Chutzpah

[Friday, Sept 18]

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you’re – have some of your allies made it easier for — handed your opponents some ammunition, like ACORN, for example…

OBAMA: Well, look, the — you know, I think that — are there folks in the Democratic camp or on the left who haven’t — haven’t always operated ways that I’d appreciate?

Absolutely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Congress has just cut off…

OBAMA: Is — is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: …all funding for ACORN.

OBAMA: It’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you for that?

OBAMA: Is that true on the other side, as well?

Of course that’s true.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How about the funding for ACORN?

OBAMA: You know, if — frankly, it’s not really something I’ve followed closely. I didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money.

Really?

Happy Constitution Day

The meaning of the Constitution.

On Racism

When did liberal become a race?

Jimmy Carter recently said in plain words what liberals apparently seem to be thinking in the backs of their mindnubs:  that any argument against the Almighty Obama is RACIST!  Oh no!  Not racist! 

Well, let me argue that with a bit of logic, the liberal's arch nemesis.  I am white or black.  I am not both.  I won't tell becuase you don't need to know.  Let's say I'm black for sake of argument.  But I might just as easily be white.  Now Obama is black (well sort of...for sake of this argument, he's black).  Kind of like Tiger Woods is black.  Whipped mocha choco latte, if you will.  Jimmy Carter is white.  White like the paste you ate in preschool; maybe even a little pink like those baby mice that get fed to rat snakes in science class (before PETA).  But hey, animals taste better than people or soylent green, except that soylent green is PEOPLE...so I guess they taste the same.  But I digress... 

Now then...back to my thought:  I don't think Obama has America's best interest in mind.  Therefore, I must be racist and hate black people, or at the very least feel disgusted by their darktitude.  Hey Darkie, go back to Africa.  Make sense?  But I don't think that Carter has America's best interest in mind either.  Hey Whitey, quit mowin' your suburban gated-community lawn and come see what the ghetto is really like, you rhythm deficient cracka ho.  I'm now very confused because according to Jimmy Carter, since I disagree with liberal brainwashing and communism, that means I'm racist against both whites and blacks, and yet I am black...or white.

If you are sheet-wearing, KKK lovin', redneck, hepatitis carrying, skinhead, please get a life.  If you are a wannabe pimp gangsta, Black Panther lovin', prideful negro, please get a life.  If I'm white, I'm not responsible for whippin' your great great granny for not pickin' enough cotton back on the plantation.  Have you ever even seen cotton outside of WalMart?  If I'm black, it doesn't make me a thug or less intelligent than a white man; I'm a law abiding citizen just like you are, so don't act like I'm gonna steal your purse. 

It's funny...well, in kind of a stupid way, how we've gone from a society which once did mistreat minorities  to one that now feels overly guilty for it even though those times have come and gone and the people responsible have all died.  A white person isn't going to comment on the fact that BET (Black Entertainment Television) is a double standard (what, no WET?).  And yet, a black person isn't going to admit that maybe he has been kept down by "The Man" by taking handouts and welfare.  A white man is uncomfortable admitting that more minorities live in poverty while a minority forgets that they are probably more poor simply because they are behind in terms of how much time they've had to gain wealth.  Instead of time being the culprit, it's whitey.  Well it isn't whitey.  In fact, more whitey's have probably tried to help you than hurt you in the last several decades.  And Whitey, you've got a few things to learn too.  Blacks were mistreated and seem to be brought up to kind of carry that history around with them in the backs of their minds.  So you have to treat that situation respectfully.  It was very very real at one time.  Haneous attrocities were committed against blacks and still are sometimes.  Of course, haneous attrocities are committed against people of all races.  But the racism of yesterday is not the reality anymore.  So it's okay to be frustrated with the dark man for thinking it is, but at the same time be respectful of his past. 

The upcoming generations are sick and tired of being dragged through this racism game.  It doesn't exist to us anymore.  In Jimmy Carter's day maybe it did.  But that's not where we are now, and being against Obama's liberal policies doesn't make you any more racist than not liking the taste of fried chicken or malt liquor.  Although who doesn't like fried chicken?

All of us are created equal by our Creator and considered as equals in the USA regardless of our race.  You are no better than me, nor am I any better than you.  I may have more or have less, be better or worse looking, be smarter or a little less so...but my vote carries as much weight as yours (but no more than yours), and I have the same rights to pursue freedom and happiness as you do, and vice versa. 

So when someone like Jimmy Carter tries to grovel at the throne of Obama so that his soul might be spared in his last days, it makes me kind of throw up a little bit because this isn't about race, this is about the values that America is watching melt on its wrist like a sticky red popscicle glowing in the hot sun of Barack's mighty shining light.

New Media

Today's modern media entertains, tells stories, perhaps even spins the news...shame on them.  There is some pretty damning evidence that certain "news" agencies make it their priority to hand pick the news rather than report to you what would be newsworthy if you only knew about it.  I could probably build a case for that phenomenon being heavily influential on recent elections.  For example, we all saw how Van Jones was pushed out of office as soon as news about him got out.  But that wasn't news in the ordinary sense.  It was cyber news, blogging, videos on YouTube, etc. that were shared and shared again while the big boys like the New York Times sat with it's thumb up its nose.  What if more voters knew more about the people they hired to represent them in government?  I think there would be a lot of changes.  It's not unlikely, therefore, that there is incentive for certain papers to try to keep the status quo.  Prioritizing the news has become political in many ways.  And that's okay, I guess, and it's up to the journalist, news agency, media corporation, etc. to do as it wishes because, after all, this is the USA, a free place with freedoms of speech permitted even if that freedom means strrrrrrrrretching the truth.  The important thing is that we, the public, realize this happens.

Got an interesting blurb on this very topic here: read me

Signs

My favorite sign from the Washington DC Tea Party this past weekend:

Clueless

More than an hour after its first reports, CNN anchor Kyra Phillips said on the air that CNN's initial report [ed. note: of guns fired during a Coast Guard training excercise] stemmed from someone saying "bang, bang, bang" over a radio frequency monitored by the network's police scanner.

So they can't tell the difference between someone saying "bang, bang, bang" and actual gunfire. Idiots.

9/11

Article by Victor Davis Hanson: click here (p.s. that's a different Joe Wilson mentioned in this article than the congressman who shouted out during Obama's speech on 9/9 and is referred to in the post below)

From the Dallas Morning News: Remembering Afghanistan's 9/11 roots

Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: click here

Recently declassified photos of WTC attack: click here

"You Lie"

Was Rep. Joe Wilson's "You lie!" outburst during last night's speech inappropriate? Yeah, it breaks protocol a little bit. But if he did that because he believed in what he was saying and trying to represent his constituents, then I'm not so sure he owes an apology to anyone. Perhaps he should have finished them off with, "Lying to the American people is what is really inappropriate here! Disrepectful? What about all the things Obama has said that disrespects us as Americans? What about those comments? What about the fact that he and the other libs in office are completely disregarding all of August's town hall meetings full of people who clearly don't want this government 'solution'?  What about the democrats in congress booing Bush during his '05 State of the Union?  What about the hypocrits in office right now?  If I may be so kind, you may all stick it!" Joe Wilson, for a brief moment, was a representative with some balls. Stand up and grovel no more, Joe.

On a side note, Mark Levin made two excellent points last night:

1. It's ironic that Obama calls for "accountability" in health care while he is the most profligate spender in American history.
2. Employment is one of the key ways people pay for health care, and this administration is experiencing (perhaps, in no short supply, contributing to) one of the biggest unemployment rates in a very long time.

Explain this to me

Regarding Grimp's earlier post on the potential "fees" (read: tax) on insurance companies as a way to "defray costs" of the public insurance plan:
I can one-up you.

How about a "fine" (read: tax), administered by the IRS, who become the defacto insurance cops, on people who don't buy health insurance. Individual mandates, this is called. Which is Washington-speak for "we're from the government and we're here to help".

A bipartisan group of senators huddled in the afternoon to decide whether to move forward on an overhaul plan that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) began circulating over the weekend. The plan includes some of the stiffest penalties Congress has proposed for Americans who don’t carry health insurance coverage.

So the "public option" is out in the Senate version of the bill, but an enforced tax on families who don't purchase health insurance (which is, by nature, a completely voluntary act) is in.

So if I don't have insurance currently because I can't afford it or don't need it, you're going to fine me anywhere from $750 to $3800 if I don't go ahead and pay for something I already can't afford or don't need.

Yeah, makes sense to me.

Public "Option"

This Wall Street Journal article mentions an important aspect of the health care bill's public option. As Senator Max Baucus knows, it has to be paid for. That means more taxes, more debt, or a roundabout screwing of someone. So what he is proposing is to charge a fee to private health insurors to "defray" the cost of expanded health coverage. What a novel idea. Make private health insurance more expensive in an effort to make health insurance more affordable. That makes perfect sense, doesn't it? It's actually pretty smart if your end goal is to drive health insurance to become increasingly more expensive and eventually force all private citizens to take the public "option". There aren't enough wealthy individuals to support a total welfare state, so it's time to tap into the corporations themselves. The problem: that strategy is unrealistic, unethical, and also hurts Americans.

Like Margaret Thatcher said, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."