Leany on Life -- September 2009

So Bruce Willis (John McClane) goes out to LA to visit his wife. Her company is having a Christmas party at the Nokitome Towers. The terrorists come in and take everybody hostage (except Bruce Willis) . . .

Continued below
(Best viewed with a mind not clouded by the Kool-Aid)

Leany home   |   Articles   |   Chronicles   |   Prostitution Arrests   |   Who is Frank Leany?   |   Libotomies   |  

The John Galt Society

It can be discouraging to look around at who's running the show these days and wonder "Where have all the grown-ups gone?"

Take heart. There are still some people who are not drinking the Kool-aid. Here's where to find them.

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin is a feisty conservative bastion. You loved her book "Unhinged" and you can read her columns here.
Ann Coulter
Ann posts her new column every Thursday, or you can browse her past columns.
George Will
What can you say? It's George Will. Read it.
Charles Krauthammer posts every Friday. Just a good, smart conservative columnist.
If you want someone who gets it just as right, but is easier to read, try Thomas Sowell, who just posts at random times.
Jonah Goldbert seldom disappoints.
David Limbaugh carries on the family tradition.

Jewish World Review has all these guys plus lots more good stuff.

Or you can go to radio show sites like
 Laura Ingraham's or Glenn Beck's or Rush Limbaugh's..

If you'd like you can study The Constitution while you wait.

Then there's always World Net Daily, NewsMax.com, The Drudge Report, FreeRepublic.com, News Busters, or National Review Online.

For the Lighter Appetite

If you have to read the news, I recommend The Nose on Your Face, news so fake you'd swear it came from the Mainstream Media. HT to Sid for the link.
Or there's always The Onion. (For the benefit of you Obama Supporters, it's a spoof.)

Dilbert.
Dave Barry's Column
Daryl Cagle's Index of Political Cartoons
About half of these cartoonists are liberal (Latin for wrong) but the art is usually good. (Fantastic, if you're used to the quality of art on this site.)

Or just follow the links above and to the right of this section (you can't have read all my archived articles already). If you have read all my articles (you need to get out more) go to my I'm Not Falling For It section.

Above all, try to stay calm. Eventually I may post something again.

Die Hard
9.26.09

So Bruce Willis (John McClane) goes out to LA to visit his wife. Her company is having a Christmas party at the Nokitome Towers. The terrorists come in and take everybody hostage (except Bruce Willis).

So Ellis steps up. You remember Ellis. He figures he's going to negotiate with the terrorists. He understands them.

Here's the full clip (requires an add-on).

Another clip on YouTube

And another one

You remember the deal. McClane's wife says "What are you going to do?" Ellis says "Hey babe, I negotiate million dollar deals for breakfast. I think I can handle this Eurotrash." The audience is screaming "No! Don't do it, you moron!"

So Ellis goes in and says "Hans . . . I'm your white knight." He tells Hans they are the same. He uses a fountain pen, Hans uses guns. "We're brothers. We understand each other." He thinks he has Hans eating out of his hand.

Ellis is an idiot.

But to Hans, he's a useful idiot. Hans can see right through Ellis. He uses him for his purposes, then disposes of him.

Obama is Ellis. He is an idiot.

Obama goes in front of the UN. "I'm just the same as you. We all hate America. I'm on your side."

He's thinking he has the thugs of the world eating out of his hand. "Look at these guys! Hugo Chavez, Ahmad deNutJob, Kha-daffy. They love me!"

I heard this guy on the radio, and he was making a lot of sense. But he was basically saying what everybody already knows. Obama does not have America's interests at heart, he's willing to give away the store to make the thugs of the world like him. I think he actually used the word "respect."

He made a lot of sense, but he didn't address the main point. Obama is Ellis. The despots in the UN have taken the measure of the man and they see right through him. He's an idiot. He's green and he's weak. He's a wet-behind-the-ears novice. And the well-seasoned thugs of the world can use him to their advantage.

I thought I was going to have to step up and tell everybody the way things really are. But this guy figured it out, too. As he says, Obama displays what a gullible sap he is.

Obama is like a crash test dummy. He's the only one in the show that doesn't know what's coming.

Darn that Blog Post Regulating Czar. I don't want to do this. I don't. I want to tell you about a cool bumper sticker I saw and share a really funny joke that I heard. I'd like to post pictures of the beautiful fall colors and bag on my kid's megalomaniacal teacher.

But Federal Blog Posting Regulations require that I talk about Obama's fiasco in front of the United Nations.

The comparison to Ellis says it all. But all is not good enough for this blog. No, siree. To all and beyond! That's our motto.

You will never see a greater contrast than this: Obama and Netanyahu in the same room together. Netanyahu is a leader. He's seasoned, tough and smart. He's everything Obama is not.

Yeah, water is wet, fire burns . . . I don't have to tell you this. The speeches of those two just confirmed what you already knew. I'd amend the Constitution tomorrow if we could get Netanyahu running this country.

In fact, it always struck me as interesting that all the Constitution requires of an American president is citizenship and age. I guess the Founding Fathers figured when the people got too stupid to consider character and intelligence, they deserved what they got.

This article talks about Obama's making a spectacle of himself in front of the UN. What a tinhorn. The article doesn't bash him enough to suit me, but I did like the comparison of the Floundering Father to Barney Fife.

I'm also required to post about that appalling song the kids in Burlington, NJ were made to sing. I'm going to cheat here and just let you read what Michelle Malkin had to say about it.

In today's Racist Corner we're going to examine the charges of the demorats who expose their racism by calling us racists (I'm going for a new world record for racist word variation density in a sentence).

Let me just say that I really, really do hate that Obama is black.

Okay, now that all the intellectually dishonest people have left to go breathlessly proclaim to the Huffington Post morons that they read a racial slur on a blog, let's talk about this.

I don't hate Obama for being black. But I hate the fact that he is black. Because if he weren't we never would have heard of him. He would be some nameless radical who never outgrew the sandals, T-shirts and protest signs.

Because he is black he is able to get away with all the crap that America would not tolerate from white morons like Bill Clinton, Michael Dukakis, Mon-dull, McGovern, etc., etc. That's just a fact.

There are three politically vocal groups in America today. 1) A tiny, tiny group that shares Obama's vision of America. 2) A group that opposes Obama, comprising about half of the country. 3) The other half of the country who just violently oppose those who oppose Obama.

Here's a great article by Thomas Sowell outlining Obama's lies. It's kinda' like Ann Coulters "Liberal Lies about Health Care" that you've been reading every week.

Last weekend was the Fall Camporee. I busted my keister getting ready. I had class B uniforms made with our Ranger Patrol logo embroidered on them. I bought camouflage hats for all the boys. I made each boy a set of dog tags. I was anticipating that through the Saturday morning activity rotations our troop was going to be the coolest one of all the troops up there, with their olive green embroidered T-shirts, camo caps, and dog tags.

Not one boy showed up. Not one.

I'm not sure why I feel so driven to have a good scouting program for boys that don't show up. But I do. Total cumulative attendance at the patrol meetings over the summer was 4. That's not average. That's the total number of boys that showed up over four months worth of meetings. One at one meeting, two at another, one at another one. Zero at all the rest. Four boys all summer long.

The parents of the scouts have two conversations with me. 1-Telling me why Junior won't be able to come to the patrol meeting that night. 2-Asking me what Junior can do to advance in rank. The point here is that nobody reads this blog. I don't even read it. It's a waste of time. But I still feel compelled to post. Why? Can anyone explain that to me?

You're not the one that didn't show up to the campout. So I'm sorry you're not getting the embroidered T-shirt and dog tags. You're getting half-baked notes that I jotted down awhile ago but didn't post because they weren't refined yet. Then I just get frustrated and post them as is. So you get the negs of both—hurriedly written notes but not in a hurry.

At some point I just have to either post crap or not at all.

You're walking down the sidewalk. You round the corner of a building and come upon a man holding a knife bending over a dead man on the ground. There is blood everywhere, including on the live guy's hands. He looks up and says "I found him like this. I pulled the knife out and tried to help him, but it was too late."

Sure, that could be the case. But what if the guy had just finished stabbing the man? It would look and sound exactly the same.

So, how do you tell? One story is true, but both stories look exactly the same.

You just step off the spaceship from Mars and you see one group of people who are very emotional in their opposition to Obama. I guess they could be emotional because they are concerned about their country and they are freaking out because Obama supporters are blinded by what they see as their role in history. But it looks the same as what the other group is saying—they're just blinded by their racism. After all, they wouldn't admit they were racist, they'd give the other explanation as a cover.

Either explanation fits the observation. Which one is true?

The concept I'm trying to illustrate here is "Yeah, but what if he did . . . whatever?" Wouldn't he say the same thing?" If he really did pick up the girl for immoral purposes wouldn't he have said the exact same thing? That he did it because he was concerned about her walking alone in the dark? You can think of a million examples.

Usually there's a piece of evidence that's different. In the example above there certainly is. If you're honest you'll think 1) Did they oppose the same thing when a white president was pushing it? It's astonishing to me that Bill Clinton (pardon my language) says we're racist for knocking socialized medicine after we kicked his white ass when he was pushing it. Bill Clinton is dishonest. Stop the presses. And 2) Were the white people violently opposing George Bush racist as well?

Well, you can study the evidence and find the truth. But it has to be done in sequence. Look at the evidence, then draw your conclusions. Studying the evidence after you've already made up your mind is like the drunk, who uses the lamppost for support, not illumination.

Obama's self-aggrandizing talk to school kids (yes, this post is from very old notes) is a perfect encapsulation of the two camps at the moment. You've got the one camp that says "You're over-reacting, I don't see anything so bad about it." Then you have the side that says "Are you not seeing this!? Can't you see where this is going?!"

It's just a perfect little snapshot of a very big battle.

Maybe Obama doesn't want to lead the country into Marxism. But if he did, he'd be doing it just exactly the way he is. He has a free pass. The side that's saying "Oh, you're over-reacting" is also saying "You're racist!" They've finally discovered a way to get an agenda forwarded that Mondale, Dukakis, Carter, McGovern, Dean, etc., etc. could not do. We have always opposed that. Always. But now we're not allowed to because that's racist. It's a great trick.

It's a giant chess game. It's a frenetic battle of maneuvering. They launch a talk to school kids, try to draw us out, trick us into opposing it. "There! Did you see that! They're opposing a harmless talk to school kids. Lookit that! They're radicals!"

Nobody wants to have a label of "radical" stick on them in this game. That's the equivalent of a flag for being offsides.

So we try to maneuver within the bounds of moderation.

Moderation is going to kill us. "Let's be reasonable about this." It's the gang of 14 all over again. They want to socialize medicine. Now McCain is trying to get on board and get our input into the program. "Let's just try to cooperate. Let's see if we can make this health care bill palatable to our needs. Let's work with these people."

No! You idiot! You don't agree to commit suicide as long as you can choose between hemlock and strychnine. You refuse to take the poison!

They've lured us into discussing "How" on something that should not be at all. No. You don't cooperate! It's like David Limbaugh said (in that article you read because I highly recommended it). You oppose it with everything you've got.

But then we look like the radicals.

And that's how moderation is going to kill this country. It's too radical to say "The President is trying to transform us into a Marxist nation." That's crazy talk. You've got to be moderate. Let's think about this with reason and moderation. Let's be calm. Hey, politics has always been like this. You're just over-reacting. There's no reason to think that Obama is any different than any other president that some people agree with and some people don't.

Prolonged exposure to stuff can cause you to develop allergies. I don't know why, but my political electrolytes are running out sooner and sooner. I've hit the wall. I don't care anymore and I'm looking at four or five more pages of notes.

Oh, well. I'll plow on. It's my cross to bear. Prepare patrol meetings for scouts and post to a blog. Someone's gotta' do it.

Was it David Limbaugh or Jonah Goldberg that said it? I think it was Limbaugh but it's not important enough for me to check. "Obama is Van Jones." He is. Obama is Van Jones and Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. Obama is a very bad man. How do you say that without eliminating yourself from the debate?

It's the same old argument. Bernie Goldberg has a problem with Ann Coulter because she's so frank. You don't advance your case by attacking the Jersey girls, he says. She says you don't get a free pass to attack us because you lost a loved one. They both have an excellent point.

I love Ann Coulter because she refuses to play by the rules her enemies dictate. She will call a spade a spade, even if it ticks off her enemies. How do combat evil with the necessary forcefulness if your main concern is being civil? Euphemizing is not her style.

But you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.That's the tricky part of this chess game.

It's so frustrating. The evil is coming down on us in an avalanche but we have to figure out a way to warn people without raising our voice. You can see how Joe Wilson would finally not be able to help himself and shout out "You lie!"

It was a breach of protocol, he shouldn't have done it. But what can you scream at someone who is lying without name calling? "The president is not forthcoming with the facts" doesn't state the case. How frustrating is it to have to sit and listen to Obama calling you a liar and you have to take it in the name of protocol?

Why could this not be happening? Tell me why. It got bad enough once that we revolted against England. Why was that something that can never be repeated again? What's the guarantee that things will always continue the way they always have? When has that ever happened in history?

Societies all over the world have moved from freedom to tyranny. If Pol Pot did it in Cambodia why wouldn't someone want to do it here? (Especially now that Obama has educated us to that fact that America is every bit as bad as the worst country.)

Just tell me why evil, power hungry men can only come to power outside of the area bounded by the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and Canada and Mexico. Evil men are trying to gain power all over the world. Explain the force field that keeps them from trying to get their hands on this treasured prize.

What guarantee do we have that a president is going be reasonable and not going to be dangerous? The safeguards we had have been torn down. The enemy has found a way to circumvent the checks and balances. We oppose the exact same things that we opposed when white idiots were pushing them, but now we're despicable racists.

Tell me why you can't listen to this side of the story.

It can happen here. It is happening here.

Any fantasy about the future talks about flying cars. Yeah. Get back with me as soon as drivers master the concept of the four-way stop. Until then I feel safer with them texting and doing their fingernails in two dimensions.

But here's a piece (including video) of the first flying car.

The Joe Wilson incident is the perfect example of how The Game is played. Democrats don't give a crap about protocol. They weren't too concerned about it when they booed George Bush in the same chamber. They will take advantage of any excuse to use deceit and treachery as a way to maneuver into more power.

(See? I said that democrats are deceitful and treacherous. That makes me a radical. So by being deceitful and treacherous they have immunity, because anyone that calls them on it gets kicked out of the game.)

So Joe apologizes to Obama, but when the demorats demand he apologize to them he does the right thing. He tells them "Get bent. I apologized to the man I insulted, no, I won't apologize to you." So the demorats think "Ah-hah! Now we've got him cornered into not being moderate." Meanwhile he's raised record amounts of money for his campaign because he played it right.

Reasonableness. That's the currency. That's what you want and you want the opposing team to give up.

Sure, be reasonable, but the ones that think you should apologize weren't going to vote for you anyway. Stop before you piss off the ones that would. It's the Ann Coulter effect. You don't endear yourself to your team by being moderate in defending their position.

We can't sit still for evil, but it doesn’t advance our cause to over-react. This the game I was talking about. We have to do the right thing, but in order to play the game we have to do it in a way that doesn't make us look like radicals. (More on that later).

Dennis Miller called it right on this whole school speech thing. He essentially said what Napoleon did: "When your enemy is making a mistake, don't interrupt."

Obama is a pompous ass. He's a narcissist. He loves being a celebrity and he understands about getting inside the heads of children. But once the White House withdrew that ridiculous "How you can be a good little Obama disciple" study guide, the battle was over. Continued opposition to what was just another self-serving, banal speech didn't help our cause.

(Seriously, I did a word count. In that short speech he said "I" (or a variation like I'm or I've), "me," and "my" 89 times. (I didn't include the times he used them quoting others saying it.) We get it. It's all about you. Now go away.)

This is a huge, swirling whirlpool of interconnected ideas. It's the Kevin Bacon game. All the concepts relate to each other eventually. Wherever you jump in, you're going to bounce off all the ideas eventually. So we're going to jump in with 'Joe.'

'Joe' decided it was time to implement a new company policy. Apparently a new law forbids companies from prohibiting their employees from having guns in their cars in the parking lot. The law does, however, allow the company to require that any cars with guns in them be parked in a separate lot. 'Joe' was chortling that he was going to put a huge sign up pointing out that the cars in that lot had valuable guns in them just waiting to be stolen. He really got a kick out of that.

I waited to see if he'd see the obvious. He didn't. He was just tickled at the idea that gun owners were going to get robbed. So I finally said "I'm just curious how you're going to word the sign so that only responsible, honest, law abiding thieves will steal those guns."

He still had no clue what the deal was. This is a great peek into the liberal mind (an experience equivalent in horror to a webcam of Rosie O'Donnell's shower). In 'Joe's' liberal mind, guns in the hands of lawful owners are worse than guns in the hands of criminals.

But think about how the new policy is going to affect gun owners. As it stands, you pull into the company parking lot and park wherever you want, whether you have a gun in your car or not. After the new policy, if you have a gun in the car you will pull into the company parking lot and park wherever you want..

The point is that 'Joe' is not going to enforce the policy and we are not going to obey it. Writing down rules that nobody will obey and nobody will enforce weakens all law.

Oh, look! We've swirled around to the "Boy who Cried wolf" part of the whirlpool. That's what I'm talking about. Things that used to have meaning or impact or significance are easily discarded now. It's like the "Important Information Concerning Your Warranty" notices that you get in the mail. It's the solicitations that are made to look like official government documents. Counterfeits take weight away from the real thing.

When you get accustomed to ignoring instructions from someone not in authority it makes it easier to ignore them from someone who is. "See the attendant" comes up when you put your card in the pump? No, I won't. "Place this handy tab advertising a law firm in your phone book." Get bent.

This relates to an article I read quite awhile ago about the loss of civility in our society. People are more willing to be rude now than they used to be. Do you know why? In part because people today are more deserving of being treated rudely. There was a time when I would have thought it unthinkable to hang up on someone on the phone. Then along came telemarketers. I have no problem not only hanging up on them, but insulting them outright before I do. They are being inconsiderate to me, I have no problem being inconsiderate back.

But then you've crossed that threshold of being rude to another human being and it becomes easier.

You see the same thing with worthless morons (See? I've grown accustomed to being rude) spewing the word "Racist!" at us. Hmm. I guess if the word means 'someone who defends Liberty' it must not be that bad of a word after all.

The fact that the tactics of astro-turfers and telemarketers and race-baiters still work is evidence that we have an inherent tendency to try to be civil. We resist all these cultural pressures that are making us more rude and defiant. We want to get along.

Here's what I'm talking about. McCain is trying to pull the gang of fourteen trick all over again. The demorats are trying to shove socialized medicine down our throats. People who love Liberty are opposing it. So McCain comes along and says "Let's just try to get along. Let's see if we can contribute our input to this bill and make it palatable to our needs. Let's cooperate."

No! No way! You don't cooperate. You don't try to get along. You oppose it with everything you've got.

Sure, we can hang up on someone trying to sell us a time-share over the phone. But we can't bring ourselves to combat tyranny if it means coming across as rude.

I heard ABC's Steve Roberts, just another obscure Obama sycophant, on the radio this morning. He was talking about the way Obama is trashing the US in the eyes of other countries (a good thing, in his mind) and said Obama won the election because he successfully painted Bush as arrogant.

I'm just going to let you absorb those words for a minute. Savor the irony of Barack Obama calling anybody arrogant.

Roberts said that Obama is changing the tone because he's "Civilized (I think he meant civil), reasonable, and even-tempered."

I've talked about this before (and I have a way too extensive post on it that's being sorted out). The only reason Obama is a threat is because he is able to hide his radicalism behind a suit and tie and a smile.

His race-baiting protests notwithstanding, Obama looks exactly like other presidents. At a quick glance you almost can't tell the difference between him and a real president of the United States. That's how he can get away with being a radical. He is stealth.

I cry "wolf!" You look around and all you see are sheep and sheep's clothing.

On the topic of arrogance . . .

The other piece I heard was Obama talking about making the decision to commit more troops to Afghanistan. He sounded like he was making sense. I was excited. I thought I was finally going to get to say something positive about the man.

Then he caught himself. "If you can convince a skeptical audience—that means me, someone who asks the tough questions . . . "

Yeah, Barack. It's all about you. We're sending troops into harm's way and it's all about you.

People are starting to pick up on what I (and Michael Savage*) pointed out to you quite awhile ago. You take all the sting out of the word "racist" when you use it trivially. It's the law of unexpected consequences. Did you think it was a free hit to call me "racist" for opposing the same thing I opposed when white idiots were pushing it?

---

*Inside joke—MS loves to claim to be the first to coin any phrase. From now on when I do that I'll just put "MS," and you'll understand I'm taking credit a la Michael Savage. (Just like when you hear "It is an indisputable fact" you know it's BS, for Barack Speak)

The author of this article called Dueling 'racist' claims defuse once powerful word picked up on the concept.

It's just a shame that Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, Janeane Garbarfalo, Y chromosome owner Rachel Maddow, et al, haven't realized it. In addition to rendering their opinion irrelevant (a good thing), slinging around the word "racist" destroys decades of struggles for civil rights (a bad thing).

As Michael Steele said about Jimmy Carter's loony comments, (I will not call Carter a moron out of courtesy to the moron community): To call people racist who are not diminishes the real racism that's out there.

It's interesting that Steele's comments about Carter hit the news the same day the Hofstra University rape hoax story broke. Rape is such a horrendous crime. To cry wolf in that case is a similar crime to committing rape, because it hurts rape victims.

Similarly, crying "racism" where none exist hurts the exact same people that racism hurts.

I got pretty fired up when I heard about that guy who kidnapped the 11 year old girl. Kidnappers need to be removed from the planet. I got pretty fired up when I heard that it was a hoax. People who perpetrate those kinds of hoaxes are sub-human the same way that kidnappers are, because they diminish the impact of the real thing.

Maybe next time I won't get so fired up. Worse, may next time the cops won't be so motivated because they've heard wolf cry too often.

It's like Jonah Goldberg says in this excellent article. "Racist" is the worst thing you can call a person.

That was last week. If "Racist" means someone who opposes socialism then call me proud to be a racist,

As long as you're reading Jonah Goldberg, read this article on race baiting which is very good, too.

If he's not careful he's going to find himself inducted into the coveted Leany on Life John Galt Society.

Bless their hearts, the liberals strategy was a good one. It's the whole "shame you into silence" routine that Shelby Steele explained and the liberals tried on Carrie Prejean. So how come it's failing so miserably?

The liberals' opposition to reproduction is part of the reason they've executed their "racist" strategy so poorly.

What every parent knows, and hope their kids never find out, is that they have nothing beyond "If you do that you're going to be sorry!" The kid's too scared to find out what would happen, and the parent is relieved, because he's got nothing beyond the threat.

Well, the liberals have given us their best shot. And it's nothing. At least a parent can lock you in your bedroom and take away the TV. The liberals don't even have that. You call me racist? Oh, yeah, that hurts. Especially coming from someone with your credibility.

The basic premise of this story is good. Dueling 'racist' claims do defuse a once powerful word.

Too bad the author had to diminish the warning by lending credibility to those who are wrecking the word.

It's a common journalistic error. Someone interviewing a scientist who says the moon is not made of green cheese feels compelled to give equal weight to the lunatic who says the moon is made of green cheese.

Someday I'll have to get you to explain to me how 1) you can't be a racist if you don't have power (you can't hate unless you own guns?) and 2) how the party in charge of the media, the White House, and congress doesn't have power.

The point is that the word now means nothing. Now what word do we have for someone with a pointy hood burning crosses? In addition, it will have the ultimate effect of decreasing civility, because people will refuse to conform their language to what these lunatics are trying to dictate.

Let's just call a spade a spade. Those who are spooked by what they see as code words have their perception colored by their own prejudice. Their jig is up. The neg of this is that I will be dusting off phrases that I haven't used in a coon's age just out of defiance. I guess I should be more niggardly with the number of words I use to explain it, but I refuse to placidly keep my speech within the bounds of their plantation.

For example, the author of the article mentioned this pciture. I received it in an e-mail awhile ago, but I didn't post it, because frankly I wasn't comfortable with it. But now that I am officially a racist, here it is, with the caption that I would provide.

---

If Opposing Socialism is Racism
Then I am Proud to be a Racist

If you're a devout follower of this blog (you need to get a life) you might have noticed that my comments on they guy who "kidnapped" that 11 year old girl in Ogden have mysteriously disappeared. That's 'cause the whole thing turned out to be a hoax.

His fiancé, Rosalina Urrutia, set him up. I guess she figured the cops would just shoot him on the spot and not give him a chance to say "Wait, wait. Let me explain." Apparently in the country she's from that's the way they do it. You can see the negs of doing it that way.

Which is why we have due process in this country.

Classic example of a paradigm shift. The thesis in this post is somewhat of a contrast to the original one.

You'll recall that I said that I'd not post from notes that were more than a week old. You'll also recall that I said that policy would take effect as soon as I'd cleared out my old notes.

I know how Maureen Dowd feels. It sucks to be irrelevant.

(You might say "It's a neg.")

If you cared, you already asked Uncle Google about it. This isn't like sex education, where if you don't pick it up in the locker room you won't get it at all. You don't depend on me to feed you the best information on current events. And although my opinions are always right, they echo a lot of people out there.

That's the neg about being compulsive. I feel like I have to labor away at this anyway, just in case one of the three hits I get every month is someone confined to bed with a horrible disease and this blog is his or her lifeline.

So here goes. This is an excellent take on Obama's health care speech (the 487th such speech he has delivered).

The president is good at setting up straw men and knocking them down. Nobody can have a disagreement with him based on a valid difference of opinion.

You know I'm a fan of natural cures. That way you avoid the negs associated with surgery and drug therapies.

That's why it's such a great thing that medical science has come up with this:

This is David Limbaugh's big day. Today is the day that he get elevated to the position of honor in Leany on Life's John Galt Society. Until today he did not have his own link in my gallery of people you should read. You had to navigate to his articles through the Jewish World Review link. That was a neg.

Congratulations, Mr. Limbaugh. Use the honor wisely.

Mr. Limbaugh posted this excellent article called For O, it's "My way or the highway." Some excerpts:

Why, in the course of his countless speeches on health care, has Obama rarely, if ever, praised American health care, which is the envy of the entire world? Perhaps for the same reason he doesn't praise America about much of anything, I suppose. If he's not trashing us, he's not talking about us.

Again, 18 million of these [uninsured] make more than $50,000 a year and can afford health care but choose not to purchase it. And millions more have access to government programs and don't access them, which, incidentally, doesn't bode well for Obama's mandated universal coverage plan.

ed note: Since then I've heard Obama say "Medicare and Medicaid are so messed up that we have to enact Universal Health Care to get the costs under control." What?

And if he has such bipartisan intentions, why did he spend a significant part of his speech demonizing his opponents and misrepresenting their motives? On the one hand he says, "We must bring the best ideas of both parties together," but on the other he says, "But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it."

Obama implies you can't oppose his plan for reasons other than political ones. But in fact, we oppose it because it would destroy the best health care system in the world and would be one of the final nails in the coffin of America's free enterprise system. That's not politics, Mr. Obama; it's our survival as a free people.

If he were really about cutting costs, he'd support market reforms, such as health savings accounts, and ending mandated coverage and tax laws incentivizing employer-provided insurance.

And along the lines of "killing the plan rather than improving it," he writes this one called No Compromise, No Retreat, No Surrender. I have a lot more to say about that one, but I'm still sorting out the copious notes on it. Thinking about a subject does have its negs.

Thomas Sowell (that racist!) points out some of the negs of Listening to a Liar in this excellent article. As with all of these, you should read the whole thing. But here are a few points that stood out.

The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them.

If you go by words, you can be led into anything.

He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess— for a program that would not take effect until 2013!

The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it.

Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be.

The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy, would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the President's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before."

Wait a minute. That sounds really familiar. Someone rushing to implement an agenda, knowing he has a certain window to do it. Just to put the negs of this in perspective . . .

Upon assuming power, Allende began to carry out his platform of implementing a socialist program called La vía chilena al socialismo ("the Chilean Path to Socialism"). This included nationalization of large-scale industries (notably copper mining and banking), and government administration of the health care system, educational system . . .

Allende also intended to improve the socio-economic welfare of Chile's poorest citizens; a key element was to provide employment, either in the new nationalised enterprises or on public work projects

Chilean presidents were allowed a maximum term of six years, which may explain Allende's haste to restructure the economy.

A guy I work with snapped this picture on the way home the other day.

Am I missing something? Oh, yeah . . . negs!

David Limbaugh talks about the negs of having a state-controlled media* in this article that you should read.

Brokaw said: "A lot of people will repeat back to me and take it as face value something that they read on the Internet. And my line to them is you have to vet information . . . and it requires society . . . to stand up and say, 'This is crazy.' We just can't function that way."

As opposed to "functioning" what other way? Perhaps he means the old way of having his beloved mainstream media spoon-feed us ignorant masses only the information and slant they want us to hear. Does Brokaw believe his colleagues properly "vetted" Barack Obama and his mysterious past and dubious associations during the presidential campaign?

Just think how much better life used to be before the Internet and conservative talk radio — still the liberal elite's main boogeyman — spoiled the MSM's monolithically liberal chokehold on information dissemination.

It's not Obama who didn't vet Jones, but the MSM who have never vetted Obama. Had they vetted Obama, they would have realized that he is Van Jones and that he didn't need to vet Van Jones because he already knew him and considered him a soul mate.

---

*HT to Rush for coming up with the term. Since I'm one of the mindless masses that Obama says Rush controls, I have no choice but to use that phrase. In my brainwashed mind I think it is an excellent characterization of the state of the press (so to speak). When you see me use that term, know that Rush Limbaugh coined it and I'm not trying to claim credit for it. From here on out I'm not going to neg up the flawless flow of my prose by attributing it every time I use it.

"When the Government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
    -Thomas Jefferson

"If someone is so fearful that they're going to start using their weapons to protect their rights, makes me nervous that they have weapons at all."     -Representative Henry A. Waxman (D-Ca)

I think the negs of the second viewpoint are obvious.

I figured it out. It's just an anomaly of the etymology.

You know how some words have Greek roots, others have Latin roots. For example, the Greek prefix for two is "bi," as in biannual, bi-cameral, bi-weekly, bicycle, bifurcated, etc. The Latin prefix for two is "du." We use it in words like "duo" and "dual" where we're talking about the same thing we use "bi" for in other cases. But there's also a word "duel" that sounds like "dual", but comes from a completely different word meaning "war."

In English "embarrassed" means . . . well, embarrassed. But in Spanish embarasada means "pregnant." It sounds like the same word, but it's completely different. That would be a neg if you meant one and said the other.

There's a Greek word "democratic" that means majority rules, or government by the will of the people. But there's a Latin root that the word "democrat" comes from that means "underhanded, sneaky and not to be trusted."

And . . . as long as we're studying Ancient History here . . . This is an e-mail I got explaining the negs of the Cash for Clunkers program. (This is only the economics of it. The ecological impact was a net negative, also, with the energy and pollution that goes into making new cars that aren't needed after destroying old cars that were serviceable.)

SO . . . you took FEDZILLA up on its offer of $4500. dollars to trade in your old "Clunker?" Well, let's see who got the best of that deal:

If you traded in a clunker worth $3500, you got $4500 off for an apparent "savings" of $1000. You could have gotten $3,500 if you had just traded the car in. So you really are $1,000 ahead (depending on your clunker's value) at this point. Not too bad...

However, you WILL have to pay taxes on the $4500 come April 15th (something that no auto dealer will tell you). If you are in the 30% tax bracket, you will pay $1350 on that $4500.

So, rather than save $1000, you will actually pay an extra $350 to the feds. In addition, you traded in a car that was most likely paid for. Now you have 4 or 5 years of payments on a car that you did not need, trading in a "clunker" that was costing you less to run than the payments that you will now be making. Even if you save $1,000. dollars a year in gas due to better mileage, you're still gonna' be in the red for five years . . . hello?

But wait, it gets even better: you also got ripped off by the dealer. For example, the month before the "cash for clunkers" program started, every dealer here in LA was selling the Ford Focus with all the goodies including A/C, auto transmission, power windows, etc for $12,500. because competition was stiff due to poor sales from the stalled economy.

When "cash for clunkers" came along, they stopped discounting them and instead sold them at the list price of $15,500. So, you paid $3000 more than you would have the month before. Honda, Toyota , and Kia played the same list price game that Ford and Chevy did. Now let's do the math . . .

You traded in a car worth: $3500
You got a discount of: $4500

Net so far +$1000

But you have to pay: $1350 in taxes on the $4500

Net so far: -$350 (that's minus...in the red)

And you paid: $3000 more than the car was selling for the month before

Net Loss: $3350

We could also add in the additional taxes (sales tax, state tax, dealer prep, etc.) on the extra $3000 that you paid for the car, along with the five years of interest on the car loan; but let's just stop here while you kick yourself. Suffice it to say that those costs will be much higher than any savings you get from "better mileage."

So who actually made out on the deal? FEDZILLA collected taxes on the car along with taxes on the $4500 they "gave" you. The car dealers made an extra $3000 or more on every car they sold along with the kickbacks from the manufacturers and the loan companies. Manufacturers got to dump lots of cars they could not give away the month before. (Editor's note: the program didn't change the number of people who bought new cars, it just changed the timing of them doing it. So that month of increased sales for the auto industry is going to be followed by a period of drought.)

Lots of good or repairable used cars got taken off the market, crushed and sold as scrap metal to (ready for this?) CHINA! (Look it up...) And the poor consumer got saddled with even more debt that they cannot afford.

FEDZILLA'S merry men (who promised that people making less than $250,000. would pay "not one red cent more in taxes") will make millions in new tax revenues after convincing Joe Consumer that he was getting $4500 in "free" money from the "government" In fact, Joe was giving away his $3500 car and paying an additional $3350 for the privilege. Chicago politics gone global...with an agenda.

If you find errors in this math, please let me know...being a simple guy, I'm always willing to learn new things; and if you took "advantage" of the Clunkers deal, I have some swamp land down in Florida that's for sale . . .

This is a great tie-in to the last post about the race tactics of the left (cause you know what a neg it is to have a blog that doesn't flow). Jonah Goldberg makes some excellent points in his article about a deck stacked with race cards.

He also exposes the tactic of the left in this article about trying to associate us with the tiny number of whacked out birthers, while downplaying the association the democrat party has with the neg ideology of radical anti-American Van Jones.

I hate it when I'm right. I explained all this. The left tried. For decades they tried to push their radical agenda on America. They couldn't do it with Jimmy Carter. He barely won against Ford, even though Ford had pardoned Public Enemy Number One. He got slaughtered in a fair fight in 1980. They couldn’t do it with Kerry or Gore. Clinton was too big of a fool to get it done for them. Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern . . . everyone with Obama's politics got massacred.

Finally the left stumbled on . . .

The Combination.

"What if, just follow me here, what if we got someone who had, whadyacallit? Immunity? You know, like, say, what if we tried someone who was every bit as liberal as all the people America keeps rejecting . . . but he was black?!"

Wait a minute! I think you might have something there.

That's what we've got. We've got a radical installed in the White House, but he's a radical with immunity.

Being black is only one part of the equation. It only works if you use it in concert with the other part—being radical. That does two things. First, it ensures that there will be an energetic opposition—lots of emotion. Without that you can't very well make your accusations (what, they're racists, they're just lazy?). Second, it carries an additional level of immunity because of course you're going to sound very negative if someone is doing something evil and you're talking about it. ("You lie!")

I've been screaming about this for a long time. The strategy is being employed desperately, but we may have gotten the horses in place quickly enough to turn the stampede.

Here's what I'm talking about (is it too early in the post to just jump in and tell you what I'm talking about?)

The little reporting the media did do on the 9/12 rallies was to keep screaming that everyone who opposes Obama is a racist. "Let's call it what it is -- it's just a disguise for right-wing racists. They are fomenting a climate of violence to provoke people."

Maureen Dowd wrote a column (and I sincerely and with a great burden of shame apologize for linking to the NY Times) where she shrieked the same thing. (Again, I'm sincerely sorry to expose you to that, but you need to be informed, no matter how distasteful it is. If you're going to do battle with sharks you're going to see some ugly stuff.)

Strategy note: Your plays work best if you keep them secret from the other team. You've known about this forever because I've been screaming it at you for months. But Garbarfalo and Dowd are so frustrated that they're coming unhinged and are spilling their guts about their strategy for sneaking one across on us.

The left is as racist as you can get. Janeane Garbarfalo telegraphed it. Joan Walsh trumpeted that to us with her horrific tirade about Obama and "White people." Maureen Dowd is now showing her colors (holy crap, can I say that? Let me check my Little Red Book), too.

Here's a pretty good article about that racist bitty Maureen Dowd's column.

And I loved the comments on this site

Dems always go to Race when they feel uneasy or defeated. It's pathetic and frankly in this day and time "burnt out" for its use.

Do they think they can guilt of scare people into getting their way? Many have had enough of this sham and it should stop.

Don't hide behind something that you yourself have a major problem with. Work on yourself, don't try and screw with others as you are unable to move forward.

It's 2009 and we have shown our diversity repeatedly. Don't be a coward and go Race. It takes cowards to go there in this age.

Pete, Salinas, CA

And if the republicans had simply booed President Obama then it would have been fine?

Alan, NJ (Sent Monday, September 14, 2009 11:05 AM)

Was opposition to Clinton's health care takeover also fueled by racism? Opposition to Jimmy Carter's mishandling of the economy fueled by racism?

Put down the pom pons, go out and do some real reporting, and stop trying to excuse the failures of this president by stoking a false fire.

Obama lied during that speech-Wilson should not have shouted it, but he might not have been incensed into doing so if the media had been doing its job.

I don't remember writing this great blog entry, but I'm quite sure that I must have (except for the British spelling). Some excerpts:

To call someone a racist can be a cheap way to shut down all debate. As Andrew Breitbart correctly noted on Bill Maher’s show, "calling a person a racist is the worst thing you can call a person in this country."

Strangely, however, it is a charge that is often flung around without any evidence whatsoever. Take the case of Congressman Joe Wilson, whose intemperate “You lie!” outburst is still prompting much angst on the Left and adoration on the Right. He was clearly wrong to shout what he did. There’s a case for saying that he had a point on the substance, but that’s irrelevant – he was disrespectful of the office of the President and breached congressional rules of decorum. He should have apologised, he did and the apology was accepted.

That should have been the end of the story. But no, there seems to be an eager determination to paint Wilson as racist. It’s possible that he is. Who knows? I have never met him and I can’t get inside his head. But I have no evidence that he is.

For some, however, the fact that he is white, a Republican and from South Carolina seems to be enough. There seems to be precious little else that NYT columnist Maureen Dowd cites in this piece.

. . . if you start crying “racist” every time Obama is criticised then he will be in danger of being marginalised as "the Black President."

Calling critics of Obama racist is this way can all too easily be a way of trying to make all criticism of Obama a kind of hate speech. That’s no way of conducting a free and open debate.

The good news is that we're making progress. As you can see by these posts, the enemy's battle plan is faltering. They scream racist and we don't fall down and go away like we're supposed to. Fortunately for America, they aren't good generals and can't read the changing face of the battlefield. They won't look for something else because they still have confidence this is a great plan.

Oh, yeah, and they have nothing else.

The left's reaction to the events of 9/12 point out two blatant and transparent dishonesties in their argument:

Were we racists when we vehemently opposed the same policies from white idiots?

Were the democrats racist when they shriek their vitriol at Bush?

None of the "angry mobs" the left is shrieking about ever came close to the incivility with which the left treated Bush.

Honestly, there's a cartoon in here somewhere. There are two cartoons. One of them is me desperately looking everywhere for the cartoon while it's standing behind me tapping me on the shoulder. The other one is . . . I'm not sure. The liberals madly digging and giving us crap for not helping, all the not realizing it's their own graves? Obama's urging us to row toward the waterfall, the left is berating us for rowing against them, but they're going to go over the falls, too?

---

Editor's note: a great mind thinking alike actually did come up with that.

---

You have to be somewhat disturbed by Soviet-style suppression of information that's going on. The rally in DC was reported on page 33 of the newspaper. The front page story was something about a drum they beat to wake you up to eat before dawn because it's Ramadingdong. They reported there were "thousands" of people. There were at least 500,000 people (based on density maps of the mall), maybe as many as 950,000. That's at least twice as many as they had at the "million man march."

Uh, oh, there it is. The wall. My political electrolytes just ran out. If you gave a crap you would have already informed yourself.

We have a winner. Once again, Bill Maher has proven the dangers of chewing lead paint as a child. Not content with being the ugliest human on television, Bill Maher has expanded the bounds of stupidity with his latest blind sniffing of Obama's shorts.

As an instance of "what I mean by subliminally racist," Maher displayed on screen an actual DrudgeReport.com headline beneath a photo of Obama, "POLL HELL: OBAMA NEGS RISE." In quite a stretch, he implied the racist angle: "I just think for a certain number of people, when they see 'Negs Rise' . . ." He trailed off, leaving viewers to imagine how he presumes "a certain number of people" will translate those words.

In a completely unrelated story, I'm going to start using the abbreviation "negs" as much as I possibly can.

Those who follow politics in America fall into one of three camps. First there is Obama and all those who share his view of what America should be. Fortunately for our country, that comprises a tiny group.

Second, we have those who do not share Obama's ideology and oppose his efforts to force it on us.

The third group consists of Obama sycophants who have no ideology of their own but recklessly fight anyone who opposes their idol.

To a certain extent the Obama supporters are just a victim of their youth. The culture they are growing up in has given them a skewed perspective on the world.

What we're dealing with is an entire generation of people who have never uttered the words "Her butt is just too small."

Explain to me again how we're not in the middle of a Civil War?

Barack Obama's own campaign web site, Organizing for America, thinks that we're domestic terrorists. Interestingly enough, as Robert Moon points out in this excellent article, while refusing to acknowledge that we're at war with actual terrorists.

Obama's message is that:

“All 50 States are coordinating in this – as we fight back against our own Right-Wing Domestic Terrorists who are subverting the American Democratic Process, whipped to a frenzy by their Fox Propaganda Network ceaselessly re-seizing power for their treacherous leaders.”

I especially like the part about how expressing your opinion is subverting the democratic process.

The site removed the page, but not before he got a screen capture of it.

You can find another excellent article about it right here.

But you well-meaning dupes (WMDs) don't worry your little heads about it. I'm sure none of your rights are going to be trampled (as long as you're still useful).

This subject deserves a lot more discussion than I'm going to give it. I have a bunch of notes that I'm still sorting through to present in some kind of coherent way, but honestly, I'm just beat right down to my soul.

It's time for a re-evaluation of my role here. Many people deliver this message better than I do. If you cared, you already went to Glenn Beck's site or read the myriad of articles about whatever you're looking for.

But this incident struck me as a perfect encapsulation of the points of view. A little background. A friend loaned me a movie that was made in 1934 by Hitler's propaganda ministry. He had just taken over the two posts after the death of von Hindenburg, and needed a way to get the country fired up about this relatively new National Socialist party. This long, and very slow film, has footage of Hitler in a motorcade with people lining the streets, hand raised in the Hitler salute, screaming Heil Hitler. It showed the boys in the Hitler Youth camps being turned into good little citizens of the third reich.

So that's what I had on my mind that morning. Then I saw this film that was shown to school children.(puke alert!)

Actually, the most horrific thing about this video is the number of total babes that I'll never be able to look at again without puking. But please help me understand why I shouldn't be freaked out about someone wanting my child to pledge "to be a servant to our President."

The abolition of 21st century slavery? What? Get a job, you losers.

You need to read the article about it, including some of the comments, then read the article about the article.

The point I'm trying to make here is the two different ways of looking at it. You have the group that sees it as indoctrination. Then you have the "lighten up" group who think that it's harmless.

You're going to be seeing that a lot. Taking over GM? Lighten up. Nationalizing health care? Don't over-react. Organizing to prevent conservatives from expressing their opinio? What's the big deal?

When Obama indoctrinate the children next Tuesday, schools are offering an alternative because so many parents don't want Chairman Omao-ma getting at their kids. Again, it's the perfect snapshot of our Civil War.

That's it. I'm too bored to continue. Either you get it or you never will (at least not before it's too late).

But if Obama restricts his remarks to education and not re-education, it truly will be a historic event.