Recently in Hypocrisy Category


To be or not to be... - Shakespeare. It depends on what the meaning of "is" is. - Bill Clinton. Don't use any word that has ever made anyone feel bad at any time in human history. - John Robinson.

 

"Don't you see the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed will be expresses in exactly ONE word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten."

 

So now the State Department has begun lecturing American citizens on speech code. Everyone who thought the State Department was tasked with foreign affairs raise your hand. Although I must say, this goes along neatly with the notion Americans are the real terrorists. Indeed, to the DC elite we are the new "American Indian" to be broken and if not broken, destroyed. Just watch.

 

At any rate, State's Chief Diversity Officer John Robinson kindly offers a list of things we're not allowed to say:

 

-          Hold down the fort = Anti-Indian.

-          Going Dutch = "Negative stereotype portraying the Dutch as cheap."

-         Rule of thumb = "An antiquated law, whereby the width of a husband's thumb was the legal size of a switch or rod allowed to beat his wife."

-          Handicap = "Rooted in a correlation between a disabled individual and a beggar, who had to beg with a cap in his or her hand because of the inability to maintain employment."

-         Black and Tan = Nike produced this "sneaker without realizing the phrase once referred to a group 'that committed atrocities against Irish civilians.'"

 

Robinson concludes his magnificent diatribe of stupidity this way: "Choose your words thoughtfully. Now that you know the possible historical context of the above phrases, perhaps you will understand why someone could be offended by their use." Beyond just creepy - talk about a "chill wind blowing", the demand is actually fairly ironic if not impossible to follow. The demand was born in ignorance and will die in ignorance.

 

I wonder if Robinson would also include words like "communism", "socialism", "atheism", and "Islam", which in their "historical context" are associated with the greatest genocides and acts of cruelty the world has yet seen?

 

Or maybe "Democrat", a term Americans over the decades have seen associated with:


-          Slavery

-          Segregation

-          Socialism (see above)

-          Enemy-appeasement

-          The genocide of 50 million as the result of banning DDT

-          The genocides in Southeast Asia as a result of our withdrawal from Vietnam

-          The infanticide of millions of unborn babies

-          The open call to kill off the elderly and the weak so Obamacare can focus on the young and strong

 

But who needs to be partisan? Let's look at some everyday words including those that were not so common until media run by liberals like this guy began filling movies and TV shows with them. Others have been with us a lot longer and have some really crazy historical beginnings:

 

A shot in the arm

Based in drug culture with the bonus of causing anxiety attacks of those severely afraid of the needle.

 

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

Inspires hunting, which in itself offends leftist sensibilities, but hunting also implies self-sufficiency, which is the greatest evil of all to a liberal and most certainly can cause upset.

 

An arm and a leg

Insensitive to amputees or those missing limbs since birth or otherwise disabled.

 

Bats in the belfry

Insensitive to crazy people, insensitive to bats; belfry is a reference to churches, which will offend the irreligious.

 

Chick flick

Clearly sexist.

 

Damn; also dayum!

To be sent to Hell

 

Gild the lily

A term of reckless extravagance that may offend Michelle Obama.

 

Gung ho

An Anglicization of a Chinese phrase "kung ho" (work together). It is evil because it is Anglicized without sensitive care to pronounce it authentically. It is also evil because it was coined during WWII and used in the context of killing Imperial Japanese combatants.

 

Hosed

See "screwed"

 

In spades

A 20th Century phrase derived from modern playing cards that are connected to gambling, which in turn is connected to gambling addiction. Thus, to use the term "in spade" is to be insensitive to someone who might suffer from such an addiction.

 

Joined at the hip

Derived from the obvious reality faced by Siamese twins and therefore offensive to those of Chinese descent and twins of all sort.

 

Jury is still out

Derived in the 19th Century from American court proceedings. Given how evil and racist our criminal justice system is, using this reference will cause many people great emotional hardship.

 

Kick the bucket

Glorifies animal cruelty. In the 16th Century, a bucket was also a word for wooden beam, from which animals readied for slaughter would be hung by their feat. The term derives from their death throes.

 

Loose cannon

Offensive to crazy people and also uses imagery of violence and militarism, which is also sexist and racist due to the colonial period when cannons were most often used.

 

Nitpicking

Nits are baby lice. To nitpick is to go through someone's hair to remove lice. This is biased against poor people.

 

Picnic

Enlightened liberals believe this term is derived from a context having to do with lynchings in the 19th Century.  It is our hope that George Lucas removes this word from Han Solo's dialogue in the upcoming 4-D remix of Star Wars so that we can have a new hope with that change.

 

On the warpath

Heaven help us! Clearly anti-Indian.

 

Paint the town red

Implies disregard for all manner of proper conduct. It is rooted in a drunken 19th Century event in which Englishmen literally painted several buildings red, thus they literally carried out in deed that which is so very wrong with the words in this list. They were also English and men, some of the most oppressive, evil people the world has ever seen.

 

Real McCoy

Refers to Scottish whiskey and thus glorifies alcohol consumption.

 

Red letter day

The Catholic church marked religious holidays in red on their calendars, thus it is a sacred term and offensive to irreligious, other-religious, and non-religious people.

 

Screwed

Essentially, this literally describes forcible sex, i.e. rape. As do the phrases "grab your ankles" "bend over", etc. Yet, their cultural meaning is not literal at all. Much the same way Shakespeare used "pregnant" figuratively in reference to an idea right in the middle of a time when the use of the word in the literal sense was taboo and the use of taboo words could be harshly sanctioned:

 

Of government the properties to unfold,

Would seem in me to affect speech and discourse;

Since I am put to know that your own science

Exceeds, in that, the lists of all advice

My strength can give you: then no more remains,

But that to your sufficiency as your Worth is able,

And let them work. The nature of our people,

Our city's institutions, and the terms

For common justice, you're as pregnant in

As art and practise hath enriched any

That we remember. There is our commission,

From which we would not have you warp. Call hither,

I say, bid come before us Angelo.

 

That liberals like Robinson are ignorant of actual "historical context", etymology or literature, however, is strangely unsurprising.

 

Up a tree

Derived from possum hunting, this phrase glorifies hunting and the patriarchal colonial construct.

 

Upsidaisy; also Upsa daisy, Upsy-daisy, Oops-a-daisy, Oops, Oopsy-daisy, Hoops-a-daisy, Whoops

A term derived from the obsolete "upaday". Furthermore, "daisy" is derived from "day's eye" because the flower opens during the day. This term suggests that only those who are fully awake during the day are prepared to handle the rigors of life, which is clearly dayist (not to be confused with deist).


Wear the pants

Obviously sexist.

 

Wild and woolly

Offensive for many reasons. It was coined in the 19th Century to describe the Old West, so it glorifies that unfortunate time. There are also racial overtones. In 1850, the first example of the phrase took this form: "wild and woolly-haired Negillo". Negillo may have been a proper surname, but we know what the racists of that time really meant. As proof, the second example of the phrase's use was against Bill Clinton, dubbed by Al Sharpton and others in the 1990s as the "first black president." Even though the second-known use of the phrase occurred 117 years before the presidency of Mr. Clinton, it is clear from reading the passage of this Missouri newspaper just what was meant:

 

"W. A. Palmer, the South Bend, Indiana, murderer and paramour of Dolly Tripp, was for several years resident of Clinton. Bill always was one of the 'wild and woolly' kind and would associate with the demimonde." (P)resident Bill (of) Clinton!

 

That paper was The Sedalia Daily Democrat, however, so there are some conflicted feelings about whether or not to mute this last example while we also continue to mute the fact that the Democrat Party is so strongly associated with racism throughout America's history.

 

Indeed, beyond the political, what does "alcohol" mean to the child of an alcoholic, "sex" to victims of sex abuse, "car" to someone who lost a loved one in an auto accident, "money" to someone who lost it all in the markets? Many, if not most of our phrases have been used in a negative context at some point in history. If not all of them.

 

"'It's a beautiful thing, the Destruction of words. Of course the great wastage is in the verbs and adjectives, but there are hundreds of nouns that can be got rid of as well. It isn't only the synonyms; there are also the antonyms. After all, what justification is there for a word, which is simply the opposite of some other word? A word contains its opposite in itself. Take 'good,' for instance. If you have a word like 'good,' what need is there for a word like 'bad'? 'Ungood' will do just as well - better, because it's an exact opposite, which the other is not. Or again, if you want a stronger version of 'good,' what sense is there in having a whole string of vague useless words like 'excellent' and 'splendid' and all the rest of them? 'Plusgood' covers the meaning or 'doubleplusgood' if you want something stronger still. Of course we use those forms already, but in the final version of Newspeak there'll be nothing else. In the end the whole notion of goodness and badness will be covered by only six words - in reality, only one word. Don't you see the beauty of that, Winston? It was B.B.'s idea originally, of course,' he added as an afterthought."

 

 

I suppose George Orwell might reflect also that in the animal farm of words, some words "are more equal than others."  

 

nme.jpg

Martin is the assistant editor for Tea Party University, is currently a master's student in national security studies, and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He served as Texas Chair for Students with Newt Gingrich for President. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.

 

 

Resources:

-          "Pregnant" via Measure for Measure by William Shakespeare http://shakespeare.mit.edu/measure/full.html

-          Paragraph quotes: 1984 by George Orwell

-          Word usage citations and some of the definitions by http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/american-phrases-and-sayings.html

-          "Some . . . are more equal than others.": Animal Farm by George Orwell




Enhanced by Zemanta
Reagan in the White House private quarters wit...

President Reagan with Judge Robert Bork at the White House, 1987


Tonight Barack Obama won. The left, as we all very much know, wish to see Barack Obama re-elected as America's tyrant-in-chief and in every Republican primary tonight Barack Obama walked away with another victory on the road to re-election in November. The left realized over half a century ago that in order to impose its will in a country where only a tiny minority of Americans self-identify as "liberal", the left must fight a war of misinformation, for which it needed to use the hammer and anvil of education and the media. 

The enemedia (enemy-media) accomplished this quite well in 1987 after misogynist liberal Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement. Powell sided with the majority in the infamous 1977 Coker v Georgia case in which the liberal Court nullified Georgia's death penalty for aggrivated rape. In Powell's concurring opinion he infamously stated: "Although rape invariably is a reprehensible crime, there is no indication that petitioner's offense was committed with excessive brutality or that the victim sustained serious or lasting injury." No "serious or lasting injury"? Naturally, there was no outrage from feminists on the left because Powell was a liberal. The more things change... 

So Reagan decided to replace Powell with not only a conservative Originalist, but also one of the truly greatest legal minds of our time: then-DC Circuit Judge Robert Bork. The media circus began with 'round-the-clock character assassination of Bork by Democrats Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, and the other usual suspects with the help of the far-left media. It worked, and it was a watershed. Not since Watergate had the media been so influential in changing the outcome of a contest for high office - in this case, a nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.  

One of the primary roles of education for leftist academia has been to subdue critical thought, which clearly has been subdued increasingly over recent decades - and the role of entertainment media must also be noted in pushing the notion that one should always follow one's emotions rather than seek objective truth. And so our government of wolves has been salivating over our nation's transformation into a flock of sheep.

In the last two decades, the news media - though having had a left-wing bias for much longer - decided it was time to pull out all the stops in pushing its preferred policies and candidates. In 2004, it failed, thanks to a GOP unified behind an incumbent president. It was not enough that one or two bloggers could prove what is now known as Rathergate; those blogs needed also to be widely promoted and supported by a movement in order to not be simply ignored. When CBS tried to smear President Bush with a forged document claiming he was a draft-dodger, it backfired: the critical information reached the voter and rather than seeing Bush destroyed, Dan Rather's career came to an abrupt end.

In 2008, there was no incumbent Republican president in the race, which only poured gasoline on the establishment's unhinged jihad on conservatives within the party to purge them from every appointed and elected office. By the summer, the establishment had succeeded in imposing John McCain on the party, with much help from the far-left media, which had its own separate agenda, but nonetheless momentarily allied itself with the GOP establishment to ensure the weakest possible candidate - and also the most liberal and controllable, in the unlikely event he should win - would face Barack Obama in the fall. Conservative bloggers went to work again, uncovering a treasure trove of damning information about then-candidate Barack Obama, but this time the establishment-led McCain campaign kept its distance and gave such efforts no legitimacy - in effect, signing its own political death warrant. Enemedia spared no expense or salacious story trashing the McCain campaign while at the same time the McCain campaign repeatedly told conservatives they were not wanted. Certainly Senator McCain was happy to try to create a coalition by bringing a conservative onto the ticket, but this clearly roiled many of the hardline establishment who sought to solidify their control of the party since the late 1990s. Since 2008, there has been a steady stream of sad discoveries about McCain campaign staff working to sabotage Sarah Palin, apparently willing to prove another great truism once again, that the establishment would much rather see a Democrat win the White House than a conservative - apparently on any part of a ticket. 

Ultimately, however, even the establishment purists would prefer to see one of their Republicans in the White House to a Democrat, however that may be accomplished. The American Spectator in October of 2008 noted several former Romney 2008 staffers then working for McCain-Palin sought to sabotage McCain-Palin in order to allow Barack Obama to win in 2008 (and implement Obamacare - based on none other than Romneycare) so that Mitt Romney would have a shot in four rather than eight years without running against a sitting president of the same party:

Former Mitt Romney presidential campaign staffers, some of whom are currently working for Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin's bid for the White House, have been involved in spreading anti-Palin spin to reporters, seeking to diminish her standing after the election. "Sarah Palin is a lightweight, she won't be the first, not even the third, person people will think of when it comes to 2012," says one former Romney aide, now working for McCain-Palin. "The only serious candidate ready to challenge to lead the Republican Party is Mitt Romney. He's in charge on November 5th." 

In 2012 it has been much the same - in fact, as we know, with many of the same tired players. Presently, the far-left media are using Rick Santorum to push Reagan Conservative Newt Gingrich out. Santorum's qualifications for such an honor are that he is most likely to be defeated by Mitt Romney, but in the unlikely event he isn't and in the even more unlikely event Obama were to self-destruct, still promises to be controllable (he is a "team player", after all) as a Senator with a record as a big-spending, big-government, China-friendly, manage-the-decline shallow slogan-chanter. Indeed, one of the few differences between Santorum and Romney lies only in the theme of the shallow slogans they mindlessly chant. Bothwere pro-abortion self-described anti-Reagan progressives until it was politically unhelpful to be such, and both have an equally disastrous record in government.

If the media succeed in weaponizing Santorum against the only Reagan Conservative with a proven record of success - Newt Gingrich, they will then destroy Santorum so that Romney will win the nomination, after which they will destroy Romney. It's such an old playbook that really, enemedia can do it with their eyes shut. If Americans do not seek to educate themselves, then they will be spoon fed a deadly toxin like infants by the agenda-laden far-left dinosaur media and will act foolishly based on the misinformation they've received and not only will Newt Gingrich - another great Reagan Conservative leader with one of the greatest minds of our time be "Borked", so too will our nation. "How blessed is the man who finds wisdom and the man who gains understanding," but "a fool despises wisdom and instruction". (Prov 3:13, 1:7) An apathetic people and representative government cannot exist concurrenty for long.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.


Rick Santorum's Quisling Moment

| No Comments | No TrackBacks


As you might recall, we wrote a month or so ago about how Mitt Romney is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Communist China. Today, we write about Rick Santorum's Quisling moment. Like Mitt Romney, Santorum started out his career labeling himself a progressive, distancing himself from Ronald Reagan, working closely with unions and pushing other liberal legislation.

In his later years, Santorum referred to liberal fellow Senator Arlen Specter as his mentor and even endorsed him against a conservative primary rival "because it will further the causes in which I believe and because it's in the best interest of my state." Obviously, those would be liberal interests. Specter led the controversial charge for amnesty in 2006 despite a precedent-setting uproar by Americans who made history with the sheer volume of calls to the capital switchboard made to register their abhorrence of the legislation Specter championed. Instead of acquiescing to the will of the people, however, Specter marched up to his lectern on the Senate floor, pounded it with his fist and declared, "The will of the Senate will prevail!" Specter was soon removed from office, but Santorum continued to have nice things to say about him.

Enter Rick Santorum 2012, candidate for Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces, champion of contraceptive bans and backward Taliban-style rules for women - the obvious over-compensation for his liberal past. All of this would be as comical as a goofy sweater-vest were it not for the real damage his voting record as Senator has done, is doing, and will do to our survival national security interests.

To wit, Santorum voted in 1997 to allow the sale of supercomputers to China, whose military leaders have repeatedly sworn to destroy us, make war on us, and to literally "exterminate" our entire population. Maybe if Santorum had spent less time distancing himself from Reagan and Gingrich in the 1980s, he would have learned something rather important: giving your enemy the technological advantage is suicide. In recent years, China's fastest supercomputers surpassed our own for the first time in history, and by 2010 were an astonishing "47% faster than the Oak Ridge National Laboratory's machine". Make no mistake: this alone disqualifies Santorum to be Commander-in-Chief.

Our strategic advantage has long leaned on technology, given our comparatively small force size vis-à-vis China or the former Soviet Union. China's army alone is roughly the size of our entire population. Imagine that force size equipped with modern weaponry that far exceeds our own. That is defeat and the end of America. Rick Santorum voted for that.

Clearly, Santorum has failed to comprehend the strategic consequences of his actions, as the recent outcry over his outspoken opposition to manned space flight and a return to the moon demonstrates.  Former Deputy National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney and current national security advisor to Newt Gingrich Stephen Yates rightly eviscerated Santorum's childish, out of touch, and ultimately suicidal space policy:


I am deeply concerned that Senator Santorum so easily relinquishes space development to the Chinese and Russians.

American success in space is not only about being the first to develop a station on the moon. It is just as much about the explosion of math, science, engineering and national security technology that will launch America into a new age of innovation and prosperity.

We owe it to ourselves to set grandiose goals and then achieve them. It is the American way.

As with Romney and Huawei (and many of his other failures), Americans might be more forgiving if there were some serious evidence of enlightenment; however, in the case of both Romney and Santorum such an opening of the mind has not transpired and both candidates continue to represent an indirect but existential threat to American national security.



H/T to @MissLiberty on Twitter for the heads up on Santorum's pro-China voting record and for the China supercomputer tech links.

Related:

China's Supercomputing Goal: From 'Zero To Hero'

Rick Santorum's Voting Record

Middle East Quarterly: Russian and Chinese Support for Tehran

China Plans Manned Moon Mission

China's Challenge at Sea



nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.


The Flaky Hypocrisy of Mitt Romney

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

To be honest, I was a bit worried when rumors began circulating yesterday that birther Donald Trump would endorse Newt Gingrich. Trump is radioactive for a host of reasons. He's a grand-stander, he's a complete flake, loose cannon, and he has some character issues. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he will say anything to get ratings, including chase down those pesky imaginary varmints usually left to the Ron Paul fringe of conspiracy theory-land.

Trump is a perfect fit for Willard "Mitt" Romney, and that he has endorsed Mitt should be seen as a serious - but telling - liability to the Romney campaign. It reveals just so much that the pair has in common, which is all of the above. In addition to being a grand-stander, flake, and loose cannon, Mitt Romney also shares a similar lack in personal moral character: Romney abused his dog, is connected to physical, even sexual abuse of teens, and ignored national security officials with respect to the dangers of doing business with a Pentagon-designated Chinese espionage front group. Romney will also say anything to get elected - even flip on 17 of his supposedly dearest-held core beliefs. I guess you could say that Mitt Romney's a bit of a front group himself. Whether taking care of the family pet, watching over children or looking after the national security of the United States, Mitt Romney can't handle the responsibility.

Trump is likely to be an ESTJ while Romney is likely the ISTJ personality type, according to the Myers-Briggs personality type assessment. This explains their sense of connectedness and probably also suggests Trump is the more dominant member of their relationship. Trump is more likely also the more intelligent of the two, although that has not ameliorated Trump's flakiness. Both the ESTJ and ISTJ have many strengths that lend themselves to administrative tasks, but their weaknesses include close-mindedness, resistance to change even when change is warranted, a bizarre view of sex as a service to be rendered to them but not reciprocated, emotional detachment and lack of appropriate sympathy, putting their agendas ahead of the people they impact, and something else:

Under stress, ISTJs may fall into "catastrophe mode", where they see nothing but all of the possibilities of what could go wrong. They will berate themselves for things which they should have done differently, or duties which they failed to perform. They will lose their ability to see things calmly and reasonably, and will depress themselves with their visions of doom.

Indeed, that Meghan McCain-like prissy petulance has come shining through on many occasions for Romney. Charles Krauthammer outlined one example in October:

But the main event was the scripted Rick Perry attack on Romney, reprising the old charge of Romney hiring illegal immigrants. Perry's face-to-face accusation of rank hypocrisy had the intended effect. From the ensuing melee emerged a singularity: a ruffled Romney, face flushed, voice raised.

The presidency is a serious and highly stressful job that includes coping with a constantly changing landscape domestically and internationally. One needs not belabor that and indeed, we have had ISTJ presidents in the past; most notably, George Washington, as seems to be widely believed.

To be sure, there are many strengths as well as weaknesses associated with this personality type - as with all personality types - but Romney appears to evince many of the worst. Here is another assortment of the negative traits one can expect from an ISTJ of weaker character (PDF): "Spontaneity in the SJ tends to be suppressed, although when fatigued or under stress, the SJ can erupt into a temper tantrum, use biting sarcasm, or even, in rare instances, attempt to make a point through violence."

George Washington spent many years developing the character, depth, and self-awareness necessary to understand what it took to be a visionary leader with a good moral compass. Likewise, George H.W. Bush is likely also an ISTJ, and while lacking the imagination necessary to be a great president, he was not entirely a bad one, although he was able to better perform his duties in the afterglow of Ronald Reagan. But Bush also spent many years developing the discipline to blunt some of his weaknesses perhaps to a much greater extent than Romney has chosen to. Indeed, Mitt Romney has squandered his many years chasing varmints, telling voters what they wanted to hear and doing anything it took to pad his résumé, as well as mistreating pets and associating himself closely with those who mistreat children. And yet, Mitt Romney tries to point his crooked finger at his betters in order to project his erratic and and unreliable qualities thereon. Mitt Romney is a hypocrite.

Romney and Trump both remind America of the things most in need of repair in our popular culture and in our government. Romney's full-throated support and enlargement the Massachusetts nanny state was without question in large measure responsible for Massachusetts being 47th nationally on job-creation. Romney's vociferous support for abortion went far beyond passive acceptance; part of Romneycare included taxpayer funding for abortions, even minors, and even in cases overriding parental consent - Romney is on record endorsing all of it. There is little chance he will work to repeal Obamacare, for which Romneycare was the prototype. In fact, Romney and his team who designed it consulted President Obama to develop Obamacare, and President Obama was very grateful. Really, what part of Obamacare would Mitt Romney repeal? Not the individual mandate: that's in Romneycare. Not the death panel, that's in Romneycare, too:

SECTION 41. Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, the executive office of health and human services, in consultation with the health care quality and cost council, commission on end-of-life care established by section 480 of chapter 159 of the Acts of 2000, and the Betsy Lehman Center for Patient Safety and the Reduction of Medical Errors, shall convene an expert panel on end-of-life care for patients with serious chronic illnesses. The panel shall investigate and study health care delivery for these patients and the variations in delivery of such care among health care providers in the commonwealth. For the purposes of this investigation and study, "health care providers" shall mean facilities and health care professionals licensed to provide acute inpatient hospital care, outpatient services, skilled nursing, rehabilitation and long-term hospital care, home health care and hospice services. The panel shall identify best practices for end-of-life care, including those that minimize disparities in care delivery and variations in practice or spending among geographic regions and hospitals, and shall present recommendations for any legislative, regulatory, or other policy changes necessary to implement its recommendations.  (Chapter 305 Section 41)

Likewise, there is little chance Romney would repeal the Obama administration's decision to force religious institutions to violate the conscience by forcing them to "provide all employees access to health insurance providing artificial contraception, including abortifacients and sterilization services such as vasectomies and tubal ligations." We know this because while governor, Mitt Romney compelled Catholic hospitals to provide abortion services.

Not only is the single-most economically destructive and most expensive piece of legislation in US history Obamacare - and the same can be said for Massachusetts with Romneycare - but it is also the single most destructive of personal liberty and the right to life, thus rendering both among the most immoral pieces of legislation in our history. In point of fact, Obamacare threatens to take over 1/5 of the US economy, and Romneycare has been a cancer of similar proportions in his home state. For both, Mitt Romney has little concern about repealing.

Meanwhile, anti-science Mitt Romney wishes America saw him as smarter than the scientists at NASA. Mitt makes his pronouncements as if stuck in the mud like some regressive troll, as he promises to fire anyone who dares to have the vision to take us back out into space - even as China makes plans to build a base on the moon - were somehow anything but the broken, Old World manner of thinking to which America has been the shining rebuttal. Would the non-motor-savvy Romney also have fired anyone who kept talking of replacing the carriage with the automobile? Would the non-chemist Romney have threatened to fire Alexander Fleming before he had the chance to invent Penicillin because the idea of using mold to stop infections seemed absurd on its face? Clearly, anti-science Romney speaks of a great many things about which he knows nothing. Or to put it in the kindest possible light as Reagan had, "Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Not only is Romney a liberal, but a flake and a hypocrite also. On one hand, we have Newt Gingrich, a historian with a Ph.D. and endless experience in national security and policy formulation and as part of the Reagan Revolution and the revolution of 1994 that brought us four consecutive years of a balanced budget. On the other, we have messy Mitt, trolling the interwebs for quote sites with neat-sounding quotes that may or may not be accurately attributed to the one purported to have made them. Stable? Real? Mitt is a hollow casing, a plastic fruit; Mitt is a flake. Really, who else praises Hezbollah's healthchare system? That's ground even Sheila Jackson Lee dare not tread (although Obama does stand by his Muslim Brotherhood endorsement). Flake.

Underneath that thin plastic exterior and the Trump hair, we have someone with a dark, stormy emotional life almost completely devoid of sympathy for others and easily rattled by those who challenge him. This is because for so many years, Romney has been living a lie and he's terrified of being found out - not just for the things that are public knowledge but for the things that are not so public - some things kept in his closet we like to call skeletons. The embarrassing aspect of this for Romney is that as an ISTJ, it is more than obvious. Romney is literally screaming out from the mountain top his vulnerabilities and the things he most greatly fears.

All of these amount to some valuable insights into Mitt Romney's moral compass and capacity as an unreliable leader. Mitt Romney was a failed, small-minded, liberal governor overseeing a failed liberal big-government state and prefers to "hunt small varmints" by uttering useless slogans to win office rather than truly leading. It's fairly clear the governor merely wishes to finish the work Barack Obama started - to manage the decline. We simply can't afford it.

Ultimately, the joke will be on Mitt Romney, whom the establishment sees as a throwaway candidate. In case you were wondering why the establishment would choose a flake like Mitt Romney rather than a quality candidate who nonetheless reflected their view of things such as a George H.W. Bush or someone similarly as serious, one need only consider what many establishment Republicans seem to believe, which is that Obama either can't be beaten or shouldn't. Even Romney seems to agree. The long-talked about strategy is to field an unremarkable candidate who will not disrupt key congressional races and the effort to retake the Senate.

America wants to recover economically and morally, and that starts with not choosing a flaky, anti-science, serial liberal candidate of questionable moral character like Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney was right about one thing, however, when he stated, "There are many reasons not to vote for me." And we couldn't agree more.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.



Romney The Paper Tiger

| No Comments | No TrackBacks


"The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him." -- Proverbs 18:17

Okay students, we know this better than most, don't we? I had to question Elliott Abrams' personal integrity two days ago after his failure to cite sources and offer context in the now-infamous and refuted hit piece against Newt Gingrich. In his article, Abrams pulled cherry-picked bits of qoutes out of thin air and used them to accuse Newt of being anti-Reagan, which sparked an avalanche from all directions  - including a video of Nancy Reagan from 1995 - proving otherwise. If I had conducted a research project the way Abrams has, It's quite possible I would have been cited for plagiarism and expelled from my MA program. Plagiarism is more than stealing someone's words and failing to put quotation marks around them; it's also a failure to properly attribute them, which is where Elliott grossly erred apparently with malice.

Needless to say, Abrams is unimportant in the larger scheme of things, but the machine that used him and his disposable lies will do it again. So as conservatives, as voters, and as Newt supporters what is the takeaway with all of this?

One of the more famous lines from Star Wars was by Obi Wan: "Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who follows him?" The next time Romney's sleazy Charlie Crist operatives launch a bogus attack on Newt, give it a day. Romney's mudslinging of lies is becoming old hat, and when you consider 2008, it becomes ancient.

  • Mitt's isn't a campaign but a psychological warfare operation. Don't bring a knife to a gunfight unless your strategy is asymmetrical - in which case you'd better know what you're doing.
  • Mitt promised an "October Surprise every day" until the convention. In reality, maybe not every day but every day before a key event, such as a debate or a primary -- so expect it. Don't wither; hit back hard but intelligently.
  • These unsurprising surprises have proven to be factually bogus every time. Yawn. So we should stand confidently in the face of them. We must alert the American people that this is an old game that should be ignored. After all, aren't we as voters tired of this slanderous sleaze we can set our watches by when there are so many issues that really matter?
  • Don't react - act! Romney is not a particularly stable or secure human being, in fact the only card he has is his bluff, which we have the power to call. Find what rattles his cage and rattle it often, but keep the issues that matter most to Americans the focal point of the campaign. Newt wants to be president because he truly loves this country and Americans and wants it to be a better place for his grandchildren, which is why Newt has honed in on the issues that will most impact us now and in the future. This is why Newt leads unwaveringly by a massive amount in polls in the category of who's the most presidential.

 As the saying goes, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. He currently serves with the Newt Gingrich campaign as Texas Chair for Students with Newt (posts at Blogbat are personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of the campaign). Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009 and misses the irradiated sushi at his favorite sushi haunt Itsu. He hates the Turabian style format.



Apparently, Business Insider is now hiring staff writers for Xinhua, China's state-run "news" agency. In fact, the propaganda (both in tone and content) is so thick in this hit piece directed at America and its people that it likely would move members of the CCP to tears.  So we decided to go through each of "The 9 Things About America That You Knew Were True - But Aren't" and give you the aren'ts'  aren'ts.


1. July 4th isn't really an important day

"The founding fathers would be surprised to learn that we celebrate on the 4th. John Adams, future second president of the United States, wrote that 'the Second of July, 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.'" Actually, the writers of this piece should have suggested that perhaps some of the founding fathers might have initially felt this way. July 4th quickly became the traditional date of commemoration for our declaration of independence from Britain as well as other patriotic reasons: the date in 1778 also marked an important victory for George Clark's forces, and in 1802, it was the date West Point Military Academy opened. It was also the date of the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, the date Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both passed away in 1826, and the date slavery was abolished in law and practice by the State of New York in 1827.


2. The Pilgrims were just a bunch of racists and were only inconvenienced by authorities harshing their buzz in Europe

As we can already tell, Eric Goldschein and Robert Johnson - the two mind-numbed public school automatons who wrote this piece - seem to have a clear bias, which becomes further evident by dismissing "persecution" and replacing it with "frustration". In reality, Pilgrims were in fear of their lives, which rises somewhat above mere "frustration". Furthermore, the Founding Fathers established no "separation of church and state" - a slogan of the left ever since it was taken out of context from a private letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists and began being employed in the 20th Century to read into the Constitution the exact opposite of what the letter and the spirit of the law states.


3. Betsy Ross didn't design the flag

The article's title claims that nine things "aren't" true, so the writer must have meant to include this one, too; however, the writers admit here no one seems to know. Even the simplest mind (except for atheists) knows that lack of data does not prove a negative. Just the tone of this segment further supports the idea that Goldschein and Johnson had an axe to grind.


4. Salem witches not burned at the stake

The witch-hunters did burn accused witches at the stake in Europe, but the writers are correct on this point. Interesting to note, however, that the writers did not go out of their way here to minimize these trials in the historical context, even though they were rather slight in scope and short-lived compared to those in Europe. But this fact might have been an inconvenient truth in support of the many reasons we fled Europe, one of which being the sheer barbarity. I do give the writers a few points for mentioning the Salem body count of 20; however, literally scores of thousands were burned to death and murdered in other ways across the pond. This fact should have been mentioned as well, if the goal were to supply accurate context (e.g. Mexico outlawed slavery - at least on paper - in 1830).


5. The Alamo was about defending slavery rather than freedom


This is complete revisionism. Santa Anna was one of the most egregious tyrants and violators of human rights on the continent. Sadly, the Mexican government remains one of the most elitist (and unpopular) faux democracies in our hemisphere today. Furthermore, Mexico outlawed slavery the same way Communist China today has freedom of religion in its constitution: a formality as a rule ignored in practice.


6. Revere's words aren't sufficiently exact, so we should hate America

"Someone needs to let Sarah [Palin] know" what? The original controversy to which the embedded image of Palin intimates is whether Revere also warned the British, not over the exact words that Revere used, which is what this hit piece falteringly addresses. In fact, the exact words used by Revere would not have made much sense in recounting the story in later generations, which is why for generations we paraphrased them with, "The British are coming!", as Longfellow discussed but also did not state verbatim in his famous poem. The fact that Goldschein and Johnson take issue with this and for added measure takes a swipe at Palin further lends to the obvious, which is this Business Insider bit is little more than an anti-American hit piece that is also perfectly happy to go after those who are outspoken supporters of America for good measure.


7. Wild West wasn't quite so wild

Congratulations to the writers who have at last - on number seven out of nine - scored one for their "win" column. The Wild West was not as wild as the writers' friends in Hollywood have portrayed it. But before we give Goldschein and Johnson their trophy for getting one right, this win might turn out to be a bigger loss. Why? Because the political left to which Goldschein and Johnson clearly belong has long associated the Wild West with those crazy savages in flyover country - or basically anyone not an East- or Left Coast liberal establishment type. So as we look deeper we realize these gems have shot themselves in the foot. But hopefully this wild west-style fiction-slinging won't wind up following them around in their apparently early careers.


8. Lindbergh wasn't the first to fly around the world

This is a half-win for our dynamic komrade duo in the sense that this is true. Unfortunately, they fail to provide historical context, which I found odd. It's interesting to note they avoided mentioning Lindbergh's anti-Semitism and love for socialism and the Nazis - views likely in many respects shared by these writers' political clique.


9. "US not responsible for winning World War II in Europe"

At last something the US isn't responsible for. That is of course because it is a good thing, according to these writers, who have been brainwashed to also conclude that since the US is evil, it can't be recognized for doing good. That the US isn't "resonsible for winning WWII in Europe" is also a popular meme among non-American participants in the war who were humiliated by having the crap beat out of them by Nazi Germany at the time the US stepped in and began smashing heads together, further pointing out their humiliation. In fact, I worked with a Russian during my time in London and we debated this matter a couple of times. There is no question that every little bit helped, so the Soviets deserved some credit (actually, by that logic, Germany deserves some credit for not learning Napoleon's lesson and invading the Soviet Union and getting attacked by bad weather). The British (thanks to American arms and support), a handful of French, and other resistance fighters (thanks to American arms and support) also deserve credit for their courageous role in standing up to the Germans. But the reality is that they were all but Lilliputians until the US King Kong showed up on the scene and took Hitler down. Even Churchill knew it was the Americans that had saved the British Empire. That far-left revisionists like the ones who wrote this piece follow an old, infamous antithetical meme says more about the writers than it informs us on the details of history. That the writers intimate that the genocidist Stalin is the real hero both smacks of genocide-denier Walter Durranty of the NYT and fails to give meteorology the credit it is due, to say nothing of denying the US role in defeating Nazi Germany.


As pointed out, our beloved writers clearly had a bone to pick with the US. In eight of the nine short swipes, they managed to spout the leftist party line without a single error - a sycophant's ape-rate even writers for Xinhua have trouble at times attaining. This Business Insider bit is far from serious and is nothing more than a hit piece filled with the ersatz slogans we come to expect in any friendly PLA writing course. Given Business Insider's low bar for its writers, I honestly wouldn't waste my time at Business Insider going forward. Interestingly, Business Insider, also offers a piece titled, "The 25 Worst Mistakes In History". Surprisingly, denying the Soviet strategic threat and human rights violations for decades and hiring these two writers didn't make the list. Better to stick to something like the Wall Street Journal, where even the liberal writers attempt to write for grownups. Or you could always head over to Cracked.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.


Some Thoughts on The Norway Terrorist

| 2 Comments | No TrackBacks


I find it interesting that mass-murdering terrorist Anders Behring Breivik's closest apparent political leanings would be along the lines of United Russia, Vladimir Putin's political party (and similar to Vidkun Quisling's National Unity Party).

I also find it noteworthy that two separate Islamist groups tried to take responsibility before realizing that gig was up. This further demonstrates that with their shared hatred for Israel and love of blowing things up, Anders and the Islamists he claims to also detest are actually natural allies.

I suppose there is some irony here, particularly with the aforementioned antipathy for Israel shared by Anders and the Islamists, but also Norway's Labor Party. Incidentally, Labor also has "declared war on radical Islam." Of course, radical Islamists hate Labor and Anders, too. That the three of them are at each other's throats is noteworthy no matter how you look at it. As the saying goes, "haters gonna hate", and all three seem to hate each other and everyone else, for that matter.

I'm also rather curious if Anders had any connection with the "Anonymous" movement, which is allegedly supported by "Russian interests". Russia not only has a long history with active measures throughout Europe in both Soviet and post-Soviet days, it also has a considerable one in Norway.

Speculation aside, what we can gather about Anders at the moment is that he is a fairly educated and intelligent sort of terrorist. He doesn't seem the type to be led around by the nose of one ready-made ideology, but might well hand pick the things he likes out of both right and left baskets. Just another speculation, of course, since we truly know so very little about him yet. Some have made some great points about the fact that had Norway's gun laws not been so strict, camp counselors could have been able to possess firearms and thus could have stopped Anders much earlier on in his murder spree. That would have especially been handy in this case, because authorities took an hour and a half to respond. Another travesty of the socialist dystopia? It is likely that Anders will only get 21 years for his unspeakable carnage. 21 years? Seriously?

Some great analysis and links to those who've really been digging into this can be found here, here, here, and here. Bonus: Far-Left Wikipedia has already linked Anders to the American Tea Party Movement.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.


It appears the plot has thickened in the horrific Norway massacre that involved bombings and shootings at two separate locations that claimed the lives of close to 100 innocents yesterday. Unlike many on the left, it made no difference to many of us what color the shooter's hair or eyes were; there only began to prove to be a strange twist when rumors of his worldview began to swirl around. It was only then that he began to appear to be a bit of a departure from the norm. After all, he would not have been the first European Islamist we've captured in the past ten years. But we one thing seems unchanged: he agrees with Norway's labor government's - and the Islamists' - anti-Semitism, and he agrees with the far left that terror and oppression are the only useful tools in governing a society.

At present, Anders Behring Breivik seems to be the sole suspect, contrary to earlier suspicions - mine included, as well as those of the BBC and other left-of-center media and government officials - that this was a coordinated Islamism attack. Of course, the BBC dutifully began filling the air almost entirely with speculation that it was Norway's almost non-existent role in Afghanistan and Libya that was the culprit and all but ignored the growing Islamist movement in Norway and how PM Jens Stoltenberg's government has chosen not to deal with it (when it wasn't supporting it, which was quite rare).

But of course, all of that talk may have become moot as more details seem to have surfaced. So naturally, conservatives will seek to fall back and suggest that perhaps this will become the exception that proves the rule, while the left will most certainly suggest the opposite: that this is the rule that proves the rule. In one sense, the left is right. When you begin to look at it a little deeper, you might begin to think this is the rule that proves the rule.

But what rule? While early reports suggest he was an ultra-nationalist á la Alex Jones-with-hand-grenades (though we do not know the philosophical basis of this or his mental health - so it is yet too early to determine what is at the root of his rampage) we do know that Europe has a long history in which the balance of power has either shifted toward the violent left or the violent right - a "right" quite alien from how we define it here in the US. Historically, this battle has not given much voice to the average, peaceful person living in the Old World. Marx or Hitler was your choice, so you were screwed either way. Over the centuries what started out as contests among nobility has evolved into what began to be known as leftist versus rightist in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Regardless of the name of the fashionable political philosophical candy du jour, this clash of titans remained one of the principle reasons so many fled to America.

Of course, much of the media in the US and the world today counts itself among the combatants in the Old World sense, so it will seek to make up for the Loughner that got away in its quixotic cultural quest to finally vanquish its ancient nemesis as well as put away this new post-1776 foe: the "third option". As you recall, before the blood had even dried on the pavement, MSM sought to paint Jared Loughner as a right-wing terrorist and then pin him not to the Alex Jones extreme but to the Sarah Palin mainstream. This was until Loughner's rantings on YouTube and testimony from those who knew him surfaced and it became clear he was a radical atheist and quasi-neo-Marxist. Loughner was also determined to be mentally unfit to stand trial, so the crestfallen media was able to quickly let the story drop with cover. The Obama administration was also forced to wait for another opportunity to push its anti-America class narrative.

If anything, yesterday's tragic incidents in Oslo and Utoya should serve to further support the reality that the traditional American conservative is the true "centrist" in the world body politic. While you still have at one extreme the deranged Hitlerites and at the other the genocidal Maoists, in the very exceptional and sane middle, you can still find the rational pro-America, pro-Israel constitutionalist. This third option is only option that has ever truly empowered the people. "Centrist" not so much in the more popular sense today; many see political actors such as John McCain and Jon Huntsman, Jr. as timid leftists. Rightly so, because these faux moderates seek to join their more radical comrades in turning back the clock on America to the old days, when we were subject to top-down governments and the kind of extremist clashes eternally ongoing in Europe.

Of course, the likely policy response in Norway and in other NATO countries to yesterday's attacks will most likely prove counterproductive and will also neither solve the growing and very extant Islamist threats nor the actual violence or the anti-Semitism that continues to thrive in Norway. Nor will it provide anything of use in dealing with the nascent and already very serious China threat. Instead, it will surely provide further cover for ignoring them. It will likely, however, encourage Janet Napolitano to grope Americans a little bit more. This incident will no doubt play right into the narrative Napolitano and the Obama administration have been working on more feverishly in recent days, which in itself makes for an exceptionally convenient set of circumstances in Norway. This will in turn play into the narrative of the Alex Jones sect, who will seek to continue to hijack what is truly American while the extreme left seeks to help the hijacking so they can be rid of us, the peaceful, civil American voter - and the exceptional idea of America - once and for all.

So you neither have in Anders the nail in the coffin that proves that ordinary people trying to live their lives are actually terrorists who should be locked up, nor the exception to the rule that all terrorists are Islamist - which isn't true at any rate. What we do find in Anders, if early reports turn out to be true, is that the rule that civil society is still caught between two extremes happy to use violence against innocents to attain their goals is still very much a reality. And we also see why our Founding Fathers were wise to want none of it in the US. At the end of the day, Anders serves as a reminder why we must divorce the kind of European thinking that has led to wars and so much suffering and loss of life around the world. It once again demonstrates that the idea that the Founding Fathers had was truly exceptional and that for democratic peace theory to work, there must be more freedom and power in the hands of the people, not less. The idea that "we the people", the civil society, oversee the affairs of state rather than the opposite and that differences are solved rationally through debate (at times impassioned) and elections rather than an endless cycle of oppression and uprising, tyranny and terrorism, is truly the most novel even some 235 years later; it is the best idea men have ever had and also the best in practice.


nme.jpg

Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.


The NPR History of Hate

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

In light of the faux mass MSM hysteria over Michele Bachmann's non-anti-Catholic religious beliefs, I wonder what NPR thinks about Catholics? Blogbat has the answer.

In this episode, our cardboard hero runs into his physics professor (who also works as an NPR personality) in the cafeteria. A chat ensues that leaves the good folks of Generic College with mouths agape.

 



Thanks to Newsbusters and (gasp) Fox News for the dirty laundry on NPR used in this bit.



nme.jpg


Martin is a master's student in national security studies and is the executive director of Samizdat International, a genuine human rights concern. Martin undertook his internship with the London-based Henry Jackson Society in the summer of 2009. He hates the Turabian style format.
Enhanced by Zemanta

 

     The Blogbat Weblog 3.0

 

 

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Hypocrisy category.

Human Rights is the previous category.

Media is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.