Only a Liberal…

California Speaker of the Assembly, Karen Bass (D), said this about conservative talk radio:

I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair. (hotair.com)

The fact that a public official is stupid enough, or politically bulletproof enough, to say something like this is attrocious.  This woman was voted into office, and she considers vocal dissent to be equal to terrorism.

I am amazed at the number of liberals who will condemn free speech on a whim when it gets in the way of their agenda. Its as if she thinks conservatives just go around throwing roadblocks in her way and the way of Republicans that would kowtow to her agenda. Ms. Bass, if your legislation made sense, conservatism “terrorism” would fall on deaf ears, but rather than try to win in the arena of ideas, you’d prefer just label dissent as terrorism so that you don’t have to debate it. You think free speech is only for people who agree with you. That is horrifying.

This totalitarianist approach is vicious and unacceptable, and the State of California, if it has a shred of common sense left in its electorate, will remove this woman from office as fast as legally possible. Referring to free speech as terrorism while in public office with no electoral repercussions is dangerous. Politicians must learn that if they even think of infringing on Constitutional rights there will be political consequences.

And enemy combatants. And a couple other things, but who’s counting.

It appears the Obama honeymoon is near its end for the Press. In this video, a reporter calls Obama on his pledge to not raise taxes on any American making less than $250,000. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’s answer is SO lame the press corps laughs at him.

Barack Obama is a lying scumbag. He promised he wouldn’t raise taxes one cent for people making less than $250,000 and couldn’t make it 6 months before breaking his promise.

And from the Washington Post:

Obama administration officials are crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that an order, which would bypass Congress, could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

See his promises on video. So he lied about raising taxes, he lied about giving Gitmo detainees their day in court, he lied about letting Americans look at legislation online for 5 days before voting, he lied about preventing congressmen from slipping in pork barrels. To quote Ted Kennedy, “lie after lie after lie after lie.” Senator Kennedy, Obama would like you to know, yes we can.

A video of Sonia Sotomayor has been found where she said this:

I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby. I am a Puerto Rican, born and raised in the South Bronx … With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates. And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.

I have actually seen blog posts and reviews of this quote PRAISING her comments. As though her success is the ultimate justification for the disgustingly racist practice of affirmative action. Rather than just say she didn’t test well, she blames the test.

I am amazed at the number of people, of every skin pigment, who spend every waking minute making excuses for failure rather than spending their time finding ways to succeed. Among non-whites, a common excuse seems to be that its not their fault; it’s someone else’s fault. The test is biased, or the white guy is biased. I scoured the internet looking for an example of a “culturally biased” test QUESTION, let alone an entire test, and found nothing. Just vague assertions that “everyone knows” culturally biased tests are common. I guess if one non-white group scores lower than a white group, then, by definition, some assume the test is “culturally biased.” This is illogical. To prove a test is culturally biased, show me the question and explain the bias. There are three possibilities when investigating a correlation. A caused B, B caused A, or their correlation is a coincidence. In this instance, either the person caused the score for the test to be low, the test caused the score for the person to be low, or its a coincidence. You must provide proof, not weak vagueries.

Even if you accept the premise of a culturally biased test, Sonia Sotomayor was born and raised in America. Her culture should have been American, same as the people who made the test, so any bias against her would have been self-inflicted, by her mother to be exact. Choosing to culturally diversify yourself from the main culture of a country is a sure-fire way to fall victim to a test if, accepting the false premise, you come across a test question with bias against your particular culture.

And did we check the skin-color of the test-creator? Seems to me that would be an EXTREMELY relevant variable in determining the validity of a test, rather than simply relying on the resulting scores of the test.

Back to her admission… Sonia Sotomayor has admitted she was not qualified to go to Princeton, and the only reason she got in is because admissions looked past her test scores to her skin color. The fact that she appeared to excel there proves nothing. Just because a rule has an occasional exception does not make the rule invalid.

Standardized test scores are an objective and invaluable way to predict the success of students in college. The alternative is subjective criteria, such as personality, personal connections, and race. Once upon a time, colleges subjectively chose students based on who their daddy was, and whether they were white. That was racist and unfair, and so is affirmative action for EXACTLY the same reasons.

Another link to read…

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/sotomayor-in-her-own-words-on-tape/

Mark McKinnon at The Daily Beast wrote a column about Palin vs Biden in 2016. I will try to make my response brief.

There isn’t a snowball’s chance in Al Gore’s Arctic that Joe Biden will ever be nominated for President of the United States. The guy makes Dan Quayle look smooth (His Roosevelt was president in 1929 video and “Stand Up Chuck, the paraplegic” video and Barack America video).

While I agree with Mark McKinnon’s assessment of Palin being unprepared in 2008 and managing “not to drown,” the notion that Joe Biden would be the Democrat nominee is ridiculous. The Democrat party is smarter than that. It’ll be Jim Webb or Evan Bayh or Russ Feingold, or Hillary.

Then McKinnon criticizes Letterman for his joke about Palin’s daughter. To be fair, Sarah Palin has been disingenuous with some of her comments about David Letterman. While I dislike the guy, it is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest for Palin to suggest Letterman is a pedophile. He made a stupid joke. He’s a liberal and wanted to attack Palin. Period. Just another reminder for conservatives that, yes, Sarah Palin is also still a politician. With that being said, if she plays her cards right, she will be a strong political force come 2016… assuming Romney doesn’t beat Obama in 2012.

The Obama administration recently appointed Edward Whitacre as the new CEO of General Motors. He was previously CEO of AT&T.

“I don’t know anything about cars,” Whitacre, 67, said yesterday in an interview after his appointment. “A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I’m not that old, and I think the business principles are the same.” (Bloomberg)

We are living in Wonderland. Up is down. In is out.

In a normal world, even if the newly appointed CEO of a company really didn’t know cars, he sure as shit wouldn’t admit it so candidly in public. He would drone on about his executive experience or dodge the question. So why would Ed Whitacre say something so irresponsible, so detrimental to the reputation of the company?

One reason is that GM’s recent bankruptcy caused the NY Stock Exchange to suspend trading of GM’s common equity, so a stock market plunge was not a problem.

Whitacre’s statement is, unfortunately, a horrendous second place to the real problem here. Barack Obama appointed a non-car guy to run a car company.  Perhaps the White House has a rational defense for the decision…

“The White House said Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Officer Alan Mulally’s move from planemaker Boeing Co. shows that success doesn’t hinge on automotive experience.”

Uh, Mr. Gibbs, Boeing makes planes and plane engines. Experience with running a company that makes jet engines might come in handy for running a company that makes car engines. AT&T is a telephone company. The analogy doesn’t fit.

It takes some amazing job security to admit such ignorance publicly. I don’t know if Obama regrets appointing Whitacre only to have him say he didn’t know anything about the product his company sells, but he should.

Michael Kinsley, a Washington Post writer, thinks we should get rid of the star-spangled banner. His column talks about how the “home of the brave ” is:

“empty bravado. There is nothing in the American myth (let alone reality) to suggest that we are braver than anyone else.”

This hand-wringing, self-loathing waste of an article also apologizes for any offense the mention of bombs might produce in non-Americans. “Anything would be better than those “bombs bursting in air.”"

Mr. Kinsley, after talking about bombs bursting in the air, the song illustrates that despite the bombs and bloodshed, there was victory, as symbolized by the flag still being there.

Claiming there’s no evidence that Americans are braver than non-Americans is to ignore history. We have gone to war overseas on behalf of other countries multiple times in pursuit of freedom and justice. If you want to break it down to some sort of bigotry insulting the bravery of non-Americans, you go right ahead. The following will be my response to that…

Disclaimer: I do not support the asphyxiation of military personnel to prove a point to other military personnel, as occurs in the movie, “A Few Good Men.” That being said, the following passage from the movie is a perfect response to the spineless liberals who write nonsense like Kinsley and take their freedom for granted:

“Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You?… My existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives… You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said “thank you,” and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.”

Two stories have inspired me to write a post concerning the difference between a right and a privilege. The first is a column by Bernie Sanders, the “independent” democratic socialist senator from Vermont, titled “Health Care is a right, not a privilege.” The second is a court ruling in France, where their Constitutional Council declared internet access a “basic right.” I will ruin the ending by telling you I strongly disagree with both.

A passage from Sanders’s column:

“First, should all Americans be entitled to health care as a right and not a privilege - which is the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection? Second, if we are to provide quality health care to all, how do we accomplish that in the most cost-effective way possible?

I think the answer to the first question is pretty clear, and one of the reasons that Barack Obama was elected president. Most Americans do believe that all of us should have health care coverage, and that nobody should be left out of the system. The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.”

Before you can dispute his conclusion, you have to dispute his premise…

“the way every other major country treats health care and the way we respond to such other basic needs as education, police and fire protection”

The fact that every other “major” country treats healthcare as a privilege is irrelevant to the debate. It is clear as day that the United States is unique, and should only follow the lead of other countries if those countries are more successful at that particular policy.

The notion that education is a “basic need” is also a fallacy. That’s a whole other debate. On top of that, comparing healthcare to education, police, and fire protection is also ridiculous. We have police and fire protection for general welfare. Police enforce the rule of law, an important reason for the success of America. If your house catches fire, that fire can spread extremely quickly to other houses. The only analagous healthcare situation would be an epidemic. We have the Center for Disease Control to handle that.  Other than epidemics, healthcare is infinitely more similar to a grocery store than a fire department. Each individual has extremely unique wants and needs in regard to healthcare. Healthcare is not one-size-fits-all situations.

Also, Bernie’s assertion that Obama’s election shows that the American people have decided healthcare is a right is also fallacious. There is no indication that Americans voted for Obama because of his quest for universal healthcare. If that was the case, Hillary would have likely won the primary.

“The real debate is how we accomplish that goal in an affordable and sustainable way. In that regard, I think the evidence is overwhelming that we must end the private insurance company domination of health care in our country and move toward a publicly-funded, single-payer Medicare for All approach.”

Here, Bernie has jumped straight to the conclusion he supports without any supporting evidence. Even if you think healthcare is a right, the notion that it should be run by the government is ludicrous.

“Our current private health insurance system is the most costly, wasteful, complicated and bureaucratic in the world.”

And Bernie’s solution is to have the government run it? His argument is the government won’t be costly, wasteful, complicated, or bureaucratic. Anyone with a brain understands how ludicrous this assertion is. My slow, inefficient car doesn’t make me happy, so I’m going to buy a slower, more inefficient car to solve the problem. Its silly.

Is healthcare a right? If it is, is food a right? Is water a right? Should every American own a car? Does every American have the right to employment? Does every American have the right to an internet connection?

The American Constitution has defined rights very strictly for a reason: to protect the citizens from a tyrranical government. We have laws to protect one citizen from another. Rights as defined by the constitution are primarily concerned with protecting citizens from the government. Giving the government power over the recurring, unique needs of each American individual is removing freedom from every citizen to choose their own healthcare. That’s aside from the fact that government is more inefficient and more wasteful than any private organization has ever been.

The more important “right” that Americans have is the right to freedom of choice. They have the freedom to choose which healthcare provider they want, which type of coverage and payment plan they want, and ALSO the right to NOT get healthcare. The socialist argument that allowing people to not have healthcare costs everyone more money may be true, but putting it under the control of the government would AMPLIFY that problem. Car insurance is not provided by the government, yet everyone with a car is required to have it. I could be persuaded that all Americans should be forced to have health insurance to prevent high costs, but the notion that universal healthcare would solve all the problems with private healthcare is idiotic and willfully ignorant.

The only time a government should reduce the individual’s freedom is when that freedom infringes on the freedom of others. My healthcare through my wife’s employment does not prevent anyone else from getting their own healthcare. Because of that fact, it is none of the government’s business where or how I get my healthcare, same as its none of their business how often I go golfing.

The fire department prevents one individual’s fire from affecting other citizens. The police department enforces laws that prevent one citizen from infringing on the freedom of another. Disease epidemics are analogous to fires, but other than that, healthcare has more in common with a grocery store than a fire department.

Let me repeat that… I still can’t quite believe it. In the New York State Senate in Albany, Democrat senators ran out the door, turned off the lights, and cut the internet feed to prevent their session from continuing (see article). Two Democrats evidently switched to the Republican side, changing the balance of power to the GOP, so in respect of the great legislative tradition of the United States, New York Democrats threw a monumental temper tantrum.

In true partisan fashion, Governor David Patterson chimed in:

“I don’t care if I’m the only one standing, but someone has got to stand up and say that this is wrong.”

He goes on to chide the New York State Senate for not spending enough time on governance. He never says what they did was illegal, just that it was wrong. I guess putting the Republicans in charge is wrong. I assume if it really was illegal, they wouldn’t have ran out of the senate, metaphorically popping the pigskin because they were losing the football game. They simply would have followed the legislative procedure to prevent the switching of parties in the middle of session.

Picture the Republicans doing this in the U.S. Senate when the Democrats regained their majority status. Keith Olbermann would have 2 weeks of material to rant about. In the article linked at the Drudge Report, the columnist actually spends a few paragraphs highlighting the legal trouble of the two new Republicans.

I don’t give a crap which party is in power in New York’s state senate, but the news of this temper tantrum is illustrative of the Democrat party and liberals in general. When the facts are against them, they resort to any means necessary, and exhibit no shame for it. Republicans were about to throw a touchdown, so the Democrats took the ball and popped it. Really? For those who still have respect for politicians, wake the fuck up. These people are children in suits.

I know I may piss off my Republican fans, but the fact of the matter is, the only use I have for Republicans is the opposition to Democrats. Only a Republican can defeat Obama in 2012, but I fear the formula necessary to do it will not be implemented by anyone.

The unfortunate reality is our election for President is now a student body election. Being smart or on the right side of policies matters little if at all. Liberal democrats oppose gay marriage vehemently, yet they didn’t blink when they pulled the lever for Barack Obama.  It could seem reasonable if perhaps they voiced their objection, but voted for him anyway, as many conservatives and Republicans did for John McCain. But the vast majority of Obama voters really did not even acknowledge it. How does that happen?

The Democrat party has been extremely successful in their ability to partition society into groups, aka identity politics. Convince the leadership of a group to only vote for one party, and that leadership will get impressive results. Part of this process has been to convince large amounts of Americans that Republicans are insensitive at best, and vicious bigots at worst.

These generalizations CAN be defeated in political discourse, but the Republican party often refuses to. They opt for short term solutions and screw themselves in the long term. Apologizing for a racial comment would be one example. I didn’t say racIST; I said racIAL. Mentioning a mistake by an individual that happens not to be white is not racist, but many liberals pounce on any racial comment and declare is racist.

A month ago, I would been able to name three people capable of combatting the success of Democrat identity politics. The first would have been Newt Gingrich. He has been more eloquent than most about explaining fiscal conservatism and contrasting it with fiscal liberalism or socialism. In other words, he has had the balls to take the Democrats head on concerning multiple issues. He left his balls at home when he apologized for calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist, which she is. He has proven he can’t go all the way in a long, arduous campaign.

The second person is Dick Cheney. The guy ran circles around Obama a few weeks back concerning interrogation, etc. Just demolished him, despite Keith Olbermann’s best efforts to tell people otherwise. Cheney has been steadfast (as far as I’m aware) about sticking to his guns and not backing down from any debate, even if people call him names. Unfortunately, I fear he has been so damaged by the many myths about him and Halliburton that he is unelectable. I would also file Sarah Palin under this category, at least in the short term. (Update 7/2/09 - Krauthammer agrees with me)

The third person is Mitt Romney. I fear he is the last hope of defeating Obama in 2012. Barack Obama thanks his lucky stars that Romney didn’t get the nomination, because if he had, the economic crash of September would have played right into the hands of Romney, an extremely successful businessman who has shown he knows the economy. I don’t pretend Romney is the biggest expert on the economy. Again, this is a student body presidential election, so he is as close as its gonna get.

Romney has the look, the voice, the gravitas that has a chance with the pop culture vote that Obama courted in 2008. I know Obama supporters that love Romney. Now for anyone out there that follows politics, you might wonder how the hell one person could simultaneously like Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. The answer is simple, albeit irritating. It’s because Presidential elections have ceased to have anything to do with being qualified and having experience. It doesn’t matter that Romney and Obama disagree on virtually every major issue. They’re both likeable to the ignorant masses of voters. Yes, I am calling voters ignorant. Not all of them, just 90% of them.

Romney is the guy. Moral purists like myself will just have to ignore Romney’s occasional flip-flop if they want to replace the Marxist Barack Obama. I think the situation is so dire that the lesser of two evils has become absolutely necessary if we don’t want to spend decades cleaning up Obama’s mess.

There are other people out there who have potential besides Romney, but until they become bigger celebrities, they won’t have a chance against Obama’s pop culture vote. The next Republican has to tap that demographic to have a chance, and Romney is the current front-runner for accomplishing that.

The only other way is to have someone blacker run on the Republican ticket. I’m not in favor of picking a candidate because they’re black, but in the discussion of how to beat Obama, that would be one possible way. Clarence Thomas, Ken Blackwell, JC Watts… I dont know much about Blackwell or Watts, but they’re both young and black enough to grab a lot of 2008 Obama voters. Again, I only point this out in a political context. Come to think of it now… Clarence Thomas would wipe the floor with Obama if there was a snowball’s chance in Al Gore’s melting Arctic that he would step down from his lifetime appointment to be viciously attacked again. He won’t.

Like I said, Romney’s the guy.

Blog updated!

Wasn’t able to post for awhile due to an out-of-date Wordpress version. I have updated and will be posting more frequently.