A Win: Taking On Ace for His Pushing RINOs

I depart from my current larger campaign to make an important point.

[Late note in case anyone gets the wrong impression from the blogpost title: I am still voting against Obama. Romney in office may still buy the republic some time. Whether or not Americans get wise enough and in numbers large enough to use the time effectively is still in doubt.]

You all know I have a problem with larger institutions. Primarily because, for celebrities or for littler people working at the institutions, making a living, sometimes a very good one, gets in the way of actually defending our constitution.

So when Dextrosphere talkers or larger blogs, who have a reputation for being conservative, display questionable behavior by aiding and abetting the "progressive" side (the conservative-hater side) of the GOP, it rests with us who have less of a following and not so much at stake to hold them to account.

At Ace of Spades today, Ace published Pat Caddell: NYT Engaging In Near-Complete Suppression of Libya Story To Shill For Loser President.

It was actually pretty good; it even demonstrates how Caddell is still a Democrat in that he held Republicans and independents responsible for the excesses of the Obama administration for not fighting hard enough. Like the Democrats are at our mercy. I can almost see Caddell's point. I do complain about SKUNCs regularly. But isn't there really a whole lot of fault to pass around? This may also be suggested by how much insanity it has taken, or at least blind eyes had to be given, for Social Security and other programs to have become ticking time-bombs.

However

• Ace exposed himself within the main piece as playing along with RINO soft-peddling of Leftist assaults on our nation by saying the NY Times only began its slide 15 years ago. That's the kind of revisionism a conservative comes to expect from "Progressive" Republicans.
• Ace also admitted to not being frank with his readers four years ago. He says that we on the Right would understand because he was deploying his "game face." How about his game face during primary season -- how could it best be described?

I will demonstrate after the break how in a short paragraph I jibed at Ace for both exposures. And got called names from the start as if I were a conservative at a Leftist blog. I did not rise to the bait but instead demonstrated how small was Ace to be hiding behind sycophants and/or sock puppets. At least Ace didn't ban me; I'll give him that.

And then I even got some praise for the definition of the acronym SKUNC. Thank you again Guy S!

Part of the Reason for Shunning Social Security

To be fair to my readers, when I posted "This Post Cost Me $2200" I did not expand on all the reasons for doing it.

I started several years ago thinking about where the money would come from to pay me that $26K+ per year (although I didn't know it was that much, I figured it was close to that). The payments come either from borrowed money that has to be paid back with interest, or from printing it, which devalues every dollar that is already in print. And that is because from day one (1935) all money taken allegedly to fund Social Security went immediately into the general tax coffers. (There is family history related to this.)

Such a cache would surely tempt decent moral men. But lawyers and politicians? C'mon. I once posed it as something like the following.

Social security has provided politicians the tax money they wanted for their favorite programs when they were certain the people wouldn't like paying for it. Of course they were too cowardly to face the music at the ballot box by imposing taxes for other programs, with a good portion of that money going into the pockets of cronies. So they pretended that by putting the payments off into the future it wasn't really a problem. But today it is very serious problem (as it had to become eventually) — but half the damn politicians still won't admit it. So ultimately FICA payroll extractions became taxes for other things, thus levied under false pretext. And the house of cards gets shakier every day.

Bottom line is the whole total of the SS "trust" fund (what Al Gore infamously said was in a lock-box) has been borrowed to pay for other things in addition to past retirees. Now every penny paid out must be borrowed again, with interest. ("Backed by the full-faith and credit of the United States Government" that was recently reduced a second notch to AA)

My small contribution won't stop the hemorrhaging or the enslavement of the coming generations. But at least I'm one man who says ENOUGH already, and am putting my money where my mouth is each month I continue this campaign. Tell me: how many career politicians are willing to match me even dollar for dollar, let alone the portion of my total worth? The good news is I'm not holding my breath waiting to hear of them.

Social security was a tax for other purposes not stated, and apparently always was a tax for other purposes. We as a nation -- several generations -- allowed our political hacks to lie to us and keep on being reelected rather than tarred and feathered. So we are all to blame and ought to take some responsibility for it when we can.

What really troubles me.
The idea that I would be further helping to forge the chains of our posterity troubles me greatly. Especially because I failed to learn how to effectively fight this cancer when I was younger.  This is my small measure of penance. I was too busy make a living at what came easily to me so I could raise my family. I never thought I was suited to engage more fully in politics. If I had, maybe things would be different at least a little. I tried, but did not try hard enough. [One really abysmal story of my ill-preparedness is here.] This is my self assessed penalty for that failure. I pray I can afford to keep my resolve.
 
Yes, there is more. As the need arises again in me, I will post more.

This Post Cost Me $2200

Not only that, this post could cost me considerably more. That is because some members of the human race are so perverse that they will hate me for making this announcement, and would seek to find some way to eliminate the circumstances that permit me to offer this sacrifice.

So let me make this clear: I will make this offering as long as I am able. My wife has passed away, and my kids are successfully (for now, praise God) on their own. The burden of this sacrifice falls only on me.

Last month I turned 66 years old. I am now eligible to draw my full social security benefits.The SS administration estimates that I would have over $2200 coming to me last month, and each subsequent month.

I have chosen not to file.

That's $26000 in annual income that the Social Security Administration says I have coming to me. It is more than my total income last year, including what I've withdrawn from my IRAs. Furthermore, last year when I turned 65 I did not file for Medicare either. That was despite the warning that should I choose to later join Medicare, my contributions to parts B and D would be more expensive.

But the big ticket is the $2200 per month. The $26000 per year. The $80-90K total I did not claim between age 62 and now.

I think I have heard all the arguments as to why I have a right to the money, and what I could do with it, and all the thoughts that I am a nutcase for having even considered this course. Feel free to try to convince me against this course of action in comments, but you have your work cut out for you.

See, I have an important motive. I am hoping I am not the only one who is able to do this. I may be the first though to risk telling the world about it. And let me make this clear. I'm doing this because those at the top of our political ladder have gotten far too shameless in how sticky their fingers have gotten and how much they lust to rule us. In order to hide their thievery (and the shackles on our posterity) they are outright encouraging more and more people to demand "what we have stolen taxed from others in your name" -- all so that they can enslave you all.

The Statists and their Leftist avante-garde are making one great final effort to "bring it all down baby."  They seek to bring the whole financial house of cards down on your heads as the Cloward-Piven schemers had planned.

This is my one small effort to make a shout out that they have to be stopped. Someone has to say ENOUGH ALREADY, and really mean it. So I am putting my money where my mouth is.

I love the idea of what America has stood for, and why it enabled me and my parents and grandparents to achieve what we could. Indeed, it has made it possible that I may do this one thing that runs contrary to the Leftist idea that only money matters. It is a lie. Principles like the sacredness of human life and the beauty of INDIVIDUAL freedom matter far more in my individualist creed.

This idea to spurn the entitlements when one is able to do so ought to spread. But I fear I may be the only man to do it. I've seen it in the eyes of too many I've discussed this with. Far too many will fear being ridiculed for doing the same thing. And they too would risk the ire of those who are so cynical they cannot stand the fact that others are not also cynical and take whatever is not nailed down while there is still something to take. Those corrupt individuals will seek a resolution that will satisfy their madness just so long as all hold-outs are eliminated by the example my ordeal would set.

If I am the only one to take on this risk, well so be it. I pray that is not the case.

Part 2: Part of the Reason for Shunning Social Security

Part 3: Social Security and Family Lore

Part 4: This Post Cost Me $4400

Part 5: Political Cowardice and Social Security

Part 6: This Post Cost Me Over $11K

Part 7: This Post Cost Me At Least $65K

If You Believe Political Ignorance Resides Only In Liberals

then you never had a conversation like I just had with an old friend who was a Republican long before I was. Damn he's was so damn smug he no longer lives in California so that he doesn't have to worry about the risk of our state legislature being voted fraudulently 2/3 Democratic in a few weeks. [The democratic fraudulent voter registrations were institutionalized by "R" Secretary of State Bill Jones during his 8 years in office (ca. 1995-2002) and phoney "fair" redistricting put in place under the direction of "R" Governor Schwarzenegger.] 'But they were Republicans and that is all that matters.'

So smug, he laughed as he said "I voted with my feet." 

"You schmuck" I hollered, "You still have a house out here, and I know you don't want to sell it. How you gonna like it when the Dems use their 2/3's majority to eliminate Proposition 13 property tax limits and send you an enormous property tax bill, maybe retroactive, that you can't possibly pay?"

He hung up.

Did Romney Really Do This?

Because if he did, it's a striking departure from RINO behavior.

During a recent Romney campaign stop, a heckler from the audience hollered, "Hey Mitt Witt, where are you hiding your tax returns?

Governor Romney politely responded, "I've found a very secure place that I'm certain they won't be found."

The insistent heckler, then shouted, "And just where is that, dummy"?

Governor Romney smiled and said, "They are underneath Obama's college records, his immigration status as a student, and his funding sources to pay for college. What's your next question"?"

Establishing a State Religion

When I was little I loved puzzles. Jigsaw puzzles especially. Though some of the pieces can be quite convoluted in shape, it's not unintentional that a good puzzle has many pieces that are bizarre in the same way, yet not any one fits into the position of any other. The task is to fit them all together in their proper place so that you can see the whole picture. (Were there a picture on the cover of the Obamacare bill,  there could be another joke Nancy Pelosi here. But let's not digress.)


Richard Fernandez put up a particularly striking post entitled "Be a Man" that requires only a bit of deeper thought to see the contrast he has set up between Judeo-Christian religions and what the Left and Statists are trying to replace them with. (G. K. Chesterton was right!)

What is the right and manful thing to do? These seem like questions out of an earlier age.

The striking thing about our modern and supposedly secular politically correct culture is just how religious it is. The concepts of piety and the sense of the sacred are still very much in evidence although other terms are used to describe them. In place of “blasphemy” we have the newfangled term “hate speech”. In place of “sin” we have “bigotry”. Where the word “Satan” was formerly applied we have “Romney”.  In place of well … Madonna says “like a prayer”. But it is the same dog with a different collar. Whereas in the past intellectuals complained that society was afflicted by pious women, today the intellectuals have themselves become the pious women.

There is apparently nothing that can be done to stem or suppress the religious instincts in man. They are as strong as ever. But perhaps some purpose can be served by recognizing it for what it is. There is no benefit in the self-deceptive act of pretending that Jesus and Moses are one thing, but somehow Xenu, Gaia and the Prophet Mohammed are another.

I believe Wretchard is implying, especially after viewing the comedian's video clip from which he borrowed the title for his post, that our would-be masters are adamant that none of us is being manly (responsible) unless we each cave into their demands no matter how bizarre and rights-stealing and just plainly not in the true interests of anyone of us. In order to scare us into believing that we will not like it when we don't let them have their way, but being cowards themselves, they are quite content to incite radical Jihadis to show us what we should fear. (They don't make union thugs like they used to; too well-to-do and living high off of government teets.)

Vote Swapping Pledge Part 3, Objections Answered

Darin, a fellow American commenter and frequent ally at the staunchly conservative New Zealand blog, Crusader Rabbit, has registered some objections to our campaign to generate more anti-Obama votes in swing (purple) states. If I recall correctly, Darin lives in a very Red state.

Jesus wept

Is it really wise to presume for Him? Could you be like that woman on the roof in flood waters who refused all help on the grounds that “God will provide.” Then after drowning, St. Peter wants to know why she didn’t heed the rescuers He sent.

Does no one remember H. Ross Perot? The (faux) third party rift candidate who split the vote and got us Bill Clinton for president???? That one should be remembered as the great quantum leap down the progressive road to serfdom. I have family members I STILL have not forgiven for voting for that clown and being so dense as to do so.

This vote swapping idea is not an endorsement of any third party candidate. Wishing 3^rd parties away is akin to those who so fear guns that they wish they didn’t exist. It’s a recognition that there are 1) third party candidates who will attract some votes and thereby reduce the numbers for Romney; 2) Conservative voters who will not turn out to vote for anyone because they believe that their vote for Romney will be useless. This plan provides a way to redirect non-nihilistic third party voters to vote for Romney in swing states. And to reinvigorate conservatives frustrated by Blue State realities, and give them a new reason to go out and vote while providing the third party candidates in the swing states a less dangerous way to register their objections about the GOP.

There are several “Blue” states that aren’t so blue they cannot be turned and California is one of them. They could be turned IF conservatives and moderates had not written them off in surrender.

Even Romney isn’t trying. People like you who live in Red states cannot believe how bad it is in this blue state. We are undermined by every institution including the state GOP. I do not have time to convince Red-staters of this fact; there are still too many Californian’s who refuse to hear even some of the evidence, and there’s a mountain of it.  This plan gives blue state conservatives a chance to help turn purple states red. It provides them a moral reawakening. It turns a case of hopelessness into usefulness.

Equally damaging some (faux) conservatives and moderates are also now talking of surrender in several of the purple states. What the hell???

I know and equally detest the faux conservatives of whom you speak. They are people who aim to demoralize conservatives at every turn. This is not in any way that. It is just the opposite of giving up. It’s finding a new way to make use of what the founding fathers gave us to help save ourselves. The total votes don’t matter – ask President Gore. It is the Electoral College tallies that matter. Those who do not know this have been mis-educated.

We do not need nor want a third party period and there are many reasons why having one is a bad idea. I won’t go into them right now, but anyone who understands American politics and has half a brain should be able to figure it out. Look at what we become if we have more that two parties, do we want to look like the UK or Europe? Why would a governing political system that encourages and supports triangulation be better than what we have now? No, I completely reject a third party as anything more than a delusional fantasy.

You are repeating, I will try not to. This plan recognizes that third parties exist and why. It offers a rational and honest third party voter a realistic alternative. He can vote for the slow road to servitude and not feel he’s giving up his principles. A principled conservative like you ought to appreciate that. We are not turning America into a parliamentary system. This would never do that, and cannot anyway. There’s no provision for power sharing.

We do not need a third party if we on the right take back control of the Republican Party. This is actually happening as we speak and has been all summer. This talk of a third party vote rallying around a nobody like Gary Johnson is akin to calling for surrender in the middle of a pitched battle that we are winning. If you don’t believe me that it is happening then examine who Romeny picked for VP and why as opposed to who the party elites had in mind.

I certainly hope you are right. But we also thought we had control of the House of Representatives when Boehner became speaker. How’s that working out? Not! But we were also buoyed up when McCain chose Palin. Didn’t prove a thing did it? Nor did it help as long as McCain was aiming to lose. Even if Romney is aiming to lose, we can’t afford to let him do so. We are taking Gary Johnson votes out of states where the Electoral Votes are winnable by Romney and transferring them to states where Romney isn’t even trying. Our goal is to get the Electoral College Tally to favor Romney and disfavor Obama. That’s what counts, not what “Contempt” foolishly called for.

Romney is not my ideal candidate, but any talk of him being anywhere near as bad as Obama is just plain lunacy. If Obama gets back in, even if the Senate goes back to Republican control we are doomed, people have no idea just how bad things will get under a second Obama term. If you don’t like what he has done so far, well let me tell you it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

I did not talk of him as being as bad as Obama, that’s why I want him to win. I agree with your other points in this paragraph. We are doomed if we don’t eject Obama, that’s why I came up with a new way to rack up more Electoral College votes  – the only votes that matter.

So, conservatives and libertarians, if you want to vote for Gary Johnson, or write in your dog’s name, or just sit out, then go right ahead. If you do however you are lighting the funeral fire for a once great nation and don’t come crying to me when you get burnt.

Again, this is just the opposite of sitting it out. It will give conservatives in blue states a new reason to live. It will give other party candidates a way to register their dissatisfaction while increasing Romney’s margins, turning the purple state red.

Parts 1 and 2 may be found at these links.

The Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge.

Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge, Part 2

First, Bring Back America

AMERICA? Filmmaker taken in for interview...

This Drudge headline brought to mind a 26 second clip, "Go Back to America," from the 1940 pro-Western movie, "Escape."

Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge, Part 2

Blue State conservative independents and Republicans:  I am sorry, but your state's electoral votes have been written off as the Bummer's by both campaigns. Your participation in this pledge gives you an indirect way to help prevent the reelection of Barrack Obama.

Swing State Libertarian and other 3rd Party voters who recognize that Obama will end this republic much faster than will Romney. Your participation in this pledge helps increase Bumney's margin over Bummer. Electing Bumney theoretically should give our republic some more time to survive. It should become easier to overcome the propaganda perpetrated by the media as the media continues to unwind and expose how much of a collectivist loving, individualist hating agency that it is.

Red State conservatives: You should not risk your vote in this pledge. But you CAN encourage your conservative friends in blue states and independent friends in swing states to participate.


Part 1 is here: The Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge.

added: Vote Swapping Pledge Part 3, Objections Answered.

Associated Press CONTINUES Its Lying

The Associated Press continues to lie about the influence of the previously obscure, but lame and poorly produced video "Innocence of Muslims." They continue to irresponsibly, dangerously and unprofessionally assert that the video was the cause for fatal violence that erupted in the Middle East this week.

The AP's action fits the media's ongoing and widely documented efforts to shield President Obama from charges of malfeasance over his mishandling of the Middle East. 

In the story today linked by Drudge, [emphasis in the original headlines]

CALIF. FILMMAKER RELEASED, AVOIDS BESIEGED HOME

 the AP levels the following charge:

Federal authorities have identified Nakoula, a self-described Coptic Christian, as the key figure behind "Innocence of Muslims," a film denigrating Islam and the Prophet Muhammad that ignited mob violence against U.S. embassies across the Middle East. [emphasis added]

Please notice that they did not stick to their press book rules and use the phrase "...that allegedly ignited mob violence..." 

This is a follow up to my post of yesterday The Inconsistency of Radical Leftist Media is Palpable Now.

The Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge

It is my opinion that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both Statists. Both will seek ways to gain more power for government at the expense of individuals. How can I put this nicely? Both will continue to look at the Constitutional limitations on their power as a challenge to be overcome.

It is also my opinion that Bummer will take us over the cliff faster than will Bumney. So, therefore, I would prefer to see Bumney elected. It's only to buy us some more time. It may be hopeless; but if it is true that time heels all wounds, maybe time will be on the side of our republic. And so I'd like to buy her some more of it.

There may be some Libertarian voters out there who'd like to vote in such a manner that slows the progress of Statism somewhat more than less. However, they plan on voting for Gary Johnson because the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. But in that statement is the recognition that one evil is worse than the other.

There are several states in which the presidential vote tally may be very close. Every vote not for Bumney increases the margin for Bummer, allowing him to win several of those states.

There are also several states where it is a foregone conclusion that Obama will capture their Electoral College votes. In such an instance, a vote for the largest of the 3rd party candidates is not a wasted vote against the worst of the main party candidates, but a vote registered in protest that the existing parties are both far too statist.

For those Libertarian voters living in swing states who think that slowing the evil is preferable to speeding it along, I have a proposal.

As a California voter, I’m really frustrated that my vote for Romney will not count. Romney cannot win here, thanks in large part to the ham-stringing of the California GOP by national party headquarters back in 2002 and continued ever since.

I will vote for Gary Johnson in California if you will vote for Mitt Romney in your state.

This is all on the honor system. It may not make a big difference, but sometimes what seems like a gargantuan task can be accomplished if a bunch of little guys can agree that the worst schemers in this world ought to run into annoying opposition every now and again.

If I am correct, and there are a lot of pissed off people out there, a lot of Libertarians and conservatives will be willing to take this pledge.

The way to notice if our effort made a difference is to note the vote tallies the day after the election.

• For Libertarians: if your total votes are increased, the Libertarian Party and all who are ticked off with the status quo will have left their mark.
• For Conservatives: we will see that Bummer is retired and will then have 4 years to whittle away or obstruct Bumney's Statist inclinations.

Hey, isn't this better than voting in blocs that are two small to win? If you really want to make a statement against the status quo, this bargain gives you a realistic chance of increasing the total number of votes that signify that.

Red State Conservatives have no direct roll in this pledge. But you can encourage friends in Blue and Swing states to participate. Please see

Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge, Part 2

Also, some objections have been fielded too.

Vote Swapping Pledge Part 3, Objections Answered.

The Inconsistency of Radical Leftist Media is Palpable Now

Q: How come MSM the Agency of Lies doesn't say the video allegedly caused the riots and murders in the Middle East?

A: Were they to use the word allegedly, it would cast doubt on their assigned propaganda narrative. Obama desperately needs his friends in the press (which, is to say, virtually all of them) to pin the blame on anything other than him. Obama's feckless foreign policy must not be connected to it in any way.

Let's compare the press' copy book rules.

• For the Fort Hood massacre, Major Hassan is still the alleged suspect. 
• But the author of the video is guilty of murder, no allegedly about him.

Isn't that inconsistent enough to brand the occupiers of our alleged journalist institutions as worthless and partisan political hacks? It happens so frequently, it's just so glaring in this case, I think it is.

Obama is bad. No question about it. But he never would have been elected in the first place had we an honest press corps.

C'mon my friends. The inconsistency of radical Leftist media is palpable now. Paint it red and plaster it on their foreheads. Normal people need to know them for what they are.

If You Cherish Your Right to Speak Freely

then it would be prudent for you to seriously review the following news articles with those who might be influenced by your knowledge and caring about them.

The connection between the two articles I've selected is unmistakable. It demonstrates the kind of onerous government behavior that both liberals and conservatives dislike. But the groups will know they dislike it only if large majorities in each camp are waylaid in their conditioned reflex of sticking their heads in the sand.

Last year a bill was introduced by a Republican Congressman. HR347 is titled “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011.” It moved through Congress under “suspension of the rules” (traditionally reserved for bills deemed non-controversial) so that there was no debate. Although it needed 2/3 majority to pass (according to the Congressional record) it passed by a vote of 399 to 3, which really means that both sides of the aisle are filled with knowing or unknowing (really?) despots.) It was signed by President Obama in March this year.

Now move forward to this last week. At the DNC Convention in Charlotte, we saw Kira Davis, a Black Romney Supporter Kicked Out of MSNBC Pavilion by security officers, accompanied by a US Secret Service agent. [Video is below the break.]  While there is nothing too unusual nowadays to hear that an allegedly unbiased news organization has decided it cannot tolerate even quietly held signs for the Republican nominee at its public venue, the participation of the secret service seems unusual were it not for the new law mentioned above.

It is possible that Ms. Davis was unaware of the new law (perhaps my readers will help bring an end to this ignorance). Whether or not she was aware, it appears she was not prepared to challenge such an arrest in court.

I am including two pertinent videos below the break. The first is when Fox news interviewed Ms. Davis. The second is when Andrew Napolitano predicted back in March how the law would be used to selectively persecute based on the arbitrary decision of the Praetorian Guard Secret Service.  

I want to underscore the facts behind how this law was passed. The second video is entitled “Obama Makes Free Speech a Felony.” However, the law is bipartisan. Not only is it bipartisan, it was done in secrecy. Its very existence is owing to members and leaders of the GOP.

1. It was introduced in the GOP controlled house;
2. By a GOP congressman from Florida;
3. Debate was limited under rules reserved for “non-controversial” bills (That’s under Speaker Boehner’s control).
4. It appears even the freshman congress critters of the TEA party were unaware that Boehner would allow such a subterfuge to be perpetrated, and they voted for it.

BTW, I was pondering adding some additional stories that disclose how free speech is under attack all over the anti-fascist West (the sole preserver of the “speech is a fundamental human right” institution in a world filled with tyrannies.) This one about being fined in Brussels for speaking or writing something that ‘hurts the feelings’ of anybody in a protected class is the only one I will link today.  What to do about the gagging of Kira Davis under auspices of HR347 is enough of a dilemma to ponder without going overseas.

The Most Dreadful Phrases

1. "There are too many people in the world."  

Good luck being on that panel that decides who has to go. And after that, how long will you be permitted to stay empaneled?

2. "I thought you were smart."  

Wise people learn from the mistakes of others. Smart people learn from their own mistakes if they survive them.


Agreeing with thoughts that encourage abandonment of traditional morality has led to and will continue to lead to unspeakable but still predictable consequences.

Appeals to vanity are frequently the last resort of scoundrels seeking to override wisdom gained at a price long forgotten.

Tick-tock.

Another thing Not Found On MSM

It's up to the new media my friends.

Who Notes the Dictatorial Whim?

This story struck me as an excellent instance where the USA is no longer "government of, by and for the people," but rather government purchased by influence peddlers and accomplished through dictatorial fiat.

Comprehend the opening lines of the story. "As the federal government launches a new program that will allow many young undocumented immigrants to stay temporarily in the U.S."

As anyone knows who follows the news of Congress, the bill that was to initiate such a program was killed in Congress. It was voted down by members from both parties. Not that that means anything to reporters nationwide.

In this instance the reporter, Daniel Gonzalez, of The Arizona Republic, so blithely refers to this unilateral decision by Obama as a Federal program. It can hardly be really federal in that a very large number of states that make the USA a federation are against it, and their elected representatives from those states voted against it.

I know there are a lot of people who feel badly at the situation these young people find themselves in. But this action is in no way a federal program under laws duly past at the Federal level. It is a purely cynical political ploy by a man who does not call himself a despot, and is thin-skinned about being compared to tyrants past and present, but whose actions are self-defining as tyranny.

Who else will call him on it? How many non-cowards are left in the country?

Reactionaries On the Left

Reactionary was the epithet invented by the early "Progressives" and their avante garde (trouble-makers) to label members of the "staid" (actually a progressively improving) social order. It was inevitable that once the Progs incrementally begged, cajoled, threatened and rioted their way to get society to accept one radical change after another, and were running things, then they too would become reactionaries towards all the larger number of people who detest this pile of stink they made of what was once glorious about Western civ.

As I have noted before, wherever someone wants to reform the mess that is the socialized government programs, the partisans of the Left scream bloody murder that there's nothing wrong with the way things are. They say this, many would imagine, because they can't admit their schemes are failed, and it would cost the bureaucrats their jobs.

The latest line from the Left (Obama spokes-mouth Robert Gibbs) that demonstrates that they are indeed reactionaries is this one:

"The Ryan-Wyden Plan ends Medicare as we know it." 

This after Obama stole over $700 billion to pay to set up Obamacare (a huge sum, yet not a nickel has gone to pay for any healthcare for anyone, let alone the seniors who have paid into Medicare with every right to gripe that the money has been misspent by Obama). Such a cruel joke on seniors and their loved ones, yet it's Obama's minions who are screaming as if they are not the ones who gored the ox. Once again the radical Left policies are setting up to kill people just like Stalin and Mao did. But don't expect the Bumney campaign to say this. They are afraid of being called extremist by the MSM. Just so long as you know.

For the First Time in Forty-seven Years

I did not fall asleep in a movie that had Michael Caine in its cast. Although it was a fantasy, the plot even made sense. First time in 47 years. Wow.

Responding to Selwyn Duke's Bill O’Reilly’s Anti-gun Blarney

In Bill O’Reilly’s Anti-gun Blarney , Selwyn Duke had good cause to take on Mr. "No Spin" zone. But I found it hard to accept that Mr. Duke is unaware of an email sent out by a usually more reliable conservative voice, Michael Savage. [Mr. Duke informed me that, to his recollection, he'd not received the email; I have since forwarded him a copy.] For the record, Selwyn Duke has frequently been interviewed on The Savage Nation.


Let's face it Selwyn. O'Reilly has always been a bit squishy. He often plays to the middle ground, even when there really isn't any firm middle ground and only a slippery slope. So I am less concerned by O'Reilly's stance than I am with a very good friend of yours, Michael Savage.

I received an email yesterday from the Doc entitled:

'You don't need body armor to hunt deer.'

Deer hunting is an old code word that's been used by SKUNCs whenever they get ready to excuse their complicity with the Left on its latest crackdown on self defense, acting as if they never heard that it's governments who have been the gravest threat to liberty time and again in history.

But even worse than that title, there are his words that disclose that the Doc has abandoned conservative principles in favor of "pragmatic" compromise. Here, let his own words reveal the problem.

  "We conservatives must take the high road and say we are in favor of banning body armor and drum magazines.

That's because unless our side controls what gets banned, we're liable to see things happen that we don't want to happen,"

It's as if he suddenly believes that if conservatives will just give the Statists this they'll be satisfied. Appeasement Dr. Savage? Tell us, when has that worked?

Bottom line: We should have never expected much better from O'Reilly; but I think the Right has good cause to be alarmed by Savage's new course.

Mr. Duke responds:

DuckSpeak of a Sorts

There were many phenomena of a totalitarian state that George Orwell defined in his famous dystopian novel 1984. Among these that many of us refer to when we see similarities in our real life, were Newspeak, the two-minute hate, Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Love.

There was also Duckspeak. Duckspeak, however, may be the only one of Orwell's predictions that has not been all that evident in our world. Duckspeak, as it was defined in the narrative voice and without really good examples, was supposed to be what politicians said when they didn't want to speak about some subject. They purportedly emitted duck-like sounds that were pretty much unintelligible, and that some people were remarkably more adept with it than others. The reader gets the impression it was some kind of new kind of double-talk that was used to spin the speaker or his agency out of hot water when faced with daunting questions. Question such as "How can you say the chocolate ration has increased when the new numbers show a decrease?"

It was much like monthly bureau of labor employment figures having been revised downward every month during the Obama administration. These figures are released concurrently with the current month's figures showing, with great fanfare, the great news: remarkable employment  improvements over last month!

Anyway, what reminded me of Duckspeak was that I saw its purpose yesterday quite clearly being played out when we all heard about another form of nonsense: Chief Justice John Roberts opinion in the ObamaCare (ACA) decision.

The way in which Justice Roberts' opinion was nonsense was revealed by Mark Levin on his show Thursday night and reiterated again tonight. It was most noticeable in Mr. Levin's explanation about how the the ACA tax/penalty was not any tax allowed under the constitution tonight. 

Mr. Levin said Roberts was essentially saying 

'Don't worry about those definitions in the constitution (they're only words). It looks like a tax, so let's treat it as such. However, for the purposes of the anti-injunction clause, it's not a tax then, so you have no standing there to fight the penalty.'

Levin pointed out how outlandishly inconsistent was Roberts' argument. That it was nonsense in totality.
 
So that suggested Orwell to me.

However, nobody in our world actually speaks like a duck. But it is hard to deny that a speaker who strings together nonsense when asked to explain himself is effectively aiming for the same result. They do not wish to or dare say what is clearly revealing, so they spew nonsense in the hopes that the press won't call them on it. Those who "duck" from the onslaughts that seek the truth of the matter are revealing a guilty conscience.

Well, I'm calling Justice Roberts on it. And I'm calling all his apologists on their nonsense too. Don't buy the "closet commerce clause evisceration" arguments by some very overpaid pundits who allegedly write with a view from the Right.  C.J. Roberts could have achieved that goal by voting down the entire ACA as J. Anthony Kennedy did. 


Bottom line. You know that thing which we call spin in our world? That is Orwell's Duckspeak. And every once in a while, like almost everything emitted from the mouth of Nancy Pelosi, or as promulgated in the opinion of Justice Roberts yesterday, words are so meaningless that they might as well have been spoken by a duck.

As to why Justice Roberts did what he did seems to be revealed in the manner and timing that he did it. The surmise and conclusion of his behavior is the subject of my next post became the subject of much speculation, all of which demonstrated once again why it is foolish for the public to put much trust in any human being. Do not forget that C.J. Roberts was appointed by another man whose was elected mostly because he was less disliked by voters than those he ran against, and not elected because he was any where near as constitutionally minded as a majority of Americans would have liked.