Can We Cut the Racist Crap?

What is with the Left and this racist crap? Honestly, I'm over it. It seems that no matter what any Conservative does or says everything boils down to race as far as the Moonbats are concerned.

Well here we go again. Sarah Palin is a racist because her co-author Lynn Vincent is a racist because she co-wrote a book with Stacy McCain who everybody knows is a racist. Thursday night I hugged Stacy McCain so I'm a racist. Done deal.

Not so much. Ben Smith concludes that, well actually, Lynn Vincent isn't a racist but he left the accusation against Stacy hang out there. Why? Is it too difficult for a reporter of Smith's stature to investigate accusations prior to printing them?

Stacy had this to say about this tripe:

One of the things I have sought to avoid over the years is the "some of my best friends" defense. If my friends are aware of these attacks, they will defend me. If they are unaware of the attacks, it would be wrong to involve them in a dispute that is not of their concern. My enemies are my enemies, and I would do my friends no favors by siccing my enemies on them, so as to expose my friends to these guilt-by-association attacks.

Stacy treated me like a friend long before we met Thursday night so I'm going to put this in real simple terms: jump off.

Anybody who has a problem with Conservative values man up and debate those values. I defy anyone to show anything about our values that are racist in anyway. But I'll tell you this, there is plenty that is racist about "progressive" values. So stop the projecting.

Incidentally, Smith wrote this:

*UPDATE: Edited for clarity. And McCain disputes his critics' characterization of his views on race.

Mighty white of him.

h/t Memeorandum

They're Baaaack!

Via Memeorandum:

"They" are death panels and it isn't Sarah Palin bring them up, it is the Wall Street Journal. Granted, they are not called "death panels", but as they say, "the devil is in the the details. From The Rationing Commission:

As usual, the most dangerous parts of ObamaCare aren't receiving the scrutiny they deserve—and one of the least examined is a new commission to tell Congress how to control health spending. Democrats are quietly attempting to impose a "global budget" on Medicare, with radical implications for U.S. medicine.

Like most of Europe, the various health bills stipulate that Congress will arbitrarily decide how much to spend on health care for seniors every year—and then invest an unelected board with extraordinary powers to dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for. White House budget director Peter Orszag calls this Medicare commission "critical to our fiscal future" and "one of the most potent reforms."

On that last score, he's right. Prominent health economist Alain Enthoven has likened a global budget to "bombing from 35,000 feet, where you don't see the faces of the people you kill."

Nothing personal, Granny.

The Left's line from day one has been that we already have rationing because insurance companies make care decisions every day. That is absolutely true. However, I haven't heard from the Left why it is okay for a government panel to make life and death decisions and wrong for an insurance company to do the same. Perhaps the difference is because the insurance companies represent the free market which is open and rollicking and frankly, undisciplined whereas the government represents the comforting nanny who imposes order and makes the tough choices on behalf of unruly children.

Some may think that they are too young to be affected by the panels. More or less true. Older people will be represent the largest group that will be denied health care. First, the baby boomers are a huge segment of the population and they (we) are aging. Second, they (we) develop more health problems with age. The WSJ uses the example of the state of Washington's medical board to let us know what we have to look forward to:

The Washington commission, called the Health Technology Assessment, is manned by 11 bureaucrats, including a chiropractor and a "naturopath" who focuses on alternative, er, remedies like herbs and massage therapy. They consider the clinical effectiveness but above all the cost of medical procedures and technologies. If they decide something isn't worth the money, then Olympia won't cover it for some 750,000 Medicaid patients, public employees and prisoners.

So far, the commission has banned knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis, discography for chronic back pain, and implantable infusion pumps for pain not related to cancer. This year, it is targeting such frivolous luxuries as knee replacements, spinal cord stimulation, a specialized autism therapy and MRIs of the abdomen, pelvis or breasts for cancer. It will also rule on routine ultrasounds for pregnancy, which have a "high" efficacy but also a "high" cost.

Currently, the commission is pushing through the most restrictive payment policy in the nation for drug-eluting cardiac stents—simply because bare metal stents are cheaper, even as they result in worse outcomes. If a patient is wheeled into the operating room with chest pains in an emergency, doctors will first have to determine if he's covered by a state plan, then the diameter of his blood vessels and his diabetic condition to decide on the appropriate stent. If they don't, Washington will not reimburse them for "inappropriate care."

In the Washington state model it isn't just Granny who is in deep doo.

Let's be honest about what health care reform entails. More importantly, our politicians need to be honest with us about the true effects of health care reform. But, they won't be unless we insist on honesty and accountability from them.

On a personal note, my eighty-one year old, severely disabled father underwent surgery this afternoon. He's doing well. Under ObamaCare, he'd be dead.

Chistopher Hitchens Misses the Mark on "Populism"

Via Memeorandum:

Christopher Hitchens doesn’t like Sarah Palin. Hitchens has a penchant for unmasking charlatans and in the Newsweek article Palin’s Base Appeal, he appears to be unmasking Palin but it is those that he perceives as “her base” that he has taken aim at.

Populism is a political ideology based on the perceived interests of ordinary people. Reading the article, it struck me that Hitchens considers “ordinary people” to be nasty little uneducated beings whose interests don’t interest him nor in his estimation should they interest anyone else of substance. In Hitchen’s view, if Palin has had any measure of success it lies in her ability to pull the wool over the eyes of the way too gullible unwashed masses.

They say a good writer writes about what he knows and Hitchens is altogether unacquainted with ordinary people. He does not have a clue why people are angry and if truth were told, he probably believes the anger is caused by the mundane nature of their small lives. But such people are too far below his station to grant any consideration or thought.

Should Hitchens care to actually research the subject of ordinary people before he opines on them again I would be happy to clue him in. But that would most likely bore him.

Us Yokels R Two Dumb Too Know Good Manners

Turns out us redneck yokels blue it agin. We is stupid and ain't got good manners. Obama's bow is good manners. I apologized fer my being dumb.

Other dumb people:

Thank you to the moderate person at The Moderate Voice

We will work hard two learn our manners soes we didn't make same mistake again.

Other peoples who is yokels two:

Don Surber

Sister Toldja

Fausta's Blog

Troglopundit

It Couldn't Happen to a Nicer Guy

Via Memeorandum

Gee, it can't be a good thing when a picture of a tipped tank is used to illustrate a politician's career, but hey, in this case, it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

According to FitNews.Com Sen. Lindsey Graham's popularity is tanking in South Carolina. He's not only losing the confidence of Republican voters, he's also in a freefall with the all important Independent voters. Pardon me for a moment while I snicker.

Graham served in the House from 1995 to 2003 when he moved on to the Senate. At some point during the last fourteen years he decided as an incumbent he was a) in like Flynn and as a result b) his constituents could go to Hell. Apparently, his constituents disagree.

FitNews:

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham’s public support is collapsing in South Carolina – driven by a wholesale revolt among the GOP electorate and a steady erosion of his support amongst independents.

Already consistently loathed by a solid third of GOP voters, Graham’s recent leftward bent – including his co-authoring of a controversial “Cap & Tax” proposal supported by President Barack Obama and liberal Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) – has him locked in a “terminal free fall,” according one prominent Republican consultant.

“A chunk of the GOP has always detested him, but in the last month a damn has broken,” said the consultant, who was granted anonymity to discuss the impact of two recent polls that were conducted in South Carolina (one allegedly by Graham’s own advisors). “More Republicans now oppose Sen. Graham than support him. Independents are also deserting him in huge numbers.”

So who is backing Graham? According to FITS, he's being back by the Truman National Security Project a liberal front group aimed at training “progressives” in their efforts to co-opt the debate over national security, which is typically one of the GOP’s bread-and-butter issues.

What a coincidence. Charlie Crist, who Graham endorsed, also has "progressive" donors. Usually, people donate to a candidate because the donor and the candidate share an ideology. Sometimes the donor expects something from the candidate in return. And, of course, sometimes the donor and the candidate share an ideology AND the donor believes that they will receive something in return. I smell RINO.

Just recently I've taken to including a small picture of pink flip flops to symbolize Crist on my posts relating to him. My bet is that Graham will be doing a flip flop of his own soon. Maybe I can find a green pair for Graham to symbolize his support for Cap & Trade.

Perfect!



Cross posted at Not One Red Cent

Defining "Real American

It is very rare that I see the Glenn Beck Show. I am either at work when the show comes on or driving home from work. But when I read at The Daley Gator that Clifford B. of Another Black Conservative would be at Glenn's Friday the 13th show I knew I would have to watch. I had taken Thursday and Friday off from work to attend the Orlando Tea Party so it was "all systems go."

The show was both enjoyable and informative. I love Charles Payne on "Cashin' In" and "Bears and Bulls" so I was thrilled to see that the show began with him. Prior to the show I had never heard of Lisa Fritsch, a radio talk show host, but I was so impressed by her that after the show I googled her to learn more. All and all, watching the show was a very worthwhile experience.

Today I came across a post at No Sheeples Here titled The Dumb White Guy at Crooks and Liars . Much to my surprise (yeah, why would I still be surprised by anything lefties write anymore) David Neiwert took exception to the show. Sigh. Among Neiwart's tidbits:

Glenn asked the audience why they call themselves African Americans!

Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I don't call myself an Irish American (except on St. Paddy's Day) but I also don't sit around worrying about what other people call themselves. We are all Americans. On the other hand, if I were describing someone to a person who was unfamiliar with the person I was describing, I would be more likely to say, "he's the black guy that sings the Tea Party Anthem" than I would be to say "he's the African American...". I'm not sure why Glenn asked the question but I also don't see a problem with asking either.

When white people say "real Americans" they are excluding black people.

How so? What is Neiwert basing this on-his own prejudices? Does Neiwert think that white people have a pecking order or how exactly does the whole thing work. For instance, are Anglo-saxon Americans more American than Mediterranean Americans who are more American than Asian Americans and so on until we reach African Americans, who we, the real Americans, don't include? I've got news for Mr. Neiwert, it is the Left who labels and pigeon holes everyone. On my side of the fence, if you love this country, you are an American.

Glenn Beck, as well as all white people, are idiots for quoting Martin Luther King.

Dr. King's own words lay waste to that argument. The next time Neiwert reads Dr. King's words I suggest that he take a moment to actual think about the words.

The MSM treats Conservative Blacks (and Conservative Women) like sideshow freaks. I applaud any effort to show that the Conservative movement isn't white, black, brown, or as my uncle would say, "sky blue pink". Sadly, people like Neiwert are too entrenched in their own narrow vision to realize how broad the Conservative Coalition is. His loss.

Reaction:

No Sheeples Here
Another Black Conservative
Left Coast Rebel
Memeorandum

In 2006 Sen. Obama Backed Trying KSM in the Military Court

Via Memeorandum

In 2006, Sen. Barack Obama defended KSM being tried before a military tribunal. He makes it clear that as an enemy combatant, a military trial is the right and proper way to go. So what has changed? Now that he is President Obama, he has a base to satisfy. His base, the farthest of the far left, are not happy with Obama on several counts so he’s going to throw them a bone, jeopardizing the security of the United States, by putting George Bush on trial. Sure, KSM will be the defendant, but make no mistake, this is a show trial highlighting the policies of the Bush administration.

I am not a lawyer but I am assuming that in a civilian trial Miranda will come in to play. Was KSM given his Miranda rights? No. How will that affect the statements he made? Will they be admissible? No search warrants were executed. Will the property seized, and the evidence gathered be admissible?

I believe that the government will get a conviction. An acquittal would carry too high of a political cost and Obama is all about Obama. But every step of the way, the focus will be on the Bush Administration and giving the Left something to chew on.

Not everything should be political. As President of the United States, Obama should put the country’s security first. The 9/11 Families for America are gathering signatures on a petition to tell the President that he needs to stand by his remarks of 2006 and try KSM before a Military Tribunal. Show your outrage by signing the petition.

Video via Breitbart.tv

Other commentary:

Legal Insurrection
Atlas Shrugs

Update:

Pat at And so it goes in Shreveport writes:

Bloomberg is concerned, and rightly so, with the security issue. While it's true that New York has been increasing their terrorist detection threats over the past eight years, why on earth should the citizens of New York have to deal with such a threat at all? Haven't they been through enough? The city was outraged at the insensitivity of the Air Force One flyover for a photo op in April of this year. What in the world will come out of Pandora's box with KSM in town?

With regard to the issue of classified information, KSM will certainly request and be entitled to receive documents and information about the government's case against him. He and his attorneys will have access to hundreds of classified documents which will be a bonanza to the jihadists waiting in the wings. To assume that the information won't get leaked or transmitted is naive.

More here.

For the Love of God, STAND UP!

President Obama is on the Asian leg of his “We’re Not Worthy” tour and I’ve got to say that for an arrogant SOB he sure does a lot of bowing. I copped the video below from Donald Douglas at American Power (who also has an impressive roundup of blogs posting on our President’s most current silliness).

During my adulthood there have been three presidents with a (D) after their name. Carter had a killer rabbit, Clinton had an intern under his desk (and a cigar). Obama has been in the Oval Office less than a year and folks, things ain’t looking good.

Gee, Do You Think That Power Point Presentation Might Have Been A Clue?

Paco kindly sent me a link to his post Hasan's Famous Slide Show. Paco's post has a must see link to Maj. Hasan's infamous Power Point presentation on Muslims in the military. I watched the presentation and I've come to the conclusion that Hasan never made attempt to hide where he stood regarding Islam or his duty as a Muslim. Everything was right out there in the open but the people who could have stopped the Ft. Hood massacre refused to see.

How many people throughout the last few years could have prevented the shootings at Ft. Hood had they not put political correctness above the lives of our soldiers? In light of the various statements being made by General Casey and others, why would we believe that Ft. Hood won't happen again? And again?

The men and women who risk their lives for this country have the right to know that their government has their back. Currently, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Universal Auto Insurance

For the umteenth time I just heard someone say, "The government makes you buy auto insurance, why not health insurance?" You would think that common sense would answer that question but apparently not. Let me give it a whirl.


First, the government does not require that every man, woman and child have car insurance. Driving is a privilege (unless you are an illegal alien in Florida and then it is a right. By the way, that was "snark") and those who wish to have the privilege of driving are required to purchase insurance to protect those other people who are exercising the privilege to drive. My great aunt never drove and she never had car insurance. No law requires that my grandchildren to have car insurance and nobody is threatening to send them to jail because they don't have it. But that is not the biggest flaw in the car insurance/health insurance false analogy.


Can you imagine what it would cost if auto insurers were forced to cover all drivers regardless of their driving records? How about if auto insurers couldn't cancel a policy for any reason? Now, before someone blasts me for "comparing" a previous diagnosis of cancer to a previous record of speeding tickets that is not my point. On the other hand, if the analogy is good for the goose it is good for the gander-deal with it. Insurance is based on risk. The higher the risk, the more difficult it is to obtain a policy and the more it costs if you do obtain a policy.


There are plenty of problems with our health care system but politicizing the system will only make those problems worse. The Dems have laid waste to their claim of the moral high ground by refusing to pass tort reform. Yeah, they're compassionate just so long as their compassion doesn't negatively impact a major contributor like, oh, I don't know, trial lawyers. And remember those "golden" employer provided insurance policies? Well, Congress is upping the level on them because otherwise the taxes would fall on, drumroll...union members. Compassion my ass.


This is a power grab that has nothing to do with compassion. If it were, they would target the reform at the problems, donors be damned. And while I am on a rant, Obama ain't going to pay for this from "his stash." The government is broke. The government doesn't have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. That "stash" belongs to those of us who get our happy asses out of bed everyday and go to work whether we want to or not. I am tired of people who talk about about "fairness" who don't give a rat's ass about being "fair" to the taxpayers who are going to be forced to pay for all this.


Well, I started at one place and ended up somewhere else. Not unlike ObamaCare.