Malignant Liberal Idiocy

I wish I could support Barack Obama in this election season. The reason for this wish is relatively simple, convenience.

Imagine how much easier life would be if you possessed the loose grasp on reality that would allow you to support Barack Obama. Imagine how simple your daily life would be if you cared only for yourself and viewed the rest of the world in terms of what it could give you. Imagine the liberating sense of being moral-free, as one might need to be in order to support Barack Obama. Imagine what a relief it would be to not care about the march toward an Orwellian vision of society as would be expedited by Barack Obama.

I’ve long thought that to be a liberal, one must be evil, stupid, or a combination of the two. The Obama candidacy and terrifying level of mindless support he enjoys serves to reinforce my original beliefs. Some poor souls actually believe that Obammunism would be a good thing for the common citizens of this nation. Some hope to enjoy power and control over the common citizens under Obammunism. Others don’t care enough to be informed.

Think about the mental state of the Obamoron that cheers when he “y’ohs” (his contraction of “you know”) about the tax breaks to the wealthy and the redistribution of “windfall profits” to “American families.” It must be nice to have such a narrow view of the horizon that one could support such a notion. A thinking person would realize that penalizing producers and employers will reduce production and employment. An Obamoron sees only that “evil” businesses are getting punished for success and gives no thought to anything more. A related source of relief would be to be so unencumbered by thought that one doesn’t see the ridiculous hypocrisy of bemoaning the profits of productive business and celebrating the profits of useless “entertainment” ventures (music, movies, and television.)

Think about the freedom enjoyed by the people that could be so clueless that they believe that only by increasing the size and scope of government can we be saved from today’s biggest problems, while ignoring the fact that the biggest of our problems are caused by overreaching government involvement. It must be comforting to look to the government to meet an increasing number of an individuals needs without regard for the snowballing effect of growing government control. Medicine would be best distributed by a benevolent government. Education would be better delivered by a “progressive” government. Wages would best be dictated by an all-knowing government. The weather would best be controlled by an all-powerful government.

I personally believe it would be fabulous to have a mind so dull that I could ignore Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, and ACORN. I would be relieved to have such a shallow conscience that I could disregard Barack Obama’s active role in blocking the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” in The Illinois Senate.

I wish I could support Barack Obama… but I can’t. I am not capable of turning off my mind, ejecting my morals, and dulling my desire for liberty!

Obama supporters are being directed to get “in the faces” of independents and Republicans to make the case for their candidate and the case for you being a racist jerk if you don’t dream of Obammunism.

Michelle Malkin’s column at Townhall.com, “Obama Releases His “In-Your_Face” Hounds“, provides some insight into the Obamorons’ “face-to-face” strategy:

When Republicans get aggressive, it’s “dirty.” When Obama gets aggressive, it’s “feisty.” Exorteth the One: “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

Team Obama is so committed to this “face-to-face” shock troop campaign that it is now busing activists from state to state (”Drive for Change!”) to target undecided voters — and offering subsidies to volunteers. In advance of Obama’s rally in Nevada, California field director Mary Jane Stevenson organized a pilgrimage to boost the crowd numbers with housing incentives:

“Face-to-face contact with undecided voters is the single most effective way to grow this movement. No experience is required, and we’ll help you make the trip as easily as possible with either housing in Nevada or discounted group rates at an area hotel.”

Yep, a bunch of angry Obama cultists and left-wing ACORN drifters are coming to your neighborhoods to accuse you of racism, call you unpatriotic for not bowing down and forking over more taxes to keep the Mother Ship afloat, and check your tire pressure and thermostats while they’re at it. Feel the power of positive change.

I contend that there are several very good reasons to avoid an “in-your-face” moment with an Obamoron. Most of these reasons depend on the type of Obama supporter with which you are dealing, but there is the basic ignorance that all Obamorons share. Who wants to listen to the ignorant spewings of a raving lunatic, especially at close range? I bet they spit when they espouse the virtues of total government control.

The supporter type-dependent reasons you likely want to avoid these “in-your-face” confrontations areas follows:

Race-based supporters might:

• accuse you of being a white supremacist because you believe in individual responsibility and liberty.
• tell you that any argument you provide as to why you don’t support Obama is laced with “code words” that mean “black.”
• compare your reluctance to support Barack Obama to being a member of the KKK (like Sen. Robert Byrd.)

Environmentalist supporters might:

• smell really bad since bathing wastes valuable water, and who is man to steal water from Mother Earth?
• have their talking points scribbled on the one square of toilet paper they intend to use during their next restroom visit.
• profess the benefits of using only wind and solar power to generate electricity, while your sense of smell is violated by the wind carrying the odor from the activist that has spent too much time in the sun without bathing into your nostrils.
• stand there in leather shoes and yell at you about the affects of oil drilling on animals.
• knock you over, having noticed in mid-diatribe, an extremely attractive tree some distance behind you.

Change-inspired supporters might:

• tell you that Barack is for “change” and if you aren’t, you are a racist.
• opine that “change” is a good thing but get confused when you point out that if he stops breathing, that would be “change.”
• tell you that this is cosmic fate because if you put your hand over part of the big “O” in Obama, you can make a big “C” like in “Change!”

Abortion-inspired supporters (NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List) might:

• scream at you for wanting to kill scared young girls with rusty coat-hangers in dark alleys.
• try to convince you that you would make all women victims of an antiquated patriarchal society if you think killing children is in some way wrong.
• try to convince you that it is a violation of privacy… to have child molesters reported to authorities.
• drool about “reproductive justice” (which apparently involves a death sentence for the one party involved that played no part in the “choice” to have sex.)
• assert that you “can’t legislate morality” … unless of course the immoral act is murder, rape, or robbery committed by anyone other than the IRS.
• tell you that “it” isn’t a child… even if “it” has been born and is breathing following a botched abortion.
• insist that there is a constitutional right to abortion, but not to keep and bear arms.

Economy-inspired supporters might:

• Decry the wealth of “big business” (of course ignoring who it is that employs them if they indeed have jobs.)
• Screech that oil companies are making profits while we are paying too much at the gas pump (but of course Hollywood types deserve their “windfall profits” from their oh-so-important movies and television shows.)
• try to explain the value of further government controls and ignore your questions about the naturally subsequent job losses.

The thought of “Big Brother” Barack Obama becoming President Of The United States is so frightening and depressing that some conservatives (like myself) are supporting John McCain! This alone should be enough to make one wonder just what exactly is wrong with Obama supporters, particularly those that believe enough to try and convert normal people?

Cross-posted from Conservative Common Man:

Common sense dictates that landlords should be allowed to know who rents their apartments, houses, or condos. Common sense cannot be found in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle. What can be found in Boyle’s courtroom is yet another weapon in the federal court war on the citizens of this country. Judge Boyle’s tactical target is the citizens of Farmer’s Branch, Texas.

Newsmax.com reports:

DALLAS — A federal judge on Friday stopped a Dallas suburb’s latest attempt to drive away illegal immigrants, ruling that Farmers Branch cannot enforce a ban on home rentals to those who can’t prove they live legally in the country.

U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle’s temporary restraining order stopped an ordinance that had been set to go into effect Saturday. The ordinance was intended to replace a similar measure that was struck down in federal court.

“We’re very disappointed in Judge Boyle’s view of the ordinance, but we’re confident that ultimately it will be upheld by the federal court system,” said Michael Jung, the attorney representing the city of Farmers Branch.

The judge said the ordinance has the potential to cause irreparable injury to landlords who are likely to lose business to neighboring cities that don’t have similar laws.

I suppose if neighboring cities didn’t have similar laws against public nudity, a city that had outlawed public nudity would not be allowed to enforce its laws. I can see that there would be “irreparable injury to” grocery store owners that refused service to nude shoppers who would likely go elsewhere to shop.

Put another way, illegal aliens are going to rent property so it should be legal. People are going to drive drunk anyway, so that should also be legal.

More

Feeling bloated? Abdominal pressure starting to get to you? Those are natural physical reactions to the possibility of Democrats controlling the executive and legislative branches of the federal government next January. This “gut reaction” is not the type of gas to which this blog refers. This is about the type of gas (gasoline) that the libiot Democrats would like to use to buy votes in the coming election. It’s not, however, like buying votes is the only goal of the American Marxist (aka Democrat) Party. Their plan serves the secondary purpose of class division based on income.

The Hill has an article today, “Democrats’ latest idea: gas stamps.”

“It’s certainly under consideration,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told The Hill on Thursday afternoon. “It would be like food stamps for those people who need help.”

Gas stamps would work like traditional food stamps, which some Americans have collected since the 1930s. They would be used, however, to pay for regular unleaded instead of meat and potatoes.

Under one version of the proposal, a person earning up to $31,200 or a family of four earning up to $63,600 could receive government payments totaling $500 for gas.

Hoyer said he was not ready to discuss details about the proposal because he is focused on passing a comprehensive energy bill Democrats unveiled this week.

Is there any doubt that we must continuously monitor these morons? The Dems want to keep gas prices high, get the government’s unfair share via taxes, and maintain their majorities with a little bribery. So back to the question posed in the title, “can Democrats give you gas?” Apparently the answer is yes, if your income is below a certain level, you can reap the benefits of wealth redistribution. The libiots certainly love their class divisions, don’t they?

Whose brilliant scheme is this “gas stamp” redistribution?

The idea for fuel stamps was first proposed by maverick Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), chairman of the House Income Security and Family Support subcommittee, who remembers his family using gas stamps when he was a boy during World War II.

“If you had to drive to work, you got to buy more gasoline than if you just drove your car on the weekends,” he said of the wartime policy.

McDermott, who introduced the idea before the August recess, said that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) made favorable mention of gas stamps Wednesday during an afternoon caucus meeting on a pending energy bill.

I hope the good people of McDermott’s district are strongly considering Steve Beren this November. I don’t think Mr. Beren would support spending tax dollars to buy votes for Democrats at $500 a pop… or is that $1500 a pop? It would be grotesquely negligent to forget about “Big Brother” Barack Obama’s “New Energy For America” plan. This bold plan presented by this hollow man proposes stealing earnings from oil companies and redistributing $1000 increments to citizens who did not earn it.

• Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.Obama will enact a windfall profits tax on excessive oil company profits to give American families an immediate $1,000 emergency energy rebate to help families pay rising bills. This relief would be a down payment on Obama’s long-term plan to provide middle-class families with at least $1,000 per year in permanent tax relief.

Barack and his fellow libiots intend to create further dependence on government! Is it even remotely possible that a thinking person could look at these proposals and not see the loss of liberty? Punishing success stands very little chance of encouraging job creation. On the surface this will work out for the vermin that populates the American Marxist (aka Democrat) Party, but eventually they will drive enough companies out of business and out of the country that there is no longer enough income for them to use to buy votes. A great nation will lie in ruins thanks to the short-sighted power seeking of these miserable people and once again there will be a dull example that socialism does not work. Unfortunately for the American electorate, if “Big Brother” Barack Obama, Steny Hoyer, Jim McDermott, and their ilk have their way, we will be the next example.

Cross-post from my other blog: Conservative Common Man

This excruciatingly pro-longed election season has been a mental and emotional roller coaster for most that follow it closely. I can only speak from my personal conservative perspective and say that the current situation might qualify as a crisis. This crisis demands action… yet who knows which course of action is in the best interests of our nation? This particular day, September 11, is a reminder of what has been done to our nation and what we are up against. Today’s reminder of the threats we face makes the conservative voter’s decision making even more difficult.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines crisis as:

1. A crucial or decisive point or situation; turning point.

2. A sudden change in the course of an acute disease toward improvement or deterioration.

My personal ride on the “Election 2008″ roller coaster began when Rudy Giuliani was being touted as the front-runner for the Republican nomination and peddled by “political strategists” as the only one that could beat Hillary Clinton. Soul searching and self-examination convinced me that I could never cast a vote for a candidate that believes it is acceptable for a mother to request that her child be killed as a matter of “choice.” Once The Republican Party’s preference was eliminated as an option for me, I began to search for a candidate. I found that I could stand firmly behind two candidates while a few more would have been acceptable if the candidates I agreed with were no longer in the race. There were also a couple of candidates for which I doubted I could actually support.

I chose to do everything I could to help the best man in the race, Representative Duncan Hunter, win the nomination of the party to which I believed I belonged. Energized and filled with “hope” (not Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama’s brand) I worked as hard as I could for the candidate I still believe to be the best choice for our country. Conservative ideals were not to be heard on public airwaves as the party and talk show hosts decided to push “moderates” with money. Eventually Congressmen Hunter and Tancredo ended their campaigns, leaving a choice between less than conservative Republicans.

While disheartened, I decided to support the most conservative of the remaining candidates. Unfortunately the combination of early “open” primaries and Huckabee’s hatred of Mitt Romney combined to leave one man standing at the end of The Republican Primary fiasco. The low point in the track had been reached as John McCain, champion of illegal aliens, enemy of free speech, and passenger on Al Gore’s anthropogenic global warming bandwagon was left as the the nominee. Naturally, I felt the nausea sometimes associated with a sudden descent, but this time the ill feeling lingered much longer.

MORE

Barack Obama’s gutless evasion of the question regarding when a baby receives human rights is now infamous. The “above my pay grade” cop out has apparently hurt the anointed candidate among we, the little people. What does Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama do when his words or his associations begin to harm his campaign? He backtracks. The man whose pastor of twenty-plus years was not the pastor he knew has now taken a similar approach to his Saddleback side-step.

From Politico via Yahoo News, “Obama considered joining military, regrets abortion answer.”

During separate televised interviews last month, Pastor Rick Warren asked the two presidential candidates when a baby gets human rights. Obama replied that the question is “above my pay grade,” while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won love from the right by saying quickly, “At the moment of conception.”

Now, Obama tells ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in an interview taped for “This Week”: “What I intended to say is that, as a Christian, I have a lot of humility about understanding when does the soul enter into … It’s a pretty tough question. And so, all I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

In the ABC interview, Obama goes on to give the answer he wishes he’d given: “What I do know is that abortion is a moral issue, that it’s one that families struggle with all the time. And that in wrestling with those issues, I don’t think that the government criminalizing the choices that families make is the best answer for reducing abortions.

“I think the better answer — and this was reflected in the Democratic platform — is to figure out, how do we make sure the young mothers, or women who have a pregnancy that’s unexpected or difficult, have the kind of support they need to make a whole range of choices, including adoption and keeping the child.

Apparently it takes a few weeks after an event to iron out (undoubtedly with the help of PR people) exactly what the supposedly eloquent professional candidate actually “intended” to say. I wonder if, “as a Christian” Illinois State Senator Barack Obama wasn’t quite sure if the living, breathing baby that had just survived an abortion attempt had received his or her soul. I suppose the “humility about understanding” led to his despicable stance in blocking The Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2002.

S.B. 1663 would require:

22        (2) (a)  No abortion shall be performed or  induced  when
23    the fetus is viable unless there is in attendance a physician
24    other  than the physician performing or inducing the abortion
25    who shall take control of and provide immediate medical  care
26    for  any  child  born  alive  as a result of the abortion. No
27    abortion procedure which, in  the  medical  judgment  of  the
28    attending physician, has a reasonable likelihood of resulting
29    in  a  live born child shall be undertaken unless there is in
30    attendance a physician other than the physician performing or
31    inducing the abortion who shall assess the child’s  viability

                            -2-                LRB9215509RCsb
 1    and  provide  medical  care for the child.

The man that would six years later give the infamous “above my pay grade” response at Saddleback stood against protecting the infants that survived abortion. The transcript of the 82nd Legislative Day of The State of Illinois 92nd General Assembly (pp 31-35) shows for whose interest the future agent of “hope” and “change” fought! Here is an example of “The One’s” statements from that dark day:

“As I understand it, this puts the burden on the attending physician who has determined, since they were performing this procedure, that, in fact, this is a nonviable fetus; that if that fetus, or child - however way you want to describe it - is now outside the mother’s womb and the doctor continues to think that it’s nonviable but there’s, let’s say, movement or some indication that in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead, that, in fact, they would then have to call a second physician to monitor and check off and make sure that this is not a live child that could be saved. Is that correct?”

On page 33, B.O. fertilizes the floor of the state senate with his assurances that doctors would already feel obligated to save a child in these situations and he makes it a point to state:

“but I think it’s important to understand that this issue is about abortion and not live births. Because if these are children who are being born alive, I, at least have confidence that a doctor who is in that room is going to make sure that they’re looked after.”

If Jill Stanek’s recollection of babies being left today in soiled linen closets  are accurate, then Barack’s trademark “judgment,” a thing his campaign touts, has once again proven to be very poor.

The Axis of Abortion, showing a certain amount of tactical flexibility, has focused its guns on the one enemy that must be eliminated at any cost. This new target poses a catastrophic danger to the propaganda of the Axis. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Emily’s List must destroy the target before too many of their subjects become inspired to revolution. If allowed to succeed, this threat might inspire followers to assess the Axis’ proclamations about “women’s choices” and realize that they have been misled. Governor Sarah Palin must be destroyed before too many supporters of the highest sacrament in the religion of Liberalism notice her example… or Margaret Sanger forbid, follow her example and exercise the “choice” that could weaken the stranglehold of the Axis.

The Hill has an article on the assault, “Abortion-rights groups target Palin.”

“This is the most anti-choice ticket in history of the Republican Party,” said Beth Shipp, the political director of NARAL. “McCain put someone as outside the mainstream as you can on his ticket, which is Sarah Palin,” Shipp added.

Hoping to drive a wedge between the pro-life GOP base and party centrists who favor abortion rights, NARAL Pro-Choice America plans to raise and spend $10 million to communicate to voters in 34 to 35 congressional districts and battleground states. The group is also targeting independents.

Planned Parenthood, another liberal group, plans to spend $10 million on its One Million Strong campaign, an effort to mobilize “pro-choice voters in battleground states,” said spokesman Tait Sye.

And EMILY’s List, a group that backs female Democratic candidates who support abortion, will spend nearly as much as the other groups on its Women Vote! program.

The Cerberus of infanticide must destroy any prominent woman that dares to commit the sacrilege of giving birth to a child with Down’s Syndrome and loving him. This is in addition to having four other children, which in itself sets a dangerous example that a woman might be happy and fulfilled even if she embraces motherhood (or worse yet… because of it!) The Axis needs women in power that will force their teenage daughters to clandestine abortions if they become pregnant. Perhaps the worst war crime against the Axis is the love and support shown to a pregnant teenage daughter who will be allowing her baby to live.

Is Beth Shipp of NARAL correct when she claims: “McCain put someone as outside the mainstream as you can on his ticket, which is Sarah Palin?” Is the mainstream of this great nation not comprised of hard-working people that have family values, morals, and a desire to do what is right? Is it out of the mainstream to believe in the value of a family? I certainly hope that the idea of killing babies for convenience and profit is not what has become mainstream in The United States of America!