As the video description says:
"A conservative encounters an elitist liberal. A pleasant conversation ensues. This is that conversation."
The flat delivery of xtranormal's animated characters makes it that much more fun. Enjoy!
Showing posts with label Liberal Fascists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberal Fascists. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Friday, October 1, 2010
Eco-Daleks
I'm coining a new term today:
ECO-DALEK.
For those unfamiliar with Dr. Who, a Dalek is one of these:
Wikipedia entry here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalek
They're slow-moving, nigh-invulnerable aliens with one goal. To EXTERMINATE pretty much everything that isn't them. (They're also low-budget monsters with plungers for death rays, but they've got cultural staying power and some good story arcs.)
So what exactly is an Eco-Dalek? An environmentalist-ecoterrorist that believes in extermination of mankind for the sake of the planet.
(Alternately, they can be Enviro-Daleks.)
The bad guys in Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6 novel were representative of that. Obama's Science & Technology Czar, John Holdren, holds this view. He believes in forced abortions and mass sterilization by poisoning drinking water to exterminate the population in order to "save the planet". The concept of overpopulation by people overpopulation and consumption overpopulation also results in this view - where if there are too many poor, or rich who use too many resources, they must be exterminated.
In fact, most Malthusians think this way. Some educated idiots simply compare humans to bacteria while their projected malthusian catastrophes never happen. They know what's best for the planet, and the planet is the most important thing. So humanity has to start dying.
Of course, they believe that they are the chosen ones who should live since they're the best stewards of the land and know how to preserve and protect the planet. Everyone else must die, they must live, since they are perfect. It almost parallels Marxist doctrine of class enemies, but here the class enemies are based on piety to adherence to the doctrines of environmental mania and their leaders whether through advancement of the AGW cause or at least buying carbon indulgences. This is why Al Gore, with a mansion and jetsetting around the world as the prophet of Manbearpig, can be an absolute hypocrite (though he buys carbon credits from his own company). Al Gore, while he is the prophet of Manbearpig, doesn't seem to be an eco-dalek yet. He hasn't actually said "you should die". (Yet.)
Al Gore's brand is more of an enviro-statist. He's all for the government regulating your life until you're a subsistence farmer who doesn't harm the earth at all, or until you're simply hooked up to pods like in Matrix and fed bonemeal slurry Soylent Green from dead people so we don't even have to farm anymore.
This is his world:
A world where you submit to the eco-state. The state, of course, does whatever it likes. And of course, those who consume more are evil, those who consume less are good, so it's also a bit of watermelon environmentalism. Green on the outside, red on the inside. A dictatorial authoritiarian government will rule your life, for your own good. Alternately: Enviro-nazis.
The eco-dalek is something else.
Consider the following ad from the land that brought you 1984, Dr. Who and blood pudding:
This is a real ad. No, this is not a spoof by the Onion.
The UK Guardian has part of the story here. It's part of the 10:10 project, telling people they must reduce their carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.
Hotair has a good roundup of critical responses here.
You don't do what they "nudge", then they will EXTERMINATE!
For your own good, of course.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
ECO-DALEK.
For those unfamiliar with Dr. Who, a Dalek is one of these:
Wikipedia entry here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalek
They're slow-moving, nigh-invulnerable aliens with one goal. To EXTERMINATE pretty much everything that isn't them. (They're also low-budget monsters with plungers for death rays, but they've got cultural staying power and some good story arcs.)
So what exactly is an Eco-Dalek? An environmentalist-ecoterrorist that believes in extermination of mankind for the sake of the planet.
(Alternately, they can be Enviro-Daleks.)
The bad guys in Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6 novel were representative of that. Obama's Science & Technology Czar, John Holdren, holds this view. He believes in forced abortions and mass sterilization by poisoning drinking water to exterminate the population in order to "save the planet". The concept of overpopulation by people overpopulation and consumption overpopulation also results in this view - where if there are too many poor, or rich who use too many resources, they must be exterminated.
In fact, most Malthusians think this way. Some educated idiots simply compare humans to bacteria while their projected malthusian catastrophes never happen. They know what's best for the planet, and the planet is the most important thing. So humanity has to start dying.
Of course, they believe that they are the chosen ones who should live since they're the best stewards of the land and know how to preserve and protect the planet. Everyone else must die, they must live, since they are perfect. It almost parallels Marxist doctrine of class enemies, but here the class enemies are based on piety to adherence to the doctrines of environmental mania and their leaders whether through advancement of the AGW cause or at least buying carbon indulgences. This is why Al Gore, with a mansion and jetsetting around the world as the prophet of Manbearpig, can be an absolute hypocrite (though he buys carbon credits from his own company). Al Gore, while he is the prophet of Manbearpig, doesn't seem to be an eco-dalek yet. He hasn't actually said "you should die". (Yet.)
Al Gore's brand is more of an enviro-statist. He's all for the government regulating your life until you're a subsistence farmer who doesn't harm the earth at all, or until you're simply hooked up to pods like in Matrix and fed bonemeal slurry Soylent Green from dead people so we don't even have to farm anymore.
This is his world:
A world where you submit to the eco-state. The state, of course, does whatever it likes. And of course, those who consume more are evil, those who consume less are good, so it's also a bit of watermelon environmentalism. Green on the outside, red on the inside. A dictatorial authoritiarian government will rule your life, for your own good. Alternately: Enviro-nazis.
The eco-dalek is something else.
Consider the following ad from the land that brought you 1984, Dr. Who and blood pudding:
This is a real ad. No, this is not a spoof by the Onion.
The UK Guardian has part of the story here. It's part of the 10:10 project, telling people they must reduce their carbon emissions by 10% in 2010.
Hotair has a good roundup of critical responses here.
You don't do what they "nudge", then they will EXTERMINATE!
For your own good, of course.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
- C.S. Lewis
Al Gore merely wants to tell you how to live for your own good. He'll dictate how your life shall be, and you'll live as he tells you to. The eco-dalek tells you you should not live. He'll dictate that you must die for your own good.
Al Gore merely wants to tell you how to live for your own good. He'll dictate how your life shall be, and you'll live as he tells you to. The eco-dalek tells you you should not live. He'll dictate that you must die for your own good.
EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!
EXTERMINATE!
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Threat to Modern International Liberalism
Rush Limbaugh frequently comments on his show that the left will tell you who they're afraid of by who they demonize.
Charles Krauthammer (quoted in the last post), said this:
The last refuge of a liberal
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2010
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
Yesterday, the UK Independent posted this zany piece of tripe:
The threat to American conservatism
Monday, 30 August 2010
It is always tempting to home in on the absurdity of the Republican right in America, the almost comic quality of some of their views and the ludicrous nature of the accusations they hurl at President Barack Obama.
The paranoid and hate-filled world of the "birthers", the Tea Party people and all the rest is so alien to the British experience as to be incomprehensible. We tend not to take them seriously, or assume that the Republicans' constant lurch to the right inevitably renders them unelectable. We may be making a mistake. The huge size of the rally held in Washington at the weekend – where several hundred thousand people turned up to hear the Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck announce that America was "turning back to God" – provides further disturbing proof, if any were needed, of the growing popularity of the hard right.
The paranoid, hate-filled world of leftist Hillary supporter Philip Berg? Or is it because Obama brings up the birth certificate issue every time he gets the chance as a way to ridicule people he doesn't agree with? And what better way to address the birth certificate issue than to pass a law preventing it from being conclusively addressed? It's a funny soundbite on the surface, but since the long-form certificate has been hidden rather than shown to the public, it's just another indicator that transparency isn't valued at all by Obama. (Showing it would be a 5-minute solution to what the left claims is an issue.)
Tea Party hate? Oh, that's right, Brits do tend to be in favor of high taxes on the colonies. We've seen this before.
That means you, you snotty redcoat.
The root of the problem is in the second sentence, though. They "tend not to take seriously". Why? Because (haughty brit accent) these are peasants from the flyover states! Why should we take seriously the drivel that these know-nothing serfs prattle on about. They should be groveling at our magnificence at our wondrous ability to lead them into a glorious future, rather than resenting the grandeur that we have bequeathed to them. These chattering bucolic simpletons had best mind their manners when addressing their betters.
Whatever haughty Brit or snooty ex-pat wrote this, they don't have a clue. They revel in their ignorance. Quite literally - they ignore ideas that disagree with them in their ivory towers, and are annoyed when someone disagrees with them.
The reason their ivory towers run the way they do is because the conservative, provincial flyover states feed them, the blue-collar conservative worker builds their houses, and the baby-killer soldier they readily mock defends them. The elitist left exists in an artificial environment - which is why none of the left's ideas ever stand up to reality. They're like the stereotype of spoiled teenagers who think their parents fools, but who don't understand that their parents are the ones insulating them from the world.
The fact that the rally was held on the site where Martin Luther King made his "I have a dream" speech 47 years ago has caused offence among the heirs of King's civil rights movement, who resent Mr Beck's assertion that the two causes have much in common. But ructions from that quarter will do Mr Beck and fellow star turn Sarah Palin no harm among their supporters. It is more likely to do the opposite. Overwhelmingly white, conservative, rural and religious, their constant complaint that they "want their country back" is in part a thinly-veiled snipe at Mr Obama's race.
And Krauthammer is right again. "Overwhelmingly white" and sniping at race. So they're racists. Well, at least the left is consistently unoriginal.
From the stack labeled "Community Organizer Chest".
The problem with this is that American conservatives judge people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
American conservative values, as we've expounded upon here before, are based in conserving American virtues. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... Kinda important things that ultimately defuse racism rather than support it.
Now, did it cause offence to the heirs of the civil rights movement? Maybe if you consider people who engineer strife and hatred to keep their race-baiting going. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be out of business if they didn't keep racial resentments simmering.
Those who weren't heirs, but were actual movers in the civil rights movement seemed okay with it. MLK's niece, Alveda King, spoke at the rally.
Here on the other side of the Atlantic, we await two things: for so-called ordinary Americans to recoil from and disavow the right's toxic, divisive rhetoric; and for moderate Republicans to start re-asserting the very different traditions of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and George Bush senior, for that matter.
Toxic? Divisive? Lower my taxes is toxic? Divisive is "quit taking money from one group to give to another"? Really? Note the Independent has no actual "toxic, divisive" quotes to give. Since there aren't any.
Moderate republicans? Lincoln? Sure, he preserved the union. He also suspended habeus corpus. I guess that's sorta like the left. Strong central govt, individual rights don't matter in the face of "the greater good" and the modern left can use moral equivalents to Lincoln's actual war against slavery to justify their own abuse of individuals.
Eisenhower wasn't a moderate. He warned against the military industrial-complex expansion of government, as well as gigantic federal expansion in other sectors of public life. He espoused small-govt principles in his farewell speech. Watch:
And Bush Sr. was not a conservative. New world order, all that jazz.
Neither of those outcomes seems to be materialising. Centrist Republicans have become a marginalised minority in their own party – eclipsed and somehow out of place among people who have come to expect references to God's will to appear in almost every sentence. Meanwhile, Obama's fellow Democrats are heading towards mid-term elections in November in a mood of despondency, and expect a drubbing at the hands of their adrenaline-filled opponents.
The gulf from leftist statism to liberty is vast. Centrists are those willing to appease, who have no principles. The left - the international left - wants more centrists to cut down the power and autonomy of the American individual. The expansion of state control by Obama and his Mao-loving, genocidal, communist cohorts is something that the American people reject.
The left rejects religion, because it's an affront to worshipping the state. The Brit saying "people who have come to expect references to God's will to appear almost every sentence" is of the class that also says that God is not appropriate for a sacred spot.
The UK Independent sums up with this, praising Obama:
The man they chose as his successor remains what he was on day one; a decent, thoughtful patriot and a builder of bridges who still aspires to lead a country in which race is no longer the defining issue. He has given the country a measure of health reform and begun the process of disengagement from costly and unpopular military entanglements.
A decent, thoughtful, patriot and a builder of bridges who aspires to lead a country in which race is no longer the defining issue. He has given the country a measure of health reform and begun the process of disengagement from costly and unpopular military entanglements.
All true, provided you view evil as good and wrong as right.
Modern liberalism, both domestic and international, is threatened by the Tea Party, is threatened by folks like Glenn Beck and his Restoring Honor rally, and is threatened by people who believe in their own independence.
There's a socialist/communist anti-capitalist poster that says "the boss needs you, you don't need the boss".
This isn't quite representative of reality, as "the boss" is just an individual (or representative of a group of individuals) who's amassed enough capital to be able to employ you, the worker, to help him with production. Provided you're in control of your own sale of labor, you can change jobs if you like, build capital if you like, and potentially become the self-employed worker who exercises his own use of capital and doesn't need the boss, or be a boss. None of which is bad.
The free market individual who understands this has no reason to fear this propaganda piece, that, while strictly true, isn't representative of reality.
When applied like this: "the big government bureaucrat ruler needs you, you don't need the big government bureaucrat ruler" - it becomes a threat to bureaucrats both domestic and international. America was founded on less government - and every time big government is shown to be the failure it is - big government rulers get scared.
Rush is right on this. The left will tell you who they fear. They fear individuals who don't need them. They are at their wits end, as Krauthammer notes, and have reduced themselves to crying racism. The race card is maxed out. And we don't need the big government bureaucrat ruler. The left fears that.
Charles Krauthammer (quoted in the last post), said this:
The last refuge of a liberal
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2010
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
Yesterday, the UK Independent posted this zany piece of tripe:
The threat to American conservatism
Monday, 30 August 2010
It is always tempting to home in on the absurdity of the Republican right in America, the almost comic quality of some of their views and the ludicrous nature of the accusations they hurl at President Barack Obama.
The paranoid and hate-filled world of the "birthers", the Tea Party people and all the rest is so alien to the British experience as to be incomprehensible. We tend not to take them seriously, or assume that the Republicans' constant lurch to the right inevitably renders them unelectable. We may be making a mistake. The huge size of the rally held in Washington at the weekend – where several hundred thousand people turned up to hear the Fox News talk show host Glenn Beck announce that America was "turning back to God" – provides further disturbing proof, if any were needed, of the growing popularity of the hard right.
The paranoid, hate-filled world of leftist Hillary supporter Philip Berg? Or is it because Obama brings up the birth certificate issue every time he gets the chance as a way to ridicule people he doesn't agree with? And what better way to address the birth certificate issue than to pass a law preventing it from being conclusively addressed? It's a funny soundbite on the surface, but since the long-form certificate has been hidden rather than shown to the public, it's just another indicator that transparency isn't valued at all by Obama. (Showing it would be a 5-minute solution to what the left claims is an issue.)
That part about "we don't control control every branch" sounded kinda ominous. As though he mentally punctuated it with "yet".
Tea Party hate? Oh, that's right, Brits do tend to be in favor of high taxes on the colonies. We've seen this before.
That means you, you snotty redcoat.The root of the problem is in the second sentence, though. They "tend not to take seriously". Why? Because (haughty brit accent) these are peasants from the flyover states! Why should we take seriously the drivel that these know-nothing serfs prattle on about. They should be groveling at our magnificence at our wondrous ability to lead them into a glorious future, rather than resenting the grandeur that we have bequeathed to them. These chattering bucolic simpletons had best mind their manners when addressing their betters.
Whatever haughty Brit or snooty ex-pat wrote this, they don't have a clue. They revel in their ignorance. Quite literally - they ignore ideas that disagree with them in their ivory towers, and are annoyed when someone disagrees with them.
The reason their ivory towers run the way they do is because the conservative, provincial flyover states feed them, the blue-collar conservative worker builds their houses, and the baby-killer soldier they readily mock defends them. The elitist left exists in an artificial environment - which is why none of the left's ideas ever stand up to reality. They're like the stereotype of spoiled teenagers who think their parents fools, but who don't understand that their parents are the ones insulating them from the world.
The fact that the rally was held on the site where Martin Luther King made his "I have a dream" speech 47 years ago has caused offence among the heirs of King's civil rights movement, who resent Mr Beck's assertion that the two causes have much in common. But ructions from that quarter will do Mr Beck and fellow star turn Sarah Palin no harm among their supporters. It is more likely to do the opposite. Overwhelmingly white, conservative, rural and religious, their constant complaint that they "want their country back" is in part a thinly-veiled snipe at Mr Obama's race.
And Krauthammer is right again. "Overwhelmingly white" and sniping at race. So they're racists. Well, at least the left is consistently unoriginal.
From the stack labeled "Community Organizer Chest".The problem with this is that American conservatives judge people based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
American conservative values, as we've expounded upon here before, are based in conserving American virtues. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... Kinda important things that ultimately defuse racism rather than support it.
Now, did it cause offence to the heirs of the civil rights movement? Maybe if you consider people who engineer strife and hatred to keep their race-baiting going. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be out of business if they didn't keep racial resentments simmering.
Those who weren't heirs, but were actual movers in the civil rights movement seemed okay with it. MLK's niece, Alveda King, spoke at the rally.
Here on the other side of the Atlantic, we await two things: for so-called ordinary Americans to recoil from and disavow the right's toxic, divisive rhetoric; and for moderate Republicans to start re-asserting the very different traditions of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and George Bush senior, for that matter.
Toxic? Divisive? Lower my taxes is toxic? Divisive is "quit taking money from one group to give to another"? Really? Note the Independent has no actual "toxic, divisive" quotes to give. Since there aren't any.
Moderate republicans? Lincoln? Sure, he preserved the union. He also suspended habeus corpus. I guess that's sorta like the left. Strong central govt, individual rights don't matter in the face of "the greater good" and the modern left can use moral equivalents to Lincoln's actual war against slavery to justify their own abuse of individuals.
Eisenhower wasn't a moderate. He warned against the military industrial-complex expansion of government, as well as gigantic federal expansion in other sectors of public life. He espoused small-govt principles in his farewell speech. Watch:
And Bush Sr. was not a conservative. New world order, all that jazz.
Neither of those outcomes seems to be materialising. Centrist Republicans have become a marginalised minority in their own party – eclipsed and somehow out of place among people who have come to expect references to God's will to appear in almost every sentence. Meanwhile, Obama's fellow Democrats are heading towards mid-term elections in November in a mood of despondency, and expect a drubbing at the hands of their adrenaline-filled opponents.
The gulf from leftist statism to liberty is vast. Centrists are those willing to appease, who have no principles. The left - the international left - wants more centrists to cut down the power and autonomy of the American individual. The expansion of state control by Obama and his Mao-loving, genocidal, communist cohorts is something that the American people reject.
The left rejects religion, because it's an affront to worshipping the state. The Brit saying "people who have come to expect references to God's will to appear almost every sentence" is of the class that also says that God is not appropriate for a sacred spot.
The UK Independent sums up with this, praising Obama:
The man they chose as his successor remains what he was on day one; a decent, thoughtful patriot and a builder of bridges who still aspires to lead a country in which race is no longer the defining issue. He has given the country a measure of health reform and begun the process of disengagement from costly and unpopular military entanglements.
A decent, thoughtful, patriot and a builder of bridges who aspires to lead a country in which race is no longer the defining issue. He has given the country a measure of health reform and begun the process of disengagement from costly and unpopular military entanglements.
All true, provided you view evil as good and wrong as right.
Modern liberalism, both domestic and international, is threatened by the Tea Party, is threatened by folks like Glenn Beck and his Restoring Honor rally, and is threatened by people who believe in their own independence.
There's a socialist/communist anti-capitalist poster that says "the boss needs you, you don't need the boss".
This isn't quite representative of reality, as "the boss" is just an individual (or representative of a group of individuals) who's amassed enough capital to be able to employ you, the worker, to help him with production. Provided you're in control of your own sale of labor, you can change jobs if you like, build capital if you like, and potentially become the self-employed worker who exercises his own use of capital and doesn't need the boss, or be a boss. None of which is bad.The free market individual who understands this has no reason to fear this propaganda piece, that, while strictly true, isn't representative of reality.
When applied like this: "the big government bureaucrat ruler needs you, you don't need the big government bureaucrat ruler" - it becomes a threat to bureaucrats both domestic and international. America was founded on less government - and every time big government is shown to be the failure it is - big government rulers get scared.
Rush is right on this. The left will tell you who they fear. They fear individuals who don't need them. They are at their wits end, as Krauthammer notes, and have reduced themselves to crying racism. The race card is maxed out. And we don't need the big government bureaucrat ruler. The left fears that.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Modern Liberalism, Oikophobia, and Projection
Charles Krauthammer has a good piece at the Washington Post about how modern liberalism (leftism) inevitably fails and seeks to blame those it would rule.
The last refuge of a liberal
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2010
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
It's an excellent piece, and I recommend reading it all at the link.
I'd planned on blogging about it yesterday, but good things come to those who wait, and now James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal has done a piece expounding on Krauthammer's column. Taranto explains how the modern liberal (leftist) is an oikophobe. This explains why self-identified liberals are intolerant of the people they profess to stand for, and share more in common with Soviet commissars who would never consider themselves the comrade of the "glorious" coal miner or wheat farmer.
Oikophobia
Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.
If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.
What is the nature of this contempt? In part it is the snobbery of the cognitive elite, exemplified by a recent New York Times Web column by Timothy Egan called "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings"--or by the viciousness directed at Sarah Palin, whose folksy demeanor and state-college background seem terribly déclassé not just to liberals but to a good number of conservatives in places like New York City.
In more cerebral moments, the elitists of the left invoke a kind of Marxism Lite to explain away opinions and values that run counter to their own. Thus Barack Obama's notorious remark to the effect that economic deprivation embitters the proles, so that they cling to guns and religion. (Ironically, Obama recently said through a spokesman that he is Christian.) Here's Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's labor secretary, explaining "The Anatomy of Intolerance" to readers of TalkingPointsMemo.com:
Now, one more smaller read to tie things in together and that's it. Reason Online had a column the other day talking about the history of The Big Lie, and how it was not supposed to be a tool for use by fascists, but a tool that had been used against them, as described by Hitler. In modern usage, it's the concept of The Big Lie that's important, not so much it's origin... until someone cites its origin incorrectly. But I digress... the important part is that the leftist founder of DailyKos has released a shitty new book and what it shows about the left.
Roger Ebert, Hypocrisy, and "the Big Lie" Michael C. Moynihan | August 26, 2010
As I observed on Twitter last night (which you would have known if you were following me), the strangest thing about Markos Moulitsas’s stupid new book American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right is that it is blurbed by David Coverdale, the leather-faced former Whitesnake front man. Quoth Mr. Tawney Kitaen, “American Taliban shines a blinding light on the conservative right’s dark agenda. Anyone who genuinely cares about America should read this book.”
For reference, he was saying "Screw them" about those two Americans hanging from the bridge.
James Taranto of WSJ (just read the whole thing already) finishes with this:
To the educated elite of the left, the Taliban and Islamic terrorists, soccer moms and Nascar dads are all the same, even though they're opposites. To the educated elite of the left, when they have to decide who the real bad guy is, oikophobia rules, and they tear down the American citizen who rejects the left's statist rule - be it absurd taxes or the left's de facto support of the advancement of a global caliphate.
Perhaps one quote by Moulitsas * makes this distinction more clear:
The military is perhaps the ideal society -- we worked hard but the Army took care of us in return. All our basic needs were met -- housing, food, and medical care. ... The Army taught me the very values that make us progressives -- community, opportunity, and investment in people and the future.
A regimented, structured society with a caste system where everyone wears the same clothing, everyone operates at the same time, where regulations are harshly enforced and grueling work is the norm? Where liberty and freedom are granted only by the grace of those of superior rank? The left does want a harshly statist society. They want to live in 1984. They want the state to rule them "for the greater good".
His freedom is slavery.
His ignorance is strength.
Moulitsas doesn't seem to understand that the military is voluntary. There is a great distinction between being conscripted into a socialist state with threat of prison just to be a citizen and voluntarily making one's personal liberty and even life secondary in order to keep your fellow countrymen safe.
But the left wants to be the ruling class and resent it when the country class tells them no. Anyone who doesn't submit to their grand scheme of a regimented society for the "greater good" is the problem. Anyone who opposes the country class is someone they ally with.
They are oikophobe bigots and tyrants, who accuse others of being bigoted tyrants if they resist. Projection.
*Of course, given that the left frequenly has liars who claim military service as street cred - like the liar Micah Wright, we're just assuming that Moulitsas was in the military. 20 mile road march and bleeding feet in boot camp? I find that claim highly dubious.
The last refuge of a liberal
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 27, 2010
Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."
That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.
It's an excellent piece, and I recommend reading it all at the link.
I'd planned on blogging about it yesterday, but good things come to those who wait, and now James Taranto at the Wall Street Journal has done a piece expounding on Krauthammer's column. Taranto explains how the modern liberal (leftist) is an oikophobe. This explains why self-identified liberals are intolerant of the people they profess to stand for, and share more in common with Soviet commissars who would never consider themselves the comrade of the "glorious" coal miner or wheat farmer.
Oikophobia
Why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.
If you think it's offensive for a Muslim group to exploit the 9/11 atrocity, you're an anti-Muslim bigot and un-American to boot. It is a claim so bizarre, so twisted, so utterly at odds with common sense that it's hard to believe anyone would assert it except as some sort of dark joke. Yet for the past few weeks, it has been put forward, apparently in all seriousness, by those who fancy themselves America's best and brightest, from the mayor of New York all the way down to Peter Beinart.
What accounts for this madness? Charles Krauthammer notes a pattern:
It's worth it to go back and read Krauthammer.What is the nature of this contempt? In part it is the snobbery of the cognitive elite, exemplified by a recent New York Times Web column by Timothy Egan called "Building a Nation of Know-Nothings"--or by the viciousness directed at Sarah Palin, whose folksy demeanor and state-college background seem terribly déclassé not just to liberals but to a good number of conservatives in places like New York City.
In more cerebral moments, the elitists of the left invoke a kind of Marxism Lite to explain away opinions and values that run counter to their own. Thus Barack Obama's notorious remark to the effect that economic deprivation embitters the proles, so that they cling to guns and religion. (Ironically, Obama recently said through a spokesman that he is Christian.) Here's Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's labor secretary, explaining "The Anatomy of Intolerance" to readers of TalkingPointsMemo.com:
Many Americans (and politicians who [sic] the polls) don't want a mosque at Manhattan's Ground Zero. . . .
Where is all this coming from?
It's called fear. When people are deeply anxious about holding on to their homes, their jobs, and their savings, they look for someone to blame. And all too often they find it in "the other"--in people who look or act differently, who come from foreign lands, who have what seem to be strange religions, who cross our borders illegally.So if some Americans are afraid of people "who have what seem to be strange religions," it must be a totally irrational reaction to "economic insecurity." It couldn't possibly have anything to do with an act of mass murder committed in the name of the religion in question.
And Reich doesn't just fail to see the obvious. He dehumanizes his fellow Americans by treating their values, feelings and opinions as no more than reflexive reactions to material conditions. Americans in fact are a very tolerant people. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, there was no serious backlash against Muslims. What makes them angry--what makes us angry--is the bigotry of the elites.
It's also worth it to read the whole thing here at the link.Now, one more smaller read to tie things in together and that's it. Reason Online had a column the other day talking about the history of The Big Lie, and how it was not supposed to be a tool for use by fascists, but a tool that had been used against them, as described by Hitler. In modern usage, it's the concept of The Big Lie that's important, not so much it's origin... until someone cites its origin incorrectly. But I digress... the important part is that the leftist founder of DailyKos has released a shitty new book and what it shows about the left.
Roger Ebert, Hypocrisy, and "the Big Lie" Michael C. Moynihan | August 26, 2010
As I observed on Twitter last night (which you would have known if you were following me), the strangest thing about Markos Moulitsas’s stupid new book American Taliban: How War, Sex, Sin, and Power Bind Jihadists and the Radical Right is that it is blurbed by David Coverdale, the leather-faced former Whitesnake front man. Quoth Mr. Tawney Kitaen, “American Taliban shines a blinding light on the conservative right’s dark agenda. Anyone who genuinely cares about America should read this book.”
The title of Moulitsas’ book is pretty self-explanatory, but according to the promotional materials provided by the publisher, the DailyKos founder “pulls no punches as he compares how the Republican Party and Islamic radicals maintain similar worldviews and tactics.” To my comrades on the left, congratulations on the acquisition of your very own Dinesh D’Souza. But today I noticed a few other effusive blurb writers praising the Republican-Taliban connection:
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow is, I am often told, a paragon of reason on cable news. Indeed, she opined to Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.): “Do you feel like it's possible to have a constructive debate, even about hot-button issues like abortion, like some of the other things that have attracted some of the most extreme rhetoric? Or do you feel like things have now been so heated, for so long, and there's been so many exaggerations that the prospects for civil discussion are dim?” Yes, purge the extreme, over-heated rhetoric from the debate...by providing a blurb for a book comparing the Republican Party to the Taliban! Because, as Maddow says, “It isn’t possible to understand American politics now without understanding the worldview and arguments of Markos Moulitsas.”
The book is called American Taliban, and it's every bit as stupid as you'd expect from Markos "Screw Them" Moulitsas. The bogus polls he cites are from pollsters he's suing because they manufactured data to suit his book. It's leftist propaganda. No surprise there.
For reference, he was saying "Screw them" about those two Americans hanging from the bridge.There is one important difference between the American oik and his European counterpart. American patriotism is not a blood-and-soil nationalism but an allegiance to a country based in an idea of enlightened universalism. Thus our oiks masquerade as--and may even believe themselves to be--superpatriots, more loyal to American principles than the vast majority of Americans, whom they denounce as "un-American" for feeling an attachment to their actual country as opposed to a collection of abstractions.
Yet the oiks' vision of themselves as an intellectual aristocracy violates the first American principle ever articulated: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . ."
This cannot be reconciled with the elitist notion that most men are economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite. Marxism Lite is not only false; it is, according to the American creed, self-evidently false. That is why the liberal elite finds Americans revolting.
This is how modern liberals (again, leftists) can accuse those who aren't leftists of being like the Taliban, of being closed-minded, of being haters, of being reactionary small-minded bigots. Simultaneously, the liberal can embrace the sharia-supporting Cordoba/Ground Zero Mosque, embracing their own open-mindedness by embracing islam, yet ignore women's and gay rights that they also claim to support. This is how the modern liberal can accuse everyone but them of being "economically insecure bitter clinging intolerant bigots who need to be governed by an educated elite" - just as Taranto says.To the educated elite of the left, the Taliban and Islamic terrorists, soccer moms and Nascar dads are all the same, even though they're opposites. To the educated elite of the left, when they have to decide who the real bad guy is, oikophobia rules, and they tear down the American citizen who rejects the left's statist rule - be it absurd taxes or the left's de facto support of the advancement of a global caliphate.
Perhaps one quote by Moulitsas * makes this distinction more clear:
The military is perhaps the ideal society -- we worked hard but the Army took care of us in return. All our basic needs were met -- housing, food, and medical care. ... The Army taught me the very values that make us progressives -- community, opportunity, and investment in people and the future.
A regimented, structured society with a caste system where everyone wears the same clothing, everyone operates at the same time, where regulations are harshly enforced and grueling work is the norm? Where liberty and freedom are granted only by the grace of those of superior rank? The left does want a harshly statist society. They want to live in 1984. They want the state to rule them "for the greater good".
His freedom is slavery.
His ignorance is strength.
Moulitsas doesn't seem to understand that the military is voluntary. There is a great distinction between being conscripted into a socialist state with threat of prison just to be a citizen and voluntarily making one's personal liberty and even life secondary in order to keep your fellow countrymen safe.
But the left wants to be the ruling class and resent it when the country class tells them no. Anyone who doesn't submit to their grand scheme of a regimented society for the "greater good" is the problem. Anyone who opposes the country class is someone they ally with.
They are oikophobe bigots and tyrants, who accuse others of being bigoted tyrants if they resist. Projection.
*Of course, given that the left frequenly has liars who claim military service as street cred - like the liar Micah Wright, we're just assuming that Moulitsas was in the military. 20 mile road march and bleeding feet in boot camp? I find that claim highly dubious.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
The Ruling Class vs. The Country Class
Angelo M. Codevilla has written an excellent piece over at American Spectator entitled
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution. It's an excellent read, though a bit long.
He divides the nation into two classes - a ruling class and a country class. The ruling class, is by and large, blue state-oriented, govt.-oriented, non-producers who believe they know what's best for everyone, and they should rule. The country class, is by and large, red-state oriented, private enterprise-oriented, producers who believe that individuals know what's best for themselves, and that individuals should rule themselves. The ruling class desires authority, the country class desires autonomy.
From Codevilla's piece:
Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct.
--
The point is this: though not one in a thousand of today's bipartisan ruling class ever heard of Adorno or McCloskey, much less can explain the Feuerbachian-Marxist notion that human judgments are "epiphenomenal" products of spiritual or material alienation, the notion that the common people's words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class. They absorbed it osmotically, second -- or thirdhand, from their education and from companions. Truly, after Barack Obama described his opponents' clinging to "God and guns" as a characteristic of inferior Americans, he justified himself by pointing out he had said "what everybody knows is true." Confident "knowledge" that "some of us, the ones who matter," have grasped truths that the common herd cannot, truths that direct us, truths the grasping of which entitles us to discount what the ruled say and to presume what they mean, made our Progressives into a class long before they took power.
---
2004 - both major candidates for president were members. Was there a conspiracy? No. They're just members of the same ruling class. The secret society is a coincidental symptom, the ruling class is the disease. Unless you're Alex Jones. Then they're all reptilians.
---
Caroll Quigley, historian and professor, who had an influence on Bill Clinton and his Rhodes Scholarship:
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
Quigley may have brought this up as part of his belief in conspiracy theories... or may have brought it up as a model of what an individual political party should do (as in the rapidly evolving idea that Obama's weaknesses are going to be exploited by Hillary Clinton in 2012, to the effect of unelecting Obama's overt radical leftism and electing Hillary's not-as-overt radical leftism). It ties in with the idea that there is a ruling class - a class that rules by patronage and pull.
It also backs up the idea that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties in the US, much less branches of those parties. With RINOs on one side and democrats on the other, it's a convincing case. With the illegal immigration debate in 2007 - where the ruling class of republicans and democrats were united against the country class - the people - it was made pretty apparent.
It's also why the media selected a RINO candidate for pres in 2008 - by choosing the one the ruling class approved of. McCain was and is a member of the ruling class. Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter, and especially Ron Paul, were not.
It's important to note that the media itself is part of the ruling class. Consider NPR's griping about the "Tyranny Of Constituency".
The NPR poll shows why individual House members wind up being more loyal to their own jigsaw piece of the national puzzle than to the national puzzle itself. Only their own micro-constituency can vote for them (or against them).
NPR considers it terrible when representatives actually represent the people who elected them, rather than go along with the national ruling (leftist) class.
National Public Radio promotional still from a telathon. Seen with sunglasses.
Unless you're Alex Jones, then this is pretty much all you see everywhere. Without the sunglasses.
--
But individuals with principles who adhere to them aren't rulers. Originialist judges don't rule on a whim. Constitutionalist legislators don't write things because they feel like it.
And there is a simple way to tell apart the ruling class from the country class.
I use what former Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Hupp said:
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
It's a litmus test for whether a politician is part of the ruling class. If they don't trust you with your own security, and if they don't trust you with physical power, they're ruling class. If they trust you, they're country class who work for you, the citizen. Even if they harbor some ambitions of the ruling class, they're still someone you can reason with, because at the basic physical level they believe in self-determination and individual autonomy.
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution. It's an excellent read, though a bit long.
He divides the nation into two classes - a ruling class and a country class. The ruling class, is by and large, blue state-oriented, govt.-oriented, non-producers who believe they know what's best for everyone, and they should rule. The country class, is by and large, red-state oriented, private enterprise-oriented, producers who believe that individuals know what's best for themselves, and that individuals should rule themselves. The ruling class desires authority, the country class desires autonomy.
From Codevilla's piece:
Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct.
--
The point is this: though not one in a thousand of today's bipartisan ruling class ever heard of Adorno or McCloskey, much less can explain the Feuerbachian-Marxist notion that human judgments are "epiphenomenal" products of spiritual or material alienation, the notion that the common people's words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class. They absorbed it osmotically, second -- or thirdhand, from their education and from companions. Truly, after Barack Obama described his opponents' clinging to "God and guns" as a characteristic of inferior Americans, he justified himself by pointing out he had said "what everybody knows is true." Confident "knowledge" that "some of us, the ones who matter," have grasped truths that the common herd cannot, truths that direct us, truths the grasping of which entitles us to discount what the ruled say and to presume what they mean, made our Progressives into a class long before they took power.
---
2004 - both major candidates for president were members. Was there a conspiracy? No. They're just members of the same ruling class. The secret society is a coincidental symptom, the ruling class is the disease. Unless you're Alex Jones. Then they're all reptilians.
---
Caroll Quigley, historian and professor, who had an influence on Bill Clinton and his Rhodes Scholarship:
"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
Quigley may have brought this up as part of his belief in conspiracy theories... or may have brought it up as a model of what an individual political party should do (as in the rapidly evolving idea that Obama's weaknesses are going to be exploited by Hillary Clinton in 2012, to the effect of unelecting Obama's overt radical leftism and electing Hillary's not-as-overt radical leftism). It ties in with the idea that there is a ruling class - a class that rules by patronage and pull.
It also backs up the idea that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties in the US, much less branches of those parties. With RINOs on one side and democrats on the other, it's a convincing case. With the illegal immigration debate in 2007 - where the ruling class of republicans and democrats were united against the country class - the people - it was made pretty apparent.
It's also why the media selected a RINO candidate for pres in 2008 - by choosing the one the ruling class approved of. McCain was and is a member of the ruling class. Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter, and especially Ron Paul, were not.
It's important to note that the media itself is part of the ruling class. Consider NPR's griping about the "Tyranny Of Constituency".
The NPR poll shows why individual House members wind up being more loyal to their own jigsaw piece of the national puzzle than to the national puzzle itself. Only their own micro-constituency can vote for them (or against them).
NPR considers it terrible when representatives actually represent the people who elected them, rather than go along with the national ruling (leftist) class.
National Public Radio promotional still from a telathon. Seen with sunglasses.Unless you're Alex Jones, then this is pretty much all you see everywhere. Without the sunglasses.
--
But individuals with principles who adhere to them aren't rulers. Originialist judges don't rule on a whim. Constitutionalist legislators don't write things because they feel like it.
And there is a simple way to tell apart the ruling class from the country class.
I use what former Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Hupp said:
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
It's a litmus test for whether a politician is part of the ruling class. If they don't trust you with your own security, and if they don't trust you with physical power, they're ruling class. If they trust you, they're country class who work for you, the citizen. Even if they harbor some ambitions of the ruling class, they're still someone you can reason with, because at the basic physical level they believe in self-determination and individual autonomy.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Boots
"...always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever."- George Orwell, 1984
"Our job is basically to keep the boot on the neck of British Petroleum."
- Interior Secretary Ken Salazar
I'm getting kinda sick of posting this guy.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Tea Party Tomorrow
Like a lot of folks on the libertarian/classic liberal/conservative end of the spectrum, I have to work tomorrow, so I probably won't be attending one. But for those who do, some motivation:
1.2 million or so at the last big march.
---
Watch out for leftists trying to marginalize and demonize you by infiltrating the Tea Party protests. First there was the union-funded Tea Party Is Over, now the Crash the Tea Parties groups, which are all about silencing you by marginalizing you.
Icon ganked from some leftist's posting. Standing for smaller govt = National Socialist Workers Party Member (Nazi)
They don't even realize Nazis are LEFTISTS.
Their plan, stated on their site, is to go out and shout the most outlandish, horrible things in order to discredit the Tea Parties. Basically to go out and do the kinds of behavior that the Tea Partiers (an orderly crowd) are already accused of by far-far-leftists.
1.2 million or so at the last big march.
---
Icon ganked from some leftist's posting. Standing for smaller govt = National Socialist Workers Party Member (Nazi)They don't even realize Nazis are LEFTISTS.
Their plan, stated on their site, is to go out and shout the most outlandish, horrible things in order to discredit the Tea Parties. Basically to go out and do the kinds of behavior that the Tea Partiers (an orderly crowd) are already accused of by far-far-leftists.
But we already know what's up:
Friday, March 26, 2010
Next Item On The Leftist Agenda Is...
A recent Rassmussen poll said 55% of the US supports a repeal of the govt. takeover of healthcare. So how can the leftists offset the minimum 55% of people who are going to remember and vote against them? By making people dependant on govt. handouts, they've already manufactured large numbers of voters in perpetuety who will never vote against the handouts they voted for themselves. So how to do it?
Add more voters, give them more handouts.
From The People's Cube
It's insulting to legal immigrants, it's insulting to citizens, it's especially insulting to those legal immigrants who've worked to acquire citizenship.
It makes for a new class of poor laborers who will be cheated by unscrupulous US employers, and it's a slap in the face of the 15.6% of Americans represented in the real unemployment rate. But so what? It's a shady way to keep them in power and destroy the character of the nation at the same time.
The character of the people will be changed - a shift will be made away from those immigrants who strive to earn their citizenship and the great respect that the average citizen has for their own nation.
But what's seen already on the left is a general disdain for the US - evidenced in the First Lady's comment during the campaign that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." It only took her husband being nominated as a presidential candidate to be proud of the US. She found nothing to be proud of about fighting a war to end slavery, wars overseas to protect human lives and thwart tyranny, internal conflicts every day in the legal system to ensure maximum liberty and strive to guarantee that everyone gets a fair trial; and a system of government and national character that push for the greatest freedom in the world on a day by day basis.
It's American exceptionalism that the left disdains and loathes. They aren't proud to be Americans, and think of it only as a ticket to enjoy the fruits of free people's labor. They push for world courts and global govt. to tell us how to live, they bow to dictators, and think nothing of using the force of government to take from the citizens of the US. Is it any wonder they wish to hand out citizenship to those who also disdain it? Is it any wonder they'd wish to disrespect legal immigrants who've worked hard to make it in the land of opportunity? Not really.
They go to church for twenty years and shout "G-d damn America!" They've already showed us their character.
Add more voters, give them more handouts.
From The People's CubeIt's insulting to legal immigrants, it's insulting to citizens, it's especially insulting to those legal immigrants who've worked to acquire citizenship.
It makes for a new class of poor laborers who will be cheated by unscrupulous US employers, and it's a slap in the face of the 15.6% of Americans represented in the real unemployment rate. But so what? It's a shady way to keep them in power and destroy the character of the nation at the same time.
The character of the people will be changed - a shift will be made away from those immigrants who strive to earn their citizenship and the great respect that the average citizen has for their own nation.
But what's seen already on the left is a general disdain for the US - evidenced in the First Lady's comment during the campaign that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." It only took her husband being nominated as a presidential candidate to be proud of the US. She found nothing to be proud of about fighting a war to end slavery, wars overseas to protect human lives and thwart tyranny, internal conflicts every day in the legal system to ensure maximum liberty and strive to guarantee that everyone gets a fair trial; and a system of government and national character that push for the greatest freedom in the world on a day by day basis.
It's American exceptionalism that the left disdains and loathes. They aren't proud to be Americans, and think of it only as a ticket to enjoy the fruits of free people's labor. They push for world courts and global govt. to tell us how to live, they bow to dictators, and think nothing of using the force of government to take from the citizens of the US. Is it any wonder they wish to hand out citizenship to those who also disdain it? Is it any wonder they'd wish to disrespect legal immigrants who've worked hard to make it in the land of opportunity? Not really.
They go to church for twenty years and shout "G-d damn America!" They've already showed us their character.
Monday, March 22, 2010
What Freedom Demands
What Freedom Demands
posted at 10:12 am on March 22, 2010 by Doctor Zero
Tonight, self-appointed wise men in Washington are steamrolling the objections of sixty to seventy percent of the population, and forcing a massive health-care bill down our throats “for our own good.” Presumably the backroom deals, corrupt payoffs, Congressional Budget Office accounting tricks, threats of unconstitutional parliamentary maneuvers, and betrayals of principle are also for our own good. What do you know? Banana republics turn out to be the highest evolution of government – the only form of the State equipped to take proper care of its citizens, by lying to them and trapping them in legislative cages over their howling protests.
Read it all here.
Some folks are already just saying no.
http://repealit.org/
---
“This is what change looks like.” - President Barack Hussein Obama 3/23/10
“To state the obvious this is a historic day... history is made when a leader's passion is married to principal.... Mr. President you are that leader." - Vice President Joe Biden 3/23/10
---
President Obama said last night this proves this is a government of the people, and by the people, except for the 55 percent of the people who opposed him. - Jay Leno, 3/22/10
posted at 10:12 am on March 22, 2010 by Doctor Zero
Tonight, self-appointed wise men in Washington are steamrolling the objections of sixty to seventy percent of the population, and forcing a massive health-care bill down our throats “for our own good.” Presumably the backroom deals, corrupt payoffs, Congressional Budget Office accounting tricks, threats of unconstitutional parliamentary maneuvers, and betrayals of principle are also for our own good. What do you know? Banana republics turn out to be the highest evolution of government – the only form of the State equipped to take proper care of its citizens, by lying to them and trapping them in legislative cages over their howling protests.
Read it all here.
Some folks are already just saying no.
http://repealit.org/
---
“This is what change looks like.” - President Barack Hussein Obama 3/23/10
“To state the obvious this is a historic day... history is made when a leader's passion is married to principal.... Mr. President you are that leader." - Vice President Joe Biden 3/23/10
---
President Obama said last night this proves this is a government of the people, and by the people, except for the 55 percent of the people who opposed him. - Jay Leno, 3/22/10
In Obama's America, Government Leads You!
Thursday, March 11, 2010
The Oathkeepers and The Left
The Oathkeepers are a group of US military, law enforcement, and govt. personnel who refuse to obey unlawful orders. The specific list of orders they'll refuse is here.
You'd think something like this declaration would be pretty well universally acknowledged as a good thing:
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
But you'd be wrong. Archleftist progressives over at Mother Jones take a page from the racist leftist SPLC's playbook and demonize a group of folks perceived as being on "the right". When did standing up for liberty against the government become so unfashionable? Oh, that's right... Jan 20, 2009.
You'd think that if the left wasn't all about rounding people up into camps, but like the socialists in that Union of Socialist Republics and the National Socialist's Worker's Party, this really irritates them. This vocal minority of Oathkeepers reflects a pretty substantial group of the military.
Robin From Berkeley over at American Thinker discusses the strange hatreds from the left here.
For those who think that uniformed services should simply submit to the dictates of a corrupt civilian govt., I submit The Battle of Athens, which I'm sure will be seen again on this blog.
You'd think something like this declaration would be pretty well universally acknowledged as a good thing:
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
But you'd be wrong. Archleftist progressives over at Mother Jones take a page from the racist leftist SPLC's playbook and demonize a group of folks perceived as being on "the right". When did standing up for liberty against the government become so unfashionable? Oh, that's right... Jan 20, 2009.
You'd think that if the left wasn't all about rounding people up into camps, but like the socialists in that Union of Socialist Republics and the National Socialist's Worker's Party, this really irritates them. This vocal minority of Oathkeepers reflects a pretty substantial group of the military.
Robin From Berkeley over at American Thinker discusses the strange hatreds from the left here.
For those who think that uniformed services should simply submit to the dictates of a corrupt civilian govt., I submit The Battle of Athens, which I'm sure will be seen again on this blog.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Health Care - The Big Picture Is Bureaucracy For Life
Mark Steyn lays out the case here.
Steyn continues:
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=525661
Yuri Bezmenov points out that it only takes 15 years to fundamentally change a society by subverting education, which results in a generation of children who think according to how they're taught. If you make a generation beholden to government, they won't think any different.
Thomas Sowell talks about how he and his wife paid for their first child's birth in installments, how they lived without health care, and how before employers were nigh mandated to provide health insurance, people paid for doctors' visits with their own money. Thomas Sowell is of a considerably older generation.
Like social security, like unemployment, like any of these other progressive social programs that redistribute wealth and are viewed as "good" by the newer generations, all it takes is one generation raised on the handout to accept it and make it that much more difficult to discard.
The imposition of the chains will be such that people will forget what it's like to live without them. They'll wonder how they'll take care of themselves without government to tell them how to live. Progressives/leftists/statists seek it because it makes themselves valuable, and gives them power over the people.
Works on the personal scale, the local scale, and the national scale.
"Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . " - Grover Cleveland
So there was President Obama giving his bazillionth speech on health care, droning yet again that "now is the hour when we must seize the moment," the same moment he's been seizing every day of the week for the past year, only this time his genius photo-op guys thought it would look good to have him surrounded by men in white coats.
Why is he doing this? Why let "health" "care" "reform" stagger on like the rotting husk in a low-grade creature feature who refuses to stay dead no matter how many stakes you pound through his chest?
Because it's worth it. Big time. I've been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture.
It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible.
...
Compassionate statism: "We shut down the business that employed you, but now we'll give you bread. We feel your pain. Don't you love what we for you do on your behalf? We put your doctor out of business, but we'll take care of you. Now get to the back of the line."
Steyn continues:
Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever expanding number of government jobs will be statists — sometimes hard-core Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily "compassionate" statists, but always statists.
The short history of the postwar welfare state is that you don't need a president-for-life if you've got a bureaucracy-for-life: The people can elect "conservatives," as the Germans have done and the British are about to do, and the left is mostly relaxed about it because, in all but exceptional cases (Thatcher), they fulfill the same function in the system as the first-year boys at wintry English boarding schools who for tuppence-ha'penny or some such would agree to go and warm the seat in the unheated lavatories until the prefects strolled in and took their rightful place.
Republicans are good at keeping the seat warm. A big-time GOP consultant was on TV crowing that Republicans wanted the Dems to pass ObamaCare because it's so unpopular it will guarantee a GOP sweep in November.
Okay, then what? You'll roll it back — like you've rolled back all those other unsustainable entitlements premised on cobwebbed actuarial tables from 80 years ago?
Like you've undone the Department of Education and of Energy and all the other nickel 'n' dime novelties of even a universally reviled one-term loser like Jimmy Carter?
Andrew McCarthy concluded a shrewd analysis of the political realities thus:
"Health care is a loser for the Left only if the Right has the steel to undo it. The Left is banking on an absence of steel. Why is that a bad bet?"
Read it all here:http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=525661
Yuri Bezmenov points out that it only takes 15 years to fundamentally change a society by subverting education, which results in a generation of children who think according to how they're taught. If you make a generation beholden to government, they won't think any different.
Thomas Sowell talks about how he and his wife paid for their first child's birth in installments, how they lived without health care, and how before employers were nigh mandated to provide health insurance, people paid for doctors' visits with their own money. Thomas Sowell is of a considerably older generation.
Like social security, like unemployment, like any of these other progressive social programs that redistribute wealth and are viewed as "good" by the newer generations, all it takes is one generation raised on the handout to accept it and make it that much more difficult to discard.
The imposition of the chains will be such that people will forget what it's like to live without them. They'll wonder how they'll take care of themselves without government to tell them how to live. Progressives/leftists/statists seek it because it makes themselves valuable, and gives them power over the people.
Works on the personal scale, the local scale, and the national scale.
"Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character. . . . " - Grover Cleveland
Friday, February 26, 2010
Reconciliation Barney Style
Let's say you want to pass a bill in the US Senate.
To start, a bill requires a majority to pass. It gets proposed and talked about in committees, then it goes to the floor.
In the senate, before they pass a bill, they have to talk about it. If someone wants to delay the vote, they can filibuster. A filibuster is the procedure by which the senate can talk as long as they like (resulting in hours of CSPAN programming of senators reading the newspaper) unless 2/3 votes for cloture. Except the democrats changed it to 3/5 of senators "duly chosen and sworn" in the 1970s. So you only need 60 votes to stop anyone from talking about a bill and push the bill to a vote. Those 60 votes are what's referred to as a "supermajority", because those 60 can override any filibuster and thus put any bill up for a vote and pass anything they wish.
The democrats, up until the election of Scott Brown, had a 60 vote supermajority. They could push any bill to a vote, overriding any filibusters or objections, and then simply pass them. The democrats, up until Scott Brown's election in Massachussetts, could've passed anything they wanted in the senate. Nothing procedurally stood in their way.
The American people, by the tens if not hundreds of millions, opposed the democrats' attempts at forcing government-run health care.
Just a few.
This resulted in a few democrats being unwilling to commit to a vote for health care, because they doubted they'd be reelected in their home districts. Thus there were specific payoffs included in the "health care" bill to provide money for the senators' home districts. Specifically the "Louisiana Purchase" to secure Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's (D) vote and the"Cornhusker Kickback" to secure Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson's (D) vote. The purpose of this pork was to help the senators counter their constituents' complaints by saying "look what I got for you".
Even then, the democrats couldn't get it together. Enough democrats were afraid for their own seats. They also may have been afraid of falling out of favor with the administration. Those who would be in favor with the administration might get some cushy job as a department secretary or an ambassador - something they could maintain their personal quality of life and status with.
So what's a democrat set on passing a bill whether the people want it or not to do? Reconciliation.
So what exactly is reconciliation? The short version is that you can pass a bill with 50 votes and ignore the filibuster. It's supposed to be primarily for tax bills.
It seems like it can lead to a tyranny of the majority, by simply overruling the minority. A lot of people oppose it.
Especially racist bigot hatemonger extremist right-wingnut rethuglican teabaggers who hate Obama like these racist bigot extremist right-wingnut rethuglican teabaggers:
Oh, wait.
I guess abuse of power only matters when it's republicans trying to confirm a judge using a rule the democrats created, rather than democrats trying to control 1/6th of the US economy, using the rule they created in the 1970s.
Liberal fascism in action.
To start, a bill requires a majority to pass. It gets proposed and talked about in committees, then it goes to the floor.
In the senate, before they pass a bill, they have to talk about it. If someone wants to delay the vote, they can filibuster. A filibuster is the procedure by which the senate can talk as long as they like (resulting in hours of CSPAN programming of senators reading the newspaper) unless 2/3 votes for cloture. Except the democrats changed it to 3/5 of senators "duly chosen and sworn" in the 1970s. So you only need 60 votes to stop anyone from talking about a bill and push the bill to a vote. Those 60 votes are what's referred to as a "supermajority", because those 60 can override any filibuster and thus put any bill up for a vote and pass anything they wish.
The democrats, up until the election of Scott Brown, had a 60 vote supermajority. They could push any bill to a vote, overriding any filibusters or objections, and then simply pass them. The democrats, up until Scott Brown's election in Massachussetts, could've passed anything they wanted in the senate. Nothing procedurally stood in their way.
The American people, by the tens if not hundreds of millions, opposed the democrats' attempts at forcing government-run health care.
Just a few.This resulted in a few democrats being unwilling to commit to a vote for health care, because they doubted they'd be reelected in their home districts. Thus there were specific payoffs included in the "health care" bill to provide money for the senators' home districts. Specifically the "Louisiana Purchase" to secure Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu's (D) vote and the"Cornhusker Kickback" to secure Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson's (D) vote. The purpose of this pork was to help the senators counter their constituents' complaints by saying "look what I got for you".
Even then, the democrats couldn't get it together. Enough democrats were afraid for their own seats. They also may have been afraid of falling out of favor with the administration. Those who would be in favor with the administration might get some cushy job as a department secretary or an ambassador - something they could maintain their personal quality of life and status with.
So what's a democrat set on passing a bill whether the people want it or not to do? Reconciliation.
So what exactly is reconciliation? The short version is that you can pass a bill with 50 votes and ignore the filibuster. It's supposed to be primarily for tax bills.
It seems like it can lead to a tyranny of the majority, by simply overruling the minority. A lot of people oppose it.
Especially racist bigot hatemonger extremist right-wingnut rethuglican teabaggers who hate Obama like these racist bigot extremist right-wingnut rethuglican teabaggers:
Oh, wait.
I guess abuse of power only matters when it's republicans trying to confirm a judge using a rule the democrats created, rather than democrats trying to control 1/6th of the US economy, using the rule they created in the 1970s.
Liberal fascism in action.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Google Is...
Christianity is bullshit.
Judaism is false.
Buddhism is wrong.
Hinduism is not a religion.
Islam is ________.
From "Blameitonthevoices".
Also posted at Jawa Report.
Check their links - they found it & disseminated it.
Then try it yourself. Just typed them in as of about 2130 CST 1/7/2010. These are screenshots I took just a few minutes before posting.
Islam is false, not a religion, and bullshit. See if you can find that, Google. Islam is good, peaceful, benevolent, and is not supportive of terrorism. Still nothing?
For a corporate motto that goes "Don't be evil," Google sure was okay with suppressing info about the Tiennamen Square Massacre, Climategate, and now Islam. Not just criticisms of Islam - stuff like: Islam is the cause for a huge amount of the world's terrorism, Islam is Bullshit, but also that Islam is Submission (factually correct), Islam is one of the world's major religions, or even that Islam is not Bullshit or Islam is a Religion of Peace or even Islam is Good. Positive sites about Islam are left out of the suggestions, too.
Nope, no suggestions whatsoever - except for the glaring contrast of other major religions.
Although, to be fair, typing in "Mohammed is" comes back with suggestions "a false prophet" and "the antichrist". The worst responses for "Jesus is", by contrast, come back with "my homeboy" and "just alright".
"Buddha is" comes back with a suggestion that seems like a koan.
Edited to add:
A commenter on Jawa noted that "the koran is" prompts some interesting responses. So before that's sanitized:
No "religionist Xs are" comes up with a response. "Christians are", "muslims are" come up with no suggestions. The reason for this is because "jews are" used to come up with some decidedly negative suggestions. Note that Google has had a problem with anti-semitic search results in the past.
Judaism is false.
Buddhism is wrong.
Hinduism is not a religion.
Islam is ________.
From "Blameitonthevoices".
Also posted at Jawa Report.
Check their links - they found it & disseminated it.
Then try it yourself. Just typed them in as of about 2130 CST 1/7/2010. These are screenshots I took just a few minutes before posting.
Islam is false, not a religion, and bullshit. See if you can find that, Google. Islam is good, peaceful, benevolent, and is not supportive of terrorism. Still nothing?
For a corporate motto that goes "Don't be evil," Google sure was okay with suppressing info about the Tiennamen Square Massacre, Climategate, and now Islam. Not just criticisms of Islam - stuff like: Islam is the cause for a huge amount of the world's terrorism, Islam is Bullshit, but also that Islam is Submission (factually correct), Islam is one of the world's major religions, or even that Islam is not Bullshit or Islam is a Religion of Peace or even Islam is Good. Positive sites about Islam are left out of the suggestions, too.
Nope, no suggestions whatsoever - except for the glaring contrast of other major religions.
Although, to be fair, typing in "Mohammed is" comes back with suggestions "a false prophet" and "the antichrist". The worst responses for "Jesus is", by contrast, come back with "my homeboy" and "just alright".
"Buddha is" comes back with a suggestion that seems like a koan.
Edited to add:
A commenter on Jawa noted that "the koran is" prompts some interesting responses. So before that's sanitized:
No "religionist Xs are" comes up with a response. "Christians are", "muslims are" come up with no suggestions. The reason for this is because "jews are" used to come up with some decidedly negative suggestions. Note that Google has had a problem with anti-semitic search results in the past.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Manbearpig vs. Sooners
Manbearpig cultists and profiteers who've made their academic careers based on grants they receive by issuing chicken little warnings, and the Al Goreans who are already investing in the "carbon credit" market of artificial currency are busily assaulting those who've called East Anglia on their bogus non-science.
Even (Un)Scientific American is getting in on the advocacy journalism:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-climategate-controversy
With all the "hot air" surrounding climate change discussions, none has been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. Longstanding contrarians, such as Sen. James Inhofe (R–Okla.), who famously dubbed climate change a "hoax" in a 2003 speech, has pointed to the stolen e-mails as information that overturns the scientific evidence for global warming and called on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to halt any development of regulation of greenhouse gases pending his investigation into the e-mails.
Now, there's something hidden in there that most folks outside of the central United States won't notice. Senator James Inhofe is from Oklahoma. A coworker from Oklahoma pointed out to me some time ago that global warming is simply ignored there. Anyone going on about global warming is treated much the same as someone who insists the moon is made of green cheese or that Lord of the Rings is real. They're simply dismissed as harmless, deluded, and as though they are "slow" children.
Why?
People in Oklahoma have, within living memory of their elders, seen their state obliterated by heat and turned into a desert overrun with locusts and jackrabbits. A major climactic shift took place there. The same holds true for parts of Kansas, Nebraska, and a few other swaths of the great plains.
They've seen natural climate change. While some types of farming practices contributed to the Dust Bowl, its existence didn't come solely from a relatively tiny population of farmers (relative to the landmass) with mules and plows, or even the few tractors, scarring the landscape.
It came from devastating drought.
There are such things as climactic shifts. They exist. Using better farming techniques and greater irrigation can and has lessened the impact of the smaller droughts since the Dust Bowl. But those whose state heritage is one of having lived through such a climactic shift are a lot more difficult to fool, especially when the statist/liberal fascist who knows what's best for us all is willing to lie to us and trick us in order to get their way.
Nor has the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect changed: CO2 in the atmosphere continues to trap heat that would otherwise slip into space, as was established by Irish scientist John Tyndall in 1859. "There is a natural greenhouse effect, that's what keeps the planet livable," noted climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) during a Friday conference call with reporters organized by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "Without it, we'd be 33 degrees Celsius colder than we are. That's been known for hundreds of years."
It's a good thing that the leftist advocacy groups haven't seized on medical science from the Civil War era, like they have on climate science. Well, except for rationing and triage for soldiers. But I digress...
Were it not for the natural greenhouse gases, the earth would be a lifeless ball of rock, according to the chosen scientists in a conference call with the Center for American Progress...
From DiscoverTheNetworks.org:
The Center For American Progress
The Center for American Progress (CAP) describes itself as "a nonpartisan research and educational institute" aimed at "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals."
Robert Dreyfuss reports in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: "The idea for the Center began with discussions in 2002 between [Morton] Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor. … Halperin, who heads the office of Soros' Open Society Institute, brought [former Clinton chief of staff John] Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders."
...
An April 2009 CAP report stated that the United States had a moral obligation to spend massive amounts of money to help poorer nations deal with the effects of the "global warming" that allegedly was being caused by industrialized nations like the U.S.
Hmm.
Suppose their self-appointed position as a global moderator to push for redistribution of wealth has anything to do with this?
Or perhaps the impetus of global-warmers to stop American growth and natural resource development has other reasons?
One example maybe has something to do with the $10,000,000,000 of US taxpayer money sent to Brazil to fund offshore oil drilling in their coastal waters? Perhaps because grifter George Soros, who funded Center for American Progress, is getting that $10,000,000,000 into his pocket.
He and his leftist cronies force guilt on everyone, then they cash in when idiot leftist politicians start handing them money. They lie and tell us the world will die because of our cars and our prosperity, and they set themselves up as the recipients of the carbon indulgences we're forced to buy, and the payoffs for guilt that our politicians submit to.
Oklahomans can see it's bullshit. How about the rest of us open our eyes?
Or should we listen to Michael Mann and Scientific American explain to us how things like the trick to hide the decline is really scientific jargon that us stupid rubes from flyover states can't understand?
In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause.
For example, the word "trick" in one message, which has been cited as evidence that a conspiracy is afoot, is actually being used to describe a mathematical approach to reconciling observed temperatures with stand-in data inferred from tree ring measurements.
Sea levels may or may not be rising, but the level of bullshit coming out of global warming advocates who pretend to be scientists sure is.
Even (Un)Scientific American is getting in on the advocacy journalism:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=scientists-respond-to-climategate-controversy
With all the "hot air" surrounding climate change discussions, none has been hotter in recent weeks than that spewed over a trove of stolen e-mails and computer code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England. Longstanding contrarians, such as Sen. James Inhofe (R–Okla.), who famously dubbed climate change a "hoax" in a 2003 speech, has pointed to the stolen e-mails as information that overturns the scientific evidence for global warming and called on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson to halt any development of regulation of greenhouse gases pending his investigation into the e-mails.
Now, there's something hidden in there that most folks outside of the central United States won't notice. Senator James Inhofe is from Oklahoma. A coworker from Oklahoma pointed out to me some time ago that global warming is simply ignored there. Anyone going on about global warming is treated much the same as someone who insists the moon is made of green cheese or that Lord of the Rings is real. They're simply dismissed as harmless, deluded, and as though they are "slow" children.
Why?
The Dust Bowl.
People in Oklahoma have, within living memory of their elders, seen their state obliterated by heat and turned into a desert overrun with locusts and jackrabbits. A major climactic shift took place there. The same holds true for parts of Kansas, Nebraska, and a few other swaths of the great plains.
They've seen natural climate change. While some types of farming practices contributed to the Dust Bowl, its existence didn't come solely from a relatively tiny population of farmers (relative to the landmass) with mules and plows, or even the few tractors, scarring the landscape.
It came from devastating drought.
There are such things as climactic shifts. They exist. Using better farming techniques and greater irrigation can and has lessened the impact of the smaller droughts since the Dust Bowl. But those whose state heritage is one of having lived through such a climactic shift are a lot more difficult to fool, especially when the statist/liberal fascist who knows what's best for us all is willing to lie to us and trick us in order to get their way.
Nor has the fundamental physics of the greenhouse effect changed: CO2 in the atmosphere continues to trap heat that would otherwise slip into space, as was established by Irish scientist John Tyndall in 1859. "There is a natural greenhouse effect, that's what keeps the planet livable," noted climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) during a Friday conference call with reporters organized by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "Without it, we'd be 33 degrees Celsius colder than we are. That's been known for hundreds of years."
It's a good thing that the leftist advocacy groups haven't seized on medical science from the Civil War era, like they have on climate science. Well, except for rationing and triage for soldiers. But I digress...
Were it not for the natural greenhouse gases, the earth would be a lifeless ball of rock, according to the chosen scientists in a conference call with the Center for American Progress...
From DiscoverTheNetworks.org:
The Center For American Progress
The Center for American Progress (CAP) describes itself as "a nonpartisan research and educational institute" aimed at "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals."
Robert Dreyfuss reports in the March 1, 2004 edition of The Nation: "The idea for the Center began with discussions in 2002 between [Morton] Halperin and George Soros, the billionaire investor. … Halperin, who heads the office of Soros' Open Society Institute, brought [former Clinton chief of staff John] Podesta into the discussion, and beginning in late 2002 Halperin and Podesta circulated a series of papers to funders."
...
An April 2009 CAP report stated that the United States had a moral obligation to spend massive amounts of money to help poorer nations deal with the effects of the "global warming" that allegedly was being caused by industrialized nations like the U.S.
Hmm.
Suppose their self-appointed position as a global moderator to push for redistribution of wealth has anything to do with this?
Or perhaps the impetus of global-warmers to stop American growth and natural resource development has other reasons?
One example maybe has something to do with the $10,000,000,000 of US taxpayer money sent to Brazil to fund offshore oil drilling in their coastal waters? Perhaps because grifter George Soros, who funded Center for American Progress, is getting that $10,000,000,000 into his pocket.
He and his leftist cronies force guilt on everyone, then they cash in when idiot leftist politicians start handing them money. They lie and tell us the world will die because of our cars and our prosperity, and they set themselves up as the recipients of the carbon indulgences we're forced to buy, and the payoffs for guilt that our politicians submit to.
Oklahomans can see it's bullshit. How about the rest of us open our eyes?
Or should we listen to Michael Mann and Scientific American explain to us how things like the trick to hide the decline is really scientific jargon that us stupid rubes from flyover states can't understand?
In fact, nothing in the stolen e-mails or computer code undermines in any way the scientific consensus—which exists among scientific publications as well as scientists—that climate change is happening and humans are the cause.
For example, the word "trick" in one message, which has been cited as evidence that a conspiracy is afoot, is actually being used to describe a mathematical approach to reconciling observed temperatures with stand-in data inferred from tree ring measurements.
Sea levels may or may not be rising, but the level of bullshit coming out of global warming advocates who pretend to be scientists sure is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
