The Idiocy and Hypocrisy of the Left

I like Arizona Iced Tea. I really do. I used to like the indigo blue bottled ginseng iced tea. In fact, it's made in my home state of New York, and not only that, on Long Island where I grew up. That's why when I read the news today that opponents of the immigration law in Arizona have started a boycott of Arizona Iced Tea, I realized how far to the depths of stupidity the left has fallen.

Leftist twitter idiots twittered non-sense like this:

"Dear Arizona: If you don't change your immigration policy, I will have to stop drinking your enjoyable brand of iced tea," Twittered Jody Beth in Los Angeles.

"It is the drink of fascists," wrote Travis Nichols in Chicago.

It's no wonder they are driving us into the ground. With idiots like this, America will be finished in no time. Travis needs to get a life. Fascists?

Arizona Iced Tea was founded in Brooklyn, moved to Queens, and now just moved to a new $35 million headquarters in Nassau County, where I grew up. May be a old school Brooklyn style education is in order heeah, if you know whad I mean, ya heeah me?

I feel for the company as they make a good product and it's shame they have to be subjugated to this non-sense by feel good left wing stupid ass uneducated jackassery of human beings. I am sure Reverend Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will be calling for the CEO to resign and continue the boycott if he doesn't fork over millions in walking money to the Rainbow Coalition and The National Action Network. May be they'll extort a few thousand cases of Iced Tea from Don Vultaggio. I wonder what churches these reverends preach at, and in Armani suits no less. You also have to wonder how ministers can be pro-choice...I guess you have to belong to their church...The church of the dollar.

On the other hypocritical, idiotic and jackassery front, we have silence of the philanderer. Where is William Jefferson "I did not inhale nor did I...have...sex...with...that...woman...Monica...Lewinsky" Clinton on the issue of all these "illegal immigration protesters" destroying property, making boycott threats to companies that have nothing to do with Arizona and the physical violence no less? The Fornicator In Chief is no where to found. May be he's off doing cigar training with some other intern. You better watch it Bill, you are on borrowed time with that bypass. Too much excitement is not good for you.

These past few days have really illustrated the stupidity of the left. If there is one thing that is good that has come out of this is that I am hearing about more and more people  saying the quickest end to the immigration problem is to end the opportunities of illegal aliens. In my mind this would mean something like a severe fine for any employer that hires an illegal alien, knowingly or not. I would make the fine $1 Million per illegal alien. The vacuum caused by the hordes heading back south would offset any possibility of global warming for decades and we might actually see our hospitals recover, and other social services like schools and prisons also have a burden lifted.

No matter what happens, Arizona has become the lightning rod for the ills that are affecting this country. It comes down to world view. We have two major groups: Those that believe that the government, the state is responsible for our wants, and needs, and that natural rights include things that are entitlements. The other is the side of life, liberty, responsibility, the ownership of property and the ability to amass personal wealth from work. To put it succinctly, one side believes that need should be rewarded, the other side thinks ability should be rewarded. Which side are you on?

Thank you for reading this blog.

CLINTON PLAYS THE OKLAHOMA CITY CARD

CLINTON PLAYS THE OKLAHOMA CITY CARD

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on April 20, 2010

Printer-Friendly Version

Former President Bill Clinton yesterday criticized conservatives who are "vilifying" government and its workers warning that such rhetoric could lead to a repetition of the horrific attack on the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 that marred his presidency.

Apart from the absurdity of likening elderly Medicare recipients pushing walkers to the likes of Timothy McVeigh and the right wing militias, Clinton's comments totally ignore the real history of Oklahoma City.

It was not anti-government rhetoric that inspired McVeigh to do his dastardly deed.  According to the killer himself, it was the action of the federal government during the Waco raid that incited him to violence.  That the attack on the Federal Office Building took place on the anniversary of the Waco raid underscores the connection.

Bill Clinton was far from blameless in the Waco attack.  While he sought to shift the responsibility to Attorney General Janet Reno, acting as if he were merely a by-stander, subsequent histories make it clear that he was smarting from criticism that the failure of the feds to act and their continued toleration of the siege showed him to be too weak to be a good president.  He would often complain about the unfairness of this coverage to me as he recounted the events leading up to the Waco raid.
The Obama strategy of vilifying the tea party protesters and trying to link them to the violence of Oklahoma City is cynical and ridiculous.  The tea party protesters are, in many cases, decorated war veterans and can, in the main, only be described as patriots.  That Obama needs to paint them as violence prone extremists who are fanning flames that could lead to Oklahoma City-style bombings is offensive and vile in the extreme.
 
Why is Obama waging such unprincipled war on the tea party people?  Because, at last, the Republicans have come up with an activist base to counter the ravages of the likes of Acorn and Moveon.org.  The GOP is coming up with a ground game and it scares the daylights out of the Democrats.
 
The Republican Party lost the elections of 2006 and 2008 on the ground.  They were out-worked and out-hustled by their Democratic opponents.  But Obama's determined move toward socialism has energized the Republican base and brought them out into the streets.   In walkers and wheelchairs, the elderly are protesting the one half trillion dollar cut in Medicare.  Veterans are protesting the laxity in the war on terror.  And businessmen are remonstrating against the tax and spend plans of the Obama Administration.
 
In our new book 2010: Take Back America - A Battle Plan, we lay out a plan for individual activism to help win Congress back.  It is the energy and the impetus that flows from the tea party activists that makes such a strategy possible.  The silent majority is no longer silent.  To make them out to be subversive is ridiculous.
 
The plain fact is that to take back Congress, we will need to win about 40 House seats.  That means that 10% of the seats will change hands.  What are the other 90% of us to do?  In our book, we urge those who live in districts that are not in play to "adopt a Democrat" to oppose and work to dislodge him from power.  Send his opponent your checks and email your friends to focus on helping the Republican in the district.
 
The tea party is the army of reform, not of subversion.  They are the defenders of our free market system and they deserve our respect, not the innuendo that Clinton is peddling.




Thank you for reading this blog.

Bill Clinton Illustrates The Hypocrisy Of The Left

H/T to Tim at LCR

In an article in the New York Times from yesterday, Bill Clinton likens the Tea Party movement to Timothy McVey and the Oklahoma City Bombing. An except from the speech:

“There can be real consequences when what you say animates people who do things you would never do,” Mr. Clinton said in an interview, saying that Timothy McVeigh, who carried out the Oklahoma City bombing, and those who assisted him, “were profoundly alienated, disconnected people who bought into this militant antigovernment line.”


Really Bill? I bet you didn't feel that way about The Weather Underground, SDS, SNCC, The Black Panthers, etc. In fact, you were probably with your fellow proletariat in those movements. What hypocrisy.

I condemn what Timothy McVey did, but truth be told, we still don't know the whole story behind that as Nichols isn't talking and neither is our government. Tying what McVey did to the Tea Party is not a proven arguent. In fact, I would say it is an a priori argument that is political in nature to support the increasingly fabian nature of Obama's agenda. They know that they cannot roll over us with force like their compatriots Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, so they figure they better try guilt and shame first. Sorry Bill, we aren't buying it.

And while I am at it, Shame on Bill and the New York Times for printing such propaganda (said in the vernacular of Frank from Queens). At this point, it's obvious beyond a shadow of a doubt who and what the fourth branch of government is: The Main Stream Media. Josef Goebbels would be proud of how Obama has co-opted the press in the country, and he has done so without any threat to them at all. In fact, for the most part, the MSM is in total agreement. That makes everything so much easier.

Michelle Bachmann, the other beauty from the north, rebuts Mr. Clinton:

In her remarks Thursday, Ms. Bachmann made light of the suggestion that antigovernment activists were angry.

“You look happy to me, you don’t look angry,” she told the crowd. “That’s because you get it. You are smart enough to get off your couch and do something.”

The Article Continues:

Mr. Clinton said his intent was not to stifle debate or muzzle critics of the government but to encourage them to consider what repercussions could follow. He acknowledged that drawing the line between acceptable discourse and that which goes too far is difficult but that lawmakers and other officials should try.

“Have at it,” he said. “You can attack the politics. Criticize their policies. Don’t demonize them, and don’t say things that will encourage violent opposition.”


Mr. Clinton, who is carrying the gun here? Is it the Tea Party, or the government? So what measures should lawmakers try? Hate speech laws like Canada and Germany? Just try it.

Right now, the dems have driven themselves over the cliff and they are looking for someone to blame other than themselves. Note to Bill, The New York Times and the rest of the MSM:

Look in the mirror. Your ideas, agenda and propaganda are so out of touch with what the american people believe and it is that which put you where you are, going over a cliff. Take responsibility for your own bad ideas and bad actions. The Tea Party had nothing to do with your choices in life, but only illustrate how out of touch and utterly ridiculous you are.

November is coming and pay back is a bitch.

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. 

Hillary Agrees With Townhall Protesters

In a speech when she was running for President, Hillary passionately argues for protesting against the administration and the government. I imagine she also agrees with the right of the Townhallers and the Tea Baggers to protest. She must, she said so. Hey, Barry, even your secretary of state agrees with us. What are you going to do, Channel Bill?

H/T Bernard McGuirk

Thank you for reading this blog.

...To the Shores of Tripoli...

The Saudi oil tanker Sirius Star was captured by Somali pirates off the coast of Kenya. It seems the pirates are asking $10,000,000 ransom for the ship that is carrying $100 million in oil. Pirates are nothing new in this world, and I am not talking about black beard or pirates of the Caribbean (or Penzance for that matter). The United States fought two wars, the First Barbary Pirate War or the Tripolitan War, from 1801-1805 and the Second Barbary War in 1815. The countries that promulgated piracy at the time were Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli (for those not familiar with that name might know it better a Libya). At the time, the Pasha of Tripoli demanded a ransom from Jefferson in the sum of $225,000. This may not seem like much, but considering the total treasury had $10,000,000, it was quite a chunk. Some may ask why? Barbary pirates were nothing new, but they were kept in check by the Knights Of Malta. What happened was that Napoleon seized Malta in 1798 and this created a power vacuum in the mediterranean. Without the Knights Of Malta, the pirates went on a spree. The first Barbary War was the first international engagement of the US Marines. The US Navy and the Marines kicked ass, killing and wounding 2000 pirates, while suffering fewer than 100 casualties, and capturing Tripoli. 

Today we find ourselves in a similar place with Somali pirates. International forces seem to be unwilling to go after them, even in this latest fiasco with the Saudi tanker. The Saudis must want it that way, but paying ransom is never a good thing, or as James Madison put it, peace is preferred to war, and war is preferred to paying tribute. The problem is that with paying tribute to anyone is that the criminals will have you over a saddle like Marcellus Wallace with the orange ball in his mouth. No fun at all. Better to fight than switch, but I digress. The right answer here is a couple seal teams on the tanker and it's all over but the crying. In the long run, naval ships from various countries need to patrol these areas terminate the pirates with extreme prejudice, setting the tone for what is inevitable. We'll have to see what happens. The last time we got involved with Somalia, President Clinton showed a lack of nerve and fortitude, folding like a cheap camera. This sets a bad example for the men. 

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Who is to blame?

This might settle it.  What do you think? Comments welcome.

Jim Leach - The Strunza from Iowa

Jim Leach, former republican representative from Iowa, endorsed Barack Obama for president. This turncoat, and he is, suggests that Obama is attractive because of a “ new era of non-ideological, bipartisan decision-making''. What this means is that rather than having a backbone, and values, he’d rather find new ways to make sure politicians like himself stay in power. Let me explain. If politicians “work together”, without ideology,  I can guarantee the only thing they will want to do is to get your vote by bribing you with your own money, or worse. Their perception is to get things done. Change. Give people what they want. The problem with that is it doesn’t matter what it is. Bipartisan means they don’t stand for anything. So out of one side of their mouth, they will tell you they are pro-life, but out of the other, they will fund abortion clinics. Guys like this just want to make double dealing more palatable. By having no moral compass, they can’t be pigeon holed and their appeal will be broader. Think of Bill Clinton. In the case of Leach, which is a fitting name, some say he is angling for the presidency of the University of Iowa. The democrats control the government in Iowa, so by endorsing Obama, he is doing them a great favor and possibly expects one in return. Leach was a RINO republican anyway (in reality, now he's a democrat), and this isn’t much of a surprise. His reasoning shows lack of principles, loyalty and a lack of common sense. Democrats do not do favors for republicans in this state, or any other. He’s in for a big surprise if he doesn’t get it, and if the republicans have any principles, they will tell him to go to hell. Strunza is a perfect word for him. Look it up. And with that, I leave with a quote from Samuel Adams:

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. -- Samuel Adams

Thank you for reading this blog.