Fuzzy Shorts: “Obama’s a Muslim,” Islamophobia, the 2016 Presidential Race

What a couple of weeks!  With so much going on, the time seems ripe for another “Fuzzy Shorts” post, so here goes . . .

What Upsets Leftists About “Obama’s a Muslim”?

Everyone’s trying to pile onto Trump for not defending Obama’s religion . . . including Hillary Clinton who started the whole thing in the first place.  What I can’t understand is why the progressives–left and right–are so outraged.

You’d think they believe that being a Muslim is a bad thing or that Islam is an undesirable religion to which one should denounce any connection. Why is the left, who despises Christianity to the point of removing God from the Democrat platform, so insistent that Obama is a Christian?  So insistent, in fact, that they are demanding that every GOP candidate agree that he is, in fact, not just a Christian but definitely not a Muslim?

What happened to tolerance?  Wouldn’t his being a Muslim (if he is, which I doubt, though there is food for thought on that) be a wonderful banner under which they can march in robotic lockstep?  The first black president is also the first Muslim president!  It’s a twofer you’d think they’d embrace.  But no, the very idea is anathema to them.  Who’s the real Islamophobe in this?

Ben Carson, the Islamophobe  . . . and Christianophobe

Meanwhile, Ben Carson is under fire for his comment that an American president should not be a Muslim.  This seems eminently reasonable to me given the nature of the American republic in which the power (supposedly) rests with the people and the nature of Islam in which the power purportedly rests with Allah but actually rests with Imams.  The two just don’t mesh.  That’s not bigotry, it’s just simple fact.

A fact that prominent Islamists have acknowledged repeatedly.

Carson has now come out and stated that he wouldn’t support a Christian theocracy in America, either.  And he’s right on that, too.  For the same reasons.

Rick Perry and Scott Walker Out of 2016 Race

I can’t stand Rick Perry, so I was happy to seem him exit the race as early as he did.  He’s an awful candidate, and worse, while he has some conservative ideas, he’s basically a “compassionate conservative” (i.e. a progressive).  The thing that made him anathema to me was his Islamic curriculum in Texas public schools, but there were other things that he did that I, as a Constitutional conservative, didn’t like one bit.  It’s all moot now, anyway, because he’s no longer governor of Texas, and he’s never going to be president. Yay!

Scott Walker was a bit of a surprise, however.  I expected his candidacy to be stronger than it was, but he made so many mistakes, was so uninspiring (lacked that fire in the belly we like to see in a presidential candidate), and just didn’t have enough (any?) knowledge about foreign (or, for that matter, domestic) issues.

He’s going back to Wisconsin to be a great governor, but he may be back on the national stage if he can take some time from combating unions and running his state to bone up on the myriad issues that a president must have done pat . . . or at least have heard about.

Who Thinks of Christians as “Crusaders”?:  Obama . . . and ISIS

Hmmm.

 

Jeb Bush and the Second Amendment

Did he say that the right to bear arms is a “states rights” issue?

 

Seems so. Or maybe not.  He just seems clueless about foundational principles, and that, to me, is the real problem.  That and the fact that he’s running on his somewhat conservative record as Florida governor . . . a record he effectively denounced in 2012 when he stated that he “used to be a conservative.”

Obots, 0Care, American Values, and Our (Banana) Republic

Obama’s defenders defy logic

One of the most frustrating things about what is going on with 0Care, the numerous and varied White House scandals, the Senate rules change, and the irrefutable revelation that Obama is not only a liar but is completely unapologetic about it is the way that the Obots see all this . . . and dig in to protect and defend him.

I just don’t get it.

In 2007 and 2008. Obama presented himself as post-partisan, a uniter, someone for whom there were no “red states” and no “blue states, ” just the United States.  He repeatedly defended not only the Constitution but also the people; he made it a point of his campaign that he would do so in office while increasing transparency, accountability, and the effectiveness of government.  He failed (if you can call not trying at all failing) on each and every one of these promises.  Indeed, he not only failed but actively worked to deepen and entrench partisanship, to divide this nation not only politically but along race, class, gender, religious, and economic lines.  He’s done more to trash our Constitution than any other president (and I’m including the regressives who preceded him: Wilson and FDR), while not only making the very word “transparency” a national joke but steadfastly refusing to hold anyone in his administration accountable for anything.  Obviously, his presidency has called into serious question the efficacy of big government to do much of anything beyond causing undue and seemingly irreparable harm.

He has proven time and again that he is not the man voters elected in 2008, yet many of these same voters either refuse to see it or, if they do see it, defend him with strained logic, bizarre excuses, and insupportable arguments.  For example, there’s a lot of talk on leftist blogs about how the 0Care fiasco is just like Katrina or just like Iraq.  The thrust is that Obama’s sinking poll numbers are like Bush’s (these posts always miss the fact that President Bush’s numbers fell with the conservative base–who would, in 2009 emerge as the TEA Party–because of his big spending, big government, anti-free market policies; Katrina and Iraq were things that the already-incensed and disapproving radical left wielded as battering rams.).  Whatever.  There is no comparison because there has never been such a radical, indefensible cobweb of lies, fraud, and tyrannical devices perpetrated on the American people as 0Care and this administration’s entire destructive agenda.

Sure, some former Obot cheerleaders have noted that Obama is a liar and a control freak bent on not only spreading propaganda and attacking the First Amendment rights of a free press but is also showing a reckless disregard for the Constitution and the American people.  Given the abundant evidence of all this and more, however, these are few and far between.  Go to any leftist website and read the comments, and you’ll see quickly enough that the Obot crowd is doubling down in their support for their Dear Leader rather than pausing to question the obvious fact that he is not anything like the man they thought they elected.

This often unhinged support for a proven liar and fraud is really puzzling to me.  Is this a self-defense mechanism, maybe?  Like those people we all know who can never manage an apology no matter what they do or say wrong: they just use painfully twisted justifications and those backhanded “I’m sorry if you’re upset” non-apology apologies?  Can these Obots just not bear to be wrong, to have been so obviously tricked by a consummate liar and poser?  There’s no shame in being the victim of fraud.  Are they afraid that they’ll seem less-than-intelligent?  It’s far wiser to admit a mistake and to correct it than to continue denying any mistake at all.  And if they don’t want to appear unintelligent by admitting the obvious, why can’t they see how much more ignorant, uninformed, and yes, stupid they seem now?  Why can’t they see that their mindless, useful idiocy wins only disdain from their messiah?  It’s baffling.

Insurance is not health care

Conservatives have been saying this all along, but even though it’s now crystal clear that one of the primary results of the 0Care monstrosity is that while more people may be “covered,” they are not going to be receiving actual health care, and the few who do, will have long waits and have to travel farther to do so (doctors and hospital limitations necessitate these).  With few choices (and often only one) on the exchanges, Americans are finding that they have not only a limited range of plans to choose from (only four: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) but will not be able to keep their doctor or even, often, use their nearest local hospital. They’re also paying more for this “free” “health care.”

Let’s count the broken promises here alone: no, you can’t keep your plan (and this will definitely included employer-based plans, the vast majority of which are projected to be eliminated entirely by 2017); no, you can’t keep your doctor; no, you will not being paying the equivalent of a cable or cell phone bill.  Between premiums, higher co-pays, and outrageous deductibles, most Americans will never be able to pay enough of the out-of-pocket expenses to get their new 0Care policies to kick in–oddly, this is also one of the reasons that Obama and his traitorous horde claim that existing health insurance is “substandard”; and no, most Americans will not be saving $2,500 per year.

Amazingly, the Obot apologists have nothing to say about these bald-faced, strategic (i.e. political only), and willful lies.  Instead, they idiotically pretend that the only alternative is to go back to the previous, admittedly flawed, health insurance system.  Again, this defies human logic, but I suppose it’s right in line with what passes for leftist logic: it’s either our way or the old way.  False choices, of course, but that’s how they “think.”  The fact that their way is actually even worse than the old way is lost on them, of course.  The fact that there are unlimited solutions to the health insurance coverage problem is also lost on them.  Heck, it would have been far less expensive, far less disruptive, and far more effective to simply send checks to the uninsured to buy health insurance.  Obviously, this is a crap solution, but in light of what is happening now, it’s far preferable.

Changing Americans’ values

U. S. Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) made a rather astonishing admission, stating that the goal of 0Care is to change our country’s “values system.”  This hasn’t received near the coverage that it should, in part because there are just so many horrors to examine and so little time, but it’s something that we all need to note, question, and push back on.

In what ways does 0Care change our country’s values system?  Regressives are fond of intentionally misunderstanding the core American values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.  They twist these beyond recognition, casting them as “selfish” and lacking in “compassion.”  Of course, neither is true, but that’s their argument.  How, then, do they force people into a collective?  Force Americans to (however grudgingly) tow the statist line?  Look no further than the 0Care Tax travesty.

Nicole Hopkins’ Wall Street Journal article about her mom being forced into Medicaid garnered a lot of attention last week.  As it should.  Any American who qualifies for Medicaid will be auto-enrolled in it . . . whether they like it or not.  There is no opt-out, there is no choice.  And once you are on Medicaid, you’re stuck, and this is particularly worrying for Americans 55 and older.  But all Americans should be horrified by this.  Not only will the government–one way or another, before or after your death–collect on all monies paid out by Medicaid, whether you use it or not, but this is anathema to American values.

While Obama’s horrendously destructive domestic policy is forcing more and more people onto welfare, food stamps, and other tax-payer funded entitlements (and there is no shame in that, as I’ve noted in the past), a great many Americans living at or just above the poverty level take great pride and derive self esteem and dignity from refusing government assistance.  Forcing people onto Medicaid who are willing to–who insist on being “allowed” to–pay their own way (and simultaneously auto-enrolling them on food stamps!) is not only a budget-breaking mistake but is incredibly destructive to the American spirit, to our foundational values system.

Other values attacked by 0Care include forcing pro-life Americans to pay for abortions and birth control in violation of their own religious beliefs, using Americans’ personal and private tax and health information as political weapons in elections, carrying a “marriage penalty,” and attempting to tie patient care to disclosures of one’s legal gun ownership.  These and other “hidden” aspects of 0Care are key reasons that Obama is not going to relinquish this tyrannical law without a fight.

Obama and our new banana republic

I’ve written repeatedly about Obama’s endless attempts to silence any and all dissent and his utter disdain for and dismissal of the United States’ Constitution, so I won’t revisit them here, but there are a few new developments in our shiny new banana republic that I do want to note:

Apparently, the Census was manipulated to reflect a lower unemployment rate right before last year’s election.  Republicans, back in 2009, actually warned this would happen.  It did.

Obama himself is behind the Senate’s filibuster rules change.  Bizarrely, again, his Obot apologists argue that more of his nominees have been filibustered than those of any other president.  Well, of course they have.  We’ve never had an actual, antiAmerican, Constitution-hating, dyed-in-the-wool radical in the White House before.

With Charles Rangel calling, yet again, for Obama to seize dictator-like powers, it’s amazing that any American on the left or right supports this administration at all.

It’s going to be a very long three years.

Establishment GOP As Clueless As Ever

I was watching this clip of Mitt Romney being interviewed on Hannity, and I sighed. A lot. I shook my head with disbelief and not a little sorrow.  Here it is, watch it, see how you respond:

 

Although I definitely believe that we’d be in much better shape right now as a country if Mitt Romney had won last November, I (almost) can’t believe how . . . seriously, truly, deeply stupid he is about the “mistakes” he claims to have made.  Hispanics.  Really?  That’s why he lost?

This is a deep and serious problem with establishment GOP: they honestly believe that their own big spending, big government solutions are way better than leftists’ big spending, big government solutions, and because they are so invested in this big spending, big government ideology, two major things happen (neither good for either the GOP or our republic):  one, they compete for Democrat voters on Democrat turf, and two, they do so at the expense of their own base . . . failing to care that the base is deserting them in record, wacko bird numbers. They seem to think that GOP numbers are tanking because of the left; that’s only half right–they’re also tanking because conservatives are fed up with them and have been for years.  What they don’t seem to understand is that they will never ever win by running as Democrats against actual Democrats.

Sure, if Mitt could have turned out Hispanics in the numbers (both real and fraudulent) that turned out for Obama, he’d have won.  He didn’t lose by all that much, after all, but the people who didn’t turn out, who didn’t vote for him weren’t only the Democrat and Obama’s base; they were prominently, in large numbers conservative voters (seriously, this is what Mitt worries he did so wrong: he didn’t win over enough Obama voters. Yet if the GOP had run an actual conservative, conservatives would have turned out in huge numbers as we did in 2010).  Instead of worrying that he, amazingly, turned out fewer conservatives than that national disgrace John McCain, Romney is worried that he didn’t turn out enough of Obama’s voters.  You can’t make this stuff up, you really can’t.

It’s insane.

Yet this is what the GOP elite are thinking, planning for, and worrying about.  How, they fret, will they ever convince Obama voters to vote for their big government instead of Obama’s big government?  Gee, they wonder, what can we do to show that we’ll hand out just as many phones and other freebies as Obama?  That they’ll grant amnesty without secure borders (ahem Rubio and Paul Ryan) just like Obama?  How can they convince Obama voters that their big government solutions to “national” health care, “national” education, and a myriad other issues they want to solve via the federal government and increased tyranny are better than the Democrats’ federal programs, regulations, and general tyranny?  If only they could solve that problem, they are certain, they’d win a presidential election.

Never mind that Americans are sick of, don’t want, and actively reject all that big spending, big government nonsense that does nothing for the American people (except enslave them and whittle away at that their God-given rights) and does everything for the political class and their cronies.  Who cares what Americans want?  Not the Dems.  Not Obama.  And no, not the GOP establishment who are trying to compete on regressive turf with regressive policies for regressive votes.  They think that’s a winning strategy, and they think that even as the American public declares that it wants less government spending and fewer federal programs.

Never you mind that it doesn’t work, that an election that Obama never should have won was not won by Obama but lost by these regressive GOP establishment types who really, truly, deeply believe that their key to success is to out-regressive the regressives, to win over regressive voters with their bigger, better, more policies, programs, regulations, laws, mandates, and dictates.  They just keep churning out unacceptable candidates that the conservative base of the GOP continuously rejects in hopes that they’ll finally hit on one who will appeal to not only indies but to a good portion of the Obama base.  That’s the plan.

And they think it’s a good one.

They see headlines like Ted Cruz now leads GOP presidential pack and The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states, and they conclude, as Mitt Romney does in the above video, that . . . Hispanics!

You can’t fix stupid.  You can only vote it out of office, out of power, sweeping it out of the way.

Of Ted Cruz, the Obamacare fiasco, and America

Okay, I started this post after getting no sleep (having been up all night watching the Ted Cruz not-a-filibuster), but I thought I’d pick it up and run with it (the first bit from a comment I left on a Telegraph article by the ever-insightful Nile Gardner), so here goes:

Ted Cruz’s Efforts to Shine Much-Needed Light on ObamaCare

The reason that I haven’t slept is that one senator (two, actually, because Mike King matters hugely in this) stood up in Jimmy Stewart fashion and told the truth.  Americans aren’t used to hearing the truth (and haven’t been in decades, so this isn’t a swipe at anyone in particular–yet), so I watched it all (well, I was a bit late getting to the party, but only by about an hour or so). I literally stayed up all night to support Senator Cruz in my own inconsequential way: I thought if he can stand there on the Senate floor in suit and tie to speak for the American people, the very least I can do is to sit in my jammies on the couch for every minute of it (bonus: I got to take “bio” breaks, he didn’t).

Here’s the thing, I listened to all 20+ hours of that not-a-filibuster, and while I cringed a tad at some of the stuff (the Darth Vader impression was . . . weird), I can’t say that anything he said or read of substance was off-key, off-base, or in any other way off.

People forget how the Obamacare monstrosity was forged and then passed, but it really does matter because even the Dems would never have made this thing law if they could help it.  What happened was the law was written, passed through committees (with this, that, and the other tacked on . . . because they can), and then . . .

Boom.

Scott Brown got elected to the Senate.  He ran as the 41st vote against ObamaCare, and he won Ted Kennedy’s seat (as we all remember, Teddy was a progressive, single-payer fanatic).  That was supposed to send, should have sent, a message to Washington that we, the people, didn’t want ObamaCare.  Even uber-regressive Massachusetts was willing to send a (faux) conservative, running primarily on voting against ObamaCare, to the Senate.  And not just to the Senate, but in Teddy’s seat.

It mattered.

But it didn’t change a thing:  Dems saw it, understood fully that the people rejected ObamaCare, shrugged, and moved on with ramming this national disaster down our throats.

That special election meant that the haphazard, crazy, tacked-on, willy-nilly nature of that bill had to be either: a.) voted on as is (with Reid pulling a fast one and going with a”budget” vote that required only a majority vote), or b.) given the ideological divide, pretty much it being trashed and started over.  Reid, as majority leader in the Senate decided to pass a major piece of legislation, one that directly affects every American’s life–mostly for the worse–with an up-down vote on budget rules (it all passes or fails and does so by a majority rule).

Laws in the U. S. are supposed to be passed by a 2/3 majority, a thing Reid didn’t have when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to the 41st seat. So he fudged it, used a budgetary gimmick, and slammed ObamaCare through with exactly zero input from Republicans and without a single Republican vote.

Americans don’t like, don’t trust, and generally ensure there is no one-party “rule.”  No major piece of legislation has ever been passed without votes from the loyal opposition.  This was shocking to us all, left and right.

We like our Dem presidents to have Republican houses of Congress and vice versa.  Some split is also desirable to we Americans, and generally-speaking, we avoid like the plague any one-party rule–one party’s control of the executive and both legislative branches of government.

Americans were–and, importantly, are–angry.  In America, our representatives are supposed to (oh, with the crazy!) represent us, our voice, our wishes to DC.  What happened with ObamaCare was that DC decided what was best for us and then tried to represent that to the people.

That’s completely backwards.

America is just not a nation of sovereign rule, Americans are not subjects of some ruler, and we don’t take kindly to being treated like subjects who must bend to the will of some centralized power that is far removed from us.  That’s how revolutions–all revolutions–start.

So what Ted Cruz tapped into was almost primal, it’s in an American’s DNA, soul, collective unconscious (whatever you want to deem it) that we are a free people, that liberty comes first, that our government and its elected officials represent us; they do not rule us, they are not our “boss,” and they damned sure aren’t our “masters,” and we are not their “servants.” Indeed, they are “public servants,” and if anyone is “master,” it is we, the people.

And that, ultimately, is what Cruz’s not-a-filibuster was about: America, our republic.  What it means to be an American, what it means when your American-ness is stripped away against your will, and that is what the fight for the soul of the republican party is ultimately about: do we continue to support weak-willed, self-serving GOP elites who are big government, big spending pawns of the Washington machine that sees us as servants and ATM machines for their largess, or do we enforce our will, that of the people of these United States, and reject that tried-and-failed socialist-communist-fascist rubric?

My vote is for the latter.

A Leaderless America? Not So Much

If one more person tells me some variation of “there is no leader in the WH,” my head may explode. Of course there is.  This idea that Obama is somehow removed from, above, or not up to his scrawny neck in what his administration is doing must be dispelled. Now, do I think he’s the brains behind the operation?  No way, I don’t think he’s that bright, but I do think he’s surrounded himself with people who have plenty of brains and plenty of nefarious, traitorous plans.  I also believe that he’s well-aware of and ideologically happy with every single thing that has led to the myriad scandals that stink up our White House.  Do I think that he gets his hands dirty (beyond going out and spreading vile lies, doubts, and suspicion of the TEA Party and conservatives more generally), that some “smoking gun” will be found tying him directly to the IRS, DOJ, AP, Rosen, NSA, or any other scandal we currently know about or ones that may yet be revealed?  Nope.

But it’s his Chicago stench that permeates every single scandal, up to and including Benghazi.  The bullying, the thuggery, the blackmail, the boot on the neck, the manipulation of events for a specific end . . . all of it is straight out of Chicago, specifically, and leftist “thought” more broadly.

It’s no mistake that his czars and other appointments are a rag-tag assortment of dirty dealers, traitors, commies, anti-Semites, radicals, and fascist zealots.  Those people didn’t just materialize around him; remember, he sought out this type of person all the way back in college.  That never ended, as we can see all too clearly.

What kind of a person appoints the freaks and fringe fanatics that Obama has?  Remember his TSA nominee who stated that white supremacists and “Christian identity groups” were America’s “biggest threat”?  That’s what Obama believes with all his tiny, shriveled evil little heart. Hell, his DHS said as much in their memo to all of America’s law enforcement in 2009.

Last week, Obama announced the war on terror over; for him, it is.  Indeed, it was never really about Islamic terror for him; he happily supports both in word and deed (and with our money) all sorts of Islamic terrorism and terrorist groups.  Hell, he calls various Islamofascist groups his “peace partners.”  That he’s droned a bunch of them doesn’t change that fact.  And it’s right in line with Obama, anyway, he’s famous for sacrificing friends, family, leftists, whomever for “the cause.”   But Islamic terror isn’t his focus, what he does has been a means to an end–his support for the Arab Spring wasn’t an accident, nor was he unaware that Islamofascist states would emerge (everyone was saying so from Glenn Beck to John Bolton).  Neither were any of Obama’s moves an accident from basically encouraging Iran to nuke up to removing the missile defenses in Poland.

We may not be able to connect the dots yet, but it’s becoming pretty clear that it’s all of one piece, including what he’s been doing right here in America.  To Obama, the nation’s real enemies, his real enemies, are people who “want to make America a better place to live,” people who support the 10th Amendment, people who are pro-life, Christian, Jewish, white, patriots.  He’s made this crystal clear since practically Day One with every appointment, every czar, every policy, every word.

Back in September of ’09, I wrote:

[Van] Jones is a racist, a self-proclaimed communist, a “truther,” and a proponent of destroying the American system and replacing it with a . . . well, with another one that favors people of color and subjugates whites.  I’m not making this up.  Van Jones has said it.  All of it.  He talks of white people purposely poisoning minorities with pesticides, he signed a document demanding investigation into our government’s role in either allowing or actually perpetrating the 9/11 attacks on this country, he’s spoken of using the green movement to install minorities in key positions of power and remaking the system to favor them, and he’s called republicans assholes.  Well, okay, that last one doesn’t matter; we’ve all said worse about our political adversaries at one time or another.  But the other points, they matter.  Each of them alone should exclude him from the president’s inner circle, and together, they paint a picture of a dangerous, racist, anti-American communist who should not be allowed to enter the White House gift shop let alone sit in the Oval Office and snuggle with the president.

. . . . .

You have to wonder, if you’ve got a brain in your head, what is going on with the other BO czars.  Who are they and what are they hiding?  What is BO’s agenda in having such radical and controversial figures surrounding him, advising him, making policy for all of us and doing so well outside the checks and balances set up by the Constitution?

Well, there’s John Holdren, BO’s Science Czar, who has a neato idea to control population.  Apparently, he’s a big fan of China’s forced abortion policy and even advocated putting sterilization drugs in America’s food and water supply.  He’s also said that forced abortions “could be sustained under the current Constitution.”  Um, okay, but don’t you think that’s a bit much?  And this man is in key policy position, unchecked by Congress or anyone else, advising the president of the United States.  He’s not in some think tank or university espousing crazy theories and philosophizing, he is actually helping shape American policy.  This is the problem, not his wacked out ideas.

Holdren apologists point out, correctly, that Holdren preferred “milder methods” of population control.  Um, okay, so what happens if the people don’t line up for population control abortions of their own free will?  Do you honestly think that if the government controls the healthcare system and Holdren or BO decide that “population growth” is a threat to either the environment or the economy/healthcare system that they won’t start limiting the number of children people can have, forcing abortion on those who’ve maxed their “quota”?  This sounds crazy, but what the hell is someone with crazy ideas like this doing in the White House if not to put those ideas in motion?  Again, the apologists say that these ideas were expressed in the 1970′s and as such are “dated” and not relevant today.  Another apologist angle is that the book presents a “theory” and does not recommend a “practice.”  Well, so did The Communist Manifesto.  Remember that nifty little book?

Another fun BO czar is Mark Lloyd, BO’s Diversity Czar.  He’s a fun guy who thinks that Chavez’s coup in Venezuela was beautifully accomplished and that his control of use of the media should be emulated here in the U. S.  God forbid the people have access to anything that might be anti-BO.  I wonder how much he had to do with the “flag the fishy” campaign?  Anyway, he finds free speech rather pesky especially from the conservatives, having the unfortunate effect of allowing people to express their dissent.  The best place to stop free speech, according to this lovely man, is by forcing right wing radio off the air with 100% taxes on their operating costs; once that pushes them off the airwaves, their license will be handed over to a (liberal or progressive) minority group (this is where the “diversity” thing comes into play, I guess, you know making sure that all talk radio leans left.  Lots of diversity there.).  I never listen to talk radio, but apparently, there are far right discussions taking place on those stations.  So what?  If you don’t like it, don’t listen.  The people who are listening are obviously of the same mind, so shutting them down won’t do anything about changing ideology, it’ll simply drive people to the internet (if BO doesn’t declare an “emergency” and shut it down, anyway) or to Fox News (which I do watch).  At least until they figure out a way to push Fox off the air.  Again, though, not being able to see or hear views with which you agree does not change your own views, so I find this rather silly.  And frightening.

And let’s not forget Michael Copps at the FCC and “net neutrality”:

And there it is, the admission.  There is a narrow window of time, while BO is still prancing around the WH playing grown up, to force through his radical agenda, an agenda that apparently includes regulating (or whatever you call “filtering and funneling” the right information to the American public) the internet, ensuring that information (the correct information, Herr Copps) reaches the masses in the correct manner and correct measure.  Can’t rely on “flag the fishy“campaigns forever, now can we?  And note, too, that like all good progessives, Copps understands that they may need to settle for a “down payment” (aka “a starter home“) on the publicly-funded, government-run propaganda machine of the (not so distant) future.

Part of what we’ve seen develop over the past few weeks is the Obama camp’s purposeful promotion of the image of a detached, disinterested, ditzy dimwit so that we will all blame someone, anyone other than Obama himself.  I’ve bought into it myself, so I understand where people are coming from, but if nothing else has become clear over the course of the past several months, it’s that Obama is central to what is going on in terms of discriminating against conservatives, Christians, veterans, and pretty much everyone who disagrees with him on any point.  Might he be a puppet?  Sure.  That’s even likely, but it does not exculpate him.  He is not an innocent victim here.

The innocent victims are we, the people and our Constitutional Republic.  People keep thinking that he’s incompetent, a failed leader, but that’s true only if his goal is to support America, keep her and her people safe, to protect and defend her Constitution.  Because, yes, a thousand times, yes, he’s totally incompetent at that.

But here’s the secret: he’s not applying himself to those goals.  He never has and he never will.

Listen again to the great and fearless Andrew Breitbart: