Archive for the ‘Liberals’ Category

DEMOCRATS NEVER LOSE

February 3, 2020

In their own minds, Democrats never lose. The political faction of liberals and progressives are known as Democrats and they refuse to accept any loss. Thus, they never lose.

A quick look at some recent history of elections tells the story.

Mr. Hanging Chad cannot be forgotten. In 2000, Al Gore lost the State of Florida and it’s 25 electoral votes giving George W. Bush a win with 271 electoral votes to Gore’s 266. After weeks of partisan bickering and multiple recounts by a Democrat controlled elections commission, Bush was declared the winner. Gore claimed to have been cheated out of the presidency and George W. Bush was an illegitimate president.

Vindictively, almost all the “W” keys were removed from White House computers prior to Bush’s inauguration.

To this day, Hillary Clinton tours the countryside telling anyone who will listen how she won the presidential election of 2016. She claims that because she received a greater percentage of the popular vote (2.86 million votes), she is by default the president, yet was denied the White House simply because she is female. Electoral College be damned despite the assurances the Founding Fathers gave to the people of rural areas that their vote is as worthy as those amassed in the cities.

Stacey Abrams of Georgia, on the other hand, refuses to accept the popular vote count of her state and brags that she is the rightful heir to the governor’s mansion. Though the election, deemed fair and lawful was held in 2018, Ms. Abrams refuses to concede the loss to this day.

With a deficit of more than 50,000 votes, Stacey cited voter suppression, and black voters in particular because the voter roles had been recently purged of people no longer allowed to vote in GA, in particular dead people. The lawsuit she filed was found to be without substantiation. In her own words, “I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes. However, I have sufficient and I think legally sufficient doubt about the process to say that it was not a fair election.”

With the adoption of the Articles of Impeachment, Nancy had to hush (almost threateningly) the Democrats who became giddy when they forgot it was a solemn and somber day that they had to impeach a sitting president. However, she later stated that the president would not be acquitted because it is impossible to hold a trial in which there are no new witnesses. This is a win-win for Democrats. The president will, in her words, be “impeached forever” by the House, but cannot be legitimately acquitted by the Senate.

When confronted with facts or reason contrary to their argument, liberals will always win. They do it by yelling “you’re a racist” or “you’re a bigot” or “you’re a homophobe” (transphobe where applicable) or some such thing and walking away. It is then up to the reasoned individual to disprove the negative allegation. Always a win for liberals!

ARE LIBERALS ANGRY BECAUSE THEY’RE LIBERAL?

March 27, 2017

It’s hard to tell which came first, the anger or the self immersion in a flawed doctrine. In either case, we find that people with liberal tendencies are easily angered to the point of violence. No, this is not an exclusive or definitive statement. And yes, I’m sure any liberal minded person can find anecdotal evidence showing that some conservatives also get mad. In general, however, it is the liberals who find themselves unable to verbally justify their feelings and anger themselves with the lack of such ability. They also lean toward physical expression, aka violence, when they don’t get their way. Note the demonstrations riots in Ferguson, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Charlotte and many other bastions of liberalism. Be aware of the anti-Trump rallies vs. Tea Party gatherings.

Another corollary is the less education and/or lower intellect an individual has the greater the tendency toward liberalism. Also, less education breeds a propensity toward violence to resolve conflicts. (redundancy noted) The latter subset tends to gather in cliques (sometimes called clubs) to defend themselves against the world at large. For the outsiders, the nomenclature is gangs.

Removed from the formula are people with IQs of less than 65 for whom learning ability is limited. These people tend to be the happiest because they are not involved, unaware and generally under regular, if not constant, care. This societal division needs only to have basic life necessities and some minor wants met. When thus satisfied, there is a state of euphoria. However, tantrums and rampage are also their alternatives when wants are not satisfied.

Democrats want to limit education choice to indoctrination centers public institutions where learning is directed from history to “new history” and reading assignments are restricted to works that promote liberal, Marxist and socialist ideologies. It is difficult if not impossible to instill education into the minds of despondent care-for-naughts. Thus, our public schools teach to the level of the less capable rather than asking them to work and apply innate abilities or potential to the maximum. Doing this enables those without will or drive to be “equal” to those who do want to learn. To be liked and wanted, they bend towards the warmth of the collective. The concept holds back the best of our youth while catering to or sanctioning behavior of all else.

Here is where the anger begins. Complacency in the classroom translates directly to low work ethic and to boredom. The acceptance of mediocrity begets low will and drive. Desire for betterment is a human nature and cannot be subdued. Desire without drive while expecting equality or supremacy without effort breeds anger. That anger translates into crowd or gang mentality and associated violence ensues.

The government under-educated but indoctrinated youth of today expect “a living wage” without the skills, knowledge or work ethic that is required for survival. Their upbringing by government sponsored authority figures (teachers) supposes upward mobility simply for being.

Flipping burgers, product production and assembly lines are rote performance and people are easily and economically replaced by robotics. Today’s technology leaves the lesser educated unqualified and at a significant and growing disadvantage. Having slacked their way through the education system from kindergarten to high school graduation, the ill prepared now want a free ride through the college system. They expect it, they believe they merit it FREE because of all that has been given them to that point.

Studies show that fully 1/3 of the current junior college freshmen students require remedial classes in the basics they should not have passed in high school. To carry this a step further, teachers in the New York public education system may not be required to pass a 12th grade reading test. The literacy test raised alarms because just 46 percent of Hispanic test takers and 41 percent of black test takers passed it on the first try, compared with 64 percent of white candidates. While a federal judge ruled in 2015 that the test was not discriminatory, faculty members say a test that screens out so many minorities is problematic.

When only 64% of those charged with increasing the knowledge of students, be they white European, Hispanic, Asian or Arabic can pass a test designed for high school seniors, it seems to me that we need better educated teachers.

“Having a white workforce really doesn’t match our student body anymore,” offered a Pace University professor of education. When 36% of the college educated white teachers do not have the literacy skills expected of a high school senior, but they show best of class, it is racial discrimination. So here we have a professor of education who advocates for lower standards of education for the very authorities to whom we entrust our children. The justification? Race. Race is the wild card for anything a liberal cannot defend with reason.

One has to wonder about the academic score for this “professor of education”.

So, next time you encounter an person of undue anger and hostility, please remember he or she is probably a product of limited education and or mental capacity – no matter what degree that person flaunts.

As the late Paul Harvey might say, “NOW YOU KNOW THE REST OF THE STORY”.

 

THERE’S THE BLACK GUY, GIT ‘IM

October 12, 2015

For those of you who are yet unaware, Dr. Ben Carson is the bane of the left. He is exactly the stuff from which conservatives are made and the left doesn’t know how to react. Young Ben grew up extremely poor in Detroit. Dr. Carson is a conservative. He is black. He is educated. He is extremely intelligent, capable of and uses, independent thought.

To the left this man is a plethora of contradictions. If you are born to wealthless parents, you are expected to remain poor and dependent on the government. If you are born to parents of meager means, your education is meant to help you become literate, but not educated. If you are raised by a single mother, surely you are expected to piggyback on every possible entitlement. If you are black, well, you have to be a Democrat, the party that can keep you poor, uneducated and of group-think mind.

Dr. Carson is seeking the Republican nomination for president. That, combined with the above description, infuriates the left. The media doesn’t know how to question this man because his intellect is so far superior to any journalist, he or she can’t understand his explicit and forthright answers. The vocabulary of his explanation is beyond their comprehension.

Here’s an excerpt from a typical interview of the man by a, shall I say, left-of-center interviewer.

Ryssdal: All right, so let’s talk about debt then and the budget. As you know, Treasury Secretary Lew has come out in the last couple of days and said, “We’re gonna run out of money, we’re gonna run out of borrowing authority, on the fifth of November.” Should the Congress then and the president not raise the debt limit? Should we default on our debt?

Carson: Let me put it this way: if I were the president, I would not sign an increased budget. Absolutely would not do it. They would have to find a place to cut.

Ryssdal: To be clear, it’s increasing the debt limit, not the budget, but I want to make sure I understand you. You’d let the United States default rather than raise the debt limit.

Carson: No, I would provide the kind of leadership that says, “Get on the stick guys, and stop messing around, and cut where you need to cut, because we’re not raising any spending limits, period.”

Ryssdal: I’m gonna try one more time, sir. This is debt that’s already obligated. Would you not favor increasing the debt limit to pay the debts already incurred?

Carson: What I’m saying is what we have to do is restructure the way that we create debt. I mean if we continue along this, where does it stop? It never stops. You’re always gonna ask the same question every year. And we’re just gonna keep going down that pathway. That’s one of the things I think that the people are tired of.

Ryssdal: I’m really trying not to be circular here, Dr. Carson, but if you’re not gonna raise the debt limit and you’re not gonna give specifics on what you’re gonna cut, then how are we going to know what you are going to do as president of the United States?

Carson: OK, let me try to explain it in a different way. If, in fact, we have a number of different areas that are contributing to the increasing expenditures and the continued expenditures that are putting us further and further into the hole. You’re familiar I’m sure with the concept of the fiscal gap.

“A candidate who knew what they were talking about would have answered yes or no to this simple question. Since Ben Carson seemed to have no idea what the debt limit is, his answer turned into a stumbling expedition for an explanation”. (comment by Jason Easley of American Public Radio’s “Marketplace”)

Biased reporters really shouldn’t ask questions if they can’t understand the answers. Either Ryssdal refuses to hear the explanation or he is incapable of understanding it. Perhaps he didn’t understand his own question.

I understood Carson say that he would not allow the continued deficit spending and certainly not escalate the debt through increased deficit spending (increased budget).  Instead, he would reduce wasteful spending and use the savings to service and perhaps even pay down the debt.

Dr. Carson is not privy to all the internal minutia of government fiscal manipulation at this point.  Thus, it is impossible for him or any candidate of either party to be explicit as to where necessary cuts might be made or in what amounts until he has that insider line. The attempted gotcha question didn’t work well.

Ya just gotta love the understanding, caring, tolerant, inclusive, diverse pool of thought shared by the left.  If this had been Obama or any liberal of color, the screams or racism would have begun as soon as it was aired; perhaps even as soon as the producer scheduled the interview.

The full interview can be found here.

EVERYBODY’S WATCHING PORN

July 11, 2015

While it may not be true that everybody on the government payroll spends eight hours a day watching porn on a computer you paid for, they may as well be doing so.

Occasionally some of them find the time to redact documents subpoenaed under FOIA to the point they are of no value to any criminal investigation. For the rest, it’s difficult to identify what they spend their time doing unless it’s simply finding new ways to deflect, or obfuscate any inquiry.

It is evident that as any organization grows, it becomes less efficient. It happens in private sector for-profit businesses. It happens in non-profit organizations and it most certainly happens in the public sector. Over growth = complacency and inefficiency. Our government is definitely over grown.

Dylann Roof was able to shoot and kill nine people in Charleston on June 17 of this year because the FBI failed to deny his background check. And that’s according to James Comey, Director of the FBI. “We are sick that this has happened. We wish we could turn back time,” Comey said.

The dealer who sold the gun did his due diligence. He complied with the law.  He submitted the request and sold Roof the gun when the 3 day waiting period ran out. The dealer had no reason to deny the purchase.

Liberals want to grow government. They want background checks on everybody wishing to purchase a gun. They want FBI agents at all gun shows to make sure this happens. This is what they get…inept bureaucracies. They get $35/hr clerks ($60/hr including benefits) texting, applying nail polish or watching porn all day instead of doing their job and following up to make sure the job was done correctly.

When someone dies, their boss simply says, “Um, sorry. NEXT”.

THE VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY LIVES ON

March 6, 2015

There’s no getting around it. Hillary broke protocol, if not the law…again.  Yet the head of the Select Committee on Benghazi, Trey Gowdy, will somehow be portrayed as a leader in the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that is always after the Clintons.  Paranoia?  No, ploy!

She’s not black, so anybody who views her as the criminal she is cannot be called a racist. Yet, they cannot be seen as being vigilant, aware or doing the job for which they are charged. Without demeaning them, the person or panel retains their credential.

You see, when liberals are caught in the act, or in a lie or cover up, or even when they are simply wrong, they cannot admit fault. The only way out is the “shut up” moment when they throw out indefensible innuendos or degrading names. “Did you quit beating your spouse yet?”

How does one prove they are not a racist? It’s impossible, and trying to guard against fantasy becomes an endless and unwinnable defensive move. Obama or Holder or Sharpton don’t have to prove you’re a racist. If you disagree with any of them, you simply have to try to dig out of a sink hole caused by the slanderous attack. The more you dig, the bigger the hole.

In all, this is now the liberal circus of “look over there”. The deaths and cover up of Benghazi are now by-products of the email scandal. It is another fold in the endless tattered rag that is liberalism. For a liberal, a good liberal, there will always be something else to point to. That way, like the name calling, it keeps the truth seeker sidetracked until the point of exhaustion.