The Chris Christie-Barack Obama School Of “Punishing Your Enemies” Thuggery

Well, someone I like very much and respect a great deal is asking that we not pile on Christie for Bridgegate.  Yikes.  That poses a dilemma for me because, quite frankly, I don’t see the logic in the argument that, essentially, we defend the indefensible because one day the same media now screeching for Christie’s head will come screeching for some other GOP head (one we value more than . . . not at all).  I don’t want to “feed the beast” that is the leftist commie propaganda machine.  Of course I don’t.  But frankly, the beast doesn’t need our feeding, it’s self-sufficient and well-fed all on its own.  My tossing a well-earned crumb its way doesn’t tip the scale, and it certainly doesn’t endanger any future conservative I may support.

Such a conservative would not believe his own press, for starters.  Christie apparently thought, as have useful idiots McCain and Graham before him, that hugging Obama and chirping happily about gay marriage and carbon taxes would win him support among the regressive media . . . that they’d see him as one of their own.  This has been tried by every RINO of the past forty years, and it’s always a fail . . . not because they aren’t recognized as like-minded regressives, of course they are, but because the media has to pretend to the ignorant masses that (R) is the “enemy” to keep the balance of power off-kilter with regressives from both parties winning in “opposition” to the last regressive.

And it’s worked.  We haven’t had a conservative in the White House since Reagan.  Not because we refuse to “feed the beast” but because we don’t speak up against the real beast’s latest incarnation when we should.

Let’s face it, nothing we have said or done or can say or do will change the propagandists’ game one whit, and if we try to play their game, we start out with a losing hand.  It’s their game, their rules (to be changed without notice), their playing board, their pawns and pieces.  Playing on that field is folly, particularly if it also requires that we support that which we claim to hate as long as it’s Obama or any (D) being the petty tyrant.  According to this logic, we love tyranny, big government, big spending, and corruption as long as it comes from a (nominal) Republican.

No, thanks.  I don’t think I’ll play the role of useful idiot in this regressive commie farce.

I also don’t want to fall into the trap that regressives set for themselves when they defend every horrible, bad policy, including ones antithetical to their own principles, simply because the person behind it is another regressive.  Doing this damaged not only the “progressive” brand but their credibility on all their own pet issues.  They know this.  We know it.  So why would we jump on that loser machine and do the exact same thing?  They at least have the power of the media on their side to mask their hypocrisy and lack of principles.  We’d have nothing but the knowledge that we did not stand for anything at all.

I can’t live with that; I must stand by my principles to hold my head high each day.  I’m not a soulless scheming creature who can protest something one day and then loudly support it the next.  The thing is wrong or it’s not, no matter who does it.  Do I want to be a regressive who loudly and correctly protests the historic lynching of innocent black people and then equally loudly and incorrectly proclaims that modern-day lynching of TEA Partiers is well-founded and just?  Do I want to have to defend lynching itself as a legitimate course of action against peoples we dislike. . . if only the “correct” party were lynched?  Um, no thanks.  Lynching is either right or wrong, and it is wrong.  The persons being lynched should not be the root of contention as it is on the radical left.

Sure, we’re not talking about lynching when we talk about Christie’s abuse of power to “punish his enemies” but if it’s wrong for Obama to use the IRS and other government agencies to punish his enemies, then it’s wrong to do for Christie. I suppose there’s always the argument that abusing power to punish political enemies is not wrong . . . , but I would hope that no one is arguing that.

So, no, I’m not falling on my sword for any Republican (nor any politician, period), and certainly not for one who has called me a “crazy” and “ignorant.”  If Obama’s abuse of power via the IRS targeting his political “enemies” was repugnant then so is Christie’s abuse of power to target his own political enemies.  That the latter only involved a New Jersey bridge few have heard of and fewer care about and not the entire nation is only a function of his own limited power as governor of New Jersey.  Anyone who would be that petty, spiteful, and vindictive, anyone who would use their power to use as pawns and dupes the people he “leads” on a state scale would be exponentially more dangerous and horrible at a national level.

There is no “but” there.  This is about the character of the man, and Christie’s character is, to me, indiscernible from Obama’s: Chicago thug meets New Jersey thug.  As is his stance on any number of issues:  he’s pro-amnesty, prosharia, pro-AGW hoax, pro-gun control . . . I can’t think of one thing about which he is conservative.  Maybe his fiscal policies . . . but hasn’t he actually raised taxes in New Jersey?  Embraced the 0Care Medicaid expansion?  We defend him . . . why?  I just can’t wrap my head around it.  I can’t stand Chris Christie; I think he’d do well to become a democrat, actually.  He may yet.  But then the whole early-1900’s “plan” would fall apart, wouldn’t it?  I mean, if all the commie regressives joined together in one party, how could they possibly convince people to vote again and again for more regressives by plastering a fake (R) or (D) after their name?

Principles matter to me, and I will not stand by someone whom I deem to be unworthy of my support.  And Chris Christie embodies everything that I cannot stand about Obama:  he uses his power to “punish his enemies,” he’s petty, spiteful, mean-spirited, nasty, and thin-skinned.  There is nothing admirable about Christie, nothing.  And for those who think his firing and “holding accountable” his staff members is laudable, let me just remind you that they did not “go rogue” any more than the IRS agents did under Obama.  They’re merely new bumps under the heartless, egocentric Christie’s bus.  Bumps that will pile up just as surely as they did under Obama’s bus . . . or perhaps to be redistributed in his administration.

Millenials

According to the admittedly less-than-stable Kanye West, Obama’s lost his “cool”:

“The reason why Obama mention our name is cause we’re most relevant,” West said. “…He’s just saying that trying to be cool. Obama was supposed to be the coolest person on the planet now he gotta say our names to be cool. It’s like a feature, we feature in his interviews right now. They need a feature from us to get relevant.”

Now, I’m not cool, I’ve never been or aspired to be cool, but there’s something about it that you either have or you don’t have.  Or, apparently, that you somehow can make people believe you have. Obama’s empty phoniness somehow struck a chord with scores of millions of Americans in 2007-2008, and this was especially true among young Americans whose shiny, happy faces are indelibly burned into my brain.  That sort of mass . . . what? hypnosis? hysteria? hopeychangey lunacy? . . . is hard to forget (but easy to forgive).

The trouble with cool is that when you lose it, it’s lost.  Pretty much forever.  Ask the Fonz.  And Obama has lost his “cool” with the only group for which that really matters: the millennials.  Now, as someone who works daily with millenials, I’m the last person to bash them or think them the outrageously self-indulgent, solipsistic rabble that many conservatives imagine them to be.  They’re not.  Or at least not any more so than any other generation of America’s young.  They’re idealistic, they’re ill-informed, and they’re full of boundless energy and compassion.  Yes, I really said–and believe–that last part.  Mostly.  I don’t believe that the millenials understand compassion as we do or as most generations before them did, but that said, they are no less compassionate than their counterparts of the ’30’s or ’60’s.  And let’s face it, this administration is more the worst of 1930’s meets the worst of the 1960’s than it is anything else.

Obviously, each generation brings its own identity and spin to all that.  In the twenties, the nation’s young were rebelling against the regressive stranglehold of the Wilson White House and the Great War’s tremendous loss (an entire generation “lost”).  In the thirties, well, there wasn’t much rebelling going on because the regressive FDR government made surviving difficult for so many.  But when it did occur, it occurred in speakeasies and other places where alcohol could be obtained despite the progressives’ ban on it.  In the forties, the nation’s young were called to war again, and again met the challenge with courage and patriotism.  But when they came home, they were done with conflict, done with rebelling, and ready to sink into the most boring, staid existence they could create for themselves.

So in the fifties, the nation’s young were rebelling against a stagnant, docile, detached yet confining, and prosperous culture.  In the sixties, the nation’s young were rebelling against . . . everything good and decent in the world (they’re the ones now running this country . . . into the ground).  In the seventies, the nation’s young were rebelling against all the isms that sprung up in the 60’s, including of course, a deep and abiding hatred for America that began in the ’60’s, and in the eighties, the nation’s young were rebelling against the sex, drugs, and free love excesses of the ’60’s and ’70’s with their own version of excess that tended to be more materialistic, less idealistic, and slightly (only slightly) less amoral than the youth of the previous two decades.

Every generation does its share of rebelling, and in every case, it’s just as self-involved, self-indulgent, and self-centered as this generation’s.  Teens and young adults are always about the self.  Even if they are spouting nonsense about world peace and stopping war and closing Gitmo, it’s always because it will make them feel better and think better about themselves, not for any altruistic purpose beyond that.

This is why we have a seemingly irreconcilable tension on every level of the millenials’ worldview: they “hate hate”; they are “intolerant of intolerance”; they support ever-expanding, ever-stifling big government and then bemoan their loss of privacy and individual liberty to that all-powerful state; they support Islam–the most oppressive, discriminatory, violent “religion” on the planet–but condemn all other religions as oppressive, discriminatory, and violent; they tout equality and lawfulness while cheering the clear lawlessness of this president, a man whose administration has admitted to targeting and silencing political opponents; they support “socialism” and “communism” without really understanding what either is, and when confronted with the reality of what these destructive ideologies are, they turn away because it touches them (to them, in their under- and ill-informed ignorance, they honestly believe that redistribution means taking from others and giving to them, when it turns out that it means taking from them and giving to others, they don’t like so much.); they support the view that every human being should be treated equally, that all people are created equal . . . at least in theory. Because they also support affirmative action, “hate crime” legislation, and a hundred other things that undermine that original concept (is murder more wrong because the victim is gay, female, a minority? Well, arguably, no. Murder is murder, and it’s wrong.  Period.  But not to the millenials; murder’s just dandy if the victim is a white male or a conservative.).

These, and a zillion more, ideological tensions will play themselves out. These “kids” will grow up, they will experience life as it is, and they will figure out that they were myopic, prejudiced, judgmental, intolerant, bullying, and unkind.  And they will regret it.  But that’s not for another twenty or so years.  So what happens in the meantime?

For now, at least, millennials who had already lost the shiny-happy, glazed Stepford-stare are starting to realize that big government means a lot more than some utopian existence for all.   They see, in their pocketbooks and wallets, that the Obama economy is destroying not just their health care, but also any chance they may have of “making it,” of living their version of the American Dream.  Their reality, sadly, is that college grads move back home for a few (or ten) years, that welfare and foodstamps are a great way to subsist, that being less than they are is not only okay but actually encouraged.  And some few will not accept that.  Some few will stand up and say “Enough! I am more than this, I can do more than this, I will not accept this.”

That isn’t happening now, so don’t get your hopes up about the polls saying that millenials are fleeing Obama.  They’re disappointed, their Messiah didn’t pan out, but as one millenial wrote over at PuffHo:

With every day spent in the White House, the president’s bright-eyed idealism seemed to shift toward the same old politics of every man who came before him. In turn, my idealism shifted right along with his. Am I disappointed? Of course. Would I vote for him again? Absolutely.

I’m not the only millennial living with this contradiction. Harvard’s new study also showed that 46 percent of millennials surveyed would vote for Obama again. Of course we would — because the alternative is way scarier.

This millennial, I think, speaks for millions, and I highly recommend reading her entire essay.  She’s wrong, of course.  The president’s “bright-eyed idealism” never shifted; she just didn’t understand what his ideals are.  The biggest thing here, though, is that she–and millions of millenials like her– think he and his ilk are “better” than “the alternative.”

The alternative being, of course, any conservative.  Freedom is scary to millenials who have been nurtured and raised to believe that the all-powerful, ever-benevolent government is the answer to all that troubles us.  Someone “hating on” you?  Let’s pass a law!  Someone eating too much, drinking too much soda, using too much styrofoam?  Make a law!  Someone not “getting their fair share”?  Make a law!  The idea that people can make their own decisions is not only alien but truly frightening to these young people.  It won’t be in twenty or thirty years, but for now, they need someone to tell them what to do, what to think, what to believe, and how to be.

In many ways, we have failed them.

The sad part is that they choose a known pathological liar for that role.  Is he as “cool” as he used to be?  Hell to the no.  Not even to them.  But until they realize that they are fully-functioning human beings who don’t need their every move dictated to them, they will continue to cling to him. Not because he’s cool but because he’s (still) (they hope) better than . . . freedom.

 

 

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.

The Real Problem With Regressives: They Live In A Fantasy Future

The most marvelous Daniel Greenfield has written (yet another) stellar piece, The Destruction of Contradiction.  He writes (in part, but do read the rest):

People, countries and ideas are destroyed through their inability to resolve their contradictions. The left gained a foothold in America by exploiting the country’s contradiction between its insistence on moral superiority and the actual way that the sausage got made. The left did not resolve this contradiction, instead it pretended that it had transcended the contradiction because when it made the sausage and broke the omelets, it was doing it for the greater good.

Under the old system, human misery was caused by the pragmatic problems of reality. Under the new system, it was caused by the idealistic necessities of the greater good.

For example, before ObamaCare someone who couldn’t get health insurance was suffering for pragmatic reasons. With the advent of ObamaCare, someone losing their doctors and getting stuck with insurance they couldn’t afford was suffering for the idealism of the greater good.

The contradiction between the aspirations of the ideal and the brutal necessities of the real were not resolved. Instead the left made the suffering of individuals and groups irrelevant.

Read that last part again.  It’s key to understanding the seeming heartlessness we perceive in the regressive, statist, and collectivist (i.e. totalitarian) policies of the radical left where “motive” (i.e. intent) matters more than outcome, where the “ends justify the means.”  We see this clearly in decades of failed leftist policies purportedly designed to help the poor; despite hard evidence that poverty is increasing and the middle class shrinking, the left clings to the welfare state not because it works but because they think it should work.  When you ignore reality (in this case measurable poverty for real people) in favor of unrealistic idealistic dreams of outcomes, you end up with Detroit, not a shining city on a hill.

And leftists do this all the time, on every issue.  In their drive for equality, they ignore the fact that everyone is not the same and that “equality” doesn’t and shouldn’t mean “sameness.”  Instead of allowing for this in their blueprint for the perfection of the human race, they plow ahead, lowering the bar for all in every arena they touch, be that education, law enforcement, or the military.

For example, the purportedly “equality-based” push for women to hold combat positions in the United States military sounds great, right?  Women can do anything a man can do as well as any man can do it.  Except we can’t.  Likewise, men can’t do everything we can do as well as we can do it.  That’s the way it is, that’s reality.  Leftists have no time or patience for facts or reality; they think they can bend both to their will.  So instead of carving out roles in the military that foreground women’s abilities and strengths, that take advantage of our superiority in some areas (face it, women are damned good shots, make excellent pilots, are great at strategy, make great diplomats (as long as they aren’t pretending to be men when they do it), etc.), leftists instead insist on their faulty “equality means everyone is the same as” rubric.  As one female Marine and Iraq veteran notes, “the best woman is still no match for the best man” in combat situations.  That’s just fact.  Indeed, leftists have conceded this very point by lowering physical training standards for women.  That’s not okay, and it’s a clear and obvious threat to our national security, but that doesn’t matter to the radical left.  Only that distant (and impossible) future matters.

Everyone should be the “same,” they think, and if they aren’t, we’ll just change “sameness” . . . and, while we’re at it, we’ll also punish people who’ve been “privileged” (be this because they are born white and male–a shameful thing to regressives–or because they are young and/or healthy).  It’s madness.  They don’t want to redistribute only wealth; they want to redistribute race, heritage, heredity, genetics, values, and a host of other things they have no power or control over.  It doesn’t work, can’t work, but they plow “forward!” working on the principle that destruction and misery are just the temporary but necessary steps toward some sort of fantastical Utopia that they envision as some sort of heaven on earth with our government overlords acting as our beneficent and loving council of gods raining manna down on the unwashed masses from their Olympian perches.

Breaking eggs is just part of the process.  Yes, Obama and his hordes, including House and Senate Dems (and Republicans), knew that millions upon millions would lose not only their health insurance plans but also their doctors.  They knew that Sarah Palin was right about death panels.  They also knew that millions upon millions would lose their jobs or have their hours drastically reduced.  This is built into 0Care.  Logic dictates that you don’t screw up a health insurance system that covered 253.4 million people to accommodate 35-50 million (depending on the estimates) people.  Logic dictates that if you have a government panel meting out treatments, you have not only rationing of care but a handful of people in DC deciding who lives and who dies.  Logic dictates that when you reduce the work week from 40 to 30 hours and make it financially onerous for employers to comply with the 0Care mandates, millions upon millions of people will lose their jobs and/or their health insurance.  But we’re not talking about logic.  Or results, at least not immediate results.  We’re talking about that drive toward a perfected human race living in Utopian harmony in the new Garden of Eden.  And yeah, shrugs the regressive, radical leftist, a bunch of people will suffer, even die.  That can’t be helped because some distant, fantasy future is the end goal (and yes, they actually do believe it’s achievable, but they also know that the only people living the new American dream will be the tiny segment of the population who do not live in abject poverty.  They are okay with that.).

So back to Daniel’s point that the suffering of individuals and even large groups does not matter to the self-proclaimed most “compassionate” of all people.  You see this when they attack cancer victims for complaining about losing the health insurance they like, for losing the long-term doctors they trust.  You see this when they dismiss more than 5 million people losing their health insurance as a “small percentage” of the “market.”  We’re not a “market,” we’re actual people, and the inability to grasp that in the here and now is what really distinguishes regressives.  They aren’t interested in the here and now.  They are only interested in that magical future they march in blinkered lockstep toward.

This is why they are totally comfortable trampling the rights of individuals and groups in the present.  It’s all for “The Greater Good” and that distant future they envision.  So a few thousand or even hundred thousand cancer victims die today . . . well, they were really just a drain on society anyway, right?  They can’t contribute to the brave, new world.

Remember when the Occupiers were calling for the overthrow of the government, a return to “nature”?  And remember how they dismissed the fact that millions of people can’t (physically or mentally) live the lifestyle they want?  One interviewee (I think it was in a Breitbart piece, but extra points to anyone who can find it) actually evoked Darwin in stating, with a dismissive shrug, that though it’s “mean” to say, some people have to die to fulfill the leftist mission.  Incredible.  Or not really at all incredible when you understand that the radicals running America into the ground have no compassion for anyone living in the present, their entire purpose is focused on an unrealistic, unachievable future replete with rainbows, sunny skies, and Skittles-pooping unicorns.

Stand in their way and prepare to be trampled under a herd of cloven-hoofed unicorns and to have your trampling cheered by the “compassionate” left.

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.