Sunday, November 18, 2012

Maybe We Really Can’t All Just Get Along! ^ | November 18, 2012 | Derek Hunter

During the Los Angeles riots of 1992, Rodney King famously asked, “Can’t we all just get along?” The answer should be an easy and unequivocal “yes,” but it seems less and less likely these days.

King was speaking in term of race, but the same could be said of political ideology. Liberals, conservatives and every other point on the political spectrum used to co-exist fairly easily (with the exception of left-wing anarchists who don’t get along with anyone). But these days détente has given way to anger and open hostility.

Some, not all, people have become less civil to those with whom they disagree politically. The modern left, birthed with the start of the eugenics-loving, racist progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century, always has embraced, to varying degrees, the concept of silencing opponents. Through the factions of communism, socialism and fascism (all takes on the same philosophy), leftists have made continuous attempts to silence and punish anyone who doesn’t toe their line.

President Woodrow Wilson, a progressive hero, made it illegal to speak German in this country and, in the Sedition Act of 1917, outlawed the use of “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” against the government, flag or military. Wilson’s rabid racism and implementation of segregationist policies in the federal government are routinely ignored by progressives today. But they are all too real and did enormous and lasting damage to our nation.

But that was (and still is) what progressives stood for. They were the elites, the smartest the nation had to offer. And, as such, it was up to them to “improve” the world through government action. They were white, so blacks were inferior. They were smart, so anyone they deemed not to be was inferior, and so on. They believed certain “undesirable” people should be sterilized and thus bred out of existence.

Those deemed worthy or necessary to be allowed to continue to exist would be ruled by them because they, the progressives, quite simply knew better what people needed than the people themselves. Constitution be damned, they were “progressing” the human race.

Although their tactics have changed over time, their motivation and ultimate desires haven’t – they want control and don’t care who or what they destroy to get it.

Fast-forward to today. Progressives are in the process of seizing control of the health care system. Regulations and laws are making more and more businesses effective wards of the state functioning in the ever-narrowing window of what’s left of the free-market.

But it’s not just economics. The sentiments behind President Wilson’s Sedition Act are alive and well. They’re no longer embedded in government; they’ve moved to the media and academia. Speech codes limit not only the words students can use but their ability to express thoughts and opinions progressives deem unworthy. Progressive media outlets frame opposition to President Obama as racist in the hopes of scaring critics into silence.

Now this disparate world view and loyalty to ideology over country/liberty/reality is metastasizing into more places it will damage beyond repair.

Union workers voluntarily have driven Hostess out of business. Seems they’d rather have no pay than less pay, no pension over a restructured one. They commit economic suicide, and pampered, over-paid union bosses such as Richard Trumka blame the Bain Capitals of the world.

Even on something as serious as the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, progressives aren’t interested in facts. Calls for truth-seeking are met with cries of racism because UN Ambassador Susan Rice, the sacrificial lamb the president sent out to lie for him, happened to be black. These progressives are not remotely interested in why Rice lied to the American people about what happened that sad night, nor do they care about being lied to themselves. They care about their agenda. Lying to the contemptible masses is acceptable and encouraged because the unwashed masses don’t know what’s best for themselves anyway.

This “progressive” attitude toward reality is now amplified by the web of social media, which empowers the spread of their fact-lacking desires to once-unheard drones who parrot it unquestioned to the world. Like a cold virus on a plane, it spreads. The truth, or even a desire to find it (as in the case of Benghazi), immediately butts up against a wall of willful ignorance built by a left-wing industrial complex of moneyed interests and true believers. No amount of contradictory evidence can convince them what actually is if they wish it not to be.

The right has its own version of this suborn, wishfully ignorant army. But it is smaller with much less funding. The reason this hive-mindset doesn’t translate to the right is we are not all of like minds. Priorities to one conservative are not priorities to another. Diversity of opinion not only exists on the political right, it is encouraged. Nothing less would be accepted from a philosophy based on the individual.

The progressive left doesn’t suffer from intellectual diversity. In spite of its penchant for bumper stickers calling for questioning of authority, celebrating diversity and “tolerance,” progressives tolerate deviation from their prescribed norm like Hamas would tolerate the suggestion they observe Rosh Hashanah. That’s why there’s so little dissent from anything its leaders propose. No group of nearly 200 clear-thinking individuals who swore an oath to the Constitution and hoped to sway a majority of Americans to their cause would ever elect a radical San Francisco leftist their leader, yet Nancy Pelosi…

When Rodney King asked his famous question, we really could have all gotten along. But the intervening years saw the rejection of a liberal, almost moderate, left and the rebirth of a philosophy spawned from hatred and division with the sole goal of control. Although a great many Americans support this goal, the wool has been pulled over the eyes of many more who’ve been fooled into thinking liberty is a chip to be bartered for a crumb of pie rather than the key to making your own.

I opt against trading my liberty to sing kumbaya with those who seek to impose upon me that which I do not want because they deem it in my best interest. Our president can bow to anyone he wants, but I will no bow to him, nor will I bow to his ideological brethren. I will not bow to anyone. We can all get along, but as long as my opponents seek to deny me any of my liberty, I choose not to.

George Will Schools Donna Brazile on Mandates! ^ | November 18, 2012 | Noel Sheppard
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2012 3:59:00 PM by Kaslin
For approaching two weeks, liberal media members have been contorting themselves to make the case the President's victory on Election Day represented a mandate for his agenda.
When CNN contributor Donna Brazile tried this on ABC's This Week Sunday, George Will marvelously responded, "Almost every member of John Boehner's caucus won his or her seat by a much bigger margin than Mr. Obama won his renewed term" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
Will Schools Brazile on Mandates: Almost Every House Republican Won By Much Bigger Margin Than Obama

MARTHA RADDATZ, SUBSTITUTE HOST: Simple math? And is there a mandate? Does the president have a mandate? DONNA BRAZILE: He has a mandate. He said -- he said he has a mandate to protect the middle class, to fight for the middle class. And I think what's important, before we start talking about entitlements, which the president has talked about before, is that the Republicans are now talking about revenue.
The question is, what Republican Party will show up, the Republican Party that still believes the Romney-Ryan math adds up or the Republican Party that understands the reality now that 60 percent of the American people, at least on Election Day, voted to put revenues on the table? That is -- that is the big question that we have to look at, as we look down the road. The president is going to play the long game. He's not going to play for a short-term deal.
RADDATZ: George?

GEORGE WILL: The president denounced the House Republicans across this country as obstructionists. The country said, "We hear you," and they sent them back to continue being a break on the president. And almost every member of John Boehner's caucus won his or her seat by a much bigger margin than Mr. Obama won his renewed term.
Beyond this, Obama received fewer popular and electoral votes in 2012 than he did in 2008.
What kind of a mandate is that?
But Will wasn't finished:

WILL: Look, the arithmetic is simple. If you cap at $25,000 the available deductions, you raise $1.2 trillion. That's a lot of money. If you cap it at $50,000, you raise about as much money as you would raise by letting the Bush tax rates expire. I don't think that's a problem. You showed the clip a moment ago of Patty Murray saying, as a negotiating ploy, go off the cliff. Let me give you another theory. For 40 years, the Democratic Party's activist base has had two goals: substantial tax increases and substantial defense cuts. Going off the cliff implements the Democratic Party's agenda.
Indeed. Let's give it a try and see how the economy does. Then the left's agenda totally supported by the media will finally be exposed as a failure.
All those in favor say Aye.

Obama admin extends states’ insurance-exchange deadline, again!

posted at 11:21 am on November 16, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Yesterday, the Obama administration announced that they’re extending the deadline by which states need to report whether or not they’ll be participating in setting up their own state-specific health insurance exchanges, through which people will be able to shop for ObamaCare-approved insurance plans and apply for tax subsidies toward the cost of premiums (the states’ other options are forging a partnership with the federal government, or just letting the federal government take control of the whole kit and caboodle). The deadline was already extended once to today, but Health and Human Services pushed it back another month until December 14th since many states are still in quite the pickle about the whole thing — and plenty are leaning toward just letting the federal government pick up the pieces. Byron York summarizes why:
They have several reasons. One, they believe the exchanges will cost their states a lot of money. Two, they believe the federal government will exercise ultimate control, meaning there will be little benefit for a state to do the heavy lifting to get the exchanges started. And three, some suspect the exchanges will be a disorganized and troubled enterprise, and when the implementation of Obamacare comes under criticism, the blame will lie with the administration, and not the states.
Some conservatives are urging the governors not only to stay out of the exchanges but also to reject Obamacare’s planned expansion of Medicaid. That could be a crippling blow to the health care law. …
The extension was apparently in response to a letter sent by Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, as the subject was a hot topic at the Republican Governors’ Association meeting in Las Vegas this week, via the WSJ:
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, had said this week that he couldn’t commit to the state running its own exchanges without more information about the rules that would be set for the state and the federally-run marketplaces. Mr. McDonnell wrote to Mr. Obama asking for more time this week. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius replied late Thursday, offering a December 14 deadline.
Louisiana Republican Gov. Bobby Jindal, another signer of the letter to Mr. Obama asking for a delay, has said he would continue to refuse to run an exchange.
Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman said Thursday he had decided not to run a state exchange, as did Gov.-elect Mike Pence of Indiana. …
Mr. Heineman said federal officials were unwilling to give the state enough say over how it would operate an exchange of its own. “They’ve made it abundantly clear: they’re in charge,” he said.
Alabama Republican Gov. Robert Bentley also has said he wouldn’t run a state exchange, saying he feared being saddled with additional costs.
But there are still states on the fence, like Virginia, and I’m wondering if the request for the extension wasn’t actually a bit of a godsend for the Obama administration, too. If a bunch of states decide not to cooperate, it’s going to take a colossal bureaucratic effort from the federal government to get these states set up, and it might be too much work to handle by the time these exchanges are supposed to be operational by October of next year. They kind of need more states to get on board with this, and the extra month might give them a chance for some persuasion.

Ted Cruz: “I’m pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama”

Conservatives4Palin ^ | November 17 2012 | Doug Brady

Heh. Too funny to pass up, and sadly apt given the Mittster’s “the president exudes an air of likability and friendliness, which is endearing” nonsense.
Cruz said that conservatives failed to make their case to the American people, leaving Romney no choice but to move toward the president. “We didn’t win the argument, we didn’t even make the argument” throughout much of 2012, Cruz said.
But in the first debate, he argued, that changed.
“It was the one time we actually contested ideas, presented two viewpoints and directions for the country,” he said. “And then inevitably, there are these mandarins of politics, who give the voice: ‘Don’t show any contrasts. Don’t rock the boat.’ So by the third debate, I’m pretty certain Mitt Romney actually French-kissed Barack Obama.
“I have no doubt that there is a focus group somewhere of undecided Ohio voters who have been living in a cave for the last 30 years, who decided they liked that,” Cruz continued. “‘Don’t show any disagreement whatsoever with the president. Don’t rock the boat. Just be a nice guy.’”

Cruz said centrist strategies were doomed to fail Republicans, who should instead focus on a simple motto: “Our ideas work. Theirs don’t.”
I can’t disagree with any of that. Senator-elect Cruz, like Governor Palin, tells it like it is and isn’t one to make nice with those on the Left who are hell-bent on turning American into an also-ran. Democrat-lite loses every time it’s tried, and those in the GOP Establishment who continue to argue for that approach must be ignored if the Republican Party is to survive.
Conservatism didn’t lose on November 6th, it wasn’t even advocated. Ted Cruz has a “Palinesque” knack for using humor to get his point across. The more I learn about him, the more I like the guy. The Governor hit a home run with her “game-changing” endorsement of Cruz in his race against the GOPe’s preferred candidate, David Dewhurst.

Obama Stabbing Israel in the Back Behind the Scenes! ^ | November 17, 2012 | Daniel Greenfield

The trajectory of conflicts like these are fairly clear. Israel bombs some terrorist targets and then launches a ground incursion into Gaza to suppress terrorist activities. But the Obama Administration is already working against a ground offensive behind the scenes, as a New York Times report mentions.
Obama supposedly called Netanyahu to discuss options for “de-escalating” the situation, but all those options are going to involve signing on to another meaningless cease fire while Hamas continues carrying out attacks, on and off. Netanyahu has made calling off a ground operation contingent on an end to rocket attacks. Which Obama isn’t likely to be able to deliver. And worse still, Obama has proposed that Egypt broker a ceasefire.
That might have made some kind of sense in the Mubarak era, but today Egypt is run by the Muslim Brotherhood, which also runs Gaza, it’s like asking the Soviet Union to broker a peace between China and India. Worse still, there is good reason to believe that Egypt pushed this conflict to distract from its domestic problems. And the Muslim Brotherhood leader of Egypt, Morsi has been quite blatant about calling for war with Israel.
Obama called Morsi to thank him for his efforts in calming the conflict despite the fact that Morsi made multiple threats against Israel and sent his Prime Minister to Gaza in a show of support to Hamas. That’s a rather strange notion of calming the situation.
Here’s a sample of some of Morsi’s calming efforts

Egypt will continue to support Gaza against continued attacks from Israeli armed forces, President Mohamed Morsi reiterated on Friday. “The price will be high if the aggression continues,” Morsi said after he performed Friday prayers in Fatma Al-Sharbatly Mosque in Cairo’s Fifth Settlement.
“Egypt is different from yesterday,” he added. “We assure them [Israel] that the price will be high for continued aggression, and [we tell them] you have to bear the responsibility.”
During Morsi’s speech, worshipers chanted: “Khaybar, Khaybar, Oh Jews, the army of Mohamed will return,”
Morsi said earlier that “Gaza will not remain alone as it was,” adding that the aggressors “know they will pay a heavy price is they continue their aggression.” He also said that “the Egyptians throughout their history were not an aggressive people, but they are capable of stopping any attack.”
What exactly is Obama thanking Morsi for?
But operating out of some alternate reality, the New York Times article has crazy quotes like these

“If Morsi wanted to use this for populist reasons, he’d be adopting a different posture,” said Martin S. Indyk, the former American ambassador to Israel and the author of “Bending History: Barack Obama’s Foreign Policy.” “If he wanted to take apart the peace treaty, this is his opportunity,” Mr. Indyk said. “The fact that he’s not and is instead apparently working with President Obama to calm the situation is important.”
Obama then called Turkish Islamist leader Erdogan, who is basically Morsi on steroids, to discuss the situation with him. Turkey took the lead in backing Hamas and its aggressive statements regarding Israel have become so commonplace that they are hardly worth mentioning.
Meanwhile the New York Times keeps pushing three lies
1. Morsi is being pressured into his position by popular outrage
2. Hamas is not responsible for rocket attacks from Gaza
3. Israeli attacks on Hamas are worsening its relationship with Egypt
All three are completely untrue, but they are the building blocks of the appeasement bloc’s arguments. These are the arguments being assembled to back Obama’s betrayal of Israel.


Boy, Are We Screwed!