 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
Issue 5
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
In This Issue:
- On the Front Page:
 | Maximum Murphy: 3 petrifying Predictions | |
| Ask Uncle Sigmund: If Obama is a megalomaniac , why doesn't he boost USA? | |
| Mad Dog's Maunderings- Health Care a Right? | |
| The Conservatives Lexicon- ALL THE ISMS | |
| The Tragic Tale of Toxic Timmy the Tax Troll | |
| Obama & Beer | |
| Phaque-Phicktishus News Service: Obama to Congress "Czars Got It | |
| Covered- You're Not Needed" | ||
| Ammunition for your next fight wit a Liberal: Its OK to want Obama to Fail |
- On the Inside Page:
| Obama Really Does Blame Bush- Hilarious Headlines | |
| Madame Orlofsky Predicts: Polling Places darkened in 2010 | |
| Liberal Hypocrisy Meter- Sotomayor, Tiller ! | |
| From the Editorial Desk: The Purloined Census, Bush & Shopping, Iraq WAS | |
| the Right Move | ||
| On the Phun Page: | |
| Mad with Power Magazine Cover | |
| PapaBama |
- Below the Fold:
| "Icon-itorials"- Meet the Press( A MUST SEE!) |
- 30 Pieces of Silver for Specter, Ashamed of us Barack?
Time to Stop Hiding
Behind Bush, Barack!
Behind Bush, Barack!
As of Monday, July 20th, President Barack Obama will have completed a FULL SIX MONTHS IN
OFFICE. We all know what that means. It means that from this day forward Obama takes all
credit and all blame for the actions of his Federal Government. The Following is our open
letter to our frightened young President.
Dear Mr. President,
Congratulations on completing your first six months in office. We can all agree it is a huge
undertaking and every President is entitled to a “honeymoon”, spared from much negativity at
the hands of the public and the press. We hope you enjoyed yours, President Obama,
because it is over.
It’s time. It’s time to take off the training wheels. It’s time to step into the spotlight- alone- and
discard the large “The Buck Stopped with Bush” sign behind which you’ve become so
accustomed to hiding. It’s time to join the rest of the world in recognizing that the buck now
stops with Barack.
We know its scary– not to have your predecessor as a shield any longer. Try to see this in a
positive light. You don’t have to share credit with him for federal successes either.
We also realize that it will not be easy to stop pointing to President Bush’s spending record to
rationalize your own. Nonetheless, we expect you to “man up”. It’s OK. If we can acknowledge
that the handling of the economy under President Bush was flawed in some areas, then, you
can acknowledge that a significant part of Bush spending was in direct response to all the
massive aftermath of 9/11, conducting two wars, and in responding to the needs of the huge
and incredibly expensive natural disaster Hurricane Katrina. You can admit now that a large
part of Bush’s spending was unavoidable in maintaining entitlement's put into place by your
Democrat idol, FDR, and to recognize that the gigantic wave of “baby boomers” first came into
need of these entitlement's under Bush. No one will think less of you if you recognize that
George Bush’s discretionary spending was comparatively low and that his growth of
government was quite small as compared to your own unparalleled plans for the expansion of
government’s size and power.
Mr. President, we ask you to stand courageously behind you own actions. We know how
difficult it will be for you stop saying that you inherited the “worst economic situation since the
great depression”, but you own the office now, sir, and it is high time you own the truth. The
American people can face the truth. We can see that the economy post 9/11 was amazingly
stable for more than seven years. We can see that the sudden, pre-election meltdown of that
economy was a godsend for your campaign. We all know that when an economy looks bad the
opposing Party is always elected. We’re not naive, Mr. President, nor are we idiots. It is
obvious to us that so many of your trusted advisors, associates and supporters- people now
openly on your team- were in positions to have a profound impact on all the factors that
created that oh-so-very-fortuitous meltdown. It was your supporters who orchestrated the
destruction of the housing market. It was your people and Democrats like Timothy Geithner,
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who working in Bush era Treasury and Federal Reserve areas
and in other areas of the government who’s actions and decisions exacerbated the credit
crisis, the housing crisis and the economic crisis in general. You like to point to the original
TARP as further rationalization for your behemoth “stimulus” activity, saying that it was “Bush
who started this”. Isn’t it time to take responsibility for the fact that a large portion of that
original TARP has been disastrously realized and implemented by YOUR people, providing you
with your first “usable crisis”?
Bush is the past. It is time for you to embrace the lone limelight. From here on, its all you.
OFFICE. We all know what that means. It means that from this day forward Obama takes all
credit and all blame for the actions of his Federal Government. The Following is our open
letter to our frightened young President.
Dear Mr. President,
Congratulations on completing your first six months in office. We can all agree it is a huge
undertaking and every President is entitled to a “honeymoon”, spared from much negativity at
the hands of the public and the press. We hope you enjoyed yours, President Obama,
because it is over.
It’s time. It’s time to take off the training wheels. It’s time to step into the spotlight- alone- and
discard the large “The Buck Stopped with Bush” sign behind which you’ve become so
accustomed to hiding. It’s time to join the rest of the world in recognizing that the buck now
stops with Barack.
We know its scary– not to have your predecessor as a shield any longer. Try to see this in a
positive light. You don’t have to share credit with him for federal successes either.
We also realize that it will not be easy to stop pointing to President Bush’s spending record to
rationalize your own. Nonetheless, we expect you to “man up”. It’s OK. If we can acknowledge
that the handling of the economy under President Bush was flawed in some areas, then, you
can acknowledge that a significant part of Bush spending was in direct response to all the
massive aftermath of 9/11, conducting two wars, and in responding to the needs of the huge
and incredibly expensive natural disaster Hurricane Katrina. You can admit now that a large
part of Bush’s spending was unavoidable in maintaining entitlement's put into place by your
Democrat idol, FDR, and to recognize that the gigantic wave of “baby boomers” first came into
need of these entitlement's under Bush. No one will think less of you if you recognize that
George Bush’s discretionary spending was comparatively low and that his growth of
government was quite small as compared to your own unparalleled plans for the expansion of
government’s size and power.
Mr. President, we ask you to stand courageously behind you own actions. We know how
difficult it will be for you stop saying that you inherited the “worst economic situation since the
great depression”, but you own the office now, sir, and it is high time you own the truth. The
American people can face the truth. We can see that the economy post 9/11 was amazingly
stable for more than seven years. We can see that the sudden, pre-election meltdown of that
economy was a godsend for your campaign. We all know that when an economy looks bad the
opposing Party is always elected. We’re not naive, Mr. President, nor are we idiots. It is
obvious to us that so many of your trusted advisors, associates and supporters- people now
openly on your team- were in positions to have a profound impact on all the factors that
created that oh-so-very-fortuitous meltdown. It was your supporters who orchestrated the
destruction of the housing market. It was your people and Democrats like Timothy Geithner,
Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who working in Bush era Treasury and Federal Reserve areas
and in other areas of the government who’s actions and decisions exacerbated the credit
crisis, the housing crisis and the economic crisis in general. You like to point to the original
TARP as further rationalization for your behemoth “stimulus” activity, saying that it was “Bush
who started this”. Isn’t it time to take responsibility for the fact that a large portion of that
original TARP has been disastrously realized and implemented by YOUR people, providing you
with your first “usable crisis”?
Bush is the past. It is time for you to embrace the lone limelight. From here on, its all you.
Many well-intentioned folks have lately made the factual assertion that
“Health Care is a right!” Really? I would challenge those folks to
examine any complete and correct copy of the United States
Constitution and Bill of Rights and point it out to me. Not “you can see
this is what they meant”, or “it is clearly implied”. I want to see those
exact words. I know I won’t have any takers, because those words
aren’t there. Neither is the implication there of some kind of construed
hidden meaning of the founders there.
Perhaps the problem is that they just don’t understand what a “right”
really is. If one reads through the Constitution and the first ten
Amendments to the Bill of Rights we get a very clear picture of just
what the framers intended as a “right”. Basically, they take two forms.
The first form of right is meant to protect the citizen from some
encroachment of government. The second form secures to the citizen
some use or power that other citizens or the government may attempt
to take away. In none of the Amendments to the Bill Rights, even up
to present day is there yet a right that mandates that a citizen or illegal
resident receive the labor of any other citizen simply by demand upon
that individual. There are those whose eyes will light up and reply:
“Ah, but what about when I report a traffic light malfunction and
somebody goes out to fix it- am I not requiring the labor of another
citizen?” No, in fact, you are not. You have availed yourself of part of
the social contract, and as many of our fellow citizens work for
governmental entities bound under that contract, what you have seen
is what you have always expected to see.
Making health care a RIGHT goes well beyond the social contract. Dr.
Smith at the clinic nearby is no government employee (at least not
yet), he runs his own business as a General Practitioner of Medicine.
If health care becomes a right, you may very well DEMAND services of
Dr. Smith, and at prices such that Dr. Smith can no longer afford to
give you the quality of care to which you would like to become
accustomed.
There are also those wags that trot out “…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
of Happiness…” to prove that health care was always meant to be a
right. Uh, sorry to interrupt this daydream but that is not in the
Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence and was not meant
as an enumeration of rights so much as of wrongs – wrongs committed
by King George III of England upon his colonies here. Even if by some
stretch of the imagination that grand phrase might apply, one would
have to ask in what regard? If I were hiking alone, off-trail with no way
of communicating with anyone else, and fell and broke my leg of what
use is a “Right to Health Care”?
Another argument that I just saw a few days ago runs that since those
who own and operate businesses, corporations and industries have
health care, then it only makes sense that those who work for them
and make their money for them also have health care. After all,
healthy workers can work better and longer, being that much more
productive. As a business ethic, I see no fault with it. In feudal
England the office of Sheriff, as one of its primary duties, was tasked
with seeing that no Lord mistreated his serfs. But a right? The
justification is lacking as, so far, those who chose to operate a
business are private citizens and have the right to choose to act wisely
or foolishly in that regard.
There are many things that can be done right now to improve the
availability of health care in the United States. Making it a right and
giving it the Federal Government to superintend don’t make the list.
The first thing is Tort reform, severely limiting punitive judgments and
making the loser pay all costs. Everywhere that has been tried
frivolous lawsuits have simply vanished. Another easy one is requiring
that all companies servicing group policies have “super-group”
policies as well, and that State Law, where required be changed to
accommodate this new-old type of policy. Super-groups were once
used very successfully in Hawaii. Super –groups existed for those
whose business was too small, by state law (another change that may
be required) to have at least a major-medical group policy; those who
were changing employers and therefore fell between coverage
periods; and those unemployed, not already on Medicare or Medicaid
or cobra. By covering so many under such a policy the risk factors
balanced out, as they do under traditional group coverage. Co-pays
and premiums varied by situation and income bracket.
Another down the road approach might be to remove health insurance
altogether. It would be interesting to see doctor’s offices, labs,
hospitals, etc., compete for business in the open market without the
price supports which we call medical insurance.
But maybe I’m just being a
MAD DOG
“Health Care is a right!” Really? I would challenge those folks to
examine any complete and correct copy of the United States
Constitution and Bill of Rights and point it out to me. Not “you can see
this is what they meant”, or “it is clearly implied”. I want to see those
exact words. I know I won’t have any takers, because those words
aren’t there. Neither is the implication there of some kind of construed
hidden meaning of the founders there.
Perhaps the problem is that they just don’t understand what a “right”
really is. If one reads through the Constitution and the first ten
Amendments to the Bill of Rights we get a very clear picture of just
what the framers intended as a “right”. Basically, they take two forms.
The first form of right is meant to protect the citizen from some
encroachment of government. The second form secures to the citizen
some use or power that other citizens or the government may attempt
to take away. In none of the Amendments to the Bill Rights, even up
to present day is there yet a right that mandates that a citizen or illegal
resident receive the labor of any other citizen simply by demand upon
that individual. There are those whose eyes will light up and reply:
“Ah, but what about when I report a traffic light malfunction and
somebody goes out to fix it- am I not requiring the labor of another
citizen?” No, in fact, you are not. You have availed yourself of part of
the social contract, and as many of our fellow citizens work for
governmental entities bound under that contract, what you have seen
is what you have always expected to see.
Making health care a RIGHT goes well beyond the social contract. Dr.
Smith at the clinic nearby is no government employee (at least not
yet), he runs his own business as a General Practitioner of Medicine.
If health care becomes a right, you may very well DEMAND services of
Dr. Smith, and at prices such that Dr. Smith can no longer afford to
give you the quality of care to which you would like to become
accustomed.
There are also those wags that trot out “…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
of Happiness…” to prove that health care was always meant to be a
right. Uh, sorry to interrupt this daydream but that is not in the
Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence and was not meant
as an enumeration of rights so much as of wrongs – wrongs committed
by King George III of England upon his colonies here. Even if by some
stretch of the imagination that grand phrase might apply, one would
have to ask in what regard? If I were hiking alone, off-trail with no way
of communicating with anyone else, and fell and broke my leg of what
use is a “Right to Health Care”?
Another argument that I just saw a few days ago runs that since those
who own and operate businesses, corporations and industries have
health care, then it only makes sense that those who work for them
and make their money for them also have health care. After all,
healthy workers can work better and longer, being that much more
productive. As a business ethic, I see no fault with it. In feudal
England the office of Sheriff, as one of its primary duties, was tasked
with seeing that no Lord mistreated his serfs. But a right? The
justification is lacking as, so far, those who chose to operate a
business are private citizens and have the right to choose to act wisely
or foolishly in that regard.
There are many things that can be done right now to improve the
availability of health care in the United States. Making it a right and
giving it the Federal Government to superintend don’t make the list.
The first thing is Tort reform, severely limiting punitive judgments and
making the loser pay all costs. Everywhere that has been tried
frivolous lawsuits have simply vanished. Another easy one is requiring
that all companies servicing group policies have “super-group”
policies as well, and that State Law, where required be changed to
accommodate this new-old type of policy. Super-groups were once
used very successfully in Hawaii. Super –groups existed for those
whose business was too small, by state law (another change that may
be required) to have at least a major-medical group policy; those who
were changing employers and therefore fell between coverage
periods; and those unemployed, not already on Medicare or Medicaid
or cobra. By covering so many under such a policy the risk factors
balanced out, as they do under traditional group coverage. Co-pays
and premiums varied by situation and income bracket.
Another down the road approach might be to remove health insurance
altogether. It would be interesting to see doctor’s offices, labs,
hospitals, etc., compete for business in the open market without the
price supports which we call medical insurance.
But maybe I’m just being a
MAD DOG
Mad Dog's Maunderings...
By Vincent R. Murphy
Health Care Is a Right?
Think Again
Think Again
If you've read our entry on the "About Us" page, you know that one impetus in our
creation is our resistance to the trend in recent decades for Conservatives and
Republicans to stand by tacitly while the opposition dictates and defines the terms of
political discourse. No more. We're defining the terms now. Toward that end we'll
examine a few words and phrases in each issue.
FASCISM: term was first used by Italian dictator Mussolini in 1919. It exalts
nation , race or ethnicity above individual rights and freedoms and stands
for a strong autocratic centralized government led by a dictatorial leader
severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of
opposition, often marked by aggressive and brutal military actions.
SOCIALISM: economic and social system under which essential industries
and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and
democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit
for all, seeking to establish a Utopian society.
COMMUNISM: a theory or system of social organization based on the
holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the
community as a whole or to the state.; a system of social organization in
which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state
dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party, a theory and
system of social and political organization that was a major force in world
politics for much of the 20th century that sought to overthrow capitalism.
AUTHORITARIANISM: strict and demanding obedience, favoring strict
rules and established authority; demanding political obedience: belonging
to or believing in a political system in which obedience to the ruling person
or group is strongly enforced.
TOTALITARIANISM: in political science, system of government and
ideology in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and
spiritual activities are subordinated to the purposes of the rulers of a state.
In modern totalitarianism, however, people are made utterly dependent on
the wishes and whims of a political party and its leaders. It is marked by the
creation of an elite ruling class and the total control of media and
communication and total control of all economic and commercial enterprises.
GLOBALISM: A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is
regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence, a movement
toward the strengthening of the scope and power of world geopolitical and
economic organizations and entities.
OBAMAISM: a political ideology established by President Barack Obama
in 21st century America. A form of totalitarianism, it is also a hybrid,
selecting and rejecting components of other theories. Under Obamaism, as
many as possible aspects of life are brought under government control,
Administration attitudes on social, cultural and religious matters are forced
upon the people, and free enterprise id supplanted by government
controlled businesses and financial institutions. Obamaism is authoritarian
in that it is built around one, all-powerful leader. Although it does share with
FASCISM the tendency to suppress opposition, Obamasim is based in
extreme globalism, viewing the USA only as a small component in a global
government. International military force is therefore considered
counterproductive to world governmental development and is avoided as
completely as possible, with the use of military force being reserved to
achieve domestic order. Although using some of the vernacular of
Socialism and Communism, Obamaism does not seek equal distribution of
wealth and services but distribution to favored groups and the punishment
of others.
COOL: DEFINITION: A CONSERVATIVE..
creation is our resistance to the trend in recent decades for Conservatives and
Republicans to stand by tacitly while the opposition dictates and defines the terms of
political discourse. No more. We're defining the terms now. Toward that end we'll
examine a few words and phrases in each issue.
FASCISM: term was first used by Italian dictator Mussolini in 1919. It exalts
nation , race or ethnicity above individual rights and freedoms and stands
for a strong autocratic centralized government led by a dictatorial leader
severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression of
opposition, often marked by aggressive and brutal military actions.
SOCIALISM: economic and social system under which essential industries
and social services are publicly and cooperatively owned and
democratically controlled with a view to equal opportunity and equal benefit
for all, seeking to establish a Utopian society.
COMMUNISM: a theory or system of social organization based on the
holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the
community as a whole or to the state.; a system of social organization in
which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state
dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party, a theory and
system of social and political organization that was a major force in world
politics for much of the 20th century that sought to overthrow capitalism.
AUTHORITARIANISM: strict and demanding obedience, favoring strict
rules and established authority; demanding political obedience: belonging
to or believing in a political system in which obedience to the ruling person
or group is strongly enforced.
TOTALITARIANISM: in political science, system of government and
ideology in which all social, political, economic, intellectual, cultural, and
spiritual activities are subordinated to the purposes of the rulers of a state.
In modern totalitarianism, however, people are made utterly dependent on
the wishes and whims of a political party and its leaders. It is marked by the
creation of an elite ruling class and the total control of media and
communication and total control of all economic and commercial enterprises.
GLOBALISM: A national geopolitical policy in which the entire world is
regarded as the appropriate sphere for a state's influence, a movement
toward the strengthening of the scope and power of world geopolitical and
economic organizations and entities.
OBAMAISM: a political ideology established by President Barack Obama
in 21st century America. A form of totalitarianism, it is also a hybrid,
selecting and rejecting components of other theories. Under Obamaism, as
many as possible aspects of life are brought under government control,
Administration attitudes on social, cultural and religious matters are forced
upon the people, and free enterprise id supplanted by government
controlled businesses and financial institutions. Obamaism is authoritarian
in that it is built around one, all-powerful leader. Although it does share with
FASCISM the tendency to suppress opposition, Obamasim is based in
extreme globalism, viewing the USA only as a small component in a global
government. International military force is therefore considered
counterproductive to world governmental development and is avoided as
completely as possible, with the use of military force being reserved to
achieve domestic order. Although using some of the vernacular of
Socialism and Communism, Obamaism does not seek equal distribution of
wealth and services but distribution to favored groups and the punishment
of others.
COOL: DEFINITION: A CONSERVATIVE..
| Notes from the Conservative's Lexicon |
Off the Wires of the
Phaque-Phictishus News Service...
Obama to Congress:"The Czars and I
Got This- You're Being Re-Purposed"
Got This- You're Being Re-Purposed"
Washington DC- Sheila J. Murphy, PPNS Correspondent-
Following a furious ten days of Oval Office activity, President Barack Obama has
announced that with the appointment of his latest Czar, The Survey and Polling Czar, His
"Czar Corps" is complete at 66 members.
"We all live and die by poll numbers", said Obama. I owe it to the people to make sure
they are fair."
Obama's choice for the post is Ervin Schaffer, former Democrat strategist and pollster
for the DNC.
After that brief announcement, Obama put his open hand up, the now familiar signal to
the press that he has more to say.
"As you know, unlike the previous administration, I care about efficiency in government,
and I've found it."
Obama went on to explain that he and his 66 Czars make policy and establish binding
rules and regulations that govern nearly every facet of American life. We have found
that is really no real purpose for legislators.
"No offense intended", said the Chief Executive, "but the Congress is superfluous. Any
law they might come up with is either going to be redundant of czar regulations or
interfere with czar regulation and would then have to be repealed to facilitate the
efficiency we're all after."
Obama stated that Congressional Representatives and Senators are not being
"eliminated from government but are being re-purposed."
"You guys were elected by the people and I recognize the significance of that. Your new
jobs will be very important. "
Obama said that they would now be Citizen Liaisons, taking requests for government
services to the Czars on behalf of the people the members of Congress represent.
When asked by reporters about angry reactions already coming in from Republicans,
conservative broadcasters a citizen watchdog groups, Obama dismissed them. "Look,
look, I know its a change- but change is good, right?. I mean the Party of "NO" and the
hate mongers tend to forget that I won."
"I'm sure the people will agree that I have mandate to put his country on a new course
and that's what I'm doing."
"People in this country want no more of the horrible, divisive politics of the previous
administration and they're sick of seeing things debated in Congress."
The President stated that one major benefit would be that the czars report only to him
and need no other oversight or approval. We'll finally be rid of politically game-playing
and the counterproductive bottleneck that plagues the government,
"You know", laughed Obama, "Michelle asked if she could have her own Czar to help
around the White House, but I said 'no'. You have to draw the line somewhere."
-30-
Following a furious ten days of Oval Office activity, President Barack Obama has
announced that with the appointment of his latest Czar, The Survey and Polling Czar, His
"Czar Corps" is complete at 66 members.
"We all live and die by poll numbers", said Obama. I owe it to the people to make sure
they are fair."
Obama's choice for the post is Ervin Schaffer, former Democrat strategist and pollster
for the DNC.
After that brief announcement, Obama put his open hand up, the now familiar signal to
the press that he has more to say.
"As you know, unlike the previous administration, I care about efficiency in government,
and I've found it."
Obama went on to explain that he and his 66 Czars make policy and establish binding
rules and regulations that govern nearly every facet of American life. We have found
that is really no real purpose for legislators.
"No offense intended", said the Chief Executive, "but the Congress is superfluous. Any
law they might come up with is either going to be redundant of czar regulations or
interfere with czar regulation and would then have to be repealed to facilitate the
efficiency we're all after."
Obama stated that Congressional Representatives and Senators are not being
"eliminated from government but are being re-purposed."
"You guys were elected by the people and I recognize the significance of that. Your new
jobs will be very important. "
Obama said that they would now be Citizen Liaisons, taking requests for government
services to the Czars on behalf of the people the members of Congress represent.
When asked by reporters about angry reactions already coming in from Republicans,
conservative broadcasters a citizen watchdog groups, Obama dismissed them. "Look,
look, I know its a change- but change is good, right?. I mean the Party of "NO" and the
hate mongers tend to forget that I won."
"I'm sure the people will agree that I have mandate to put his country on a new course
and that's what I'm doing."
"People in this country want no more of the horrible, divisive politics of the previous
administration and they're sick of seeing things debated in Congress."
The President stated that one major benefit would be that the czars report only to him
and need no other oversight or approval. We'll finally be rid of politically game-playing
and the counterproductive bottleneck that plagues the government,
"You know", laughed Obama, "Michelle asked if she could have her own Czar to help
around the White House, but I said 'no'. You have to draw the line somewhere."
-30-
| Ask Uncle Sigmund |
Dear Uncle Sigmund,
I read about this psychological thing called
"megalomania" and I'm pretty sure the President
has it. But lately I wonder. He keeps putting our
own country down in front of other countries.
We're getting weaker and weaker. Wouldn't he
want to head up the BEST country instead of the
WORST? Am I wrong about him, Uncle
Sigmund? Could he have an inferiority complex
and not megalomania?
Amateur Shrink in Sheboygan
I read about this psychological thing called
"megalomania" and I'm pretty sure the President
has it. But lately I wonder. He keeps putting our
own country down in front of other countries.
We're getting weaker and weaker. Wouldn't he
want to head up the BEST country instead of the
WORST? Am I wrong about him, Uncle
Sigmund? Could he have an inferiority complex
and not megalomania?
Amateur Shrink in Sheboygan
Dear Sheboygan,
Perhaps you should consider moving beyond your amateur status
because I think you are on to something.
Megalomania as a mental disorder is marked by delusions that one has
incredible power, perhaps omnipotence. It also describes one who's
actions are governed by an ever-growing greed for power and can
demonstrate a tendency to exaggerate.
Your President does not appear to have delusions of power as he is,
in a reality, quite powerful. However, in studying the evolution of his
speeches over the past two years, a passion to achieve more and more
power is evident. He increasingly refers to himself as a sole power rather
than as a part of an administration. Yes, Sheboygan, megalomania seems
extremely likely. You are also correct that his determined effort to diminish
the image of the country he rules is confusing.
It reminds of my days in university at Vienna. Our Freshman class elected
a charismatic charmer as our class president. While campaigning he
approached each one of us and assured us he would look out for our
interests. After election, however, he started hanging around with
upperclassmen. He constantly belittled his fellow Freshmen, apologizing
for us, never passing up an opportunity to mention our flaws and
shortcomings. As betrayed as we were, we were more confused.
Soon, it all became clear. As only a Sophomore, he was elected as
President of the entire student body. Our class was a stepping stone to
him and nothing more.
Be on the look out for similar behavior on the part of your own leader. It is
possible that the power he really seeks is global power. If that is the case,
diminishing the strength and status of the United States is not contrary to
the indications of megalomania but makes perfect sense.
Watch for other signs of this such as efforts on the President's to replace
domestic currency with a world currency, to expand the powers of
international organizations in general and as superior to the powers of
American entities and to enforce foreign laws in American courts.
It is possible that the envisioned endgame of this megalomaniac is to rule
the world. In that context, the health of this country is only of relative
importance.
Uncle Sigmund
Perhaps you should consider moving beyond your amateur status
because I think you are on to something.
Megalomania as a mental disorder is marked by delusions that one has
incredible power, perhaps omnipotence. It also describes one who's
actions are governed by an ever-growing greed for power and can
demonstrate a tendency to exaggerate.
Your President does not appear to have delusions of power as he is,
in a reality, quite powerful. However, in studying the evolution of his
speeches over the past two years, a passion to achieve more and more
power is evident. He increasingly refers to himself as a sole power rather
than as a part of an administration. Yes, Sheboygan, megalomania seems
extremely likely. You are also correct that his determined effort to diminish
the image of the country he rules is confusing.
It reminds of my days in university at Vienna. Our Freshman class elected
a charismatic charmer as our class president. While campaigning he
approached each one of us and assured us he would look out for our
interests. After election, however, he started hanging around with
upperclassmen. He constantly belittled his fellow Freshmen, apologizing
for us, never passing up an opportunity to mention our flaws and
shortcomings. As betrayed as we were, we were more confused.
Soon, it all became clear. As only a Sophomore, he was elected as
President of the entire student body. Our class was a stepping stone to
him and nothing more.
Be on the look out for similar behavior on the part of your own leader. It is
possible that the power he really seeks is global power. If that is the case,
diminishing the strength and status of the United States is not contrary to
the indications of megalomania but makes perfect sense.
Watch for other signs of this such as efforts on the President's to replace
domestic currency with a world currency, to expand the powers of
international organizations in general and as superior to the powers of
American entities and to enforce foreign laws in American courts.
It is possible that the envisioned endgame of this megalomaniac is to rule
the world. In that context, the health of this country is only of relative
importance.
Uncle Sigmund
"A President wears many hats. We ALL want Obama, the
Commander in Chief to succeed in efforts to provide security and
defense for our Nation. Most of us fervently hope that Obama, the
very partisan politician will fail in his efforts to further his personal
ultra left socialistic agenda. "
Commander in Chief to succeed in efforts to provide security and
defense for our Nation. Most of us fervently hope that Obama, the
very partisan politician will fail in his efforts to further his personal
ultra left socialistic agenda. "
Their Attack: "To hope that Obama fails is the
same as hoping that America fails."
same as hoping that America fails."
"That concept is ridiculously illogical. NEVER has there been a
President who's agenda was completely accepted. There have
always been people that hope for the failure of some or all of any
President's goals in the office. This has been very obvious during the
recent term of George Bush and other Republicans. Obama is not
exempt."
President who's agenda was completely accepted. There have
always been people that hope for the failure of some or all of any
President's goals in the office. This has been very obvious during the
recent term of George Bush and other Republicans. Obama is not
exempt."
"There SHOULD be people who fight against any President's
political agenda. That is the essence of the kind of government we
have and that is what checks and balances are for. We have a
Congress that always has had the right and the responsibility to
oppose- to support the failure of- a President's proposals as they saw
fit. This system prevents dictatorships from occurring. If you
would dare to hope for the failure of Castro's plans, you can expect a
lengthy prison term at best."
political agenda. That is the essence of the kind of government we
have and that is what checks and balances are for. We have a
Congress that always has had the right and the responsibility to
oppose- to support the failure of- a President's proposals as they saw
fit. This system prevents dictatorships from occurring. If you
would dare to hope for the failure of Castro's plans, you can expect a
lengthy prison term at best."
| AMMUNITION |
| For Your Next Fight With a Liberal |
Your Responses:
"When Obama welcomed Arlen Specter to his Party, he did it as
the head of his Party. He may be the President but he is still very
much a Democrat and still in campaign mode. If is so sensitive that he
cannot withstand hopes that his political plan and ideology fails, he
should man-up or pack it up. If he wants to play hard ball in the big
leagues he and his disciples should quit whining when they
encounter dissent."
the head of his Party. He may be the President but he is still very
much a Democrat and still in campaign mode. If is so sensitive that he
cannot withstand hopes that his political plan and ideology fails, he
should man-up or pack it up. If he wants to play hard ball in the big
leagues he and his disciples should quit whining when they
encounter dissent."
| MAXIMUM MURPHY |
By Sheila J. Murphy, Editor in Chief
Three Petrifying Predictions!
I hate to steal the thunder from my own prognosticating character, Madame Orlafsky, but I’
ve got a few predictions of my own. While the exotic Orlafsky makes salient points through
the satire of outlandish visions, my foretellings are in deadly earnest. Although to some
they may seem “out there”, I must sadly state that these petrifying predictions are quite
possible.
The die is already cast. Team Obama decided long ago to terminate the
American Dollar and this will come to pass more quickly than anyone feared. If you
have not read our Lexicon entry about all the “isms”, give it a gander. Obama is
embracing “globalism” in a big way and giving this one a new, enhanced meaning. These
people truly do have a world view. Their end-game is the establishment of a world
government that they will control. The strength of America is not, for them, a goal but
rather something to be bargained away. No one will ever dissuade me from this belief. All
the Administration’s actions that weaken America are being chalked up to incompetence
or miscalculation. Neither is true. Their point here is to teach Americans one big, global
lesson: “We’re not so great. We’re not so special. Our economy is weak. Our Dollar is
weak. We must accept reality and accept the new GLOBAL CURRENCY and turn in
American money. We must accept our new, much-lessened role in the world.” Thus, my
prediction is that even if he makes noises of protest, Obama will fully cooperate in
replacing US currencies. The fact that top leaders of the G-8 were given coins reading
“United World Future Currency” is a fact. Obama keeping his with him always to remind
him of his goal- is just my guess. Furthermore, I believe that the incredible complexities of
switching monetary systems will create the quintessential “ObamaCrisis”. This
ObamaCrisis will permit so much government interference in financial and commercial
entities that it will allow the completion of much planned nationalization.
Speaking of ObamaCrises, another is at the root of my second prediction. Folks in all
quarters are astounded at how punitive the totality of Obama policy is to small
business in America. They are equally amazed at how few of the Obama “solutions”
are geared toward this economic subset that is responsible for 99% of our economic
health. Again, this is chalked up to miscalculation or incompetence. As tempting as it is to
assume it as such, alas, it is all designed to create yet another ObamaCrisis. Yes, I can
see it now: America’s small businesses in DIRE crisis- due, of course, to Bush’s disastrous
policies as inherited by the poor, hapless Obama. What will the Obama do with such a
fertile crisis? First he will declare that Employers providing health insurance for workers is
the core problem and that the “public option is more vital than ever; its passage as part of
healthcare reform absolutely URGENT.” Meanwhile, the ongoing Republican criticism of
the administration’s anti-small business policies will reach a crescendo at which time
Obama will use it as the propellant to secure national health care. Then he’ll start talking
about the BURDENS on small business owners- the BURDENS of management, the
BURDENS of understanding and implementing workers’ benefits and the BURDENS of
knowing what constitutes equitable compensation and understanding the maze of
government regulation. Not to worry. As usual this ObamaCrisis will come with an
ObamaSolution built in. The Obama will point to the SEIU (Service Employees
International Union) as the template of perfection. A massive union just like that could
save all of America’s small business owners from all those horrible burdens. He’ll explain
to us that the Service Employees International Union has made life better for all the
employees and the institutions at which they work. He will establish the Small Business
Employees Union and he’ll sell it as step toward equality for American workers. Thanks to
him, employees of small businesses will have access to all the marvelous benefits
available to employees of big labor union businesses and SEIU-served businesses. Even
though Obama will say enrollment in the SBEU will be “voluntary”, small business owners
will be jumping ship at blinding speed. What, then, of all the unemployment that will
ensue? We bought-out and bailed-out big business. Of course we must do the same for
small businesses. You guessed it. The Administration will buy-out small businesses and
administer them under the control of the Small Business Czar. That’s the end-game. They’
ve shown us that they can take control of a major industry with relative ease. The problem
has been these little pockets of independent thinking that are America’s small businesses.
This strategy ought to take care of that.
My third tale of terror: the silencing of dissident voices. The Obama is furious at his
falling numbers and he knows EXACTLY where to lay the blame. He’d like to come down
on disobedient media with a hammer the way mentor, Chavez, has done. However,
Americans still have too much hope- too much fight- and too many still own weapons. No,
overt won’t do it. Obama will be more subtle and he will attack the problem from multiple
angles. When his merry little troop of dictators fist arrived at 1600, most Americans were
upbeat: “The Congress will NEVER reinstate the Fairness Doctrine”. By now, most have
caught on to the reality that it is the Chairman of the FCC who has the power to revive the
Doctrine. He doesn’t need Congressional or Executive permission. However, the words
“Fairness Doctrine” have become a lightning rod. Yes, you’re right again. They’ll take the
“we must have local and minority voices, discussing local and not national issues” route.
They might have done this already but there’s a problem- money. After all, they’ve
trashed the economy and it would be risky to have ACORN and George Soros stake all
the selected people they want to plant in the new media. Enter: Son of Stimulus. In a new
stimulus bill watch for a hugely funded program “to help entrepreneurs”. This will fund all
the new “local” people who will fill the vacuum left by national conservative talk radio,
which will have been largely shut down in favor of “local “programming. Getting rid of FOX
News will be more challenging. They’ll start by going after Rupert Murdoch’s media empire
on a variety of ant-trust grounds. (Sorry, R. Know you were something of an Obama
supporter but these guys eat their young.) I don’t believe this will work. I don’t know how
they’ll silence FOX. I’m still trying to figure it out and I am only human. However, I’m only
sure they’ll continue the hunt.
ve got a few predictions of my own. While the exotic Orlafsky makes salient points through
the satire of outlandish visions, my foretellings are in deadly earnest. Although to some
they may seem “out there”, I must sadly state that these petrifying predictions are quite
possible.
The die is already cast. Team Obama decided long ago to terminate the
American Dollar and this will come to pass more quickly than anyone feared. If you
have not read our Lexicon entry about all the “isms”, give it a gander. Obama is
embracing “globalism” in a big way and giving this one a new, enhanced meaning. These
people truly do have a world view. Their end-game is the establishment of a world
government that they will control. The strength of America is not, for them, a goal but
rather something to be bargained away. No one will ever dissuade me from this belief. All
the Administration’s actions that weaken America are being chalked up to incompetence
or miscalculation. Neither is true. Their point here is to teach Americans one big, global
lesson: “We’re not so great. We’re not so special. Our economy is weak. Our Dollar is
weak. We must accept reality and accept the new GLOBAL CURRENCY and turn in
American money. We must accept our new, much-lessened role in the world.” Thus, my
prediction is that even if he makes noises of protest, Obama will fully cooperate in
replacing US currencies. The fact that top leaders of the G-8 were given coins reading
“United World Future Currency” is a fact. Obama keeping his with him always to remind
him of his goal- is just my guess. Furthermore, I believe that the incredible complexities of
switching monetary systems will create the quintessential “ObamaCrisis”. This
ObamaCrisis will permit so much government interference in financial and commercial
entities that it will allow the completion of much planned nationalization.
Speaking of ObamaCrises, another is at the root of my second prediction. Folks in all
quarters are astounded at how punitive the totality of Obama policy is to small
business in America. They are equally amazed at how few of the Obama “solutions”
are geared toward this economic subset that is responsible for 99% of our economic
health. Again, this is chalked up to miscalculation or incompetence. As tempting as it is to
assume it as such, alas, it is all designed to create yet another ObamaCrisis. Yes, I can
see it now: America’s small businesses in DIRE crisis- due, of course, to Bush’s disastrous
policies as inherited by the poor, hapless Obama. What will the Obama do with such a
fertile crisis? First he will declare that Employers providing health insurance for workers is
the core problem and that the “public option is more vital than ever; its passage as part of
healthcare reform absolutely URGENT.” Meanwhile, the ongoing Republican criticism of
the administration’s anti-small business policies will reach a crescendo at which time
Obama will use it as the propellant to secure national health care. Then he’ll start talking
about the BURDENS on small business owners- the BURDENS of management, the
BURDENS of understanding and implementing workers’ benefits and the BURDENS of
knowing what constitutes equitable compensation and understanding the maze of
government regulation. Not to worry. As usual this ObamaCrisis will come with an
ObamaSolution built in. The Obama will point to the SEIU (Service Employees
International Union) as the template of perfection. A massive union just like that could
save all of America’s small business owners from all those horrible burdens. He’ll explain
to us that the Service Employees International Union has made life better for all the
employees and the institutions at which they work. He will establish the Small Business
Employees Union and he’ll sell it as step toward equality for American workers. Thanks to
him, employees of small businesses will have access to all the marvelous benefits
available to employees of big labor union businesses and SEIU-served businesses. Even
though Obama will say enrollment in the SBEU will be “voluntary”, small business owners
will be jumping ship at blinding speed. What, then, of all the unemployment that will
ensue? We bought-out and bailed-out big business. Of course we must do the same for
small businesses. You guessed it. The Administration will buy-out small businesses and
administer them under the control of the Small Business Czar. That’s the end-game. They’
ve shown us that they can take control of a major industry with relative ease. The problem
has been these little pockets of independent thinking that are America’s small businesses.
This strategy ought to take care of that.
My third tale of terror: the silencing of dissident voices. The Obama is furious at his
falling numbers and he knows EXACTLY where to lay the blame. He’d like to come down
on disobedient media with a hammer the way mentor, Chavez, has done. However,
Americans still have too much hope- too much fight- and too many still own weapons. No,
overt won’t do it. Obama will be more subtle and he will attack the problem from multiple
angles. When his merry little troop of dictators fist arrived at 1600, most Americans were
upbeat: “The Congress will NEVER reinstate the Fairness Doctrine”. By now, most have
caught on to the reality that it is the Chairman of the FCC who has the power to revive the
Doctrine. He doesn’t need Congressional or Executive permission. However, the words
“Fairness Doctrine” have become a lightning rod. Yes, you’re right again. They’ll take the
“we must have local and minority voices, discussing local and not national issues” route.
They might have done this already but there’s a problem- money. After all, they’ve
trashed the economy and it would be risky to have ACORN and George Soros stake all
the selected people they want to plant in the new media. Enter: Son of Stimulus. In a new
stimulus bill watch for a hugely funded program “to help entrepreneurs”. This will fund all
the new “local” people who will fill the vacuum left by national conservative talk radio,
which will have been largely shut down in favor of “local “programming. Getting rid of FOX
News will be more challenging. They’ll start by going after Rupert Murdoch’s media empire
on a variety of ant-trust grounds. (Sorry, R. Know you were something of an Obama
supporter but these guys eat their young.) I don’t believe this will work. I don’t know how
they’ll silence FOX. I’m still trying to figure it out and I am only human. However, I’m only
sure they’ll continue the hunt.
Please visit the Blog to comment.
| Editor's Note: The Foregoing expresses the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of The Cool Conservative. |
I heard Dick Durbin talking about the Republican Party. He's never had anything nice to
say about Republicans before- but there he was, expressing his grave concern for the
Party. He was worried that if it doesn't moderate, move to the center, relegate social
value issues to the lowest echelon and turn away from divisive conservatives, it will die.
His emotions seemed so real. His concerns have been echoed by every conceivable
establishment media talking head and every Democrat pundit. And they are all so very
concerned that the Party will be damaged if Conservatism is not diminished. Do they
think we are idiots? Do they think we are stupid enough to believe that they
want the GOP thriving, strong and growing? It is like one super bowl team accepting
say about Republicans before- but there he was, expressing his grave concern for the
Party. He was worried that if it doesn't moderate, move to the center, relegate social
value issues to the lowest echelon and turn away from divisive conservatives, it will die.
His emotions seemed so real. His concerns have been echoed by every conceivable
establishment media talking head and every Democrat pundit. And they are all so very
concerned that the Party will be damaged if Conservatism is not diminished. Do they
think we are idiots? Do they think we are stupid enough to believe that they
want the GOP thriving, strong and growing? It is like one super bowl team accepting
Enough, GOP! Stop Reacting to Left-Wing
Baiting and Chart Your Own Course!
Baiting and Chart Your Own Course!
| Phaque-Phicktishus News Service Exclusive! Obama Really Does Blame Bush for Everything! Check Out These PPNS Headlines: |
A Phaque-Phicktickshus News EXCLUSIVE!
Famed Psychic Predicts:
Obama Will Suspend 2010 Elections
Declare Martial Law-Close Fox News, Talk Radio
Obama Will Suspend 2010 Elections
Declare Martial Law-Close Fox News, Talk Radio
I see polling places, darkened and locked. I see mobs of people standing outside of them demanding
to be let in to vote. Wait- no-no, I see people being turned away by soldiers with guns."
After a few moments of silence, Orlofsky described other visions that she had seen of events the night
before Election Day. She said the she had seen three polling places in three different cities that she
could not identify. Pipe bombs had exploded in a polling place in each city after closing.
Although no one claimed responsibility the Department of Homeland Security suspects, extreme right
wing extremist domestic terrorism. Orlofsky describes a press conference at which the President
related Homeland Security's determination that no American polling place was safe.
"Then he does it. I see it clearly. He declares Martial Law and suspends the election."
According to Orlofsky, Republicans are outraged in her vision, pointing to recent polls that showed
Republicans as sweeping the House and making great strides in the Senate. She says that public
unrest grows and riots at polling places become common.
"Then I see him speak again. He says that Talk radio and Fox News are inciting the riots. The
President orders them closed. He says it is only temporary and to protect the public."
"i see the polling places dark for many years. I see paper ballots crumbling."
Wiping tears from her eyes, Madame Orlofsky leaves quietly as dismayed audience members watch in
silence.
Madame Orlofsky met recently with those
seeking readings in a small mid-town tearoom.
After a series of inquiries about, jobs, romance
and lottery numbers, A soft spoken man asked
for a prediction about the 2012 elections.
A smiling Orlofsky smiled and gazed into the
crystal ball gleaming on a small table before her.
Her expression turned to puzzlement and then to
distress.
"i-I don't see anything. I don't see elections in
2010"
"Wait, Wait", she continued.
seeking readings in a small mid-town tearoom.
After a series of inquiries about, jobs, romance
and lottery numbers, A soft spoken man asked
for a prediction about the 2012 elections.
A smiling Orlofsky smiled and gazed into the
crystal ball gleaming on a small table before her.
Her expression turned to puzzlement and then to
distress.
"i-I don't see anything. I don't see elections in
2010"
"Wait, Wait", she continued.
| The Liberal Hypocrisy Meter |
Reports are coming in from the LHM Center.
Said one member of the Monitoring Staff, "We've practically got double vision
from studying all the double standards."
One such case cited is the way the White House responds to the killing of Dr.
Tiller, late-term abortion provider and the killing of a young Pvt. At an Army
Recruiting Center.
Tiller's death elicited public condemnations from the President and Attorney
General Houlder is pulling out all the stops in pursuing federal prosecution and
providing extra security for abortion providers.
Compare that to the President's failure to make any remark about the attack on
the recruiting Center and the death of a young Pvt. Long. Attorney General
Houlder did not offer any concern for the safety of military personnel in urban
locations or for the security of recruiting centers, although it seems to most that
it is much more likely that the anti-military is operating as part of a group and
organized effort than in the Tiller case.
More Hypocrisy:
According to the Monitoring Staff there is an epidemic of politicians, pundits and
entertainers who have all made statements to the effect that Sonia Sotomayor's
nomination should be considered ONLY in the aspect of the historical
significance that she could be the first Hispanic on the High Court. Where were
all these voices when people like Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzoles were
under consideration?
Said one member of the Monitoring Staff, "We've practically got double vision
from studying all the double standards."
One such case cited is the way the White House responds to the killing of Dr.
Tiller, late-term abortion provider and the killing of a young Pvt. At an Army
Recruiting Center.
Tiller's death elicited public condemnations from the President and Attorney
General Houlder is pulling out all the stops in pursuing federal prosecution and
providing extra security for abortion providers.
Compare that to the President's failure to make any remark about the attack on
the recruiting Center and the death of a young Pvt. Long. Attorney General
Houlder did not offer any concern for the safety of military personnel in urban
locations or for the security of recruiting centers, although it seems to most that
it is much more likely that the anti-military is operating as part of a group and
organized effort than in the Tiller case.
More Hypocrisy:
According to the Monitoring Staff there is an epidemic of politicians, pundits and
entertainers who have all made statements to the effect that Sonia Sotomayor's
nomination should be considered ONLY in the aspect of the historical
significance that she could be the first Hispanic on the High Court. Where were
all these voices when people like Miguel Estrada and Alberto Gonzoles were
under consideration?
Simple Truths
Sharpen the Focus on Sotomayor...
Everyone is focusing on Sotomayor's attitudes and then chiming in
that everyone one has these personal "preferences" and biases.
True enough. Forget about her being a Latina woman. That isn't
the point. She could as well be dedicated to making policy to
benefit Liberace fans with freckles. This is a smoke bomb- a
diversion. The real point is that she has steadfastly refused to
leave these attitudes at the chamber door.
The Ideological Division Between Fiscal Conservatism
and Social Conservatism Is Not as Clear as It Once Was
There was a time when a "moderate" Republican could make a
case for being a Conservative on fiscal and economic issues while
being liberal on issues like abortion and nationalized health care.
Obama and company have changed all that. They have woven
their ultra-left social agenda inextricably into every facet of the
economy. They are indistinguishable. At their hands tax dollars
and Borrowed government funds are moved around for the sole
purpose of buying the agenda. Every dollar is earmarked for Big
Brother. Today anyone who says they support abortion, must for
all practical purposes, support how it is that abortion can exist
within the programs of expensive- irresponsibly financed "women's
reproductive rights" programs. Every socially liberal cause that
separates a moderate from a Conservative has a huge complex,
fiscally irresponsible price tag attached. Today, how can anyone
even be a moderate? Fiscal conservatism is not even possible in
the advocation of liberal agendas.
It Is Cap and Trade That will Harm the Planet!
The Enviro-Whackos that are pushing Cap N’ Trade are either
incredibly stupid, astoundingly gullible or they are not being honest
about their game. It is dictated by logic. .American industry may not
be perfect- but it cares and it tries to follow regulations and to be
responsible. Industry in China and similar manufacturing venues
does not care- does not try. After the enforcement of C&T,
American industry will begin to fold. The percentage of goods for
world consumption made in the USA will Plummet. The percentage
made in enviro offenders like China will skyrocket because C&T
won’t diminish demand. The more manufacturing done outside of
US borders the more pollution. Congrats, Enviro-Whackos. You will
have done it yourselves- and that’s a simple truth.
Specter Did Not Leave GOP because of SOCIAL issues!
Those who seek to cause confusion and a deadly lack of resolve
and identity within the Republican Party continue to point to Arlen
Specter as the poster boy of being drummed out of the GOP
because of a leftward list on social issues. In reality, this former
Democrat has always leaned to left on SOCIAL Issues and
conservatives have always politely held their noses and welcomed
him. It was not until Specter went left on FISCAL matters and voted
for the Stimulus Bill that real opposition solidified. So that is the
SIMPLE TRUTH: SPECTER WAS REJECTED FOR FISCAL
LIBERALNESS AND NOT for SOCIAL ISSUES. There could not be
a tent big enough to include him after he betrayed the fiscal
principles that ALL Republicans share.
As long as the Media is a Puppet of the Administration, the
GOP will never be perceived as sympathetic by Hispanics or
any other minority.
For this reason, to "sell out" in opposing Sotomayor, or
concerning any other issue is not only, unprincipled and a betrayal
of the people, it would be a stupid waste. The simple truth is, GOP
Senators and Congressmen, you may as well fight loud and long
for you have nothing to lose.
Everyone is focusing on Sotomayor's attitudes and then chiming in
that everyone one has these personal "preferences" and biases.
True enough. Forget about her being a Latina woman. That isn't
the point. She could as well be dedicated to making policy to
benefit Liberace fans with freckles. This is a smoke bomb- a
diversion. The real point is that she has steadfastly refused to
leave these attitudes at the chamber door.
The Ideological Division Between Fiscal Conservatism
and Social Conservatism Is Not as Clear as It Once Was
There was a time when a "moderate" Republican could make a
case for being a Conservative on fiscal and economic issues while
being liberal on issues like abortion and nationalized health care.
Obama and company have changed all that. They have woven
their ultra-left social agenda inextricably into every facet of the
economy. They are indistinguishable. At their hands tax dollars
and Borrowed government funds are moved around for the sole
purpose of buying the agenda. Every dollar is earmarked for Big
Brother. Today anyone who says they support abortion, must for
all practical purposes, support how it is that abortion can exist
within the programs of expensive- irresponsibly financed "women's
reproductive rights" programs. Every socially liberal cause that
separates a moderate from a Conservative has a huge complex,
fiscally irresponsible price tag attached. Today, how can anyone
even be a moderate? Fiscal conservatism is not even possible in
the advocation of liberal agendas.
It Is Cap and Trade That will Harm the Planet!
The Enviro-Whackos that are pushing Cap N’ Trade are either
incredibly stupid, astoundingly gullible or they are not being honest
about their game. It is dictated by logic. .American industry may not
be perfect- but it cares and it tries to follow regulations and to be
responsible. Industry in China and similar manufacturing venues
does not care- does not try. After the enforcement of C&T,
American industry will begin to fold. The percentage of goods for
world consumption made in the USA will Plummet. The percentage
made in enviro offenders like China will skyrocket because C&T
won’t diminish demand. The more manufacturing done outside of
US borders the more pollution. Congrats, Enviro-Whackos. You will
have done it yourselves- and that’s a simple truth.
Specter Did Not Leave GOP because of SOCIAL issues!
Those who seek to cause confusion and a deadly lack of resolve
and identity within the Republican Party continue to point to Arlen
Specter as the poster boy of being drummed out of the GOP
because of a leftward list on social issues. In reality, this former
Democrat has always leaned to left on SOCIAL Issues and
conservatives have always politely held their noses and welcomed
him. It was not until Specter went left on FISCAL matters and voted
for the Stimulus Bill that real opposition solidified. So that is the
SIMPLE TRUTH: SPECTER WAS REJECTED FOR FISCAL
LIBERALNESS AND NOT for SOCIAL ISSUES. There could not be
a tent big enough to include him after he betrayed the fiscal
principles that ALL Republicans share.
As long as the Media is a Puppet of the Administration, the
GOP will never be perceived as sympathetic by Hispanics or
any other minority.
For this reason, to "sell out" in opposing Sotomayor, or
concerning any other issue is not only, unprincipled and a betrayal
of the people, it would be a stupid waste. The simple truth is, GOP
Senators and Congressmen, you may as well fight loud and long
for you have nothing to lose.
SOP (Standard Obama Procedure): He’s been around long enough now. The way he operates is
becoming clear. We can begin to outline his process, methods and strategies. This is NOT about ideology.
This is about the way he maneuvers as a political boss. Were he a Conservative, you’d find the same modus
operendi at the crime scene.
1.) He force-feeds. He’s relentless. He is like that salesman who puts incredible pressure on you- the
salesman who keeps telling you that you must buy NOW or the consequences will be dire.
2.) He overwhelms. He pushes multiple initiatives with aggressive urgency and simultaneously. His goal is
to shut people down like a computer that’s been fed too much data at once. He hopes that those who are still
engaged will be distracted, allowing bad programs to slip through.
3.) He is opportunistic. He is sharp and alert and constantly scanning for events that he can utilize to his
own advantage. He is resourceful; able to make a crisis out of very little or nothing at all.
4.) He uses words as shields. He says he is not promoting “socialized medicine”. What he promotes will
function much like socialized medicine but because he is a totalitarianist and not a strict socialist he denies
not what his program is but what it called. He hides his intentions behind the denotations and connotations of
words.
5.) He has stock phrases that he uses to manage public perception.
a.) Whenever he desires to push through a law or policy that is beyond his proper authority, he always
makes a statement to the effect that he doesn’t want to take over, control or nationalize this or that
because he is too busy- that he “has too much on his plate with China, North Korea” and so forth to want
to control anything.
b.) Whenever he wants to do something but doesn’t want people to realize it he says he’s “not particularly
INTERESTED” in doing it. A perfect example: as a candidate he said he was not interested in re-instating
the Fairness Doctrine. Gullible reporters, pundits and even some Republicans reported that “Obama does
not support the Fairness Doctrine.” Wrong. He said that the concept wasn’t the main issue attracting his
attention at THAT time. In no way was it a statement of opposition to the Fairness Doctrine. He’s said he’s
“not interested in running GM”. That only means he’s not excited about day-to-day operations, NOT the
he opposes putting that or any company under his control. Trained underlings use similar ploys: “We’re
NOT LOOKING at the UK’s health system” That only means that they are not singling it out for study now.
It does NOT mean that it won’t be duplicated eventually, or, the Pay Czar “is not FOCUSED on pay caps.”
That just means that it is not priority at that moment. It does NOT mean that it will not be his focus tomorrow.
5.) He uses derision against opponents. The more he fears them, the snider his remarks.
6.) He is not encumbered by the truth, by facts, or by a responsibility to give a true and honest
picture of his agenda to the people.
Know your opponent. Learn to recognize and anticipate his moves. Never take your eyes away
from him or, by extension, his administration. Learn to counteract his salvos before he can even
launch them
becoming clear. We can begin to outline his process, methods and strategies. This is NOT about ideology.
This is about the way he maneuvers as a political boss. Were he a Conservative, you’d find the same modus
operendi at the crime scene.
1.) He force-feeds. He’s relentless. He is like that salesman who puts incredible pressure on you- the
salesman who keeps telling you that you must buy NOW or the consequences will be dire.
2.) He overwhelms. He pushes multiple initiatives with aggressive urgency and simultaneously. His goal is
to shut people down like a computer that’s been fed too much data at once. He hopes that those who are still
engaged will be distracted, allowing bad programs to slip through.
3.) He is opportunistic. He is sharp and alert and constantly scanning for events that he can utilize to his
own advantage. He is resourceful; able to make a crisis out of very little or nothing at all.
4.) He uses words as shields. He says he is not promoting “socialized medicine”. What he promotes will
function much like socialized medicine but because he is a totalitarianist and not a strict socialist he denies
not what his program is but what it called. He hides his intentions behind the denotations and connotations of
words.
5.) He has stock phrases that he uses to manage public perception.
a.) Whenever he desires to push through a law or policy that is beyond his proper authority, he always
makes a statement to the effect that he doesn’t want to take over, control or nationalize this or that
because he is too busy- that he “has too much on his plate with China, North Korea” and so forth to want
to control anything.
b.) Whenever he wants to do something but doesn’t want people to realize it he says he’s “not particularly
INTERESTED” in doing it. A perfect example: as a candidate he said he was not interested in re-instating
the Fairness Doctrine. Gullible reporters, pundits and even some Republicans reported that “Obama does
not support the Fairness Doctrine.” Wrong. He said that the concept wasn’t the main issue attracting his
attention at THAT time. In no way was it a statement of opposition to the Fairness Doctrine. He’s said he’s
“not interested in running GM”. That only means he’s not excited about day-to-day operations, NOT the
he opposes putting that or any company under his control. Trained underlings use similar ploys: “We’re
NOT LOOKING at the UK’s health system” That only means that they are not singling it out for study now.
It does NOT mean that it won’t be duplicated eventually, or, the Pay Czar “is not FOCUSED on pay caps.”
That just means that it is not priority at that moment. It does NOT mean that it will not be his focus tomorrow.
5.) He uses derision against opponents. The more he fears them, the snider his remarks.
6.) He is not encumbered by the truth, by facts, or by a responsibility to give a true and honest
picture of his agenda to the people.
Know your opponent. Learn to recognize and anticipate his moves. Never take your eyes away
from him or, by extension, his administration. Learn to counteract his salvos before he can even
launch them
| Ashamed of Your Country, Barack? Guess What? It's Mutual. |
Obama Bows Before Saudi King
The Mystery of Pop-Up Nancy: Solved
Copyright © 2009 The Cool Conservative All Rights Reserved.