The Limbaugh Lesson: [Conservative] White Guys Finish Last–UPDATED
Thursday, October 15th, 2009If Rush Limbaugh can be black balled because his political views are not in line with politically correct orthodoxy no one is safe. If Rush Limbaugh can be thwarted economically because he’s maligned by racist words he doesn’t believe and he never uttered, no one’s economic dreams are safe–anyone can say that a person said anything and if that person believes something unpopular to the ruling class, they’re done.
Here is the hierarchy of economic safety in a politically correct charged world:
Least safe: White, middle aged, alpha-male, person of color who votes Republican, female who votes Republican
Less safe: Anybody who is white
Moderately safe: Anybody who is white and voted for Barack Obama
More safe: Anyone who is of color and voted for Barack Obama
Safer still: Anyone who is female and of color
Safest of all: Black, lesbian Obama voter (If she voted for Hillary in the primaries, she’s suspect.)
We are no longer a merit-based economy, we are a skin color and political ideology-based economy. We are exactly what Dr. Martin Luther King didn’t want: a place where people are judged not by their accomplishments, not by the content of their character, but by their color and political perspective.
And why is conservative put in brackets in the headline? Because white guys are suspect until they’re clear about their voting record. Once a white man admits that he made the “right” decision and voted for Barack Obama, people can relax…but only a little. White people are racists. They can’t help it. You just never know about white people, so it’s best to not get too comfortable.
UPDATED:
For an alternative view, Sean Hackbarth.
The Left Has Lost The Narrative
Wednesday, September 30th, 2009Consider all the ways they’ve undermined themselves. It’s delicious:
Racism: They’ve pulled the trump card too many times. Obama finished the narrative with his presumption of guilt with the arresting officer of his old buddy Yale professor Skp Gates.
Sexism: Between tossing Hillary Clinton like a used dinner napkin and treating Sarah Palin like the sexy high school librarian from a porno, the Left pretty much killed their credibility for loving women and equality.
“It’s for the children”: Uh, right. Tell the kids in D.C. trying to get a decent education that. Tell the 13 year old Roman Polanski rape victim. Tell the kids starving in the third world or dying from malaria because leftists won’t use DDT.
We love the poor. How about, “we love to tax the poor”. There have been tax increases already–on cigarettes that disproportionately affect the poor. Cap-n-Trade? Hurts the poor. GM buyouts? Creates poor people. School unions underperforming? Hurts the poor.
With Democrats running things, people have had just teensy taste of what liberalism does for and to a country and its people. Fundamentally all the “help” talk is really “we-don’t-think-you-have-what-it-takes” talk. Under the guise of helping, people feel disempowered and condescended to.
The health care debate revealed a callous disregard for the aging. It also showed the left’s collectivist tendencies: people aren’t viewed as individuals but as a group that either helps or harms the government’s desire for “fairness”.
Basically, the Democrats look mean and uncaring. In California, they care more about a smelt than people losing their property and livelihoods.
Anyway, the upside to their horrible positions and the nasty ideology at the foundation? When in power, it’s so much more difficult to lie. Oh, they can lie, but the policies and actions speak for themselves. People can see the truth. Ultimately, that’s good for America. Americans need to decide if they want that sort of America. Thankfully, they’re saying “no”.
Violence Serves The Left
Monday, September 21st, 2009The Left already enjoys a reputation for being whack-a-doodles. One only needs to visit Zombietime to see how leftists, or what is now being called neo-liberals, roll. Since conservatives don’t really protest, generally, watching the Teaparty movement unfold is fascinating.
For all the talk of violent mobs, crazies, Nazis, terrorists and the rest of the nasty rhetoric, TeaPartiers are a rather benign bunch. Oh yes, there’s an errant sign here or there, but perspective is in order. When you get over a million folks together, there’s bound to be a crazy. The key is to exert peer pressure to keep the crazy in check. Conservatives have been wise to exert that pressure.
The only people it serves if some deluded individual goes nutty is the neo-liberal left. They would love nothing more to point to one nutter and paint the whole movement with those actions while they enjoy a positive agitating reputation even with real terrorists in their midst. Yes, the hypocrisy is galling.
Matt Lewis addresses this hypocrisy:
.. While I would never suggest such a thing, logic seems to dictate that if Panetta believes Cheney’s warnings mean he is “wishing” for a terrorist attack, then Pelosi’s warnings might also mean she is “wishing” for violence. After all, it is reasonable to assume that Democrats would benefit from her being proven right. (Again, this according to Panetta’s logic — not mine).
The truth is that if anyone has incentive to avoid political violence — particularly anything specifically aimed at the president — it is conservatives. As Glenn Beck recently said, “just one lunatic, like Timothy McVeigh, could ruin everything that everyone has worked so hard for, because these people in Washington won’t pass up the use of an emergency. “
Ace wrote a thought-provoking piece last week and I’ve been ruminating on it since. He says:
Nancy Pelosi is being utterly hypocritical here, as she encouraged and cheered the rhetoric of incitement when Bush was President. Win-win for her, I guess she thought — such rhetoric keeps the crazies in a constant state of agitation, and if one should happen to kill Bush… well, bonus, eh?
But her hypocrisy cannot push us away from what we know to be right: Some kind of rhetoric really is fairly dangerous, and, while it won’t put any evil thoughts (or more likely — reinforce evil thoughts already long-present) in the minds of most, it does have the possibility in doing that in a few.
And it’s that few we worry about.
So, although she is a disgusting hypocrite, the definition of a hypocrite is one who takes one position when it’s convenient for her and another when it’s not so convenient, but every hypocrite then does speak for both sides of the issue.
In this particular case — at least regarding the general claim she’s making — she’s right. Extremist rhetoric which has the likelihood of encouraging someone a bit off his trolley to commit an extreme act should be avoided.
Of course, this is self-evident. I agree.
What I wonder is this: What is “extremist rhetoric”? Ironically, almost anything Glenn Beck says is viewed as “extremist rhetoric”. In fact, anyone who disagrees with neo-liberal orthodoxy is considered an extremist.
Carrie Prejean? Extremist gay hater.
Glenn Beck? Extremist Obama hater.
Rush Limbaugh? Extremist race baiting hater.
Mark Steyn? Extremist Muslim hater.
Ann Coulter? Extremist self and women-hating hater.
Michelle Malkin? Extremist illegal alien hater.
Glenn Reynolds? Extremist Tea-Party loving hater.
When center-left Obama-voting Democrats like Ann Althouse are accused of hating, really who isn’t a hater?
I’m sick of the p.c. rhetoric police. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and all the whacked out lefty pundits can say anything. The word is a tool and a sword. They wield it with impunity and want the conservatives to stay muzzled.
So, somewhere between psychotic, crazy loud-mouth libs and meek muzzled, passive, submissive conservatives there’s a balance. Incite violence? No. Stir to positive action, yes.
Yes, violence serves the Left. So does a silent majority. They’ve had it both ways for too long.
9/12 And The Numbers Fight
Saturday, September 12th, 2009Michelle Malkin notes that the pictures of the thousands upon thousands (which eventually make a million) of people is from today.
Here’s a couple thoughts:
1. The libs must be completely freaked out. They are obsessing over the details.
2. If they obsess over the details they can ignore the big picture–which is that a lot of Americans are unhappy at the intrusion and scope of the government.
3. If the Left had organically amassed this many people it would have been called…oh, the Civil Rights movement.
And of course, the left is screaming racism. Where are the black people, they ask? Well, interestingly, that 15% of the U.S. population is overwhelming still please with the President’s work. Also, black voters voted almost exclusively for Barack Obama.
If 3% of blacks voted against Barack Obama and say .5% of them are outraged at the President’s policies, what would that be in real numbers? Not too big. And actually, I can think of a bunch of unhappy black anti-Obama folks right off the top of my head. Are they racist?
Are the white Independents and Democrats who voted for President Obama but are now disaffected, racists? There were those sorts of people at the DC march. Are they racist?
The racist card is utter balderdash. Barack Obama ran as a moderate and is governing like a hard core liberal bent on creating a soft socialist American state. That’s his whole “remake America” and “change” rhetoric. That’s how he wanted to change America.
Most Americans who voted for him, thought he meant it when he was talking about “bringing responsibility back”. They thought wrong. They feel duped. Now, they’re angry.
When black people were angry at President Bush, were they racist? When white liberals were angry at President Bush were they racist? When President Bush lost the middle and a chunks of the right, were those people racist? I mean, they hated the policies of a white guy.
The racist argument needs to stop. And the numbers fight is hilarious. There were a lot of people in DC and around the country making it known that America is going the wrong direction. How much is a lot? Well, enough to scare the liberals senseless. But that doesn’t take much.
Why Liberals Don’t Support A Burqa Ban
Wednesday, August 19th, 2009It would make sense that Feminists would oppose burqas because they are a tool of oppression for women: that is, burqas are specifically made to make a woman persona non grata. A burqa’s very purpose is to hide the woman and make her invisible as an individual. She is just not there.
But feminists, and liberals in general support the burqa. The woman has a “right to choose”. Just as liberals support abortion even though it’s used as a tool for gender genocide (gendercide?) against women in places like India and China where boys are valued over girls.
In both cases, gender suppression is valued over a misguided notion of “choice”. The baby obviously doesn’t have a choice. And the women in the Islamist cultures have little choice. People who know the religion know this:
“We don’t want to see burqas in Denmark. We simply can’t accept that some of our citizens walk around with their faces covered,” Naser Khader, a Danish member of parliament of Syrian-Palestinian extraction who was recently appointed spokesman for integration issues for the Conservative Party, told the newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
In comments published on Sunday, Khader said the burqa is un-Danish and oppressive towards women and should be completely banned. He and his party say that what people do in their own homes is their business, but as soon as they walk into the public domain, one should be able to see their faces.
And interestingly, supposedly chauvinistic right leaning politicians see the problem with burqas:
Denmark is not the only European country where politicians have proposed a ban on burqas. French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently said that the burqa was “not welcome” in France, while France’s urban regeneration minister, Fadela Amara, told the Saturday edition of the Financial Times that she was in favor of the burqa “not existing in my country.” The Netherlands has also considered a ban on burqas.
The logic that liberals employ to support abortion and burqas actually encourages oppression of the weak and helpless. And the weak and helpless are often women and children.
So, the “right” to abort, the right to wear whatever one wants, obliterates the rights of the unborn child and the Muslim woman. A non-existent right becomes a way to oppress the very ones liberals wish to liberate. Isn’t it always “for the children” and “women are 2nd class citizens”? With liberals, children are expendable and women against oppressive burqas should just shut up.
Camille Paglia Reveals More Than Flaws In President Obama’s Handling Of Healthcare
Wednesday, August 12th, 2009Is there such thing as a skeptical liberal? It seems not. Or they’re as rare as white tigers which is why the get displayed like exotic zoo animals.
That Camille Paglia is always so noteworthy simply reveals how the Left marches in ideological lock-step. There should be lots of thinking people on the Left pointing out shortcomings here and there, but no. So the always interesting Ms. Paglia says:
You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.
I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.
Pardon me, but that’s rather obvious criticism and the only place we’re hearing it is on the Right. Why?
Do thinkers on the left have no intellectual integrity? Are they incapable of criticizing their own ideas? Have they no compunction to question?
That’s what is really interesting about Camille Paglia. She seems to be a rare breed of cat. That’s too bad.
The Left, They Be Scared
Thursday, June 11th, 2009It might be a little early to state unequivocally, but I’m tentatively going to say that yesterday, the worm turned.
The last couple of weeks has been very revealing. The political and media class are in a lather and the people at home are watching. What are they seeing?
Crazy people killing. While those of us blogging and the media types are ferreting who is doing the killing and why, the people who have lives are just noting that a lot of crazies are killing. They’re also noticing that normal groups of people are being tagged and blamed for what are clear acts of hate-filled insanity. Still, the killings didn’t happen before. They’re happening now. It is not good.
People don’t have jobs. It’s getting worse. President Obama promised people the moon. Remember the lady who said President Obama would get her groceries? Now, President Obama is less trustworthy. It’s not that he lacks power–he controls the banks and the auto industry and now the tobacco industry is in his cross hairs. He drops terrorist on allies’ islands without permission. He’s omnipotent.
Jeremiah Wright rears his hating head. This is the man who influenced Barack Obama for twenty years. This is the man who was his inspiration and mentor. And this is the man spewing nonsense right during a delicate time in Middle East relations. As President Obama talks about conversations with Iran without preconditions, Reverend Wright’s words ring in everyone’s ears.
Playboy and David Letterman abuse conservative women. And the feminists? Nary a squeak, well a couple, but not big ones. And defending the indefensible has been alarming. Imagine if Malia…never mind.
Biden is a turd. As if anyone needs any reminders, but the Prez’ No.2 is making Dan Quayle look like a super magnificently great Veep choice. People are tiring of the Palin slams. They might work better if Biden wasn’t so goofy, alas. Right about now, Governor Palin is looking, well, executive-ish.
Spending like a rock star, baby. While everyone is cutting back, the Prez, family and government spend, spend, spend!
More czars than Russia–none of whom get Congressional oversight, none of whom, confirmed.
And the media fawns over President Obama and the Democrats in Congress, rarely asking the tough questions and emphasizing minutiae to distract from big issues.
The biggest sign the Left is in full panic mode? Well, they get personal and nasty and vitriolic. If the email and comments mean anything, I’d say the tide is turning.
Sexist Leftist Of The Day: David Letterman
Wednesday, June 10th, 2009Maybe there should just be a regular post highlighting the Leftist sexist, racist, whatever is not p.c.-ist of the day here. Goodness knows the list would be filled. Today, it’s David Letterman.
David Letterman made news for spewing sexist tripe about Sarah Palin, but more than that, making jokes about Palin’s 14 year old daughter–because, you know, it’s okay to talk about statutory rape if she’s a conservative women. They’re not people!
John at Powerline says:
Malia Obama will turn fourteen during her father’s term in office. What do you think the chances are that Letterman (or anyone else) will make obscene jokes about her on network television?
Tommy Christopher says a few interesting things and I’m quoting him extensively here. He says:
Now, I need you all to stay with me here while I make a small distinction. There are some who would try to hang Letterman’s attack on “the Left.” I’ll get to “the Left” in a minute, but Letterman is no more a liberal, in the political “team sports” sense of the word, than Guy Cimbalo is. They are not conservatives, but they are also basically apolitical. Their words are owned by a popular culture that is hostile to conservatism, but also to liberal ideals (of feminism as well as others). They are a third column.
Bill Maher is a guy who straddles the line between the Left and pop culture. As a liberal, I don’t claim ownership for what he says, but there is a clear argument to be made in favor of this. When he makes “retard” jokes about Sarah Palin, which I’ve heard him do frequently, he deserves nothing but scorn from all sides.
I include them with the Left, Tommy, and for one simple reason: how they vote. They vote Democrat. Every. Single. Time. They are on the Left. Like the major media organizations, they like to pretend at “being above” or “transcending” party affiliation. Bull crap. They are Democrats. They vote Democrat. They’re the Left. And as their worship of President Obama (and in the comedians cases avoid poking fun of him altogether) demonstrates, their politics most definitely influences how they report.
On to the Left, Tommy says:
This is where the Left comes in. While they might not own what these entertainers say, they do have a duty to dis-own, a duty born of their desire to condemn Mel “Sugar-tits” Gibson et al, a duty that I’ve found them shirking for the most part. Instead, the tendency is to engage in “Yeahbut.” You know, “Yeah, but x conservative said y horrible thing…” (a curious exercise that essentially lets people you view as scumbags set your boundaries for you), to excuse it, or to ignore it altogether. It is here that the Left takes ownership.
When Keith Olbermann launched a sexist attack on Carrie Prejean, unless I missed it, there was silence from the Left, or agreement. On the Playboy article, with the exception of HuffPo, the Left’s reaction was to excuse Playboy and smear me. Even the National Organization for Women had to be prodded into a statement, but one which they didn’t feel compelled to put anywhere on their website.
The entire world is hostile toward women, but you don’t get to lay claim to being the good guys if you don’t believe in protecting all women, especially when it’s this obvious.
Feminism is not about equality for women, it is about promoting abortion and creating a special class for Leftist women. Women on the Right, are not considered women. Period. They are considered gender traitors. There simply can be no honest disagreement. This is thought policing and fascistic thinking at it’s worst.
Remember, rape is used to shame and silence. There was little to no outrage for Playboy’s cyber-rape, and there won’t be about David Letterman by the left either because these people want Sarah Palin shamed and quiet. They want the conservative women on that list shamed and quieted.
Brace yourselves, readers, because it’s not over yet. This year has been Misogyny Mania for liberals who claim to be “pro-woman.”
No it ain’t over. It never was over. The Left uses their “isms” as a hammer to silence their opposition and employs the methods they deem offensive because their used to silence the “right” people. Hypocrites.
More at Hot Air, Jim Treacher, Pirates Cove, and Dan Riehl .
By the way, please note that it’s MEN who are outraged. And well they should be. Double standards are really about silencing them, too.
When Conservatives Peacefully Protest Leftists Are Afraid–UPDATED
Tuesday, April 7th, 2009I don’t pay attention to Lefty blogs…mostly, because they’re havens of psychologically imbalanced emotionalism. For more psychological dissecting of the Left, read Dr. Pat Santy of Dr. Sanity fame.
There is one key psychological concept every conservative should know because the Left is in this perpetual state. It’s called projection. Or, in Kindergarten speak “when you you point one finger at me, three point back at you”. Projection is defined as follows:
psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism where a person’s personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person’s own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.
This is important to know. Because when a leftist screeches “hypocrisy!”, it’s a case of projection.
When a Leftist decries the incendiary talk of the “right wing”, it’s projection.
When a Leftist calls Conservatives crazy, it’s a case of projection.
When Leftist worry about the violence of the Right Wing killing cops, it’s a case of projection.
I bring this all up because commenters at my Houston Chronicle blog–basically a bunch of liberal trolls with nothing better to do than spew stupid–are kvetching about the upcoming Tea Party Protests. People (of all political stripes, by the way) peacefully protesting are called racist, radical, hate-filled, etc. You know the drill.
The Left just cannot handle when they do not control the anti-establishment narrative. But it’s time they admit it: They are the establishment. Government interference means that their beloved Barack Obama is interfering with American lives. It is Barack Obama taking control of individuals and companies and industries.
Protests used to be a sign of patriotism. Now, if a person is anti-establishment (i.e. anti-the ideas coming out of the Democrat House, Senate and Executive Branch, oh, and don’t forget the media), he’s an obstructionist, racist, violent, crazy person. Well, if the press decides to cover the Tea Parties, they’ll meet working Americans who are sick of being bullied by a ruling class that has forgotten that they represent the people rather than preside over subjects. They will see families and tax payers and fed up Americans wanting to have their voices heard.
What bothers Leftists so much is that they believe they own the outsider, persecuted status and don’t much like seeing the opposition protesting now that their leader is the establishment. The whole order of things has been shifted. Well, you can’t own the power everywhere and still cling to your victim-status, Leftists.
The Marxist ideology, socialist actions and liberal arrogance is waking up the silent majority. People who haven’t paid attention to politics for years are paying attention now. And they’re going to Tea Party protests across America on April 15th. Unlike most Leftist gatherings, these protests will be peaceful, energized and fun. Nothing to fear here… No need to project violence fantasies on the Right.
More from Michelle Malkin
UPDATED:
Kim Priestap has an excellent piece about the Chief Projectionist In Charge.
Lorie Byrd and I are on the same wavelength, evidently.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
