Archive for the ‘“Civility”’ Category

From UK Daily Mail:

Responding to an angry constituent’s letter about the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama allegedly used a sexually charged derogatory term referring to members of the Tea Party movement.

Thomas Ritter, a fifth-grade school teacher from Irving, Texas, has sent the president a note criticizing Obamacare – the controversial law offering health care to the uninsured, which has become the butt of jokes following a disastrous launch last month.

‘This bill has caused such a ­divisive, derisive and toxic environment… The reality is that any citizen that disagrees with your ­administration is targeted and ridiculed,’ the Texas man wrote to the commander-in-chief.

“Allegedly”… in his own handwriting:

obama teabagger letter 1obama teabagger letter 2

There are a couple things here to really look at.

The first is that he casually tosses around the term “teabagger”, because as Mary Katherine Ham at HotAir notes – he’s either using it to annoy the guy who wrote the letter further, or Obama’s in a bubble where everyone uses it, so it means nothing to him.

The second is that he equates “teabagger” as being on the same level as socialist as name-calling.  “Teabagger” is a pejorative description given by leftists to Tea Partiers, referencing “teabagging”, which if you don’t know what it is, well, here’s a hint:

dog tennis balls

Because people who want limitations on government, less government spending on wasteful programs, reduction of regulation and government interference in business and private life, and in general prefer a government that respects the individual and leaves them alone are of course synonymous with this:

dog tennis balls 2

Socialist isn’t an insult, yet the president puts it in quotes to imply that it is.  It’s a description of an ideology and political philosophy.  It’s what someone who favors more government and more government interference in private life believes in.  Things like government controlling certain aspects of the market for “the greater good”, and government “spreading the wealth around” are all socialist ideals.

Of course the president knows this, but much like Hillary saying in 2007 or so that she didn’t thing of herself as a liberal but as a “modern progressive”, it’s because the American people understand on an intrinsic level that socialism is bad – it’s anathema to the American way of life, and people who live under socialist rule quickly find out it’s not something they like.  (The same is very true of Progressives, but most folks don’t think of Progressives as the vile war-mongering alcohol-prohibitionist eugenicists they were – it’s a name game.)  People who on the surface are socially lefty and like the idea of government doing one thing or another rapidly get sick of it when they find out they can’t buy raw milk, or can’t order foie gras, or find out there are regulations on their own behaviors that they object to.  There are those who really are socialists and believe that “the greater good” means restricting people from 20 oz sodas, but even the brainwashed modern liberal begins to see that this stuff is tyranny.  And the casual modern liberal suddenly sees that socialism isn’t liberal at all.

Which all goes to why Obama is mocking the term socialist.  He puts it in quotes and equates it to “teabagger” because he’s trying to maximize criticisms of his critics while walking himself towards the middle by saying his own socialist policies aren’t “socialist” and those are just names thrown around by partisans.  Saying he’s a socialist isn’t namecalling – it’s looking at his history, statements, policies and deeds and saying he is what he is.

That’s why to him, it’s okay to force people to buy health insurance, and for government to create winners and losers – because socialists believe that some people shouldn’t win and other people shouldn’t lose – so they’ll use the government’s gun to the heads of the successful to pay for the mistakes of the unsuccessful – thereby harming both parties by subsidizing failure and disincentivizing success.

Everyone loses except the socialist, who is the fair redistributor.  If you’re a socialist, it’s much more convenient to use Alinksy’s rule of mockery to make fun of people for calling you a socialist – so they won’t recognize you for what you are.

The FSA [Free-Shit Army] strikes at two Wal-Marts in Louisiana courtesy of CBS news.

Wal-Marts in Springhill and Mansfield were ransacked by EBT users attempting to take advantage of the two store’s hospitality of allowing the users to use their cards even though the EBT debit system was down and there was no way to validate a balance on any specific card. Springhill police chief Will Lynd explained one such situation:

… the cards weren’t showing limits and they called corporate Walmart, whose spokesman  said to let the people use the cards anyway. From 7 to 9 p.m., people were loading up their carts, but when the cards began showing limits again around 9, one woman was detained because she rang up a bill of $700.00 and only had .49 on her card. She was held by police until corporate Walmart said they wouldn’t press charges if she left the food.

Providing for her family, or just plain looting? Tough to say either way unless you consider the mind of an average member of the FSA. They think anything and everything should come with out cost. From Healthcare to Obamaphones these people want MOAR!

moarNever mind the taxpayers footing the bill that’s what they want. Here is a further example of the behavior of FSA members:

Amateur video taken on shoppers’ cell phones shows dozens of shopping carts, piled high with merchandise, abandoned in the aisles of one Walmart after the announcement was made that EBT cards were once again showing accurate spending limits.

So now that our cards show a balance that doesn’t cover what we are “buying” let’s get the hell out of Dodge. Once the rules of trading have been reestablished, as usual, the FSA retreats in haste to its previous position.

There were people present who actually called this situation exactly as they saw it:

Shopper Stan Garcia was more critical of the unscrupulous shoppers, however, saying that taking advantage of the brief glitch in the benefits system amounted to “… plain theft. That’s stealing, that’s all I got to say about it.”

Agreed Stan, if you don’t have the cash you shouldn’t get the goods.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Heard it on the radio this morning.  Then saw it across the web today.  At Jawa Report & Gateway Pundit, they note that Amber Alert was down, but Michelle Obama’s website for kids eating is up.

I’m posting now at 1139 CST, and the DOJ’s Amber Alert is back up, only after scrutiny and pressure… and “bad press and confusion“.

After being taken down, officially because of the government shutdown, the federal website dealing with alerts about abducted children – AmberAlert.gov – was restored Monday morning.

Even lying Democrats can’t get away with saying they’re the party of compassion when Harry Reid justifies specifically denying kids medical treatment and Eric Holder’s DOJ kills the Amber Alert system for missing children out of spite.

From NBC in DC:

Like the hundreds of World War II veterans who came to National Mall to pay their respects this week, a group of Vietnam veterans found a barricade blocking the way to their memorial Friday. News4’s Mark Segraves said two U.S. Park Service Rangers manning the gate asked that the group respect the government’s shutdown but moved aside.

Segraves described the exchange as pleasant and respectful.

The veterans then moved the barricade and walked down to the wall to pay their respects. But a flood of tourists followed even though the memorial is closed to the general public.

“The consensus among the group of Vietnam veterans was we’re going to go anyway. We’ll go through the barricade,” North Carolina resident Reid Mendenhall said.

U.S. Park Police arrive to the scene, asked everyone to leave and put the barricade back into place.

First the WW2 Memorial, now The Wall That Heals is being used by Obama to inflict the most pain possible during the shutdown.  As the Park Service official quoted before said: “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can.  It’s disgusting.”

vietnam wall

Barack Obama

vietnam wall park police

obama smiling

Update: Drudge just picked up the story from Weekly Standard, who got it from Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection, who picked it up from us here.  Thanks for helping get the story out and thanks for the link, Professor!

First, a good visual, via AP at HotAir; from the leftist New Republic:

new republic yeltsin

Their story from The New Republic is here, and is a phenomenal example of the blind leftist desire for tyranny:

What is a president in a presidential constitutional republic to do when faced with an intransigent, bull-headed faction among his people’s representatives?

Syria’s a presidential constitutional republic.  Is the answer “nerve gas civilians”?

Well, Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s first democratically elected president, was once faced with a similar situation exactly 20 years ago, in October 1993. The parliament, then called the Supreme Soviet, was increasingly against Yeltsin’s neoliberal economic reforms (suggested to him by young Western advisors like Jeffrey Sachs). On one hand, these reforms freed up the old Soviet command economy.

So, Yeltsin was pushing for a reform that would break up a command economy, where government would no longer dictate how and where money will be spent.  Meanwhile, in Soviet America, Obama is pushing for a reform that will institute a command economy, where government dictates who and where money will be spent.

Yeltsin was pushing for reforms against state control, Obama is pushing for state control.

On the other, they drove the country into chaos and violence, and left tens of millions impoverished, their savings nullified by skyrocketing inflation.

I guess Yeltsin should’ve had Ben Bernanke doing some Quantitative Easing to hide the inflation a bit better.

The parliament, dominated by old Soviet conservatives, was increasingly against these reforms and refused to confirm Yeltsin’s key economic advisor.

In Soviet Russia, conservatives stand for crushing citizens with government!  In Soviet America, conservatives are terrorists and anarchists against government!

Almost exactly 20 years ago, he dissolved parliament. The vice president and the speaker of the parliament dissolved Yeltsin’s presidency, and holed up with their supporters in the parliament’s headquarters, now known as “the White House.”

Then Yeltsin did this to it.

1993 russia parliament

Oh, yes.  So The New Republic wants Obama to burn down the capitol building and dissolve congress and eliminate the representatives of the people so he can enact his “reforms” which create a command economy with regards to the health of every citizen.  It’s a bill that the Ruling Class exempts itself from (you really think Obama will be on Obamacare?), and which was pushed through without being read – passed so you can find out what’s in it rather than read it – by shady procedures in the middle of the night by a Democrat party that didn’t listen at all to what the people wanted, and the same Democrat party that knows Obamacare will fail the citizenry but knows it’s only a tool so it can be used institute a government-controlled single payer system.

On the other side of the Ruling Class statist coin, The National Interest, which seems today to mostly be a Ruling Class statist publication where party isn’t that important (with neocons it rarely is), asks “Is It Time To Abolish Congress?

-

So, DC insiders on both the left and the right are asking if the people’s representatives should simply be done away with so the great leader can get on with his business of creating a command economy against the will of the citizenry.

Congress is representing their constituents, who vehemently oppose the Obamacare mandate and taxation.

-

When faced with an intransigent, bull-headed governing body, the Founding Fathers did this:

stand your ground lexington concord 2

Yesterday we brought up KU professor David “Death to Your Kids” Guth, but that’s not the only leftist wishing death to children.

California Democrat party communications chair Allan Brauer wished death to Ted Cruz’s staff and their children:

california dem wishes death to ted cruz

He and other Cali Dems apologized by saying that his kind of rhetoric distracts from the discussion of how evil Ted Cruz and Ted Cruz-like people are, so he’s sorry that people missed sight of hating Ted Cruz.

But in a tweet collected here, it’s easy to see what the problem is:

california dem wishes death to ted cruz 2

He’s doing the same thing that Alinksyites always do.  They polarize the problem and then stalwartly refuse to accept that there is any other side but theirs.  They are the angels, the other side are demons, and they must act, and act now against the demons.  They dehumanize and hate their opponents, and they will do anything to win and destroy and kill their political opponents.

Allan “Death to Your Children Tapeworms That Slithered Out of Your Asshole” Brauer is not only is he a violent cretin, he’s a ignoramus.

The Republican party doesn’t take bread from the mouths of starving children and medicine from the sick.  It asks: Why should someone who’s worked hard to provide food for their children and medicine for their own sick have government’s gun shoved in their face and be forced to provide food and medicine for those who don’t prepare?  Why is the ant being robbed by the government to provide for the grasshopper?

The ant has a natural right to the property earned by his labor, yet the emotional Democrat maniac sees Person A need, often whose life choices have undoubtedly taken some part in getting them to their crappy situation (or whose parents life choices have) and decides that Person B, who lives three states away and is working to take care of his own family, children, and friends, should have IRS Agent Z take money from Person B’s pocket, food from his table, and create a health-care system that penalizes Person B in order to provide for Person A.  Person B has been declared to owe Person A, while Person A has done nothing but exist and fail at life, and the Democrat solution is to subsidize failure rather than allow Person A to learn from mistakes.

IRS Agent Z and Democrat Candidate Y can claim moral superiority for feeding the poor and providing for the sick, but they do so by robbing from Person B (and of course buying Person A’s vote with handouts).  When Person B objects and elects Candidate C to represent him, IRS Agent Z and Democrat Y go after them for being “pubic lice whose asshole-slithering tapeworms need to die” because they want to keep more of the products of their own labor, and want to know where this debt to Person A came from.

There is no rational response.  There is either some gibbering about nebulous “social contracts” which are non-existent and then a whole lot of rage and hate from the would-be masters against the questioning workers.

Brauer’s rage is based on a completely false premise, but one that cannot be corrected because he has chosen his targets, he has polarized them, he has frozen them, and he is on the side of the angels and they the demons.  So of course their children must die.

The left always says they want things like gun control  or health care “for the children”, but they sure do want them to die.

First, from a journalism professor at the University of Kansas:

ku prof nra death to children

First off, he’s wishing death to children, because somehow he’s decided that the children of NRA members are deserving of death.  Why?  Because he has assigned blame for the actions of a murdering madman in DC (a gun-free zone, remember) to the NRA.  “Journalism” professor David Guth clearly does not understand that the NRA is an anti-murder organization.  The NRA offers training for John Q. Public and Officer Murphy alike in order to help provide them with self-defense skills to avoid being murdered.  But Guth is one of those enlightened, anointed intellectuals to whom “guns are bad, m’kay”, and thus any organization which is pro-gun must also be held accountable for the actions of anyone using a gun.  Sort of like blaming Boeing for 9/11.

Second, it’s idiotic in a practical way.  As a leftist, he’s blaming the NRA for the actions of a madman and feels that the NRA is responsible, feeling that the NRA’s push for self defense rights are the reason murders happen.  The problem here is that if NRA members have their way, madmen are stopped PDQ.  The NRA’s School Shield program offers training and assistance to any school that wants to have an active defense.  There have been a few schools in states like UT and TX that have started offering the ability for teachers to carry firearms at school, which offers an immediate response to a madman.  Liviu Librescu saved a lot of kids by sacrificing himself to barricade a door, a courageous and selfless act of a hero.  But Nick Meli saved a lot of people by presenting an armed threat to a madman and didn’t have to sacrifice himself.  Thing is, this journalism professor is angry, but he can’t even see that if the NRA gets its way (which he hates), then the children of NRA members won’t have to deal with this threat at all.

He is demonstrating the leftist media-academia mentality of feeling over thought.  He wants people to feel pain because he thinks all it takes is for them to feel and they’ll come to his side and share his feeling, that guns are bad, m’kay.  It’s flawed to begin with, rests on an infantile understanding of human nature, and is not just reprehensible, but bonesnappingly stupid.  It’s also entirely impossible for him to understand that the real problem is that good people are left defenseless, and beyond the madman, fault lies with those who left good people defenselessDr. Suzanna Hupp explained this to congress once, but not all of them listened.

Also, last I checked, God is probably more likely to damn people who wish death to others’ children, but maybe Guth stopped reading right around the part with Pharoah not letting people go, and he didn’t understand what the other warnings like the frogs were about.

Or he could be a leftist lunatic who wants your kids to die for revenge so you can feel pain.

He’s been placed on administrative leave, but he defends his words.

Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little on Friday issued a statement regarding Associate Professor of Journalism David Guth.

“In order to prevent disruptions to the learning environment for students, the School of Journalism and the university, I have directed Provost Jeffrey Vitter to place Associate Professor Guth on indefinite administrative leave pending a review of the entire situation. Professor Guth’s classes will be taught by other faculty members,” Gray-Little said in the statement.

That’s a start.  The Kansas Senate majority leader is calling for his removal.   But Professor “Death to Your Kids” doubled down by defending his words by saying you’re too stupid to understand him.

‘If you look at how I structured the statement, I didn’t really bring [the NRA’s) children into it,” he said. “I carefully structured the statement to make it conditional, but apparently it was too much of a nuance for some people.”  Guth went on to say, “I don’t want anybody harmed. If somebody’s going to be harmed, maybe it ought to be the people who believe that guns are so precious that it’s worth spilling blood over.”

It takes work to lie that much.

He posts his explanation on his blog that make things even more clear.  First off, he’s wearing a Maryland shirt, which makes a lot of sense.  Most Kansans, even the leftiest leftist in Lawrence, aren’t liable to become his brand of violent, hate-filled idiot.

I am angry, frustrated, sad and determined.  The news of the senseless slaughter today at Washington’s Navy Yard has me again questioning how we can let this madness continue.  Frankly, I don’t care if I am criticized for being too quick to judge, too harsh in my criticism or too strident in my tone. The time has passed for niceties and tact. The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.  I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this. One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh. Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens. Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says.  But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits. A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.  I don’t wish what happened today on anyone.  But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat. Those fools don’t get it. If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point. There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets. In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security. Enough is enough. Lynn Jenkins, my congressional representative, is going to hear from me.  And if she fails to support reasonable restrictions on these murderous munitions, I am going to give my money and vote to someone who will.  There are two sides to this debate: The side of angels and the NRA. Where do you stand?
X
That’s it for now. Fear the Turtle

This is worth dissecting because it’s such a wonderful raging microcosm of the singular leftist anti-gun worldview.  The senseless slaughter at the DC Naval Yard was perpetrated by a madman who ignored laws against murder.  The madman killed a guard and killed people with the dead guard’s sidearm.  The madman had secret clearance and authorization to be on base and worked there, in that gun free zone.  He was also an avid video gamer (note this is just to illustrate a point, not a statement about video games).  Some of the earliest FPS games start with a player with a knife who needs to kill a guard to acquire better weaponry.

wolfenstein knife

It’s not a difficult concept, and it’s how the DC Naval Yard shooter was able to double or triple his available weapons in a matter of a moment.  As someone who was authorized to be there and familiar to people on base, he could’ve just stabbed the guard.

Point being, a madman with access to a weapons-free zone and desire to do harm can and will acquire a weapon.

The time has passed for niceties and tact.

 

Ah, a declaration apropos of nothing, and a justification for being an emotional twit.

The blood spilled today is on the hands of the National Rifle Association.

 

No, it’s not.  Again, a wild declaration with no connection to reality.

I don’t care how the NRA tries to spin this.

 

Translated: “I said something reprehensible and called for the murder of the children of my political enemies.  I will turn this on them by saying that they are misrepresenting my words and spreading lies about me.  Now I can accuse them of lying about me and claiming I called for God to damn them and death to their children.  Which I did.  But now my own words can be used against them, claiming they smeared me.  I am a clever journalism professor and no one can see through my veil of bullshit.  I am a genius.”

One fact is undeniable: The NRA has championed a gun culture that is shredding our nation’s moral authority like armor-plated bullets ripping through flesh.

 

Another wild declaration that is completely and 100% deniable because it’s dead wrong.  Gun culture doesn’t support murder, it supports self defense.  And bullets aren’t armor-plated, just in case you needed any more proof the prof is an ignorant fool.

Is that imagery too graphic for you? It is no worse than what we are seeing every night on our television screens.

 

Translation: “I’m saying this for shock value.  But you should be shocked at yourself!  Bwahaha!  I am so clever by saying horrible things while accusing you of being the horrible thing!”

Do our citizens have a right to bear arms? Certainly, that’s what the Constitution says.  But as it is with every other right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there are limits.

 

Translation: “Question I intend to tell you the correct answer to.  Lip service to gullible fools.  Rights only extend until I think that force should be applied to stop them and they offend me, which is whenever I feel like.”  End result, rights are meaningless, law is meaningless, the rule of man is all that’s important.

A person’s right to go about his or her job at the Navy Yard – or for that matter to attend an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut – trumps any individual’s right to stockpile weapons of mass destruction in the name of personal freedom.

 

There is no right to be safe anywhere.  There is a right for you to protect your safety, but there is no protection the government can grant that can make you safe.  You can be in a gun-free zone on a military base protected by guards and still get murdered.  As in the case with the DC Naval Yard and Fort Hood, by people who were trusted by the government.  Students at a school who are left undefended and unprotected are just a defenseless to madmen as they are to teachers who molest their students, or fires in buildings.  No amount of wishful thinking will make any of them go away.

Also, I don’t stockpile WMDs, and I don’t know anyone who does.  My local range wouldn’t let me use the one Trident II missile I bought at a gun show, so why should I stockpile more of them?  I need to find a new range because of it.  Freedom.  ‘Murica.

I don’t wish what happened today on anyone.

 

Translation: “I wish that on my political enemies who resist me and my ideas.”

But if it does happen again – and it likely will – may it happen to those misguided miscreants who suggest that today’s death toll at the Navy Yard would have been lower if the employees there were allowed to pack heat.

 

Like I just translated: “I wish that on my political enemies who resist me and my ideas.”

Those fools don’t get it.

 

Translation: “I don’t understand their point at all, so they must be fools.”  This is where that disconnect comes into play.  Conservatives do understand liberals, but not the other way around.

If the price of “security” is to turn every workplace into an environment that can erupt into a Dodge City-like shooting gallery with the slightest provocation, then we have really missed the point.

 

Then what was the point, prof?  Because yours is completely wrong, all your facts are wrong, and all your opinions based on those facts lead to failure and more wrongness.

The death toll absolutely would be lower when people can fight back.  It works every time it’s tried.  The only thing that’s guaranteed when people are disarmed is that the government will be armed.  In the short run, it means Major Nadal Hassan and Sergeant Hasan Akbar and Sergeant John Russell can kill at will, in the long run, it means Major General Vasili Blokhin can kill at will.

oleg volk responsible government agents liberals and dissidents

The price of security (no sarcastic quotes) is easily bought with armed citizens.  Police officers and law enforcement tend to be filled with people with massive egos, yet there aren’t gunfights in police stations every day.  Gun stores are filled with massive egos, yet gun stores don’t erupt into gunfights over .45 ACP vs 9mm arguments.

There is no justification for the widespread sale of assault weapons, high-volume magazines or hollow-point bullets

 

“Assault weapons and high volume magazines” are effective tools, but are no more evil than the people behind them.

A leftist crusading against hollow point bullets is again demonstrating he’s an idiot.  Hollow points allow for more effective energy transfer in a target.  Whether you’re blasting Bambi or a bad guy, they provide more immediate damage that results in “stopping power” by opening as they enter the target and destroying more inside.  The objective is to stop the threat (or not to injure a game animal and make it suffer).  Police carry hollow points for the same reason most citizens do – pistols are relatively weak when it comes to stopping people (you may kill an assailant with a .22 LR, but he may bleed out in an hour after he’s crushed your head with a brick), and hollow points allow for more effective expansion of the bullet and doing more immediate damage that will stop someone.  Often, pistols with hollow points won’t even penetrate far enough to kill, but they’ll wreck enough on the way in to stop someone – which is the point.

The sale of ARs, standard magazines, and hollow points, none of which were likely used by the DC Naval Yard shooter initially, and if he used a standard capacity magazine, it was only by killing a guard first (and the military tends to use FMJ rounds, not HP, because of better barrier penetration).  So that argument is meaningless again.

In fact, their sale is a well-documented threat to national security.

 

There is no “well documented national security threat”, except maybe in a Mother Jones op-ed.  Now, if a leftist wannabe tyrant gets his way into power and starts dictating to people how they must live, then they are… but arms in the hands of US citizens are only a threat to tyrannical regimes.

Enough is enough. Lynn Jenkins, my congressional representative, is going to hear from me.  And if she fails to support reasonable restrictions on these murderous munitions, I am going to give my money and vote to someone who will.

 

Bluster bluster bluster.  You just got her a lot more phone calls against your ideas than for.  You just energized the NRA and KSRA and other pro-gun groups.  Their whole ethos can be summed up with the saying on a Gadsden flag: Don’t Tread On Me.  They want to be left alone, and they will defend themselves.  That’s it.  They defend themselves against madmen and against political attackers both.  Leave them alone and they’re harmless.

He finishes with this very telling line.

There are two sides to this debate: The side of angels and the NRA. Where do you stand?

 

Where have I heard that before…

One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.

- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals