The Hypocrisy Of The Des Moines Register and Many Liberals Too

While I expect nothing less from The Des Moines Register, I would have thought that with the new editor, who is from the mid-west, would temper, at least a little bit, the far left "liberal" bias that exists at that publication.

In today's Opinion section of said paper, there is an article about the house bill that would expand castle doctrine. For some reason, the liberal editorial board (is that redundant?) has decided an all out attack on the second amendment. They seem not only to take umbrage with Castle Doctrine, but also with Shall Issue laws. They believe that the state should allow local control over gun rights. They also seem to believe that liberal guns laws, which extend from our constitutional right, which is an enumerated natural right, not dreamed up, are somehow wrong and will lead to mayhem. Such has not been the case as it has been researched.

To further inflame things, they claim that the case in Tucson should raise a red flag and cause us to question any "liberal" gun laws. Such straw men will not stand the test from the Register editorial board or such ersatz religious leaders such as Carlos Jayne. The incident in Tucson was perpetrated by a mad man, who had lied on the federal form he had to fill out to purchase the weapon he used. Furthermore, he is crazy and it is one incident taken out of context to support an anti-gun agenda. If we use the liberal's logic for other unsafe and dangerous consequences in our society, what would that look like? Should we ban spoons because they make people fat? Should we ban cars because more drunk drivers kill people than guns? I don't see the "liberals" clamoring for any of that.

What makes them true hypocrites, is that in the same opinion section, we have articles about same sex marriage and how it is a universal right. You can read my opinion of this type of topic here, here and here. Marriage is not something that is defined in the constitution, but somehow these progressive agendists believe it is something that should not be regulated by the states. It should be universal. The same with abortion, which is nowhere promoted of denied in the constitution (Although I will make a libertarian stand against it based on the Declaration of Independence), but is a sacrament of their cause. While I cannot make a libertarian argument against gay marriage at all, I do believe states do regulate marriage and if you read my piece above, you can read my solution. That said, being armed is a natural right, in my opinion, not subject to the whims of who is in power at any given time. political winds shift, liberty should remain a constant if not increasing. The problem is, many, if not most progressives don't have the balls to live in the real world and wish to make it safe for all at the continuing expense of our liberties. Liberties to them mean actions free from perceived consequence, which is really libertine, not libertarian. I would also suggest that they believe in the power of the state as a tool for the submission of people to the will of their tribe. My question is, what makes then so sure their religion is any better than any other?

In the end, their agenda is one of a nihilistic statism bred from a self-assured, yet delusional belief that risk is something that is anathema to living in this world. It extends to everything they promote, whether it's universal healthcare, gun control, healthy food or whatever. They do not believe people are or can be responsible for themselves and that the government is needed as a surrogate guardian to protect us from ourselves. Furthermore, they have no compunction about using the force of government to force people to submit to their will. Truly, they are not liberals at all, but progressive, Fabian statists st best. They are also hypocrites, that are inconsistent in their application of liberty as it suits them. Theirs is not an objective view.

Thank you for reading this blog.

A Reply To John Batchelor and Company

A Reply to John Batchelor and Company.

Peter and JB:
John went to seminary. Of course he knows what messianic figures are about, and he understands Obama. At least I would hope so.

Obama is a fabian socialist. That means an incrementalist approach. I think that he'll shove anything he can down our throats before next january knowing there is no precedent of repealing social reform bills etc. I don't think he cares because he is a man on a mission. What matters is getting the job done. Keeping the job after 2012 is a secondary thought because he has the job now and that's when he can get things done in his context.

Does he want to destroy America as we know it? Yes. It's a tenet of marxism to destroy traditions and rewrite history to suit the marxist regime that follows. His ideology is one of dependence, of puerile dependence of citizens on the government, like farm animals. It's where he believes his power will come from. Once hooked, like an opium addict, most people won't want to get off it. Look at Europe. They are willing to work most of the year for the government. Such foolishness in my estimation and anathema to what America has been. He will use economic populism which is as old as the book and as evil as the devil. Envy as JB knows is proscribed in on of the commandments (coveting), yet the left will use it to foment and redirect discontent (The right uses social issues). Such measures work on the weak minded and they have to break another commandment, stealing, to complete the transaction. I guess the lessons at Sunday school didn't sink in.

What JB may not want to admit is that by being some sort of loyal opposition as he usually portrays, does not repel the onslaught of this leviathan. I have said it before and I will say it again, had JB been a commentator during the revolution, he would have been wringing his hands about the war. I respect his civility and breeding, but like any good tool box, you have to everything available, even if you eschew some of the tools. Nothing is off the table. It doesn't mean you have to use it, just that the other side realizes you can if you want.

Where does this leave us? I could be wrong, but if the GOP/Tea Party does well this november, Obama will be nullified to a great extent. What worries me is the damage done between now and January. I think we should be pushing for as much repeal as we can and I support Beck's position on reduction of government. It not time for the GOP and opposition to Obama to be feckless or timid. The pendulum is swinging and it's time we go with the momentum.

Thank you for reading this blog.

What Worries Me Part 2

As a continuation of a previous article, What Worries Me, I want to describe the flipside to Obama succeeding in a Fabian socialist agenda, which is Obama losing in 2012 as opposed to winning and succeeding in his agenda. What if the right drives over a cliff and we election another candidate that relies on the cult of personality? Below a definition of cult of personality from Wikipedia:

A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

I would say that this definition fits nicely with Obama, at least initially. Obama tries to be a modern day FDR, except even more Fabian in nature. This is evidenced not only but the absolute incredulous and irrational adulation of his supporters but the control he has so far been successful with over the mainstream media. He has done so not with fear, but of agreement in principle. This had helped create an image of Obama that got him elected. What he and his magical handlers did count on and what FDR did not have to deal with, is the nature of media today. It’s available to more people today and much, much more quickly. The opposition media in the country has served as a balance to what I like to call the “government run media”. In reality they are the government-controlled media through manipulation through likeness in alleged beliefs. The end result of this is that Obama, as of this date, has an approval rating of 44%, which is a record in terms of the speed of decline for a new president.

So, what worries me? What worries me is that the opposition in this case might use the same tools, the same methods to promote and elect a leader in response to Obama. The difference would be that instead of an alliance between the mainstream media and the democrat candidate, the alliance would be between the opposition candidate and a grassroots mob if you will that circumvents the mainstream media’s efforts. In this case, you could say I am talking about Sarah Palin, although it could be someone else that pops up between now and 2011, when candidates get serious about running.

Why worry about Palin you ask? I will tell you this much: I like Palin, but not for clearly rational reasons. I am intellectually honest enough to say so, whereas some of my colleagues on the right are not so honest, and winning is more important than results afterwards, that we have to live with. Sound familiar? Palin is attractive, communicates well, and connects with people in a way we haven’t seen since Clinton or Reagan. Obama is more of a media creation, and connects with TotUS better than people. Anyway, if I take a step back and analyze what I know about Palin, the picture is not as rosy as her supporters would seem.

Palin is a former governor of Alaska. Sounds good, but not even one full term. Before that she was a mayor of Wasilla Alaska. Before that…? Compared to Obama, she has much more experience as an executive (Obama has none), but she doesn’t have a lot of experience when you compare her to Reagan, Clinton or even W. I am not sure we need another candidate that sweet-talks the camera and appeals on an emotional level. I think this is dangerous and we have seen the results of such choices. I think considering our current problems we need someone that can hit the ground running, not someone that will need on the job training. We have that now. My treatise here isn’t to bash Palin, nor is it about finding the perfect candidate, just the observation that one, we can do better, and two, we need to be careful about who we pick, because it really counts this time, and we have one shot to get it right. I think if she does her homework and does the right things, in 10 years she could be a viable candidate.

So what to do? I would like to see the Tea Party and 912er people get a little more politically involved and spread the liberty theme around, making it mainstream. The GOP has to be made to understand that it is not going to be business as usual: Placate an internal constituency before the election and forget about them afterwards. Republicans are famous for this. If this happens in 2010, the GOP should go the way of the Whigs. The only two things that have been on their side in the last year are an incompetent president and a democrat congress that has been bent on turning our country into a socialist nation. What the GOP should not glean from this is some sort of mandate that allows them to take power like a fat kid gloms fresh baked cookies from his grandma’s kitchen table. Obama made a similar mistake in thinking he got elected because of a socialist mandate. Wrong. In this scenario, Palin would do well as she would say “bugger off, I am doing it my way”. It seems that the GOP is like an ADD kid that needs to be reminded of his responsibilities on a regular basis. After a while, you have to ask, do we really need this?

So, I do worry how this will play out. I am heartened at times, particularly today upon hearing that two large banks, Wells Fargo and Citi, are going to pay off the government loans and get the government out of their business. Bravo and long live capitalism. I am a patient sort, willing to wait and see, are you? What do you think?

Thank you for reading this blog. 

What Don't They get?

What don't they get? The majority americans don't want government healthcare, they don't want the public option, yet they congress is bent on passing a bill that contains all of it? Are the Democrats that suicidal that they want to throw their jobs under the bus?

No, they don't, as politicians will do anything to get reelected. Either they are delusional and think this is what we want, or more likely, they see it as an opportunity that will not come again. They know as time goes on, people will become more disenchanted with the democrats and Obama and this is the only chance they can do it before 2010.

This is in part a fabian socialist agenda as it is incremental socialism, and they also know that once a bill is passed, it is very difficult to take it back. Remember the great society? The gun control act of 1968? The creation of HEW?  Go back to the IRS... Politicians, specifically those on the left have been practicing this incrementalism for over 90 years. Every inch they take we never get back. At this point, I hate to say it, but our only recourse is the SCOTUS. Why all these government programs haven't been challenged before, particularly that we have had enough center right members on the bench to make headway. My only guess is that it wasn't important to the Bush administration, which proved itself to be more socialist in some ways than the clinton administration.

At this point I am not hopeful, even if the GOP and/or 3rd party candidates unseat incumbents in 2010. It will be interesting to see how Doug Hoffman does, and the governor race in New Jersey. These will be the test to see what may come. I hope it is something better.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Guess Who Acts Like The Leader of The World?

I would say free world, but in this case, Putie doesn't see himself in that context and neither do I.


Reuters reported today that Putin warned against sanctions against Iran. Furthermore, he said this:

"There is no need to frighten the Iranians," Putin told reporters in Beijing after a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

"We need to look for a compromise. If a compromise is not found, and the discussions end in a fiasco, then we will see."

"And if now, before making any steps (towards holding talks) we start announcing some sanctions, then we won't be creating favourable conditions for them (talks) to end positively. This is why it is premature to talk about this now."

In another report at Breitbart:

"A top Russian security official says Moscow reserves the right to conduct pre-emptive nuclear strikes to safeguard the country against aggression on both a large and a local scale, according to a newspaper interview published Wednesday."

This is not only posturing, but a defining moment in US foreign relations under the Obama administration, where we find out who has the bigger stick. 

The pusillanimous POTUS, the Cacasotto in Chief has tried to assuage our adversaries and friends by being a sycophant knee groveling fabian socialist piece of steaming humanity. If he thinks, or believes that somehow he has curried favor with the likes of Putin et al, then he is not only mistaken, but put us in a position where not only don't we control the narrative, but we do not control the outcome, which is more important. 

Obama is too effete and naive to be the leader of the free world. He lacks the understanding of what motivates respect from the likes of Putin and he behaves like a nurdy fraternity pledge trying to curry favor with those that could easily destroy him. He is clearly out of his league, his element, and we are the worse off for it. 

Can we afford three more years of this? How about eight?

Thank you for reading this blog.

Emotional Appeals: The last refuge of morons and bad ideas

Looking like some half-ass cross between a young Aunt Esther and a dominatrix, Michelle Obama tried to use an emotional appeal to promote her husbands government healthcare plan. In her speech she asserts that somehow women are treated differently and in a substandard way with our current healthcare system. She offers no numbers, just the faint stench of sacrifice and the malodorous feculence of victimhood. Armed with nothing but that stupid ass belt and a vapid mind, she seems to think she can persuade people to support government run healthcare on emotional grounds. For where there is a victim, there must be a savior and that savior is Obama and the power of the government. This my friends is the last refuge of morons and bad ideas. Anytime someone or some group needs the power of the government to force change, to force change most people do not want down their throats, generally it is a bad idea and cannot stand on its own. Such is the way of the progressive and fabian socialist. So is using emotional appeals and creating victims that only the government can save. Obviously Obama and Co. are in dire straights to have to pull such stunts, but it also reveals their true nature.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Is the President Really a Fascist, Socialist or Marxist?

The president has been called many things in the past year, including fascist, nazi, marxist, and socialist. After reading Pat Buchanan this week, I learned he is a Fabian Socialist. What is a Fabian Socialist you ask? A Fabian Socialist is someone that subscribes to the tenets of the Fabian Society.

You may ask, what's the difference, a socialist is a socialist? According to that great font of information, Wikipedia, "The Fabian Society is a British intellectual socialist movement, whose purpose is to advance the principles of social democracy via gradualist and reformist, rather than revolutionary means." So Alinsky and Obama are Fabian while Ayers was revolutionary, but I think he saw the err of his ways.

While this is a granular difference, some may say, the end game for them is the same as for other socialists. I'll say not so fast and I will tell you why. In the game of politics, compromise is seen as a great virtue. In fact, being pragmatic is a way of life for most politicians, but is also says something about the variable moral compass and the lack of ethics many of them seem to cherish. Fabian Socialists take advantage of an opponents compromising nature and move towards socialism incrementally, rather than through revolutionary means.

Some of my compatriots at a blog I won't mention seem to believe that bipartisanship of the independents and others that do not align themselves with either party will somehow bring us closer to returning our country to values of liberty and stopping socialism in it's tracks. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Remember that we have Barry O in the White House until 2012. Even if we were to change the demographics of the senate and house by electing a lot of independents, you can be sure both established parties will be working to destroy an independent movement and would cut off their nose to spite there face by siding with Obama. They love power more than you or I, trust me. We already see the GOP getting weak in the knees in regards to Obamacare after his messiahness said he'd withdraw the public option. These idiots in congress don't get it, as they want to give the government more power and therefore themselves and their lackeys regardless of what their constituents want. You can also bet the Rush and Hannity will be carrying water on this as well, no matter what they say now. Can you imagine if the GOP gets booted out as well?

Don't misunderstand me, I would love to see a new party emerge out of this monopoly of corruption we now have. Neither party will do anything to return the power to the rightful owner, us, and it is nigh time we take it back. My warning to you is to make sure that you know what we are dealing with: a socialist that will bide his time and do things incrementally, whether through the congress, or executive order to promulgate and propagate his socialist and progressivist agenda. Any bipartisanship or compromise at this point is a win for Barry O.

And to the point of a new political party, I would also tell you that you cannot be everything to all people. While being a compartmentalized snake oil salesmen and fairy-tale raconteur has been the de rigueur of political success in the last 70-100 years, it's about time we have a party that has first principles and stands by them through thick or thin. Any candidate that does not believe them or wish to follow them is out. A tent too big ceases to be a tent at all. I'll be happy to go over first principles at a later time.

So, the question is, what is Obama, A fascist, socialist or marxist? The answer may be that he is a particular type of socialist, but it really doesn't matter. He is the enemy of freedom, of liberty and natural rights, and we have but a short time to put a halt to his policies which serve to enslave us, bankrupt us, and demoralize us.

Freedom first, freedom last my friends.

Thank you for reading this blog.