A Bad Week For Leftists

This past week was a rough one for leftists, to be sure – not that it was a necessarily good one for conservatives (except in one case) – it was just a spectacularly bad week to be a liberal*.

For starters, more gun restrictions in the form of universal background checks was shot down in spectacular fashion by the Democrat-controlled Senate to start the week (win for constitutional conservatives!). Obama’s tantrum press conference after the defeat was certainly embarrassing, but it was also fun trying to figure out if it was because he actually lost the debate, or if he was mad that he couldn’t blame it on the House Republicans (the enemy!) this time.

Speaking of losers, the elite liberal “intelligensia” who were hoping beyond hope that the Boston Marathon bomber would be a white, conservative, Christian male (I’m looking at you, David Sirota, Michael Moore, Chris Matthews, Peter Bergen, et. al.) can’t be happy that the bombers turned out to be Chechen immigrants who were influenced by/followed radical Islam. To be sure, anyone who was hoping that the bombers were of a certain demographic in order to win politcal points needs to examine his or her priorities in a profound way – it was still edifying in a shadenfreudig sort of way to watch the leftists squirm and backpedal and have to eat their words; although I hear Michael Moore is still convinced he’s right (and too busy eating other things to make room for his words…).

What’s more, even the leftist sacred cow of “reproductive rights” (read pro-death/pro-abortion) came under fire with the testimony and pictures released, albeit grudgingly, from the Kermit Gosnell trial. The grisly images were a reminder of what abortion-on-demand will ultimately lead too, and created quite a dilemma for the “protect abortion at all cost” media. They tried to embargo the story at first, but were eventually shamed into covering the story by social media, including some liberal commentators in print.


Finally, just when it seemed it couldn’t get any worse, the Elvis Impersonator who sent letters laced with ricin to President Obama and Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) was a nutjob, but not a right-wing nutjob. In fact, evidence suggests that the alleged guilty party, one Paul Kevin Curtis was actually a Democrat activist. I don’t know if it could get any worse than “crazy Elvis is a Democrat,” at least from an embarrassment standpoint.


Never fear, though, little leftist – at least there’s a chance the explosion at the West, TX fertilizer plant was caused by some white, gun-toting, bible-clinging right-winger…

(*h/t Rat’s Right; “An Open Letter To Liberals” inspired this post)

Brilliant: More Leftist Fail

English: New York Mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg.

Two cases of liberal fail today. The first is in regards to Nanny Bloomberg’s ban on large sodas in New York City. It’s without dispute that Bloomberg is one of those elites…you know the kind who thinks he knows what’s better for you than you. Therefore, he took it upon himself to ban sodas over 16 ounces in food service establishments in an attempt to “solve” the problem of obesity. One problem: new research suggests that his proposed ban might actually produce the opposite effect, with people desiring to purchase more soda if the ban goes into effect (currently, the courts have struck down the ban, pending appeal). From RealClearScience:

Researchers invited participants to order food from various menus. (They weren’t actually given any real food.) Soda was available for purchase in three different ways:

“Unregulated”: 16-oz., 24-oz. and 32-oz. cups were available “Bundle”: 16-oz., 2 x 12-oz. bundle and 2 x 16-oz. bundle were available “No Bundle”: 16-oz. only was available

How much soda did they buy? (See below.)

Participants ordered more soda if it was bundled into smaller cup sizes.

The authors argue that NYC is probably assuming the “No Bundle” scenario, i.e., fast food restaurants will simply stop giving customers the option of buying more than 16 oz. of soda. However, soda is a big source of revenue, and this research suggests that if restaurants bundle 12- and 16-oz. sodas together into packages of two, customers will gladly buy those. In other words, people may actually purchase more soda if the large cup ban takes effect, completely undermining the reason for implementing the large cup ban in the first place.

The authors acknowledge that they did not examine consumption of soda, but merely the intent to purchase. Still, Mr. Bloomberg should consider the possible unintended consequences of his actions.

Perhaps, left to their own devices, people are actually smart enough to figure out what’s best for themselves.

The second case of fail comes from “Fauxcahontas” herself, Elizabeth Warren. Not to long ago, she made headlines for suggesting that the national minimum wage should be $22 per hour:

English: Elizabeth Warren speaking at March 29...

However, as reported by William Jacobson over at Legal Insurrection, it turns out that Warren is so concerned about income, that she pays her interns exactly $0 per hour:

The abuse of interns by powerful corporations like The NY Times is well documented, and the subject of controversy by student and worker advocates who argue that such internships in the private sector may violate wage laws.  Even if done in compliance with legal guidelines, unpaid internships take advantage of unequal bargaining power in a weak job market.

We checked today with Warren’s Senate office, and were told that “all internships are unpaid.” When asked whether they had any paid internships, the office responded “we do not.”

Warren is not alone.  Unpaid internships in Congress are the norm and appear to be legal because that’s the way Congress wrote the law.

We also researched internships Warren’s Senate campaign offered.  Warren’s campaign made very effective use of “internships” as a lure to get students to work on campuses and elsewhere for the campaign.  The internships were both part and full time and were unpaid.

I suppose all those evil business owners who “didn’t build that,” but earned their success on the backs of taxpayers must pay an exorbitantly unrealistic minimum wage, but a public servant, whose entire office is established and funded by taxpayers…not so much. “Fair” wages from thee, but not from me. If the hypocrisy was not so commonplace, it would be sad.

Post-Newtown Gun Control is Not About the Children, but Control

Excerpted from Catholicvote.org:

Kermit Gosnell is on trial for many counts of murder, including delivering babies alive, taking a pair of scissors, and snipping their spinal cords. Did you know about that? I’ll bet lots of people who may have heard of it a while ago forgot about it, and didn’t know his trial has begun.

That may be because no one is talking about it in the major media outlets. I mean no one. Check out this screen capture of Google News results for “Gosnell.” LifeNews.com, a couple of local papers, and someone at HuffingtonPost.com covered it, sure. But look at the last link. It says, “It Is Disturbing That Mike Rice Gets More Coverage Than Kermit…” Yes, coverage about the non-coverage gets higher billing than most coverage. So you could be excused for not knowing about this.

I’ll bet you did know about the ABSOLUTE NEED for more restrictive gun laws nationwide because of the massacre of children in Newtown, Connecticut.

Pardon my French, but this is political opportunism by people who want control at its worst.Obama-Obey

Anyone. And I mean anyone who does not want to talk about Kermit Gosnell’s actions and our abortion-saturated culture but does want to use Newtown to push gun control because of our gun-saturated culture does not care about saving kids. They care about control.

The difference between the children gunned down by Adam Lanza and the children who had their spines snipped by Kermit Gosnell is nothing more than time.

The socio-economic wherewithal of the family does not lessen the humanity of the child. To say otherwise is to say the Newtown kids were “more human” because their parents had more money than the poor people who went to Gosnell. That is an abhorrent thought that no feeling person could harbor.

The “choice” of the mother (or the mother’s mother, who is forcing her teenage daughter to have an abortion) does not confer humanity upon the child. If it does, why not extend that principle longer and let the family take the kid home, give it some thought, see how the kid grows up, and let them bring the kid back for an “after-birth abortion” some time down the road when the kid becomes inconvenient or fails to make the honor roll. Just reserve the right to “choose” until later in life.

If you disagree and think an “after-birth abortion” is okay within the first few moments after birth, especially for a kid who should have been aborted, tell me what is different about the kid herself between that moment right after birth and the moment the kid arrives home for the first time (should she be so fortunate). Why would it be murder to intentionally kill the kid once home but it is not murder there in the delivery room? If you have a response, challenge yourself: Provide a response without talking about “should have been aborted,” “the mother’s choice,” or “terrible quality of life.” None of those affect the humanness of the new human person that has left the birth canal alive.

The Newtown victims were murdered by a mentally unstable man who had been mercilessly bullied as a youth, who was mesmerized by hundreds of hours of military-style first-person shooter video games, and enabled by a mother mind-numbingly irresponsible with the weapons she lawfully owned in one of the states with the most restrictive gun laws. They were not murdered by a roving band of renegade scary-looking guns with bloodlust or in a yippy-kai-yay shootout in a town as permissive with guns as the Wild West.

Yet the target in the national rush to DO SOMETHING!!11!!!!!11!! in the wake of Newtown is not violent video games. It is not bullying. It is not even making sure families with mentally unstable members are more heavily scrutinized or required to be more responsible with their guns. No, it’s gun ownership, through blanket measures that will restrict the rights of millions of people who are entirely innocent and entirely responsible with their guns.

Continue Reading…

Double Speak? New Speak? No, Just Obama Speak

Remember this from about a month ago:

What a difference a few weeks makes, because apparently Obama’s “balanced approach” does not include a “balanced” budget:

My goal is not to chase a balanced budget just for the sake of balance. My goal is how do we grow the economy, put people back to work, and if we do that we are going to be bringing in more revenue.

Excuse me, but um, Mr. President., a balanced budget – such as the one proposed by Paul Ryan, which you dismiss offhand – will add about five million private sector jobs (using your own estimates), grow middle class incomes, and increase GDP by 1% annually over current law, according to a former head of the CBO. Not to mention that it’s only common sense: once issues such as spending and tax rates are locked into a budget, private sector business are able to be more confident in their own future projections, so that they can begin hiring in confidence again. As a result, the economy grows and the number of taxpayers increases and revenues to the government increase without (gasp!) raising taxes.

But then again, that’s not the point. Obama isn’t really interested in a balanced anything. Instead, he uses rhetorical devices to mislead the people and basically say one thing while meaning another. Therefore, while you, me, and everyone else considers balance to mean that you don’t spend more than you take in, to Obama it means raising taxes to take in more so that he can spend more, all the while pushing non-existent cuts in spending.

Unfortunately, this as just business as usual for a president who directs his administration to make the sequestration reductions in the increased rates of future spending as unecessarily painful as possible, then announced that the White House would no longer be giving tours to citizens (mostly school children) as a result of the “cuts,” then, of course, claim that he had nothing to do with the cancelation of the tours – essentially blaming the secret service. You can skip to about 2:40 in the following video to hear the deflection straight from the president’s mouth:

Perhaps this type of Obama speak is why Americans as a whole are beginning to get fed up with Obama, and his approval numbers are starting to tank. One can only wonder, though, how in the world this man was re-elected by the same people who, when asked, consistently oppose his policies…

triple facepalm

More Evidence Leftists Are Knuckleheads

While I was surfing around the internet looking to see if there were any new sequestration cartoons for an update to my recent post, I came across this cartoon from Ted Rall:


This one cartoon brilliantly captures the mindset of the left: if their guy does it, it’s OK, but if an evil conservative does the same thing, well then it’s just plain evil. Call it what you like: leftist hypocrisy, an Obama cult of personality, a conscious decision to suspend one’s supposed moral outrage for political purposes, or simply leftist sheeple falling in lockstep with whatever leadership and the media tell them to do, it’s just one more reason to expose them for the frauds they are. Just one more reason to defeat them in the culture war.

John Kerry’s Not Worried About Sequestration

According to the president, the reductions in the increase in future spending (also known as the sequestration “cuts”) signed into law on March 1, 2013 will essentially bring the government to it’s knees, and quite possibly usher in the zombie apocolypse:

Now, what’s important to understand is that not everyone will feel the pain of these cuts right away. The pain, though, will be real. Beginning this week, many middle-class families will have their lives disrupted in significant ways. Businesses that work with the military, like the Virginia shipbuilder that I visited on Tuesday, may have to lay folks off. Communities near military bases will take a serious blow. Hundreds of thousands of Americans who serve their country — Border Patrol agents, FBI agents, civilians who work at the Pentagon — all will suffer significant pay cuts and furloughs.

All of this will cause a ripple effect throughout our economy. Layoffs and pay cuts means that people have less money in their pockets, and that means that they have less money to spend at local businesses. That means lower profits. That means fewer hires. The longer these cuts remain in place, the greater the damage to our economy — a slow grind that will intensify with each passing day.

So economists are estimating that as a consequence of this sequester, that we could see growth cut by over one-half of 1 percent. It will cost about 750,000 jobs at a time when we should be growing jobs more quickly. So every time that we get a piece of economic news, over the next month, next two months, next six months, as long as the sequester is in place, we’ll know that that economic news could have been better if Congress had not failed to act.


However, it’s nice to know that at least one person in the administration is not worried about the “devastating” effect of sequestration. That’s right, our intrepid new Secretary of State, John Kerry is so unconcerned about the effects here at home that he feels comfortable pledging millions more in aid to Egypt:

Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday the United States will give Egypt $250 million more in aid, following President Mohammed Morsi’s pledges for political and economic reforms.

“The American people want to see the political and economic success of our long-time partners and friends in Egypt,” Kerry said in Cairo. “We look forward to continuing to work closely with all Egyptians. But “it is clear that more hard work and compromise will be required to restore unity, political stability and economic health to Egypt.”

Apparently, while sequestration means that we have to furlough border agents, thereby weakening our security, that’s not enough to keep us from giving millions to a country that can’t even be counted on as an ally. Furthermore, this is a country whose president has threatened Israel (our closest ally in the region), and has already received millions of dollars in the form of military tanks and F-16 fighter planes. Here’s an idea – maybe if we stopped sending billions of dollars to every banana republic and tin pot dictator with his hand out, most of whom don’t-and will never-like us (see: Pok-ee-stahhhhn), we could cut spending sensibly be keeping some of that money home. Might also prevent the need for more tax increases.

Unfortunately, this type of contradiction and double-speak is standard operating procedure for this administration. Oh, and those crickets chirping? That’s the media calling them on it.