Pride Goeth Before the Fall

One of the most common characteristics among liberals that I have noticed, from the rank and file uninformed liberal, to the wacko “journalists,” to the rabble rousing elites, is their unabashed arrogance. Every conservative, from Supreme Court Justices (and nominees), candidates, elected officials, radio and TV personalities, to the common parent is, according to liberals, “stupid,” “uneducated,” and in every way inferior to their liberal counterparts. Any sampling of mainstream media reports on Barack Obama easily illustrates a bias on par with the hysterical screaming of thousands of teenage girls at the height of Beatlemania.
For example:

“Reagan [at the 1984 D-Day commemoration] was all about America, and you talked about it. Obama is, ‘We are above that now. We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial. We stand for something.’ I mean, in a way, Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world. He’s sort of God. He’s going to bring all different sides together.”
— Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on MSNBC’s Hardball, June 5, 2009.

“The sun glinted off chiseled pectorals sculpted during four weightlifting sessions each week, and a body toned by regular treadmill runs and basketball games.”
— Washington Post’s Eli Saslow December 25th, 2008.

“The other night I dreamt of Barack Obama. He was taking a shower right when I needed to get into the bathroom to shave my legs....I launched an e-mail inquiry....Many women — not too surprisingly — were dreaming about sex with the President.”
— New York Times “Domestic Disturbances” blogger Judith Warner, February 5, 2009.

Can you imagine any journalist slavering like this over a conservative leader? Rush Limbaugh would never shame or demean himself in such a groveling manner, but if he were to do so it would become the centerpiece of a liberal tsunami to discredit him. People on the left would undoubtedly seek to have him institutionalized. There are no checks and balances within the liberal media establishment to prevent this sort of thing. One would think the editors of Newsweek would have squashed this kind of blatant cultish admiration. Not so. Note that Thomas’s prediction that Obama would bring all sides together is, thus far, just as ridiculous as his attempt to deify him. Who can deny that this idolization doesn’t feed Obama’s (not to mention the members of his administration) ego? Why, not only is he the first black president, he’s the smartest and the sexiest too! What else would anyone expect from a demi-god?
The arrogance of the left is not isolated to the media either. Every experiment with charter schools and voucher programs proves their success and worthiness, but for some reason, top educators remain opposed to such systems. This opposition is borne of exactly the same arrogance exhibited by liberal elitists: they, and not parents, know what’s best for everyone else!
One look at the academic credentials of Obama and his cabinet members says it all. Princeton, Columbia Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Cambridge, and Oxford to name a few; bastions of liberal indoctrination a.k.a. education. Of course, George W. Bush went to Yale too, but the liberals didn’t let that stop them from impugning his intelligence, despite the fact that his grades, according to the transcripts, were higher than John Kerry’s. (Conspiracy-minded Liberals have made a point to explain that this was because members of the Secret Service were the ones really doing his homework for him – and the rank and file liberals actually believe it)! Funny thing is Obama won’t release his transcripts. Am I the only one wondering why the media hasn’t pressured the White House their release, or to editorialize that the most likely explanation is that Obama had worse scores than Bush… Hmmm?
The liberals are on the verge of fundamentally changing the United States. The largely unspecified “change” promised during the 2008 presidential campaign by Obama and other top liberals is every bit the Socialism predicted by Obama’s political enemies. These so-called “reforms” have been overwhelmingly unpopular among the citizens of the United States, as is evidenced by the numerous Tea Party demonstrations and town hall meetings held around the country. Yet the liberals are still moving ahead, forcing their Marxist agenda down our throats like so many teaspoonfuls of bad medicine. It just so happens that Joe Wilson was right when he called Obama a liar. The healthcare bill about to emerge from Congress will provide tax dollars to cover abortions, and the Administration has announced that the next item on its agenda is to make citizens of the “15 million” illegal immigrants currently invading our nation, most, but not all of them, peacefully.
There are indeed many reasons why the liberals continue to do these things despite the opposition of the people. Despite their “education,” they aren’t nearly as intelligent as they think they are – or that they want us to think they are. Remember, whereas the Ark was built by a lone amateur, the Titanic was built by a team of professionals. And lest there be any doubt, we’re the ones steaming full speed ahead toward icebergs, not salvation, because of the Liberals' unabashed arrogance - they, not you, not me, know what’s best for us.

The REAL Inconvenient Truth

Recall the teachings of the Pontiff of Global Warming Propaganda, Al Gore, for which he received acclamations, millions upon millions of dollars, and even an Academy Award. His documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” spelled out, in no uncertain terms, the apocalyptic doom that awaits Planet Earth and its denizens unless we all reduce our collective carbon foot print.
While Gore is definitely the most “prophetable” of the doomsayers, he is certainly not the first. In fact, Gore’s propaganda is nothing more than a re-tooling of the same alarmist nonsense that the communist wackos in academia were regurgitating to the world thirty years ago.
From 1968 to 1985 Paul Erlich predicted that:

• Without forced population control “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” (The Population Bomb, 1968)
• That “England will not exist in the year 2000.” (Ibid)
• “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” (1969)
• Because of “overpopulation” there will be a scarcity of food causing the death rate to “increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.” (1970 interview in Mademoiselle Magazine).
• “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion.” (1969)
• “By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million.” (1969)

Of course within a few years it was obvious that Erlich’s predictions weren’t going to come true… ever. No one with any common sense was going to alter his or her lifestyle to accommodate Erlich and his communist friends, so the liberal elitist communists tried a different approach. In 1972 people and groups like the Club of Rome began predicting the coming new ice age. It seems there was so much carbon going into the atmosphere it was blocking out the sun’s warming rays, and soon habitable farm regions would be frozen over and become unable to produce food and other resources. (Erlich was quick to jump on the bandwagon). The world was warned that it was about to run out of food, oil, gas, lead, zinc, copper, tin, and uranium.

The leftist Carter administration issued a global forecast predicting that “the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically … and the world’s people will be poorer in many ways than they are today.” Once again it didn’t take long for most people to realize that the once “settled” science of global cooling was nothing more than bovine excrement.

By the 1990s and the ascendancy of another Democrat president the” Prophecy” was altered again, but this time the end as we know it would be ushered in by man-made “global warming.” A supposed hole was found in the ozone layer over portions of the southern hemisphere. Global Warming Enthusiasts went wild with more dire predictions. Governments used the man-made threat to raise taxes and alter industry. Some businesses were unable to absorb the cost of these “necessary” changes and are no longer with us today. As temperatures warmed in the mid to late 90’s the liberals clamored for more “change,” more government intrusion.
Today, thanks to some Russian hackers, we now know the REAL inconvenient truth: that the socialist-minded purveyors of global warming have been purposefully manipulating data to “trick” people into believing in “climate change.” They even went so far as to destroy the original temperature data from the last 40 years; they only have the temperature data that they altered by recording temperatures that were cooler than they actually were 30 to 40 years ago, and temperatures that were warmer than they actually were up to 10 years ago, simply to make it look as if the world was genuinely heating up. The truth is that their record keeping has been a sham all along. Their new scientific method (taught now to all school children it seems) is akin to telling us that “the science is settled: 2 + 2 = 5!”

What you need to know is that this “Climate Change” propaganda is being shoved down your throat for a very simple reason: wealth redistribution. The rest of the mostly-socialist world is poor precisely because they are socialist, or some form of Marxist. The same communists who were peddling the B.S. thirty years ago are still the ones peddling it today for the sole purpose of taking your money from you, under the guise of helping others around the world. Al Gore is now a billionaire due to his climate change peddling. Too many turds; frozen turds; boiling turds. Sure, there are some new faces in the crowd, namely the Obama administration, but the propaganda is still the same crap.
I think we need to give our current government a good flushing come 2010 and 2012.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Libs attacking again!

Read this article!

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/11/11/DADT_Likely_To_Be_Part_of_Defense_Bill/
Ok… this is how the Dems do things. Imagine what is going to happen next year when conservatives oppose this measure. The Democrats will claim that the Republicans are weak on national defense. They will claim that the Republicans care more about ideology then they do the troops in the field in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. The Lame-Stream Media will side with the Democrats. This is exactly how they handled the federal budget during the Reagan years: after shelving 7 out of 8 of Reagan’s budget proposals, then attaching pork barrel projects that Reagan was forced to veto, and then claiming Reagan cared more about ideology than the nation.

And according to Frank, he’s only doing what they always do. I agree, if by “they” he means lousy liberal Democrats who care more about ideology then they do the morale of our troops, i.e. our nation.

This article claims that Clinton’s “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy was a ban on gays serving openly in the military, which is completely wrong. There has ALWAYS been a ban on gays in the military because that particular mental disorder affects, dramatically and negatively, morale. The Clinton administration allowed gays to serve in the military – they just had to keep their disorder, or sickness, or “preference” to themselves. In other words, his policy was a first step towards removing the ban against people who suffer from this mental disorder. I served our nation in the U.S. Navy for 6 years. Nothing destroyed morale more than the escapades and flamboyant attitudes of the effeminate. We had to share berthing spaces, restrooms and work spaces with them and our only two concerns were: 1) that they kept their sick personal lives to themselves, and 2) that the military take every precaution to ensure that straight soldiers, sailors and marines don’t get infected by aids, which still affects, predominantly, gays. Of course, the only way to ensure #2 is to ban gays completely from the military. In a nutshell, the Clinton administration only helped to weaken the military in order to score brownie points among his pink constituents. Of course, since Clinton was a draft dodger it’s doubtful that he cares about weakening the military.

I was serving at the time that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” became official policy. Trust me when I say, the over whelming majority of military personnel were against this policy – and knew that it was just the first step – or rather, another incremental step in the overall process of liberalizing away our nation’s moral principles towards Socialism. And the gays that were serving? They were thrilled. They were jubilant…and for the same reason. And make no mistake about it, while no one was asking, they were all TELLING, vociferously. The Clinton policy would be more aptly named, “Don’t ask, don’t yell.”

And at a time when we should consider expanding the ban to include Muslims, why is Barney Frank so eager to get this passed next year? With the economy in the dire shape that it’s in; with REAL unemployment at 17.5%, higher even than at the outset of the Great Depression, our nation at war with jihadists inside and outside of our country, why is repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” so important? I think you’d have to be a completely witless moron not to see that Frank knows the Democrats are out next year, and he’s desperately doing anything he can to ram through the most destructively liberal legislation while he has the chance.

No News Is Good News

White House senior adviser David Axelrod kicked off the latest Democrat campaign strategy on October 18th by telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station.” The sentiment was summarily repeated by numnerous White House officials from Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett to (inhale) Assistant Deputy Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy and my good friend, Christopher Smith.
As with most liberal, Democrat offensives, truth appears to be a casualty in this war of words.
Granted Fox News leans to the right, and heavily, but despite the accusations made by those on the left of Fox’s inaccuracies, Fox has been far more accurate than any other cable news network and mainstream news organizations like ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, Time Magazine, News Week, The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc. The truth itself, it would appear, is part of some “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
The last time I checked, government scandal or the appearance of impropriety by government agencies and employees was news. Watergate was big time news. The pardoning of Richard Nixon, reported on viciously by those mainstream news organizations already listed, cost Gerald Ford the election in ’76. Yet these same “news” organizations sugar-coated the disaster that came to be known as the Carter Presidency. They left no stone unturned, even imaginary ones, when trying to pin Iran-Contra on Reagan. It was Reagan “shutting down the government” for vetoing the pork-laden Democrat budgets, and not the fiscal irresponsibility of the Tip O’Neal gang. George Bush senior was excoriated by the media for raising taxes while Bill Clinton was treated with the softest pair of kid gloves ever imagined. It wasn’t that he committed the felony crime of perjury that was important; it was that the “vast right-wing conspiracy” wanted to punish him for being on the receiving end of some extra-marital attention.
Is mass voter registration fraud by ACORN, a supposedly unbiased organization for which Barack Obama worked not news? Or the fact that ACORN representatives (in ALL locations tested) were willing to assist a supposed pimp and prostitute establish a residence to use as a brothel? Or that they were willing to help given that the prostitutes in this establishment were going to be 13 year old girls, and illegal immigrants? Or that these ACORN employees were also willing to help them commit tax fraud and keep them from getting caught? Or that ACORN was going to receive 8.3 Billion tax dollars from the Obama administration under the guise of “stimulus” spending? Is it not newsworthy to provide video-tape footage proving the racist beliefs of government employee Van Jones who was appointed by the President without Congressional approval? Or how about all the Obama administration officials who have been exposed as tax cheats who are now too numerous to mention?
And did I mention the government takeover of one industry after another? Healthcare “reform” that really is going to cost what conservatives and Fox News say it will? And that will contain provisions to fund abortions just as conservatives and Fox News said? And that will provide measures to extend healthcare to illegal immigrants just as conservatives, Fox News, and Joe Wilson said!?
In my book, all of this information, brought to light by Fox News and suppressed by all other “news” organizations, is not only news, it’s exactly what people want to know if and when it occurs. It’s why Fox news is beating the pants of all others; the viewers aren’t as stupid as the Obama administration seems to think we are. Liberals don’t like Fox News and Talk Radio because they ARE news organizations – and they are effective. If Fox News isn’t news, than the old adage is perfectly true: No news is good news!

Ideological Agreement - Sort Of

People on either side of the political spectrum are voicing outrage over the disclosure made by Irene Vilar in her new book “Impossible Motherhood: Confessions of an Abortion Addict” in which she confesses to committing 15 abortions in a 17 year span – almost one per year, almost every year of her adult life. She tried to get pregnant just so she could get abortions!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220095/American-abortion-addict-15-terminations-17-years-publishes-memoir.html
Here are a couple of the statements of outrage:

“What a stupid selfish woman. I am pro-choice yes, but this takes the mick. Abortion is not birth control and it shouldn't be used as such.” - Rachel, Plymouth.

“I'm not against abortions, but this is just messed up. Who in their right mind would purposely get pregnant just to abort the child and then have the nerve to write a book about it!?”- Dee, Cardiff

I for one am glad that both sides, excepting the most rabidly fanatical leftists of course, have been so vocal in their disgust, so glad in fact, that it is very difficult for me to risk trampling on that bi-ideological spirit by saying what follows. But then again, I am only stating the obvious.

The leftists who have expressed outrage still appear to be confused. On the one hand, as you have seen from their comments, they are disgusted by the actions of Irene Vilar, yet they all proclaim their support of the “freedom to choose.”

This is a clearly disingenuous position that the liberals accept and promote because they have divorced the rhetorical description – “freedom to choose” - from the specific action of “abortion.” One must really wonder if liberals really believe in the “freedom to choose” because, generally speaking, they work to block choice on almost every other issue, such as voucher programs that give parents the ability to choose their children’s schools, curriculum, teachers and text books.
Choice in healthcare – that is, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines – is blocked by the very same liberals and their special interests that work so hard to suppress school choice.
One hallmark of liberalism is that concepts leftists promote, such as “choice,” or “fairness,” or “liberty,” are very often not at all what they clamor for. What choice does an unborn child have? Is it fair to use the weight of the federal government to plunder from (tax) an earner, ostensibly to spread the wealth around to those who haven’t earned it? Is emancipation from all moral restraint really the kind of liberty we should be championing?

Here’s a question: Why are these liberals who support a “woman’s right to choose,” upset with Irene Vilar? Her actions represent the logical conclusion of the abortion mentality and, mark my words; she will not be the only one. She was only exercising a so-called “right” that they still admittedly support!
What is it that they find so disgusting? I’ll tell you. They know in their twisted heart-of-hearts what abortion is. The “freedom to choose…(wait for it!)… to abort unborn children” is not the same thing as choosing to have a tumor removed. There’s a unique and innocent human being involved who doesn’t get to have a say in the matter. They are outraged because they know the action itself is reprehensible. Liberalism is the salve for the conscience that permits them to judge whether or not the unborn are indeed human beings based upon the desire, or lack thereof, to give birth, and not upon scientific facts. The question I would pose to all of my liberal friends is: What difference does it make to you if it’s 1 or 2 abortions, or 15?

The Faces of Conservatism ~ Smartuckus Fends Off Race-Card Attack...AGAIN

Racial tension is nothing new, but based upon the goings-on in the media - namely the hysteria coming from the left – it appears as though such tension is getting worse since the election of the first black President. Conservatives rightly point out the Left’s obsession with race and the absurdity of the accusations of racism levied against conservatives whose only "crime" is to disagree with the Obama administration. Liberal black leaders go so far as to say that using the term “socialist” to describe Obama’s policies is tantamount to using the “N” word.

On September 11th of this year I wrote about Gertrude Baines, one of Obama’s supporters who had passed away from old age. She admitted to voting for Obama because of race, and the article I referenced mentioned her favorite foods: fried chicken, bacon, and ice cream.
Earlier today a liberal (who I must call "anonymous liberal" because he/she lacked the courage to provide a name) expressed offense, suggesting that my blog post was “racist and inflammatory,” apparently due to the old racial stereotype concerning fried chicken and watermelon. The poster indicated that such racism was “typical” of conservatives. (See for yourself: http://smartuckus.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-loses-another-supporter.html#comments).

The only thing typical was the liberal’s lack of integrity and propensity to play the race card. Obviously the moron took my remarks out of their proper context. And to that moron I would like to say: I’ll bet you wish you would have read the article, don’t you!? Well, you can’t have it back now. Everyone gets to see that you are an idiot. And as I pointed out in my response, he (or she) was not the first person to accuse me of racism over that particular blog, and for the very same reason. But the first anonymous comment was so profanity-laden it was unsuitable for publication.

Conservatism is not racism. Allow me to illustrate. Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia) was a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan. Liberals support him to this day. Senator Albert Gore Senior (Democrat, Tennessee) voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He gets a free pass in the annuls of time because his son is the pontiff of the eco-religionists. Neither of these men are (were) conservative.
On the flip side, here are the faces of a few conservatives:

Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice, and one of my personal heroes.

James Golden, Producer and call-screener for the Rush Limbaugh radio show - yes, the RUSH LIMBAUGH radio show. He goes by the name Bo Snerdley.









Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican Party

Michelle Malkin, conservative author and TV personality.

Walter Williams, Professor Emeritus George Mason University, author, and radio personality.



Are these the fces of some "good-'ol-white-boy" political party? I think not. And there are many more: J.C. Watts, Harry Alford, Michael Medved, Mark Levin, Mona Charen, and Alan Keyes just to name a few. Conservatism, contrary to how it is portrayed by hateful and small-minded liberals, embodies a set of principles that are common to the most diverse group of people. Conservatism is focused on the merits of a person's actions, and not the color of his skin.

Whoever you are "anonymous liberal," put that in your sock!

And The Award Goes Tooooo...!!!

A friend of mine asked me, sarcastically, about the “big announcement” today. You know, that Barack Hussein Obama (Mmmm mmm mmm!) had won the Nobel Peace Prize? He went on and on about how it was ridiculous for this reason and for that reason; his halted speech - an indication that he expected me to jump in and commiserate with him - became animated and perplexed by my silent and widening grin.
“You have it all wrong,” I told him. This is a remarkable accomplishment – one that no other human being could have pulled off.
When I think of esteemed past winners of the Nobel Peace Prize I am reminded of great people like Jimmy Carter, who may yet (current president not withstanding) go down in the annuls of time as the worst United States President ever), Al Gore, the “Global warming kook” – see Hillman, I really can spell the word kook! - Yasser Arafat, a Palestinian terrorist, and a host of other liberals who have spent a lot of time and hard work on symbolic (and virtually meaningless) gestures.
True to his (self-imposed?) messianic image, Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm mmm mmm!) won the award without having done anything! That’s right! He has been awarded for accomplishing nothing! He was nominated for the award in early February after a whole eleven days in office. At the time, the biggest news story was that Rush Limbaugh had stated he wanted Obama to fail.
Perhaps I am not giving credit where credit is due. After all, Obama did work from early November ’08 until January 20th in his capacity as “President-Elect.” He even stimulated the economy by having some sign making company make him a sign that read, “The Office of the President-Elect.” Is it possible that he was awarded the prize for his having accomplished absolutely nothing during that whole phase of his career? Maybe.
All-in-all it’s not a bad start for Obama. He’s won the U.S. Presidential election and the Nobel Peace Prize, (not to mention an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame) within the same calendar year, and I for one think that his performance thus far – not as President of course – makes him a shoe in for an Academy Award!! He is far more convincing in his role than either George Burns or Morgan Freeman.

The good news for conservatives is that this new anointing could not come at a worse time for the Obama administration. They know that he has done nothing to deserve the award – although most people think the award is meaningless nowadays given the list recent winners. Mark my words; the White House is reeling over the embarrassment. You can bet that Obama’s own staff (not the Kool-Aid drinking sycophants) is starting to snicker behind his back.