1984 called, said “Sorry I’m late!”

I’ve been trying to put these ideas into words for weeks. Thank you Victor Davis Hanson.

“When Ms. Pelosi and President Obama voice support for the protestors, we enter 1984. Does that mean that the Pelosis now pull their millions out of Wall Street, that the First Family eschews the 1% at Martha’s Vineyard and Vail? That Obama turns his back on Wall Street cash, and, for once, accepts public funding for his 2012 campaign? Postmodern class warfare is an insidious business, and hinges on its advocates not looking in the mirror.”

There is nothing more infuriating than talking to someone who supports *both* the OWS movement and this President. Now to file this away for use next time I run into such a person! Though I suppose the definition of futility is arguing with an imbecile…

They Can, You Cain’t

Might as well be the slogan of the Democrat Party when it comes to (alleged) sexual harassment by members of their party.

Why, if you’re a Democrat–candidate or President–you can grope, expose yourself and even (allegedly, gotta be careful to add that “allegedly” when it’s a Democrat we’re talking about after all) RAPE an employee, and hey, it’s all good! You have to think of what’s in the best interests of *all* women after all (implication: why the Democrat Party of course! DUH!)

Everyone knows conservatives are anti-abortion, erm, I mean anti-woman!/sarcasm

That’s right. When you’re a conservative candidate, never mind a BLACK conservative candidate, well….That’s a horserace of a different color! First of all, everyone with half a brain knows no self-respecting “black man” (only conservatives of color are “black” you see, all liberal ones are “African-American”) would be “conservative” and run as a “Republican!” Psha! C’mon, that’s as obvious as, as, well, Global Warming!

Anyway, as I was saying, when you’re conservative, male and black, it’s only a matter of time before you will be found guilty-until-proven-innocent in a court of public opinion (manufactured by the likes of Politico.com and MSNBC) of having a “history” of “sexual harassment” because some unnamed sources point to a long-ago settlement–the details of which are sketchy/unknown that they say (note, no “allegedly” about it) resulted from your “sexual harassment” of a co-worker/employee.

And if your response is not pitch-perfect, if you hesitate to give details because you

a) aren’t at liberty to do so because of settlement confidentiality agreements and you want to check with your lawyer first

b) don’t get to reply before a staffer bungles the response for you (or they bungle it after you do)

c) don’t even recall the precise details of what happened insofar as the trick-questions you’re being asked are posed (questions along the lines of “So, could anyone else have ever have a case against you for sexual harassment?”)

d) are so aghast that this is being brought up at ALL without even a nod of respect for the truth, journalistic ethics, proper research, objectivity, etc….

stick a fork in you, you’re done.

It really doesn’t matter if it’s all bullshit (and I’m not saying in Herman Cain’s case it is or isn’t, I’m saying people walking around thinking they *know* he’s guilty of something really dreadful are utterly full of shit b/c they can’t know that based on the “evidence” presented so far), because no one is even CHECKING to see if it’s true. Conservative = Guilty AND, what’s more, GUILTY-WHILE-CONSERVATIVE = INSURMOUNTABLE, game-changing, hang-it-up-you’re-DONE scandalous.

But if you’re Bill Clinton? Aw shucks, c’mon folks, it’s his private business where he puts his cigar, how DARE the GOP Congress try to impeach a man for the so-tiny-sin of lying (under oath to a federal prosecutor, multiple times) about an “ALLEGED” (it’s always alleged, until the accused confesses, even if multiple named-sources corroborate original “allegations”) case of “sexual harassment” or misconduct.

“Aw c’mon Deb,” I can hear you saying, “that’s just ONE example, and let’s face it, getting rid of a sitting President because he tells a tiny little fib (under oath to a federal prosecutor….a few times….) is really haaaaard, and not necessarily good for the country, blah blah”

Oh yeah? Here are two more:

1) Elliot Spitzer – not only guilty, he had the nerve to do something he’d prosecuted people for in the past, and didn’t have to go to jail for it.

2) Anthony Wiener – used the (oh-so-willing-media) and NY Taxpayer dollars to wage a counter-offensive against the conservative blogger who broke the story that he’d “sexted” pictures of his, uh, wiener to a Twitter follower.

Until BOTH MEN confessed, the press pulled out all the stops defending them, allowing them to defend themselves, and impugning the motives and reputations of anyone and everyone who believed their accusers over THEM.

Those women? Harlots! Frauds! Paid informants of the GOP! Women who are victimized by Democrat politicians? Ha! They ought to be GRATEFUL that these men took an interest in them! And if things went too far? Well, they asked for it.

Women allegedly harassed by conservatives? NOW’s Woman-of-the-Year, instant media-sensation, wined, dined, feted and celebritized as a “whistle blower,” described as “brave,” courageous even.

The double-standard is alive and well in America, as is racism.

So get it straight Herman! They can, you Cain’t.


Life imitating “art” Will Smith, where are you?

Read the following and choose which answer best describes how it makes you feel:

A. Makes me feel all warm and cozy-safe inside

B. I’m having flashbacks to ‘Enemy of the State’ and seeing ski-mask-clad goons invading my house, planting bugs and stealing my blender

C. What was the question?

Hackers have “come close”several times to shutting down elements of the nation’s infrastructure, she said, noting that Wall Street firms and transportation systems are frequent cyberattack targets.

“I think we all have to be concerned about a network intrusion that shuts down part of the nation’s infrastructure in such a fashion that it results in a loss of life,” she said.

Asked how many cyberattacks might have occurred over the course of her 45-minute Q&A session, Napolitano responded, “Thousands.”

The Department of Homeland Security is in the process of hiring about 1,000 cybersecurity specialists to combat the fast-evolving issue — and Napolitano said she would have “every cyber geek in the United States” working for her if she could.

The 1,000 hires may sound impressive, but it pales in comparison to the 3,000 specialists that the National Security Agency plans to hire to combat the issue by the end of fiscal 2012 — and the thousands more fighting cybercrime at an alphabet soup of other agencies.

But in the end, Napolitano said she believes that Homeland Security needs to serve as the nation’s “incident response center” in the event of a major attack.

Even if this is true….Do we really want the federal government creating an army of hackers empowered to go wherever the federal gov’t perceives a “threat?”

I don’t, sorry.

Brought to you by the people who’ll be controlling your health records

Raise your hand if this story surprises you:

Within hours of its debut, the federal government’s ballyhooed new jobs board was on the fritz: USAJobs crashed repeatedly, error messages popped up over and over, résumés disappeared, passwords were obliterated.

It even got basic geography wrong, with searches for Delaware, for example, turning up jobs in Germany.

OK, now those of you with their hands raised, get out your calendars so we may schedule your appointments with the clue bat.

For the rest of you who managed to show up on time when those clues were first distributed, raise your hand if you’re pretty freaked out that the same geniuses who came up with are about to be in charge of hiring and directing the people who’ll create the massive new national healthcare database where all your most personal health records will be stored by (and accessible to) the federal government?

OK, now take that hand, fold all the fingers of it down except the middle one, and point it in the general direction of Washington D.C.

Dear evil Zionists, PLEASE SEND HELP!

When the earthquake hit Turkey last week, Israel–as it often does–immediately joined several Western nations in offering its help. This is no small offer considering 

  • Israel has some of the most sophisticated disaster relief technology and best trained rescue personnel in the world (especially for “crush” victims)
  • As recently as September, Turkey threatened Israel with increased naval presence, and that’s after pledging more aid to Gaza and Hamas and more protection for so-called “aid flotillas”
  • Erdogan has purged his military of those thought to be sympathetic to the West, Israel in particular, replacing those in command with Islamists.

Predictably, Erdogan said no. But after a couple of days, and probably facing increased pubic pressure from their own population to “DO SOMETHING!,” something they were obviously incapable of doing on their own, Turkey turned around and asked Israel for help.

For now they just want tents and mobile housing units, not manpower, but let’s see how the next few days go. In the meantime, the whole thing got me thinking about these hostile, verbally aggressive nations and their natural disasters. One question kept popping into my brain:

“Why do we need to help them?”

Before you flame me, right now I’m not asking why we as human beings, or Christians, or “nice people” individually should reach out to help individuals in foreign countries who are suffering. There’s no “we” there. If you want to, have at it, only your conscience can answer that one.

No, for the purpose of this discussion, I’m talking about “we” as in the USA, or Israel, or any other Western nation that is obviously doing better in every possible way than most of these “suffering” countries. Why doesn’t anyone ever pause to ask why they ALWAYS need so much outside assistance?

If, as they claim, their way of life is superior–their “Islamist” approach to governance is so vastly superior to our Western ways, if their cultures are so much more moral and noble and productive, why can’t they take care of their own people?

Why–for example–is every country run by religious zealots (or their sympathizers) almost completely dysfunctional? Even Saudi Arabia–if you took away their oil (which is theirs by accident of birth and geography, nothing more)–they’d have absolutely no means of support. What am I talking about? Even WITH their oil, they are completely dependent upon their *customers* for their “economy.” I mean, what else do they “produce?” What “expertise” do they offer the rest of the world?

And why don’t our leaders ever talk about this openly? Why is it assumed that the only thing that matters is that these countries hold “elections.” Elections? Elections gave the Palestinians Hamas, the Turks the Islamists and Erdogan, Iran Ahmadinejad, and next up, the Egyptians and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Well I’ll say it, why not? We have to help these countries because the systems they choose for themselves are inferior.

I can hear the gasping from here. “DEB! How can you BE so judgmental?! The West is far from perfect!”

Duh. Did I say we were “perfect?” There’s a huge gulf between “perfect” and “festering shit-hole unfit for human survival, never mind sustenance and progress.”

And what if we did NOT come running to aid these people–people whose governments maintain their power largely by inciting large numbers of their population to *hate us* and *want to kill us,* who are constantly judging us “inferior” to them because we let our women drive or wear bikinis or choose their own husbands?

What if we were to say–to Turkey for example–”Hey, keep asking your pals in Iran, I mean, since y’all are so superior to us anyway. I mean, you wouldn’t even want our help, we’re filthy westerners, we might have to send a woman (eek!) or a Jew (double-eek!). So, we’re gonna sit this one out. But hey! We’ll be prayin’ for ya!”

How would that go over d’ya think? No? Bad idea? Why? Why don’t we EVER ask this question? Why is it just *assumed* we’ll help? Where do we get off thinking we have so much to “give” anyway? We can barely help our own Tornado victims anymore, but we offer help to the likes of Turkey?

To me, “helping” them because their gov’t is to hapless and incompetent to help them itself is like consigning them to perpetual tyranny. It’s the same thing as saying “We’ll pick up the slack so they can keep focusing their efforts on giving what little you have to terrorists, lining their own pockets and propagandizing against the West (which is us after all).”

Some say it’s good for “PR,” that the people of those areas are “grateful” to us or to Israel when we save their lives, blah blah. I call bullshit with a bullhorn. Israel saves the life of a cancer-stricken Palestinian baby, and how does the mother (and the general Palestinian population) say “thank-you?” Well the population disparages the mother for having Israelis save her son, and the mother reacts by saying she’s glad he’s survived because she hopes he grows up to be a suicide bomber:

“ “From the smallest infant, even smaller than Mohammed, to the oldest person, we will all sacrifice ourselves for the sake of Jerusalem. We feel we have the right to it.”

I don’t see much difference between the PR effect of saving one life and saving or helping thousands. How a people react to lifesaving help from others tells you everything you need to know about their character (and worth frankly).

So now that we’ve established the fact that they need our help because they can’t help themselves, because their way of governance is NOT superior as they claim, but rather markedly *inferior,* let’s go back to my original question and answer it as if I am asking whether we SHOULD help them?

In a word, NO.


Mike Rowe for President!

OK, maybe not. I wouldn’t wish it on someone so capable of pretty much *anything* else, but after reading his posts in this forum (start with post #14 on page 2 and just keep reading what he says), I’m even more enamored of him than I was before (and I didn’t think it was possible to admire the guy MORE than I did).

Here’s just a sample to whet your appetite:

“”Because all too often Clem, we grow to resent the thing we depend on. It’s the great, unintended consequence of our welfare system. We have come to accept the idea that it’s OK to hand out taxpayer money with the expectation of getting nothing in return. In fact, a lot people honestly believe it’s the role of government to do that very thing. Personally, I think those people have confused governance with charity. Charity comes with no strings attached, and can be provided by anyone – loved ones and caring strangers alike. Churches. The Red Cross. Doctors Without Boarders. The Salvation Army. Take your pick. Government however, does not exist for that purpose. Citizenship and democracy demand participation. From everyone. Government Welfare does not. It doesn’t matter how well-intended its proponents are, or how dire the circumstances of the recipient might be. Our government can’t work if we run it like a charity. “

Go. Read more now. You can thank me later.

What happened, did they run out of toilet paper?

It’s stewardship of our money like this that makes me unwilling to give them any more of it.

The State Department has bought more than $70,000 worth of books authored by President Obama, sending out copies as Christmas gratuities and stocking “key libraries” around the world with “Dreams from My Father” more than a decade after its release.


The Obama Lexicon

Have you noticed how words mean different things to this President, his administration and their followers in the MSM?

And have you noticed how those different meanings also mean different things depending upon who’s using them and/or to whom they’re directed?

It must be very hard for someone whose native tongue is, actually, “English” of the sort they (used to) teach in schools, you know, the kind that still pretty much lines up with Websters and Roget’s?

I feel like some old fart sitting here sighing audibly and saying:

“You know kiddos, I remember a time–I like to call them ‘the good ol’ days’–when ‘stimulus’ was something that would incite or rouse to activity. But today, it’s just a synonym for ‘spending money you don’t have.’”

The same holds true for so many words that I realized perhaps a lexicon was in order, that is, until Webters’s and Roget’s decide to make it official. Here goes, feel free to add any I missed in the comments:

Stimulus – (verb) see above

Obstructionist – (noun) Republican

Obstruction – (verb) Republicans not doing exactly what I want, when I want it done

Dangerous rhetoric – (noun) Criticizing my policies, my administration, my golf swing (see also: “Racism”)

Racism – (noun) The root cause of any and all criticism of me, my policies, or my administration; The root cause of any hard questions by members of the press (see also: “Fox News” “Conservatives” “Republicans” “Teabaggers”)

The Constitution of the USA – (noun) Synonym for “Bathroom Tissue” (the irritating, scratchy one-ply type, from Scotts; see also “Obstruction”)

Republicans: (noun) The root cause of everything wrong in the world (see also “Scapegoat”)

Negative campaigning: (verb) What every candidate who runs against my policies and refuses to congratulate me on my achievements is doing (see also: “Mitt Romney”)

Making a case to the American people: (verb) Explaining to the American people that the Republicans are using obstructionism and negative campaigning because of their underlying racism against me.

President – (noun) King, or if you prefer, Puppet Dictator of corporatists everywhere (now if the American People would just figure this out and get out of my way, I’d get so much more done! See: Saul Alinsky/Cloward Piven)

American People – (noun) Synonym for “Pain in my ASS,” slow on the uptake, not really getting the whole “Do it my way” message

Unions/Public Sector Workers – (noun) the real “American People,” as in “The only ones who matter” (see: “Harry Reid speech”)

Wall Street – (noun) Private sector workers who haven’t donated millions of dollars to my campaign yet

Justice – (noun) Whatever benefits me and confers more power upon me; Whatever screws over people I don’t like who don’t agree with me

Social Justice – (noun) Revenge against people who don’t like or agree with me; Revenge against white people who refuse to pay their tribute and bow to my greatness

Unemployed – (noun) Democrat voters who don’t have a job they like yet, or can’t get one period; Republicans are never unemployed, they’re just finally paying their “fair share.”

Fair-share – (noun) What a Republican, conservative or other non-Democrat should pay in taxes; An amount of tax equal to whatever amount is most painful to the taxpayer who has not yet figured out that arbeit (for me) macht frei (see: “Fair”)

Fair – (adjective) Whatever I say it is, variable (see: “Polling”)

Middle East Peace: (noun, misspelled) Whatever amount of Israel I can make sure they don’t get to keep.

The Rich – (noun) Millionaires and Billionaires making over $200,000 (except those who contribute to my campaign)

Shared Sacrifice – (noun) Synonym for “Social Justice”

Special Interests – (noun) Any and all interest groups that are not my allies or contributors (see also: Jewish voters, Values voters, the Chamber of Commerce)

I’m sure there are more, but I’m getting depressed just typing these. Feel free to let me know what I missed.