SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/1/2010 4:12:15 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 


Hat tip to LindyBill

Message 26352742



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/2/2010 5:20:55 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Farrakhan blames Obama troubles on 'white right' conspiracy

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
03/01/10 9:44 PM EST

The White House could use some public defenders these days, but I imagine they would really prefer Louis Farrakhan keep his mouth shut:

<<< Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan, boasting his divine stature, on Sunday predicted trouble ahead for President Barack Obama and urged him to do more to improve the lives of blacks and the downtrodden.

The 76-year-old leader said the "white right" was conspiring to make Obama a one-term president, and pointed to his stalled efforts to introduce health care legislation as proof. He said those opponents and lobbyists were trapping him into a future war with Iran that could lead to mass destruction.

"The word 'prophet' is too cheap a word. I am a light in the midst of darkness," Farrakhan said at the annual convention of the movement that embraces black nationalism. "It ain't ego, it's my love for you." >>>

Oy. Well, whatever divisive political problems this country has, the left and the right can certainly agree that Farrakhan is an egomaniacal mountebank.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/17/2010 12:40:13 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
From an e-mail:

Deer Hunting Story

Even if you don't care about hunting, Gotta Love Ted!



Ted Nugent, rock star and avid bow hunter from Michigan , was being interviewed by a liberal journalist, an animal rights activist. The discussion came around to deer hunting.

The journalist asked, 'What do you think is the last thought in the head of a deer before you shoot him? Is it, 'Are you my friend?' or is it 'Are you the one who killed my brother?

Nugent replied, 'Deer aren't capable of that kind of thinking. All they care about is, what am I going to eat next, who am I going to screw next, and can I run fast enough to get away. They are very much like the Democrats in Congress.'

The interview ended.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/17/2010 6:16:18 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
LWE race baiters over at the 'View' are sure we are racists:

From: seminole83
Replies (7)

That's why I am nonplussed by all the fear and anger we have been seeing, from the birthers to the talking-to-our-nations-children people to the death panel people.

Obama hasn't even been pursuing a liberal agenda, more a middle-of-the-road type deal.

So why are people reacting so emotionally these days?

Is it because he is tall?
Is it because he is clean-shaven?
Is it because he has a full head of hair?
Is it because he gives a good speech?

Lots of presidents have been tall, clean-shaven, had a full head of hair and given a good speech ... Reagan comes to mind.

What is different this time?

Oh yeah, he's black.

Message 26389235



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/18/2010 7:14:51 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Popular N.Y. Dem switching parties to run for Gov.

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
03/18/10 10:43 AM EDT

Steve Levy, a county executive from Long Island, has announced he's renouncing his membership in the Democratic party to run for Governor of New York as a Republican:

<<< The move is certain to excite Republican leaders pessimistic about their party’s hopes this fall.

Those leaders believe that the official, Steve Levy, a blunt-spoken fiscal hawk and contrarian who collected 96 percent of the vote in his last re-election bid, can tap into the public’s anti-incumbent sentiment and frustration with Albany’s overspending.

Mr. Levy, 50, the Suffolk County executive, said he wanted voters to see him as “Scott Brown II,” referring to the Massachusetts senator who pulled off an upset against a heavily favored Democrat in January.

“There really seems to be a void out there that I can fit perfectly,” Mr. Levy said, describing Albany’s political culture as a “cesspool.”

“We’ve got to clean house, tear that place down and build it back in a cleaner, more efficient manner,” he added. >>>

Former GOP Rep. Rick Lazio has been running for the office since last fall, and any of the bigger names that were interested in running for the GOP nomination, such as Rep. Peter King, have backed off. This is a very interesting development for Republicans.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/20/2010 4:10:00 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Fox News Poll: 68% Say Vote Out All Incumbents

AP

If American voters only had the following two choices on the Congressional ballot -- keep all current lawmakers in office, or get rid of all incumbents in Congress -- what would they do?

A new Fox News poll asked that question, and the answer could be bad news for incumbents this fall.

Sixty-eight percent of voters would oust all incumbents, while 20 percent would keep all lawmakers in office.

Click here to read the entire Fox News poll.

Even 52 percent of Democrats, whose party controls both houses of Congress, would get rid of all incumbents. Thirty-two percent would keep them.

Most Republicans (79 percent) and independents (78 percent) would vote to get rid of all incumbents.

This “throw them out” sentiment reflects what the poll also found about voters’ perception of Congress: just 18 percent approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76 percent disapprove.

Moreover, 17 percent think Congress cares what the American people want, compared to the large 79 percent majority who think Congress does whatever it wants to do.

In response to the traditional generic ballot question, if the election were held today, 42 percent of American voters say they would back the Republican candidate in their district and 38 percent the Democratic candidate.

A higher number of Republicans (89 percent) would back their party’s candidate than Democrats would support theirs (81 percent). By 33 percent to 25 percent, more independents say they would back the Republican candidate, with the remaining 42 percent saying they would vote for another candidate or are unsure.

The national telephone poll was conducted for Fox News by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 registered voters from March 16 to March 17. For the total sample, the poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Obama Factor

Voters who approve of President Obama’s job performance favor the Democratic House candidate by 69 percent to 13 percent, while those who disapprove back the Republican by 72 percent to 11 percent.

Among those favoring the health care reform bill, 75 percent would back the Democratic candidate. Those opposed to the reforms largely favor the Republican in their district (66 percent).

In addition, by a slim 2 percentage point margin, more voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who opposes President Obama on key issues (31 percent) than for one who supports Obama (29 percent). The largest number -- 39 percent -- says Obama will not be a major factor in their vote for Congress this year.

foxnews.com



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/22/2010 5:32:28 PM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
From an e-mail:

A MARINE & A TERRORIST

U.S. Marine squad was marching north of Fallujah when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist who was badly injured and unconscious. On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state.

The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men,the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.

The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road.

I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein was a miserable, lowlife scum bag who got what he deserved. And he yelled back that Barack Obama is a lying,good-for-nothing, left wing Commie who isn't even an American.

So I said that Osama Bin Laden dresses and acts like a frigid, mean-spirited lesbian! He retaliated by yelling, "Oh yeah? Well, so does Nancy Pelosi!"

And, there we were, in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/22/2010 5:56:00 PM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Negatives for Pelosi, Reid, Boehner Hit Record Highs

Rasmussen Reports

- Undoubtedly driven in part by her continuing efforts to pass the national health care plan, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains the most unpopular congressional leader, as she has for months. Pelosi is now viewed unfavorably by 64% of voters, which ties a high reached in August.

_ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed at least somewhat unfavorably by 56% of voters. That’s up 14 points from a year ago and the highest level measured since regular tracking began last February. That includes 35% with a very unfavorable view. Twenty-four percent (24%) view Reid favorably, the lowest level found since December.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/26/2010 9:31:50 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Biden: People are skeptical of what we’re doing because of … Bush

by Allahpundit
Hot Air
March 26, 2010

Sure, pal. Whatever you need to tell yourself.


<<< VPOTUS blamed the George W. Bush administration for any unpopularity the current administration has suffered.

“We inherited a cynical republic, and I can’t blame them,” he said.

“Eight years of collapse, eight years of being misled about wars.”

He cast the Republican political strategy since last January as irresponsible cynicism., and boasted that the recent passage of health care reform might dispel it.

“They [Republicans] still believe cynicism will prevail, that the government can’t do anything, that we’re a bunch of socialists – all these things you hear. I think the healthcare debate put a big stake in the heart of that argument.” >>>


Have a look at The One’s job approval dating back to inauguration day. 68/12 to start, as I read it, which was no doubt due in part to the huge relief many people felt at having Bush finally out of office. The new golden age of competence and clean government was about to be born, remember? If anything, the public cynicism inspired by Dubya made the idiotic rainbows-and-unicorns utopian message of Hopenchange that much easier to sell during the campaign.

But then, via Innocent Bystanders, a funny thing happened.



And then, with unemployment still skyrocketing, we embarked on our long national nightmare of adding a giant new entitlement to our already unsustainable basket of federal benefits. And we did it with backroom deals and arcane parliamentary procedures and pandering to special interests and lots and lots and lots of lying about cost — essentially, the precise opposite of rainbows and unicorns. And we were asked to pretend that everything we know about health-care reform is wrong:



And then, to cap it all off, a nice steamy dump was taken in the Senate on the foundational message of “post-partisanship” upon which Hopenchange was built. So, that’s my wild guess as to where the cynicism really comes from, but I’m open to persuasion on the point. Any takers?

.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/31/2010 2:25:09 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
I Know This Will Make You Shout, "YOU LIE" But The News is True

By: Jim Geraghty
Campaign Spot

Boy, just the endorsement and support you want to tout in South Carolina:

<<< "The desperate Congressional campaign of Democrat Rob Miller has enlisted the aid of a very interesting, controversial new ally. Larry Flynt, the infamous publisher of the pornographic magazine “Hustler” and an outspoken left-wing activist, has taken to his personal blog to solicit support and money for Miller." >>>

Somewhere, Congressman Joe Wilson is weeping from laughing so hard.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)3/31/2010 5:00:32 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Hat tip to Brumar89:

When liberals are losing a debate



.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)4/20/2010 3:53:20 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
It's easy to be energized if you're running against the left this year

By Paul
Power Line

In early March, I wrote about the challenge that Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln faces from the left of the Democratic party in the form of the state's Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. I suggested that, although Halter would be well-funded by out-of-state leftists, he probably didn't pose much of a threat to Lincoln. Arkansas Democrats are a pretty moderate lot, I noted, and "the usual leftist suspects -- lawyers, labor union loyalists, professors, and blacks -- are not sufficiently numerous to from a winning coalition, particularly given the strength of Lincoln's base in east Arkansas."

Recent polling confirms this assessment. According to Chris Cillizza, polls show Lincoln holding a double-digit lead over Halter.

Cillizza believes that the primary campaign is "energizing" Lincoln, and that by vanquishing a challenge from the left, Lincoln will "build up some momentum heading into what promises to be a difficult fall campaign." He quotes a Democratic political operative who claims that "defeating the unions and national political bloggers will speak to a key part of Lincoln's reelection argument - that she is independent and will always put Arkansas first."

This strikes me as wishful thinking. Lincoln was the 60th vote for Obamacare and has generally been a reliable vote for the Democrats throughout her career. In a political year like this one is shaping up to be, and with Lincoln's record, it's going to take more than facing down the Daily Kos to convince Arkansas voters that Lincoln (in the words of one of her ads) answers to Arkansas, not to her party.

The bottom line, I think, is that Arkansas Democrats are too moderate to nominate Halter, and Arkansas voters as a whole are too center-right to re-elect Lincoln - provided, of course, that the Republicans nominate a credible candidate.



.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)4/28/2010 1:22:44 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
In The Future, Everyone Will Be Hitler For 15 Minutes

By Ed Driscoll on War And Anti-War

Allahpundit spots Glenn Beck asking, as Allah puts it, “Remember last week when it was wrong to call your opponents Nazis?”

<<< Ace made this same point earlier, but has the left ever claimed that it’s flatly wrong to kick the word “Nazi” around? It’s wrong to kick it at them, but when it comes to you, they’ll happily play hacky sack with it all the live-long day. In fact, among our thoughtful professional pundit class, the main challenge these days when writing about the right is whether to go the full Godwin or stop just short with some similar pejorative. Eugene Robinson was content to label Arizona’s law a racist abomination but Richard Cohen got more creative in calling it the “Anglos’ last stand.” Bolder still was Linda Greenhouse, who upped the ante with an apartheid analogy in her analysis of what turned out to be the wrong version of the bill. (Ahem.) With the bar set that high, can Frank Rich clear it on Sunday? If he does, he’ll be the Dick Fosbury of bottom-feeding left-wing demagogues. >>>


Meanwhile, as Matthew Balan writes at Newsbusters, “Rick Sanchez Forwards CAIR’s Implication That Opponents of Islam are Nazis.”

And sometimes, so are their allies.


.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)4/28/2010 2:43:17 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Party of Hate

By: Kevin D. Williamson
The Corner

Have a listen to Freedom Works' voicemails following the Geico fracas: because everybody knows it's the tea-party guys who engage in extreme rhetoric and threaten violence. WARNING: extremely profane, not safe for work, and not the sort of thing you probably want to put yourself through unless you really want to know what the other side is saying.

If you're up for it, listen here.


.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)5/4/2010 12:23:28 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Palin and the Leftist Elites

By Mark W. Hendrickson
Talkzilla

Sarah Palin is one of the most intriguing (and polarizing) personalities to emerge on the national political stage in a long time. The way that many conservatives embrace her and many liberals vilify her illustrates in microcosm the yawning political divide in America today.

We can draw insights about Palin's significance in America today from a trio of three markedly disparate historical figures: Ronald Reagan, the late Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, and the Gospel of Matthew's King Herod. The connection between Sarah Palin and Ronald Reagan is fairly simple and straightforward. They share conservative convictions and a special gift of communication. Palin is reminiscent of Reagan in the way she resonates, inspires, and energizes conservatives.

Less apparent are the links that may be drawn between Palin and the long-departed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises -- and Palin and the much-longer-ago-departed King Herod.

The connection between Palin and Mises occurred to me while rereading Mises' 1944 book Bureaucracy. Mises wrote, "...the educated strata are more gullible than the less educated. The most enthusiastic supporters of Marxism, Nazism, and Fascism were the intellectuals, not the boors." Indeed, Marx, Lenin, et al., were intellectuals, and the leaders of socialism have been relatively well-to-do educated folks like Bill Ayers, not salt-of-the-earth blue-collar folks.

Mises continued this insight with a penetrating passage that is uncannily relevant today:

<<< The champions of socialism call themselves progressives, but they recommend a system which is characterized by rigid observance of routine and by a resistance to every kind of improvement. They call themselves liberals, but they are intent upon abolishing liberty. They call themselves democrats, but they yearn for dictatorship. They call themselves revolutionaries, but they want to make the government omnipotent. They promise the blessings of the Garden of Eden, but they plan to transform the world into a gigantic post office. >>>

And what is the antidote to the grim utopian schemes of leftist intellectuals and politicians? According to Mises, "Just common sense is needed to prevent man from falling prey to illusory fantasies and empty catchwords." In other words, people as down-to-earth and common-sensical as Ronald Reagan and Sarah Palin.

Indeed, the fury directed against Palin by leftists is so overwrought, and at times maniacal, precisely because her innate common sense is so powerful and effective when she dares to declare that the emperor of government economic planning has no clothes. Like Mises and Reagan, Palin understands with utter (and to leftists, frightening) clarity that leftist utopias have no practicality or viability, but are, in Mises' words, "illusory fantasies."

Like most people, self-important intellectuals don't like their cherished dreams and aspirations dismissed as fantasies. What really agitates them, though, is that they remember how effective that attractive, winsome fellow from non-elite Eureka College was in explaining how counterproductive, inefficient, and ultimately destructive Big Government is. Now intellectuals on the left are scared to death that the attractive, winsome gal from the non-elite University of Idaho has the same convictions as Reagan and the same common sense that Mises identified as the antidote to socialist nostrums.

The left can't stand the fact that Palin, like Reagan, isn't one of them. Like Reagan, she is not an "intellectual." She doesn't share what Thomas Sowell dubbed "the vision of the anointed" -- progressive elitists' unshakable faith in their grandiose plans for regimenting our lives. To leftist intellectuals, it's okay to have a president who thinks he visited 57 states, a vice president who has claimed that Franklin Roosevelt went on television to calm the people after the stock market crash of 1929 (no TV yet, and Hoover was president) and a Speaker of the House who has insisted that we must switch from fossil fuels to natural gas. All ignorance, error, and mental dullness can be forgiven as long as one subscribes to the political catechism, "The government must control economic activity." What is unacceptable, even evil, to them is someone like Palin who doesn't subscribe to the same catechism, who just doesn't "get it."

Here is where Herod the Great enters the story. We read in the Gospel of Matthew that Herod feared any threat to his power; thus his vile order to slaughter male babies in the hope of killing off the one with the potential to mature into a leader who would threaten his hegemony. The political left is a modern Herod, desperate to halt Sarah Palin's political career now, before she can grow more formidable and possibly develop into her generation's Reagan.

Indeed, it has been amazing to see the scorn, vitriol, and even hatred, directed toward this woman who dares to defy the left's narrow, preconceived notions of what political positions a female politician should be allowed to hold. It was comical to see how Democrats fell all over each other to distort Palin's autobiographical Going Rogue as an attack on John McCain. Why would Democrats rush to defend one Republican from an (alleged) attack by another Republican? Might it have something to do with the fact that they perceive McCain as a "good Republican" -- one who will compromise and cuts deals -- where Palin would not?

I have no idea what the future holds for Sarah Palin. It is indisputable, though, that the left regards her as their worst nightmare -- an articulate, attractive, effective communicator and advocate of conservative principles with Misesian common sense and Reaganesque potential. That is why she is the object of their Herod-like verbal thrusts today.

Mark Hendrickson teaches economics at Grove City College and is Fellow for Economic and Social Policy at the College's Center for Vision & Values.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)6/2/2010 9:36:06 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Al and Tipper Gore split up

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
06/01/10 12:24 PM EDT

The Politico reports that former Vice President Al Gore and his wife Tipper, who have been married 40 years, are separating:

<<< In an “Email from Al and Tipper Gore,” the couple said: “We are announcing today that after a great deal of thought and discussion, we have decided to separate.

“This is very much a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration. We ask for respect for our privacy and that of our family, and we do not intend to comment further.” >>>

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)6/2/2010 10:32:26 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Liberal Worldview



.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)6/6/2010 12:01:07 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
That Was Then....



Chuck Asay from Creators Syndicate

creators.com



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)7/11/2010 8:39:16 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
538 Ways to Live, Work and Play Like a Liberal Fascist

By Ed Driscoll on The Substance of Style

As always, life on the left imitates Liberal Fascism. Completed near the end of 2007; summing up the state of modern “progressivism” and its past and present offshoots, at one point in his book, Jonah Goldberg wrote:


<<< Again, it is my argument that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion, but not necessarily an Orwellian one. It is nice, not brutal. Nannying, not bullying. But it is definitely totalitarian–or ‘holistic,’ if you prefer–in that liberalism today sees no realm of human life that is beyond political significance, from what you eat to what you smoke to what you say. Sex is political. Food is political. Sports, entertainment, your inner motives and outer appearance, all have political salience for liberal fascists. >>>


At the Weekly Standard, Matt Labash introduces us to the author of 538 Ways to Live Work and Play Like a Liberal.

No, really! Even eeeevil capitalists Amazon.com, a Website powered by non-Salon.com-approved air conditioned server farms in giant Randian office towers accessible via computer network invented by the military industrial complex itself sells the book!

Because the man can’t bust our ideology. Not when the person putting all the pieces together is the man, the myth, the legend, Justin Krebs:

<<< Who is Justin Krebs, you ask? Only my sensei. My guru. The man who made plain that I had politics all wrong. I used to think along the lines of the British writer and publisher Ernest Benn that politics was “the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy.” Thus, I had put my politics in my political box, and my life in my living box. When I should’ve placed all the contents in the same box—a much bigger, biodegradable one. (You can get them at Treecycle.com.)

Krebs showed me that my politics shouldn’t be just my politics, but also my religion, my sun and moon, my inhalation and exhalation. Since politics, particularly liberal politics, bring people so much joy, wouldn’t I be better off politicizing everything—the way I live and work and play? That’s a rhetorical question, by the way. The answer is a resounding “yes,” as evidenced right there in the title of Krebs’s new book: 538 Ways to Live Work and Play Like a Liberal.


The 32-year-old Krebs didn’t just write this book, which comes complete with a 538-item checklist. He’s lived it. He sharpened his liberal-living iron on the mean conservative streets of Highland Park, New Jersey; Cambridge, Massachusetts; and, finally, that repository of red state madness, the island of Manhattan. Girding him for battle were his parents—two good liberals, who sent him to a cooperative preschool, where he called all the other kids’ moms and dads by their first names. Krebs says his parents were his “playmates” as well, though all was not idyllic. There are some intimations of child abuse; they took him to a Walter Mondale rally when he was just 6 years old.

Upon graduating from Harvard, Krebs had his liberal ticket punched repeatedly. He served in the office of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. He blogs on the progressive blog OpenLeft. He is one of the founding directors of The Tank, “a non-profit arts presenter in the heart of Manhattan.” But his enduring legacy, his gift to all of us really, was hatched over a pitcher of beer.

Seven years ago, like many a good liberal, Krebs and his friends were driven to drink by the “arrogance and authoritarianism of the Bush administration.” What started as an informal vinegar session in a Hell’s Kitchen dive was formalized into a “Drinking Liberally” club, which met every Thursday, a place for activist types to talk progressive politics, network, plot strategy, and get hooched up (though its organizers remind us, “As you drink liberally, always drink responsibly”). As the club gained more members, it begat chapters nationwide and led to offshoot Eating Liberally clubs for foodies, Screening Liberally clubs for film buffs, Reading Liberally clubs for bookworms, and Laughing Liberally clubs that use “humor and laughter to spread understanding of liberal ideas and advance progressive values.” (Sounds like a scream!)

There are now 330 Living Liberally chapters in 50 states and around the globe. It’s no longer just a few longhairs knocking back pitchers of cheap suds, bitching about the Patriot Act. Living Liberally has become a way of life. There’s even a Liberal Card, a membership card which is “about showing your liberal pride, joining the liberal community and claiming your liberal discounts.” It’s printed on renewable green “CornCards,” rather than the petroleum that is blackening not only the brown pelicans of the Louisiana marshlands, but also our souls.

As Krebs writes, Drinking Liberally “has never been about drinking .??.??. it’s about progressive politics in a social setting.” It’s about all of us being “in this together.” It’s not just about “how you vote on Election Day.” It’s about “how you vote with your wallet every day.” It’s not just about “what you chant at a rally, but what you laugh at or rock out to on your iPod.” It’s about saying “it’s about” a lot, and then saying something real meaningful afterwards. Like this: “Living like a liberal is never just about making politics personal, but about making personal politics public.” It’s about alliteration.

I’m just going to be honest again: All this alliteration wet my whistle (see, it’s catching). I wanted to find out what it was all about. Krebs’s book was due for release on July 4, the day we gained our independence as a country. But I was ready to gain my own independence as an individual—independence from this disengaged, right-leaning, but mostly apolitical way of life I’d been enslaved by. So I secured an early copy.

The 538-item checklist was daunting. As Krebs admits, “Some of the ideas are hard, or even uncomfortable. You don’t have to do them all. Just think about them.” So I did. For roughly 10 days, I thought about them and undertook a good many of them. There was no way I could tackle them all. But it was clear that if I wanted to gain my independence by Independence Day by biting off a representative sample, I’d still be busier than a one-legged Obama in an ass-kicking contest. Time to get to work. >>>

Is Feng-Shui involved? Because that would be awesome (from the title onward, language alert):

<<< Serious question though: Once books such as Lisa Birnbach’s satiric The Official Preppy Handbookfrom 1980, and Bobos in Paradise, David Brooks’ early-2001 equivalent focusing on the center-left hit the shelves, the clock was ticking on those particular lifestyles. With its Whole Earth Catalog-sounding title, is 538 Ways to Live Work and Play Like a Liberal a harbinger of a movement similarly reaching its expiration date?

If so, how will the post-9/11 left morph in the coming years? >>>

.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)7/19/2010 11:11:36 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Stalin Bust Sparks Outrage Among Small-Town Residents

FoxNews.com
Published July 16, 2010

The installation of a memorial bust of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Bedford, Va., next to Western Allied leaders in World War II has ignited a firestorm of controversy and threatened to tear apart the small town 200 miles south of the nation's capital.

Opponents of the bronze sculpture say it has no right to be placed in the National D-Day Memorial next to the busts of Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill because Stalin's murderous rule led to the deaths of at least 20 million people, surpassing even the number of murders under Hitler's bloody reign.

The Bedford board of supervisors voted unanimously late last month to ask the National D-Day Memorial Foundation to lose the bust. A group called the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation has an electronic petition calling on the memorial overseers to remove the bust. Several newspaper editorials have criticized the bust.

But the foundation isn't backing down, saying that Stalin, love him or hate him, is a part of the war's history, and his actions should be remembered.

"We certainly can understand the concern recently expressed by the Bedford County Board of Supervisors on behalf of their constituents and their interests," Robin Reed, president of the foundation said in a written statement.

"However, as a lifelong educator, I believe the foundation has a responsibility to serve as a catalyst for serious discourse regarding key historical figures and their actions as they relate to the D-Day story and World War II in general," she continued. "To do otherwise, is a serious disservice to those individuals that lived and died during those historical events."

The foundation could not be reached for further comment.

Rep. Tom Perriello, D-Va., wrote a letter to the chairman of the foundation last month, urging him to remove the bust.

"The long term viability of the Memorial will depend on its ability to maintain the support of the community of veterans who worked so hard to bring it into existence," Perriello said. "On issues of veteran's affairs, I take my marching orders from those who have served. I strongly encourage the leadership of the foundation to do the same."

The Joint Baltic American National Committee, a lobbying group, said the bust not only elevates Stalin but "does a great disservice to the memories" of the soldiers who died at Normandy.

"It is embarrassing to have to explain to our friends and colleagues overseas why Stalin's bust has suddenly appeared in our backyard when we have been applauding the removal of Stalinist icons elsewhere," the committee said.

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation has collected more than 3,500 signatures on its petition.

"Statues of Stalin have been torn down all over Europe. Even in the Soviet Union," Lee Edwards, chairman of the group, said in a written statement. "The Stalin bust in Bedord, Va., should be removed immediately."

The petition also calls on Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to make the acceptance of the D-Day Memorial as a national park dependent on the removal of the bust.

Reportedly facing serious financial problems, the foundation is trying to get the National Park Service to take over the site.

David Barna, a spokesman for the National Park Service, said the controversy wouldn't be a factor in the agency's decision.

"If the memorial comes our way, we would have to interpret what it meant to America," he told FoxNews.com.

Bedford was chosen as the site for the memorial because of the huge sacrifice it made in the war. The city lost 21 of its men during the climatic D-Day battle on the beaches of Normandy on June 6, 1944, the most men per capita of any community in the U.S. during World War II, according to the memorial.

Stalin, who had teamed up with the West after Hitler betrayed him, didn't send one Russian soldier to that battle.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)7/21/2010 1:38:26 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
     But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
angels of heaven, but my Father only. - Matthew 24:36

One-fourth of Democrats think Jesus will ‘definitely return’ in 40 years

By: Matthew Sheffield
Washington Examiner
07/21/10 12:20 PM EDT

Thanks to the Pew Research Center, we now may have an idea who is buying up all those “Left Behind” books. Many of them appear to be … Democrats?

Yes, that’s right. As part of a larger survey about Americans’ predictions for the next 40 years, just over 1,500 people were asked whether they thought that Jesus Christ would return to the earth during that timeframe. Interestingly enough, it is self-identified Democrats who appear to have more certitude that this will happen than Republicans.

According to the poll, 26% of Democrats believe that the Second Coming “will definitely” happen within the next four decades. In comparison 19% of Republicans believe this.

Among those who think Jesus will probably return to earth in 40 years, there are more GOPers than Democrats. Just under a quarter (24%) of Republicans believe this will happen compared to 18% of Democrats who predict this. Independents are least likely compared to members of both parties to believe in Jesus’ imminent return.

By the way, the partisan breakdown on this question was not in the general report on the Center’s website. The info above was emailed to me in response to a question I had after spotting an item by New York Times columnist Charles Blow on a group that is rarely mentioned in by America’s journalists, the religious left:

<<< According to a Gallup report issued last Friday, church attendance among blacks is exactly the same as among conservatives and among Republicans. Hispanics closely follow. Furthermore, a February Gallup report found that blacks and Hispanics, respectively, were the most likely to say that religion was an important part of their daily lives. In fact, on the Jesus question, nonwhite Democrats were roughly twice as likely as white Democrats to believe that He would return to earth by 2050.

Add to this the fact that, according to the 2009 Gallup report, 20 percent of the Democratic Party is composed of highly religious whites who attend church once a week or more, and you quickly stop second-guessing the Second Coming numbers.

Welcome to the Religious Left, which will continue to grow as the percentage of minorities in the country and in the party grows.

People often ask whether the Republican Party will have to move to the left to remain viable. However, the question rarely asked is whether the growing religiosity on the left will push the Democrats toward the right. >>>

Kudos to Blow for looking beyond the press release and pondering a question that no doubt is uncomfortable for many a secular Democrat. There is bound to be a significant amount of tension between the more secular white Democrats and the more religious non-white Democrats in the years to come, especially as minority Democratic politicians emerge as political powerhouses of their own without help from the mostly white union and current Democratic leadership structures.

A tip of the hat also to the must-read blog Secular Right for bringing the Blow column to my attention.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: washingtonexaminer.com



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)7/27/2010 12:04:51 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Post of the day:

Message 26711054



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)8/10/2010 5:34:00 AM
From: Sully-1 Recommendation  Respond to of 35834
 
Democrats, Please Follow New York Times' Advice

David Limbaugh
August 9, 2010 06:49 PM

Liberals' derision of "people of faith" as weak, anti-intellectual, anti-reason and anti-science is ironic beyond measure, given their stubborn adherence to their own discredited views on the thin thread of faith alone.

New York Times editors' "In Search of a New Playbook" provides a perfect illustration. They not only don't apologize for President Obama's failed policies but also insist that Democrats run proudly on his record.

They argue that for Democrats to retain control of Congress, "they need a sharper and more inspirational playbook." But they're talking about a playbook that deviates not from their tired liberal ideas, but simply from the way those ideas are presented. (This is reminiscent of Obama's tone-deaf reaction to his effective trouncing in the Massachusetts Senate election, when he said he would have to explain his health care ideas more clearly to the American people.)

You see, enlightened people understand the superiority of liberal positions, and the unenlightened just need more indoctrination. You'd think liberal control of the teachers unions, institutions of higher learning and other cultural institutions for a couple of generations would be enough.

The editors warn that the November elections could produce a Republican tidal wave akin to the 1994 midterms, "in part ... because the significant accomplishments of the last two years -- health care reform, the stimulus package, the resuscitation of the auto industry, financial reform -- were savagely attacked by the right and aggressively misrepresented as the hoof beats of totalitarianism."

The editors believe these "accomplishments" would have been even better had they not been "highly diluted to draw centrist support." I'm not making this up. In their view, "Democrats have been failing to delineate the differences between themselves and Republicans."

Let's unpack some of this. What they call "accomplishments" we call disasters. They want to tout health care reform as an accomplishment? Well, if you define accomplishment as a piece of legislation crammed through against the will of the American people and against all odds, then I suppose that would be accurate. But in all other respects, it is a disaster, and the American people overwhelmingly understand it, thank you -- and no thanks to liberal misinformation, including that from the Times. The more people learn about Obamacare the more they realize just how grossly the administration deliberately misrepresented its provisions and the more unpopular it becomes. Rasmussen reported that a stunning 59 percent of Americans now favor repealing the bill.

The stimulus package? Can you imagine the chutzpah of people still calling this legislative train wreck a "stimulus"? It stimulated nothing but public-sector jobs, bureaucracy and the federal debt. No problem for The New York Times editorial board. It believes the stimulus did work, because had it not been implemented, unemployment would have been worse -- "Depression-level." But it would have worked much better had it been even more ambitious. Amazing.

No number of negative empirical data can shake their blind faith. The failure of the administration's predictions that unemployment wouldn't exceed 8 percent doesn't matter. They simply parrot the Obama mantra that the stimulus helped to create or save 3 million jobs. But as Heritage Foundation scholar Brian Riedl says, the only evidence they have to support that assertion are their economic models, which say that should have been the result. The results, in reality, are that millions of jobs (net) have been lost.

And the editors regard the government's takeover of the auto industry and Obama's financial "reform" bill as things to brag about? Please, bring it on. "Hoof beats of totalitarianism"? You'd better believe it.

So what do the editors want Democrats to do? They recommend they follow the lead of Obama, who "has become uncharacteristically combative" (uncharacteristically? Surely they jest!) in pointing out that Republicans "have not come up with a single solitary new idea to address the challenges of the American people." How about a refreshing return to a few old but tried-and-tested ideas, such as drastically reducing spending and taxes?

We must pray Democrats take the editors' advice, betting on the ignorance of the American people and the fantasy that when the dust settles, liberalism resonates better than conservatism with the American electorate.

Indeed, concerning the alleged failure of Democrats "to delineate the differences between themselves and Republicans," the editors, again, have it completely backward. Democrats can only avoid an electoral disaster if they pretend to move to the right, but because they've now unveiled their extremism with control of the executive and legislative branches, it's way too late for that.

Despite the blind faith and delusions of The New York Times editorial board and many other liberals, the public well understands what Obama liberalism is all about now. There has been plenty of delineation, thank you, and you're going to see just how much in November.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)8/10/2010 11:37:23 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Girl quits her job on dry erase board, emails entire office (33 Photos)



.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)8/16/2010 3:08:55 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
2010 Politics and the Cult of Me

By Jeremy Meister
American Thinker

The "Me Generation" was cute until it got in charge.

The "Greatest Generation" came home from fighting and suffering in World War 2 and gave birth to the "Baby Boom". Like most children these "Boomers" rebelled against their parents values like honor, duty and sacrifice. It was the 60's and the old fuddy duddy ways of doing things were frowned on by the new generation. The "Boomers" were going to have a good time regardless of the consequences.

If the Greatest Generation made a mistake it was that they loved their children too much.
They would always be there for their kids -- didn't matter if it was paying for a broken window from a sandlot baseball game or bailing them out when they were caught posting graffiti. Thus they taught their kids that responsibility was someone else's problem. And it began to show in every aspect of American life.

STD rates began to skyrocket. Illegal drugs became a growing problem. Crime rates spiked. Throughout all of this the Boomers always looked to mommy and daddy at home -- for money, for food, for a place to sleep, for whatever they needed. Of course, publically the Boomers mocked their parents. Many feminists took great advantage of mommy always being home even as they decried the evil of common Housewives.

As the 70s began, Boomers began moving out the house. The "Me Generation" had come of age. And it was all about "Me".
Clubs glorifying sex with strangers become common. "Everything is curable with a shot," smirked clubgoers. There were no after effects of a hook up. Divorce rates went up. "I deserve to be happy." became the battle cry of divorcees everywhere. No longer did people even bother trying to take the time to find a mate that they could live with. Careers began to take priority over kids. "Latch Key" children became common. Daycare began cropping up everywhere. The kids would just have to understand.

As Boomers grew across the decades, their attitudes didn't. They didn't save money and bought everything on credit with no care to how it would be paid off. Their momentary happiness trumped all. It truly was all about "Me".

It is this self centered attitude that is causing a lot of our political problems in 2010.
The self serving Boomers now control the Halls of power at the Federal level. It's not hard to spot their Cult of Me attitude everywhere. Why should abortion be legal? Because "It's a woman's right to choose." -- as if a woman's decision impacts no one else.

The greatest value has gone from doing the right thing to doing the thing that feels right. The greatest crime one can now do is standing in the way of someone else's happiness. Thus the tax cheat Tim Geithner deserves his job enforcing our tax laws. Roman Polanski's alleged drugging and raping of a young girl is just fine. John Kerry thinks nothing of parking his yacht in low tax zones even as he votes for tax hikes. Only the evil condemn such things.

It reminds one of spoiled teen agers.
Politicians don't even bother reading legislation any more. But isn't that their job? They also spend money trillions with no thought or consideration to how it will be paid for. It's simply someone else's problem.

No cost is too high for the Cult of Self. It's easy to do when it's not your stuff you're throwing away. Notice these high priests won't give up their own precious things. Well defined ideas like honor and duty are being replaced with vague phrases like "social justice" and "fairness."

Then the Rulers want praise from the people whose property and freedom they have destroyed.


This is what most of the stimulus spending fight is over: In the time of a depression, government employees think they should be exempt from pay cuts. And the public is supposed to be happy that government employees get to keep their high salaries and generous pensions. The attitude is also reflected in the First Lady's Spanish vacation. She's spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a pleasure trip -- even with her husband at home lecturing citizens about cutting back.

The Cult of Me comes up in other places too. The Ground Zero mosque isn't about peace and tolerance. It's about making liberal leaders feel good about themselves. The War in Afghanistan is devolving in to a mission about salving the guilt of the ruling class who feel bad about fighting wars. The whole plan for the redistribution of wealth at home and abroad is all about warm fuzzies. And the list goes on and on and on.

But there probably is no place in American politics where the Cult of Me is playing out more than with the Gay Rights Movement. California's Prop 8 was thrown out last week by a judge with a political agenda. His verdict (note the judge in the case is gay) was more about self gratification than it was about the law. Most (if not all) judges and politicians swear an oath to uphold and execute the laws to the best of their ability. This one didn't even try. Who cares if his decision tears a hole in our legal system? He's going to get what he wants. Anything short of being happy for him is frowned on as criminal.

Or take the case of Bradley Manning who works for the US military. He's been charged with providing secret documents to the Wikileaks website. The articles included US military operations, Afghan fighters working with US forces and local spies. Why did he do it? He was angry about US military policy on Gays and this was his protest. With no regard to the lives his actions would put in jeopardy. The Cult of Me strikes again.

Irresponsible self gratification left unchecked always leads to destruction. Sooner or later someone is going to have to be an adult and clean up the mess. Hopefully those people show up while there is still something worth saving.


Jeremy Meister works in Radio and Film in the Midwest. He can be reached at Meister@windstream.net.

.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)11/9/2010 1:10:49 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
From an e-mail:

Subject: Fourth Time

A woman, married three times, walked into a bridal shop one day and told
the sales clerk that she was looking for a wedding gown for her fourth wedding.

"Of course, madam," replied the sales clerk, "exactly what type and color are
you looking for?"

The bride to be said: "A long frilly white dress with a veil."

The sales clerk hesitated a bit, then said, "Please don't take this the wrong way,
but gowns of that nature are considered more appropriate for brides who are
being married the first time - for those who are a bit more innocent, if you know
what I mean? Perhaps ivory or sky blue would be nice?"

"Well," replied the customer, a little peeved at the clerk's directness, "I can
assure you that a white gown would be quite appropriate. Believe it or not,
despite all my marriages, I remain as innocent as a first time bride.

You see, my first husband was so excited about our wedding, he died as we
were checking into our hotel. My second husband and I got into such a terrible
fight in the limo on our way to our honeymoon that we had that wedding
annulled immediately and never spoke to each other again."

"What about your third husband?" asked the sales clerk.

"That one was a Democrat," said the woman, "and every night for four years, he
just sat on the edge of the bed and told me how good it was going to be, but
nothing ever happened."



.



To: Sully- who wrote (33253)12/23/2010 4:50:12 PM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
H/T to Oeconomicus:

From an e-mail:

To My Liberal Friends

Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2011 but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To My Conservative Friends

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!