal of the unpopular Mr. Wagoner, after all he was just getting in the way of the grand plan. Never mind that President Obama had no such legal authority. By simple fiat, he fired a sitting corporate CEO, and overrode those with the legal authority to make such decisions, the GM board of directors.

Like so many politicians before him, he instinctively knows that in an opportune economic crisis, it is only a small step from being the duly elected “President” to being transformed into a charismatic leader with the power to bend the will of the people to his own. It is comforting to know that his obsequious followers in the heretofore-free press will deal with criticism harshly. Even proposing mind-boggling trillion dollar per year deficits for the next decade are met with wild enthusiasm by an adoring press. And the trap is sprung - he begins to believe his own press.

Emboldened by the muted public response to his first indiscretion the popular new leader is crowned, His Royal Highness (HRH) Obama, and summarily rewrites the bankruptcy laws to suit his royal whim. Through thuggish coercion HRH Obama and his court forced the senior-secured lenders to take a secondary position to unsecured lenders in the “pre-packaged” Chrysler-FIAT bankruptcy plan. HRH Obama in his royal decree characterized the 20 or so lenders who initially opposed to his plan as “a small group of speculators”. His left wing “nut job” lackey Representative Dingell characterized them as “vultures” and warned that they “will be dealt with in court”. Their crime one can only assume was being moneylenders. Lest there be unrest in the kingdom the 20 recalcitrant lenders were also made to bow before their popular sovereign.

Until recently, senior secured lenders, those that held a contract that gave them first lien on a companies assets, had a preferential position in any bankruptcy proceeding unless of course they “voluntarily” give up that right. HRH Obama has by simple royal fiat and thuggery eliminated this centuries old legal right. By royal edict he has managed to payoff his loyal political supports, the UAW, with a majority, 55%, stake in the new Chrysler-FIAT consortium.

I guess the new standard at the Obama Court is to encourage financial institutions to ignore their fiduciary responsibility to the “widows and orphans” pension plans they manage, if it gets in the way of HRH Obama’s Chicago style political payola.

In time-honored tyrannical tradition HRH takes advantage of an economic crisis and selects an unpopular target: Greedy Wall Street bankers! Hedge fund moneylenders! Speculators! Shameful profiteers! It is so ever so tempting to fall back on classic stereotyping. Appealing to innate prejudice is like taking candy from a baby for an articulate politician who wants his way at any cost.

HRH Obama’s populist demagogic outcries against America’s 200-year history of free market capitalism seem limitless but no doubt well thought out. Who could object if a young and popular king teaches these scoundrels the lesson they disserve? In such dire circumstances who could blame him for ignoring the legal niceties?

With two simple and apparently benign lawless acts this popular young sovereign has changed the American ideal from a nation laws to a nation where the monarch can override centuries of legal tradition with a simple wave of the royal hand.

Our Anglo-American legal traditions have been stood on their head. It is as if the Magna Carta had never been written and King John never accepted that his will could be bound by the law.

Where will we go next: what law will we bent or broken if it gets in the way of HRH’s vision of an American social revolution?

http://www.cincinnatusblog.com/tyr/

mjfell

Chrysler and the Rule of Law

The Founders put the contracts clause in the Constitution for a reason.

The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment. While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.

Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez. But it would never happen here, right?

Until Chrysler.

The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation. Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts. Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."

The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law. Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims. Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress. Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.

Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.

The U.S. government also wants to rush through what amounts to a sham sale of all of Chrysler's assets to Fiat. While speedy bankruptcy sales are not unheard of, they are usually reserved for situations involving a wasting or perishable asset (think of a truck of oranges) where delay might be fatal to the asset's, or in this case the company's, value. That's hardly the case with Chrysler. But in a Chapter 11 reorganization, creditors have the right to vote to approve or reject the plan. The Obama administration's asset-sale plan implements a de facto reorganization but denies to creditors the opportunity to vote on it.

By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses. That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation. In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?

The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular. The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.

Chrysler -- or more accurately, its unionized workers -- may be helped in the short run. But we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union. We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government's Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks' troubled assets.

And what if the next time it is a politically unpopular business -- such as a pharmaceutical company -- that's on the brink? Might the government force it to surrender a patent to get the White House's agreement to get financing for the bankruptcy plan?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124217356836613091.html

mjfell

Sweden approves gender-based abortions

Amanda Carpenter makes this the Hot Button issue at the Washington Times today, and it provides an interesting juxtaposition to a post I wrote last month. Sweden has approved gender-specific abortions, allowing parents to rid themselves of an unwanted daughter in a closely-watched ethics case:
Swedish women will be permitted to abort their children based on the sex of the fetus, according to a ruling by Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare.
The ruling was spurred by a request from Kai Wedenberg, head of the clinic where a woman twice requested, and received, an abortion based on sex.
Mr. Wedenberg asked for clarification from health officials after a woman, who already had two girls, requested amniocentesis and to be told the sex of her unborn child. She found out she was pregnant with another girl and asked for an abortion six days later.
The woman then became pregnant again, returned to the clinic and asked for another amniocentesis, which was not performed. Later, at her ultrasound, she asked the nurse to reveal the sex of her fetus, which was a girl. After learning this, the mother requested an abortion later that day and received it later that week.
Last month, I noted the opposition of the abortion-rights group Center for Reproductive Rights to the same practice in China, where the state’s one-child policy makes gender selection more important for parents. Sweden has no such restrictions; in this case, the woman already had two daughters and wants a son. CRR opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, putting their fright over what they call “fetus rights” over their objections to gender-specific infanticide.
At least Sweden remained consistent. Unlike the CRR, their decision reluctantly noted that the woman’s motivation was irrelevant if one accepts that someone can “choose” to end human life as a right. One wonders whether CRR will protest this decision in Sweden as they do in China, extending their intellectual confusion over the nature of “choice” as an absolute right.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/13/sweden-approves-gender-based-abortions/

mjfell

Prejean On Dobson Program: God Reigns Over Satan

http://www.publicadvocateusa.org/news/article.php?article=4601

In an interview Monday with conservative Christian radio talk show host James Dobson, Prejean said her answer to the pagent judge's question on gay marriage pitted her against the Devil.

"I felt as though Satan was trying to tempt me in asking this question," she said.

"And then God was in my head and in my heart saying: 'Do not compromise this. You need to stand up for Me and you need to share with all these people...you need to witness to them.'"

She said God asked her, "Carrie, how bad do you want this? Are you willing to compromise your beliefs for a one-year crown of Miss USA?"


"I am convinced now more than ever of the importance of standing up for your beliefs and convictions," Prejean emphasized.

"I hope I have inspired others to maintain compassion, civility, respect and tolerance while staying true to your convictions and to never ever compromise your beliefs in the pursuit of his or her own goals regardless of the consequences."

xbjllb

"You know Donald Trump in your gleefully spooging wet dreams."

----

Nice. Nothing more refreshing or revealing (of the enemy) in the morning than cons nastiness and hatred. Better than a cup of coffee, and far more reliable!

----

"Say there, mr imposter Christian, why don't you goose step back to Soros headquarters and enjoy an extended circle jerk with your Nazi cohorts?"

----

Soros headquarters? You've GOT to be kidding. I'm anti-Obama, remember? That means I'm anti-Obama's massah as well. I don't like men who buy the Presidency and choose to install easily-blackmailable clueless crackheads on the downlow. Who were born in Kenya to boot.

----

"It's so sad to see mentally challenged impotents express their sexual frustration by launching unwarranted attacks on intelligent, thoughtful, Conservative women."

----

News flash: When Academia write the history of the last decade (and they will, rest assured), "Dr." Laura and Annie Coulter are going to be at the very top of the Fascist Enemies of Democracy list. Just beneath Pills Limbaugh and Brillo. In the same chapter with Tokyo Rose.

Monica is oh-so-wise to have had too much class to follow in their jackbooted footsteps.

"Intelligent"? "Thoughtful?" How about "Nasty", "Bigoted", "Fascist", and "Evil."

Cruel doesn't quite go far enough.

-----

"You know Donald Trump in your gleefully spooging wet dreams."

-----

No WONDER YOU identify with and would defend those cretinous women.

Kingofthenet

This little diddy is from Dick Cheney:

Pondering The Sylvan Glade

I gaze upon the sylvan glade
hundred year old oak and maple
towering white pine
sheltering owls
sparrows
woodpeckers
with a carpet of needles
and bough
as if the breath of
God still lingers
what a great place
to put a McDonald's

xbjllb

"This little diddy is from Dick Cheney:

Pondering The Sylvan Glade

I gaze upon the sylvan glade
hundred year old oak and maple
towering white pine
sheltering owls
sparrows
woodpeckers
with a carpet of needles
and bough
as if the breath of
God still lingers
what a great place
to put a McDonald's"

----

Hey KOTN!

You forgot the end!

.....

This little diddy is from Dick Cheney:

Pondering The Sylvan Glade

I gaze upon the sylvan glade
hundred year old oak and maple
towering white pine
sheltering owls
sparrows
woodpeckers
with a carpet of needles
and bough
as if the breath of
God still lingers
what a great place
to put a McDonald's
So I can riddle
the women and children therein
with bullets made
from my own companies
making me richer
so I can build more
McDonalds traps for
my eternal prey.

The comments to this entry are closed.