Dropping pebbles of thought into our conservative echo-chamber

Democrats Expose Themselves

I couldn’t sleep Wednesday night.

Normally I don’t go looking for fights, even though they often find me, but I was bored!

I decided to troll the leftwits at the Huffington Post forums.

Okay, that isn’t exactly true.  I was reading stories about the floor vote at the DNC convention to add the words “God” and “Jerusalem” back into the Democrat’s platform, and I wanted to see how the liberals were reacting to it.  It all started out as simple honest interest in how they viewed those events.  I didn’t plan to engage in any heckling, but, as I said, I was bored!

For me, the events of Wednesday’s floor vote sums up everything about the Democrats in one neat little package.  All you ever needed to know about them is encapsulated in one little video caught by C-Span:

1)      Racism is alive and well, and resides in the Democrat Party.

2)      Democrats will go to any lengths to deceive the public.

3)      The Godless do indeed make up a large contingent of the DNC.

4)      Anti-Semitism is rampant among liberals.

5)      Democrats use crass demagoguery to keep minority factions in line.

6)      Democrats will throw their own under the bus.

7)      Votes only count to Democrats if they like the results.

Racist Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (who thinks that he belongs to “the” race) was the perfect choice by the Democrats to represent them as their Convention Chairman.  He embodies the liberal notion of placing the color of one’s skin ahead of the content of their character, and, as if any further proof was needed, this event leaves no doubt that he is personally bereft of any such character.

This vote was a set up from the beginning.  It was a contrived effort to attack Mitt Romney for not being 100% in line with the Republican platform, which, in this case apparently calls for abortion to be restricted with no exceptions.  Romney would leave exceptions for rape, incest and the health of the mother.  Democrats spent a good part of last week trying to make some political hay out of that difference, but didn’t gain any traction.  Most everyone knows that a fresh political candidate has little control over their party platform.  Only incumbents, like Barack Obama, really have that power.

The Democrats concocted this political maneuver in order to try to slam Romney while portraying Barack Obama as a forceful leader.  They were deriding Romney for not having the “courage” to attack the Republican platform and force it to mirror his own views.  The original wording of the Democrats platform was written with the intent of setting the stage to allow for the “heroic” Obama to rush in and save the day by demanding that his own platform be changed to his will.

Unfortunately, for them, they let the cat out of the bag earlier in the week by letting it be known that Obama signed off on the original wording.

Also unfortunately, for them, the masquerade backfired in a spectacular and glorious fashion!

So, as Villaraigosa took the stage at the DNC, with his teleprompter already displaying the results of a vote he had not yet taken, he was met with something that he didn’t expect:

Resistance!

Everybody knows that happy little liberals are not allowed to disagree with the stated party line!  It doesn’t even matter how ridiculous the spin might be!  They’ll keep to it.  I guess they just weren’t prepared for the talking points to change, and Villaraigosa was DEFINITELY not prepared for the delegate’s reaction to those changes!

The delegate’s reaction to the notion of adding God back to the platform was very telling, as was the reaction that I saw among many liberals posting at The Huffington Post.  They railed at the notion of the “sky fairy” being mentioned in a political setting.  They revealed that they believe that anyone who believes in such “fairy tales” could not be rational or intelligent.

I pointed out to them that it was Obama himself that forced the wording changes.  So, either Obama believes in God, which, by their logic, would make him irrational, or Obama doesn’t believe in God, which makes his own platform a lie. 

By their own definition, Obama is either an idiotic lunatic, or a liar… or both.

They REALLY didn’t like to hear that much!  They weren’t able to refute the point, so many of my posts were deleted by the site moderators and deemed as “personal attacks”.  Apparently pointing out logical fallacies to a liberal equates to attacking them personally.

The Anti-Semitism among liberals and Democrats was evidenced by the people carrying “Arab-American Democrat” signs (like we really need more hyphenated “Americans”?) and shouting “NO!” to the notion of confirming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  There is a huge contingent of Pro-Palestinian, Anti-Israel Democrats.  They may, in fact, make up the majority of that party.  Jewish people in America are finally starting to wake up to that reality, and more and more are “defecting” to the Republican Party every day.  I thought it very telling that the Democrats had to rush out to attempt damage control.

There was even the claim that conservative Christians only care about Israel because, according to Palm Beach County Democratic Chairman Mark Alan Siegel, The Christians just want us to be there so we can be slaughtered and converted and bring on the second coming of Jesus Christ”.

Disgusting.

But what I thought was the funniest part about this whole ordeal was how the vote was rigged from the beginning, and I was delighted as I watched Villaraigosa throw his own party’s delegates under the bus!  The look on his face was just pure comedy gold!

Two-thirds of the delegates would have been required to accede to the changes for the vote to have passed, but there is no way that anyone residing within a realm with the slightest connection to reality could claim there was a 2/3 vote in favor of either side.

But the fix was in.

Thanks to video taken at the event, we know now that Villaraigosa’s teleprompter was already set up for him to read the results as being in favor of making the changes.  This demonstrates beyond any doubt that the Democrats only care about votes if those votes are going their way. 

If they will ignore the votes of their own delegates to fix an election at their own convention, how can that leave any doubt about what they would do in a general election?

This one event nearly sums up the entire case against the Democrats and liberals.

Former President Bill Clinton’s scheduled speech tonight at the DNC convention reminds me of just how often we, as conservatives, have allowed the Democrats and the liberal media (redundancy!) to dictate the narrative and rewrite history.

Seriously, I have been hoping for a long time to see this trend change, but even with social media taking a large chunk out of the dinosaur news networks, we are still allowing the liberals to get away with an insane amount of propaganda.

Maybe it is because I am old enough to remember how things were when they actually happened.  Our newest set of voters was still in diapers during Clinton’s last term.  The Democrats work to take full advantage of the naiveté of youth, which is why they target younger voters and deceive them.  What disturbs me most is that all too often conservatives go right along with the deception unwittingly.

But I fully remember Bill Clinton’s first election.  This is because I actually supported Clinton.  Don’t hate me!

It was a definite year of discovery for me.  It was the year that I discovered first-hand how blatantly deceptive the liberals can be.

I was young.  The 1992 election wasn’t my first, but it was close to it.  I was angry at George H. W. Bush for his myopic “family values” platform.  Ross Perot had some good sound bites, but I thought the guy was a bit of a lunatic (and it turns out that I was right).  Bill Clinton was the “cool” candidate, much like Barack Obama was portrayed in 2008.  Hell, he could play the saxophone!  He went on popular shows like Arsenio to prove it.  Even most conservatives will still say that Clinton is a likable guy on a personal level.

But, in reality, Bill Clinton was Barack Obama 1.0.

Clinton’s first campaign was very much like Obama’s.  The Democrats pilloried Bush for going back on his pledge to not raise any taxes, even though it was the Democrats in Congress that placed that poison pill into an unrelated bill that Bush felt he could not veto.  Clinton promised to lower taxes and bring us all together as a nation.  He gave us empty platitudes.

What we got instead was almost IDENTICAL to Obama’s first two years in office.

As soon as Clinton got in, he and his Democrat allies in Congress passed one of the largest tax increases in the history of the country.  Then Bill and Hillary went to work to push a universal health care plan, dubbed “Hillarycare”.  The only difference was that they did not have a super-majority in Congress, like Obama.  The nation recoiled at Clinton’s actions.  They were so incredibly unpopular that Republicans swept the House and Senate races to gain control for the first time in 54 years.  The sweep was nearly identical to the one in 2010.

Citizens of the United States had developed a clear case of buyer’s remorse.

At that point, there were only two differences between Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  Without the presence of Ross Perot in the elections, Clinton would never have come close to winning, either time.  He never managed a majority of the popular vote.  But Clinton did something else that Obama failed to do; after he got his clock cleaned in the mid-term elections, Bill Clinton decided to portray himself as a centrist.

Today, we have liberals like Barack Obama going around telling the country that his ideas are the same as Clinton’s, and that those ideas worked.  And he is allowed to get away with it.

Not even conservatives will call him on it.

But the truth is that the ideas that brought us prosperity in the 1990’s were not so popular with Clinton.  He fought against them tooth and nail, and went so far as to wage a war with the Gingrich-led Congress that would shut down the government.  If Clinton had gotten his way, and had retained control of the House or Senate, we likely would not have seen so much prosperity, even with the technological boom.  Clinton went kicking and screaming against ideas like welfare reform (vetoed three times), until he was forced into a political position where he had to sign such ideas into law.  He then turned around and portrayed ideas like welfare reform and a balanced budget as hallmarks of his administration, with the liberal media in full cooperation.

But those ideas did not originate from Clinton, he opposed them at the outset, and he only came to get on board when it became politically expedient for him to do so.

The boom in technology was enough to spur our economy to great heights, not because of Clinton’s policies, but despite them.  In fact, Clinton ignored several pitfalls that caused our economy to take a large downturn near the end of his administration.  Several companies were cooking the books.  Many of the prosperous internet corporations had no physical inventory of which to speak.  When the bubbles burst, Clinton didn’t care.  He was on his way out.

The media blamed George W. Bush for Tyco, Enron, WorldCom, and the like, but those crimes were all committed under Clinton’s watch.  Apart from that, Clinton’s administration had more high level corrupt scandals than even Obama’s.  They made Nixon look like a choir boy.  But the dinosaur media covered for him, and portrayed him as an enigmatic superstar.

And we let them.

And now we are letting them tell everyone how successful Clinton was as a President.

Why..?

Because we allowed them to create that narrative and let it become ingrained as common knowledge.

We even went along with it to a degree, and we’re paying the price now.  Obama is able to fool much of the populace with this narrative.

We’ve got to stop letting this happen.

I started this article with every intention of going through Michelle Obama’s entire speech at the DNC convention.  That  didn’t work out as planned.  I got about a quarter of the way through her speech before I just could not bear even to look at the text of it anymore.  It is beyond absurd.  I will go through the rest of it at a later date, if my scheduling allows.  

But even just this first portion is incredible!!!

“Over the past few years as first lady, I have had the extraordinary privilege of travelling all across this country.”

WE KNOW!  You’ve travelled all over this country and several other countries…  ALL ON OUR DIME.

She goes on from here to talk about wounded warriors and heroes that make sacrifices for other people, often risking their lives.  I would have no quarrel with that part of it, except that it is obvious empty rhetoric and pandering to a group that does not support this president because they know full well how much (or little) he has supported them.

“Serving as your first lady is an honor and a privilege.  But, back when we first came together four years ago, I still had some concerns about this journey we’d begun.”

Wait…  Serving..?  How exactly is she serving us?  By telling us what we should feed our children?  By vacationing and partying at the taxpayer’s expense?  And yes, Michelle, we are all fully aware that you had some “concerns” about the “journey we’d begun”.  We know that you first became proud of America only after your husband was elected.  We have doubts about just how proud you are of America, even today.

“While I believe it if we dig deeply in my husband’s vision for this country, and I was certain he would make an extraordinary president, like any mother, I was worried about what it would mean for our girls if he got that chance.  How would we keep them grounded under the glare of the national spotlight?  How would they feel being uprooted from their school, their friends and the only home they’d ever known?”

“See our life before moving to Washington was filled with simple joys.  Saturdays at soccer games, Sundays at grandma’s house, and a date night for Barack and me with either dinner or a movie because as an exhausted mom, I couldn’t stay awake for both.”

(LAUGHTER)

One should EXPECT laughter after hearing this joke!  Hell, I don’t even know where to begin!  Obviously Michelle learned something about writing an auto-biography from her husband.  Her narrative here is just as fake as anything that Barack wrote (assuming he actually wrote it) in Dreams of My Father.  Where are the fact checkers now?  Michelle Obama was NOT a soccer mom!!!  Not even REMOTELY a soccer mom!  But here she claims to have been pulled from that care-free life to serve as First Lady..?

This is the type of lying that liberals are known for, and the media will allow it to pass unchecked because they support the liberal agenda.

“And the truth is, I loved the life we had built for our girls. And I deeply love the man I built that life with and I did not want that to change if he became president.”

(APPLAUSE)

“I loved Barack just the way he was.  You see, even back then, when Barack was a Senator and presidential candidate, to me, he was still the guy who picked me up for our dates in a car that was so rusted out, I could actually see the pavement going by in a hole in the passenger side door.”

(LAUGHTER)

This should read “incredulous laughter”.  Does anyone believe that Senator Barack Obama was driving around in a car that was rusted out?  Anyone..?  Liberals, do you really buy this crap?  

There are two types of liberals; those that believe the lies, and those that happily repeat them, knowing they are lies.

“He was the guy whose proudest possession was a coffee table he’d found in a dumpster.”

(APPLAUSE)

SAY WHAT?!?!?!

Senator Barack Obama was a dumpster diver?!

And PROUD OF IT?!

Michelle Obama just called the president a dumpster diver at the DNC convention, and not a single liberal media outlet even so much as cocked their head in wonder.  On the contrary, they APPLAUDED!  

This is like an episode of the Twilight Zone, folks!

The rabbit hole goes deeper from here.  Too deep for me to get into tonight, but in preview, I will say that Michelle claims that their lofty Ivy League educations were paid for with student loans, and further claims that they had to work very hard to pay them off.  Barack Obama went to Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard on Pell Grants and Stafford Loans..?

I would love to see some proof of that!

And I would love to see even one alphabet network fact check her speech.

Honestly.

Aborting Obama

Some time ago, I wrote about the issue of abortion and I posited that there was a spectrum of views that could be measured–with a 0-100% ratio–where 0% was the view that abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, and 100% was the view that abortion should be legal under all circumstances.

It looked something like this:

100% Legal  [—————|—————]  0% Legal

I argued that any view on the subject of abortion would fall between those two extremes.

For instance, the view that abortion should be legal only in the case of rape, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s life would fall on the scale roughly at 15%.  The view that abortion should be legal until the third trimester would fall roughly at 85%, and the support of so-called “morning after” pills would fall somewhere near 30% on the scale.

One could quibble with the percentage points that I assigned to any particular viewpoint, but the overall theory was sound.

I further submitted that there were not two sides of the abortion debate, but three; pro-choice, pro-life, and pro-abortion.

My own position on abortion is such that I have had many debates with people representing views from nearly every point along the scale.

I am a conservative with a very thick libertarian streak.  I personally believe that abortion is heinous and despicable.  I mourn every child lost at the hands of an abortion doctor.  However, I still believe that the decision to carry a pregnancy to term must remain in the hands of the woman, and not in the hands of government bureaucrats.

This position doesn’t win me many friends, to say the least.  Most of my fellow conservatives disagree with me vehemently, and, although I believe that they respect me, this disagreement has led to some pretty heated debates.

Most liberals disagree with me too, because I would restrict abortion access to the first trimester, if it were left to me.  However, it is nearly always a distinct faction of liberals that hotly debate against my position, and they are the ones that I would describe as pro-abortion.

It seems counter-intuitive that there would be a class of people who believe that abortion is a positive thing, but I assure you that they do indeed exist.

Certainly Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was pro-abortion.  In fact, Sanger was a noted eugenicist.  She believed in abortion as a means to cull the population of “undesirable” races.

But even Sanger’s extreme views fell within the abortion scale that I created.

I have debated the abortion issue with many people on all sides of the spectrum for many years.  I thought that I had heard it all.  I believed my scale to be an absolute representation.

Until I met Barack Obama.

President Obama’s views on abortion are so very extreme that they do not fit on the scale that I created.  He doesn’t just believe that abortion should be legal under all circumstances…

He actually voted that a baby who managed to survive the abortion process could be denied medical care outside of the womb.

That, my friends, is not pro-choice.  It isn’t even pro-abortion.

That is MURDER.

Infanticide.

With the Democratic National Convention gearing up, and all of the political winds pointing to their focus on women’s reproductive issues, Obama’s extreme position is something that should not be left ignored.

We need to hammer this home; over, and over, and over again.  The Democrats simply can not be allowed to set themselves up as the champions of women’s rights with this kind of blood on their hands.

Not now, and not ever.

I’ll be candid here…

Missouri Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin

In my daily life, I cuss quite a bit.  It’s a habit that I developed when I was very young, and haven’t quite been able to kick.  I purposefully try to avoid using profanities in my writing, but I am definitely going to use one here, so…  If you have virgin ears (or eyes, as the case may be) you might want to turn away now.

This is the quote that got Missouri Senate hopeful Todd Akin into so much trouble:

“It seems to me, first of all, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Akin said.

This isn’t just stupid; it is so far beyond fucking stupid that I can fully understand why Akin’s current opponent in the Senate race donated money to his primary campaign.

Okay, I am done cussing, and now I am going to flip the script…

If you have no desire to witness a contrived defense of Akin, skip down to the next bolded line..!

I am going to play devil’s advocate here and attempt to defend the indefensible.

It won’t be easy!

I mean, “legitimate rape”..?  That doesn’t sound very easy to defend.

But we all know that some claims of rape are untrue, or even fabricated out of thin air.  Have we already forgotten the Duke LaCrosse team and Crystal Gale Magnum?  Have we forgotten about Tawana Brawley?  More to the point, I know for a fact that some women have engaged in completely consensual sex, and then have later made the accusation that they were raped.  What their motives may have been–revenge, money, or whatever–has no real bearing to the point I am trying to make here.

As for the next part of the sentence “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”..?

All I can say, in this case, is that a woman who is being brutally assaulted physically and is terrified, in fear for her life..?  Such a condition doesn’t sound very conductive to conception to me.

Some married couples are able to have children at the drop of a hat.  I have always envied them, in a way, because when I was younger I always wanted to have a big family, even if families like the Duggars (of 19 Children and Counting fame) kind of freak me out a little.  But some couples have an extreme amount of trouble trying to conceive even under the best of conditions, and any fertility doctor would say that there are conditions which are more conductive to conception, and conditions that are not.

That’s about the best defense I can come up with, and I am DONE defending Akin, because he really doesn’t deserve it, and I feel a little dirty.  Anyone who skipped to this line would probably feel comfortable reading freely from here.

The truth is that there is a double-standard for us, as conservatives.  It isn’t just because the media has a different standard for us than they have for the liberals that they almost universally support.  It is because we hold ourselves to a higher standard, as well.  We can not expect the double-standard in the media to ever go away if we abandon the standards we hold for ourselves.

It just doesn’t work like that.

As a conservative candidate for the Senate, Akin should have been well aware of this, and thus his gaffe just isn’t excusable, despite my attempted defense of him.  He showed an astounding lack of sense in every aspect, and his selfishness in refusing to drop out of the Senate race may very well cause that seat to go to Democrat Claire McCaskill, whom I despise.

That’s really sad.  I hate to see it.

But I would hate to see us abandon any sense of principle in favor of crass political concerns much, much more.

If we do that, we might as well just give up and join the DNC.

Don’t Bacon Me Bro!

I’m not a big fan of religious intolerance.  As Christians, we are targeted on a daily basis by liberals labelling us as “hateful” and “bigoted” just because we disagree with their secular world views and oppose their goal of purging all religion from public sight.

So, it was with no small measure of guilt that I found myself laughing at a recent story in the New York press about a “hate crime” committed against local Muslims.

What was the crime..?

Someone attacked a group of (in this case) peaceful Muslims who were celebrating the end of Ramadan in a local park.

What was the weapon..?

BACON!

You just can’t make this stuff up!

Apparently some asshat thought it would be a great idea to spread raw bacon around on the field where the Muslims were planning to pray.  Now, I call the guy an asshat because he is an asshat, even if I’m an asshat too for laughing at what he did.  We all know the kind of guy I’m talking about; the one always pulling some sort of stunt that just isn’t right, even if we can’t help but laugh.

And antagonizing this particular group of Muslims just for kicks and giggles fits that bill…

But, of course, the NYPD is going to take this one step (or MANY steps) too far:

NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly has decided that this is a matter for the “Hate Crimes Task Force”.

Really..?

I mean…  REALLY…?!?!

When my car was stolen a few years ago, the best I could get out of Indianapolis police was a collective yawn, and that’s grand theft auto!  The REAL kind; not the little guy who runs around inside of my XBOX and has an odd penchant for running down prostitutes in the middle of the sidewalk..!

I can only imagine how much less the police in a city like New York would have cared about my poor car.

But in a city where there are murders on a daily basis and hundreds of cases go unsolved, this is where they place their focus..?

On a random baconing…

Get out the dogs!  Let’s start the manhunt for this heinous criminal mastermind!

But hey, apparently we’ve been fighting this war in Afghanistan all wrong.  We don’t really need the Army, or the Navy Seals; we just need a few pig farmers and a slaughterhouse.

Seems like it would be an awfully big waste of bacon…

.

,

And now for some reason I have the weird urge to buy this video game:  http://store.steampowered.com/app/18070/

My first day back in college (today) was fairly instructive, if unintentionally so.

As an accounting major, I am taking a business class.  It’s pretty standard stuff.  Nothing too extreme.  Apart from a fairly decent narrative from my professor, I would have been bored to tears.

Until he said one thing that woke me up pretty quickly…

He began to expound on the two philosophies of wealth; infinite wealth and finite wealth.

Infinite wealth is the theory that wealth is created, and therefore in unlimited supply, whereas finite wealth theorizes that there is only so much wealth to be had, thus anyone with too much of it prevents others from attaining more.

At one point, he asked us to raise our hands if we believed that wealth is created.

A no-brainer, right?  Or so I thought.  Of course, I raised my hand.

When he asked about finite wealth, to my dismay, more than half of the class raised their hands, at which point the professor went on to briefly say that there is merit in both theories.

Did he really believe that, or was he simply “going along to get along”?

Either way, it made me uncomfortable, because there can be no merit whatsoever in the theory of finite wealth.

The notion that there is only one pie to be divided–and that those who have a bigger slice are taking away from others–ignores the person who baked the pie.

Hard work creates wealth.  Without it, there is no pie at all.  But Barack Obama and his supporters are legion, and they believe that the pie willed itself into existence.  Moreover, they believe that they deserve an equal slice of that pie, whether they helped to bake it, or not.

If I buy a house that is in poor condition, and work to clean it up and repair it, the house would be worth much more (theoretically) than what I originally payed for it.  In this way wealth and prosperity are created.

I’m sure that I am preaching to the choir here, but seeing so many people mindlessly buy into the notion of finite wealth first-hand really did open my eyes (wider) to the stark differences between conservatives like me and the liberals that we oppose on a daily basis.

And with people who are that thoughtless having the power to vote, it is no wonder that ideologues like Barack Obama and other liberal Democrats can pander to them enough to win elections.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: