Archive for the ‘Double Standard’ Category

My Parents Are Bad People!

August 29, 2013 Leave a comment

Bailey takes one of Slate’s editors out to the woodshed for the editor’s awful want to curb private schools. They’re unfair, the editor believes, and Bailey isn’t having it.

ImageI hate to admit that something some dumb socialist said pissed me off, but this kind of did.

Ms. Allison Benedikt had the nerve today to post an article on entitled “If You Send Your Kid To Private School, You Are a Bad Person.”

We-he-hell! Is that so? So, because my parents wanted my siblings to get the best education they could, they are bad people? Because my dad worked OVERTIME for YEARS to send all of his kids to a school that had small enough class sizes that allowed for our individual needs to be addressed, he’s a “bad person”?  Because my mom wanted to send us to a school where we could learn and grow in our Catholic faith, she is a bad person?  Because my parents wanted to send us to one of the VERY FEW safe(r) schools in town that didn’t have a reputation for…

View original post 463 more words


Boston Take Aways

April 22, 2013 Leave a comment

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

But He’s OUR Criminal!

January 13, 2013 1 comment

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

January 8, 2013 Leave a comment

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

Why The Left Doesn’t Want Safe Schools

December 22, 2012 5 comments

Who would have a problem with police in schools?

The recent rampage in Newport, Connecticut has the entire country talking about gun rights, safety, and the protection of young, innocent schoolchildren. Fixing the woeful measures of school protection, is a commonly held belief, across politics of all stripes.  How best to protect those schoolchildren, however, has any number of suggestions, and just as many critics.

Many centrists and most Republicans support the placing of armed police, either active or retired, in schools.  The reasoning goes, as police, they have received plenty of training, both with firearms, and with person-to-person interactions. Met with a threat, police’s first instinct is surely not carelessly to open fire – that is the last option, when talking and negotiating have proven ineffective. Trained to use words first, and lethal force last, is how the police operate.

While thinking about that, and attempting to find problems and flaws with police in schools, I may have inadvertently found a reason why some progressives do not want cops in schools. Much progressive rhetoric relies on the belief that authority is inherently bad, and it should always be questioned, and sometimes engaged physically.

I think here lies the crux of their problem with police in schools. How on earth could police officers who provide safe learning environments be a bad thing? While there are some progressives who actually fear the inanimate object that is a firearm, seeing a mature, responsible authority figure at school with that firearm, would tear down tenets of the progressive orthodoxy.

Students would see and interact with a policeman everyday, learning that police are not the overbearing monsters that many on the left would have the public believe. Add to that the effect of a sidearm tucked safely away in a holster, and the child learns that the gun is not the randomly-firing, crazy-tool-with-a-mind of its own, either. Opposing police in schools also creates a problem with many progressives’ claim that only highly-trained, responsible, licensed people should be allowed to have firearms at all.

If you allow children to see this same responsibility daily, and the children also grow to respect the policemen as more than just an authority (as someone who has sworn to place his own life in between the children’s’ lives and any threat) and you would cause all sorts of short-circuiting with liberal narratives. The schoolchildren will experience cognitive dissonance between the media who love to show the most atrocious police stories possible, and the friendly school protector. The children will also be able to ask the policeman questions and learn from him.

Once that sort of erosion of progressive dogma starts – where would it end? The progressives, already outnumbered, might be forced to defend more of their often illogical and baseless claims, in futile attempt to remain relevant. Why it could be the end of the entire progressive false reality. To me, the positives far outweigh the imagined negatives, and the course is clear – show the children we care enough to protect them from both evil threats, and the misguided progressive claim that guns are inherently evil, and that people should not be able to protect themselves.

The Progressive “Reality”

December 11, 2012 2 comments

Ministry of Propaganda

“Doublespeak” is a term inspired by “double-think” in Orwell’s famous dystopian novel, “1984”. According to, 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.

The Nonsense Nobel Winner

September 24, 2012 Leave a comment

Paul Krugman

I found Friday’s Op-Ed column in the New York Times, by Nobel Prize winner in economics, Paul Krugman, both misleading and trite. While I do not know how much he might be paid for this column, he makes the case this week that he is overpaid, no matter the amount. He has used his personal soap box in this column, repeatedly to attack what he believes are Mitt Romney’s beliefs, impugns the GOP’s belief in small business creators and owners, and repeats the progressives’ favorite lie, that the GOP just does not care about the common-man, the middle class in America.

Krugman mentions the newly released video of Mitt Romney, where Romney says that 47 percent of the country is now “unreachable”. Romney says he is not interested even trying to reach 47 percent of voters, not because they are middle-class working stiffs, as Krugman would have you believe, but because that 47 percent have already decided who they are voting for. There are 47 percent of people who buy into the Obama message of dependence and victim-hood. To Romney, it would be a matter of wasting time and resources, going after a demographic that simply is not interested in Romney’s philosophy. Perhaps that is a novel concept – getting a good return on an investment – for progressives, having seen the past three years of waste after waste perpetrated on the American people by Democrats, while they swear that any time now the economy will sputter to life once again.

Krugman goes on to say the GOP should think better of the 47 percent, setting up a false dichotomy – that either the GOP should love them, as the left does, or that the GOP hates them. To Krugman, there are no other options. I find it funny, though, that the left’s love for them means giving them healthcare bill that saddles them with a crippling new tax, and that will necessarily raise their insurance premiums by allowing their children to remain on the parents’ policies until age 26. The left are also the ones that think a lifetime dependent on the government is a wonderful thing. That is a warped type of love…

Krugman goes on to bemoan a tweet by House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, on Labor Day. Krugman’s issue is that Cantor praised people who took chances to build their own businesses, and did not quite give organized labor the due deference Krugman thought it should receive on “its day”. The horrendous tweet Krugman named?

That is pretty terrible. Eric Cantor had the gall to compliment people who have worked hard, and built their own businesses — and he did it on Labor Day, too! Doing far more damage was Krugman’s pointing it out, and then warping what Cantor meant, to fit into Krugman’s own purpose. Krugman found fault with Romney’s RNC speech too – the mortal sin? Romney never once said the word, “worker”! Obama, in contrast, said “worker” many times, Krugman tells us – and apparently that, and not the actual effects of policy mean something to Krugman.

Krugman also took Romney to task for his opinion about immigrants. Romney said in his remarks that immigrants have come to America “…in pursuit of ‘freedom to build a business’.” Krugman criticizes Romney for not mentioning the workers again. So, according to Krugman, unless Romney mentions them, he cannot stand them – again, another false dichotomy.

Eventually, Krugman stumbles onto a decent point, but then he becomes guilty of drawing a false conclusion from it. He blames big money for the Republican’s “disdain for workers”. He claims that the big money has “bought” the entire right-wing, and are now running it as they please. Krugman goes on to blame also Ayn Rand and adherents to her philosophy. It is the owners and operators of businesses, Krugman tells us, who are all responsible for economic activity.

While Krugman spews forth many points, and many things that he considers self-evident “facts”, he is off base most of the time, and even when he approaches what might be considered a cogent point, he seems to swerve suddenly back into the left-wing weeds. He does little more than attack Mitt Romney with false issues (citing Romney’s lack of mentioning a group as some sort of failing or sign that he hates the unsaid group). At other times, Krugman projects the actions of the left onto the right (big money buying sway? I wonder if Krugman’s ever heard of George Soros?) Finally, Krugman tries to tie the whole column together with the hackneyed point that the entire right-wing has become a party of wealthy, non-thinking, idiotic, drones – if that is not projection, I do not know what is.

The inane Op-ed column can be read here: