The Trump Inside Their Head

I don't post much any more. That's mostly because there are far better people who blog, who are much more facile in the use of language. That being said, I have a pretty good idea what Democrats keep losing in the past 4 special elections. 

When someone lives inside your head, you'll always have problems. Trump lives inside all the talking heads of the Left. He owns them. Until they have a message beyond "The Resistance" (as if they were like the French "resisting" the Germans) he will continue to own them. "We're not Trump" didn't work in 2016, its not working now and it won't work in 2018 or 2020. Until they can come up with a coherent message, and economic plan that doesn't showcase Socialism (just look hard @ Venezuela now, and what is happening in Illinois) they will continue to fail. Americans rejected Obama's sub 2% annual economic growth by voting against Hillary. Untl they can do more than scream like spoiled brats "its not fair Hillary lost", or "the Russians did it" they will continue to lose, by ever growing margins.

When you toss in the ever worsening tantrums of "children" in our universities, you begin to see what is happening. The Democratic Party in general and Leftist Liberals in particular have gone completely off the rails. They've done a 180 degree reversal of what Classical Liberalism used to be.

Unless they get a grip on reality, Middle America will continue to kick them to the curb. Right now, the Democratic Party is maginal. Their only majorities are in metropolitan areas, and both coasts. They are in danger of becoming irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Thats not good as our system of government NEEDS two effective parties to work.

Liberalism Is the Left's Religion...

Conservatives, especially social conservatives can be difficult to relate to at times.  However, on the whole, the real difference between Conservatives and Liberals is that many on the right have strong religious beliefs.  Liberals on the other hand, only have their political beliefs.
They have given up a belief in G-d an taken in its place...Liberalism-Leftism and it's inherent dogma.  Dennis Prager has written that,

You cannot understand the Left if you do not understand that leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some left-wing Christians’ and Jews’ claims notwithstanding), but otherwise it has every characteristic of a religion. The most blatant of those characteristics is dogma. People who believe in leftism have as many dogmas as the most fundamentalist Christian.

...

The answer is dogma — a belief system that transcends reason. No rational person can deny that big governments have caused almost all the great evils of the last century, arguably the bloodiest in history. Who killed the 20 to 30 million Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago — big government or big business? Hint: There were no private businesses in the Soviet Union. Who deliberately caused 75 million Chinese to starve to death — big government or big business? Hint: See previous hint. Did Coca-Cola kill 5 million Ukrainians? Did Big Oil slaughter a quarter of the Cambodian population? Would there have been a Holocaust without the huge Nazi state?

Whatever bad things big corporations have done is dwarfed by the monstrous crimes — the mass enslavement of people, the deprivation of the most basic human rights, not to mention the mass murder and torture and genocide — committed by big governments.

How can anyone who thinks rationally believe that big corporations rather than big governments pose the greatest threat to humanity? The answer is that it takes a mind distorted by leftist dogma. If there is another explanation, I do not know what it is.

But, man needs myths, legends and higher goals.  We have striven for that since conscious thought evolved within us.  We've always had gods.  but, as Jonah Goldberg wrote,

When man loses God he sets about to make new gods. Or as the philosopher Eric Voegelin puts it, “[ W] hen God is invisible behind the world, the contents of the world will become new gods; when the symbols of transcendent religiosity are banned, new symbols develop from the inner-worldly language of science to take their place.”

Likewise man creates dogmas because man needs dogmas. The light of reason illuminates the darkness and science provides us compasses to find our way. But it does not provide us with reasons to get out of bed in the first place. As John Dos Passos said, “The mind cannot support moral chaos for long. Men are under as strong a compulsion to invent an ethical setting for their behavior as spiders are to weave webs.”

Without dogmas, intellectual chaos ensues.  As recently as 2006, Lee Harris described French Marxist Georges Sorel (1847-1922),

 Sorel, for whom religion was important, drew a comparison between the Christian and the socialist revolutionary. The Christian’s life is transformed because he accepts the myth that Christ will one day return and usher in the end of time; the revolutionary socialist’s life is transformed because he accepts the myth that one day socialism will triumph, and justice for all will prevail. What mattered for Sorel, in both cases, is not the scientific truth or falsity of the myth believed in, but what believing in the myth does to the lives of those who have accepted it, and who refuse to be daunted by the repeated failure of their apocalyptic expectations. How many times have Christians in the last two thousand years been convinced that the Second Coming was at hand, only to be bitterly disappointed — yet none of these disappointments was ever enough to keep them from holding on to their great myth. So, too, Sorel argued, the myth of socialism will continue to have power, despite the various failures of socialist experiments, so long as there are revolutionaries who are unwilling to relinquish their great myth. That is why he rejected scientific socialism — if it was merely science, it lacked the power of a religion to change individual’s lives. Thus for Sorel there was “an…analogy between religion and the revolutionary Socialism which aims at the apprenticeship, preparation, and even the reconstruction of the individual — a gigantic task.” [emphasis is mine, ed.]

 We humans, need something larger than ourselves to clutch onto to explain what we're reaching for.  Liberals have taken political dogma as their religion.  That simple fact explains the avalanche of personal attacks when any Liberal strays from their accepted party line...after all, throughout history, heretics have been sacrificed for the greater good by the mass of the people.  That has continued through today. 

Just look at Larry Summers when he was president of Harvard University when he was figuratively crucified for, during a seminar in which you were supposed to put up arguments that would then be knocked down in intellectual discussion, posited that women's lack of representation in the hard sciences and mathematics was, perhaps, due to evolutionary factors.  That's just one example...there are hundreds of others. The one thing they have in common, is that the entire community harangues the offender until he comes to his moment of confession and apology... which MUST be made in public.  But I digress.

Conservatives have a tendency to forgive those who stray from the political corral.  We might call them RINO's but they're allowed to wander off and back with little regard to whether or not they closely adhere to conservative political principles.  John McCain...need I say more?

But, at the end of it all, Google's using Cesar Chavez as it's "saint" in place of Jesus ben Joseph on Easter is the perfect example of political dogma as religion.

Proving Media Bias

Tim Groseclose of Prager University has developed a formula to statistically, how mainstream media outlets are biased.  Here's the video.




Furthermore, he has a test that will give you your "Political Quotient", or where you stand on a scale of 1-100, 0 being far right conservative, most America's stand right in the centre at 50...where do you stand?   I'm fairly moderate, politically, since I'm far more libertarian than conservative but my PQ in this test is far right conservative,

Here’s my PQ: 0.6
Politicians with similar PQs are:
Michele Bachmann (R-Minn, 2007-09) PQ=-4.1
James DeMint (R-S.C. 1999-2009) PQ=5.1
This is because fiscally, I would like to see the size and scope of the federal government rolled back by a 50-70%.  Reduce the federal departments to Defense, Treasurey, Commerce, Justice and Transportation (because of the NTSB, and a couple of other effective agencies).  Terminate all those sucking off Uncle Sam's hind tit, and forcing them out into the work force...to do something productive.  Essentiall, I firmly believe most of the functions that the federal goverment has usurped, more properly, belong to the responsibility of the various states.

This stems from the wording of the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's pretty straight forward wording.  If it's not specifically permitted to the federal government by the Constitution, those powers are reserved to the states and the people...That's my main opposition to National Health Care...if a state (like Massachusetts) desires to build a state health care system, they have every right to do so, and they can require their citizens to participate in that system...much like buying auto insurance if you own a car. 

But, I strenuously object to the federal government usurping that power to itself...as current law stands, under legal precedent, the federal government require everyon to purchase a GM car...that's a fair reading of the US Supreme Court's recent ruling on ObamaCare being legal under the "commerce clause" of the Bill of Rights...

Think about that for a moment...but I digress.  This is about media bias.  You can't read a newspaper, or watch TV news without being bombarded by the bias of JournoList members. POLITICO.com is unashamedly a propaganda arm of the Obama administration...with the NY Times/LA Times and WaPo not far away...

Via The BlogFather...

Here's how the left wing liberals feel about America:



Then, there's this video of the OWS "movement" in Portland.

Makes you wonder just what they really want? Liberal facism perhaps?

Medical Fraud in Wisconsin

ObamaCare is resulting in the proliticization of medicine in Madison Wisconsin, where Dr. Patrick McKenna was video'd giving out fraudulent physicians notes to cover the unionized teacher's missing work to attend the protest at the state capitol this week.  Ann Althouse, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin has this video of the physician in question.



Here is video from the McIver Institute

“I asked if they were handing out doctors’ excuses and a guy said yes and asked me if I needed one,” she said. “When I told them I needed one for February 16 and 17th, he wondered if I wanted to come back here for the protests next week.”


What happened next?

“I said, ‘sure,’ and I received a doctor’s note for the 16th through the 25th of February, without a medical exam.”

The notes read

Feb 19, 2011
Patient’s name______
Date of birth ____/_____/_____

To Whom it May Concern:
This is confirm I have seen and evaluated the above named patient.
Please excuse from work/school due to a medical condition from
____/____/____ through
Please contact me at badgerdoctors@gmail.com if additional information is needed. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Physician Signature:
Physician Name
WI license number

Based on an examination of the signature and medical license number provided, one of the men handing out these notes was purporting to be James H Shropshire MD, a Clinical Associate Professor at the University Wisconsin Madison.

Instapundit reader, Dr. Steve White notes that,

I noted the Althouse blog reference at Instapundit. I’m a physician. I take care of patients. Yes indeed, if I were to give a doctor’s note to someone without conducting a proper medical evaluation (however brief), I’d be guilty of improper behavior and ethics and could be brought before the medical licensing board.  However, there’s another name for this: FRAUD. The teachers will use these notes to justify their absences and collect their pay. Both the doctors and the teachers are perpetrating a fraud.  Wonder if the Wisconsin attorney general could be motivated to look into that? At the very least, demand that any teacher turning in a doctor’s note over this work action also turn over the record of the medical ‘evaluation’. That would put a stop to this real quick.

More importantly, this is the first politicization of fraudulent medical coverage to give, as Prof. Jacobsen of Cornell University says,

“We have seen the future of the health care system, and it is the doctors on the streets of Madison, Wisconsin, handing out free sick notes to public sector union members so they can fraudulently collect their pay for missing work. Boy, oh boy, I can’t wait for Obamacare. Politicized medicine, massive fraud in the name of progressive politics, and a callous disregard for the law free from fear of prosecution for those aligned with the Democrats.” [emphasis  is mine, ed.]

If you are a union member and support the politically correct party, you can break your union negotiated contract...to fraudulently call in sick to attend a political rally...that's the future of ObamaCare.  In my union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Mid Atlantic Regional Council,  you can be terminated from your employment for doing this...why are teachers and public employees being given special treatment?  Best of all...here's a video of a physician giving Andrew Breibart a note...



From the comments come this:

The doctors in question are Lou Sanner, Anne Eglash, Hannah Keevil, James Shropshire and Patrick McKenna. I wouldn't be surprised to find they have already been referred to the Wisconsin Dept. of Regulation and Licensing and/or the WI Attorney General. Handing out obviously phony medical evaluations on the street and in front of cameras is pretty dumb, even for self-absorbed leftist pigs. 
golgathum 52 minutes ago 4

Political Protests: The Tea Party Difference

Here's the real differencen in political protests...

H/T Instapundit

Breibart Forces Liberal Demonstrators To Slink Away

Here's video of how to deal with liberals...who don't actually understand those ideals that they espouse. 

California Vs Arizona

A Modern Parable...on Progressive Thought Processes...

California
The Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail.

A coyote jumps out, bites the Governor and attacks his dog.
1. The Governor starts to intervene, but reflects upon the movie "Bambi" and then realizes he should stop; the coyote is only doing what is natural.
2. He calls animal control. Animal Control captures coyote and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases and $500 for relocating it.
3. He calls a veterinarian. The vet collects the dead dog and bills the State $200 testing it for diseases.
4. The Governor goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting his bite wound bandaged.
5. The running trail gets shut down for 6 months while Fish & Game conducts a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is free of dangerous animals.
6. The Governor spends $50,000 in state funds implementing a "coyote awareness" program for residents of the area.
7. The State Legislature spends $2 million to study how to better treat rabies and how to permanently eradicate the disease throughout the world.
8. The Governor's security agent is fired for not stopping the attack somehow and for letting the Governor attempt to intervene.
9. Additional cost to State of California : $75,000 to hire and train a new security agent with additional special training re: the nature of coyotes.
10. PETA protests the coyote's relocation and files suit against the State.

Arizona:
The Governor of Arizona is jogging with her dog along a nature trail. A Coyote jumps out and attacks her dog.
1. The Governor shoots the coyote with her State-issued pistol and keeps jogging. The Governor has spent $0.50 on a .45 ACP hollow point cartridge.
2. The Buzzards eat the dead coyote.

And that's why California is broke.

Enough said!

A Mad Duck Congress?

If the GOP wins large majorities in this November's election, could the Democrats presently in control of Congress become a "mad duck" congress.  That would mean that during the December's final session of the present Congress, they would pass all sorts of legislation that would be difficult or impossible to reverse, like granting anmesty to 20 million illegal workers, or Cap & Trade bill now stalled in the Senate.  How about a Value Added Tax (VAT). 

These are all presently on the Democratic leaderships agenda, but are stalled or not yet introduced as bills.  Would the Democrats actually attempt to implemeent these very unpopular proposals against the will of the people?  You betcha!  If they passed the America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 against the wishes of (as polls showed) 57% of the voting public, you can just about guarantee that they'll pass these items, as they've been on the liberal wish lists for decades.

Micky Kaus, a long time journalist from southern California, now running for the US Senate against Barbara Boxer, says,

The only sure solution to Mad Duckism that I can see is for the Republicans to not win too big, leaving at least a substantial number of Dems with something left to lose. ...

In my opinion, just the opposit should happen, the GOP should win such large majorities as to guarantee repealling all of these items in numbers large enough to over come the certainty of veto by this president (who has already proven to be a far left ideologue).    Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard thinks this is a likely senario as well.  In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Mr. Barnes comes to this conclusion,

It's unpopular, but one can imagine Democrats might seek to enact it. The president's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which began its work last week, is required to submit a plan for serious deficit reduction by Dec. 1, four weeks after the November election.


Its recommendations are non-binding, but a lame duck Congress would be in position to take them up, including a possible VAT. Should Democrats suffer a landslide defeat, their large majorities would still be in place for the lame-duck session. What would Democrats who'd been defeated for re-election have to lose by voting for a VAT? Not much.

This scenario isn't as far-fetched as you might think. In a speech at a Democratic reception in Boston on April 1, Mr. Obama boasted of his willingness to do the unpopular: "If you govern by pundit and polls, then you lose sight of why you got into public service in the first place," he said. His "job," he said, isn't to "husband my popularity [and] make sure that I'm not making waves. . . . So I resolved to do not necessarily what was popular, but what I thought was right."

Does Mr. Obama think a VAT would be "right"? Take a guess.

I think because this on that "wish list" of items Democrats want dearly, that this will likely be what happens.  If the GOP wins less than 100 seats in the House and under 10 in the Senate, that the present Speaker of the House and a lame duck Senate Majority Leader will convene a whirlwind session and attempt to pass as much of thier agenda as possible, without any bipartisan effort at all.   After all, with the passage of the extremely unpopular America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009 without ANY Republican votes, something unprecidented in our history, why would they shirk at the rest of their agenda?

Victor Davis Hansen: Works & Days

Victor Davis Hansen has a great column up today about the "leftist revolution" occuring today in America.  Here's a bit: 

America’s Extreme Make-over
These are exciting though scary revolutionary times, akin to the constant acrimony in the fourth-century BC polis, mid-nineteenth century revolutionary Europe, or — perhaps in a geriatric replay — the 1960s. This is an era when the fundamental assumptions of the individual and the state are now being redefined, albeit in a weird, high-tech, globalized landscape.

Radical But Well Off
A word of caution: we are not talking about hoi polloi versus hoi oligoi, or the commune on the barricades fighting the estate owners. No, not this time around.

Instead, the present attempt to remake America is the effort of the liberal well-to-do — highly educated at mostly private universities, nursed on three decades of postmodern education, either with inherited wealth or earning top salaries, lifestyles of privilege indistinguishable from those they decry as selfish, and immune from the dictates they impose on others.

Such are basically the profiles of the Obama cabinet and sub-cabinet, the pillars of liberalism in the Congress and state legislatures, the public intellectuals in the universities and foundations, the arts crowd, and the Hollywood elite. Let us be clear about that...

Read the whole thing!

Lil'Liberals In Our Future

JP you were right...this is funny!

Chris Mathews Is A Liar And A Bigot

Watch the video and you'll see the "monochromatic" audience...Chris Mathews is a liar and a bigot, and here's the proof.

What the Liberal Elites Think

Here is an excellent analysis of what the liberal elites believe, here is what Prof. Kenneth Anderson writes in the Columbia Law Review:

The old elites wanted to be the top of the communities in which they had grown up; whether to lead or dominate, to serve communities or exploit them, at least they understood themselves as having a place in them. The new elites, by contrast, want no connection; they understand that power is elsewhere, money is elsewhere, and mobility is everything; if indeed they have to live somewhere, it will be if at all possible in a wholly private, gated community. Yet simultaneously they want to dominate.

The New Class pushes its mobility to absolute limits, launching itself into what it imagines is a global society conducted in the jet stream, made weightless by the complete mobility of capital, but with devastating consequences for those left behind on the ground. For those who cannot fly, there is first, the administration of life by these same elites and their hirelings, the authoritarian, bureaucratic formations which, to be sure, express themselves alternately in soothingly therapeutic psycho-babble or communitarian slogans of the common good or assertions of new and endless rights and, second, economic insecurity in the midst of being urged to greater self-esteem …

In this unforgiving light, the unhappiness of lawyers looks rather less like professionals experiencing the loss of fulfillment that accompanies losing “ownership” of the social ends of the legal profession and rather more like the unhappiness of experts who, having established to their own satisfaction the certainty of ends not open for argument by non-experts, wonder why they are not also loved.

The issue of the New Class and its lawyers is authoritarianism. In an age when the therapeutic has appropriated rights talk, and with it lawyers, turning it and them into agents of New Class authoritarianism and social control, the real question that needs to be answered is why there exists the continued “hegemony within the public culture of an essentially indeterminate and at the same time absolutist discourse of rights.” It predominates because, far from being merely a language of individual liberty or even unbridled individual license (as, for example, the communitarians would have us believe) it is today a language of state authority, a language of therapeutic paternalism; those who actually dream of being “liberals” will not reclaim rights talk any time soon. Its appropriation is at the core of the process by which the state today controls, as Christopher Lasch wrote, “not merely [the individual's] . . . outer but his inner life as well; not merely the public realm but the darkest corners of private life, formerly inaccessible to political domination.”

Lawyers are deeply complicit in this colonization of the language of rights by the culture of therapy. They participate because it serves the agenda of a class that, unfamiliar with democracy except as an impediment to its social engineering, is incapable of any form of discourse that is not directed from the top to the bottom. Expertise, particularly in the social sciences, is a language of hierarchy and social control, and lawyers today, as a professional formation within the New Class, deploy the language of rights to the end of making the therapeutic coercive in the public sphere.

It is not a glorious profession because it is not a glorious class, and lawyers are right to be unhappy.

Classical Liberals vs Modern Liberals

Mr. Obama isn’t like liberals of old. Kennedy, Truman, FDR (even Johnson & Carter served in the Navy) were more than willing to fight for America. Liberals today firmly believe that since America is the problem and thus not worth fighting for. Today you won’t find many Liberals serving in the military, and for this they don't have as much of a "vested interest" in defending this country. They leave that for those who are “less fortunate than themselves” so that they can go on to “leadership” roles. The only recent Liberal who was nominated for national office was John Kerry, and even he has spent the rest of his career denouncing the military.

But most of all, Liberals don’t see national security as an important issue. They view terrorism as a law enforcement issue, and not a genuine threat to the nation. Thus we will have rediculous trials in NY City for those whom we have taken on the battlefield. KSM’s trial will be a sideshow and is a huge threat to our security apparatus. Prosecutors will have to turn over large amounts of sensitive data that will compromise our ability to continue to defeat Al Quieda.

Furthermore, by not immediately sacking Mrs. Napolitano (a political hack with NO background in security issues) from her position as secretary of Department of Homeland Security (as useless a Department as has ever been implemented) after her repeated statements that “the system worked”, he has signalled once again that his administration’s belief that terrorism isn’t a threat to the security of this country. Again, his dithering over actually implementing the plan his hand picked commanders in Afghanistan have put forward is another symptom of his inability to actually use the “Big Stick” of TR’s fame.