Saturday, June 21, 2014

20 Reasons You Wouldn't Want To Live In An America Controlled By Liberals Like Obama

The only thing more disturbing than the arrogance, incompetence, and lawlessness of Barack Obama's administration is that most liberals are perfectly fine with everything he's doing. It's shocking that there are so many Americans who don't care about the Constitution, the rule of law, or even what happens to the country just as long as someone they agree with ideologically is in charge. In fact, the only time liberals seem to get really upset these days is if someone criticizes Barack Obama or tries to put ANY KIND of restraint on his power. Want to know how America would look if liberals like Barack Obama had complete control of the country?

The only thing more disturbing than the arrogance, incompetence, and lawlessness of Barack Obama's administration is that most liberals are perfectly fine with everything he's doing. It's shocking that there are so many Americans who don't care about the Constitution, the rule of law, or even what happens to the country just as long as someone they agree with ideologically is in charge. In fact, the only time liberals seem to get really upset these days is if someone criticizes Barack Obama or tries to put ANY KIND of restraint on his power. Want to know how America would look if liberals like Barack Obama had complete control of the country?
1) Abortion would be the only "choice." Almost everything else including light bulbs, TVs, health care plans, cars, and the schools your child goes to would be chosen for you by people in D.C.
2) You could be sued for failing to warn people that you are about to say something that could conceivably be offensive to women, gays, transsexuals, or minorities.
3) Every sports fan of teams like the Redskins, Braves, Chiefs, Indians, Blackhawks, and Seminoles would be branded as a bigot and all of those teams would be forced to change their names.
4) We would have open borders and anyone who walks across would be welcome to sign up as a citizen and collect welfare, food stamps, and Social Security.
5) It would be illegal to say the Pledge of Allegiance or fly an American flag because it might "offend people."
6) All criticism of black and Hispanic politicians would be shrugged off and treated as racism.
7) Government investigations of liberal wrongdoing would be handled by friends, associates, or campaign contributors of the liberal being charged.
8) So many nuclear and coal plants would be shut down that we'd end up with regularly scheduled blackouts in many parts of the country.
9) Anyone could choose not to work and get a monthly stipend from the state -- well, until the money runs out.
10) Cities, states, and even well-connected big businesses that spend irresponsibly and go broke could always be bailed out by the federal government.
11) Women would have to get mandatory abortion counseling from Planned Parenthood before giving birth just to make sure they are ready to have a child.
12) Conservative talk radio, blogs, websites and especially Fox News would be regulated out of existence and only government-approved media sources would be allowed.
13) Christians and conservatives would have to hide their beliefs to get government jobs.
14) The IRS would be allowed to audit people solely for contributing to conservative candidates or being a member of conservative groups.
15) Men who have sex with women who are drinking would be treated as rapists by default.
16) Merit and even basic competence would be secondary in importance to hiring people who are the right race or sex for a job.
17) Any child who plays with a toy gun would be considered a potential psychopath and expelled from school.
18) Americans would only be allowed to buy tiny, overpriced electric cars that don't work very well.
19) It would be illegal to oppose gay marriage.
20) Guns would be confiscated from everyone except the criminals, the cops, the military, and the bodyguards for rich liberals.

Thursday, June 19, 2014

Stories Liberals Don’t Want You to Know About.

Liberals are the biggest censors. Conservatives are often portrayed as suppressors of contrary opinions. The facts do not support this claim. Try to teach a view contrary to the religions of evolution and climate change. To question any part of evolution allows a “divine foot in the door,” and this cannot be allowed by the materialists.
Here’s the latest from President Obama on “climate change”:

“President Barack Obama called on Americans coming of age to demand that politicians respond more aggressively to climate change, comparing those skeptical about man-caused alterations to the environment to a belief that the moon is ‘made of cheese.’”

How do reputable scientists who have scientific and factual doubts about “climate change” claims go public with their views when the president of the United States considers them to be crazy? So the legitimate deniers keep quiet, thus, skewing the numbers of those who oppose the supposed majority opinion.

Try opposing the food Nazis:
In 1977, “a Senate committee led by George McGovern published its landmark ‘Dietary Goals for the United States,’ urging Americans to eat less high-fat red meat, eggs and dairy and replace them with more calories from fruits, vegetables and especially carbohydrates.

“By 1980 that wisdom was codified. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued its first dietary guidelines, and one of the primary directives was to avoid cholesterol and fat. . . .”
eat Butter
Now we are learning that the learned foodsters were wrong, but it’s taken decades, and with their diet “wisdom” they’ve helped to create one of the most obese nations on earth.

If you want to thank God at your high school graduation, you’ll be denied the right to do so. How about reading the Bible during free time? Denied.

Oppose same-sex relationships and you’ll be fired from your job or be compelled by the State to comply with arbitrary anti-discrimination laws.

Then there are the stories about people who have engaged in same-sex sexuality who have denounced their lifestyle choice.

Consider how former lesbian and radical feminist professor Rosario Champagne Butterfield was treated by about 100 demonstrating students at Wheaton College after she gave her testimony at the Christian university:
“It turns out that they did not like the message that Butterfield was bringing to the college. And the message they didn’t like was the story of her own conversion to Christ.
“The students who demonstrated said that it was wrong for the university to give the impression that Butterfield’s ‘story’ was the only valid story. According to the demonstrators, there are gay people who follow Christ and who see no need to repent of same-sex behavior. Their stories are just as valid as Butterfield’s, and Butterfield’s story of repentance from sin should not be held out as the norm on Wheaton’s campus.”

Then there’s this from former practicing homosexual Janet Boynes:
“In the midst of these public confrontations [like the CEO of Mozilla, Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty, and David and Jason Benham who were ousted from HGTV] there is a ‘behind the scenes’ scenario playing out. Thousands of those living the homosexual lifestyle along with thousands who are not actively involved in a relationship, but are dealing with same-sex attraction are looking for a way out!”

These stories cannot be heard about by the general population. The intimidation will continue until everybody is beaten into ideological submission. The left knows that conservatives either give in or capitulate. We’re seeing it happen among churches and prominent pastors on the homosexual issue.

The pro-homosexual narrative has to be attacked with stories like those of Rosario Champagne Butterfield, Janet Boynes, and thousands of others.


Sunday, June 15, 2014

Books Are for Reading Not Just Banning Liberals

Dcapetto wrote: Where does it say god given anything? Here is our constitution find me the passage that says god given. The Newest Liberal Criminal Assault The Right To Self Defense
Dear Comrade Cap,
Books are for reading, not just for burning.
"Man ... must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature.... This law of of course superior to any other.... No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force...from this original." - Sir William Blackstone
This is why in the country’s founding document, the Declaration of Independence, the founders referred to certain rights that men were “endowed” with that were “inalienable”-- that is rights that could not be taken away from men.
To do so would be contrary to nature.
Governments were formed amongst men to secure those rights, not grant them.
But I’m glad you brought it up because this is what is at the crux of the dispute between NeoLibs and the rest of the country.
And, of course, this is why liberals like you have so screwed up government these days.
Obama and his cohorts-- like you-- really do think that governments grant rights to citizens, when in fact, governments grant nothing. Governments only derive their powers from the consent of the governed to secure rights.
But in Obama’s view-- and yours-- not only do governments grant rights to citizens, he thinks that governments also have the ability to make up new rights for certain sections of the population.
And here’s why he does: Obama believes that there is no such thing as natural law.
And he believes this because to believe the the contrary would have to admit of some higher law or being, like God.
And he must not admit of that or his scheme of government won’t work. Natural law, you see, admits of limitations to government.
“When We The People allow the government to grant us ‘rights’ such as health care or education,” writes Jason McNew in American Thinker, “we are now making the government the purveyor of our rights, instead of our Creator. If you think this is okay, you are a fool and there is a boxcar or relocation camp waiting for you or your descendants someday.”
McNew then ask readers to peruse a copy of Chapter X of the 1936 CONSTITUTION OF THE USSR.
Unlike the U.S. constitution, which is a document that limits government power to secure the rights of man, the Commie constitution is a list of affirmative powers granted the government to regulate the lives of citizens.
It reads like the Party Platform of the Democrats circa 2012 and beyond:
ARTICLE 118. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work, that is, are guaranteed the right to employment and payment for their work in accordance With its quantity and quality.
The right to work is ensured by the socialist organization of the national economy, the steady growth of the productive forces of Soviet society, the elimination of the possibility of economic crises, and the abolition of unemployment.
ARTICLE 119. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to rest and leisure. The right to rest and leisure is ensured by the reduction of the working day to seven hours for the overwhelming majority of the workers, the institution of annual vacations with full pay for workers and employees and the provision of a wide network of sanatoria, rest homes and clubs for the accommodation of the working people.
ARTICLE 120. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to maintenance in old age and also in case of sickness or loss of capacity to work. This right is ensured by the extensive development of social insurance of workers and employees at state expense, free medical service for the working people and the provision of a wide network of health resorts for the use of the working people.
ARTICLE 121. Citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to education. This right is ensured by universal, compulsory elementary education; by education, including higher education, being free of charge; by the system of state stipends for the overwhelming majority of students in the universities and colleges; by instruction in schools being conducted in the native Ianguage, and by the organization in the factories, state farms, machine and tractor stations and collective farms of free vocational, technical and agronomic training for the working people.
ARTICLE 122. Women in the U.S.S.R. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of economic, state, cultural, social and political life. The possibility of exercising these rights is ensured to women by granting them an equal right with men to work, payment for work, rest and leisure, social insurance and education, and by state protection of the interests of mother and child, prematernity and maternity leave with full pay, and the provision of a wide network of maternity homes, nurseries and kindergartens.
Jnapishere wrote: Yes, it nice to think of Christmas as a holiday that everyone likes and enjoys but suppose an Islamist group wanted to do the same thing at a school when celebrating the birth of Mohammad and asked all women that bring gifts to wear a head scarf, as a sign of respect and the men to grow a beard? " In The Name of All Humans: Let’s Separate The Poor From Their Shoe Boxes
Dear Comrade J-Nap,
I don’t think too many 12-year old boys can grow beards so I’m really not worried. But I don’t think people would have a problem with burquas, per se, if it weren’t for the barbarity of the practices it represents towards women, like female circumcision, chattel slavery, violations of natural rights, etc.
I go to a Eastern Catholic church where some women wear veils. No one thinks twice about it.
Yes, Christmas is a holiday that people enjoy. 95 percent of Americans celebrate Christmas in some form.
Do you know why?
Because in the ways that man can measure things, the Western way of life has proved far superior to the economic, religious and societal models practiced by others, including Islam.
Free markets and free societies are responsible for lifting more people out of poverty than any two forces in history. Free markets and free societies are the natural result of the spread of Judeo-Christian values.
Anyway, at issue was a piece of paper espousing Christian ideas that came along with gifts for poor kids.
What a horror!
No one was actually proselytizing about Christ at schools.
If Islamists wanted to distribute gift boxes instead of beheading people with bread and butcher knives, I think most people would have a different reaction to radical Islam than they do today.
Which dude with a beard would you rather have representing the best of America?
Santa Claus or an Ayatollah?
Rx7pj wrote: What the hell makes you think you have lost the constitution , liberty or freedom??? I haven't lost any of these things and if yo live here either have you. Quit parroting this right winged garbage. Eeewww! Amycare for US Senate
Dear Comrade RX,
I could write a book about how we’ve lost the constitutional limitations on government, but others have already done that job for me.
Instead of just parroting Left-Wing garbage, you should probably try reading those books.
But more to your point, yes, I think that when the United States' government monitors all Internet traffic, monitors every single domestic telephone call for pattern recognition; when governments install video monitoring devices at every intersection; when the government guarantees entire industries like banking, real estate, autos, the university system, and now healthcare; when the plain language of the Second Amendment-- that says the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be abridged-- is abridged to only include specific people who can keep and bear arms; when the government starts tracking children in the womb with personally identifiable information– children who they don’t even recognize as humans under their reading of the constitution—in order to promote some liberal idea of education reform; when that government does all that, then, yes, we have lost the constitution, our liberty and our rights.
When you add up the economic activity in so-called "private industry" that the government controls, you get a sense why government as a percentage of our GDP is over 40 percent, rivaling the years of World War II when 19 million American men were in uniform.
Real Estate +6.3%; Autos +3.3%; K-12 +5.7%; College +3.1; Healthcare +17.9%. That comes out to 36.3% of GDP in industries closely controlled by the government. If you add in just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the big six systemic banks that the federal government guarantees, you can figure on another $18 trillion in assets that the government closely controls. Our entire GDP for a year is around $16 trillion.
Seriously. Try reading books.
If you can’t see the intersection between the government and our economy in constitutional terms, then let’s just say there really is no difference between you and communists.
But of course, that’s why I call you comrade.
Reginald10 wrote: Yes, and we need to replace strychnine with arsenic, because strychnine is poisonous. Eeewww! Amycare for US Senate
Dear Comrade Reggie,
I think you made the right choice for your career when you switched to the name "Elton John." But I was never a fan of either the glasses or the platform shoes. Or Princess Di.
Drayburn wrote [with both fine gramear and speliing]: So Johnny Boy you have lost your faith in God, becoming a Loin of the Devil wondering around stealing souls, at least God found use for a donkey riding it though the city. As most Republicans the Devil has made his deals with for there great power over others and blind them to reality and fact, there comes the time to pay the piper, well time to pay little man time to pay. The braking of the Republican bubble has come for them to face there hate and lies they spread for years. We Are Lions That Are Lead By Donkeys
Dear Comrade Dray,
You seem to be suffering from a flight of ideas or some other similar thought disorder. Or perhaps it’s derailment of ideas.
The good news is that these conditions are covered under Obamacare.
The bad new is that you probably need an exorcism too.
And what d'ya know? Not covered under Obamacare, yet!
I know. I’m surprised too.
"For the devil has come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.” - Revelation of John 12:12
It is not I that is rolling out a broken healthcare system because I have such a short time left to accomplish my goal.
But then when has Obama ever cared for the consequences to his party or his country when contemplating anything?
Look, I’m not saying Obama’s the devil. He’s not bright enough for that.
But his works are certainly devilish.
Remember those terrible Republican conservatives who wanted to delay the implementation of Obamacare?
It looks like they were the only ones who knew what the hell they were talking about.
You know it’s bad when Ezra Klein, my favorite idiot, thinks there are problems with Obamacare much bigger than the website:
To understand why these problems are so dangerous to Obamacare it's helpful to understand how the Obama administration thinks about Obamacare.
With my colleague Sarah Kliff, I spent much of May and June working on that. What we wanted to know -- and asked repeatedly -- was how administration officials defined success for the health care law.
Here is what we learned: “To the White House, the difference between success and failure is straightforward: They need to entice a sufficient number of young and healthy adults into the new insurance marketplaces that open Oct. 1.”
I want to be clear on this: No one said that success was letting kids up to age 26 stay on their parents' insurance plan. No one said it was regulating insurers or covering preventive care. Instead, everyone in the White House shared a singular definition: Success meant setting up the exchanges and attracting enough young people that premiums stayed low.
And he concluded:
The problem is precisely that the people who really need insurance will be patient and persistent. The people who don't need insurance as badly may not be. And if that happens, then in year two, costs are going to rise sharply for those sicker, older people left in the exchanges. And Republicans who see Obamacare's problems as a path to success in 2014 won't even think about expanding Medicaid.
When ANY liberal is being this honest it’s refreshing.
But Klein has made supporting Obamacare his raison d'ĂȘtre for the better part of the last 4 years. And make no mistake, he still a fan. He’s trying to save Obamacare, but he says there isn’t much time: “The White House has time to right the ship. But not much. Health-care experts suggest the Web site needs to be running smoothly by Thanksgiving at the latest.”
Just another thing to be thankful for on Thanksgiving Day.
“Give me six hours to chop down a tree,” said Lincoln, “and I will spend the first four sharpening the axe.”
Obama blew his four hours. He’s got two left.
Goldilocks wrote: When did conservatives become lions? We Are Lions That Are Lead By Donkeys Goldilocks also wrote: If conservatives are lions, then conservatives are not pachyderms. So conservatives are PINOs!
Dear Comrade Goldi,
You too will qualify for free mental health-screenings under Obamacare. I hear they are coming up with a combined concealed-carry permit, NSA job application, IRS non-profit designation and Obamacare registration all in one.
Anyone who fills it out is automatically registered as a Democrat and their prescriptions arrive in the mail.
And the best part? I hear you won’t even have to show up to vote. They make the vote selections for you with one of the “Obamacare-approved” candidates. And if there’s a generic alternative, that’s covered as well.
I didn’t call conservatives lions.
I called the American people “lions.”
Churchill, a lion himself, was half-American and somewhat of a visionary on the importance of the USA.
And despite the shackles and fetters with which they try to bind us, there are still more lions in America than there are donkeys. American solutions to problems tend to come organically out of individuals, not groups, at any event.
In fact, I called out the elites on ALL sides for letting us down. They are the donkeys in this scenario:
In many senses the government, the politicians, the media, our newspapers, our radio stations, our chambers of commerce, our professional sports leagues, our schools, our universities, our court system, Democrats and Republicans alike, defaulted a long time ago.
OL1 wrote: We love you John. You, President Obama, and Ted Cruz are creating a much stronger Democratic Party by not understanding or participating in this democracy. Keep up the good work. It’s Stupid, Obamacare
Dear Comrade OL1,
Does Obama know you are using his patented number one?
I’m OK with it, but is he?
Not to worry, even now I am holding up one finger and shouting “You’re number one.”
Guess which finger?
The real numbers I’m looking at however say that whatever you might think of Ted Cruz, in the long wrong, he’ll be remembered as the guy who implored Washington to get rid of Obamacare before disaster struck.
Blame who you want but the law was poorly thought out, even worse in execution, and clearly will be a big issue in next year’s upcoming election.
Obama’s approval rating is as low as it’s ever been and unless he has magic pixie dust and a herd of unicorns to fix the monument to himself disguised as “healthcare reform,” it’ll get worse.
The 2010 mid terms were about government overreach. The 2014 midterms will be about that too, plus government incompetence.
Elucidated wrote: John, it's understandable that you have reduced your lexicon to "stupid' when describing Obamacare. . .since you are angry that the GOP just got a big whooping. But in my case, I have a tiny difference of opinion. You see, I have a son with seizures who was denied health insurance last year. Do you have any idea how our lives have been effected by private insurance playing the God card to save money? It’s Stupid, Obamacare
Dear Comrade Elucidated,
I’m sorry that your son was denied coverage.
I think, however, you’ve mistaken me --and the rest of America for that matter-- as a giant call-center and complaint department.
"Helloooooo, I care. Oh, wait. I don't." Click.
My family has it’s own issues. I don’t make you responsible for them, do I?
If you want high quality healthcare, then you should ask the government to get out of healthcare entirely.
Let me boil it down for you: Healthcare in this country suffers from the same delusion that many things the government gets involved does.
This is the delusion that you can get people who don’t get many—or any—benefits to pay for people who get many—or most—of the benefits.
There is very little difference between the ponzi scheme that is Social Security and the scheme that’s known as Obamcare. Both rely on people who don’t get a benefit to support those who get the benefits today.
It’s immoral.
“As an individual who undertakes to live by borrowing,” said Lincoln, “soon finds his original means devoured by interest, and next no one left to borrow from - so must it be with a new government.”
BTW- I need you to come by next week and write a check for my mortgage. It’s been a bad few months for me, and I’m a little short.
That's the same argument you are using.
BSullivan848 wrote: Oh John NOW you want to move center? Good Luck after spreading misinformation and to where we are know worried about the next move of the extremist you and your party have become? The Great Default Already Happened
Dear Comrade Sully,
Oh, we’re the extremists?
Kids can’t even dress up as “Indians” anymore.
The University of Colorado Boulder has instructed its students not to wear "offensive" Halloween costumes such as cowboys, Indians, sombreros, white trash or anything that shows any culture as being "over-sexualized."
In addition to the costume censorship, the college is telling students not to have parties that include ghettos, hillbillies, crime and sex work, notes The Telegraph.
I guess free speech doesn’t apply anymore, huh?
All this from the Land of Fruit and Nuts we call the Democrat Party.
But then, I'm the extremist.
Ericynot1 wrote: "Bush inherited a financial crisis at the beginning of his presidency, a crisis that was wholly unforeseen as well"
Ransom must have been traveling intergalactically for a few years in the late '90's. For at least two years prior to the Dotcom bubble crash, financial writers had been predicting it to happen. The only real question was how the crash managed to hold off for as long as it did. Here’s To The Yahoo’s Who Ruined A Perfectly Good Shutdown
Dear Comrade EricY!,
I was actually working in venture capital at the time. I knew as well anyone what was up. I never got caught up in the dot-com bubble. My clients prior to that were in the stock market, but, generally speaking, I’m a value guy when it comes to stock purchases.
Having said that, I don’t know what your comments have to do with Bush.
He was responsible for the dot-com crash? Before he was president?
The crisis that he inherited, the one that was unforeseen, was the attack on the World Trade Center, which blew about 0.5% off of GDP for that year.
And if a big majority of financial writers had predicted the crash many years before, the crash never would have happened.
Instead, there would have been an orderly retreat in the stock market, as the public reacted to changing media opinion. That’s how the market works. At any given time there are writers who are bearish on the market, like Doug Kass, who one day are right.
That doesn’t change the fact that those bears missed one of the all-time great bull markets for about a ten-year period because they are permanent bears on the market.
Of the two of us, comrade, there is only one who has an intergalactic problem with reality.
It’s not I.
That's it for this week,

Progressives and the Unnecessary Lie

When a kid with cookie all over his face claims he didn’t eat any cookies it’s because he knows he wasn’t supposed to be eating cookies. He’ll eventually fess up, although he may rationalize the behavior. Most adults are the same way. A president with a stain on an intern’s dress may hold out for a while, but he’ll come around eventually.
But today’s progressives are another story. They lie when the truth would suffice, and they hold on to that lie, even doubling down on it, regardless of what evidence to the contrary comes to light.
When President Obama’s “If you like your plan you can keep your plan” lie was finally and irrefutably exposed, he didn’t apologize or explain why he’d lied. He just said he was sorry people got the wrong impression from his words, which, of course, could not have been clearer.
But at least we can understand the rationale for that lie. Lately, we’ve heard lies that are every bit as obvious but completely inexplicable.
When Bowe Bergdahl was traded for five of the worst Taliban terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, the White House unleashed a flurry of lies when none were necessary. They called him a hero who served with “honor and distinction.” They said he was on the verge of death, etc. They even lied to Bergdahl’s father saying he’d forgotten how to speak English, a lie he repeated on camera in the Rose Garden ceremony (lest you think Bob Bergdahl made that up himself and no one in the White House decided to correct him or cruelly decided to let him continue to think his son’s mind was that far gone).
Americans never would support leaving a soldier, even a deserter, in the hands of our enemies. The president made a bad deal, but he brought an American home. If he had stuck with the truth, he would not have been able to jut out his chin in celebratory self-aggrandizement, but he would have put the matter to rest by now – bad deal and all.
People will tolerate bad decisions much more than they will lying. The obvious nature of the Bergdahl lies had to have been clear to the White House. They knew about what his fellow soldiers had said and about the military’s own investigation of Bowe’s desertion. Yet they chose to go with the lie anyway.
Moreover, once confronted with the truth, the White House didn’t admit it or even attempt to finesse it. It doubled down on the lie. Instead of letting it go, which most of us would have understood, the administration now finds itself in the position of fending off Republicans and criticizing the soldiers who actually did serve honorably but refused to stay silent.
But the Bergdahl lie was hardly an orphan this week in the pantheon of progressive lies. Hillary Clinton, our next president as far the casual observer of mainstream media knows, told a doozy this week.
Speaking to Diane Sawyer of ABC News, Clinton informed the world that she and the future First Man were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001. This was a blatantly transparent attempt at connecting with average voters who are struggling under Barack Obama’s economy. But even in the most technical sense, that proclamation is an easily disprovable lie that serves zero purpose.
Let’s play this out for a minute. When the Clintons left the White House they owed millions in legal bills. One number I’ve seen is $12 million. I doubt it, but I’ll use it. They’re $12 million in debt, but Hillary had signed an $8 million book deal before being sworn in as New York’s senator (a deal she had to close before assuming office to avoid ethics issues). Her husband soon signed a $15 million book deal and started giving high-paying speeches and getting cushy no-show board seat jobs with who knows how many zeros on those checks. Putting those aside, math tells you $23 million is more than $12 million, and even after taxes the Clintons were hardly going hungry.
So why lie when all of this is public record? Why put out obvious untruths when the truth would have sufficed? Are they sociopaths? Are they so insulated from contrary opinions in their sycophantic inner circles that they believe these lies? Or are they just so used to getting away with it that they throw caution to the wind knowing they will ultimately be given a pass because they have the media in their back pocket? Your guess is as good as mine. Whatever the answer, Republicans need to prepare themselves now for boxing a shadow in 2016 because whoever the Democrat nominee is it’s pretty clear he or she won’t be bound by past deeds, words, or even reality.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

L.M.A,O! This Is How Liberals Really Feel About Conservatives

Forget the talking head progressives. They are, to paraphrase Ben Franklin, spitting into the wind that blows in their face. They can’t abide the thought of any Tea Party victory, because they know that the general values and principles of the Tea Party are held by an overwhelming majority of Americans. It is the like of Bill Maher who are on the fringe; it just doesn’t appear so, because the progressive left own the pulpit in academia, media, pop culture, and federal politics. We, however, have the congregation. We are the congregation.
As a group of liberal talking heads, occasionally interrupted by a lone National Review contributor, discussed House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s stunning defeat on HBO’s “Real Time” Friday night, they revealed just how much they disdain conservatism.
“Eric Cantor helped create the Tea Party, and it killed him,” said guest Richard Clarke, comparing the scenario to that of Frankenstein’s monster.
Host Bill Maher called out the fact that the defeat of Cantor, who is Jewish, leaves the GOP looking pretty homogenous.
“There are 278 Republicans in Congress; they are now all Christian, and all white, except for one black senator who was appointed,” noted Maher. “So this is an entirely Christian, white party… Isn’t that scary that we’re segregating like that, or is it good?”
When talk turned to voting, Maher said, ”The only way (Republicans) win is they cheat, they stop people from voting.”
Maher and his guests then discussed the feasibility of compulsory voting and letting people vote with their cell phones, with the implication that forcing large swaths of politically-uninterested Americans to vote would benefit liberals.
Maher dug in one more jab at the GOP, saying that ”college professor” is now a slur in the Republican party.
“They hate smart people more than Mexicans!” he said.

Thursday, June 12, 2014

The Three Liberal Myths About Partisanship Busted By Pew's New Poll

A fascinating new poll out today from the Pew Research Center reports on how they've tracked Americans' beliefs on political issues over time. It's wide-ranging and deep and a fascinating look at what Americans believe. One of the most important parts is how the two coalitions - Republicans and Democrats - have changed over the last twenty years. And it takes a sledgehammer to myths that liberals have been telling themselves.
Myth #1: Polarization is asymmetric
Asymmetric polarization, as espoused by analysts like the Brookings Institute's Thomas Mann, goes something like this: Democrats have created a big tent governming majority that tolerates lots of different views and, as a result, has a kind of "moderate center" that has remained relatively consistent; while Republicans have exiled the centrists in their party as grassroots voters have taken over and made their party more extreme all on their own.
That's flatly not true.
The typical measurement of asymmetric polarization comes from a Congressional metric called DW-NOMINATE, which at its heart measures how often elected representatives in Congress vote with each other. The flaw here is that it doesn't take into account the relative leftness or rightness of a proposal being voted on. If there were a vote in Congress to repeal the 2nd Amendment, for example, with all Republicans voting against and Democrats split evenly between for and against, would be a data point contributing to Republicans becoming more "extreme" and Democrats being relatively centrist. DW-NOMINATE has certain utility in evaluating legislative coalitions, but as an actual measure of how left-wing or right-wing any coalition is, it's severely lacking.
Pew's survey finds a lot of interesting trends in the Republican Party, but one thing is certain: Democrats have gotten much more liberal over the last twenty years. Pew actually measures how people feel about a lot of different issues, not just how their votes cluster. Democrats moved noticably leftward in the late 90s. What is true is that Democrats stagnated throughout the Bush years in how Pew measures how liberal they are - they remained relatively consistent. But in the Obama era, Democrats have veered sharply leftward, as shown in these two images; watch how far the median Democrat jumps from 2010 to 2014:
The softer asymmetric polarization theory would admit that Democrats have moved further leftward, but Republicans have moved a lot further to the right. That might be true, but only if you cherry-pick what time you start measuring from. Which leads us to...
Myth #2: Republicans have consistently gotten more extreme
Pew provided this gif to go along with their survey. What happens to the Republican coalition is absolutely fascinating: contrary to the idea that George W. Bush was some kind of extremist, the Republican coalition moved sharply leftward in the early Bush years, peaking at a point in 2004 where the GOP coalition overlapped considerably with a Democratic one that hadn't changed much:
The median Republican, according to Pew, is only slightly to the right of where they began measuring in 1994. What happened was that the GOP got much more liberal from 1994 to 2004, and came back to the more conservative end of the spectrum after that.
Now, 1994 might also have been a conservative outlier - it's possible that Republicans were a lot more liberal prior to 1994's "Contract With America" and the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives - but what's clear is that the GOP coalition has been a lot more in flux in the last 20 years than the Democratic one - which has simply gotten consistently more liberal.
Myth #3: Republican views are more monolithic than Democrats
Liberal writers have long believed in the ideological diversity of the Democratic Party and lamented that an entrenched, monolithic Republican machine was what was keeping Democrats from achieving their goals.
Pew has this to say:
There is as much ideological uniformity on the left as the right. The share of Democrats holding consistently liberal views has grown steadily over the past 20 years, quadrupling from 5% in 1994 to 23% today. Social issues like homosexuality and immigration that once drove deep divides within the Democratic Party are now areas of relative consensus. And Democrats have become more uniformly critical of business and more supportive of government.
Much of this trend simply follows from the previous: Democrats have gotten more extreme, they've become a lot more unified ideologically, and therefore they're quite a monolithic party now. What was certainly not conventional wisdom, however, was the diversity of the Republican party in the Bush years. A significant faction of the Republican party was to the left of the median Democrat, and it wasn't because Democrats had been particularly moderate.
The Republican coalition has shifted in interesting ways in the last twenty years - going from conservative to liberal and back again. The Democratic coalition, on the other hand, has pretty consistently gotten more liberal - and that's a reality that analysts need to grapple with.

What Is Wrong With This Picture? WHAT? Chris Matthews Defends The Tea Party, Praises “Sophisticated” Dave Brat? Enjoy this version of Chris Matthews while you can. I’m sure he’ll be back to his ignorant fire-breathing self, blaming the Tea Party

In a shocking segment on “Ronan Farrow Daily,” MSNBC host Chris Matthews defended the Tea Party (yeah, you read that right) and praised Virginia’s 7th District Republican primary upset victor, Dave Brat.
Matthews said Dave Brat is “very sophisticated for a politician. He’s certainly up to the ranks of most politicians I’ve ever dealt with,” and “he can handle any debate on this program or my program.”
(I can’t believe I’m actually typing this).
But Matthews was just getting started. He then launched into a tirade where he defended grassroots conservatives, saying liberals have to stop “looking down our noses” at the Tea Party. “They have a message, they’re as American as any liberal is, and they’re really angry of the failure of the system.”
Matthew even backed the main frustrations of the Tea Party, saying “we can’t control the deficit, we can’t control the debt, we can’t control the border. What good is government good at? That’s the question that’s happened on every issue we’ve covered on our show.”
Enjoy this version of Chris Matthews 
while you can. I’m sure he’ll be back to his ignorant fire-breathing self, blaming the Tea Party of all kinds of racism, much sooner rather than later.