Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Archive for the ‘Liberal’ Category

The Atlantic and Billy Jo Bubba

Posted by DNW on 2014/04/08

[Update: This is a posting which was done primarily as an exercise last night, and which was posted prematurely, almost in real-time or on the fly. I have now made a number of "live" changes which make the references more explicit and precise, and less presumptive and garbled. It should aid in a comparatively better understanding of what I was trying to say: in the unlikely event anyone actually read it all the way through it when it first went up ...]

While commenting the other day on our post regarding AOL’s Gay Social Affirmation Hell, commenter AOTC was inspired to provide a link to “The Atlantic” online’s site, wherein an economist by the name of Noah Smith was busying himself in part, with a chirpy celebration of what he the imagines to be the permanent triumph of the so-called “progressive” side of the culture wars.

“The Culture War is over, and the liberals have won. With the legalization and broad acceptance of gay marriage, the last great bastion of government-supported traditionalism in Western society has been swept away. Elsewhere, the armies of traditionalism are collapsing on almost every front. America is becoming less religious with stunning speed. Interracial marriage, once banned, is now the norm. Marijuana is slowly being legalized for recreational use. Women are close to achieving economic equality with men, and female breadwinners are becoming the norm. Casual sex is almost universally tolerated as a permissible recreational activity.”

Now, I’m not even going to bother unpacking the logical confusions and conflations found in that rather typical piece of progressive rhetoric. It is after all rhetoric not reasoning. It’s rhetoric directed at what the polymorphous perverse community envision as the proper temperature and humidity for their planned social hothouse; and not at all what might be more coolly deduced from an objective reality; a reality the objectivity of which they are not only skeptical, but which they – or their philosophical high priests – often go on to assert as ultimately unintelligible and intrinsically pointless, anyway.

So instead, I’ll simply note the next move Noah Smith makes, which is to advise his own side that when it comes to politics, managerial prudence dictates behavioral restraint in unconditional victory. And, that in this case, it is good policy to avoid despoiling the lives and property of those bitter clingers who still retain outmoded attachments to concepts like the supernatural, teleologically premissed morals, binary gender, and quite probably, to the notion of the self itself.

Thus he announces,

“Any time you win a great victory after years or decades of bitter struggle, there is the temptation to pillage the lands of the conquered enemy. This is always a mistake.”

Yeah. They have the freedom and the strength, to actually pillage? Well, I suppose Noah Smith, along with Pajama Boy, and the rest of the kind can be forgiven for imagining that no one would even think of resisting progressive overreach in a way which they might find surprising. After all, the “Taxed Enough Already” movement protests almost caused them a psychic breakdown as it was.

Imagine then what a traditionalist’s pledge of social disengagement, taken in order to allow the progressive kind to live or die in a ditch of their own digging, to reap without underwriting or support what they have themselves sown, might do to the progressives’ mental equilibria.

Anyway, even the mooting of such questions indirectly and in a response to that precious little victory dance, appears, and I repeat here “appears”, to be out of progressive community bounds.

For I tried to do just that: that is to to say to offer up my suggestion that they in effect adopt some critical distance of their own.

However, upon following AOTC’s link to the site, and attempting to leave a WordPress comment there using this Truth Before Dishonor WordPress blogging ID, I ran into some initial difficulty. [Perhaps it was of my own making. I do not know.]

Therefore, I next tried registering to leave a comment using an alternate AOL screen name. That did not work out as I wished, either. So, I finally registered using a Google g-mail address through Disquis, employing an address name which is precisely the same name as my alternate AOL e-mail account. And, ultimately then, after some little while, I was able to post a comment under “North Charlton”. Same, same, AOL and Google. Whoopee.

Which brings us to the following observation. Left-liberals, so-called progressives, seem to be an extraordinarily sensitive lot when it comes to facing the redounding implications of their own worldview; even when so confronted temperately and in relatively sophisticated (or so one would imagine) forums.

We here have witnessed that progressive tendency to bridle in the past on a more local level: on Dana’s old Common Sense Political Thought blog. Repeat the implications of what they, the progressives, have said about reality or mankind back to them, and as specifically applying to them, and they go off the emotional rails. On Common Sense Political Thought however, they could only call for censoring, not effect it.

“Progressives” obviously talk freely of their triumphing over “the enemy”, but they apparently cannot abide “the enemy” granting them in return their assertion of enemy status, and noting that he is in fact prepared to accept that he is their enemy, and as such, an enemy in the very same existential way and sense which they originally intended.

Thus they casually speak of a supposedly justifiable impulse they have to despoil this traditionalist enemy’s life and substance; but in this case while generously refraining from doing so (only so a more efficient and pacific implementation of their vision of human re-engineering might be realized) in the name of the “nation”.

And then, they seem taken aback, or even alarmed, when their peculiar notions regarding the significance of nation or community are scoffed at.

In any event, tempted by AOTC’s pointing toward a potential challenge, I persisted and finally posted a comment.

As a result, one reader graciously remarked that she wished there were more like it.

Another, “Billy Jo Bubba”, asked me to clarify what I had meant by a certain phrase I had used concerning conservatives’ sometimes politically debilitating “moral inhibitions”. I responded to Billy Jo. I checked to see if my response to him posted up successfully, and it did. So I saved the page.

Then, my reply to Billy Jo disappeared.

Billy Jo nonetheless responded to my now missing reply: observing that he had in fact seen it, but that in the meanwhile something had happened to it and it was now gone.

Acknowledging Billy Jo again, I said I would re-post the exact reply to which he was referring for the sake of thread clarity. I did. I checked back. It took. It remained for a while.

Then, it disappeared too.

So, I left a 3rd and textually different response to Billy Jo. This one, stating that my two previous replies to his direct request for terminological clarification had mysteriously vanished, but I knew not why.

I then checked and noted that that reply had also initially posted up successfully; just as did the previous two. There it, however, unlike the preceding two, remained. And there it remains some days later.

What are we to infer from this? Well, as you can see from my remarks above, I have my suspicions based on this and past experiences with progressives. Though, I am not absolutely positive about it in this case. Just, let’s say, reasonably skeptical, that it was a pure coincidence.

I did however as I said, think to save the pages immediately after I successfully placed my original remarks.

I’ll now place the subject chain of exchanges below. I’ve read and reread them, and cannot for the life of me figure out what it was that I said which might cause a progressive, or his proxies, to interrupt a victory lap just to take it down. It was after all no more than a demurrer which was offered up based on the progressive’s own worldview.

But, provisionally, it does seem to be the case that my remarks were repeatedly taken down. I would of course be glad to learn that it was otherwise and that some defect in my browser or use of it caused the problem.

In any event, the last comment in the series is the one that repeatedly “vanished”.

Regarding then, Noah Smith and his Atlantic vaunt …

North Charlton • 2 days ago

Generous of you to forgo the indulgence of revenge.

Though, I am not sure what form of political revenge a progressive could indulge in which would leave the Democrat Party’s own client class of dependants untouched; or which would alternately fail to awaken conservatives to the fact that it has been their own moral inhibitions which have allowed the progressives to flourish as they have in the first place.

Eventually, conservatives may even get wise, and recognize that they’ve been fighting not only the left, but their own moral baggage and scrupulosity: assuming fundamentally like cases when no such fundamental likenesses obtained.

Politically progressive activists, and philosophers like Rorty for example, have long ceased pretending that their ethical claims and social shaping aims and stratagems could in any way be coherently said to follow from their nominalist metaphysical premisses. So, they decided to focus instead on what “we wish to become” rather than what we once were said, or thought, to essentially be.

However, even in a progressive moral universe, one with no notion of actually occurring natural kinds, it’s difficult to initially avoid arguing as if there were real kinds with real natures implying real rights; and maybe rhetorically unwise – even if dishonest – to try and do so.

So, issues have to be gradually re-framed conceptually in terms of emotions and expanding circles of concern for those emotion-things that now stand in place of what we once thought of as humans with intrinsic and shared natures, and objectively deducible ethical boundaries and obligations and entitlements.

It will henceforth become about what we wish to be … whatever it is “we” are made up of, or defined as, by whom or whatever. The progressive reasoning gets a little vague at that point.

Well, the problem of course is that, that “we” word, along with all its allied concepts and terms, is also clearly problematical.

And therefore when it comes to the spectacle of rhetorical flag waving, it is mightily amusing indeed to read someone from the left making concern noises about “the nation”, when the entire concept has become so ridiculously attenuated as to carry little or no emotional weight anyway; not to mention very little if anything in the way of any objectively ascertainable meaning.

Nation is no longer about “ethnicity”, and it’s certainly not about shared values and objectively deduced ideals. Nor obviously, is it about held in common goals and tastes, much less interests. Nor much of anything else as far as I can see.

It – the appeal to nation – is then more or less just the brandishing of a nowadays vaguely fascistical sounding but quickly obsolescing term, held over from the days when American post Civil War political consolidationists figured it carried a bigger emotional wallop, and therefore allowed more constitutional transgressions, than did the term “the republic”.

I guess modern progressives still figure the same.

But they figure wrong.

The question then is why anyone who is not polymorphous perverse themselves, should care to waste their time validating anyone who is, or why it would be in their interest to shore up a system that does …

After all, tolerating absurdity is one thing when it costs you nothing; or, very little apart from annoyance.

But marching in the linked-arm parade of the absurdists, as if you are morally obligated to give a damn about, or even participate in their fate, or can be intimidated to do so without the threat or use of violence, is quite another.

No, it’s probably not over. In fact, things may have just begun to get interesting.

3 △ ▽

Edit

Reply

Share ›

Ellie K > North Charlton • 2 days ago

Why are you among the tiny minority of people who articulate their opinions online? I wish I could upvote you 50 times. You are correct, in every regard. This crummy post , by crummy Noah, makes me cringe in revulsion and fear. It is oppressive and intolerant of diversity of religion (having belief, of any sort, isn’t allowed now), sexual and reproductive preference (no place for being a woman and wanting to marry a man of the same race and religion, wearing a wedding ring, then having a baby or maybe even two, and being faithful to each other all the days of one’s life) etc. There is no national cohesion, thanks to so-called modern progressives. The newly redesigned Dept of the Interior reflects this. There are no white men. There are no Asian people. There are elderly white women, no young ones with children. There are big murals of crowds of Native Americans and black people and Hispanic people, but no pictures of little families or young people going fishing or hunting. Whose land is it? Not yours and mine. It belongs to modern progressives, apparently.

2 △ ▽

Reply

Share ›

Billy Jo Bubba > North Charlton • 14 hours ago

Could you clarify what you mean by ‘moral inhibitions’ of conservatives?

△ ▽

Reply

Share ›

North Charlton > Billy Jo Bubba • 2 minutes ago

“Could you clarify what you mean by ‘moral inhibitions’ of conservatives?”

You can think of it operating in various ways, and on various levels.

My reference to Rorty’s nominalism as informing his theory – if you want to call it a theory – of ethical behavior, and the “objects” of his attention on the one hand, in contrast to what is generally some form of realism embraced by conservatives (I am speaking very generally here) on the other hand, should give you a picture of two populations having fundamentally different views about reality, and about what a human “really is”, and is entitled by that status to; if to anything.

Let’s put this in extreme terms. A Roman Catholic child, for example, is taught based on a supernaturally directed belief and a mediated and modified Aristotelian realist metaphysics, that he has a soul destined for eternity, and that what he does in relation to or to other human beings has an objective rightness or wrongness to it in the here and now, and a cosmic and eternal significance that continues beyond the present life, afterwards.

On the other hand, whatever inhibitions the progressive left may have in doing unto others, that is not one of the considerations that informs their consciences.

No Marxist Leninist has any absolute compunction about breaking eggs in order to make his social omelet; human beings are not seen as ends in themselves but social elements entitled, or not, to certain “sensual” (in the Marxist sense) satisfactions.

It is generally acknowledged by progressive writers ( and I don’t think that I need to start listing names, do I?) that politics is useful for shaping and molding society, and as a result the reproducing population, as the progressive wishes it to be.

The progressive has fewer compunctions about shaping the people through the agency of the state. Which is not to say anything particularly remarkable, but just something that needs to be borne in mind; i.e., the moral inhibitions of the parties, conservatives and libertarians on the one hand, and left-progressives on the other, are not symmetrical.

The conservative inhibition I refer to here then, is one that comes from their worldview and teleological moral lens; which sees intrinsic value in (or projects it onto) beings who themselves argue that any such framework is an illusion, and any such value a result of that illusion, or worse, a supernaturally oriented superstition.

My personal opinion is that perhaps conservatives, and most certainly libertarians, should make the following intellectual move: they should hypothetically grant the persons, or the organisms if you will, of the left the dignity of taking them seriously when they say that life has no inherent purpose, that values are radically subjective or relative, that natural kinds do not exist, or that the ends justify the means, and so forth.

And then once having granted that – at least and specifically as regards the progressive person making the claim – the person who is not a progressive, should take a careful look at the person who says he is a progressive, through the progressive’s own metaphysical lens.

And then he the non-progressive should be straight with himself, no matter how brutal the view seems, as to just what he sees when focusing on the progressives through that reducing lens of their own creation; and what ethical implications might follow or inferences be validly drawn.

If after having performed that reductio, one cannot still then see the asymmetry I refer to, then … well …

Posted in Culture, Liberal, politically correct, politics, Socialists, society | Leave a Comment »

Another totalitarian judicial intervention

Posted by DNW on 2014/03/21

Judge Bernard Friedman

Mother Knows Best

Mother Knows Best

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And no that is not a Simpson’s cartoon

It seems the crack-brained judiciary of this country is falling all over itself in a rush to re-engineer our lives. One moronic judge after another frantically competes for the privilege of destroying the principles of self-government and constitutional restraint.

The latest instance comes from Michigan, wherein judge Bernard Friedman “struck down” part of the Michigan Constitution on the supposed basis that it contravened the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Article I, § 25 of the Michigan Constitution and its implementing statutes are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Along the way he engaged in the usual brainless expostulations typical of this class of jurist, comparing Loving v. Virginia, a miscegenation case involving members of the opposite sex, with a case involving two persons of the same sex. But of course when modern jurists start with their sweet mystery of life songs of love and emotional fulfillment, nothing like a restrained reading of the Federal Constitution much less a syllogism or logical coherence is likely to stand in the way of their herding us into a brave new world of judicially imposed social obligations and interpersonal affirmation.

It appears on the surface that nothing short of breaking social relations with persons of this kind will do if one is to somehow avoid being dragged down into their entropic hell-hole where social, and resultantly, personal energies, are squandered in affirming and expressing a government mandated solidarity with the morally dysfunctional as they celebrate their dysfunction. Which of course is – that is to say, the self-protective breaking of relations and distancing of one’s self -  precisely what the kind wishes to prevent you from doing in the first place. So, that tactic of withdrawing into the private is not likely to succeed without a fight either.

We’ve reached a peculiar point in this country; one where absurdities such as Anthony Kennedy’s pronouncements in Lawrence v. Texas substitute not only for careful reasoning, but for any semblance of rationality at all. And the legal establishment, and indeed most of the people, seem resigned to it.

Stare decisis is overthrown; tradition and custom assigned to the trash heap; “compelling state interests” are defined at judicial will; Constitutional limits on the coercive power of the Federal Government are trampled, and the very right of the people to legislate for themselves is ruled out of order in deference to so-called sociological jurisprudence. Place aside for one moment Kennedy’s infamous self-citation from Casey, in Lawrence, and consider what has really become the crux of the matter from the point of view of the modern legislating jurist:

“Equality of treatment and the due process right to demand respect for conduct protected by the substantive guarantee of liberty are linked in important respects, and a decision on the latter point advances both interests”

Recall that Kennedy is talking of buggery here; an absurd act committed by two worthless and probably morally deranged simps. Note carefully too, that what is being written into law is a demand of social respect for certain behaviors which Kumbaya trilling judges like Kennedy and Friedman deem shall henceforth be legal, and therefore mutatis mutandis socially acceptable. In this vein, Friedman quotes and writes:

“In attempting to define this case as a challenge to “the will of the people,” Tr. 2/25/14 p. 40, state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people. No court record of this proceeding could ever fully convey the personal sacrifice of these two plaintiffs who seek to ensure that the state may no longer impair the rights of their children and the thousands of others now being raised by same-sex couples. It is the Court’s fervent hope that these children will grow up “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Windsor , 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Today’s decision is a step in that direction, and affirms the enduring principle that regardless of whoever finds favor in the eyes of the most recent majority, the guarantee of equal protection must prevail.”

“The court’s fervent hope” he says …

This perfervid jibber jabber is not a respectable account of law. It is contemptible emotionalism masquerading as meaning. It is an effluvial snuffling and mewing of a kind that poisons the life of anyone unfortunate enough to be within earshot or arm’s reach. But when nothing is considered to have an intrinsic meaning, there is nothing left for the legislating holder of that view than a descent into the realm of subjective emotional satisfactions and feelings of “inclusion”.

We are clearly not only in a post teleological era philosophically, we are as a result in a post Constitutional era politically; an era where the “judicial revolution” or or better, that legislative usurpation which began in the 1930s, has fully taken hold.

They will mold you as they will, because they believe that there is no reason for them to refrain from doing so. It’s their religion, and they are willing to kill and die for it.

Given that, I am not sure anything other than an extreme reaction by the people and their elected representatives on their behalf, will preserve our traditional rights of self-government. Assuming anyone is still interested …

Posted in Constitution Shredded, Liberal, politics, society | 3 Comments »

Rat fight! Ted Rall and the Daily Kos

Posted by DNW on 2014/03/20

Rall v. Kos

Rall v. Kos

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes a rat fight can be rather amusing. Just try not to let them know you’re watching, much less laughing.

Now I admit that I’ve inadvertently ruffled rat fur in the past.  I did it on another blog by making – years after the fact – what were by any rational standards temperate and measured remarks about the object lessons available from that infamous Greensboro, North Carolina gunfight which took place between Neo-Nazi’s looking for revenge and self-professed Maoist revolutionary types trolling for a second-round public confrontation with them.

There were those among that blog’s readers who were especially outraged that I looked askance at the speechifying activities of one of the ideology drunk Maoist participants; as her husband lay on the ground with the top of his head shot off.

Quivering with indignation they fumed – or pretended to fume – that I was dancing in the blood of fellow Americans.  That’s “fellow” and “Americans” in quotes of course, since we are talking here about Nazi-types on the one hand, and totalitarian disciples of a mass murdering Marxist dictator on the other. Listening to self-described leftists wave the American flag over the bodies of its enemies while hysterically shouting about human decency was pretty much worth the price of admission alone.

Anyway, those who are unfamiliar with that particular historical  event – the gunfight not the years later blog eruption – can research it all for themselves, or make a beginning by clicking on this link.

However the rat fight I have in mind here, is not between two species of rat, but a more all in the lefty-family type of brawl. And thus far there have been no known fatalities, though there has been the usual obscene speechifying.

Will rat blood be shed by rat? I doubt it. We can probably rest easy on that point.

Ted Rall versus the Daily Kos.

Gee … what more can one reasonably say?

 

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Humor - For Some, Liberal, politically correct, Politically Incorrect, race, stereotype | 2 Comments »

Harry Reid’s Koch-Addled Asininity Debunked Here — 21 Months Ago

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2014/03/13

That’s right, folks. Harry Reid’s Koch-addled asininity was debunked here, a full 21 months before his rectological rectory on the Senate Floor.

Let me give you a chart from those 21 months ago:

All-Time Top Contributors updated 2012

With Unions pushing that much money around, Dingy Harry has the gall to claim the Koch Brothers (who are Libertarians and not Conservatives) are the biggest danger and biggest source of outside money? He could’ve just come to my site and done a little research before looking stupid. But then again, he’s too stupid to actually, you know, do any research.

Want more information on where Unions stand in political spending, such as rankings?

From 21 months ago:

3. Public Employee Union
5. Public Employee Union
7. Public Employee Union
9. Union
10. Public Employee Union
11. Union
12. Union (that I was a forced member of, twice)
13. Union
14. union
17. Union
18. Union
20. Union
29. Union
30. group of Unions

14 of the top 30 biggest political spenders are all Unions, and yet, Unions represent less than 12 percent of the workforce. But the Union spending doesn’t stop there.

40. Union (that I was a forced member of for nearly 9 years)
43. Union
44. Union
49. Union
52. Union
57. Union
58. Union
59. Union
65. Union
75. Union
85. Union
117. Union
119. Union
128. Union
133. Union

Oh, and I had information on the Koch Brothers back then, too.

Again, since 1989, Unions have spent 667.3 million (over 2/3 of a billion) dollars on politics. How much has the Left’s bogeyman, the Koch brothers, spent? A paltry 12.7 million dollars. So, next time some radical Leftist complains about the Koch brothers, remind that person that Unions are outspending the Koch brothers nearly 55 to 1. And while you’re at it, remind them that Unions are outspending their representative proportion more than 2 to 1.

By the way, those evil Koch Brothers tried to influence me once. One of the political type organizations they’re tied to sent me an email talking about the successful recovery of a community that rejected Federal aid and the floundering of another community that took the aid. I didn’t write about it because I was too lazy to do so, not because the Koch’s are evil (which they clearly are not).

So, the continued hate-filled attacks on Libertarians Who Provide Jobs To The Middle Class are all the Socialist, Fascist, Statist Democrats have to try to scare people into a serf-state.

It didn’t take gobs of research to destroy Hairy Reed’s demagoguery which took place this week on the Senate Floor. All it took was looking up an article I wrote 21 months before the Hairy logorrhea.

You’re welcome.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, Culture, Elections, history, Insanity, Liberal, media, politically correct, politics, Socialists, truth | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Enemy Aliens

Posted by DNW on 2014/02/26

This is a link to a comment wherein I harp a familiar chord, in somewhat more conclusive and less contingent and ironic terms than usual.

The original posting concerns the little North Korean tyrant. The mention of which, leads us to ask “Why is he still in power?”  A question to which we know the multifaceted answer. One critical facet being that North Koreans, or Koreans of any kind, are not the right kind of victim group for American political “progressives” to exploit on their own incoherently planned and socially totalitarian journey to nowhere.

Consider seriously: When we take what political progressives say about reality and human existence seriously, and then mercilessly apply those principles in axiomatic fashion to them; what in the final reduction do we find ourselves confronting?

What, when observed under the aspect of his own definitions, is the political progressive?

 

 

Update: Eric believes I’m fretting the fabric of progressive life needlessly.  He may have a point.

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture, Liberal, politics, Socialists, society, Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

Lena Dunham photoshop charges

Posted by DNW on 2014/02/18

 

“Make sure your first time is with Obama” girl, Lena Dunham, has been taking flack according to various news reports – which we have unsuccessfully tried to avoid – for a series of photographs appearing in some magazine or other, and which some people have claimed were adjusted in order to make her look … well, less like herself.

Now, it’s probably a fair point to say that none of us here have ever seen Ms Dunham in action anywhere other than in that contemptible Obama endorsement.

Nonetheless, most news readers do probably more or less know who she is; i.e., “That neurotic Democrat chick who parlayed a persona built on a facade of studied vulnerability overlying an innate obnoxiousness, into a career.”

Anyway, we won’t settle that issue now.

We merely reproduce here an image capture, so that readers may draw their own conclusions concerning the Photoshopping controversy.

Liberal Democrat female trying to look attractive? Photoshopped or not?

malicious accusation made concerning photographic manipulation

malicious accusation made concerning photographic manipulation

Posted in Humor - For Some, Liberal, media, Politically Incorrect, politics, society, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Cumulonimbus + AgI = ?? (revisited)

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/12/13

I’m reprinting an article I wrote 13 months ago. An article I wrote 13 months ago, I’m reprinting. An article that doesn’t even get into the most recent huge schadenfreudig spreading through the sane world. But an article I find especially prescient, given the Obama administration’s desperate efforts to prevent ObamaCare’s huge pains from actually hitting just yet…
___________________________________________

A dark cloud follows him wherever he goes.
Every cloud has a silver lining.

Farmers obviously need rain for their crops, so there are some who resort to cloud seeding, adding silver iodide to the clouds to try to force rain out of them. But it’s a bad idea to seed a thunderstorm cloud. Cumulonimbus clouds can produce nasty things like hail storms, massive lightning storms, micro-bursts, tornadoes.

And of course, there are those who always bring bad luck with them, like Bad Luck Schleprock, our current President.


 
So, today I am telling you about the seeding of a 3,000 mile wide thunderstorm cloud hanging over the US — and the silver lining that comes with it. It’s painfully schadenfreudig. Painfully schadenfreudig, indeed. (Multiple stacked redundancy intentional.) Barack Obama and the Democrats, very cynically aware that their grand scheme to shove the US headlong into Socialism could cause them to fall out of power, set up a series of Laws and programs that would save most of the very bad results until after the 2012 election. After having blamed Bush for all the Democrat-and-Socialist caused travails, they would have a way of avoiding responsibility for the looming mega-disaster. It works like this:

  • Set up a Socialist system with all the false positives front-loaded and all the negatives back-loaded.
  • Get possibly voted out of office before the negatives hit, so the Socialist-caused negatives would hit when Conservatives were in office.
  • Blame the Conservatives in office for the economic disaster the Socialists caused.
  • Get the Socialists re-elected to complete the evil transformation of the Free Market US into a Socialist state, with the Conservatives forever blemished by the results of Socialist actions.

But a strange thing happened along the way. The Socialists got re-elected by a completely ignorant, envious, slothful, free hand-out seeking crowd. And all the back-loaded disasters will hit while the Socialists are in power. (By the way, did you know that tornadoes are also backloaded? They are on the back end of cumulonimbus clouds, and not up front.)

ObamaCare is one such program. As most of it is set to kick in now that the election is over, total disaster is on the horizon. Businesses, who cannot pay the cost of ObamaCare and stay afloat at the same time, will be laying off massive numbers of workers nationwide. Other businesses will be cutting their low-level employees (the working poor) to under 30 hours a week so those businesses can stay in business. Very little expansion will be happening, if any at all. It’ll be full-on contraction.

A nice little poisonberry in ObamaCare — that “make health care cheaper for all” lie — is a 2.3 percent excise tax on all medical devices, such as crutches, wheelchairs, heart stents, etc, etc. And an excise tax is far worse than a profit tax or income tax. It hits the gross revenue and not the after-expenses cost. For example, suppose it costs a business 5,000 dollars for the raw materials to make a single product. Add in the labor costs, the health insurance costs, the retirement costs, the social security tax, the medicare tax, the property tax for the building itself, the electricity cost, the property insurance cost, the transportation cost, the bookkeeping cost, and all other costs associated with getting the already developed product to market and the final cost to the business is 6,800 dollars. The business sells the product for 7,000 dollars because that’s what the market will bear. The business gets a profit of 200 dollars per sale.

In comes the 2.3 percent excise tax. Another 161 dollars off the top. The new profit for the 7,000 dollar item falls from 200 dollars to a whopping 39 dollars (an effective tax rate of 80.5 percent of the profit). Not enough to make the company a going concern. Kill the Research and Development department of the company — the life-blood of all businesses that want to survive, for if a business is not growing and moving forward it is necessarily dying.

But it doesn’t stop there. No, not at all. That same company also has to pay the new, higher costs involved in providing ObamaCare to all its employees (instead of the less expensive insurance plans which were optional, which fair portions of employees did not opt into). That 39 dollars per product, which used to be 200 dollars per product goes negative. It costs more to produce than it can be sold for.

But, again, it doesn’t stop there. Obama’s declaration that electricity costs must necessarily skyrocket and he’ll bankrupt coal-fired electric plants necessarily means the energy-intensive manufacturing industry will get hit hard with skyrocketing overhead costs. Costs that cannot be reduced merely by laying people off. So instead, the companies will shutter its doors and either go off-shore or cease to exist, providing a double-whammy of forcing the products to become far more expensive than they are now and far more difficult to obtain.

Small businesses will collapse. The middle class will become working poor. The working poor will become the unemployable destitute. Products the middle class used to be able to afford will become luxury items. Items that were luxuries for the working poor will become nothing but unreachable pipe-dreams. Inflation will go into hyper-drive. Interest rates will climb, making the cost of borrowing prohibitive. And deficit spending, which has been kept artificially low (yeah, I said it), will explode.

How is 1.2 trillion dollars (or more) in deficit spending “artificially low”? That’s a good question. And I have a good answer for that. Two words: “debt” and “service”. Debt service.

Historical view of the Prime Rate from Forecast Chart.com (8 percent line added).

Above is a chart showing the historic levels for the Prime Rate, from Forecast Chart.com. I added a red line at 8 percent for reference. Below is a chart showing the historic levels for the Discount Rate, from a 2009 article on Apin Talisayon’s Weblog (data obtained from the Financial Forecast Center). I added a red line at 6 percent for reference.

US Discount Rate From 1950 as found on Apin Talisayon’s Weblog (6 percent red line added).

From Apin Talisayon:

As I said, central banks had recently been dropping interest rates, and so we cannot use the abnormally low prevailing interest rates (0.5%). I plotted the historical data of discount rates set by the US Federal Reserve since January 1950 from the Financial Forecast Center[.]

As you can see in the above two charts, the Prime Rate and the Discount Rate differ in levels, but mirror each other. And they’re not only at historic lows; they’re far below historic norms. That means the future necessarily will provide much higher rates on borrowing than today. And the Federal Government’s debt service costs absolutely must skyrocket. Couple that with the US credit rating crumbling — and will continue to crumble — and the interest on the debt will become astronomical. Even a fairly normal rate of 6 percent with our current 16,000,000,000,000 dollar deficit means 960 BILLION DOLLARS in interest payments alone. By 2015, our national debt will be 20 TRILLION DOLLARS and the interest on that debt will be 1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS. That’s before paying for roads, bridges, high speed trains to nowhere, free birth control pills for Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling), free abortion pills for Sandra Fluck (phonetic spelling), free ObamaPhones, free health care, free foodstamps, free college tuition, free housing for the poor and forever pregnant single mothers, free Big Bird, free NPR propaganda, bailing out California, Illinois, Maryland, New York, free cowboy poetry, and oh yeah, paying for our national defense.

1.2 TRILLION DOLLARS SPENT TO PAY FOR ALREADY SPENT MONEY WE DIDN’T HAVE BEFORE PAYING FOR ANY CURRENT PROGRAMS AND EXPENSES!!!

The Socialist who ascended the throne in DC, along with the Socialists in the US Senate who have adamantly refused to produce a Federal Budget since April, 2009, in direct violation of Federal Law and the US Constitution, have successfully Cloward-Pivened the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. The most prosperous nation this world has ever seen has been successfully brought to financial ruin by the Leftists in power who have no use for a document that is “over 100 years old”. The aim? Destroy the Free Market and implement Socialism worldwide.

The silver lining? Conservatives have not been responsible for any of it. Conservatives have not been in charge for any of it. I know, little solace for the loss of a once great and mighty and FREE nation. Will there be anything left to save by 2016? And will there be any conceivable way to save it and return to prosperity from the Abyss of Destitution Obama and the Socialist Democrats have created? Or will it already be too late? I, for one, am not looking forward to the disaster these next 10 years will provide us. (UPDATE: Nice Deb performed her Karnac impression and answered my questions before seeing them. Go to her site to read her answers.)

RELATED
This medical device tax is just not going to end well
Economics 101: Schadenfreude!
Video: What free-market medicine looks like
2013: A Century Of Progress
Gee, why do you think the Obama administration waited until after November 6th to mail these letters?

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, Conservative, Culture, economics, Elections, Health, Health Care, Law, Liberal, Obama, Over-regulation, politics, Socialists, society, Tax, truth | 3 Comments »

Colin Powell fan club proven to be imbeciles

Posted by DNW on 2013/12/10

 

Do you prefer Obama or Obama lite?

U.S. News and World Report has an article that reminds us of the catastrophe that is likely to ensue when a morally degraded population tries to exorcise certain social demons through political self-flagellation.

Remember all those excitable and emotionally immature Republicans who were big supporters of Colin Powell? Remember experiencing the dizzying feeling that they were driven vastly less by what freedom compatible policies and ideology Powell was known to embrace, than the fact that he served as a blank screen upon which they could project their moral redemption fantasies?

In rather obvious search of someone who could stamp their “I’m not a racist” ticket, they giddily latched onto Powell in a paroxysm of hand flapping wish fulfillment.

If you asked them what his positions were on critical political issues, they couldn’t say. They could not, because he cannily would not. Fortunately for the Republican party, saner heads realized this. Well, more or less, given the fact that an almost equally destructive John McCain somehow became the party’s nominee.

Of course it was not too long before Powell felt drawn to demonstrate where his real allegiances lay; and it was not with freedom. They lay with Obama who he endorsed for president, and with the collectivist social manager class with which he identifies as a part.

Probably should not have been much of a surprise. Not everyone who seeks a career in the U.S. military is a libertarian constitutionalist sacrificing his personal daily liberty in order to guarantee it for the larger political community. Powell’s silence should have been a warning. Just like John Roberts’ should have been. But wish fulfillment Republicans have long been in the habit of assuming that just because people don’t speak up, they are somehow fans of liberty. Kind of strange and actually incoherent a thought if you reflect upon it for a moment: “X is so much a fan of freedom he fears to exercise it personally lest he be deprived of the opportunity of defending it at some future date …”

Yeah, just look how well that assumption has played out …

Now Powell, the closet-leftist-masquerading-as-a-closet-conservative is helpfully advancing the cause of freedom and self-direction by advocating the introduction of an even more comprehensive form of fascistic-leftism, than Obamacare: with what is euphemistically called a “single payer system”.  As we a all know Single Payer is actually a government payer system wherein you get tagged for the medical expenses of the obnoxious through taxes; meaning that even the option of your striking back against a fascist system like ObamaCare through civil disobedience or economic subversion, becomes hardly possible. “A new poll shows 28 percent of uninsured Americans intend to pay a fine rather than enroll in a plan. as required by the Affordable Care Act.

But Powell likes a system with no functional opt out. It worked for him.

” ‘I don’t see why we can’t do what Europe is doing, what Canada is doing, what Korea is doing, what all these other places are doing,” Powell said at the Dec. 5 event. “I am not an expert in health care, or Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, or however you choose to describe it, but I do know this: I have benefited from that kind of universal health care in my 55 years of public life.’ “

I want, you will provide.

I want, you will provide.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[US News and World Report Image]

He doesn’t see what the problem with fascism is. He likes it in fact.

What moral subspecies of man are these collectivists?

Unconditional, redistributive, no escape social “solidarity”. What worthwhile person would want such a shit life, or demand it of everyone else; and why?

Hell on earth for edified men; emotional paradise for the “last man” … the soulless man of nothingness.

Maybe that explains it.

Posted in Character, Conservative, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politics, race, society | 4 Comments »

#ObamaCare Deconstructed

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2013/11/17

HT Patterico’s Pontifications

The Truth the radical Left (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Democrats, Mainstream Media) don’t want you to know.

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Character, economics, Elections, Health Care, Liberal, media, Obama, Over-regulation, politics, Socialists, Tax, truth | 3 Comments »

Liberals and rape, and the integrity of the person

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/29

Before I forget: Another reference to a conversation with the mail lady.

Make sure you use the Post office!

Make sure you use the Post office!

 

 

Concerning liberals, and rape,  and what they – or some of them – really believe about the integrity and inviolability of the human person.

I might have mentioned before that we have this rather outspoken mail carrier. She’s generally cheerful, very left-liberal, not shy about saying so,  and armed with all the usual talking points you would expect from someone for whom progressive media sources constitute the information gold standard.

Though it escapes me at the moment how the topic of the exploitation of women came up, it did. Or rather she brought it up.

Probably something about the abuse and physical exploitation which females are commonly acknowledged to suffer in the so-called third world.

I agreed with her by and large. I said so. In fact I went further. I said that rape should be absolutely intolerable. I said that it constituted a crime beyond the pale. “Yes!” she exclaimed.

“You have an absolute and inviolable moral right to your physical integrity,” I said.

“Absolutely! ” she said. “And,” she added, ” many people expect these women to bear the child of a man who has beaten and degraded them! You can’t expect a woman to allow that monster’s offspring to grow in her womb, can you?”

“You have an absolute right to your own body then? We agree on that?” I asked.

“Yes!”

“I’m glad you feel that way” I said. “Would you agree that rape should be a capital crime?”

“Oh, our justice system …” she began.

“Well hypothetically then, in a case where there was a brutal physical attack, a forcible act, …”

“There’s always doubt” she said “look at the cases where …”

“Ok, let’s limit ourselves to the question as to whether you believe that you would have the moral right to kill – a justification – in order to stop an ongoing act of violent rape being perpetrated on yourself, if: a, it was the only way to stop it, and b, you had the means, to assuredly do so.”

“If my kids were …”, she started.

“I’m not talking about your kids.”

“Well, do you mean, later?”

“Stop!” I said.  “Forget any scenario involving the legal system and mistaken identities. Forget about after the fact self-help acted out in cold blood, if that is what is also disturbing you.  “I’m asking you, you personally, as a “progressive female” if you would use lethal force on a brutalizing rapist in process, if that was the only way to get him to cease, and if you were sure to be successful in doing so. Hell, and assume it’s lawful to do so, if that helps you to come up with an answer”

“Uh, well, uh …  wellllll, uh I have to think about that. I’ll get back with you later.” she said as she sidled out the door.

Virtually identical to the words she used the last time we had this kind of a conversation. That now makes two of those “I’ll get back with you later”s she’s never gotten back with me on.

Leftists, do have different interpersonal boundaries. And for all their shrillness and squawking about domination and violation and exploitation, they, some of them, seem to think that the last thing they should be required to do, is to take an absolute stand on the only absolute locus of self which they have.

What integrity then, is it that they are trying to preserve, if they will not preserve their own?

And if they will not preserve their own if they can, why should anyone else take the care and trouble to do so for them?

 

 

Credit: The image of the two postal workers is from Ilana Cohn’s “thefunclub” parody of a USPS public service announcement featuring Tonya and CiCi, found on Cohn’s YouTube channel. It’s a bit rough for a family style blog, so I won’t link directly. Depending on your sensibilities, it might be said to be hilarious.

Posted in Character, Law, Liberal, Personal Responsibility | 6 Comments »

This is not a laughing matter

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/11

Or a deliberate joke.

The image immediately below, despite what you may think, is not a Photoshop prank. At least as far as I can determine.

It’s been on many news sites, and I don’t think news organizations would deliberately do artificially, what it appears nature has done on its own, just in order to mock a conscienceless criminal.

 

It's just that my body is outsized not that my brain is so little

It’s just that my body is outsized not that my brain is so little

 

That image, now displayed above, is a seemingly authentic photo of the felon who was running a criminal conspiracy in the city of Detroit; frantically pillaging it as it sank further into ruin with his vaunted “Pay to Play” city contract program.  That person would be his gargantuousness, the ex and self-styled “Hip Hop” and “anointed by God” Mayor of Detroit, Kwame Whateverhismiddlenameis Kilpatrick.

 

Now, this is an obvious Photoshop style joke of one of Kwame’s friends and admirers.

Do you like my haircut?

Do you like my haircut?

 

 

While this image below, is an obvious cartoon, and merely reminiscent of the real image at the top.

 

A cartoon pinhead

A cartoon pinhead

 

This isn’t to say that his Hip Hopness was without friends in high places.

Just friends, lovers no more ...

Just friends, lovers no more …

 

“I want uh, I want to first of all acknowledge your great mayor Kwame Kilpatrick; who has been on the front lines …[applause] … has been on the front lines doing an outstanding job uh .. gathering together the leadership at every level in Detroit uh to bring about the kind of renaissance that all of us anticipate .. uh .. for this great city and uh he is a leader not just here in Detroit, not just in Michigan, but all across the country people look to him. Uh we know that he is going to be doing astounding things for many years to come … uh it’s … I’m grateful to call him a friend and a colleague, and uh I’m looking forward to a lengthy collaboration in terms of making sure Detroit does well in the future …” The Prez.

 

Mr. Kilpatrick got a prison sentence of 28 years for his latest conviction.

Many are already taking bets as to when Obama will pardon him.

Got a guess?

 

Oh here is another image of a politically active lefty.

Since I did a double-take at  one guy’s head, and another guy’s hair, you might expect I’d mock this guy’s looks too.

But that would be too cruel. After all, we have standards on this blog which are extended, and prevent unnecessary cruelty, even to morally deconstructed appetite entities like modern liberals. Well, at least the Christians writing on this blog do. I have not yet decided whether I am going to join them, or not.

Hi. My Name is Frank. I'm a Liberal.

Hi. My Name is Frank. I’m a Liberal.

 

And quit staring at his nose.

It’s rude, and has nothing to do with why he became a liberal.

Posted in Character, Liberal, media, Obama, politics, We Won't Miss You | 1 Comment »

A Troll has demanded an explanation

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/07

A Troll has demanded an explanation.

Just try and keep me out

Just try and keep me out

We all know what trolls are. They generally speaking are attention seeking, manipulative neurotics, sometimes ideologically committed, and presumably found on the Internet.

But they actually existed before the advent of the Internet, and one still runs into them in real as opposed to “virtual” life.

Out in the real world they are usually given labels such as, interfering users, jealous schemers, spiteful meddlers, annoying crackpots, social nuisances, or the like.

On rare occasions, their relentless emotional needs and the drive to satisfy them, lead the Troll into positions of considerable political power or social influence. Once there, their amoral-ism and boundary-less will-to-power-over-others, is likely to wreak more havoc and human damage than they ever could hope to achieve while their noxious influence was confined to some local neighborhood.

Trolls, whether encountered in real life or in a virtual, all share a number of what are by now familiar ploys or gambits which they use in the hope these manipulation techniques will bring them what they want.

This includes the presumption of a right of affiliation, as the context for delivering their casual insults; charges of hypocrisy, or double standards (unfair discrimination) when they are called out; displays of indignation; feigned victim-hood; attempts to intimidate those who resist; and the very common Troll technique of leveraging the moral generosity of the principled man back against him.

Verbally, they engage in equivocation, deceit, constant redirection, and/or any other behavior which will protract and obscure rather than clarify and resolve a specific question.

Clearing the question away, is not their intention.

Their focus is always on maintaining contact with the other as “provider”.

For what they seek is not the freedom to access the material world in order to extract what they want from it, but the social privilege of accessing other persons – made compliant one way or another – in order satisfy their urges.

The difference the Internet makes in their game is that it constitutes an electronic barrier between the Troll Personality and the targets of their attention. Blogs don’t serve liquor, they are private, open to limited participation by invitation – generally by default at first – only, and not subject to government regulation. At least not yet.

Your club is my club

Your club is my club

Nonetheless, a view of Internet practices makes clear that the Internet troll and the modern liberal, (read collectivist) in their insatiable hunger for a piece of the lives of others are essentially one and the same. The Internet troll and the Modern Liberal being merely two manifestations of the same general species, observed while operating in different environments.

What individual trolls sometimes achieved in their neighborhoods, and what the Troll Party has now managed in politics through insinuating itself into the administration of our Federal Government, the Troll Horde now wish to complete by ensuring that they may intrude themselves into every human interchange or transaction that piques their interest or excites their avarice: And to do so on their own terms, and in a way that gives them appropriatve control, be the realm virtual or real, social or political.

This is not to say that a Troll might not be telling the truth about its own views. That is to say it, or they, may be accurately describing their own states of mind when they say that it is wrong to cut them out of your intellectual life, because, say for instance the First Amendment to the Constitution of the Federal Government of the United States, prohibits Congress from making any law “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press …”.

They may in fact be so mentally twisted by their needs and their lack of inhibitions in satisfying them, that the techniques I described above have become their unconscious nature. Practice of deceit and manipulation became second nature, second nature became first nature. Eventually nothing is left but a Troll nature where a man’s nature once stood.

Let’s take the specific example of a complaint over the stifling of “free speech”, as our illustrative paradigm.

In a recent accusation over his expulsion from this blog, Mr. Perry Hood has written:

“Regarding free speech, must I remind you that blogs make use of the internet of which you have neither ownership nor control? Thus, what aspect of free speech do you folks not understand.  Have anything I’ve written constitute a personal threat made to any of you?  Of course not.  So I ask again, what is it that you folks fear from me?  I would really like to know.And then, again, there is DNW, who by virtue of his hidden identity, forthrightly reveals mine.  Don’t lecture me about values, DNW!”

Let’s look at some of the elements above.

Mr. Hood says, “ Regarding free speech … blogs make use of the internet of which you have neither ownership nor control.”

We notice here that:

1. He now entirely sidesteps the Constitutional issue upon which he had been generally hanging his claims. He must abandon it, since there is no issue of Congress making a law abridging his freedom of speech, when someone in the neighborhood kicks him off their front porch.

2. He attempts to redraw his accusation in terms of control of the Internet.

3. But no one is trying to control his access to the Internet.

4. He introduces the idea of ownership, (of the Internet) in order to refute it.

5. But no one has claimed private ownership of the Internet.

6. He attempts to stake a public claim to blogs which are private, by saying that they are found on the Internet which is not privately owned.

7. But by this il-logic he might as well argue that he may ride in your car because you drive it on the highway, or live in your house because it is on a public street, or molest your children because they attend a public school.

Mr Hood then goes on to say, “Thus, what aspect of free speech do you folks not understand.”, speciously implying as I mentioned earlier regarding the Troll mind-set, a “ presumption of a right of affiliation as the context for delivering the casual insult”. In other words, his Constitutional gambit bankrupt, his Internet framing proven irrelevant, he must now “presume” a right of affiliation and access where none is in evidence.

Mr. Hood goes on to ask, “ Have anything I’ve written constitute [sic] a personal threat made to any of you?”; while assuming that the obvious answer is, as he tells it, “ Of course not.”

However, because we have had long experiences with Mr. Hood on the Common Sense Political Thought blog, as well as on the First Street Journal blog, we immediately notice that what he says is not true. Which is why he was on thin ice before he was ever granted an exemption and allowed to make any comments here in the first place.

Mr. Hood has, as we all know, had his privilege of participation on the blogs above mentioned and numerous other blogs repeatedly suspended or banned for just that kind of behavior: personal threats.

What apparently grieves Mr. Hood, is that after calling us traitors, and refusing to intellectually justify the supposed moral claims he lays against others as a pretext for calling them treasonous, he was not afforded the 20 or so warnings and advisories, and “second chances”, which he usually gets.

He was given two. Which was two more than the number to which he was entitled.

But when a man labels you as treasonous for resisting his attempts to appropriate the lives of yourself and your family, and then doubles down when called on it, what point is there in further talk?

The Internet is wide open to Mr. Hood. Let him build himself a cozy fire with the means already given to him by someone else, and attract who he can with the wafting aroma of his roasting cant, envy, and malice.

If any do drop by, he is welcome to their company, and to their intellectual and emotional companionship.

Oh, I almost forgot. The Troll asks, “So I ask again, what is it that you folks fear from me?  I would really like to know”

The answer to the question, though revulsion rather than fear is the right idea, involves having any portion of your life repeatedly wasted on a project which you know from long experience is pointless and foolish before you embark upon it: that is to say, the project of repeatedly attempting to reason with an entity which has deconstructed itself into a sometimes wheedling, sometimes demanding, sometimes threatening appetite, but never right-reasoning man.

Does that answer the question?

Perry, you called your own shots. You made yourself into what you now are. You showed us what you are through demonstration, and told us through affirmation.

What is there that is left to say?

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Culture, Liberal | 28 Comments »

In the matter of Fascist Democrats, and Treason, and Free Speech

Posted by DNW on 2013/10/05

The title of the blog essay in question is, as a glance will tell: Fascist Democrats … Or is it Stalinist?”

The blog entry had been prompted by news reports recording prominent progressive politicians as having  labeled various conservatives who were standing on constitutional principles, and operating according to long-standing parliamentary rules, as traitors.

Which brings us to the matter of Mr. Perry Hood, a sometime blogger, and self described liberal activist.

Mr. Hood, although neither prominent nor a politician, has himself gone so far as to call on his blog for a mob to be gotten up in order to “literally” eject Ted Cruz, both a citizen and an elected Senator from Texas, from the United States.

I thought that this malevolent bit of hysteria was remarkable, even on progressive terms; since most of us had probably assumed, until relatively recently at least, that the homicidal rhetoric of the left was not quite matched by a literal, or at least immanent, intent.

Mr. Hood however, seems determined to prove otherwise.

Mr. Hood does not stop with calling for the  unlawful ejection of Senator Cruz from the United States.

But, in one of the most remarkably nonchalant examples of Orwellian doublethink I have ever witnessed out of a supposed American, Hood goes on to label anyone actively opposed to his own and the Democrat Party’s efforts to direct every aspect of our lives, as themselves totalitarian.

This remarkable accusation, as readers of the old Common Sense Political Thought blog will recall, comes from someone who has explicitly admitted that as far as he was concerned, there were in fact no legitimate moral or practical limits to the depth and extent of a government’s control of the lives of the “citizen”.

Yet, those who seek to maintain the opposing tradition, that of constitutional limits on government power and sway, and who do so while operating both within the public law and by parliamentary rules, are labeled as “totalitarian”, and as treasonous.

I commented on Mr. Hood’s remarkable attitude.

Mr. Hood, had the opportunity while visiting here to discuss or clarify his call for the illegal ejection of Mr. Cruz from the country, or to modify his accusation of treason.

Hood chose instead to repeat the treason theme, and to broaden his targeting.

Mr. Hood was admonished to address the issue or to lose his commenting privileges here, as he had already lost them on so many other forums.

Now, Mr. Hood, apparently uninterested in actually discussing the “limitless government” predicate which he assumes, finds himself frustrated, and claims that his ability to engage in “free speech” – primarily through the deposition of invective and accusation – is not being honored.

Of course, and looking at it from Mr. Hood’s likely perspective, he may believe, as his remarks have given us reason to suspect in the past, that some portions of the American population are simply behaviorally incompatible with the society he has planned, because their genetic constitutions render them less collective minded, self-sacrificing, and compliant to centralized direction, than he would permit.

If that is the case, and every time Mr. Hood opens his mouth he seems to confirm that it is, then it is little wonder that he merely wishes to use the web sites of more constitutionally minded others as a kind of perch, wherein he may eject his accumulating bile and vitriol on the heads of those who would frustrate his aims if they could.

Ahhhh ... I feel so much better now

Ahhhh … I feel so much better now

If he cannot argue his so-called principles, but only declare them, then it is no wonder that his comments, like those of so many other values nihilists, quickly degenerate into ad hominem.

In any event, there is little reason to give his malevolent and bitter gibbering an additional platform.

One of the other men he regularly reviles, is already giving him one, and a rather exclusive one, at that.

That Mr. Hood when at that home, winds up shouting to an empty room, is the fault of no one but himself.

Posted in 1st Amendment, Blogging Matters, Character, Law, Liberal, politics, Socialists | 12 Comments »

Will Obama Care “collapse of its own accord”?

Posted by DNW on 2013/09/27

 

 

A Question: Why is it expected by some that so-called Obama Care will collapse of its own accord, when its designers and promoters recognize no limits to their ability to coerce or draw upon you in order to fund and prop it up?

How exactly does that work?

Is there some length to which the progressives currently threatening social violence if their ill-begotten and legally bastard dream of punitive equity is not endowed, will henceforth refuse to go?

Is there some extractive limit beyond which, those who nonchalantly admit they recognize no limits, will not legislatively trespass if their spawn appears undernourished?

For those who think so, what real world evidence do they have to support this hope?

 

Posted in economics, Health Care, Law, Liberal, politics | 8 Comments »

AOL and Huff Po and Manning: Completely Insane

Posted by DNW on 2013/08/14

No one expects Ariana Huffington’s snide exercise in left-wing propaganda to be or to even look neutral. And it has become abundantly, tediously, wearyingly, evident that anything involving or related to homosexual and gender disorders will receive the kind of histrionically laudatory headline ledes usually associated with the notoriously shameless and scruple free British tabloids.

This one though, is so contemptibly and unbelievably lunatic as to (nearly) beggar the imagination.

“Manning delivers heartfelt speech to packed courtroom

Army whistleblower Bradley Manning took the stand Wednesday and spoke candidly about his personal issues, controversial actions and hopes for the future.

‘I am sorry. I am sorry…’

Unbelievable? Believe it.

"Whistle blower"

“Whistle blower”

“Whistleblower”

AOL and the Huff Po have obviously gone completely insane with everyone knows who at the helm.

Marvel then, at the morally disordered interior of Ariana’s mind, laid out for all to the world to see.

Posted in Culture, Gender Issues, Insanity, Liberal, media, society | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 120 other followers

%d bloggers like this: