Fuzzy Shorts: Islam, Terrorism, and Leftist Useful Idiocy

So I’m looking at what is happening, and I’m a bit speechless.  Obama is clearly aiding and abetting ISIS.  American authority does nothing.

We. Are. Screwed.

Leftists cannot be intelligent or knowledgeable: that must be wiped out. Now.

In the hazy wake of the dust-up between crazed lunatic Ben Affleck (definitely on my “no buy list” no matter what he does; I will never ever spend one penny to support this lunatic who has made it clear that he hates me and everything that I believe in and stand for) and equally-crazed lunatic Bill Maher (he doesn’t do anything that I’d need to pay for, but if he did . . . not happening), I scratch my head.  What seems to have happened is that Affleck whined and wiggled about how anyone who opposes Islamists like ISIS is Islamophobic — good, Useful Idiot, Ben, good boy!!!, and Bill Maher, very briefly, was honest about Islam and the jihadi threat but is now walking that back because he doesn’t want to be called a Right Wing Nutjob.

And there, in that little blip of irrelevance, you see exactly what is wrong not only with the blinkered loony left but with the unblinkered loony left.  The blinkered loonies will quell, quash, quiet the unblinkered left in the name of political correctness.  Maher doesn’t defend his accurate assessment of Islamists; he worries that he’s being tarred with the right wing nutjob brush.  He’s concerned but not so concerned that he’s willing to take an actual stand. After all, the TEA Party thinks the same thing, so he can’t be right. He must be a crazy, tea bagging Nazi lunatic.  He knows he’s not, of course, but he’s not secure in that knowledge.  Everything for these types is about what other people think.  Maher backs down, backpeddles, whimpers in a corner.

There is no way that the vacant look on Affleck’s face was an affect; he is clueless, stumped, and foot-stompy mad about . . . you know, um, injustice.  Somehow.  He’s an embarrassment to all thinking peoples, but he wins because there is no room on the left for an actual “old school” democrat like Maher, believe in American exceptionalism?  RAAAACIST!  Believe in America at all on any level?  RAAACIST IMPERIAAAALIST ISLAMAPHOBE!!!  Believe what the terrorists themselves are saying about destroying Israel, Europe, and America?  Believe them when they say their goal is a global caliphate?  CLUELESS IMPERIALIST ISLAMAPHOBE SOMETHING ELSE REALLY REALLY BAD!!!

When a religious war is a religious war only to one side

ISIS is referring to American forces as the “crusaders.”

So let’s see . . . a group calling themselves the “Islamic States” and promising to fly the flag of Islam over the White House is referring to their enemies as the “crusaders”  is not engaged in a religious war.

Hmmm . . .

Does anyone know the truth about the Crusades? When and why Christians finally mobilized against the Muslim hordes?  If you don’t know, find out.  They know.  And they want another go at it.

They are doing it.  Now.  Get it?

Leftists Warn Against Moral Equivalence (Um, You Know, Unless the TEA Party, Christians, and/or Conservatives are involved)

So I’m watching some show on Fox News last night, and this crazy leftist shrew (Leslie something, maybe) was trying to explain how we can’t paint all of Islam with one brush.  This, coming from a lunatic who frequently and happily, paints all Christians, all conservatives, all anyone who disagrees with Obama as RAAAAACISTS who hate America . . . um, yeah, gonna buy that crap.

The nuanced worldview of the leftie loons typically fails to apply to any but their own protected groups.  ALL TEA Partiers are the same, ALL conservatives are the same, ALL Christians are the same, ALL anyone who is not a lockstep leftist loon is the same.

They only see nuance where none exists: in Islam.

Leftist blindness to hate among their special groups

The lesbian couple who are upset that they received black sperm is a good place to start here.  These white lesbians couldn’t be in the least bit racist, according to leftists, because they are already in a protected group.  When they whine about how they can’t cope with the nappy hair of their new child, they’re good parents . . . or something.  White people who knowingly adopt black children--those are the racists.  You know.  Somehow.

Gay people can’t be racist.  Black and Latino people can’t be against gay marriage.  Oh, just ignore the votes they cast!  Those don’t matter!  Against Prop 8?  Those Latinos?  Well, they don’t know any better; it’s not like they actually understand what homosexuality is, after all.  Stupid Latinos.

Islamic governments, not random Islamic extremists, crucify homosexuals?  Naw, that’s not true.  Oh, it is?  Well, if it is true, we have to make allowances . . . they are the stupidest, most backward people on the planet after all.  See!!! We respect the minorities and their ignorance, barbarism, and basic inability to function in civil society.  What do you expect, after all?  These are uneducated barbaric hordes who are swamped by poverty and lack of education.

What?  The majority of jihadi leaders have college educations, many from American and western universities?  Um, well, gaaaah.  That’s different.  Um, they are still mostly, you know, mostly, victims of American imperialism.  Ah, yes, the American imperialism that provided them with world class graduate degrees in engineering, biomedics, and nuclear technology?  Yeah, horrible that we inflict such advanced learning and education upon them.  Usually at tax-payer expense.

Well, that’s different.  It’s not like they can compete with us because of . . . racism and stuff.  Islamophobia!  That’s it!  That’s what’s holding them back.  If only we didn’t hate, we’d have peace and love and something like puppy breath combined with singing birds and dancing flowers.  Islam doesn’t hate women or gay people.  Yeah, sure, they crucify, behead, and stone them to death now, but that’s America’s fault. If we loved and embraced them, they’d be so happy with our degraded culture, our gay marriage, our pornography, and all of our other failing cultural mores that they wouldn’t crucify, behead, and stone us to death.

Really!

All we have to do to show our trust and faith in Islamic goodness is to disarm the American people.  Why would we need or want guns in our homes when all we face are people who are oppressed by America.  Um.  You know.  Or something.

 

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.

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.

Punishing His Enemies: It’s What Tyrannical Dictators Do

In 2010, Obama told a Latino audience:  “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”  We, in the conservative blogosphere were horrified.  This sounded Nixonian, it sounded banana republic unethical.  Yes, the president sounded petty and self-important, but he was also proud in a bizarre way–as if, punishing enemies and rewarding friends was something that was not beneath him, as we might expect from someone in a position of such power, but was instead something that he actually relished.  It was mind-boggling, really, to think that the president’s political “enemies” (not “opponents,” not “loyal opposition,” but “enemies”!) were going to be labeled by the head of state as essentially “‘enemies’ of the state.”

Even those of us who heard it and understood the implications didn’t know how, exactly, these punishments would be doled out, what form they would take.  Perhaps, we hoped, he’d just keep calling us names, mocking and deriding us, sneering down at us from his Styrofoam pedestal.  Maybe he’d lie about us more than usual, urge his sheeple in the tabloid media and regressive groups to attack and attempt to discredit us more often.  Maybe he’d set up another version of “Flag the Fishy” and “Attack Watch” to get our fellow citizens to turn us into the state . . . for some reason, to locate all the “enemies” he has?  And to what end?  After all, this is America, you can’t “punish” Americans for political dissent or on the whim of a president.

You can’t, right?

Wrong.

This president has taken punishing his enemies (and often simultaneously rewarding his friends) and elevated it to an art form that would make history’s worst tyrants and dictators drool with envy:

His DOJ: in addition to suing Arizona for violating federal immigration laws (while ignoring violations of immigration law in “sanctuary” states and cities, of course–after all, what petty tyrant doesn’t pick and choose which laws he likes best?), also has a well-known policy of never prosecuting blacks for crimes against whites.  0’s DOJ also went after Gibson guitar on bogus “wood” crime allegations.

His TSA: in addition to gross abuses of power and zero ability to actually detect an actual terrorist, the TSA considers anyone who “opts out” of their porn scans and gate rapes to be “domestic extremists.”

His DHS: in addition to the unprecedented (and frankly bizarre) stock-piling of ammunition about which they decline to comment, issued a memo in April 2009 telling various law enforcement agencies across the country to be on the lookout for dastardly “. . .. groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority [i.e. that pesky 10th Amendment which protects citizens and states from a too-powerful central government]. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,’ the warning says.” I.e. conservatives, TEA Party groups, patriots.

His military: in addition to forcing its pastors to perform gay “marriages,” has also targeted Christians in a special effort to silence their free speech.  And the army has been told not to consider actual terrorists (Nidal Hissan, for example) as terrorists, but instead to focus on Christians, Jews, and Islamaphobes.

His press secretary: tried to exclude the “enemy” network Fox News from an interview.  Yes, it was one interview, but if they had succeeded, it would have been the end of Fox in the WH press pool.  It was a baby step to see how far they could go in ending the freedom of the press.

His NLRB: targeted Boeing in a bogus lawsuit in an attempt to bully them into opening a new plant where the administration (and its union thug friends) wanted it.

His DOE joined with his DOJ to effectively revoke the First Amendment on all college campuses receiving federal funding (the majority of them, in other words).

His IRS: the recent revelations that the IRS was intentionally and methodically targeting TEA Party, “patriot,” and those groups or individuals “educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights,” has created deep concern on the right–leftists, not being the targets this time, are perfectly happy to see this gross abuse of power to intimidate and silence opposition.  This isn’t that surprising; after all, if we’ve learned nothing else over the past four years, we’ve learned that leftists are perfectly happy with tyranny and oppression . . .  as long as they are the tyrants and oppressors.  Too bad for them that totalitarian takeovers historically end badly (very very badly) for the regime’s early supporters and apologists.

Not only are we, justly, concerned that political dissent will make us a target of IRS (or FBI, CIA, FDA, DOJ, or any other executive branch agency–keep in mind that the videographer 0 falsely blamed for Benghazi is still in prison.  Sure, he did something unrelated to the video wrong, but odd how he was only picked up after the attack in Benghazi when the president and secretary of state needed a scapegoat.  And believe me, every single person out there is guilty of some crime or violation of some regulation–there are so many that we don’t even know about. You could be harassed for collecting rain water, for growing vegetables or herbs on your porch, for who knows what else. So we are not only concerned about the IRS targeting us as taxpayers), but we also are concerned about what this means with the new role that the IRS has as the 0Care enforcers.  They now have, granted by the 0Care monstrosity, access to our personal bank accounts (actual access, not the power to freeze them–they’ve had that for ages), free reign to monitor our purchases and income, access to our personal medical files, and a list of other means by which to “enforce” the 0Care mandate.  These things could all be used to intimidate, bully, silence, even imprison any person “guilty” of political dissent.

And now we know, for a fact, that 0 is not only willing but actually relishes wielding the power of the presidency to “punish” his “enemies” (no, I won’t rant about his insistence that he can use drones to kill American citizens on American soil because he thinks them an “enemy,” but . . . well, not so tinfoil hatty now, huh?).  We, that is anyone who opposes this administration, are 0’s “enemies,” and no abuse of power, no strong-arm tactics, no bullying thuggery is beneath him.

These are the times that try men’s (and women’s) souls.  Luckily, we are Americans, and this tyrant wannabe will not intimidate, cow, or silence us.  We are not Germans defeated in spirit and nation, we are not Russian or Chinese peasants–isolated and disarmed, we are not, in other words, easy pickings.  And for that, I am forever grateful.

For Leftists: Thinking, Hard.

I’m not sure whom I find more despicable, the leftist pols who spin the most amazingly absurd narratives or the leftist morons who gobble them up as Gospel, infuse them with their own special brand of hate, and spew forth bile and vitriol like an overactive, over-reactive volcano.  Yes, I’m kind of talking about what’s going on as the left struggles to defend their Dear Leader and “messiah” on Benghazi.  Note that the last link was to a British news site; oddly, apart from Fox News, the only coverage of this massive story is being conducted overseas (oh, and it’s the leftist Guardian, not the rightish-but-still-faaar-left-of-me Telegraph, but you know how those Brits are just RAAAACIST Republicans who hate Obama.  Or something.). Note, too, that some tabloid television networks, like NBC, are willing to admit that Obama is incompetent or “sloppy.”  That’s huge.  He’s been the bestest best thing since best things were first found to be best, but now suddenly he’s incompetent? That’s one hell of an admission from the salivating, slavish media.  And we know why they’ll throw out that bone.

And, frankly, I–at least–don’t care.  We’re talking about “news” organizations that failed to cover the Gosnell trial because it was “local” but spent hours and hours on some crazy, murdering biotch’s guilty verdict . . . while the Benghazi hearings are the actual news–national and international news–of the day.  Indeed, the hearings are being covered not only in Britain but in Germany, even in Russia and in the Middle East.  Our “media”?  Dancing around like puppies for scraps from their master’s table.  Massive fail.

But I’m not really talking about that, per se, others are covering it amazingly; instead, I am mostly talking about . . . well, just generally. I was just reading through some articles and a couple illustrate my point magnificently: one talked about how the majority of Americans accept gay people and the other was about the Traitor in Chief’s comments about immigration.  Oh, and let’s not forget the bogus stat that 90% of Americans support background checks. Dude, 90% of Americans can’t agree that the sky is blue, but the myriad lies–outrageous, in-your-face-ridiculous, “not one dime” lies–this president tells are not really my point.

Here’s the thing, the point, if you will.  A poll shows that the majority of Americans accept gay people, and that’s probably true.  I do.  And I know that my conservative friends and relatives do.  But here’s where everything gets murky for sophomoric leftist brains: I can accept gay people without *gasp* supporting gay “marriage.”  Yes, it’s true!  I can also accept that Obama is president without wanting to make him dictator for life.  Imagine that!

Nuance.

Nuance that is, of course, totally lost on the all or nothing, my way or the highway left.  You can’t just accept gay people, you can’t just accept that the government should recognize gay relationships as they do those of heterosexuals.  Oh no!  That’s not good enough, not “tolerant” enough for the most intolerant people on the planet.  You must accept that God is wrong, that your religion, your faith, your beliefs are all wrong.  You must embrace something that you might accept but not endorse; if you’re not ready to don a pink tutu or a suit and tie and march in the gay pride parade, then you’re not tolerant enough.  Actually, well, you’re just a toothless troglodyte teabagging troll.

Uh huh.

It’s sad, isn’t it that our wanna-be intellectual and emotional superiors on the left are incapable of reason, of compassion, of understanding, of anything remotely resembling human feeling?

Sad, and I used to find it perplexing, but it’s really not.  They just have simple, childlike thought processes that literally jump from “you accept gay people” to “therefore, you must accept gay ‘marriage'” and with that the utter destruction of religion and of religious freedom in this country.  And if you don’t, well, everyone knows you can’t accept gay people without supporting gay “marriage”; therefore, you must HATE gay people!  Again, uh huh.  The lack of logic, of critical thought, is mind-numbing.  But not unexpected.

The left does this on purpose and urges its mindless sheeple to not think, to be “tolerant” and to think that tolerance somehow means acceptance, even submission.  It does not.  I can tolerate something without accepting it, much less submitting to it.  There’s a huge difference, actually, but the English language seems to be a bit problematic for shallow, unthinking leftists (probably why they feel the need to “revise” and “adapt” it so often).

And we see this knee-jerking, conclusion-jumping, skipping over major points and differences, ignoring of language and its meaning again in Obama’s statement that “unless you’re a Native American, you came from someplace else.”  Well, no . . . poop, Sherlock.  (omg, is that an awesome show or what? Anyway,) yes, Dear Leader, we–well, okay, maybe not me, personally.  Or my parents.  But sure, somewhere down the line, some of my relatives–came to the United States from someplace else.  But here’s the thing, they didn’t come here illegally.  They came here within and abiding the law, respecting their new home and hoping to succeed in the land of the free and home of the brave.  They didn’t sneak in, they didn’t “overstay their visas,” they didn’t come as “birth tourists,” they came as legal aliens who acquired citizenship and paid their own way, often against great odds.

But conflating all immigration with illegal immigration, all immigrants with illegal immigrants, is par for the regressive course.  Now, do you really think that Obama himself doesn’t understand the difference?  Of course he does.  Do you really think that Obama doesn’t know the difference between accepting gays and demanding that gay “marriage” be the law of the land?  Of course he does.  As in all things from the economy to foreign policy, he just plays his mindless minions like a fiddle.  Rome may burn . . . but his disciples won’t notice.  Until it’s too late.