Home > Uncategorized > What Shall It Be? Us versus Them? Or Them versus Us?; Will American Liberals Ever Wake Up?; The Naked Left; and the Left’s Little Blue Book.

What Shall It Be? Us versus Them? Or Them versus Us?; Will American Liberals Ever Wake Up?; The Naked Left; and the Left’s Little Blue Book.

July 11, 2012

What Shall It Be? Us versus Them? Or Them versus Us?

July 7, 2012 ByJim  Yardley

Once  again, as we do at least every other year, we see Democrats (aka “Progressives”  or “liberals”) using the electoral attack strategy of “Us versus  Them.”

According  to the political left, US is defined by their mythology as the  little guy, the ordinary person, the powerless citizen.  US is also frequently used to identify with minority groups  based on race, gender, geographical location, language spoken, legal status,  religious affiliation, and so on.

THEM  is invariably defined as Big Bankers, Big Businessmen, Wall  Street, and the Rich.  Since the majority of voters tend to identify  themselves as one of the little guys, the result is an electoral win for  Democrats.

This  is especially true when the Democrats are getting major contributions from Big  Bankers, Big Businessmen, Wall Street, and the Rich.

These  shameless Democrats simultaneously claim that Republicans are supported only by  the very same people who are the oppressors of the little guy.  They claim  that Republicans don’t support US.

Republicans,  on the other hand, have historically defined US as everyone  qualified to vote.  Now this is an admirable position.  It portrays a  mindset that we are all in this together, that we’re all equal, that no one  should be advantaged at the expense of another.

Sadly,  every thinking voter realizes that this is as much of a myth as the Democrats’  definition of US.

Perhaps  Republicans should steal a page from the Democrat playbook and begin campaigning  on the same basis — the “Us versus Them” strategy — but with a  twist.

The US under this variation would be nearly identical to that used  by the Democrats.  (Perhaps after the results are in on November 7, the RNC  should send the DNC a thank-you note.)  But the THEM  definition would change radically.

If US is ordinary Americans, then who, you might ask, is THEM?  I’m glad you asked.

Republicans  should identify THEM as the self-described intellectuals who  are denizens of faculty lounges all over the nation.  The people who don’t  have the slightest practical clue how anything really works, and try to  force-fit the real world into conformity with the last scholarly paper they  wrote.  A paper which was written in a desperate attempt to achieve  academic tenure and life-time job security.  These are the same people who  charge the ordinary American huge amounts of tax dollars not to teach his kids,  but to indoctrinate them as fodder for the Liberal/Progressive/Democrat  machine.

For  Republicans, THEM should include the Hollywood glitterati, the  people Barack Obama likes to party with, the incredibly wealthy on the Democrat  fundraising circuit whom Democrats never seem to include in their description of  the rich THEM.

While  academics are frequently delusional, almost everyone would admit that they are  at least intelligent.  One might admit that it is possible — not  guaranteed, but possible — for academics to actually have an original  thought.  Their opinions might, just might, provide food for  thought.

How  many ordinary Americans would feel the same way about Snooki’s opinion — on  anything?  Or Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen, Michael Moore, Janeane  Garofalo, Bill Maher, and countless others?  Obviously being able to  pretend to be a genius on screen doesn’t actually mean that you are one,  right?

If  Democrats believe that using successful people as the boogie man in their  scenarios is a winning tactic, the Republicans might have better luck using  people in an industry that runs about 90% unemployment but pays millions to  those 10% who are lucky enough to find work.  These are the folks qualified  to advise Obama on reducing unemployment and helping the  economy?

Teachers  and professors would also be ideal poster children.  If they can’t educate  our kids despite demands for enormous amounts of taxpayer money, one might surmise that they are incompetent.   Who would want to take advice from an incompetent person, except perhaps another  incompetent person?

This  is only a suggestion, obviously.  Republicans from Mitt Romney to the local  county dog catcher should toss out the playbook that they have used for decades  and try something that might actually work.

Not  that Republicans are necessarily the polar opposites of Democrats, but if  ordinary Americans voted for “change” in 2008, don’t they deserve a second  chance to go to the polls in November and actually get some things to  change?

Jim  Yardley is a retired financial controller for a variety of manufacturing firms, a Vietnam veteran, and an independent  voter.  Jim blogs at http://jimyardley.wordpress.com, or  he can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com.

June 30, 2012

Will American Liberals Ever Wake Up?

By W.A.  Beatty

America  is in the throes of a presidential campaign that presents real hope for the  future of America (Romney) versus the same-old, same-old (Obama).  While it  appears right now that Obama and his socialist policies will lose  in November,  America will still be faced with many problems that have crept into society in  the past fifty years.

While  America has many liberal-caused problems, let’s examine just three of them:  welfare, race relations, and education.

Welfare:  In his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B.  Johnson declared “war on poverty.” Johnson’s speech led Congress to pass the  Economic Opportunity Act, which established the Office of Economic Opportunity  (OEO) to administer the local application of federal funds targeted against  poverty. Since then, the federal government has spent  approximately $16 trillion on welfare. Welfare includes,  among other programs, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP),  the former food stamp program, and unemployment insurance.

In  2011, the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs, Stimulus Oversight and Government  Spending of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government  Reform held  a hearing on the issue of “Duplication, Overlap, and Inefficiencies in  Federal Welfare Programs.”  At that hearing, Patricia A. Dalton, the chief  operating officer of the General Accountability Office (GAO), testified that the  GAO could not identify all existing welfare programs in the various federal  departments and agencies or determine how much they cost.

She  said further that she and the GAO could not give a specific number of welfare  programs or even “hazard a guess” as to what percentage of those programs are  actually accomplishing the purposes for which they were  created.

America  now spends 15  percent of its Gross Domestic Product on welfare.  Welfare is now the  third most expensive government spending program.  Welfare spending has  outpaced spending on Social Security, Medicare, education, and defense.

And welfare  rolls and spending  continue to expand.  Welfare spending  increased under Obama on SNAP alone between FY2008 and FY2011 from $39.3 billion to $75.3  billion.  Over the next 10 years, welfare spending is projected to cost  taxpayers $10.3 trillion.  The Obama administration is now working to  expand welfare further, spending $2.5 million on an ad  campaign to get more people on welfare.

While  campaigning in 2008, Obama  said that “the war in Iraq is costing each household about $100 per  month.”  But applying the same spending criteria revealed that welfare cost  each household $560 per month in 2009 and $638 per month in  2010.

So  where are we now?  A study  in April 2012 by the Cato Institute says that America spends nearly $1 trillion  each year to fight poverty.  Since Obama took office, federal welfare  spending has increased by 41  percent.  But despite increased spending, the poverty rate that remains  at nearly 15 percent, roughly where it was in 1965, when President Johnson  declared his War on Poverty.  In fact, the poverty rate has never fallen  below 10.5 percent.  The Cato Institute study also says that current  programs are focused on making welfare recipients more comfortable — providing  more food, better shelter, and health care for poor people — rather than  proving the tools that will help poor people escape poverty.

Race  Relations: Attorney General Eric Holder, in 2009, said that Americans  are cowards  when it comes to discussing race. Well, Mr. Holder, I am not a coward, so here  is my discussion. Too many blacks have succumbed to the idea of “blaming”  somebody and/or something for their problems. They have learned that idea from,  among others, Rev. Jesse (love child) Jackson and Rev. Al (Tawana Brawley) Sharpton. For most blacks, their favorite target for blame is “whitey.” Their  favorite word has become “racism.” Any criticism of anything they don’t  like is “racist.” Black cultural integrity can be good, but not when the culture  is manufactured in the name of a blame-game.

From New Century  Foundation‘s The Color of Crime, we learn:

  •   Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities.
  •   Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder.
  •   Blacks are eight times more likely than people of other races to commit robbery.
  •   When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely  than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
  •   Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a  white than vice-versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.
  •   Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes  against whites than vice versa.
  •   Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving  blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

We  also learn that  whites constitute 72.4 percent of America’s population but constitute 35.6  percent of all recipients of Aid for Dependent Children (AFDC).  Blacks  constitute about 12.9 percent of America’s population but constitute 37.2  percent of AFDC recipients.  One argument loudly forwarded by black  “leaders” is that whites make up the majority of welfare recipients.  That  fact is true from an absolute numbers perspective, but not from a percentage of  the American population perspective.

What  does all of this mean?  Blacks are going to have to save  themselves.

Blacks  are not helped by the claim that all their problems are racially  motivated.  Black-on-black crime is not the fault of “whitey.”    Out-of-wedlock births are not the fault of whites.  High dropout rates  among blacks are not the fault of whites.  The solution is not to cry  “racism” and blame everything on whites.  And blacks won’t find a solution  to their problems by appealing to the government.

Welfare  programs have done a lot to suppress black families by subsidizing family  fragmentation and promoting multi-generational dependency.  So cast off  your shackles of government dependency and work to correct problems.  Will  you receive help from “whitey?”  Yes, but we non-guilt-ridden whites won’t  do it if the answer is going to be more government, guilt, and charges of  “racism” every time you don’t like what’s being offered as a solution.   Black problems aren’t solved by naming streets after Martin Luther King, Jr. or  declaring a national King Holiday or a Black History Month.  These are  liberal crumbs to appease the black community, but have any of these actions  actually helped blacks solve any problems?

It  was Obama who said he would heal  America’s racial divide.  Well, we certainly have a racial divide now, and  Obama continues to exacerbate  it.

To  paraphrase FDR, “the only thing you [blacks] have to lose are your chains of  dependency and victimhood.”

Education:  People who attended  public school in the 1960s and early 1970s experienced an educational system far  different from that of today. In the ’60s and early ’70s, teachers still had  authority to actually teach and discipline students. If a student turned in  failing work, teachers didn’t hesitate to assign an F or even hold a student  back a grade.

Educators  believed that education was more important than making students feel good about  themselves.  It wasn’t uncommon for a teacher and/or school administrator  to use corporal punishment on disruptive students when  necessary.

Today’s  teachers have no authority.  They aren’t allowed to use corporal  punishment, or to do anything that will injure student self-image or  self-esteem.  Many public schools have become a training center for a quite  liberal social agenda.

As  a result, confidence  in public schools has fallen to a new low of 29 percent.  That number was  58 percent in 1973. (Ironically around the time the federal goverment took major steps to mess around much more with education)

Americans  lost more and more confidence in public schools as schools turned away from  sound teaching and toward social training grounds, as they replaced teaching  sound moral values with decadence and promiscuity, as they rewrote American  history and replaced it with secular lies.

The  National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a division of the U.S. Department of Education, periodically  administers the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to American  students in grades 4, 8, and 12.  In all subject areas, private-school  students consistently score well above the national average.  According to  the NCES,  in 2006, in grades 4 and 8 for both reading and mathematics, students in private  schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools.  Only  through “adjusting”  for student attributes such as ethnicity, family income, and English language  proficiency, as well as the skill and experience of the teaching staff, was the  NCES able to get public school student performances up to or higher than private  school students.

As  a result, more  parents are opting to put their kids in private schools, where they can be  taught the basics, but also can be taught morals and values they wouldn’t learn  in public schools.

Will  liberals ever wake up and face the facts that their ideas and policies  don’t work?  How many times must they be shown that policies they implement  have never worked?  You would think that fifty years would be long enough  for them to view the results of their labors.  But in the face of what  their policies have wrought, their only response is that America has not spent  enough money!  For liberals, evidence be damned — it’s their policies that  count.

Dr.  Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida  State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative  management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making.   He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now  retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22  years.  He blogs at:  rwno.limewebs.com.

A record of 8,733,461 workers took federal disability insurance payments as of June 2012.

When President Barack Obama was inaugurated in January 2009, there  were  142,187,000 people employed and 7,442,377 workers taking federal  disability  payments. That equaled about 1  person taking disability  payments for each 19.1  people actually  working.

In May of this year, there were 142,287,000 people employed, and  8,707,185  workers taking federal disability payments. That equaled 1  worker taking  disability payments for each 16.3 people working.

The federal disability payments made to the record 8,733,461 workers in June  averaged $1,111.42.

In addition to the 8,733,461 workers taking federal disability  payments in  June, there were also 165,469 spouses of disabled workers getting federal  disability payments and 1,899,756 children of disabled workers getting benefits.  That brought the total number of beneficiaries  receiving disability  insurance  payment in June to 10,798,686.

Federal disability insurance is funded by a 1.8 percent payroll tax split  between employers and workers. Self-employed people pay the entire  1.8  percent.

The Social Security System’s Disability Insurance Trust Fund has run deficits  in each of the last three fiscal years, meaning the government  has  needed to  borrow money to pay disability benefits to the workers   claiming them. In  fiscal 2009, the Disability Insurance Trust Fund   deficit was $8.5 billion. In  fiscal 2010, it was $20.8 billion. And in   fiscal 2011, it was $25.3  billion.

Read more: Family Security Matters

.

July7, 2012

The Tea Party Response to the SCOTUS Decision

By Doug  Mainwaring

Now  that the Supreme Court’s ruling on ObamaCare is known, many, from Rush Limbaugh and Greta Van Susteren on the political right to Ed Schultz (MSNBC), Rhode Island’s former Democratic  Congressman Patrick Kennedy, and others on the left, have either been making predictions or  asking, “What is the Tea Party going to do?”  For those on the left, the  question implies that the Tea Party has been caught asleep at the wheel and must  be in a state of utter turmoil and disarray.

A  perfectly good answer comes from the thirteenth century: one day, when St.  Francis of Assisi was an old man, someone approached him as he worked in his  garden.  The man asked him: “Francis, if you knew that the end of the world  were coming tomorrow, what would you do?”  Without looking up, Francis  answered, “I would continue hoeing my garden,” meaning that he had been leading  a good life all along and that there was no drastic measure he needed to take in  order to prepare to meet his maker.

Here’s  a more recent example, drawn from the twenty-first century: imagine that  someone says to Olympic gold medal-winning swimmer Michael Phelps, “The 2012  Summer Olympics are approaching.  What are you going to do?”   Michael’s answer would almost certainly be, “I’m going to keep doing what I’ve  been doing for ten hours a day, 365 days a year for the last twenty years!”

The  Tea Party’s response to the SCOTUS decision is similar: “We’re just going  to keep on doing what we’ve been doing all along.”

The  Tea Party has never looked to the Supreme Court to remedy what ails this  nation.  Had SCOTUS voided the law, this would have in no way addressed the  deeper, underlying problem, which continues to confront our nation and which  gave life to ObamaCare in the first place.

A  patient with a sore chipped tooth initially may be quite relieved when the  dentist gives him Novocain, caps his tooth, and sends him home.  But  eventually the pain will return in even greater force.  Root canal is in  order, and without that crucial step, long-lasting relief will remain elusive.

Washington  needs root canal.  The Supreme Court is not a dental practice, but We  the People are.  The Tea Party has proved that over and over  again.

Justice  Roberts was absolutely correct to say, “It’s not our [the Supreme Court’s] job  to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”   He’s right!  That is our job, and no one else’s.

Only  we can tackle the hard work which must be done in order to establish a  constitutional national government which will work within its enumerated  bounds.  That work will be accomplished only by engaged citizens, from  Atlantic to Pacific, diligently working to educate themselves and their  neighbors, aspiring to fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited  government, and participating at all levels of government and elections.

Former  Congressman (and recent Republican convert) Artur Davis, speaking on This Week  with George Stephanopoulos, said, “The reality for Conservatives is that this  week [the SCOTUS ruling] underscores a point: conservatives are not going to  prosper by putting their confidence in courts.  Conservatives have to put  their confidence in the grassroots, in the public, and in winning public  sentiment.”

On  the morning of the Supreme Court’s announcement, as many Tea Partiers gathered  in front of the Court to rally against the onerous, gigantic, unintelligible,  unaffordable, over-regulating, economy- and job-killing law known as ObamaCare,  the Tea Party’s stance was made clear in advance of the ruling being made  public.  Blaring through megaphones, the Tea Party’s plan was publicly  proclaimed to all who cared to listen:

If  ObamaCare is upheld, we have to work hard! If ObamaCare is partially  upheld, we have to work hard! If ObamaCare is completely thrown out, we  have to work hard!

The  Tea Party has been operating in high gear during its entire three-year  history.  Like St. Francis waiting to arrive in heaven, the Tea Party needs  no major adjustment in what it is doing to respond to ObamaCare.  It will  continue to work to restore limited government by ensuring that only  citizen-legislators and leaders who are faithful to the Constitution get elected  to office, and that career legislators who repeatedly vote to increase the size  and reach of government while increasing the enormousness of our debt get returned home to re-enter the private  sector.

If  past is prologue, the Tea Party’s short history also makes perfectly clear what  it will do in the future:

In  2009, the Tea Party delivered stunning victories to Virginia Governor Bob  McDonnell, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and Massachusetts Senator Scott  Brown.

In  2010, the Tea Party delivered a tsunami of new citizen-legislators to both Houses of U.S. Congress, and to State Houses  all across the country.

In  2012, the Tea Party helped deliver a staggering defeat to the (formerly)  powerful opponents of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, displaying for all the  country to see that smaller government does indeed work for the benefit of all,  except for those who seek to engineer society to their own liking through  heavy-handed command-and-control tactics.

The  fruits of the Tea Party’s hard work are self-evident.  The movement’s  trajectory has not changed and doesn’t need to change in order to respond to  this SCOTUS ruling.  As far the Tea Party’s short-, medium-, and long-range  goals are concerned, SCOTUS is, in a way, inconsequential

ObamaCare  is merely one symptom of a much larger problem: Washington’s political  aristocracy.

The  Ruling Class in Washington — a cadre of legislators, their staffs, members of  the executive branch, lobbyists, union leaders, chief executives of for-profits  and nonprofits, and elitist members of media and academia — is the  problem.  The aristocracy’s hubris and cronyism were the catalyst for the  Tea Party movement from the start.  These statists are convinced that they  know what is best for all the rest of us, and that the country is better off if  they are free to micromanage us.

A  recent Rasmussen Poll shows just how detached the political  aristocracy is from We the People:

Among  Political Class voters, positive ratings for the Supreme Court soared to 55%  [after the Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare], compared to 27% a week  ago.

Among  Mainstream voters, the court’s ratings headed in the opposite direction. A week  ago, 34% of Mainstream voters said the court was doing a good or excellent job  and 17% gave it poor ratings. The numbers have now reversed – 22% positive and  36% negative.

The  Tea Party enjoys great strength and has met with amazing success because  Washington’s aristocracy continues to promote hugely unpopular legislation such  as ObamaCare.  Washington is not going to recognize the error of its ways  or heal itself.  Only We the People can do that.

There  are so many among the political elites who doubtless were hoping to hear a  different response from the Tea Party regarding the Supreme Court’s ObamaCare  decision — something along the lines of,  “Oh my God, we’ve been  distracted! … We’ve fallen apart and we need to put ourselves back together  again! … We need to shift back into high gear!”

The prospect of hearing those sorts of responses from Tea Partiers?   Zero.

Doug  Mainwaring is a co-founder of National Capital Tea Party  Patriots.

.

.

Still a BFD, Obama Loses

June 30, 2012 By William  L. Gensert

Yeh it sure is, but Obama still sure has no class. The POTUS tweeting vulgar achronyms, the O-campaign selling t-shirts with the same, oh and one of Obama’s main men, Pat Gaspard (you know him, a former ACORN operative and SEIU official, which are about one in the same) tweeting “it’s cobnstitutional bitches”. NO CLASS ARROGANCE !!!

The article also addresses the fact that ObamaCare is the largest  tax increase in the history of the nation…and it is a regressive  tax, and therein lies the biggest part of the BFD…

.

Dictators Aren’t Just Born Overnight July  7, 2012 When does a dictator become a dictator? (Let’s ask Obama, considering just one reason, and a big one, his latest disregard-undermining-and-circumventing of congress and therefore the constitution with regards to his amnesty measures, with motives and a backstory that is insedious, he is well on his way to becoming such a dictator!)

.

July  3, 2012

The Naked Left

(With our emphasis added: Today’s left is no more the tradional liberals of American past. Today they are a culmination of 100 year advancement of, whether you call them progressives, statists, collectivists, socialists, marxists, or communists, all birds of a the same feather, and now the liberals have ceded and leftists rule. Where once the former could be called Americans operating politically within the proper framework of our unique constitutional republic, now the latter does anything but, and those leaders, operatives, and activists can be called many things, but we certainly don’t call them American patriots any longer. They are self-serving subversives, narcissists, and in some cases outright traitors, and that’s the naked truth!)

By Bruce  Walker

The  left has lost the trust of America.  The power which sustains leftism is  not based on rational argument, moral purpose, or even enlightened self-interest  (how has deconstruction of the nuclear family, for example, helped poor Americans? [it hasn’t but was it has helped is to advance the communist plan for America decades in the making, it is one of their main planks!])

Instead,  the left holds power through its pernicious insinuation into every nook and  cranny of public life which we have been taught to trust as fair and honorable:  the news media; academia; foundations; the public school system [and no less their unions, and every other public sector union in America, plus a few of the private unions too]; professional  organizations like the American Psychological  Association, the American Library Association, and the American Bar  Association; and similar nominally fair and objective referees of public  discourse and action.

Most  conservatives are painfully aware of the utter absence of real competition in  the leftist television news media.  CBS, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, although on paper  rivals, never expose the glaring weakness of the product which their  “competitors” hawk to audiences: rampant leftist bias [and all them vs. Fox news, give us a break].  The almost surreal  spectacle of these siblings masquerading as competitors utterly  ignoring the “Fast and Furious” scandal until Obama claimed executive  privilege, and now that the House of Representatives is about to find Eric  Holder in contempt of Congress (with some  House Democrats supporting the measure), shows how tightly the left manages  the news.

There  are consequences to this suppression of real news.  The leftist media is  melting into near-insignificance.  CNN, for example, just had its lowest  viewer ratings in twenty-one years.  Fox News continues to do much  better than any other network news  because, in part, anyone genuinely interested in news would have to watch  Fox.  The print media is also  evaporating, and much of that reflects a decline in the credibility of  newspapers.  Gallup in August 2010 tracked a twenty-year  decline of Americans who have a “great deal / quite a lot” of confidence in  television news and newspapers.  In 1990, about 39% of Americans trusted  newspapers, but now that percentage is around 25%.  The decline for  television news, which in 1993 was more trusted than newspapers, with 46%  trusting television news, has now plummeted to 22%.

Gallup  released a poll on June 20 which exposed a much broader decline of Americans in  the other “conveyor belts” of leftism.  Trust in public schools, for  example, has dropped from 58% in 1973 to 29% today, the  lowest point in polling history [for many many darn good reasons to which we vehemently agree].  What is the basis of this  mistrust?  The left lies.  It is that direct and  simple.

When  the Los Angeles Times, for example, recently reported that  conservatives had declining trust in “science,” the real story, which Business  Insider published in April, is that conservatives have stopped  believing that pseudo-science propaganda in the inquisitorial atmosphere of  institutional leftism still deserved the name “science.”  This month, Peter  Gleick, who dishonestly portrayed himself as associated with the Heartland  Institute and compounded his misrepresentation by initially lying about having  done it, has been reinstated.

Integrity,  especially regarding the representation of opposing opinions, is the heart of  science.  Remove that, and the residue is an icky anti-science — bigoted,  hapless, and ultimately discredited.  This explains the stunning  Rasmussen report in August of last year which shows that 69% of Americans  believe that scientists have falsified global warming data.

Particularly  odious has been the behavior of organizations which have no business at all  taking sides.  The American  Library Association, for example, has found it impossible to condemn the  imprisonment of librarians and the burning of offensive books in Castro’s foul  regime.  Conservatives have come to understand that almost any organ of  public life has become as intolerantly doctrinaire as what one would have seen  in Stalin’s or Hitler’s totalitarian empires.

The  problem is not opinion or advocacy.  We expect politicians to contend with  each other over ideas, and our nation long received its news from overtly  partisan papers like the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.  Science once  used to have something called “schools of thought,” in which different theories  of what empirical evidence suggested could be respectfully considered.   What offends and alienates America is the left’s indignant protestations to the  effect that its myriad organs are not biased, not to mention the consignment of  all not among the cadres of leftism to ignorance or stupidity, leaving them  unworthy of anything beyond smug mockery.

More  and more Americans who may not necessarily agree with every conservative  position see that the only ones who are genuine, truthful, and thoughtful are  those who have liberated themselves from the dungeon of leftism.  Moreover,  having lost the confidence of America, the corrupted institutions of our society  cannot recover that trust without first acknowledging their grievous sins  against honorable discourse.  There is no evidence that this confession  will ever happen.  The naked left is less an object of fear these days than  the object of derision — or, perhaps, of pity.

The Little Blue Book: Quotations from Chairman Lakoff

July 9, 2012 – 12:48 am – by Zombie

George Lakoff, Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at U.(Univ of) C.(Communism) Berkeley, CA — and highly regarded Democratic tactician — has just released his playbook for the 2012 election. Titled “The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic”, it purports to be the ultimate insiders’ guide to liberal messaging and left-wing ideology.

Before you even open the book, its sly self-referential gamesmanship leaps off the cover: the very title itself is a wink-wink-nudge-nudge ironic-but-not-really reference to Chairman Mao’s Little Red Book, the kind of hidden-meaning secret message that progressives like to call a “dog whistle,” although they insist that only conservatives resort to such underhanded gambits.

Lakoff is also the brightest star in an impressive constellation of East Bay Liberati, most of whom (including Robert Reich and many others) happily lined up to blurb his new book. A small sampling from the press release:

Because everybody knows that the best way to convince undecided and conservative voters is to dazzle them with compliments you got from the communist Van Jones and diabolical billionaire George Soros. But Lakoff is not just any intellectual celebrity, or mainstream democrat: he is deemed one of the most important contemporary philosophers of progressive (code) thought for those of the leftist pursuasion.

much more, read on…