Faults With False Hero Worship

A former community organizer from Chicago, the president entered the Oval Office five-plus years ago, amid high hopes and promises of transparency. Critics warned not to expect anything of the kind, and to expect a velvet glove treatment if you were not counted among Obama’s close friends. Named the “Chicago Way” for a reason, operating only in a city, there is a reason it is not called, the “Way of the World”.

Where Obama and others erred, was that they thought themselves to be above the fray.

Read the entire article at Conservative Daily News.

Boston Take Aways

Boston was a city that had artificially seized up – made motionless and frozen in fear by 24 hour coverage. That same 24 hour news coverage, with its instantaneous updates, and conjecture-as-news, as exhausting as it was, provided us with a few valuable insights. The media and the government both showed themselves as highly amateurish at times, but perhaps most instructive, the resilience and ability of Americans to stand together in dire times was also shown. We saw both the best, and at times, the worst of humanity.

Find my complete post here: Conservative Daily News

Carlos Arredondo holds Old Glory

Hold Your Horses, Hutton

They did WHAT!?

In his February 16, 2013 column in the Guardian, columnist Will Hutton lays out the numerous failings of the British Food Standards Agency (FSA), which led to horse meat entering the human food chain. The horse-meat scandal may actually turn out to be two parallel mislabeling scams. Whatever the case, and as strange as mislabeled horse-meat is – it is not my primary issue.

My issue is with Hutton’s disgusting use of the scandal. Mirroring the penchant for American “journalists” who turn their columns and shows into personal soap boxes, Hutton takes swipes at right wingers in the United States, and he espouses the supposed ability of large government to function better than a slim and efficient one. Hutton especially takes to task a British politician who supported cuts in the funding of the FSA.

Hutton would have us believe a fully funded FSA would not have allowed this fiasco to occur. Indeed, an FSA, or any other governmental agency that does not receive adequate funding, is the cause for any accidents and other unfortunate mistakes that then occur. Hutton thinks that because the politicians, often times responding to their voters’ concerns, reduce funding to a bloated agency, they should receive the anger and onus of the press and people too.

Hutton so seems to dislike politician Owen Patterson, he goes so far as to make a personal attack of the man, referring to him as “one of the less sharp knives in the political drawer”. Hutton’s anger seethes against anyone he deems “connected” to the scandal. He attacks the large supermarket chains who seek to price food where the consumer can afford it, he attacks the stock holders of the supermarkets, he attacks right-wing think tanks in the U.S., and he eventually goes so far as attacking capitalism itself, saying it does not deliver the best outcomes.

Within those barbs fed by misunderstanding and assumption, Hutton joins so many of the American left, who hear the word, “capitalism”, and either rage or cringe. The cause of so much damage to people, the cause of so much environmental damage – is the dreaded capitalism. Never mind that it is also the reason there are 90 different types of bread on the supermarket shelves or that it is the reason that clothing is still relatively inexpensive and easily replaced — we must see like Mr. Hutton, that capitalism is inherently evil. Everything it touches, businesses, politicians, and workers are worse off, Hutton would have us believe.

Oddly though – the tax revenue that the capitalism structure generates that allows the left’s dream of bloated and inefficient government programs – well, that is the only good thing that comes from capitalism. Somehow, running the funds through the filter of government who then divvy them out, changes the funds from merely evil capital, based on worker exploitation, to a wonderful means to a social end. Again, in a parallel with the left in the United States, Will Hutton seeks to use a crisis to further the false cause of enlarging the government’s reach and its strength.

I find it interesting that while the right, conservatives especially, often find themselves fitted with the mantle of being a backward-looking anachronism, the left on both sides of the pond, seem constantly to recycle their failed policies of Keynesian spending and bloated government structures. A strength of conservatives is to not only look to history for measures that work, but to look back, and abandon and prevent measures that have failed. Perhaps the left should  finally abandon the continuous failure that is Keynesian economics – but with as rabidly as some support left-wing politics, you have a better chance of having lunch with a Kentucky Derby winner…

Interviewed on PrairieDogma!

I did a reaction post on Obama’s awful State of the Union Address from last evening, and was asked to be a guest on PrairieDogma, a new, weekly show on Spreecast. The interview and discussion of Obama policy lasted just over an hour. I’m grateful to @PrairieDogSD for giving me the time to snark, and for being a great interviewer. I’m also grateful for @NJLibertarian for his expert producer work.

You can find the interview here:
http://www.spreecast.com/events/prairie-dogma-2

Also, brought to you by, The Free Radical Network

But He’s OUR Criminal!

Image: http://thecollegeconservative.com

For the entirety of his two terms in office, belittling and lampooning by the media and left in general, was the typical reaction of progressives to George W. Bush. He was a buffoon, a cowboy, and an idiot, they would have us believe. Bush was a maverick, willing to start wars and carry out the missions from previous administrations (invading Iraq was to finish his father’s war, many on the left claimed).

It seemed like Bush’s mere existence was enough to make some progressives apoplectic, or send them into an angry, profanity-laden, rant.

Read the full post, here: Conservative Daily News

The Left, and Throw-Away Humanity

While the left is content to spew their opinions and opine on subjects that they are dangerously under educated about, the chasm between what they claim and what they do continues to grow wider. The left claims to care so very much about the people, and whatever shortcomings that they face. The reality between the left’s over-reaching legislation and their over-spending, is that they will happily use whatever they must in order to further their own flawed claims and defective logic.

Read the rest at Conservative Daily News

Tools for useful idiots

The Progressive “Reality”

Ministry of Propaganda

“Doublespeak” is a term inspired by “double-think” in Orwell’s famous dystopian novel, “1984″. According to oxforddictionaries.com, it means “deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language”. I would say it means, “saying something to say nothing”. Regardless, no one group of people has done more to further the spread of doublespeak than the American left.

Left-wing author, George Lakoff calls it “framing”, and advocates its use to regain rhetorical ground that the left lost to Republicans. By changing terms like “partial-birth abortion” and “tax-relief”, Lakoff claims that progressive ideas would be more pleasing to the ear, and therefore more readily adopted by Americans. It is not the idea that is the problem, it is the description of the idea, he would have us believe. Never mind that the actual actions are as morally corrupt as ever, it should sound good.

The moments when progressives actually deviate from their politically correct speech, can be disastrous for them. Just this week, a Michigan state Congressman, Doug Geiss, threatened that there, “would be blood” if right-to-work measures became law in the state. President Obama himself uttered the infamous line to Joe Wurzelbacher, about spreading the wealth around, in response to Wurzelbacher’s candid question.

Democrats and progressives use four of the same tactics, over and over again, either to create their desired environment, or to change one that they do not like.

• Create divisions were there are none, or there are none necessary. There was no reason to creating animus and promote class hatred when Obama took office. His huge spending plans and burgeoning deficits meant someone had to pay though – so enter the “filthy 1%”, said to have not earned their money honestly, or who are like robber barons (so go the hackneyed talking points). Another attempt at this, that ended in a conservative barrage of rebuttals, was the left’s “War on Women”. That attempt to create a narrative met with limited success.
• Simply call something other than what it is. “Taxes” and “tax increases” are not so anymore – they are “paying one’s ‘fair share’”, and “revenue increases”. People understand and hate taxes, so to sell them to Americans, the left has to call them something that they are not. It has gotten so out of hand with tax-related issues, “tax cuts” are occasionally called “subsidies”.
• Utilizing projection and shifting blame to look like the left is innocent of the problems that they have caused. We see the left gin up crowds of angry unions and other supporters, and when those same groups act out, violently, the left tries to claim the right provoked it. As the Obama spending grew exponentially, the left was all too happy to parrot the messages that “Bush was every bit as bad” and “Obama inherited the mess”. We have seen a little less of the shifting as Obama’s spending blew past any Bush spending, and continued upward. Another quashed point of the left was the tie between Bush and Cheney and various corporations. This was largely due to Obama’s hiring numerous people for his administration, who were close with corporations, coupled with Obama’s multi-million dollar loans to failed energy companies, headed by campaign bundlers.
  Just as I am writing this, MSNBC is trying to create doubt that it was union members who tore down an Americans For Prosperity tent in Lansing, Michigan.
• Using the lap-dog media to carry the left’s messages. The media serve as both a bullhorn and magnifying glass for whatever claims the left wants to proffer. Media will both “investigate” negative claims, smearing through implications while doing it, and give the left a soapbox to stand on as they promulgate slurs and lies. News personalities will happily promote a false narrative, sharing what they consider correct information, rather than legitimately correct information. Soledad O’Brien famously tried to lecture Joel Pollack about liberation theology, and failed miserably. At the latest presidential debate, Candy Crowley attempted to correct Mitt Romney’s point that Obama never called the Benghazi attack, a “terror attack”. Of course Obama did not, but Crowley making the incorrect point led many people to take it as gospel from the debate moderator.

The left has done this for so long now, I fear that there are actually some people on the right who may think it is already too late to turn back the fake, fallacious claims of the left. The left has had so much time to invent, spew, and support their dogma, the American people now believe in that brand of reality.  Some in Congress seem to take a resigned, “oh well” view of the whole fiasco, and for their parts, become willing sacrificial lambs and scapegoats to the stories. More shockingly, some in Congress seem to look at the left’s success with these measures, and begin to think, “Hey – to get our messages out, maybe we should try that too!”

So, how do you oppose this? How are you supposed to fight so many marshalled sources of false information? Creating your own medium to offer your own narrative is too costly and laborious. Do you appear on the left’s favored programs, and pick fights with the bogus-information dealers? Possibly, but you would only have one chance to do that. A first step is to illustrate as much as possible the divergence between the reality of the country, and what the left claims the reality is. Aim for the issues and places with the biggest divergence. And do not do it without expecting numerous excuses, and be prepared to defend your own claims. It is very much a “parry-and-thrust” exercise, but there is no reason not to expect to win always – after all, the truth is on our side.

Thank You, America

(This post is written primarily with the goodie-receiving, hook-line-and-sinker, Obama voter. With that being said, I hope the people who didn’t vote for him think differently after reading too.)

Uncle Sam has work to do…

Thank you, America. You have made it abundantly clear to this blogger, that the America we read about in books, the “Shining City on a Hill”, is no more. What happened? Well, with last night’s doubling down on the most unprepared, ill-mannered, and financially irresponsible president ever, we as a country, continue to move into uncharted territory. You have sought to receive something for nothing, America, and many of us realize that those positions and beliefs are completely untenable. Everything we receive from government is paid for – usually at an astronomical mark-up. And you would like more.

You simply cannot continuously bleed a source, and government’s been a very sick patient for a while now. You might remember not too long ago, the government needed another debt-ceiling raise. The debt ceiling was raised again, as the Republicans in Congress signed off, rather than risk a government shut down. (The media told us it is for the best) We cannot have the government shut down - soldiers and old people would be placed in bad situations. Is this why you actually believe the right is irresponsible? Is that why you think they politic too much – that they sought to slow or stop the unsustainable growth of government, rather than just keep spending like the left?

In your drive to keep up with the Joneses’ (who live next door, and receive the same goodies and Obama-phones as you do), did you really think that the president gave a damn about you? Didn’t it seem awfully convenient of him to turn the charm on again – after four years of non-stop whining and golf? I know, I know, “he seems like the kind of guy you might have a beer with,” right? I wonder if he also struck you as a guy who would pick your pocket and steal gas from your car?

You have your phones, you have your EBT cards, and now, with the election wins last night, you seem to have it all. I wish you the best of luck with it all. The government is perilously close to a financial cliff, and when the benefits (shiny trinkets) you prize so much stop arriving in the mail – who will you blame? The government of Barack Obama, who promised you the moon? Or, because you are his supporter, and that it could not possibly be him (and you) that made such poor decisions – will you move onto another boogeyman?

The refrain from voters, such as yourselves, is that we will just soak the rich – just tax the hell out of them, and they will happily sit there and take it, right? It’s not like they have the money to pick up and move, right? Your problems are many and your solutions are absent. The solutions that you think you have come up with, will not have much effect at all of keeping your goodie-train rolling. Last evening, you sought fit to abandon the best chance we had at seriously reforming the spending mentality of this government, only to continue with more of the back-breaking regulations and taxing-and-spending of the Obama administration. Basing your vote on your stomach (EBTs), your ears (Obama-phones), or lady-parts (the bogus contraceptives debate), in casting the votes you did last night, you probably did more to end those programs than Mitt Romney ever could have, and you have probably greatly sped it up too. Basing the Obama “goodies-math” on false numbers and projections that are not even close to where actual numbers are right now, will have results that become apparent soon enough.

I cannot say I am really that shocked, that such shallow and self-centered folks would vote this way – after all, who cares about the neighbors, so long as your checks keep coming, right? The easy amused sort do not shock me either – their lack of foresight is no as well. So, go back to your couches (or graves) whichever the case may be, and live in the moment, from goodie to goodie. You have cast the die…

In Defense of Bob Beckel

Wow. I would have never, in a thousand years thought, that I would ever feel the need to defend anything Bob Beckel has done, or anything that he has said. However, when the story of his newest verbal faux pas hit the internet today, the commentors and other people calling for his ouster from the show, “The Five”, were too many I think.

Bob Beckel: “(&*#$%^&”

I take issue, with even a handful of people, gnashing their teeth, and bemoaning Beckel’s poor choice of words. While I understand the shock that hearing an “f-bomb” on television might create, there is no reason to stick with that feeling, and use it to demand a man’s job. While what Beckel said was crass and probably not the wisest thing he could have said (already having said the word once before this year on the same program), he is an American, and as such can say it – his reaction is his right, and as was the case today, he can use whatever response he feels is necessary. It is not like the man used hate-speech, he did not yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater, and he apologized immediately after having uttered the word. I would add too, that the cause of Beckel’s outburst was a sharp jab from fellow panelist, Eric Bolling.

While Beckel’s language today was saltier than usual, his “forbidden word” is no worse than you could expect at any mall or junior high school. Young teens walking down sidewalks are very likely to drop an f-bomb of their own, and yet, no one turns agoraphobic because of the language that they may encounter in public. While some people do not care for swear words, they have no right to either judge people’s choice of words, or do they have the right to restrict that innocent speech.

I would say to the greatly offended viewers who are calling for Beckel’s head: You know, as well as everybody else that you tuned into the program of your own volition. No one forced you to do so. You, the viewers, are free to turn off the program at any time. The program is famous for heated discussions among the five panelists, and they are no different from today’s event, but for one word. I would offer that many viewers, both on the right, and on the left, tune in just to see Beckel rail against the tide of the other panelists. He is a wonderful antagonist in his role.

To hear a single word, then react as some people did, calling for Beckel’s firing, was nothing more than seeing a typical left-wing tactic used by our own side. This sort of seizing opportunities of victimless accidents like this by my fellow conservatives and republicans, is at least, disheartening, and at worst, disgusting. In the recent years, we have seen things like NDAA and the Patriot Act erode our rights, and now, just to make an example of a prickly political opponent, we would do it to ourselves? That is madness. Either we stand for the right of free speech, and we take the bad with the good, or we slowly begin to hammer at another right we will willingly throw away. Our rights are under enough stress by a power-hungry administration, and they do not need the added stress of your own sanctimony and self-important moralizing.

The comments that inspired this post can be found here:
http://twitchy.com/2012/08/14/bob-beckel-drops-f-bomb-on-air-again/
and here, with video:
http://www.therightscoop.com/the-five-bob-beckel-drops-the-f-bomb-on-air-again/

“Free” Speech

This past week has shown both the best of America, and certainly some of the worst of America. After a company’s owner, declared his support of traditional marriage (a statement in the affirmative), he saw his words twisted and warped into some sort of negative, hate-tinged rant, against homosexuals. Dan Cathy, owner of Chick-Fil-A restaurants, then faced the possibility of boycotts of his restaurants, vandalism, and a staged “kiss-in” demonstration by disgruntled proponents of gay marriage. What Cathy got, however, was massive support by champions of free speech, who giving his statement a moment’s reading, determined correctly, that it was completely innocent, and devoid of any sort of hatred.

Free speech isn’t necessarily free…

Opponents of free speech, many times would see it restricted, to promote and spread their own spun narratives. The danger in this, is that both the restriction and the flagrant misuse of free speech, has heavy consequence. In the age of citizen press on the Internet, credibility can be scarce, and trust in a source can be mistakenly given. Herein lies the little understood and often-ignored fact that “free” speech, is not free at all. There are at least two main ways that free speech can be paid for:

• Credibility
• Capital (both monetary and political)

Concerning credibility, the most glaring example at the moment is the mainstream media. As the Internet’s citizen media grew, and on site sources for events began to coordinate and corroborate events that differed from the media’s accounts, it confirmed suspected media biases. The old media’s reports of Tea Party and right-wing violence, black Congressmen being spat on and called epithets, and reporters’ attempts to educate guests on issues like Critical Race Theory, all had the eroding effect on what little credibility the networks may have still had. As if numerous mayors of cities, like Boston and San Francisco, had not eroded what little credibility that they had left, last week said that they were fine with banning certain restaurants from their cities, based solely on the owner’s personal views. Let’s be clear on this point: when Dan Cathy talked about supporting traditional marriage, he was speaking for Dan Cathy, not Chick-Fil-A restaurants. So the mayors’ knee-jerk reactions are to prevent restaurants (and all the associated jobs and benefits) from building in their cities – this, with an economy in terrible shape.

With capital being the method a person pays for their baseless rhetoric, people like Barack Obama and Harry Reid have consistently spent what political capital they have built up. Obama had a huge groundswell, and a maniacally energized party after the 2008 presidential election, and he has spent his entire term thus far, spending that political capital – by forcing healthcare bills that had less than 1/2 of the public’s support, by touting his “success” at turning the economy around, and by beginning to make good on his promise to bankrupt the American coal power industry. Obama also lost a fair amount of face, when he engaged in the speculation of what happened in the case of mistaken identity of Henry Louis Gates and Cambridge Police (They “acted stupidly” as you may recall…)

He ‘heard it from a nameless guy somewhere…’

Until last week, there was no story or rumors of Harry Reid and children. Until he claimed he had a source that said Mitt Romney had not paid taxes in ten years – then, to illustrate the absurdity of the “I heard it from a guy, whose name I can not say” Reid engaged in, there grew a hash-tag and rumors about his “illicit acts” – the sources for the acts, of course, also being “a guy who people had heard it from”. Mitt Romney, for his part seemed very diplomatic about it (daring Reid to “put up or shut up”). So far, a rumor designed to make Mitt Romney look bad, has actually had an opposite effect, and with his retort, it showed him as passionate and strong, while Reid looks like a gossipy rumor-monger.

In another case of a person’s mouth leading to their ruin, a customer visiting a Chick-Fil-A restaurant in Arizona, filmed the entire event. Adam Smith thought he would visit the restaurant, take one of their free waters, then berate a drive-through window employee. The next step he took was apparently to post the smarmy event on Youtube, and receive praise for acting as he did. However, condemnation for his brusque manner, and targeting a minimum wage worker, was swift. It was learned that in short order, Smith had been fired from his CFO job at Vante and may lose his adjunct position at a college he teaches at.

In Reid’s and Obama’s cases, the speech that they have chosen to use, has directly led to the lowest ratings of Congress and poor presidential approval ratings. The point of these many examples should be obvious by now – there is no such thing as “free” speech. Everything a person says is carefully interpreted and digested by people around us. If there happen to be cameras around to catch the exact words, they can either be a tremendous savior, or a terrible sentence for the speaker.

The American Quislings?

Vidkun Quisling, Norwegian Leader, Nazi-collaborator (1887-1945)

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, “Quisling”, no, this is not an article on some rare flora or fauna (or whatever else you may think a Quisling is). Read on, and take the term to heart – we are sure to see plenty more pseudo-Quislings as election time draws nearer…

A “Quisling” came about in the Second World War, and draws its name from a Norwegian politician, named Vidkun Quisling. Even before the Germans considered invading Norway, Quisling traveled to Berlin and sought to convince Hitler how valuable a country like Norway would be under the German swastika. Vidkun lost his name to the term, invented by the British press, after it learned of Mr. Quisling’s actions when Norway faced an imminent German Nazi invasion. Perhaps the closest American parallel that I can offer, would be a cross among:  a band-wagon rider, crossed with Benedict Arnold, crossed with Nero. You might be thinking, surely no one’s that disgusting a character – but Mr. Quisling fit the bill. Facing a German invasion, Quisling, who had already been a member of a fascist party in Norway, and received support from Germany, simultaneously declared himself leader of the country, and ordered Norwegians to throw down their weapons and not attack the now “friendly” occupiers, the Nazis.

For a position of power in the new occupied government, Quisling sold his soul, and attempted to sell his country’s as well. His collaboration with evil, his disregard for the safety and well-being of others, especially his own countrymen, has made him infamous in Europe – he is the European equivalent of our own aforementioned, Benedict Arnold. So, how have I arrived at a column about a new American version of the infamous Quisling? I have simply taken a look at the past three plus years of American government and “leadership” – that is how. And while the crisis of leadership we now have in America is of the voters‘ (and non-voters’) creation, whereas Quisling’s own actions lead him to a short stint in charge, I see more than a few parallels in the behaviors and attitudes of our leaders and the Norwegian.

1. A sense of entitlement: “We belong here.” Democrats read far too much into their capturing of Congress in the first two years of Obama’s term, and they gave Americans, Obamacare (but yet no budgets). What they saw as some sort of mandate, we now see was voter weariness at republican swagger and spending. Voters may have thought, “well, the republicans are spending like democrats – wonder if the democrats are really any worse?” And of course, we see that they are much, much worse. The Senate continues to languish, with no budgets in three plus years, and the stonewalled House, seeking documents from a law-breaking attorney-general, who seeks to cover his own tracks on an illegal and botched operation in the southwest, passes legislation that is constantly tabled in said Senate.
   And do not forget Obama’s infamous quips: “We won.” and “You would think they’d be saying ‘thank you!’“
2. Belief that their way is the best or only way: Of course, the American people needed Obamacare, right? Through various tricks and legislative maneuvers (including near-bribes for supportive votes in Congress), the democrats went against the prevailing public opinion that Americans did not want the healthcare over haul. All that work to shove the faulty, expensive, and ultimately destructive measure down the gullets of Americans, and now the bill itself looks sick, and could be buried in the next session of Congress, under Congressional authority to regulate taxes…
3. Using their position for themselves, rather than for their countrymen: Numerous very expensive vacations, bringing large entourages of yes-men and security ring a bell? So many holes of golf in only three years of a presidency. While we are in the most serious economic miasma since the Great Depression of the 1930s and 1940s, and the president finds all this time to play golf and sight see? How about bridges to nowhere and Big Digs? Earmarks and pork barrel projects for everybody – what better way to ensure your re-election, than to give the voters a few crumbs every couple of years?
   How about various congressmen and women, allegedly using their inside knowledge of upcoming votes on legislation to enrich themselves from stock trades, or using their power to gain entry into “closed” (nearly impossible to join) IPOs? There are numerous other examples of the American people struggling to make their ways and pay their bills while fat cats in D.C. fill their pockets – and yet much of the vitriol those same folks in the government spew is against the so-called rich…

There is no imminent invasion, there is no impending army on the American doorstep – but make no mistake, we are on the edge of a precipice. Changes are necessary, or the dire possibilities will become events that cannot be avoided. Whether it is a fundamental change in America – a moral and cultural shift toward the selfish – or “just” economic ruin, the current state of politics and leadership in America is an unhealthy, untenable one. Are the politicians willfully selling the country out? Maybe, I think that there are far more that are merely ignorant of the results of their actions, and (thankfully) do not fit the tightest definition of a Quisling.

There are many examples of power-hungry politicians, and those who would do anything to get their required face-time on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, but to me, it seems like there are so many more these days. I cannot remember anything resembling this media circus when I was growing up – perhaps it’s just the increase in outlets that has allowed so many more politicians to interview? Perhaps it is the symbiotic relationship between the networks and politicians, knowing that one line or one claim, could instantly create a personality that might be repeatedly asked to return?
Regardless, this notion that everyone is in it for themselves, is wearing very thin. The idea that, “this is America, and you can become anything”, used to come with the understanding that you did not walk on people or act like a cut throat to do it. Whatever happened to that notion?

Wisconsin Wins – What Can We Glean From Them?

Celebrating, Gov. Scott Walker and Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch

Yesterday’s monumental wins by Scott Walker and Rebecca Kleefisch are still being celebrated today by the right, and bitterly bemoaned by the left. As the left put their faith in exit polls shared by media sources MSNBC and others, the races looked like they would be fairly close. Despite the president’s reluctance to show his support for Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (until an 11th hour tweet), maybe it was somehow possible Barrett still had a good chance to keep the race close.  As it turns out, the race was not really that close at all, and for all their spending, democrats were left with a big bag of nothing, going 0-2 in the recall races.

As an analytical guy, I think that there are some very strong, very significant, takeaways from this special recall election.

• The Wisconsin voters did not buy the rhetoric that having public employees pay a fraction of their own insurance costs would somehow put them into the poor house. The voters, who typically pay more for their own insurance, and had to then pay a lion’s share of public sector employees’ costs had enough. After the past few years of burgeoning governments, and massive spending by both state and federal governments, voters let their votes speak for them: enough is enough. The left would be careful not to neglect the message that progressive policies, and its empty rhetoric, is now at an all-time nadir.
• Despite media sources’ best efforts to sell the president as a friendly every man, and someone who’s infinitely more capable than his administration and his track record shows, he has still only has lukewarm support among some big names, even on the left. The biggest story of this election is the revelation that Bill Clinton, patron saint of democrats, still has a distaste for Obama. In the last presidential election, against Hilary, a shocked Bill Clinton revealed that the Obama campaign “played the race card on me…and they planned to do it all along.” Is it the result of two massive cults of personality, butting heads? The result of the greatest contemporary democratic president (Clinton) and the man who’s billed as the greatest democratic president (Obama)?
• We also learned that state democrats and other Barrett supporters were angry at the Democratic National Committee for not spending any funds against Walker and Kleefisch, but that the DNC helped in other ways. I wonder if the “extensive resources” mentioned in the Kos article is in any way tied to the out-of-state buses taking people to polling places? Could this be a result of the national DNC attempting to save and pool money for the lackluster Obama campaign throughout this summer and fall? Might the national elections this fall mirror these attempts to unfairly sway elections, but on a much, much larger scale?
• Lastly, the distinct lack of enthusiasm on the left may continue to spread as college graduates struggle to find jobs where there are none, and high school students, who will generally do odds jobs or other minimum wage work, see those jobs evaporate as over-qualified adults take the positions. The distinct lack of job creation, coupled with an influx of new workers, added to a stagnant economy overall, does not bode well for Obama’s re-election hopes. As he admitted himself, if he could not turn around the economy, he would be a one-term president.

The Left: Vetting For Thee, Not For Me

In a total surprise of yet more media slant, early this week, a Politico blogger by the name Maggie Haberman (@maggiepolitico on Twitter), decided to run background checks on a gentleman featured in a Mitt Romney campaign ad! That is correct – the man was not a money donor or bundler, he merely appeared in an ad. That is the only tie he seems to have to Romney. While some people may think, so what, the guy agreed to appear in the ad, so he gets the fame with the fallout, right? The issue I have is that now instead of trying to show the candidates’ ethics and morality guided by  their long-term associations with unrepentant domestic terrorists, that they actually cultivated into close friendships (think Bill Ayers and Barack Obama), the left now the left sees a new tactic to use against candidates.

The left has never seemed to have any ethical hangups about jumping into the business of personal destruction, and the past few years have shown us a couple of good examples. With the aforementioned case with Politico, the “journalist” seemed to relish in the fact the man had a criminal history. The man paid his debt to society and had been a good, law-abiding citizen since the events, but the left saw him tied to Mitt Romney, and so, the man was a fair target for the snarling left’s destruction machine.

This all comes after revelation that the White House’s “Truth Team” shared information on eight donators to the Romney campaign. The men all seemed to have little else in common than donating to the campaign. But, as mentioned before, they showed themselves  allied with Romney, and rather than tackle Romney’s message or even dispute their own shortcomings, the left tries to intimidate those who would participate in the democratic process. Is this just another sign that the Obama campaign is in an un-savable nose-dive? The left cannot see the revulsion people feel, seeing under-handed acts like this?

Joe “The Plumber” Wurzelbacher

This type of targeting is not the first time the left combed through a private citizen’s past, either. In 2008, Joe Wurzelbacher asked then candidate, Barack Obama, if he believed people were entitled to the fruits of their labor. One embarrassing reply from the candidate later, and the Head of Ohio’s Department of Jobs and Family Services authorized an improper search of Wurzelbacher’s history of unemployment records and child support records. Helen E. Jones-Kelley earned a suspension as a result of the inappropriate inquiries.  She was also later reprimanded for using her state email address to solicit donations for the Obama presidential campaign. A Toledo Police Department computer account had also been used to complete a search of Wurzelbacher’s driving history – an action which triggered another investigation.

The governor of the state of Ohio at the time was a Democrat – Ted Strickland, and Toledo is a liberal bastion, presently in Democrat Marcy Kaptur’s Congressional district. I am not saying that the left is the sole monopolizer of this type of destructive dredging up of past misdeeds, presently paid for, but – if the right had done this – the likes of MSNBC and Politico would be going apoplectic trying to “report’ on it. Perhaps instead of running background checks on political opponents and their supporters, Democrats could put those skills to better use vetting their own candidates – then perhaps the nation would not be able to laugh at their choices, like Kwame Kilpatrick, Gary Hart, and Eliot Spitzer.

Are You Tired Of Standing For Something?

The "evolution" of the progressive

…then become a progressive Democrat. It is such a simple solution to the trying problems of our times. Imagine being able to revert to a near-childhood state of mind, and a juvenile sense of responsibility! Oh, if only we could – but, those mean old Republicans, with their responsibility, and reality…Darn those buzzkills!

Having a shrinking ability to determine reality from fantasy, the progressive movement has made the most of its past few years in positions of power in the United States government. From the time Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid ran rough-shod over the country in the U.S. Congress, along with Barack Obama’s continuing “leadership”,  to the on-going fantastical, fanatical stories reported in the mainstream media, there has not been a story that they have not tried to spin wildly to their own benefits. Even when the progressive politicians have sought to relay a legitimate story, or seemingly valid concern, they seem to be guilty of sins of omission or finger pointing. I am honestly beginning to wonder if progressives either cannot deal with the truth, or if we have reached a point where they are now simply refusing to deal with the truth.

In just the last few years, we have seen a “surprise” healthcare bill. Liberals passed it through various tricks and legislative maneuvers. Giddy with the outcome, Nancy Pelosi, admitted she herself did not know exactly what the bill contained, and that we would find out soon enough. In short order, Americans everywhere tore through the legislation, and found the many problems and sketchy funding mechanisms employed within. The best things that have come from the entire mess are; the humongous amount of political capital wasted by Congressional Democrats and Obama, and how many seats that they lost in the 2010 election, and last, but certainly not least – the creation of a reinvigorated American political force – the Tea Party.

In just the last few months, we have seen a woman, paraded in front of cameras for a hearing in Washington, to gin up support for women’s healthcare. After faulting her Catholic University (Georgetown) for not covering her prophylactics, the mainstream media changed to try to claim she wanted other woman’s reproductive issues and medications covered (despite her repeated testimony referring to “birth control”). More details came out, and it was revealed that she was not the poor, struggling college student that she was billed as by the media, but was in fact, a 30 year old law student, with a long history of activism. Progressives looking for some sympathy, were forced to change their narratives.

In just the last few weeks, we have seen a young man, now in hiding, due to threats on his life, and another associated young man having lost his life. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were quick to arrive on the scene, and point toward what they were positive were the problems with the case – racist, shoddy police work, and a sociopathic, racist killer. The first stories from the media were that the white man (George Zimmerman) killed the other young man (Trayvon Martin) simply because he was black. They would have us believe it was a simply cut-and-dried case of racism rearing its ugly head. Except, again, the media got it horribly wrong. The white man was actually a Hispanic, and he may have been defending himself – not seeking a certain target to murder, based solely on their race. To try and keep the manufactured narrative alive a little longer, we have seen in the past few days, the explanation that Trayvon may have lost his life because he wore a hoodie, and a Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson explained Trayvon was “executed for WWB in a GC”. Slowly but surely, progressives seeking to cash in on the tragedy are being forced again, to change their narratives.

Geraldo Rivera blames hoodies for the Trayvon tragedy

We have seen GOP legislators chased out of their offices by both their own party, as well as by an opposition, who smelled blood in the water, and thought they could make some political points from the mess – capturing a “soft” seat, or illustrating how terrible the other party is. Not having to follow a pesky code of conduct or code of honor, or not holding many ethical considerations, and barely meeting any legal requirements, must be a very freeing life for progressives. Having media that seeks to exonerate you, rather than hold you responsible for anything you have done, must be nice too.

A Fluke Occurence

Recently, the United States was once again turned into a rhetorical battleground for all things reproductive (and, it seems  contraceptive). Allegations flew, heated rhetoric issued, slurs uttered, and rumors became rallying points for one side or another. The Democrats in Congress, seeking to make some points with another one of their astroturf-victims, chose Sandra Fluke to stand in for as a witness before Congress. She was billed to the American public as a poor college student, a victim of the rising prices of education in this country, who was having trouble paying for all the necessities for college.

Contraceptive or valid medical necessity? Fluke blurs the line.

The truth is that Ms. Sandra Fluke was not the young college co-ed we expected (she was actually 30) nor was she an undergrad at just any random university (she was in the Catholic, Georgetown’s prestigious law program). While these sins of omission normally may not have been in and of themselves particularly damning, she bemoaned the fact that she could not pay for both the $60k tuition, and another $3k for contraceptives, and that the government should pay for her contraceptives.

This seeming inability to balance time and money, really caused this writer to pause – something did not smell right here. This woman has had time for the rigors of Georgetown’s law school, a full-time summer job, (we later learned she is an activist as well) and yet still manages to amass $3k in contraceptive bills? How does a person have so much time on their hands? Did Ms. Fluke really not know that a Catholic University would balk at covering contraceptives? I find this very hard to believe.

I have seen on Twitter and elsewhere in the media, any number of people, trying to conduct a sort of “damage control,”  claiming that either Fluke did not claim that $3k was for contraceptives (which Fluke certainly did), or by attacking others’ essays on her disingenuous testimony. Time and time again during her testimony, Fluke called the measures she wanted covered, “contraceptives.” What effect this had, was only to further blur the lines of already sketchy legislation (Obamacare and other health coverage) and their rationale for requiring blanket coverage of afflictions. I have no problem covering legitimate, necessary, medical conditions – but we must draw a line when the issue is a personal choice, or in this case, a seeming lack of self-control. Fluke, by trying to attach the coverage of her contraceptives to other, legitimate medically necessary treatments, does a disservice to women who suffer from, and actually need, those treatments/medications.

My problems with her testimony: Fluke also used charged language, like calling the insurance companies’ reviews of student need for the thousands of dollars of contraceptives, “interrogation.” While that plays perfectly into a victimized narrative the left loves to write, I doubt there was an insurance agent taking students to a grubby room, with a single light bulb. Another thing she did was use the plight of a hospitalized, close friend, with complications of polycystic ovarian syndrome. The problem I have with that is if Fluke were honest from the beginning, and not chosen to make a political football from the issues on the stage she was given, far more sympathy could be given to her. Instead, she undermined her credibility from the onset, and may have caused long-term damage to female healthcare (ironically, the supposed thing she and her Democrat advocates espouse). Attacking the Catholic Church is no way to reach a tenable resolution either, and depending on the government to step in and overrule Church dogma sets a very dangerous precedent.

Sandra Fluke shakes hands with Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Elijah Cummings (D-GA)

It would have been far more powerful to have the actual victims of the policies at the hearing, but instead, we had a single person relaying all these concerns. Do these sympathetic friends even exist? Maybe – with shaky credibility, I cannot say. But to rely on a woman whose mission is to further her own, and others’ political goals, instead of actually helping raise awareness of overlooked women is disgusting and reprehensible.

Sandra Fluke’s Testimony is found here, via Current TV (PDF)