Confederate Flag

This will certainly trigger most of you because y'all are not accustomed to thinking freely and considering ideas outside your dogma. Truthfully, just the sight of this flag has probably already triggered half of you. But what the hell, let's do a thought experiment, kids...

If the "N" word can be repurposed from the horrible racist slur that it is to a term of endearment by newer generations of black youths, is it at least possible that young southerners aren't using the #confederateflag as an open confession of racism?

And now I'll provide the 10,000 caveats required whenever one actually has an open mind and muses aloud about issues.

I, personally, would never display this flag because it does carry an extraordinary amount of symbolic pain that is rightly associated with this flag. And since I'm a fairly nice guy and have respect for other's opinions and feelings, I am accommodating in that way. I reserve the "Grow a sack" responses for the American flag.

I think that we can all agree that it is maddening that the swastika was placed off-limits because of its use by the Nazis. The Jains, Hindus, Buddhists, and anyone else who used this as a meaningful symbol in the past have had it forever stolen from them. Similarly, because of its use as a symbol for the KKK and white supremacists, I can understand the pangs of 'wtf' that someone might have associated with seeing the Confederate flag displayed.

But the left is equally as guilty on such matters. The difference is that the media just looks the other way because they are either cheerleading on behalf of or are quietly supportive of the left's agenda. "How so," you ask. Anyone walking around with a hammer and sickle, Mao or Che t-shirt is guilty of the same indecency or worse. In the case of Mao, millions were slaughtered in the name of socialism. And Che was a cold-blooded murderer. None of these traits should be aspirational but should we immediately assume that the wearer is broadcasting their love of slaughter and genocide?

But the left poo-poos the atrocities as minor inconveniences and cranes to see some thin sliver of shared ideology to justify their symbolic insolence. Why don't they do this with the southern cross? Because anyone they agree with gets the benefit of the doubt and all others are imputed the worst possible motives.

If a Che shirt is ok, would a Chauvin shirt be equally ok? Would you be satisfied with excuse-making like, "Well, he was for law and order. And I like that part but not those icky parts." I doubt it.

As for whether it should be displayed on government buildings, I say no. Just like I don't want a Christian flag atop the capitol, I don't want this either. Sure, Christianity was largely responsible for the formulation and implementation of many of the better aspects of the American political system, but I don't want the government facilities to be hijacked by any group. So keep the flags, rainbow spotlighting, and all other issue related expressions at your church, club, house, or wherever.

All things considered, I am sympathetic to those who would like to relegate the Confederate flag to museums. But if you want to fly it at your house or from your pickup, have at it - 1A says you can. And if you want to wear a Che t-shirt, giddyup. In both cases, you are sending purposeful messages and I am gleaning a snippet of insight about what you believe. I might wonder about such choices, but I'll carefully place that puzzle piece in the larger milieu of your life and behaviors and not dismiss you offhand as a racist or a murderous butcher.

I hope that everyone else will do the same.

Everyone Is Hitler

Be Nice

Derision is not discourse.  Ridicule is not a response.

Thank You Letter to the Left

Dear Left:

It is always nice to hear your sweet and consoling words whenever a person of the right passes away. It’s refreshing to hear the kind words about those with whom you disagree.

However, these kind words are always missing while those people are alive or in a position to influence. People like George HW Bush and Mitt Romney are dismissed as racist, sexist, homophobic haters when they are in or running for office.

After leaving office, the ignoramus you compared to Hitler, George W Bush, was lauded as thoughtful, restrained and even a genuinely nice guy. Heck, he almost rose to genius status when he assessed Trump's abilities by saying, "Wow, this guy really doesn’t understand the job of president." Amazing how tolerant you became of this hating, racist, bigoted, sexist pig when he was no longer in a position of power.

This is a problem. You demonize and seek to destroy when you should be battling ideas. Everyone you disagree with is bashed as stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical - until they die or are no longer in a position of influence. Then you praise them.

This is a big part of the reason we have Trump in the White House. Because you can’t help yourself and have to be mean demonizers instead of talking about the issues. And I get it. It works. There are fields full of sheeple out there who hear your accusations and don't dig deep enough to know better. But your Johnny-come-lately hagiographic accolades shed light on your unprincipled tactics.

As always, thanks for the nice compliment frosting on a cake of venomous hate. Reaching across the aisle to shake the hand of the former hate-filled bigot is really big of you. But shame on you for giving us Trump.

Don't Wait To Immigrate

Both Sides Are Compassionate

Yesterday was the 20th anniversary of the tugboat massacre. Not the greatest calamity on the face of the earth, but it does call to mind what others have noted - the most basic freedom is the freedom to quit. Or in this case, leave. 

Castro's Cuba, like many other dictatorial regimes, creates barriers to opting out. In this case, Cuban Coast Guard vessels rammed a tugboat filled with people trying to flee Cuban oppression, causing it to sink and resulting in the death of many of the dissidents. Not a particularly humane way to handle the situation.

Happily, we can still leave if we don't like things in America. Oddly though, many of those currently agitating on behalf of unmitigated ingress, are often the same people who want to turn back Cuban refugees coming 70 at a time on a tugboat or one or two at a time on a rubber raft, or who find it exhausting to help women and children and the Middle East.

None of this is intended to cast aspersions but is merely intended to remind us that most everyone has deep concern and compassion for those harmed by horrible circumstances. Even those with whom we disagree. Neither side owns the capacity for compassion just as the other side is not reflexively denying aid and comfort to others because of the skin color of those in need. Just as it would be irresponsible to simplistically say the left is turning their backs on the women and girls of the Middle East because they hate people with dark skin, it is inappropriate to say that the right's resisting annexation of the Americas is the result of unchecked racism.

Life is difficult and decisions are nuanced. Let's extend the respect of listening to and considering other's reasoning on matters and refrain from ramming their tugboat with the battering ram of dismissal by racism, or other name calling, that seeks to end the argument by dehumanization of the other.

The impulse to minimize the suffering of others is laudable and decent. But the devil is in the details.

Benghazi-dahl

Walking off post is not serving with honor and distinction. As Ralph Peters noted, desertion is not the equivalent of skipping class. And it appears that is what Bergdahl did. We should all be very careful about judging too harshly the decisions of those caught in the fog of war. However, it seems that his decision was less foggy than it was sympathetic to the Islamists he signed up to defend against. If similar evidence existed for a mall or school shooter that revealed similar ideological ties to the tea party, there is no doubt that the media would escort the judge, jury and executioner to the public square to hasten the tedious timeline of justice. But we still should be careful, and as Jonah Goldberg cautions, "Indeed, there are so many unknowns here that it might be best to withhold judgment on a lot of aspects to this story."

The notion of not leaving anyone behind is honorable (although, apparently, a post-Benghazi sentiment). And yes, Bergdahl is somebody's son. But those Taliban henchmen that were released are going to kill innocents again - maybe Americans and maybe not. But no matter who they kill, the slain will be humans that we should care about and they too are somebody's child. So yes, we seek to not leave anybody behind. But that honorable notion is competing with many other honorable notions. (And some not so great consequences like the increased risk to American service men and women - who are also somebody's son or daughter - of being taken hostage.) And such is the case with most of life's decisions and almost always is the case with foreign policy decisions. It is rarely black and white.

One of the problems in this whole affair is the same problem that has existed for the last six years. Everything is treated by the administration as though it is simply black and white issue for which they have the unambiguous answer. Anyone who dares to disagree or question any decision is either a fool or a villain with bad motives (ala the dismissals as a racist, sexist, homophobic, wealthy, anti-science or any other of a list of horribles) who is only deserving of mockery and contempt. It is not possible that anyone of moderate or higher intelligence could possibly disagree with them. And God forbid one should call into question the legality of such a move. Those who do are sure to be dismissed as kooks and wackos who are immediately thrown in with birthers that can only be motivated by racism. All of this is compounded by a lickspittle press who rarely confronts this President.

Foreign policy is ridiculously difficult at best. There are competing principles, ideologies, desires, goods and ramifications to every option. You often have to hold your nose and partner with, or make deals with, horrible, evil people. But we don't get a sense that these decisions are contemplative and filled with heart-rending trade offs but rather there are just wrong answers and our answers. There is such confidence in their Manichaean ways that consultation with Congress isn't even required.

As Nordlinger commented, that the story we get from the President is merely "Sergeant Bergdahl is somebody’s child, we don’t leave anyone behind, and that’s that. If only he could acknowledge trade-offs, in a messy, wicked world: a world of difficult and excruciating choices — but he cannot, apparently. For eight years of Ronald Reagan and eight years of George W. Bush, I heard the same thing: 'The president is simplistic. Everything is black-and-white to him. There is no nuance.' That wasn’t true. Before the invasion of Iraq, for example, Bush said over and over, 'There are risks of action and risks of inaction.' He had to weigh those risks. In Obama’s mind, however, everything seems to be clear-cut, inarguable. There is no gray at all. It’s his way or the highway. Before he was elected, we were assured that, whatever his policy views, he had a first-class temperament." That just isn't so.

It is no small bit of hypocrisy that the groups that used to look down their noses at the supposed simpletons that used to occupy the White House now seek to operate in simplistic black and white ways and then feign shock and disdain whenever somebody has the temerity to question. To be told in the face of contradictory information that this man served with honor and distinction makes it all feel more like narrow political interest than humanitarian. (Not to mention that Susan Rice seems to have no capacity for shame given the whoppers she has told and continues to tell.)

There is also the 'wag the dog' feel of all of this. This certainly knocked the VA controversy and the EPA's lawmaking without the formality and tedium of running it through Congress from the front pages. The dribbling out of different reasons to not inform Congress does not instill great confidence but more feels like rationale de jour to just see what sticks. For people who tout the greatness of government they sure do government badly.

One suspects this will run its course as all other difficulties for this administration have: the President will find out about this by reading about it in the papers, he will be more outraged than anyone, an investigation will ensue, construct fantastical strawman and smugly decapitate them in front of the world, dismiss those who disagree with the profound decrees or decisions with reddit-style snarky name calling, nobody will be fired, drag feet until we are all finally lectured about how this has all been discussed already and is old news followed by a 'what difference at this point does it make' style declaration.

And all of this without the benefit of an adversarial press. But don't worry, they haven't gone extinct. They'll return as soon as another Republican is elected.

Just Shut Up

The Devolution of American Politics

We often see this sort of dismissal of those who do not agree with the left:

But one might just as easily conclude the following to reflect how the left behaves:

You're Perfect. We Love You. As Long As You're Leftist.

The left believes they are wiser, kinder, better, more decent and sophisticated than the right. This graphic demonstrates some of that characteristic of the left. It is one of the most depressing things that is revealed about the philosophical differences between left and right. The left cannot simply disagree with those on the right; the right must be mocked, demonized and ridiculed.

The left isn't really interested in women's advancement, they are interested in leftist women's advancement. The left isn't really interested in black's advancement, they are interested in leftist black's advancement. The left isn't really interested in homosexual's advancement, they are interested in leftist homosexual's advancement. This is why any of these groups and others on the right are mocked and ridiculed by the left. This is why the left feels comfortable mocking and making racist comments about blacks such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Juan Williams, Clarence Thomas. (Juan Williams being a particularly pertinent example since he is a man of the left.) Similarly, leftists feel no guilt or shame about their own sexist impulses when they dismiss the woman of the right, or their homophobic comments about right leaning gays, or any other group they claim to care about when it deviates from the leftist mantra.

The right must be dismissed as stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical. That way the deep discussions about legitimate issues can be dismissed without rigor. After all, who needs to have a discussion with a cretin? There is no need to account for one's own actions or behaviors when one can just dismiss the humanity of the other side. The end justifies the means.

This is why the colossal double standards of the left do not trouble the left. That the Obama administration paid women less on average than men is of no interest to the left. That two stories were told about Benghazi is of no interest to the left. That Obama has held every possible position on gay marriage for the purpose of political expediency is of no interest to the left. The list is endless and the lack of 'progressive' introspection limitless. But it doesn't matter because bigger issues are at stake.

The left are experts at ridicule and use it as a substitute for thoughtful discussion. From Bill Maher to the MSNBC crowd to the President himself mockingly lecturing about "these things called aircraft carriers" and submarines during a debate. I'm sure the self-satisfied left thinks this is funny, but it is likely behavior that they would not approve of from their own children in a public forum. For a crowd that is hypersensitive to hate speech and meanness, they sure do engage in a lot of it. As Mark Steyn noted with regard to the Duck Dynasty dustup:

GLAAD wouldn't rather "start a conversation." But, if you don't need to, why bother? Most Christian opponents of gay marriage oppose gay marriage; they don't oppose the right of gays to advocate it. Yet thug groups like GLAAD increasingly oppose the right of Christians even to argue their corner. It's quicker and more effective to silence them.

The left cannot allow the right to be thought of as decent folks who just have a different vision or opinion because they would then be forced to deal with the arguments and ideas of the right. Instead they engage in voicing hostile, coarse and vulgar sentiments. They embark on the dehumanization tactic of ridicule and dismissal – they seek to DE-humanize their opponents. After all, one does not need to mount an argument with a sub species. Steyn is correct that something akin to shout-shaming a child is far easier than engaging in a discussion. It is shameful and sad. And, ironically, un-intellectual, unkind, unwise and unsophisticated – snarky graphics about how stupid one's opponents are notwithstanding.

And for those that tout science and facts and such as king, evidence contrary to their premise makes no difference. After all, science is settled so why shouldn't everything else be as impervious to thoughtful discourse? However, a few rebuttals for hope's sake:

• Romney went to Harvard Business, Harvard Law, BYU, Stanford and Harvard.
• George W. Bush went to Harvard Business and Yale.
• Thomas Sowell went to Columbia, Harvard, University of Chicago, Harvard College, and Howard University and taught at UCLA, Amherst College, Brandeis University, Cornell University, Howard University and Douglass College.
• Milton Friedman went to University of Chicago, Rutgers University, and Columbia University and taught at Columbia University, University of Minnesota and the University of Chicago and was a Nobel laureate.
• Clarence Thomas went to Yale Law School and Yale University.
• Robert Bork went to University of Chicago and taught at Yale and had as students Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Anita Hill, Robert Reich, Jerry Brown and John R. Bolton.

But in spite of the spiteful graphic, the left is uninterested in and unimpressed by these pedigrees. Again, the left is not interested in intellect per se, but is interested in leftist intellectuals. Just as VP Biden jettisons Catholic doctrine when it does not conveniently comport with leftism, so the left doesn't care about alma maters when those with substantial pedigrees don't conform to leftist doctrine.

• Michele Bachmann went to law school, received a second degree in tax law and worked as a tax attorney for the IRS. This might be a respectable resume for anyone else, but because she does not hold leftist views she is vilified as a racist, bigoted, hater and is told that she should kill herself by decapitation.
• Laura Ingraham went to Dartmouth College, University of Virginia School of Law and University of Virginia but is roundly dismissed as an idiot, bigot, racist, homophobe and worse. 
• Ann Coulter went to University of Michigan, Cornell University and University of Michigan Law School but is called a moron, idiot, lunatic, troll, racist, sexist, white supremacist, bigot, hater, un-American and dumbass. (Space and decency prevents a full listing of leftist Coulter opprobrium.)
• Stacey Dash isn't lauded as a black actress with differing views. She is dismissed as a "house nigga who loves her master," an "idiot" and a "cunt".

Similarly, Clarence Thomas and other blacks who dare to stray from the leftist plantation are ridiculed and smeared. The most vile, sexist and racist epithets are hurled at anyone on the right no matter what their educational pedigree is. Feminism, racial sensitivity, decency, nuance and any number of other concerns are kicked to the curb when leftism is jilted.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with any of those listed above is not the issue. (I certainly don't agree with every belief held by everyone listed.) Whether the left is blind to their double standard and lack of self-awareness is the issue. The left is tolerant of everyone except those they aren't tolerant of. The left is only interested in mistruths, "inartful articulations", political ambition, lobbyists, infidelities, awful behavior, name calling, big business, tax cheats, cover-ups, voter suppression, misogyny, sexism, legislating morality, flip-flopping, collateral damage, bigotry, hurtful language, religious sensitivities, silver spoons, reading material, mentors, church affiliations, associates, etc., when those things run afoul of leftism. Is the left supportive of blacks, Hispanics, Latinos, women, the poor, homosexuals, immigrants or teachers who hold conservative views? The answer is obvious.

Some dropouts that didn't make the list are:

• LBJ (who dropped out of Georgetown Law) 
• FDR (who dropped out of Columbia Law) 
• Al Gore (who dropped out of Vanderbilt Law)

And yet, the left is mysteriously enamored of these fellow leftists. But, if the graphic is to be believed, what could these dropouts possibly have to offer? One wonders how the left feels about George Washington who never attended college.

When a Pope speaks out against the potential failings of capitalism in the absence of morality, he is a genius to behold and we are regaled with recollections of how certain politicians boast that Catholicism "has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can't take care of themselves, people who need help," and how legislating this morality is the right thing to do. However, when a Pope speaks against abortion or homosexuality we are told that

• such claptrap is a "nod to conservatives" - tossing them a bone, 
• we are to set those notions aside and not "impose that on others," 
• we do not "have a right to tell other people that" 
• we need to quit trying to legislate morality.

When a leftist marries or adopts interracially it is a beautiful demonstration of a colorblind union of love. If somebody on the right dares to do it

• he is saying "no to blacks; he has already said if he can't paint himself white he'll think white and marry a white woman," 
• "His marrying a white woman is a sign of his rejection of the black community," 
• "He's married a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn't want to be black," 
• she is a "white man's whore," 
• they think and live the "wrong" way, 
• they are mocked in song that "One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn't the same," 
• that the "other" is merely a "token," 
• they have an "unsegregated adoption."

When a black holds leftist views he is evidence of improving race relations and the will of the individual to overcome – and oh, by the way, "is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy." However, when Herman Cain advances through life

• he is a "house nigger," 
• an "uncle Tom," 
• "embarrassing", 
• a "black monster," 
• "doesn't think like a black," 
• is not "black enough," 
• is not an "authentic black", 
• is a "white man's puppet," 
• fits the racist stereotype of sexually aggressive black men.

When a leftist woman is successful she is a beacon of hope to women and embodies the American spirit of hard work. However, when Michelle Malkin does it she is

• an "Oriental Auntie-Tom," 
• a "yellow woman doing the white man's job," 
• a "Manila whore" 
• a "Subic Bay bar girl" 

Or if Sarah Palin is successful, she

• "looks like a whore," 
• is dismissed as an object of sexual desire, 
• "would be the outstanding candidate" for the slave punishment of putting shit in her mouth, 
• is a "retard making cunt," 
• is a "dumb twat," 
• is a "white bitch, with your slut daughter and retard child" 
• should be "hate fucked".

Anything can be said about those on the right. And leftists can be as sexist, homophobic, racist, bigoted, mean-spirited and repugnant as they want. They claim to be none of it while doing all of it. Of course it is a double standard. Of course the left doesn't care. Anything is permissible for the cause. As Malkin has noted, 

What a tangled web libs weave when first they practice to aggrieve!

In the end, education and intellect are only of passing importance to the left. These things, along with everything else, are subordinated to leftism. Commitment to leftism is what matters most - thou shalt have no other gods before me.

You Coexist

"A woman with the message “I AM GOD” painted on her body jumped up on the altar and screamed in the middle of a Mass on Christmas at Cologne Cathedral." [link to article]

Derision Is Not Discourse

While commenting about the pleasures of cigars, Jonah made the following comment:

I am a conservative in large part because I believe that politics should intrude on life as little as possible. Conservatives surely believe that there are times when the government should meddle in the daily affairs of the people, but they normally reserve those times for large questions of right and wrong, good and evil. Most conservatives, for instance, may want to restrict abortion on grounds rooted in the Decalogue, but few want the government to stop you from drinking raw milk.

Both the left and the right likely share basic understandings about ethical issues such as feeding the poor, loving your neighbor as yourself, forgiveness, compassion, envy, lying, etc. More often than not, the major differences are bound up in their notions about the issue that Jonah touched on – the purpose, scope, size and role of government. As he notes, conservatives seek to limit the role of government. They do this for various reasons, not least of which is an effort to combat the loss of liberty that comes with a statist social order. But they do not seek to eliminate government. The general agreement among conservatives is that less government is better government. They are not anarchists.

Resisting big government necessarily means resisting the temptation to have government perform some incontrovertibly noble efforts such as feeding the poor. But preferring that government not be the primary purveyor of charity does not therefore mean that conservatives are opposed to all charity or even all government sponsored charity as some would have you believe – a safety net is part of everyone's thinking. Mostly, the discussion tends to circle around the size and scope of the safety net.

An atheist might oppose religious symbolism associated with government. This does not therefore mean that that atheist is opposed to morality. There is no need to transmogrify his opposition to the display of religious symbols on government property into hatred of moral people or ethics. But that is often how those who support limited government are treated:

• To support lower tax rates rather than higher rates is not hatred of the poor;
• To see negative societal ramifications with and to question the continued usefulness of affirmative action programs a half century on from their inception is not hatred of blacks;
• To support controlled and lawful immigration is not hatred of Mexicans;
• To make note of perceived societal benefits that customary marriage affords, especially to women and children, is not hatred of gays;
• To ponder and debate the meaning of epochs of temperature data is not science denial;
• To debate how to fund birth control or to oppose partial birth abortion is not warring against, hatred of or denying healthcare to women nor is it misogynistic;
• To support choice in school is not hatred of teachers, minorities or the poor;
• To support gun ownership is not hatred of children or supporting murder;
• To disagree with the policy prescriptions of the current occupant of the White House is not racist.

Although it is easier and politically expedient to just dismiss opponents as moral inferiors, uneducated dunces and cave dwellers, it is anything but intelligent, compassionate, respectful, decent, fair, responsible or kind. It could be that those who hold opposing views are decent people who are very interested in those affected by smaller government. It could be that they have significant moral and ethical struggles when considering the trade-offs inherent in life and politics. They may even have the best interests of others in mind when considering policies.

Each side strives for ideological conformity and none so willingly and gleefully makes use of derogatory language as the left. Those interested in power and the imposition of their values understand that it’s quicker and more effective to silence those with whom they disagree than to debate. It is just easier to liken successful women to whores and crudely titter about hate-f***ing them (it is hard to think of a more sexist/misogynistic notion), assume bad motives on behalf of those with wealth (it is hard to think of a more classist notion), compare the inquisitive to Holocaust deniers (it is hard to think of a more irrational/unscientific notion) and attack the racial bona fides (it is hard to think of a more racist notion) of those with a different opinion than to thoughtfully consider and address anything they might have to say.

So how about let's all do our best to avoid character assassination by slur as the replacement for discussion. Rather, let's rely on thoughtful deliberation for the defense of our values.

Derision is not discourse. Ridicule is not refutation.

Dishonoring Others With Lies

It is amazing that Cheney was even able to speak, what with that file in his mouth to sharpen his teeth and all. I mean he is unmitigated evil, so this really shouldn't be surprising, right?

Well, hold on. I went to a Americans Against the Tea Party to see what all the fuss was all about. A left wing site like this should give me the unvarnished scoop on this most recent utterance of horror from the evil one.

Their headline shouted out the disturbing wickedness: "Dick Cheney Tells Fox News That Benghazi Is Worst Disaster In His Lifetime (Video)." They embedded the video and even kindly posted a transcript of Darth Cheney's words. Let's watch what the portal to hell actually said:

Huh? He didn't say it was the worst disaster. Maybe, as the AATTP so kindly informs, Cheney "mumbles through" this so it was hard to understand. Let's look at their own transcript of the screeching weasel of Hades:

It’s one of the worst .. incidents in frankly that I can recall in my career.

Either they can't read, they can't hear or they are liars. Take your pick. They have no problem misrepresenting what was actually said even after they post the video and the transcript that contradicts their statements - now that's chutzpah. I wonder how often this occurs in the name of partisan zeal? (Rhetorical question.) I guess they don't share the President's feeling that "We dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus."? Apparently telling lies is neither dishonoring nor political big top material but calling attention to lies is.

One of the joys of being on the left is never having to say you're sorry. You can misquote somebody you disagree with and attach video and written evidence that you have misquoted them without suffering any shame or embarrassment. Anything for political gain. Destroy the opposition at all costs.

But at least Cheney couldn't say that the Benghazi bacchanal was the “Most Audacious Plan” In 500 Years. That honorific has already been doled out.

Impeach Obama, Maybe Not

Mike Huckabee, the Fox News host, said that the Benghazi hearings would lead to the downfall of Barack Obama, that when the facts came out Mr. Obama would not be able to finish his presidency.

Two reasons it may not advisable:

1. The imagery that will be used against Republicans if the first African American president is run out of town. Undoubtedly there will be political cartoons depicting Obama in shackles. And that will only be the beginning.
2. Joe Biden.

If The Right Argued Like the Left

From Maddow:

As Krugman explained a while back, "Arguably the most important thing we can do to limit the growth in health care costs is learning to say no."

What it would sound like if the right argued like the left does:

This is just more obstruction and denial from the party of "no". This is discriminatory and picks on the elderly. Denying procedures for the elderly is unfair. How in good conscience can they deny healthcare to the elderly? Next thing you know, they'll be preying on the young, poor, minorities and women. Why can't the rich just pay their fair share so that women, children, minorities, the elderly, the homeless, the unemployed, the disabled, college students, LBGTQI, the abused, inmates, veterans, the mentally ill, refugees, the under-housed and Vietnamese fishermen can get decent, comprehensive, affordable access to healthcare?

People are hurtin', man.

We all know that doctors are cutting off limbs and taking out tonsils just to fill their filthy, blood-soaked wallets, and maybe we should say "no" to that, but where will it end? I hope that in their heartless, greedy rush to deny all medical procedures, the party of "no" doesn't deny assisted suicide. Sure, suicide should be safe, legal and rare, but denying it altogether is extremist.

Apparently the Krugmans of the world think that "poor people have too much access to affordable health care" and we should deny as much care as we can – that the greedy blood-suckers who gorge themselves on healthcare need to cut back. This is just more austerity that doesn't work. They want to cut corners and refuse to allow procedures as part of a strategy of greed over consumer benefit. Deny, deny, deny. I guess if we could just be a little more considerate by knowing when to say "no" and die, we could save tons of money. Our moral values, in contradistinction to this ass-hat, is we don't think healthcare should be denied to anybody. These people hate everyone.

BTW, denying healthcare isn't, per chance, the task of the oft-maligned death panel is it?

Sequester Scare

Thomas Sowell wrote,

Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency’s budget were cut, what would it do?

The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place.

This is a nice illustration of what is known as the Washington Monument Gambit. That is, when making decisions about budget cuts, do the most harm with the most painful cuts possible so that you can reinstate the spending that you want.

The Whitehouse is unleashing WMG on the populous for political gain. And if that wasn't enough, as Sowell continues,

President Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to cut. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter cynicism of this glib man.

He doesn't want to make his own plan (sequestration) work, but wants to inflict pain on the poor and vulnerable in order to get his way. Possibly because that plan was never intended to work budgetarily, but was a political maneuver to check mate the GOP.

Harming the most needy is usually the sort of thing rich Republicans are accused of – whether they have the power to do such things or not – and here the President is actually doing it right before our eyes precisely because he has the power to inflict pain on the electorate.

Bain Charlatans

This graphic and audio is making the circuit on Facebook. The post asks the reader to view the super secret tape to find out that Romney is trafficking slaves or some such.

What exactly is going on here? Romney observed that America is ridiculously wealthy compared to the world. True. He notes that Chinese life is so bad that working for a pittance is a vast improvement and highly desired. True. If you went over and saw this, wouldn't you too say largely the same thing? But giving women equal-pay-for-equal-work jobs that are highly sought after - so much so that fences are required to keep those who want the jobs out to maintain order - is called slavery by demagogues.

If the right demagogued like the left they would say that it is the Dems who don't want to improve the lives of anyone other than Americans and unionists in particular. Or that the left says "To hell with women and gays in Iraq," or "Too bad if girls get acid thrown on them if they dare to act like something more than a dog." Or, in this case, that Dems would rather have girls in China starve than have good paying jobs.

If somebody moved into a rural America and began building computers there because they could pay the workers less (but still great pay for the area) thereby driving down the cost for consumers, wouldn't that be a great thing? (Happened. Called Gateway.) Wouldn't that be great for the workers? And consumers? Not to those exercised by this video. That would be slavery.

And tell that same story outside the borders of America and you're a villainous cretin who hates. Isn't there something just a bit racist, nationalistic or xenophobic about that? Give Americans a manufacturing job and your are Jesus Christ come to earth. Give anyone else a manufacturing job and you are Satan the outsourcer. Dare not give Indians, Tibetans, Africans or Koreans a job. Screw them. Where is all the social responsibility and global community talk then?

But, thankfully we can just follow the money and that should reveal who is behind this horror show of slavery. (Follow the trail of tears here, here and here.) Oops. Apparently the left loves Bain when it makes their pensions larger and  when they are gambling with granny's retirement money on risky private investments that would never work for Social Security, even though government pensions typically don't pay into Social Security because they've got their money tied up in private investments because they don't want to rely on that dumb government Ponzi scheme that won't provide the retirement they desire.

Aren't these wealthy corporations that fund Chinese slavery everything that they accuse Romney of being? Wouldn't they have been pissed if Romney lost all their money by not being a good capitalist when he was at the helm? Does that make them hypocrites? Greedy? Outsourcers? Aren't they funding the work of the devil?

The beauty of being on the left is never having to say you're sorry. They get to demonize and accuse people of horrible things and then go do those things they demonize.

Romney the Despicable Bigot

Soooo. President Obama cracks wise about Romney carrying things on his car that aren't windmills:

I know he's had other things on his car.

Romney volleys back with:

No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.

Meanwhile, VP Biden is making references to Republicans wanting to put blacks back in chains:

...going to put y’all back in chains.

Nancy Pelosi chimes in with (previously noted):

You could depend on the government for one thing — it was about, you had to be able to trust the water that our kids drank and the food that they ate. But this is the E. coli club.

A Democratic SuperPAC blames Romney for killing a woman with cancer:

And who is "resorting to some of the basest, most despicable bigotry we can imagine" and "scraping the very bottom"? Of course it is Romney.

I guess this is just the sort of filth Rep Rangel was talking about when he said,
"If you want to win, you’ve got to play this filthy, obscene game."

Blame the Right

If a person of the left who "has strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner," and "had been volunteering recently at a community center for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people," shoots innocents at a politically active organization of the right then the shooter is acting out frustrations and we should try to compassionately understand what may have driven a person to commit such a heinous act. Or he just "expressed a disagreement with the group's conservative views" during a "scuffle". For sure, it is "an anomaly, something very rare and very random." But you really can't know for sure if ideology motivated the shooter.

Similarly, if a man shoots fellow members of the military in cold blood while shouting "Allahu Akbar", then the shooter is possibly suffering from "secondary trauma", was sadly "swept up in patients' displays of war-related paranoia, helplessness and fury," snapped in advance, perhaps had a “toothache” that set him off and "It's unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting." But you really can't know for sure if religion motivated the shooter.

However, if we know nothing about a person and that person opens fire on innocents and nobody can figure out why he may have done what he did, the shooter must be a right-wing wacko who is deeply disturbed as the result of right-wing hate. Because "violent acts are what happen when [Republicans] create a climate of hate" and the fomenting and agitating by right-wing wackos like Palin, Limbaugh and Beck. Research consists of Googling shooter's name and the words "Tea Party" while forgetting to search for the name and "Occupy Wall Street". Tweets from those on the left tell us it is OK to score political points by connecting the Tea Party, Republicans and anyone close to the right to murder sprees, whether perpetrated by those on the right or not, because the "Bottom line is that policy decisions are driven by scoring political points."

I guess they didn't read the last paragraph of Michelangelo Signorile's, Editor-at-large of HuffPost Gay Voices, column wherein he admonishes, "What no one should be doing is exploiting this tragedy to make political points or to attack an entire group of people because of the actions of one man."

Strangely missing are the lectures about polarization, heated rhetoric or overdue conversations. No connections to those on the left who share the rostrum with the President and with fist-pumping fury tell the audience that "There can only be one winner", "And, let's take these son of a bitches out..."

The lack of self-awareness is breathtaking. The double standard is, well, standard. And all of this from those who fancy themselves to be psychologically sophisticated and uniquely able to see nuance.

Link, link.

New and Improved: Ryan Adds Even More Callousness to the Republican Ticket

According to this NYT editorial, adding Ryan to the ticket showed that the Republican vision is against many things including: job training, help for struggling students, miner's hardhats, MRIs and prescriptions for the elderly, preventative care for the poor and uninsured, job training for the displaced, Pell grants, food stamps for the hungry, mass transit, highways, sewage treatment plants, asphalt for streets, replacing retired police officers and firefighters, watchdogs over the environment, mine safety, and food quality.

And in case you have been living under a rock, guess why all this "callousness" is necessary. That's right, to give "even greater tax giveaways to the rich and extravagant benefits to powerful military contractors." (By noting "even greater", does this imply that the current administration is doing it too, but just to a less greater extent than these two awful bits of human debris doody heads?)

But do not despair, the Republicans are for at least one thing: crumbling bridges.

Additionally, lurking in the opining about midway through was an interesting little insight. The writer explains:

These cuts are so severe that the nation’s Catholic bishops raised their voices in protest at the shredding of the nation’s moral obligations.

Mr. Ryan’s budget “will hurt hungry children, poor families, vulnerable seniors and workers who cannot find employment,” the bishops wrote in an April letter to the House. “These cuts are unjustified and wrong.”

Why is this NYT writer concerned when a Catholic Bishop is upset that the government is not doing the work of the church? What happened to the wall of separation between church and state?

In typical leftist fashion, the writer is blissfully un-self-aware and is happy for government to do the Lord's work when it lines up with the NYT ideology. One supposes that the good Bishop's opinions would not be so well received were he discussing the government's role vis-à-vis abortion. The left is happy to impose its morality on others and even justify its actions with Biblical admonitions and parables, but let the right suggest such an unholy alliance and the wall-of-separation caterwauling of the left can be heard all the way to the pearly gates.

As Robert Bork noted in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah:

Modern liberals try to frighten Americans by saying that religious conservatives want to impose their morality on others That is palpable foolishness. All participants in politics want to impose on others as much of their morality as possible, and no group is more insistent on that than liberals. Religious conservatives are not authoritarian. To the degree they have their way, it will be through democratic processes.