I thought we needed one

h/t @aaron_gardner for the song idea.

Crowder did

He went to look for himself. What did he find? A Democrat Liberal Union-held utopia.

Don’t worry, with Pelosi, Reid, and Obama in charge, utopia will soon be coming to a town near you.

Joy!

Who said the founders would be rolling in their graves at where the United States is today?

You could have told them this would happen, and they’d have locked you up for insanity. Then laughed their a***s off.

From the folks at Pasadena Patriots

Rush comes out of the hospital in Hawaii and tells it in his own words.
Thanking the staff at Queens Hospital for the best care anywhere, he describes feeling pain in his chest like never before.
The pain was dealt with in the first half hour of his arrival, and the remainder of his stay was testing, where they found nothing wrong.
His message to all;
If you experience pain in your chest, don’t mess with it, turn it over to professionals.
Not that any of the rest of us are getting old aging in any way. Nope.

I really *hic!* really don’t care *hic!* one way or nuther *hic!* another…

I jus’ *hic!* jus’ really don’t.
Care.
I mean.

No word on a response by Al Sharpton

The world waits with breathless anticipation.

Yes, Virginia, there’s still a war on

News from “the front”, wherever that may be, is always scarce. It’s not in our faces, so we don’t always take time to remember the men and women sleeping in the sand box this season; but they’re thinking about us.

One thing we can do is go to Operation Ensuring Christmas;

Operation Ensuring Christmas provides financial, moral and rehabilitativesupport to the Children of Fallen American Troops by providing them
Christmas Gift Cards at Christmas and a ‘Christmas in July’, VIP theme park trip to Orlando Florida. This support is to help them recover from the grief and trauma caused by the ultimate sacrifice a child can make for their country…the loss of a parent in war.

via jymi48180

Let’s just call this thing what it is

Something may have shown up in your Facebook inbox sometime back suggesting you join a movement calling itself Not Evil Just Wrong, with a separate site promoting a documentary movie. This movie debunks the Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth by taking the “facts” he presented and slaps them down with a cold dose of reality. It tries to reach the environmentalist by explaining that he/she isn’t evil for falling for the Global Warming lies, just misguided. Just wrong.

Does that carry to the leaders of the movement? Are they “just wrong” too?

Why is it that when confronted again and again with the truth about Global Warming Climate Change being a natural, recurring event over the course of millions of years they continue to rush headlong into the drastic?

When emails are released showing not only who helped to distort the data but how the data was deliberately distorted and they are ignored or the target becomes the leaker of the emails, why? This isn’t the first time emails were leaked which damage the left’s cause, either.

The exposed emails of show the data was not only manipulated, but in some cases manufactured. In the “real” world, the powers that be would be relieved that massive destructive changes to the world’s regulatory system would really be unnecessary, unless the goal is change at any cost.

Some believe it’s all about the environment, and man’s evil intrusion in an otherwise “perfect” scheme;

The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological / industrial civilization. Environmentalism’s goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather, it is a subhuman world where “nature” is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.

Calling environmentalism one of the Western World’s most powerful religions, the author goes on to say it even imitates Christianity in a way;

There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

It would make sense, then, that such a movement could be easily led astray by someone with a different agenda.

In a three-part series, Perry Hicks takes us through the debunking of the enviro-”mental” ideology, and ties it quite nicely to communism.

Wait. Did you say “Communism”? It died, right? I thought at worst these people could be called “socialist” today?

In Perry’s third part, socialism is but a mere stepping stone;

Socialism is no better because any difference it has with communism is only one of degree. Consider this quote from John Strachey, former British Minister of War, and both a member of the British Communist Party and a high official of the Socialist-Labor Party:
“You cannot move directly from capitalism to communism. Socialism is a necessary stepping stone to communism and hence all communists should work for socialism.”

The fact is, communism didn’t die; only the Soviet experiment did. It failed because capitalism thrived.

Left alone in a vacuum, communism may have continued on oppressing the Russian people for centuries. However, direct confrontation with free market societies led to communism’s downfall; the Soviet Union collapsed of its own weight. Seeing a similar fate if it did not reform, Communist China made a lateral step to the right; today, it may be argued, the People’s Republic of China is actually a fascist state.

Today, the left is tireless working to correct that mistake, the mistake of allowing the existence of any free capitalist society to thrive and threaten their imagined utopia. How? By using religion; the religion of the extreme environmentalist to force wealthy nations to give up their prosperous ways, and at the same time to give what money they may be left with after they crash to the “innocent” developing nations.

The communists never went away; they went underground, tunneling into the system until they became the system. Their ideas were wrong; their systems fail and always will, but don’t try to tell them that, because they don’t give up trying;

Nor have the true communist believers ceded that their beliefs have been wrong all along. They never give up, but have kept on working tirelessly so that they may eventually bring down the system that has brought about the highest standard of living for the most people in all of human history.

In its place, they intentionally intend to impoverish everyone- everyone but the political elite, of course.  This goal will be achieved through forced wealth redistribution and the imposition of a command economy.

The problem until the later part of the 20^th Century was what vehicle had sufficient capacity to force the kind of socioeconomic changes on America the socialists envisioned?

That vehicle has turned out to be the environmental movement as powered by a feigned crisis of man-made global warming.

There is hope in dispelling the myths; some will eventually get the picture on the climate change hoax tool, but that still leaves them with the “why”.

Why? It’s about power, the quest for it and its keeping it for the elites. Strange concepts in a nation where the people are supposed to hold the ultimate power, but the people have usurpers; the very ones we elected to represent our interests.

We see it on a now daily basis, elitism in our elected leaders with regard to healthcare; “Your plan to live by-not ours”. We see it when Algore jets around the world promoting himself, or lighting his own unoccupied home in Tennessee while his concepts and ideas will make electricity so expensive many of us will live in the dark.

Who is this “Meester Beeg” who wants to rule over us? It isn’t Al.

I think that’s going to end up being the trillion-dollar question. Myself, I think it’s going to be the Great Disillusionment of the Left as they finally figure out they were played, and the one with the most money wins, even in their world.

Crossposted

Possibly out of fear that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine may be right when he recently said ““The tea party movement is devouring the GOP,” and that contentious primary battles within the GOP leading up to the 2010 elections may do more harm than good, Sen. Cornyn (head of the NRSC) sought to dismiss the possible negative impacts;

Cornyn conceded that “there has been a lot of talk about whether the party is going to be divided by the tea party movement,” but he dismissed any potential negative impact the movement could have on Republican primaries.

Like Kaine, Cornyn pointed to New York’s 23rd District, where he said the lack of a primary process allowed Democrats to win the upstate district for the first time in more than 100 years. The selection of Scozzafava by local leaders to be the GOP candidate sparked outrage among conservatives distrustful of her moderate record.

“We can’t let that happen, so we have to have a robust primary so that our strongest candidate becomes our nominee,” he said.

However, in a recent Politico piece, Cornyn (‘We Will Not Spend Money in a Contested Primary’) had no problem identifying his favored contenders (my emphasis);

Looking at the field, Cornyn said he was “enormously encouraged” by some of the candidates stepping forward on the Republican side. Cornyn singled out Republican Senate candidates Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania, Mark Kirk in Illinois, Jane Norton in Colorado, Carly Fiorina in California and Rob Simmons in Connecticut.

When he ticked off a few of his favorite contenders, he ticked off a few conservatives as well, especially in California where there is not just one viable Republican in the running, but two.

By failing to even mention California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and instead verbally pushing Fiorina to the top, he’s quite clearly taking sides in the primary once again.

And it’s not the only time he’s thrown NRSC weight around lately;

Last week, Cornyn and three other heavyweight GOP senators — McConnell, Grassley and Vitter — held an NRSC fundraiser for Gilbert Baker, an Arkansas state senator looking to challenge Blanche Lincoln for her senate seat. David J. Sanders, an Arkansas political columnist, notes that when all is said and done there could be a nine-way GOP senate primary in the state.

So why is the NRSC raising money for Baker? Making matters worse, Baker is not an especially conservative candidate. Like a lot of Arkansas Republicans he’s in the Huckabee mold of being socially conservative and somewhat economically liberal. Citizens First Congress, a liberal group, rated Baker as having the most liberal voting record of any Republican senator in the Arkansas legislature.

In California there is a definite proven conservative in the running for the top GOP spot to take on Boxer, and that’s DeVore.

Chuck DeVore was instrumental in his efforts as Assemblyman to stop state Democrats from running roughshod over the California Constitution when they attempted to pass an illegal tax increase in December 2008 and has been an advocate of modern nuclear power and advanced oil and gas drilling.

Carly Fiorina? Well, judge for yourself.

As to any possible concerns Sen. Cornyn may have about the tea party movement “devouring” the GOP, I would assure the Senator that it isn’t.

It’s taking it back for conservatism.

Crossposted

The night of December 2, 2009 I really wanted to hear what Obama had to say about his Afghanistan “strategy”, but instead I found myself racing to return a rented car and get my own car out of the repair shop before they closed.

Not that I didn’t want to be inspired by flowery rhetoric, and reassured that my friends over there now would be reinforced, finally, as our Commander-in-Chief said they would earlier this year.

I actually did hear bits and pieces of it, interspersed with the comments of Mark Levin, but to find out what really went on, I had to turn to the interwebz.

After some searching, I found that not many seemed to be convinced that Obama did a very good job of selling his “strategy”;

Ed Morrissey writes;

Obama has decided to fight the war with the proper resourcing, or close to it.  But what exactly is the purpose of the escalation?  There was no sense of purpose in the speech, no grand sense of mission, save one: getting out.  Obama never once mentioned “victory” in the address, nor attempt to define (or even re-define) what he wanted for an outcome.  He talked about human rights, but never mentioned “democracy” except its symbols in Washington and our attempt to bolster it … in Pakistan.  In fact, he mentioned “Vietnam” four times.

Even Chrissy Matthews’ leg lost some tingle;

“Where’s the hope? . . . It sounds more Rube Goldberg than ‘Remember the Alamo,’” was the reaction of MSNBC host Chris Matthews last night. “If I were with the Taliban right now, I’d put a little Post-it up on that month in 2011, and say: ‘This is when we do OUR surge.’”

The left, would summarize it thus;

…if Obama keeps his word (despite all the whining from McCain and the Republicans) and begins withdrawing our forces by 2011, then he will get the full out support of progressives in the 2012 campaign. Then, hopefully, in his second term he can really begin to address the military industrial complex and its chokehold on our treasury.

It is for the left much as we thought it would be; as usual, about “Big Military™” and how most spending on beans and bullets is meritless. Win in 2012 and Obama can really slash the military they was they think it needs to be. Since we really have no enemies in the world but ourselves, I suppose.

Bob Schieffer said, believe it or not;

“How do you on the one hand say, ‘we need to send these troops over there, it’s critical, this is in our national security interest to do this’” Schieffer said, “but then say, ‘but we’re only going to keep ‘em there for 18 months.’”

One thing I’m asking myself at this point; is merely increasing the numbers of troops even a viable strategy? Does giving the enemy in that area more targets to choose from get us closer to Afghan independence and freeing up troops for other possible “Overseas Contingencies”? I’m thinking there should be something more winning in his “strategy” than simply sitting in the larger cities and hoping somehow the local tribes will believe in “Hope and Change” enough to turn the bad guys over to us despite Obama’s stated promise that “we’re outta here in 18 months, baby”.

Jeff Emanuel noted something quite familiar about the whole “Obama Strategy” unveiled that night; it was tried in Iraq and it failed. The Iraq surge wasn’t just an increase in troop levels, it was a complete package that included going after the enemy with a vengeance and destroying his infrastructure, cutting off his tentacles one by one until his reach was so limited he became a non-entity. But that wasn’t Obama’s message.

We know Obama can be inspiring, eh “52“?

So why didn’t that Obama show up to speak? Couldn’t he at least try to convince his majority party that this war is necessary and needs to be gotten behind?

It must be this; it’s hard to sell a product or idea that you yourself don’t believe in;

I really don’t want to be commander-in-chief, but I’ll do it if I have to — at least for a little while, and then we’ll see. Just so long as it doesn’t cost too much, or take too long, or interfere with my plans to nationalize healthcare and fundamentally change America.

As we said before November 2008; the Presidency isn’t the place for “on the job training”, nor is it a place for one who’s heart’s not in it. Lives are really on the line and are being lost here, as is our credibility as a world power. Did he really think he would always get a pass on national security from the drones in the MSM?

If Obama’s intent last night was to convince his base, he may have failed even in that.

Crossposted