Oh, wait . . . that's from an alternate universe
And the blah-blah-blog continues . . .
Obama's White House leaked national security secrets to the press
What is there to say about this? Holy crap.
You know the deal. Evil is its own immunity, because if you talk about it, you are being hateful. The act of calling out the offender is a worse offense than the original crime.
So Obama's White House does something heinous, like leak national security secrets to the New York Slimes. It should be a gift to Romney—but it's not.
What does he do? He has to talk about it, but then he's going to get "You're going negative!" Yeah? Well, what do you want me to do? Pretend like it didn't happen and that The Amateur is doing an okay job?
Obama's got it pretty sweet—he gets to be evil, then he gets to make Romney look evil by talking about Obama being evil.
But Romney is talking about it, and seems to be playing it pretty well. If you want to have a position like President of the United States you've got to be able to deal with the sticky issues that world-class bloggers think of . . .
But I made a break so you wouldn't get tire of reading . . .
Obama is a socialist. He's a two-bit tin pot dictator a la Hugo Chavez / Juan Peron / Salvador Allende.
But you can't say that. It's not a way to win elections. You sound whacko, even though it's true, you sound whacko.
Michael Savage is saying "I have the line that would win the election! If only they would say this sentence that I thought of, they would win!"
But if we listened to Michael Medved we actually would win. He is the example we should follow, not Sean Hannity. He's smart and well-spoken and polite and if we did what he said we actually would win elections.
He says "You can't win by attacking Barack Obama. He's a likable person, by all measures he's a good guy. But you don't need to! Stick to the policies. Stick to the results of his actions."
He also says something like "People don't vote for people they like as much as against people that scare them."
Medved is one of the two smartest people in talk radio. The other is Mark Levin. Mark is highly accomplished and educated, but he's a bit less . . . polite? . . . than Michael Medved. "Get off my phone, you big dope!" (Dennis Miller is an intellectual, but I'm not smart enough to say why Medved and Levin have it figured out a little better than him).
The reason Mark Levin and Michael Medved are the smartest is because they've got it figured out the same way I do. They meet the gold standard.
I honestly don't know why I do this. Nobody reads this blog, but I hear stuff and I have to share it. If you care, you already listen to Mark Levin, you already heard it, you already believe what I'm trying to tell you—that he's got it nailed—but you know better than I can convey.
This is in the context of the Aurora shooting—ancient history, I know, that's the problem with 1) writing about current events, and 2) never posting to your blog. Levin says "The left should be ashamed—binding politics to violence . . . their whole aim is to shut you up."
Where have you heard that before?
Also heard from talk radio (I think Mark Levi): "The new definition of a nanosecond is the amount of time between an atrocity and the media connecting it to the tea party."
Then he read a list of past atrocities, all of which were immediately blamed on the tea party and turned out to be liberals.
The left is wrong. Their views are indefensible. The only way they can win in the arena of ideas is the same way Obama won his senate race—eliminate the other side from running. They will try to shut you up.
In the "Guess you had to be there" department . . .
So Obama says "You didn't build that." You can read the whole speech. That's what he said. He did talk about everyone gets help along the way, but his message could not have been more clear—your success is not because of your work.
Then he gives a speech where he says "You can't just cut whole paragraphs out!" this followed by gales of laughter. Omigosh, you are so right Mr. Kardashian, oh you are so clever and so right and so . . . wow, can I just swoon right here?
Is there anything more predictable than liberal projection?
If liberals are accusing you of something, you can bet your toolbox, your gun rack, and your last can of WD-40 that they are guilty of that very thing.
Great minds thinking alike
Back when The Amateur first started saying that Mitt's Romney's background as a successful businessman, entrepreneur, governor, and problem solver didn't qualify him to be President,
I pointed out that it was a really interesting statement from someone who was a . . . wait for it . . . "community organizer."
Never in the history of the office has anyone's background qualified him less to be President. Never.
I said something like "If Mitt Romney can't throw a rock through that glass house, he doesn't deserve to be president."
I guess I'd settle for him hitting a baseball through it.
You know the deal—this isn't a place you come for a comprehensive survey of the issues of the day. I post what I feel like talking about when I get the time to do it.
But you can't ignore The Amateur's remarks about
"If you have a business, you didn't build that. Someone else made that happen."
First, yeah, we all get a lot of help. Look up "society." That's what distribution of labor is all about; that's why we're an advanced civilization.
Read the whole quote—don't be guilty of what they are guilty of every single time. Sure, we're all in this together. But that's not what The Amateur said.
You're probably getting tired of hearing the word "projection" here. Sorry, that's exactly what's surfacing again. At his core, The Amateur is a socialist. He doesn't believe in the American ideal of hard work and success as a result of merit. So it's logical that he would try to sell the message that that doesn't happen. But in addition to that, his experience is that things just get handed to you.
In one of his autobiographies The Amateur says he gave a speech the night before the election (to the Illinois state senate), and it must have been a pretty good speech because the next day the people elected him.
He forgets to mention that they couldn't elect anyone else because no one else was on the ballot. Instead of running against anyone else, he got the other names eliminated, then skated into office.
He got his carcass handed to him in the next election (shades of Bill Clinton's history?), but other than that he's had everything handed to him. He is spectacularly unqualified to be President, but because the powers that be in the democrat party needed a socialist, they used him and he got to sit in the Oval Office, having done nothing to deserve it.
Since this is hopelessly boring and the structure is shot anyway, I'll go ahead and insert this part here. I said that there are evil socialists and there are stupid socialists. Obama is both. He is the head socialist and evil as they come, but he's also stupid, because he doesn't realize that he's being used as a tool by the other evil socialists (see "Ellis, Die Hard").
Okay . . . well, I'm thoroughly bored with this one, so we're done. If you understand this you don't need me to explain it—if you don't, I'm wasting my breath.
Romney is the enemy.
During the 1996 campaign Bob Dole said "Bill Clinton is my political opponent, but he's not my enemy.
Has it been five minutes already?
That's not true this election.
Romney is Barack Obama's enemy. Romney represents what The Amateur doesn't want people to see: That if you are smart and apply yourself you can be personally successful. That idea—and the existence of so many examples of it working—is the most feared threat to the socialist message.
Projection. Wow that was a close one. I almost did a paragraph without saying that.
The Democrats see evil everywhere, they always accuse everyone of being duplicitous because that's what they would do in their place.
The projection works both ways. Republicans are so easy to fool because they always take the Democrats at their word. They can't see the evil that the democrats are up to because they don't think that way.
By the way
Mark Levin is a genius. You should listen to him
He was talking about the socialist agenda and Romney and his success being the enemy. One of the more intelligent guys out there.
And from Rush
Rush summed up this campaign this way: It's Bain Capital vs. Das Kapital
The basis of Obama's campaign is that Romney is evil because he worked for Bain Capital and he has money in offshore accounts.
As it turns out, Obama took $120,000 from Bain Capital and he has offshore bank accounts, too.
But Obama's craziness continues: Romney is a felon, people don't create a business—government does, being a businessman is no basis for creating jobs . . .
If you're an Obama supporter (I'm not calling "you" an Obama supporter, please don't get offended, I would never insult you like that, I mean the hypothetical Obama supporter) you would be saying "Oh, no! Don't say that! It's ridiculous and crazy an easily proven false!"
But his handlers aren't saying that. Why not? Because it doesn't make one tiny bit of difference.
Obama can say anything he wants, the people who vote for him don't look at facts. They don't care if he lies or sounds crazy—they don't care.
You remember the first season of 24 when the black candidate thought his campaign was over and his Axelrod said "You don't get it, do you? The people who are going to vote for you will not let anyone—including you—deprive them of the opportunity to say they voted for you."
The kind of people who would blindly vote for an empty suit like The Amateur will never allow him to take away them saying they voted for him.
Here's the conspiracy.
Whatever he says won't change a thing. So why does he do it?
It pulls the radicals on his side closer to him, and it makes us see how radical he is. They get crazier and crazier and we get more and more alarmed and convinced that they are dangerous.
In addition, when he spouts his insane crap, we have to call him on it. Then he gets to sic his attack dogs on us saying "Are you going to let them get away with saying that about your Kardashians? Then we have to say "What the hell? You morons are defending this insanity?"
Whether it's intentional or not, the net effect of Obama being insane is to divide the country, make us hate each other, and make us as a nation weaker.
Awwww, we're soulmates
You're sitting in your Social Studies class. The cute little gal you like sits down beside you, holding the paper she just got back from the teacher. "Ugh! I hate that guy!" she says. You perk up. "Yeah, I hate him, too!" you tell her.
She looks at you. It's the first time she's noticed you, even though you've been trying to get her attention all semester. "You do?"
You two have something in common. You both hate your Social Studies teacher. Awwww, you have a connection!
This is what I call the "Hitler Hustle." You recruit people to your side by having a common object of scorn.
I may have to rename that technique the Barack Ballet.
Obama is great for recruiting people to his side by blasting people he thinks you hate. Rich people, successful people, heterosexuals, gun owners, religious people—there's no end to the list of Americans he has demeaned to ingratiate himself to various groups.
But "Let me be clear." If you buy that, you are stupid.
When your "friends" denigrate your other friends to you, does that make you trust them?
"Penny is so friendly to Marie in public, but I know she thinks Marie is a bitch, 'cause she's told me that in private. Oh! Penny and I have a connection . . . "
What do you think Penny is saying to your friends behind your back?
You applaud Obama today because he berates someone you have a beef with. Stupid Republicans, conservative judges. Yeah, you hate them, too! You guys are soul mates, you and good ol' Barack.
But to stay on that side of him you have to absolutely agree with everything he thinks.
Tomorrow you're going to want to have your own opinion on something, then you become the enemy of the dictator.
Right now you're glad he's not bound by stupid things like laws and the Constitution. You hated
The Supreme Court for their Citizens United decision. You hate Arizona for their laws on immigration. Good for Obama for having the guts to ignore the law and punish the people you hate!
But, as Thomas More said, after you've slashed through all the laws that stand between you and the devil, "when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide?"
The devil always abandons his own
Mark my words (I've always wanted to say that . . . and "Do you know who I am?" Actually, I never did want to say that one, I just always
wanted to see someone who was stupid enough to actually use that line . . . ). Obama will come after you with just as much zeal as he's
going after your enemies now.
You saw this with Bill Clinton. He used people, and when he was done with them, he discarded them.
Webb Hubbell, Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal, Betty Curie . . . That's the way these people operate. As long as you're useful to them,
you're okay. Once you have the slightest possibility of being on the opposition, you're toast.
Quick Parenthetical Aside
Clinton is the greatest example of satanic techniques because he has absolutely no morals at all. He told the gays how much he hated the
Defense of Marriage Act, then he signed it, then he bragged in campaign that he had signed it, while still telling the gays how bad it was.
Are you buying that rubbish or selling it?
Okay, back to how the devil uses people that are useful to him, then discards them.
There are two kinds of socialists: evil ones, and stupid ones.
The stupid ones may be goodhearted people, but they are the tools of the evil ones. They buy into the lies about maternity leave, healthcare,
war on poverty, and other fancy sounding things that actually create the problems they purport to cure.
Socialism always results in misery: bondage, poverty, disease, childhood death . . .
But the evil people who push socialism can count on selling it to stupid people by claiming it cures all those things.
It's a simple matter of naming. This is the unsophisticated trick that gets the stupid socialist every single time. You've seen it a million
times: The American Civil Liberties Union is to civil liberties as the American Cancer Society is to cancer.
This was a great Clinton trick. He didn't invent it, but he used it masterfully. He called his gun ban a "crime bill." What? How could you not
support this bill, you heinous piece of crap? Are you in favor of crime?
Now Obama has the "American jobs act" which is un-American and hurts jobs.
But the biggest offender is "the Affordable Health Care Act." You get it. It has nothing to do with affordable health care. They name it
this so they can say "He voted against affordable healthcare!"
No he didn't. He voted against "the affordable health care act" which increases the cost of healthcare.
This is the very same concept as asking the wrong question, as in "How much paid maternity leave does a country mandate?" It's put out
there by the evil ones, and it fools the stupid ones.
There are two kinds of Obama supporters: evil and stupid
How to fool weaklings and idiots
Here it comes: I hate that Obama is black.
Now, the idiots that stumbled in here looking for pictures of naked midgets are already running off to tell their little friends that
Republicans are racist; they have their evidence.
If you understand that life doesn't fit on a bumper sticker you probably read that sentence correctly. I don't hate Obama for being black,
I hate him for being socialist. But Geraldine Ferraro was right: the fact that he is black made him president.
America does not elect people with those ideologies.
But evil people masterfully snuck him in knowing people would gleefully vote for him to prove they weren't racist. The problem is, when
you vote for a guy to prove you're not racist, you have to demonize the people who didn't vote for him, because you can't defend your actions
on any other basis.
But the people who did that ended up with a package deal. They voted for him to prove how open-minded and forward thinking they were, then it
turned out he was a socialist. They found themselves caught up in the narrative and
unwittingly defending socialism. Finally, it became easier just to slip into that philosophy than back away from all the hateful things
they've said about people who didn't vote for him.
Thanks a lot, boneheads. Now we've got to try to salvage a trashed country because you wanted to prove how hip you are.
"There are reports . . . "
Debbie Wasserman Shultz says that "There are reports" that Romney is hiding money in offshore accounts. She says she wonders why
an American would have offshore accounts. She says she just wanted to put that out there.
Oh? "There are reports" that Debbie Wasserman Shultz is having sex with farm animals. I just wanted to put that out there.
Let's take this in order.
There are reports? Can you think of a more juvenile trick?
On the first day of the fabricated Valerie Plame non-scandal, the media "reported" that Cheney might be involved,
then after that it was always "The Valerie Plame Affair, in which Dick Cheney is reported to be involved . . ."
Cheney never had even the remotest connection to anything that happened there (and what happened there was absolutely nothing).
Even so, the left kept his name connected to the word "scandal" as long as they could.
Just freaking reprehensible. You hear this jejune crap from them all the time. You remember when John Kerry was broadcasting
that he "heard" Bush was planning an October surprise. Just astonishingly juvenile, even for prepubescent pukes like democrats.
Second. If a democrat ever accuses someone of something, that's ironclad evidence that he's guilty of that very thing.
Count on this: Obama is hiding money in offshore accounts. It's not that he simply has offshore bank accounts—he's doing
something evil with them because that's what he's accusing Romney of.
Here's how a democrat shoplifts. He goes into a convenience store wearing baggy clothes. He stuffs everything he can fit into them,
but before he goes out the door he has to tell the clerk "Dude, the only reason you wear those baggy clothes is so you can steal stuff!"
If the clerk is a Republican, he just says "Huh? I'm not wearing baggy clothes. Oh, well, that guy makes no sense," and goes back to
wiping down the soft drink counter.
Who smelt it dealt it, continued
Why would Americans have offshore accounts? You mean Americans like Obama's right-hand man Valerie Jarret?
Keys figures in the White House are engaged in nefarious dealings in offshore accounts. You can bet your toolbox, your house cat
and your last can of WD40 that is true.
Offshore accounts aren't bad or against the law, but whatever White House officials are doing with their offshore accounts is
dishonest, because that's what they're accusing Romney of. They will always be guilty of whatever they are accusing someone of.
You see this from them all the time. They scream about intolerance, incivility . . . and they are the most intolerant, uncivil
creatures ever to walk the planet.
Here's one that I love: Obama is saying "You don't keep doing the same things that haven't worked!" Wait, let me check, that
seems like a Romney campaign slogan.
Nope, it was Obama, the same Obama who has trashed the economy.
He's saying it in different ways. "When I try something that doesn't work, I quit doing it."
He's like the shoplifter who just can't help himself blurting out what his crimes are.
But the very best of all is Obama saying that Romney's background doesn’t qualify him to be President.
This is coming from a man who was a "community organizer?" A community organizer?
Did I ever mention that democrats are reprehensible?
Democrats are dishonest, sleazy, slimy, cheating, thieving, lying scoundrels. But they best the Republicans with their devious
tricks Every. Single. Time.
As Laura Ingraham said, Chicago-style gangland politics always beats Republican croquet politics.
Barack the Voyeur
Democrats are pretty anxious to look into private records of Republicans. Maybe Romney should release his tax
records . . . as soon as Obama releases his medical records and school transcripts.
In fact, once Debbie Wasserman Slutz publishes her tax returns, then I'll ask Governor Romney about his.
Should Romney release more tax returns? Of course he shouldn't. But he probably has to now, because he's been outmaneuvered.
His tax returns are nobody's business--if he's done something wrong isn't that what the IRS is for? Candidates releasing returns
is just a tradition--and one that Romney has fully complied with. The problem is that he hasn't effectively dealt with Obama's
I'm not saying I could've done it any better, but somebody who wants to run the free world should be able
outsmart a bunch of thugs and gangsters and two-bit tinpot dictators.
Here's a new link to Cagle's cartoons that gives you a thumbnail preview, with a tag as to whether they're from a conservative viewpoint or a stupid one.
The Barack Obama School of Economics
Why Obama cannot run on his record
And why none of that matters in the least
It's easier to fool people than to convince them they've been fooled.
I got that from this blog which I would
The Rest of the Story
Here's what you can expect when you go to pages like where you find that "Mapping Maternity Leave" chart. All the comments will be in support of the concept, saying how shameful it is that the United States doesn't force its employers to pay for maternity leave. That's not so surprising; people of your viewpoint don't frequent the kind of anti-American Obama worship pages that post those sort of things. And most who did would be smart enough to know that they were wasting their breath to comment.
Still . . . It's kind of depressing to think that so many people in society would be so misguided, so you'll be tempted to stand up for reason, and you put in your .02 worth. Then, when you check back, you might see that someone else has also posted a contrasting viewpoint. You think that hey, your courageous example has . . . wait . . . but . . . what's this? Where are your comments? They're gone.
Check back again and the other guy's comments will be gone, too.
That's the only way these ideas can survive. When you allow people to say "Wait, let's put a pencil to this," you can't get away with extraordinary lapses of logic.
Well . . . actually, the kind of mindless sheep who buy this crap lose interest once you get out a pencil or a calculator. Their minds can't process anything beyond what can fit on a bumper sticker or what they can chant, so putting a pencil to it won't really show them the light.
But you get my point. Your Hugo Chavezes can't get elected with 94% of the vote if you just go around letting people examine all sides of the story.
But . . . but . . . why is the dollar gone?
I'll share this with you again: My favorite mind puzzle.
Three men walk into a buffet, ask how much the buffet is, the waiter tells them $10. They each pay 10 dollars and get their meal and go to their table.
The maître d' asks the waiter how much he charged, the waiter says $10 each, the maître d' says "We're running a special, 3 for $25. Take them back this $5."
On the way back to the table the waiter thinks "How are they going to split 5 dollars 3 ways?" So he keeps 2 dollars, gives the men back the other 3 dollars.
So they each paid $9; in total they paid $27. Add the $2 the waiter took, and you have $29.
What happened to the other dollar? They originally paid $30, what happened to the other dollar?
The math is sound. Whether you do (10-1) X 3 or 30-3 you always get that they paid $27. Add the $2 the waiter kept, 27 + 2 = 29.
What happened to the other dollar?
It's a buffet because for the purposes of the puzzle they have to pay before they go to their table. It could be Sizzler. Let's say it's Sizzler if you don't like buffets. If you don't like Sizzler, figure out your own scenario where they have to pay before they eat.
I love this puzzle because you'll spend all day looking for an error in the math and you'll never find it. 9X3=27 and 30-3=27; 27+2 always has, and forever will equal 29.
But the number is meaningless.
The two dollars the waiter kept are part of the $27 that the men spent. What you have to add back in is the three dollars they got back. That equals the $30 they originally spent.
I'll bet you're so relieved that we hadn't discovered a soft spot in the foundations of mathematics.
This is the classic trick of asking the wrong question.
You know this has nothing to do with math, or even tasty buffets—with row upon row of perfectly roasted meat, succulent vegetables, scrumptious desserts, magical dishes of delicacies crafted by . . .
Sorry, what were we talking about?
Oh, yeah, the classic trick of asking the wrong question. You slip something past someone and they can't find the flaw, but it was slid in there so seamlessly that they buy your false premise. We've been conditioned to ask the wrong questions.
Like "How many weeks of paid maternity leave is mandated in the United States?"
You saw this in the 2000 election. Al Gore came to the debate with his homework done, and started quoting statistics about what percentage of people in George Bush's Texas had what kind of health insurance. GW explained to the misguided cretin that he was asking the wrong question. He pointed out that no one in Texas goes without health care. That's the right question.
See, that's what you'd really be concerned about if you really cared about people. If you care about garnering power, you quote meaningless statistics about insurance. That's what you do if you're an Al Gore who doesn't give a crap if people are sick or even die, especially if it helps him get more power.
How much maternity leave the government mandates is not a measure of the humanity of a country; it's a measure of its socialism.
So how much maternity leave actually gets paid in the United States? That's the question. And I guarantee you that it's more than actually gets paid in a lot of the Trashcanistans on that misleading chart that you saw.
There are two kinds of socialists: Idiots and crooks.
Socialism is evil. First, it's evil because it enslaves people. It keeps people poor and in bondage. It saps prosperity, which results in more people being hungry, and sick, and living lives devoid of fulfillment.
On top of that, it propagates its evil by posing as the solution to the very problems it creates.
If you believe that it's not evil, you are the idiot socialist. You are believing something that isn't true. Even if you believe it because you are good-hearted and caring, you are ignorant of the facts or choose to ignore them. You believe a lie. You're an idiot.
But you are a useful idiot. You are a pawn in the hands of the other kind of socialist—the despicable miscreants who benefit from foisting that system on people for their own gain.
Socialism professes to foment equality—and it does, to a certain extent. Most of the people are equally destitute. But its main goal is the polar opposite of equality. It is to give the few people at the top a life of kings.
It's ironic. These people who live in palaces and comprise the 1% in these systems would be the bottom of the economic heap in a capitalistic system. They could never prosper in a system that rewards based on merit.
Let's take a chuckle break
And as long as we're chuckling, check out
these stupid things Barack Obama has said.
Back to work
It's an odd deal: The same people who celebrated this dissidents in Tiananmen Square are the ones who wish FOX News would go away.
Think about it (imagine my Joisey accent like 'fuggidaboutit.' It makes it a lot funnier). Just do it, eh? Do it.
You know what? You've had enough for one day. Here's your homework for tonight, then we'll get to some cartoons before they go stale.
Read this piece on the Rush Limbaugh program where
talks about the "fractured" media."
Nutsy Pelosi, and other nonsense
Click "Prev" below to go to earlier posts