The New York Times tries a new way to tackle the Bill of Rights

In response to another attempt by the depraved and subversive New York Times to usurp our Constitution:

The problems with (il)liberal efforts to curtail or eliminate the ability of American citizens to defend themselves are several:

First, the right to self-defense is a God-given and unalienable right, period. Only tyrants and criminals want the innocent defenseless.  If you're a criminal seeking to harm someone, and you have a choice between two homes -- one in which the residents are armed and one which is defenseless -- which would you choose?

Second, we already have multiple laws forbidding homicide; if mass murderers and other criminals refuse to follow a law as basic as that, what makes you think that they'll obey gun laws? They won't; only the naive and the nescient think otherwise.

Third, you'll never eliminate firearms; if you make them illegal, only the law-abiding will be weaponless; government and criminals will still be fully-armed.

Germany tried that. Communist and Islamic states, too. How does that work out?

Fourth, the president and other elected tyrants who want to take away our ability to defend ourselves would never, ever, under any circumstances give up their armed security (for which we pay). What makes their lives and the lives of their families more valuable than ours?

If Barack Obama wants the nation disarmed, then him first.

Finally, why would you voluntarily give up your right to defend yourself, those whom you love, and your neighbors? And even if you would, why would you use the coercive power of the state to steal away from the rest of us our ability to do so?

How perverse.

Pervasive (il)liberal bias hides the tilt, or When the world's crooked, the straight look biased

I recall speaking with a friend (quite a few years ago) about media bias. He thought that Fox News was slanted to the Right. I shared that Fox News is pretty center of the road; it just looks biased in view of the rest of Media's overwhelming (il)liberal tilt.

Since when is patriotism a partisan issue? How can opposing the burning, crushing, and tearing to pieces of the innocent in the womb by their own mothers be "extreme"? Liberals lock their doors; shouldn't our borders be secure? They arm their security; what makes them and their children more deserving of protection than our own? And how is the self-evident truth that the human body was created for male-female unions suddenly "hate"?

The Left thinks that jihadists merit understanding, inclusion, negotiations, and access to nuclear weapons, but when a member the leftist media asks about American citizens' essential, God-given, unalienable rights?

You should know better.

And the Republicans are useless (or worse), giving the Tyrant-in-Chief everything he wants.

Some good observations on the Left's divine right of kings, from here:

The most maddening aspect of the polarization debate is the hidden presumption of liberalism’s right to rule. Authors such as Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann attribute most of the polarization in Washington to the Republican Party, which they and other observers argue has become too extreme. This will come as news to grassroots conservatives, who overwhelmingly believe that Republicans in the capital haven’t been nearly extreme enough in opposing President Obama’s governmental gigantism. It’s an implausible case, as there is little in conservative ideology today that you can’t find in Barry Goldwater’s Conscience of a Conservative or in Ronald Reagan’s famous “Time for Choosing” speech of 50 years ago. The difference today is that Republicans have won some landslide elections and lately a majority in Congress, and this galls liberals, whose real answer to polarization is conservatism’s unconditional surrender.

A defense of Liberty in Wisconsin

Democrats will do anything to take, maintain, and increase power. Just ask Barack Obama.

A defense of Americans' rights, from here:

“It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a ‘perfect storm’ of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.”

Turning fiends into friends: The bad medicine of Barack Obama

One might assume it took quite a presidential beer summit to turn those demoniacal health insurance companies into allies of the Demagogue-in-Chief. But make no mistake, it was greenbacks, not six packs, that turned fiends into friends.

And it's not unusual. Donor helps politician get elected. Politician makes law favorable to donor. Donor helps politician get reelected, and so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseam. It's a never-ending cycle of corruption, like Poe's tragedy:

That motley drama—oh, be sure
It shall not be forgot!
With its Phantom chased for evermore
By a crowd that seize it not,
Through a circle that ever returneth in
To the self-same spot,
And much of Madness, and more of Sin,
And Horror the soul of the plot.

It's a perverse thing, studying something in order to learn how to undo it. Like the serial killer who studies anatomy, or the pyromaniacal fire-fighter, or the liberal educator. Many of our elected officials are experts in the law (not the least of whom is the "smartest president ever," the Constitutional professor in the White House). All of them swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Yet they use their knowledge of law, government, politics, and human nature to serve not We the People, but themselves.

Barack Obama is to the Constitution as Jack the Ripper was to the ladies of Whitechapel. Which makes the president Barack ... the Ripper.

And the electorate wonders what happened.

Posted here:

"The administration waived conflict-of-interest laws ...."

Of course they do.

Despite his best efforts to disarm and bankrupt the Republic, the president has provided one valuable service to the nation: He has dispelled forever (except to the most deluded) the notion that liberals are noble public servants who care only about helping the "common man." They are as corrupt and cruel and greedy for wealth, power, and status as the most demonic Conservative of leftist fantasy.

Democrats today (and a lot of Republicans) are nothing more than professional campaigners who care only about maintaining their power and position no matter the cost to the rest of us. They live like kings off our backs while promising to the dull and greedy crumbs for which we all have to pay.

And so will our children.

"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." -Thomas Jefferson

The racist party hates Reagan

Yes, there is little to distinguish many of the two parties' leaders, but the principles those politicians are supposed to represent couldn't be more diametric.

A response to this with credit to this:

A greater percentage of Congressional Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act.

You ought to ask the reasons for Reagan's positions, but you won't, since facts are anathema to you.

Blacks benefited from Reagan's economic policies more than Whites (color-based identifiers are revolting, but since you define people by the melanin-content of their skin cells, so be it).

Pat Buchanan (who's got his own issues with jihad and Israel) invented the term "Southern strategy"; what did he say about the "change" in Republicanism?

"We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense, and leave it to the ‘party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

If Southerners wanted to stay with the racist party, they'd have stayed Democrat. They went to the Republican Party because of the freedom issues Buchanan noted.

And right after Reagan's "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- where Democrat Michael Dukakis spoke eight years later -- he went to New York to speak before the Urban League.

Reagan opposed "affirmative action" -- racial quotas -- just like JFK, Bayard Rustin, and the Urban League board of directors. He hired Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell. And Reagan signed Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday into a national holiday and approved a 25-year extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Why do you hate "states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense"? Why do you hate America and its citizens of every hue?

Democrats depend on the obedience -- and ignorance -- of "minority" voters in fastening their chains on them.

You're either too gullible to realize it or too complicit to admit it.

What it really means to be a Democrat

Some new website's supposed to help you find out the best place to live based on your ideology.

I couldn't help noticing the bias in some of the categories, and -- being the generous person that I am -- I whipped up a few explanations to help readers understand just what they're voting for.

Of course, Republicans today are often just as bad. They're little more than Democrats-in-Conservatives'-clothing and therefore utterly redundant and useless.

(And no, this is not a blanket condemnation of all Democrats; John F. Kennedy, for example, lowered taxes, believed in a strong military, and opposed Communism.

You know, what Obama would call a "right-wing extremist.")

Originally from here [edited]:

What the categories really mean:

A Democrat: You prefer the party of slavery, Segregation, the KKK, and institutionalized racial division, animosity, exploitation, and dependence. (And now Islamophilia.)

Pro-choice: You support a woman's right to murder her unborn baby while he or she is still growing inside her.

Pro-Environment: You support politicians manipulating, taxing, and regulating free peoples based on junk "science" and outright fraud. And you don't realize that climate change has been occurring since long before SUVs or George Bush ever arrived on the scene. (Medieval Warming Period, anyone?)

Pro-Gun Control: You want to be helpless against both criminals and tyrants, a policy which history has proven always works out well. (Unless you're a celebrity or politician, in which case, you've got bodyguards -- or the U.S. military -- armed to the teeth to protect you and yours. Why do you think that your children are more valuable than ours, again?)

Pro-Tax: You're "pro-tax" only as long as others are paying the taxes, not you. Like Bill and Hillary Clinton, you take advantage of all sorts of loopholes to get out of paying your "fair share." (And don't mention charity: Neither Barack Obama nor Joe Biden gave to others nearly as much as a Conservative family of five on one teachers' salary ... until they ran for and won the White House.)

The only things "transparent" about liberals are their utter, craven dishonesty and homicidal malfeasance

So, Democrats are calling Obama "detached," "flat-footed," and "incompetent."

That makes them racist, right?

And now that the government's utter, fatal failures in caring for our national heroes are being exposed, the VA is going to "allow" more veterans to go to private medical facilities for help.

How magnanimous! How wise!

These are the people to whom the greedy, closet racists, and the apathetic have entrusted our medical care?

Way to go, America. You elected a "detached and flat-footed incompetent" to take away our health care -- not to mention our right to determine how best to spend our own resources -- from private industry only to return to it when they start killing us.

Well done!

If you want to justify evil, just call someone a name, demonize them, and destroy their career

It's simple, really. Even if you treat others decently in your place of employment, for more than a decade, in an organization you helped found, don't express an opinion that the tyrannous Left doesn't like. Or else.

I guess "tolerance" extends only to your own peculiar predilections. Forget God. Forget Nature. Forget millennia of moral absolutes.

Well, time to find a new browser (until the next witch hunt).

Brendan Eich Steps Down as Mozilla CEO:

"Believing a certain group of people don't deserve to live their lives like other simply because of who they love is not a political view. It reads as extremely hateful and that makes people uncomfortable."

Sin is not "love." And lust does not create a Constitutional right.

Refusing to legitimize an unnatural and perverse act by calling it "marriage" is not bigotry; refusing to redefine one of society's fundamental institutions is not "hateful" (but demonizing those who defend it is).

No one I know wants to deny anyone their license to play house with the consenting adult(s) of their choosing.

Not all adults have the right to marry. Would you abolish all barriers to it? Would you redefine the word into absurdity?

What about sodomy makes it sacrosanct to you? It's a behavior; as such, it is subject to moral judgment. Where do you draw the line? Incest? Polygyny? Zoophilia? Pedophilia? A young adult male and his browser? Why can't they all get "married"? What gives you the right to deny them their equality? Who are you to forbid their happiness? Why are you so hateful?

You don't have any problem making moral judgments against those whose morality you despise. That makes you a bigot, doesn't it?

This isn't about equal rights. This isn't about "letting people live like others."

This is about using the force of government -- and now, the marketplace -- to coerce the endorsement of that which is immoral and unnatural. This is about demonizing those whose positions you dislike.

And that doesn't even depend on religious doctrine -- though Christ's endorsement of one man, one woman, for life with the glorious possibility of children should be enough.

Nowhere in Nature does any species engage in exclusively-homosexual relationships. Even the Darwinist knows that exclusively-homosexual relationships mean the end of the species. And it's a violation of design; even a simple man knows that the relevant organs are made for ... other purposes.

And you won't let Eich "live his life like others."

Fascist. Hypocrite.

Degenerate Leftists make Republican promoting bad theology look like Philipp Melanchthon

The theology of the candidate mentioned in the article is abysmal -- homosexuality, along with every other sin, comes from the heart -- but those opposing her in defense of perversion and tyranny are even worse.

Offered in response to one of the deranged Left's foot-soldiers, here:

How absurd.

It is the Democratic Party which is the major political bastion of racism (and sexism) in the United States. That's why any "minorities" -- but especially Blacks, because of their near total compliance with your party's electoral dictates -- are eviscerated if they think for themselves and do anything but what their masters on the Left demand of them.

The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln, the Emancipation Proclamation, the Thirteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act (a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported it), and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

But the Democrat Party is the party of slavery, Segregation, the KKK (its terrorist wing), and institutionalized racial division, demagoguery, and exploitation.

Here's a blunt obliteration of the absurd manipulation by which so many of your elected representatives have risen to and maintained power:

"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs - partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."

--Booker T. Washington.

Liberals can't be honest without revealing their hatred of Liberty

Capitalism is nothing more than economic Liberty. A fact the utterance of which causes Liberals' heads to explode.

Here's a reply to someone so dishonest, it makes one wonder whether he's able to tell the truth:

"stretch"? [...] Aren't you embarrassed?

[...]

Your idea of "argument" is so [...]incoherent that it makes one wonder whether a response is beneficial at all.

It's not "sophistry"; it's called "reading."

Essentially, if I were to say, "The sky is blue," you'd respond with something along the lines of, "No it's not. It's a collection of gases held against the Earth by gravity. It's got nothing to do with color."

For illiterate tyrants like you, the following terms are all indicative of Liberty, since all involve individual choices made free from the control of government:

"private or corporate ownership of capital goods"

"investments that are determined by private decision"

"prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined [...] by competition in a free market."

Please, offer something honest [...] in reply.

Bold colors

It's easy to see from the comments below why -- while the rest of the Pyrite State was voting for a muscular fraud -- I voted for McClintock.

He's one of the few people who understand what makes America great and can articulate it.

Don't abandon what is true. Fight for it. From here:

Common Sense After a Close Election
Northern Division Republican Women
Rancho Cordova, California
November 17, 2012

"Now let's pull up our socks, wipe our noses and get back in this fight."

After listening to ten days of hand wringing and doom saying from the usual suspects that Republicans must abandon our principles if we are to survive, we need a little of Mark Twain's common sense. I suggest we all take it to heart.

He said, "We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it -- and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again -- and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore."

So it is in that spirit that I will begin with three incontrovertible truths about this election.

First, the same election that returned Barack Obama to the White House also returned the second largest House Republican majority since World War II - bigger than anything Newt Gingrich ever had.

Second, according to polls before, during and after this election, the American people agree with us fundamentally on issues involving the economy, Obamacare, government spending, bailouts - you name it.

Third, the American people are about to get a graduate level course in Obamanomics, and at the end of that course, they are going to be a lot sadder and a lot wiser.

That is not to say that there aren't many lessons that we need to learn and to learn well from this election, particularly here in California. But capitulation is not one of them.

Have we forgotten that just two years ago, Republicans campaigned on clear principles of individual liberty and constitutionally limited government? We took strong and united stands to oppose Obamacare, rein in out-of-control spending, roll back the regulatory burdens that are crushing our economy and yes - dare I say it - secure our borders? Have we forgotten that the result was one of the most stunning mid-term elections in American history: a net gain of 63 U.S. House seats, six U.S. Senate seats, 19 state legislatures, six governors and nearly 700 state legislative seats?

Now we're told, just two years later, after a net loss of just eight House seats, two Senate seats and a 2 1/2-percentage point loss of the White House, that we must abandon these principles or consign ourselves to the dustbin of history.

If you want to see a catastrophic election, look at 1976.

We not only lost the Presidency, but as a result of that election the Democrats held 61 U.S. Senate seats (today they have 55); and 292 House seats (today they have just 201).

Then, we heard the same chorus of impending doom that we hear today. We had to moderate our image. We had to broaden our base. In short, that we had to become more like the Democrats.

Here is what Ronald Reagan said to the naysayers of 1976:

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don 't know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, "We must broaden the base of our party"-when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents...

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Fortunately, we had the good sense to take that advice, and four years later Ronald Reagan became President, and shortly after that it was morning again in America. That would never have happened if we had listened to the usual suspects of their day and become a pathetic reflection of the Democrats. As Phil Gramm said, "why would anyone want to vote for a fake Democrat when they can have the real thing?"

The first of the cold stove lids we are told not to sit on is illegal immigration. Republicans, they say, must accept the notion that our nation can no longer control its borders and we should declare amnesty for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now in this country. We should do so, we are told, because our position on border security has hopelessly alienated Latino voters who would otherwise share our values.

It is true that Latino voters are a growing part of the American electorate - making up ten percent of the vote in 2012, of which 71 percent voted for Barack Obama, according to the CBS exit poll.

Sean Trende is the senior political analyst for Real Clear Politics. Last May, he published an article addressing this argument directly. He made three points.

First, Latino voters are not a monolithic group on this issue. Citing 2008 exit polling, he noted that a majority of Latino voters "either thought that illegal immigration was fairly unimportant or thought that it was important and voted Republican."

So why are Latinos voting for Democrats? Very simply, he said, once you adjust for socio-economic status, Latinos vote pretty much the same as the general voting population. But because they are disproportionately poor, they tend to vote disproportionately Democratic. However, as they begin to work their way up the socio-economic ladder and assimilate into American society, they become more and more Republican.

Second, citing research from the Pew Institute, he pointed out that the wave of illegal immigration has now crested, and may actually be reversing. He noted that every immigration wave has followed this pattern. Those who stay become more and more assimilated and more and more Republican as the years go by.

As recently as 20 years ago, we used to hear a lot about the Italian vote or the Irish vote. We don't hear about that anymore because they have melted into the general population. The demographic tide, he said, is not running against the Republicans, but running with them.

Third, he points out that a very sizeable part of the Republican base is firmly opposed to illegal immigration, and that abandoning that position could be politically catastrophic. He reminded us, "In a large, diverse country, every move to gain one member of a political coalition usually alienates another member."

Heather MacDonald makes the same point in the aftermath of the election. She notes that 62 percent of Latino voters support Obamacare. They overwhelmingly support higher taxes to pay for a larger government and more public services. These are not voters who will suddenly flock to the Republican banner because we have reversed our position on border security.

That's not to say Republicans should ignore the Latino vote - far from it - and I will get to that in a few minutes. But to suggest that Republicans need to reverse themselves on a fundamental issue of national sovereignty and the rule of law is unprincipled, counterproductive, self-destructive and wrong.

Ironically, the issues where most Latino and African-American voters do agree with us are the social issues, like abortion and marriage -- but of course, we're told by the same naysayers that we should repudiate our position on these messy social issues.

Let's look closer at the polling on the social issues. According to exit polling by Public Opinion Strategies, it is true that five percent of voters last week said that the most important issue in their vote for President was their pro-choice/pro-abortion position. Five percent of the entire electorate is nothing to sneeze at.

But four percent of voters said that the most important issue in casting their vote for President was their pro-life/anti-abortion position. That's a statistical tie.

I have a question for you. How many of those hard-core, single-issue abortion-on-demand Obama voters will suddenly switch their votes to Republicans once we've renounced our position on this issue?

Now, here's a bonus question: how many of that four percent of the electorate who support us solely because of our pro-life position are going to stay with us once we have repudiated them?

It is important in politics to know the difference between addition and subtraction. Addition is what creates majorities and subtraction is what destroys them. In this single exercise, we have just subtracted four percent of the entire American electorate from our vote and added little or nothing.

Now, repeat this process on every other so-called social issue, and tell me if we will be better off or worse off for taking this advice.

With all this said, there is no blinking at the fact that we just lost an election that we should have won, and to pretend there's nothing wrong meets Einstein's definition of insanity. There's a great deal wrong and a great deal that we need to address.

The voters who appeared at the polls agree with us on Obamacare. According to the CBS exit poll, by a plurality of 49 to 44 percent, they want to repeal some or all of Obamacare.

They agree with us on the size of government. By a margin of 51 to 43 percent, they believe that government is "doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals."

They agree with us on taxes. By a resounding margin of 63 to 33 percent, they disagreed with the statement that "taxes should be raised to help cut the deficit."

Perhaps most telling of all, 52 percent of voters agreed "things in this country today are seriously off on the wrong track," and yet then voted to continue down that wrong track for another four years.

As Lincoln said, "The voters are everything. If the voters get their backsides too close to the fire, they'll just have to sit on the blisters a while." It is a painful experience; but it is a learning experience. And at the end of that experience, they emerge sadder but wiser and in time for the next election.

We are winning the issues. And that means over time we will be winning the votes -- but only if we stay true to our principles and true to the millions of Americans who are already with us and many more who may not consider themselves Republicans today - but who believe as we believe.

What was the single biggest political movement in 2009 and 2010? It was the much-maligned, politically incorrect Tea Party, which energized fully one third of the American electorate across party lines. Although 60 percent were Republicans, 20 percent were Independents and 20 percent were Democrats. Long before the Tea Party, we had another name for that phenomenon. We used to call it the "Reagan Coalition." But this year, those who tell us we need a bigger tent told the Tea Party to get out. And many did.

Who brought a tidal wave of young people into the party? It was the much maligned and politically incorrect Ron Paul, whose simple message of unadulterated freedom resonated deeply on college campuses. Eight thousand UC Berkeley students turned out last year to hear that message. But this year, those who tell us we need a bigger tent told Ron Paul and his supporters to get out. And they did. In fact, many of their votes went to Obama.

A well-intentioned supporter e-mailed me last week and said, "we've got to kick the religious right out of the party." I reminded him that we did that in 1976, when the religious right voted for Jimmy Carter.

My point is, you cannot build a majority by systematically ejecting the constituent parts of that coalition. You build a majority by adding to that coalition by taking your principles to new constituencies.

Working Americans of every race know instinctively that you cannot borrow and spend your way rich. We need to appeal to them.

Immigrants came to this country to escape the stultifying central planning and corrupt bureaucracies that ravaged their economies. We need to appeal to them.

For the first time in our history, young people face a bleaker future than their parents enjoyed. We need to appeal to them.

The very groups of voters most damaged by Obama's policies are those who voted for Obama - we need to appeal to them.

Not in the closing days of a campaign poisoned with partisanship - but right now.

We need to recognize that a large portion of our population is not familiar with the self-evident truths of the American Founding and has no compass with which to follow back to the prosperity, happiness and fulfillment that is the hallmark of free societies.

Without that clarion call - without a party of freedom willing to paint our positions in bold colors - I am afraid that as the economy suffocates under the avalanche of government burdens, intrusions, restrictions, regulations and edicts, people in their growing despair, will increasingly turn to the false hope that paternalistic government offers.

The only antidote to that is the self-evident truth of the American founding: that freedom works and we need to put it back to work.

Like it or not, we are at this moment the only party equipped to revive and restore those truths and take them to the millions of Americans who are desperately searching for them.

Great parties are built upon great principles, and they are judged by their devotion to those principles. Since its inception, the central principle of the Republican Party can be summarized in a word: freedom. The closer we have hewn to this principle, the better we have done; the farther we have drifted from it, the worse that we - and the country - have done.

Dick Armey put it more simply: "When we act like us, we win, and when we act like them, we lose."

The Republican Women formed originally as the educational arm of the Republican Party. Never has that role been more important than it is today. We will not win the political battle until we win the battle over principles. We need to begin that campaign today. We can be confident that these principles resonate, but only when we are true to them with our existing constituencies while we reach out with them to new constituencies.

That is our challenge. That is our destiny. That is the salvation of our country. Now, fellow Republicans, let's pull up our socks, wipe our noses, and get back in this fight.

Infrastructure does not create Prosperity, Liberty does

Offered in response to Anthony Sokolow's defense of Obama's deception on "infrastructure":

Infrastructure -- Government spending -- does not create Prosperity, Liberty does.

You write as if Government is a god, creating ex nihilo. But it doesn't. All that Government "gives" – including infrastructure – is paid for by its citizens through either taxes, debt, or inflation.

Every dollar spent by a politician – which politician knows better than you what to do with your own wealth, Tony? – is a dollar that the one who earned it no longer has to use for his own purposes.

Having a political "elite" decide how everyone else should live is fine as long as you're part of that elite, but it's not Liberty.

Charles Krauthammer on Obama's fundamental dishonesty regarding "infrastructure" (h/t Tom):

Spoken by a man who never created or ran so much as a candy store.

And it's completely a straw man argument — as if conservatives and Republicans are arguing to disband the fire department and the police department so we can all do it individually on our own. The idea that infrastructure is necessary and good is as old as the republic. It's older than that. The Romans had the Via Appia and that wasn't exactly a new idea. And they had the sewers as well.

The question is: What do you do with the money once you build the infrastructure? You heard Obama talking about the moon shot. … in that speech. He went through a list of the great achievements that the government has done. The moon shot. Well, Obama's the guy who shut down the moon program — manned space program so that today we have to outsource our access into space. For any American astronaut who wants to go to the space station we have to pay the Russians $50 million a shot.

He spoke about the invention of the Internet, which he neglected to say was the work of Al Gore. In fact, it wasn't the government that invented it, in general, it was the Defense Department, a part of the government. And what has Obama done as he sprinkled billions of dollars on all the other departments in government? He shrunk the Defense Department and it's now looking at draconian cuts.

This is a man that spent $1 trillion [stimulus] and left not a residue. He could have, for example, done something about the electric grid. He did nothing on that. Instead he sprinkled the money on cronies, pie in the sky ideological fetishes, like solar panels and electric cars…. Money wasted, it's water on the sand. He did not leave behind residue on all that, and yet he speaks of infrastructure.

All of us want infrastructure — but real infrastructure. And leave the rest of life to the private individual and the entrepreneur.

To Democrats, preventing them from spending us into oblivion is the same as holding hostage, raping, and butchering little children in Allah's name*

Joe Biden calls patriotic Americans who want to preserve the Republic "terrorists," here:

"We have negotiated with terrorists," an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. "This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money."

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists."

 *Like the Muslims of Beslan.

Statists in both parties selling out the American people

"Sales pitch" is right, since the greedy fiends in both parties are selling out the Republic. At least China might find a bargain or two.

When passed, this deal with the Marxist devil will be the largest debt-limit increase in American history (it and the second-greatest both coming during the Obama reign). To illustrate how depraved our politicians have become, the United States treasury lacked the legal authority to hold a total debt of $2.4 trillion until 1987. This is a $2.4 trillion increase.

John Boehner's right about something else: His deal with Obama doesn't violate any of the principles exhibited in recent years by the Republican establishment. It's too bad that burying the nation, our children, and our children's children into perpetuity under crushing debt doesn't violate any of their "principles."

Subversive, exploitative fools. Emasculating America removes the only bulwark protecting them from the barbarians. I suppose they're hoping to ingratiate themselves to their new masters by feeding on whatever's left of us.

"There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles," he [Speaker Boehner] said. "It’s all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down. And as I vowed back in May – when everyone thought I was crazy for saying it – every dollar of debt limit increase will be matched by more than a dollar of spending cuts. And in doing this, we’ve stopping a job-killing national default that none of us wanted."

It's too bad Ron Paul doesn't understand jihad and shari'a, because he gets duplicitous crooks enslaving the electorate for their own political and financial benefit. Nothing's changed in thirty years:

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.

No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the "cuts" being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family "saving" $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.

The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith and credit of the United States is being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever, in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family's income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.

In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of "cuts" that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to "cut". It would only take us 5 years to "cut" $1 trillion, in Washington math, just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.

A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply returned to that year's spending levels, which would hardly be austere, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending, and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.

We pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger "cut" than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.

Imperious Obama

Breathtaking arrogance. What right does any politician have to tell free people that they must give away their time, talent, and treasure? Is there no limit to the ways in which this tyrant and his accessories seek to violate the American people? Is there anyone in either party who will oppose Obama's imperial overreach? Where are the calls for impeachment? Where's the plain speech pointing out the fact that the current occupant of the Oval Office is an illegitimate usurper and an enemy of the Republic, a demagogue, a thief, and a fraud? (I'd use the word "treason," but to commit it, one must be a member of the group he betrays, and based on Obama's birth certificate forgery and social security number from Connecticut, it seems unlikely that the Marxist destroyer qualifies.)

There exists no guarantee that America should continue free and strong. This is the climax of a process that began nearly a century ago, when politicians found that they could lie, cheat, and steal, and the American people stopped caring to hold them accountable.

The latest nail in America's coffin, here:

Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women's preventive care under President Barack Obama's health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

"These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Isn't that odd? "President Barack Obama's health care law." Sounds like a royal edict, doesn't it? At least they're giving him credit for it now.

And a "requirement" is no "guideline," unless you're selling something.

Jerry Brown facilitates homosexuals and other sexual deviants' assault on California's children

Why are the Democrats disenfranchising necrophiliacs? After all, their alternative lifestyle choice -- which is just as valid as yours, if not more so -- involves only consenting adults -- well, one, actually -- and no one's getting hurt. (It's hard to hurt your "partner" when they're already dead.)

This is the epitome of selfish: To destroy a society and its children, all for a moment's gratification.

The California legislature and its governor are at least accessories to sexual predation; to use American public schools as vehicles for homosexual indoctrination and recruitment is a crime against God and Man and an abomination the Founding Fathers never intended for the system they created.

To claim a reduction in bullying as justification for this atrocity is merely to blow smoke. Bullying is immoral, period. What reaction do the geniuses behind this legislation think that forcing their perversion on others will stimulate? (Just as 9/11 stirred Americans to discover the truth about Islam and mobilize against it, so too will this subversion motivate citizens to action.)

To claim historical justification is ridiculous, since what someone does with his genitalia does not make him historically-relevant or noble (indeed, what he doesn't do can be to his credit). To view great figures from the past in terms of their deviancy is to demean their accomplishments. And if Governor Brown wants to be truly historically-honest, he should state plainly which moral societies have ever endorsed sodomy.

To equate sexual practice with racial identity is a crime against logic and against those who've struggled for [racial] equality under the law, since the former is an act, the latter, phenotype. In fact, those attacking Michelle Bachmann and others who oppose [on religious/moral grounds] the legitimization of sexual deviance [. . .] must also demonize Martin Luther King, who gave the following advice to a young man concerned about the target of his "marital impulse":

Your problem [lusting for other males] is not at all an uncommon one. However, it does require careful attention. The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired.... You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.

Even an amoral, atheistic naturalist must reject homosexual behavior as literally deviant, since not only is it statistically unusual, but the survival of any species depending on sexual reproduction is threatened by widespread same-gender activity.

To claim, as one commenter on the article does, that "'gay' means two men or women love each other" is simply perverse and hellishly dishonest. I love my father, but we're not copulating.

This is one step closer to societal endorsement of NAMBLA. And how will senseless liberals stop Islam's Allah-sanctioned polygyny, pedophilia, and sexual slavery of non-Muslims?

It is not "hate" to state eternal moral truths. Addressing pernicious sin honestly is the loving thing to do, especially since Christ's mercy is greater than our sin.

Jerry Brown pushes California into the abyss here:

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation requiring public schools to teach students about the contributions of gay and lesbian people, making California the first state to adopt such a measure.

The bill was cheered by gay rights advocates, and Brown said in a written statement Thursday that it "represents an important step forward for our state."

The legislation requires instruction in the social sciences to include the role and contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, as well as people with disabilities and members of other cultural groups.

It would prohibit teaching from textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on people because of their sexual orientation.

"History should be honest," the Democratic governor said in a written statement. "This bill revises existing laws that prohibit discrimination in education and ensures that the important contributions of Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life are included in our history books."

Written by Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, the legislation was approved in the Legislature along party lines, with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.

Republicans and conservative groups railed against it again on Thursday.

Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, said Brown is "out of touch with what I think are still mainstream American values."

"That's not the kind of stuff I want my kids learning about in public school," LaMalfa said. "They've really crossed a line into a new frontier."

Leno's Senate Bill 48 is similar to a proposal that was approved by the Legislature in 2006 but vetoed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger, a Republican, argued that students were already protected from discrimination.

Existing California law requires public school instruction to include the contributions of women and other minorities, and it prohibits materials that reflect adversely on people because of race, gender or other characteristics. Leno's bill adds gay and lesbian people to that group.

"We are currently censoring a very important chapter of civil rights history about a community which has historically been demonized and discriminated against, and in recent decades has had success in fighting for its civil rights and first -class citizenship," said Leno, one of the first openly gay men to serve in the Legislature. "Excluding this from our textbooks and classrooms does a disservice to our students."

He said the law will result, for example, in lessons about gay rights advocates such as Harvey Milk, the slain San Francisco supervisor.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, Saul Alinksy, and . . . Lucifer, today's Democratic leadership

How long until Muhammad's added to that list?

In 2008, when it looked like Hillary might win the Communist Party's nomination, I took comfort in the fact that if she won, it might be good for the country: After all, McCain was going to do a little more slowly and a little less obviously -- and with the veneer of "patriot" -- just what any other Liberal would do. With Hillary in charge, the nation would plunge swiftly into a Leftist dystopia that would make it impossible for anyone to ignore or lie any longer about just how destructive, cruel, and illiberal Liberalism actually is. She'd provide the shock therapy that would cure the patient before it was too late. And what happened?

America elected Dr. B. Hussein Kevorkian.

Regardless, it looks like my confidence in Hillary was unfounded. It turns out, you get the one, you get that other one:

"... the community organizer ... must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression.' -- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model." -- Hillary Clinton, BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969.

"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...." -- The Nation

A psychopath is a person without conscience; someone who constantly breaks the moral rules of the community. Saul Alinsky was a "community organizer" who found a career that fit that personality disorder. In the Orwellian upside-down world of the Left, community organizers disorganize communities. That is the meaning of revolution, to overturn whatever exists today in the raw pursuit of one's own power.

[. . .]

Alinsky's personality fits the definition of a psychopath -- someone who has no guilt or shame toward others. But Alinsky also discovered how to teach psychopathic behavior to college students. That is the key to his success: To persuade hundreds of thousands of ignorant young people that it is much more moral to be immoral. Or, as Bill Ayers famously said, "Bring the Revolution home; kill your parents."

Bill Ayers is now a highly influential professor of education. That is not an accident; it reflects a deliberate program of radical agitation and propaganda through the school systems. If you want to know who brought down American education, Bill Ayers is part of the answer.

A lot of the Boomer Left is marked by psychopathic behavior, in politics and in the rest of life. That is why the actions of the Left are so shocking to many of us.

Alinsky's disciples -- including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- have a warlike political style. They learned politics as war from the Master. Obama is so well-trained in Alinsky tactics that he used to teach workshops on it. That is why Obama can knowingly violate Federal law against usurping the presidential power to negotiate with Iraq before ever getting elected. Actual election to head of state by the voters means nothing, just as it means nothing to Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, who have negotiated with Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood in clear violation of law while serving in Congress.

[. . .]

Alinsky called ordinary Americans "the enemy." Normal people don't declare war on all of society. But Alinsky wrote in Rules for Radicals that radicals

"...have contemptuously rejected the values and way of life of the middle class. They have stigmatized it as materialistic, decadent, bourgeois, degenerate, imperialistic, war-mongering, brutalized and corrupt ... They are right ... "

Normal, decent America is the enemy for these people.

Obama and Hillary are lifelong followers of Alinsky. They use his tactics and ideology. That is why American politics became the politics of personal destruction when the Boomer Left came to power.

[. . .]

Liberal Democrats used to be normal Americans before the Boomer Left rose to power. Hubert Humphrey and Harry Truman had a strong sense of American morality. They despised the Stalinist Left and fought to keep them out of the Democrat Party. They were sensitive to ordinary shame and guilt, the emotions that make us civilized. When Bob Dole asked "Where is the shame?" in the 1996 presidential election, the answer came out: Not in the modern Democrat Party. People without guilt or shame make merciless power mongers.

But the single most important point about Alinsky's "community organizing" strategy is that normal people can be trained to act like psychopaths: To become convinced that a "higher morality" allows them to act without conscience. As Alinsky wrote admiringly about V.I. Lenin, well known as a large-scale murder leader:

"Lenin was a pragmatist; ... he said that the Bolsheviks stood for getting power through the ballot box but would reconsider after they got the guns!"

[. . .]

Alinsky called this "pragmatic radicalism." He differed from his Communist friends only in being more practical and less ideological. Alinsky was a radical because it suited his personality, because it was fun, brought him power and influence, and made him feel good. He was very clear in saying that, and he inspired the Boomer Left to follow his lead.

Alinsky dedicated Rules for Radicals:

"... to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."

So now, the American people are realizing that we must remove from all positions of power and influence, whether in politics, jurisprudence, media, or academia, the leftist, subversive, degenerate, and satanic enemy within.

Timothy Geithner admits that his boss believes that you exist to finance him and his fellow statists

"Government programs" is a euphemism for "Vote for us, and we'll give you other people's stuff. If they complain, we'll call them 'racist,' 'corporatist,' 'greedy,' or -- gasp! -- 'conservative'!"

Liberals would be much more honest if they'd just admit: "We're oligarchists, and we deserve to rule over you, slaves."

Geithner's admission is a surprise only to those who haven't been paying attention to the president "ready to rule from Day 1." From here:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

Another dishonest apology for Socialism

In response to an attack on the plain truth about Socialism at the ironically-named Rational Revolution:

The "rebuttal" above is intellectually dishonest. Ad hominems? Tu quoques? Class envy? Biblical commands spoken to individuals applied to political systems?

The ultimate minority is the individual; if any one's rights are violated, then no one's rights are safe. Socialism is evil because it makes the individual subservient to a select few and -- in our case -- the majority who elect them. Rather than government existing to protect each person's God-given, unalienable rights, the individual exists as a resource to be exploited by the state.

Does the individual exist to provide power and position to politicians, or do their power and position exist to protect our rights? Who knows better how to spend your wealth, you or a politician? Who deserves your property: whomever you choose -- your children, for example -- or a stranger?

There's a word for consuming the fruits of another's labor against their will: Slavery.

So, Muhammad doesn't inspire terrorism, but Sarah Palin does?

Let's get this straight: Direct commands from Muhammad to butcher everyone who resists his will have nothing to do with fourteen hundred years of Islamic rape, slavery, and genocide -- including 9/11 and nearly seventeen thousand attacks since then -- but one metaphor from Sarah Palin leads to mass murder.

When Nidal Hasan mowed down his fellow soldiers to shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" we were told to resist using our intellect (they called it "jumping to conclusions"). A politician is shot and leftist politicians and their Goebbels in the mainstream media leap immediately to, "Palin did it!"

Unbelievable.

Muslims own a millennium and a half of slaughter, rape, and rapine and thereforemust receive the benefit of the doubt, but an American who actually believes in America? "Get a rope!"

If craven, lying tyrants like the aptly-named Dick Durbin had taken the advice they give in defense of America and the West's actual enemies, they'd have discovered that the Arizona shooter was a "leftist pothead" who followed neither Palin, the Right, nor "God," but instead was a fan of MSNBC, the Communist Manifesto, and Mein Kampf, scared his teachers, couldn't string together a coherent thought, and laughed at the misery of others while joking about strapping bombs to fetuses in order to commit terrorism. And he was involved with the occult.

In other words, he was a good leftist and a potential Muslim.

But like Rahm Emmanuel said, "Never let a bunch of dead innocent Americans slaughtered by one of our own go to waste. Unless it's a Muslim doing the killing."*

So, what can we conclude from this tragedy and our "elites'" response to it? First, the Left knows no bounds in how far it will go in order to demonize Americans, using even dead children to achieve its political purposes. Second, if we are to use the Left's own "logic," marijuana, Communism, abortion, college, and the occult cause terrorism. Third, the Left are fiends. Fangs-with-human-gore-imbued fiends.

If you want to blame someone's "heated political rhetoric," blame Obama. He's the one who's spurred his followers to "get in their faces." He's demonized God-and-gun-clingers. And he's referred to "punishing" his political "enemies."

UPDATE: The lying Pima County Sheriff Dupnik could have stopped the killer but didn't:

Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation [. . .]

This was not an act of politics. This was an act of a mentally disturbed young man hell bent on getting his 15 minutes of infamy. The Pima County Sheriff’s Department was aware of his violent nature and they failed to act appropriately. This tragedy leads right back to Sherriff Dupnik and all the spin in the world is not going to change that fact.

UPDATE: Some more of the despicable Left's venom:

That’s exactly what Barack Obama said he would do to counter Republican attacks “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

Don't forget this:

Rahm Emanuel grabbed a steak knife, and he began rattling off a list of betrayers. And as he listed their names he shouted, ‘Dead! Dead! Dead!’ and he plunged the steak knife into the table after every name.

Or this:

Kos scrubbed it. Thankfully, several bloggers were able to capture screen shots of the post that used the word "dead" in relation to Rep. Giffords several times.

Diary headline: "My CongressWOMAN voted against Nancy Pelosi! And is now DEAD to me!" There are also several references to "dead" in the comment thread.

All of it now deleted - something Kos does on a regular basis when he wishes to change history. Kos also seems to have forgotten a posting of his calling for putting a "bullseye" on Giffords' district.

Even Olbermann's chagrined:

"Violence, or the threat of violence, has no place in our Democracy, and I apologize for and repudiate any act or any thing in my past that may have even inadvertently encouraged violence. Because for whatever else each of us may be, we all are Americans."

He should tell his boss.

UPDATE: The killer was a 9/11 truther and hated Bush. A Tea Party member if I've ever heard of one.

He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.

*That is, of course, a reference to his urging his fellow statists to exploit every actual and potential tragedy.