>> Monday, June 27, 2011
It's true! No point denying it any longer...
It's true! No point denying it any longer...
A parting shot from Miss Coulter...
It's not an accident that Saul Alinsky, forefather to community organizers like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, dedicated his book Rules for Radicals to "the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom-- Lucifer."
This is why liberals are shrieking oppositionists, braying, abortion-obsessed feminists, SEIU thugs, Earth Liberation Front loons, Bill Maher audiences, and querulous dissidents from every measure taken in defense of their own country. This is why they mock all that is good-- America, religion, patriotism, chivalry, the rule of law, truth, the creation of wealth, life --while hysterically attacking those who oppose them.
The mob will never support defending America, only those who seek to undermine it. The mob will never side with those who seek to protect human life, only those who seek to destroy it. The mob will never support the creation of wealth, only those who seek to punish it. The mob will never defend traditional morality, only those who seek to subvert it. And if you oppose the mob, it will come after you like a pack of ravenous hyenas.
Ann Coulter's opening statement...
The demon is a mob, and the mob is demonic. It is the nihilistic mob of the French Revolution; it is the revolutionaries who seized control of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century; it is the Maoist gangs looting villages and impaling babies in China; it is the Ku Klux Klan terrorizing Republicans and blacks in the South; it is the 1992 Los Angeles riot that left fifty dead and did $1 billion of damage after the first Rodney King verdict; it is the masked hoodlums smashing up Seattle when bankers came to town; it is the 500,000 illegal aliens marching under a foreign flag in Los Angeles; it is throngs of Islamic fanatics attending the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's funeral, tearing his body out of its coffin; it is left-wing protesters destroying property and attacking delegates at the Republican National Conventions.
Everything else changes, but mobs are always the same. A mob is an irrational, childlike, often violent organism that derives its energy from the group. Intoxicated by messianic goals, the promise of instant gratification, and adrenaline-pumping exhortations, mobs create mayhem, chaos, and destruction, leaving a smoldering heap of wreckage for their leaders to climb to power.
The Democratic Party is the party of the mob, irrespective of what the mob represents. Democrats activate mobs, depend on mobs, coddle mobs, publicize and celebrate mobs-- they are the mob. Indeed, the very idea of a "community organizer" is to stir up a mob for some political purpose. "As so frequently happens when a crowd goes wild," historian Erik Durschmied says, "there is always one who shouts louder and thereby appoints himself as their leader." Those are the people we call "elected Democrats."
The Democrats' playbook doesn't involve heads on pikes-- as yet --but uses a more insidious means to incite the mob. The twisting of truth, stirring of passion, demonizing of opponents, and relying on propagandistic images in lieu of ideas-- these are the earmarks of a mob leader.
Ann Coulter calls it Demonic, and I can't disagree with her.
Liberals are constantly pushing for the Rousseauian approach to governance in defiance of our nation's history and Constitution. They not only believe there is a "general will," they are sure their policies express it. Instead of allowing ordinary people to have more control over their lives, democrats produce inflexible, universal plans, sublimely confident of their ability to build a perfect system. They get angry when people say, "I don't think your plan will work in this part of the country." All plans, all rules, all regulations must be universal.
It's an obsession with the Democrats to nationalize everything: health care, welfare, the speed limit, abortion, the drinking age-- so there's no escape. Like all totalitarians, the Democrats' position is: We thought up something that we know will work better than anything anyone else has done for the last 30,000 years. We don't know why no one else has thought of it. We must be smarter.
This is why the history of liberalism consists of replacing things that work with things that sounded good on paper.
Frustrated that, in a democracy, they can't implement their grand plans to save humanity with the ease of a dictator, liberals demonize those who stand in their way. That's why Americans who objected to ObamaCare had to be anathematized for "obstructing" the plan for health care utopia.
The mob can make a person a pariah in an instant with rumors, outright lies, and the crowd's trademark smirking. They did it to Marie Antoinette. They did it to Joe McCarthy, They did it to Richard Nixon, the shah of Iran, Ronald Reagan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Haliburton, Margaret Thatcher, Dan Quayle, Bush I, Bush II, "neoconservative," Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Allen West-- the list is endless. It's important to liberals to express contempt for an adversary. Belittling people is pleasurable for them as well as tactically useful.
Instead of "counterrevolutionaries," liberals' opponents are called "haters," "those who seek to divide us," "tea baggers," and "right-wing hate groups." Meanwhile, conservatives call liberals "liberals"-- and that makes them testy.
They make wild, lying accusations against conservatives, especially the Tea Partiers-- to the point of accusing conservatives of complicity in a liberal lunatic's shooting spree at a Tucson Safeway that left six dead and a dozen wounded.
They terrorize their political opponents by ginning up psychopaths to physically attack conservatives at the Republican National Convention, conservative rallies, Republican luncheons, book signings, speeches-- even at the political opponent's home. Then they turn around and claim to be afraid of Tea Partiers.
Others may disagree (and I know others will), but I'm tired of Weinergate. I don't want to destroy him; he may very well have done just that all on his own. He has only himself to blame, and he is going to pay for it, one way or the other. We all do, in the end.
I do-- but then I don't --feel sorry for Rep Weiner. He's been a caustic nasty little man, and in the eyes of some he deserves everything he's getting and more. And considering what's he's done, he DOES deserve it. I feel sorry for the man because of his name. EVERY news agency has taken pot shots at his name, and it's just juvenile. I'm tired of it. I don't want to be a part of destroying someone who appears to have royally screwed himself.
Should he resign? For what? Because he lied to the American people? Every politician lies to the American people to one extent or the other. A short while ago a republican resigned simply for a photo of his bare chest he sent out over, what was it? Craigslist? that's not near as bad as emailing photos of your namesake all over the world-- and if Rep Weiner was nearly as savvy as he thought he was, he'd have known that nothing on the internet ever goes away-- unless government kills it, and even then! Should we expect certain standards of the men who represent us? Sure! But should we expect them to be perfect? Never make mistakes? Are some mistakes too great to allow a man or woman to continue in their jobs? Most certainly. But if there is no room for forgiveness, or understanding, then we become worse than the leftist media currently on course to destroy what's left of this man.
Rep Rangel is still in office, and what he did was unarguably a crime. Weiner? Questions remain. And even at that, does exposing oneself in public carry a worse penalty than tax evasion? In terms of law and penalty? I don't think so. In terms of personal dishonor? Who's to say? Let Weiner's constituents deal with him. If they want him to stay in office, and later achieve reelection, that's their business. If they want him, they can have him. There are too many other dire happenings in American politics that require our undivided attention than the distraction of Rep Weiner's... [e-hem.]
I'm not going to stoop to the level of media who, seeing blood in the water, attacks without mercy, or seeing no blood but rather an easy kill, swarm in to destroy someone simply because they don't like her... namely, Gov. Palin. The Left is insane in its hatred and campaign of destruction leveled against Sarah Palin, among others. That they're turning on Rep Weiner only proves that some species are not above eating their own. But I've never seen the Right go to the extremes the Left has in attempting to destroy a political opponent.
There is enough evil happening in our government-- Today! Right now! --more in need of our rapt attention than the public dismantling of a man's name, family, career, etc. Mr Weiner has done this to himself, but we should not be eager to heap coals on his head. The Left is doing what they do best in that regard. Let them have it.
If you want to avoid the individual mandate in Obamacare... Earn Less.
From Philip Klein at the WashingtonExaminer.com
President Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.
Mainstream Media Is Beginning to Awaken?
Excerpts from CNBC.com...
Wall Street Baffled by Slowing Economy, Low Yields: Trader
"What we’ve got right now is almost near panic going on with money managers and people who are responsible for money,"
Stocks extended losses after the manufacturing fell below expectations in May and the private sector added only 38,000 jobs during the month.
"Interest rates are amazingly low and that, thanks to Ben Bernanke, is driving everything. We’re on the verge of a great, great depression. The [Federal Reserve] knows it."
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.