“Somebody pointed out to me that when you're in a car and you want to go forward, you put it in ‘D,’” he said. “You want to go back in the ditch, you put it in ‘R.’ So I just want everybody to think about that.”
That doesn't make sense, does it. Those of us who are part of the country class know what cars are, and know how they work.
Democrat economic policy in one photo.
So there's this metaphor, where the economy and general state of the government is because someone drove it into the ditch. If you weren't aware of the CRA that caused the mortgage crisis or the democrats who resisted regulation of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac or the democratic congress that's been in charge since 2006 and wrote the bailouts (signed by fiscally irresponsible Bush who "abandoned free market principles"), you might just be willing to think that his metaphor makes sense. There are several more examples over at American Thinker, where they noticed the car metaphor sucks as well.
But, see, the people who drove us into the ditch were, in fact, the democrats.
We're at 9% unemployment, possibly as much as 17% real unemployment (which covers those who are unemployed but no longer looking for work) - we're in no way, shape or form "out of the ditch". Keynesian stimulus, like Japan's Lost Decade, never works - and it isn't working now. More "D" isn't going to help.
It's Uncle Sam charging more deficit spending on the credit card the Chinese gave to us. Democrat are using spending on credit to buy us bread and circuses right up until there's no more credit to spend. In no way, shape or form are we out of the ditch.
But Obama doesn't drive, and probably hasn't in a long time. I shall break it down further.
Pictures make everything better.
See, when you're in the ditch, and D got you there (because it almost always does), you probably want to try some R. More D is not going to get you out of the ditch.
Now, if he wanted a metaphor, he could've said "if you keep turning right, you'll end up in the ditch". It's an absurd metaphor, given democrat policies being the root of our current woes, but it at least is somewhat consistent with how cars work. Of course, the rebuttal, that when you turn left, you get hit by a truck, is also true.
---
To continue the car metaphor, though, the people riding in the car are seeing a lot of warning signs. The guys in D just keep going past them.
Because Obama knows nothing about economics, and neither did Bush and the 2006 Dem Congress, or the Arlen Specter RINOs.
The rest of the country is yelling "STOP THE CAR!!!" Hundreds of thousands to a million plus marched on DC in a Tea Party that the ruling class pres decided to ignore. Another few hundred thousand showed up to the "Restoring Honor 8/28" rally. All these folks are shouting "STOP THE CAR!" And the ruling class isn't listening. And those bought off by the ruling class aren't listening because the guy in "D" is paying them off.
And there's one passenger who's looking between the rest and starting to see that the train never stops, is always on schedule, no matter what the guy in "D" says, and won't make an exception - and is beginning to see that there's no way to miss the train - especially by driving between the cars. The undecided passenger is starting to see that they guy going "slow down" is good, and the guy going "STOP!!!" has the best plan, even if it doesn't sound very... moderate.
Economic reality is always on time. It just doesn't care what time you think it is.
But the ideologue leftists and the leftist ruling class think if you just apply a little more D we'll make it past. Socialism works every time it's tried - just ask Cambodia, Russia, North Korea, China, Ukraine, Belarussia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland...
And just like how socialism always works, more D always works. Just ask Dirty Mary & Crazy Larry.
For those who require refreshers on Economics, try here. Driver's Safety, try here.
Mr. President, please watch them. Please stop the car. Please listen to us.
Please listen to Thomas Sowell: "For the anointed, traditions are likely to be seen as the dead hand of the past, relics of a less enlightened age, and not as the distilled experience of millions who faced similar human vicissitudes before."
We've seen Dirty Mary & Crazy Larry. We've watched Last Clear Chance and the Incredible Bread Machine. We know how this ends.
Evan Sayet tells this parable about the modern liberal: ... I call myself a "9/13 Republican"...
I tell a story. It's not a true story, but I think it kind of clarifies what happened to me. I say: imagine being in a restaurant with an old friend, and your catching up. And suddenly, he blurts out "I hate my wife." And you kind of chuckle to yourself because he says it every time you're together and you know he doesn't hate his wife. They've been together for 35 years. He loves his daughters and they're just like her. Naw, he doesn't hate his wife.
You're having some dinner and you look out the window and you spot his wife out the window. And she's being beaten up. And you grab your friend and you say: "C'mon, let's help her! Let's help your wife!" And he says, "Nah, I'm sure she deserves it."
At that moment it dawns on you that he really does hate his wife.
Well that's what 9/11 was for me. I would hear my friends from the left say how evil and horrible and racist and imperialistic and oppressive America is and I'd laugh to myself and say "They always say that. They love America."
And then on 9/11 we were beaten up. And I grabbed them by the collar, I said: "C'mon let's help her! Let's help America!" And they said: "No, she deserves it."
At that moment I realized they really do hate America.
... Evan Sayet tells this parable here at the beginning of "How Modern Liberals Think" - what's been termed the "Grand Unified Theory Of Liberalism":
For all the benevolent talk of the 9/12ers - about how we all got along on 9/12, the 12ers do have good intentions, but they forget that liberals really do hate America.
There was a story in the paper on 9/11 in the New York Times that a lot of people missed. They were too busy watching a terrorist attack to read it. It starts with this line:
The reason he didn't go to jail is because his dad owned Com Edison. He's a super rich boy who wanted to be the king of the commies, and was going to murder 25 million people if he got his way.
Yuri Bezmenov defected to the West and spent a lot of time trying to explain how the KGB would tear down liberal (classical liberal, not leftist) and democratic societies by poisoning them from within. He explains exactly how modern Liberals came to the point that they reallydo hate America.
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:
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.
This Republican guy made some good points. Maybe the left should listen to them.
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.
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.
The New York Times has a story from July 17th about how the Tea Party isn't racist because it's just a bunch of racist hatemonger bigots, it's because they're old hatemonger bigot racists.
First off, that's outright bullshit. No matter how many times Alfonzo Rachel or Katrina Pierson show up at Tea Parties and are celebrated as leaders and spokespeople thereof... well, the racist left simply calls them names and ignores them.
The second lie is this one from the NYT: There have been scattered reports around the country of racially charged rhetoric within the movement, most notably just before the vote on the new health care law last March, when Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, the legendary civil rights leader, was showered with hateful epithets outside the Capitol.
It's total bullshit.
Andrew Breitbart even offered $10,000 of his own money if anyone could prove the n-word was said even once.
If we let them get away with Saturday’s stunt — using the imagery of the Civil Rights era and hurtful lies to cast aspersions upon the tea party whole — then they really will have won the day.
It’s time for the allegedly pristine character of Rep. John Lewis to put up or shut up. Therefore, I am offering $10,000 of my own money to provide hard evidence that the N- word was hurled at him not 15 times, as his colleague reported, but just once. Surely one of those two cameras wielded by members of his entourage will prove his point.
And surely if those cameras did not capture such abhorrence, then someone from the mainstream media — those who printed and broadcast his assertions without any reasonable questioning or investigation — must themselves surely have it on camera. Of course we already know they don’t. If they did, you’d have seen it by now.
THOUSANDS OF TIMES.
Rep. Lewis, if you can’t do that, I’ll give him a backup plan: a lie detector test. If you provide verifiable video evidence showing that a single racist epithet was hurled as you walked among the tea partiers, or you pass a simple lie detector test, I will provide a $10K check to the United Negro College Fund.
--- There were dozens of camera phones (even my old clamshell phone has a video recorder) and there were dozens of video cameras at the event. Dozens of people were taping and recording it. But the slurs didn't happen. Yet the left continues to repeat the slander against the Tea Parties.
Why? It's their narrative. They hate the Tea Parties, and the worst thing to call them is racist. In a multiculturalist tolerant society, that's the worst thing to be. That's why anyone who's black, brown, red, yellow, or off-white at a Tea Party gets the kind of names hurled at them like Michelle Malkin does every day in her email. Because the left can't write them off as just racist - and when the left's ideological worldview doesn't work, it gets angry.
Just like when leftist liberal union members beat up a black dude named Kenneth Gladney and called him n*gger.
Much as the Tea Parties aren't racist, and as Malkin, Zo and Pierson are denigrated by the left - insulted and more - and Gladney was beaten and called n*gger, the left itself is racist.
And to knock out one more anti-Tea Party slur, much as the left mocks the Tea Parties as astroturf - when they aren't - the left sees only itself - as all they do is astroturf.
The Jawa Report links to Brit Pat Condell when he puts up really good videos like this one, and I feel that their statement that "more folks should see it" is quite correct. Thus:
It's also a quick primer in case you're not up to speed on the story - basically, an Islamic group wants to build a mosque at Ground Zero in NYC. Pat Condell points out that Cordoba is also the location of the major mosque built in Spain when the Muslims invaded and conquered Spain. They built the mosque because they conquered. Here in the US, they plan on doing the same.
Now, if they wanted to build it at the Trinity Ground Zero, I wouldn't have a problem.
An illegal alien, wearing a mariachi outfit, no less, hit his vehicle doing 60mph. The alien's passenger was bloodied and sent to the hospital. From the story:
The 27-year-old suspect was reportedly driving under the influence of alcohol and did not have a valid license.
Police say when Naranjo was told of the serious charges he would be facing, he just laughed.
State police were unable to notify immigration authorities that Naranjo might be illegal. due to a 2007 order that strips them of immigration enforcement powers.
The suspect, whose blood alcohol content was .25 at the time of the accident according to the police report, is being held on $50,000 cash bail.
Democrat Moran, from the news story, states: "I know this is a tough issue that we're dealing with and as you probably know I have been and will continue to be pro immigrant and some cases even pro illegal immigrant. And it would be politically expedient for me at this point in time to change that. That should give you some indication of my commitment to immigration and immigrants to tell you that even after being hit by one I will continue to advocate for immigrants and their rights as citizens of this country."
I support the rights of people who aren't citizens as citizens. I support criminals enjoying the same rights as the law abiding. A community of moron supporters got me elected.
He's pro ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT. He states it. He supports ILLEGAL ALIENS having the rights of CITIZENS. He also talks about how he thinks that the law will deal with the illegal alien - who's already a criminal - as a criminal for the DUI. Why? Why enforce one law and not the other? Why let the drunk driver in? Oh, that's right. He's one of these:
In the TV edited version, he's surrounded by Morons.
They say a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Apparently, some liberals are so ideologically suicidal, that they will continue to support the very people who ignore their laws and try to kill them rather than get the picture.
Democrat economic policy in one photo.
Pictures make everything better.
Economic reality is always on time. It just doesn't care what time you think it is.
