Today's an appropriate day to write down a few thoughts as I wrap up the work that needs to be finished before we break for Christmas.
A head-scratcher from the hard left is a seemingly endless stream of invective that threatens NRA members and other 2nd Amendment advocates. It seems the deranged controlling socialists may be plotting to shoot those they feel are standing in the way of firearms bans. They apparently have no appreciation for irony.
The "Freedom from Religion" group's latest initiative is an attempt to bully West Point into abandoning its oldest traditions regarding prayer and Christian observances. Join my new political action group, I think I'll call it "Freedom from Freedom from Religion". Why are they so hostile to people who believe in God?
Hillary can't talk to Congress about the Benghazi disaster because she claims she fell and hit her head. I give that excuse about a 20 percent chance of being true. If I caught the story right, she never even saw a physician about her alleged concussion. Come on, left-wingers, you don't really believe that fairy tale, do you?
The Benghazi story is proof that we have a corrupt and incompetent government headed by a corrupt and incompetent President. Hillary and Barack will never tell the truth about Benghazi, so we should stop asking them to. We already know what happened: Ambassador Stevens and his staff pleaded with Hillary's State Department for better security and were ignored. They got attacked in a siege that lasted almost 9 hours, while the fast-response team of commandos stood by their helicopters ready to mount a rescue. The White House told the rescue team to stand down. Then the White House concocted a cover story about a spontaneous protest to save Obama's campaign.
The only questions remaining will never be answered unless somebody in Obama's inner circle decides to blow the whistle. We don't know exactly why the State Department denied enhanced security in Libya, but there is a person at State that has stepped up and taken responsibility for the decision in congressional testimony. She really took one for the team. We also don't know who at the White House concocted the cover story about the spontaneous protest. But Susan Rice's punishment for being a team player by quite obviously deciding to go tell that lie on television all day the next Sunday was having her hopes to take Hillary's job dashed. And we don't know the exact reason Obama told the rescue team to stand down, and Obama will never tell us.
If you watch Cable Television, especially CNN, MSNBC, and to a lesser extent Fox News, it can be easy to form the impression that most people are fundamentally evil. CNN's Piers Morgan and their airhead anchorette with the pretentiously "diverse" name, Soledad O'Brien, continue a campaign to brand all gun owners and second amendment rights folks as the root of all evil. MSNBC's entire lineup more generally expound on how evil Conservatives are in general, telling their tiny audience that conservatives like seeing children shot, want to starve children and seniors, want to deny medical care to the poor, and of course are racist sexist homophobes. Of course no evidence is necessary of racism - opposing Obama is all that's needed to prove that charge. Homophobia is proved simply by opposition to Gay Marriage. Sexism is evidenced by resistance to forking over the money to pay for every woman's birth control.
I was just wondering what are Fox News' equivalent of the CNN and MSNBC slanders? The most partisan voice at Fox I think would be Hannity, so let's see if I can think of any slanders from Hannity toward liberals. Is it slander to accuse them of desiring wealth redistribution? Of desiring to control what we eat and drink, drive and shoot? Of desiring to eliminate fossil fuels? Which is slanderous? Aren't those things true, and isn't the best defense against a slander charge the truth?
Fiscal Cliff here we come. Boehner went ahead and proposed something in the House, but there weren't enough votes. Apparently he tried to give Obama a compromise based on his own rhetoric (remember "millionaires and billionaires"?) He set the bar at a million dollars for the increased tax rate. The Democrats of course refused to support it, as did the Republicans.
Proof that there will be no "deal". The sides are diametrically opposed. The right side wants to leave tax rates alone and cut spending. The left side wants to hike tax rates and increase spending. The left says they will accept no cuts, period. The right says they will accept no tax increases, period. That means there's no middle ground. So we will end up with one of two outcomes: The automatic spending cuts and tax increases they built in in their last "deal" kick in. Or they agree to extend the deadline and keep the fight going.
Obama's intractable attitude suggests he wants the automatic cuts and tax hikes, but knows his constituents don't support that. So he is trying an approach that he thinks allows him to blame the Republicans for refusing to compromise. The simple fact of his re-election suggests his strategy will probably work, given his worshipping news media and the ignorance of the masses who voted for him.
No comments:
Post a Comment