Sticks & Stones

"Nigger."

"Cracker."

"Faggot. Dyke."

"Wop. Jewboy. Greaser. Polack."

"Slant-eyes. Round-eyes. Haole. Chink. Beaner"

"Camel jockey. Coolie. Coon. Frog. Gook. Guido. Hajji"

"Homo.  Homophobe. Redneck.  Raghead.  Goober smoocherCarpet muncherJungle bunnyPorchmonkeyHymieJigabooKikeOreoPeckerwoodPochaSandmonkeySlopeSpearchuckerSpicSpookSquawSquintTowelheadWetbackWiggerWhiteyWhitebreadUncleTomAuntJemima Honkymotherfucker."

Offended yet?

There has been much in the news lately about so-called "hate speech" and racism.  Paula Deen has lost potentially millions in future revenue and has had her reputation permanently damaged for a remark she made in  private conversation nearly 30 years ago.

A white staffer of a black DC mayor was once forced to resign over using the term "niggardly" in a private staff meeting, because in the eyes (and ears) of over-sensitive liberals and other poorly educated citizens it was "racially insensitive".  (For the record:  NIGGARDLY: adj, Stingy or petty in giving) 

This is the way it goes in modern day America.  In the Age of the Perpetually Offended.  Some (read Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc. etc.) have even made a profession out of taking offense at assumed bias.

When did we all become so weak that the words of the ignorant could assume so much power?  Whatever happened to "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me."?  While many of these terms are vile in their reference and are undeniably used with intent to inflict pain, it's also true that the only way they can have such effect is if you allow them to.  No one has the power to offend you unless you permit it.

No one has a constitutional right to be free from being offended.  The First Amendment allows even the most reprehensible moron the freedom to fully illustrate his/her ignorance for all to see.  The use of such terms is often the only way they have to feel powerful in the face of their own irrelevance.  The only satisfaction they get is by observing the reaction of their victim to their verbal taunts.  If you don't react, they don't get that satisfaction.  Their power goes away because you refuse to give it to them.

Attorney General Eric Holder once said, in testimony before Congress, that America is cowardly when it comes to discussing race.  Really?  Ok, let's have the discussion.  But first, we need some ground rules.  We can't have a rational discussion or debate, much less make any progress towards a resolution of the issue while we are hobbled by unequal rules.  The same rules need to apply to all, equally, if the debate is to have any value.  Otherwise, it's nothing more than it always has been, a chance for the professionally (and perpetually) offended to beat up on their opponents.

Don Imus temporarily lost his radio program and was vilified nationally by so-called civil rights activists and liberal political pundits for his "nappy headed ho's" comment, yet rap and urban music "artists" refer to black women as "bitches" and "ho's" routinely.

Mel Gibson's acting career went down in flames because of the outcry over his alcohol-fuel rants about Jews.   Has anyone looked into the sermons of "Rev" Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam concerning his views of the Jewish people?  For some reason, he gets a pass.

Has anyone other than FoxNews commented unfavorably on the pronouncements Jeremiah Wright made for 20+ years from his pulpit about "White America"?  If you look, you'll find that most liberals and many (not all) blacks have gone out of their way to excuse his use of inflammatory hate speech.

If a word is offensive, it doesn't matter who uses it.  Still, you can only be offended if you allow it.  Don't give away your power so easily.  Look at the kind of people who use these terms.  Are they really that important?  Do you really care what their opinion is?  I don't.  You shouldn't.

 

Congratulations! You're a victim, too!

It's now official.  Absolutely nothing is anyone's fault.  We're all victims of at least one thing or another.  The AMA (American Medical Association) has come out with the determination that obesity is a disease.  That's right.  You're not fat because you single-handedly support your local Krispy Kreme and are an enthusiastic couch potato pursuing your PhD in PS3.  Noooo.  Such thoughts are cruel and insensitive.

Said Dr. Patrice Harris, a member of the AMA's board, “Recognizing obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue that affects approximately one in three Americans.”

Left unsaid is the fact that labeling obesity as a disease, as opposed to the result of a series of poor personal lifestyle and dietary decisions, now opens up the many obesity surgeries and drugs to coverage by insurance.  Follow the money, people.  Follow the money.  Some doctors and obesity advocates said that having the nation’s largest physician group make the declaration would focus more attention on obesity. And it could help improve reimbursement for obesity drugs, surgery and counseling.

Still, the vote of the A.M.A. House of Delegates went against the conclusions of the association’s Council on Science and Public Health, which had studied the issue over the last year. The council said that obesity should not be considered a disease mainly because the measure usually used to define obesity, the body mass index, is simplistic and flawed.

      

“Given the existing limitations of B.M.I. to diagnose obesity in clinical practice, it is unclear that recognizing obesity as a disease, as opposed to a ‘condition’ or ‘disorder,’ will result in improved health outcomes,” the council wrote.

Any guess what the inclusion of the new "disease" of obesity will do to healthcare and insurance costs?  Could be worse,  I guess.  Once Obamacare has to begin paying for obesity treatment, can government regulation of our diets be far behind?  Think Bloomberg's 16oz soda ban and salt restrictions.  On steroids.

---------------------------------------------------

Confessed child rapist still not in jail, 4 years after confessing!  DATELINE:  St. George, Utah.  Four years ago, Richard Burditt was charged with several counts of forcible sexual assault on a minor.  In a plea agreement where other charges were dropped, he agreed to plead guilty.  Yet, to this day he hasn't spent even one day in jail!  The reason?  Judge Wallace A. Lee has decided to delay sentencing until Mr. Burditt has had a psycho-sexual "evaluation".  Yep.  This poor girl's sentence began immediately, this miserable bastard's still free pending a psychiatrist's opinion of his mental state.  Does anyone wonder why the average person is losing faith in the institutions of government and the rule of law?  The worst part?  This creep doesn't even have to register as a sex offender until he's been officially sentenced, meaning that he can move to any area and the parents in the neighborhood have no way of knowing the potential danger their children are in.  Maybe, now that the news has been broken, enough public pressure can be brought to bear that this miscarriage of justice can finally be remedied.  This sounds like a job for FoxNews' Bill O'Reilly, a staunch defender of children and an advocate of mandatory sentencing guidelines for child rapists.  Let's all contact Mr. O and get him on the case.

--------------------------------------------------

Let's see, we've got the IRS targeting Tea Party, conservative, and religious groups for invasive, possibly illegal, scrutiny.  We've got the NSA gathering intelligence on the communications and online activities of American citizens not charged with any crimes.  We've got confirmation that the government has used drones domestically to help gather information "that would have been much more difficult to obtain without their use".  We've seen that the DOJ targeted news organizations and individuals investigating it's potentially illegal and unconstitutional activities.  Now there's the controversy over the death of Michael Hastings, an investigative reporter for Rolling Stone and the BuzzFeed website.  Mr. Hastings is the reporter who broke the story of the affair that led to the resignation of U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal. As reported in the NY Daily News, Mr. Hastings was killed when the car he was driving crashed and burst into flames.  Given his digging into secret government surveillance programs and illegal acts by the FBI, NSA, CIA and others against American citizens' civil rights, the internet was awash in conspiracy theories within hours.

Hastings wrote in his book, "The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan," that he received a death threat from a former McChrystal staff member:  "We'll hunt you down and kill you if we don't like what you write," the staffer threatened, according to Hastings.

Mr. Hastings had reportedly been working on several new projects covering potential scandals involving the FBI and CIA.  Shortly before his death, he had been in contact with some of the lawyers for WikiLeaks, saying that he was being watched by the government and his movements were being followed by the FBI.

Conspiracy to silence revelation of even more damaging information about government abusing the constitutional rights of it's citizens or tragic accident?  Crime or coincidence?  Two things stick out to me: When was the last time you heard of a car bursting into flames in a car accident, outside of a Hollywood movie set?  And Mr. Hastings still hasn't been officially identified as the victim in the accident, the body was burned beyond identification.

Hastings' final story published on BuzzFeed, was titled "Why Democrats love to spy on Americans."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/conspiracy-theories-abound-michael-hastings-death-article-1.1377392#ixzz2X3ToqJkJ

This whole thing reads like a Brad Thor novel.


 

Put a Little Bacon in Your Beretta

Anyone else remember the old Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoons?  They used to have Rocky intro the commercials by saying "Now for something we hope you'll really like."  Well, I kinda went that way this week.  I wanted to do something different.  I could continue with a litany of the growing count of scandals emanating from the White House and the officials of the Obama administration, there's no lack of material there, but I want to try to resist the temptation to let this blog become too mired in any one single topic.

So today, I decided to "go fishing" and see what I could find that was off beat and (hopefully) at least a little humorous.  Take it away, Rocky: "Now, for something we hope you'll really like!"

A PEACEFUL AND NATURAL DETERRENT TO RADICAL ISLAM

So reads the headline of a controversial new product from "Jihawg Ammo" (true).  Their only slightly tongue-in-cheek product is personal defense ammunition formulated specifically for defense against radical Islamic terrorists:  ammunition infused with.............pork!  That's right, put a little bacon in your Beretta!  The idea is that since Muslims regard pork as unclean, and they can't enter paradise if they are contaminated, maybe they'll think twice about attacking if they run the risk of being "befouled" by a 9mm pork rind and not being entitled to receive their ticket to paradise and their 72 virgins.  I love it!  Both funny and practical, it's got people everywhere losing their freakin' minds.  No one has any sense of humor.  I'll take a case.

HONEST, OFFICER.  MY LAPTOP REALLY IS WORTH $75K

Yep, believe it or not, even with all of the evidence of dishonest government in the news and on the air, operatives still try to pull one over on the cops (and taxpayers).  This is so transparently fraudulent it's farcical to imagine the thought processes that led to these claims.  The thought that someone even believed they could get away with something like this is hilarious.  Here's the deal:

Organizers of the DNC convention in Charlotte, N.C. nearly eight months ago have filed a claim for lost/stolen electronics with a total value of approximately $500,000.  That's not the funny part, (unless you consider that if liberals can't trust each other not to steal their stuff, who can they trust?) what's funny is the valuations that have been put on some of the items.  Like: $30,503 for an iPhone, $54,250 for a Blackberry, and iPads valued at $15,000.  Many items were listed at values as much as 62x list price!  And all this time we thought it was only the Pentagon who bought $500 screwdrivers and $1000 hammers and stuff...........

I'LL TAKE U.S. GEOGRAPHY FOR $200, ALEX.

Liberal Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu, of Louisiana made mention of the fact that the border fence idea endorsed by conservative Senators such as John Thune of South Dakota was a "dumb fence", as contrasted with the "smart fence" favored by herself and Republican Senator from Arizona, John McCain.  She further suggested that Mr. Thune defer to the opinion of Mr. McCain since McCain's state borders Mexico, while Mr. Thune's home state shares it border with Canada, which as we know is quite different.

And finally:

"WE DON'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS WITH AQUA-MAN"

With the release of the new Superman movie, Man of Steel, Comedian Stephen Crowder has put together a video representation asking (and answering) the burning question, "What if Superman had to join a union?"  Some of the issues our hero has to deal with: a limitation of "one power per superhero, maximum" in order to not put other superheroes "out of business" and the timely payment of union dues.  Some of the comments following the video are even funnier.

All of these stories were found on the website theblaze.com   I had intended to broaden my search but after finding these gems all in one place, I'd be hard-pressed to find better (or worse) examples of Life in America.

I'll probably return to my usual rant next week, but I hope you've enjoyed this little break.  I know I did.

 

Lowest Common Denominator

"God must hate common people, because He made them so common."--Philip Wylie

So the saying goes.  Whether it's a lament against the unfairness of a distant, unfeeling God, or as a comment on the current state of society depends on the speaker, but it's almost universally a statement of (self)pity:  "Woe is me".  "I'll never amount to anything or have anything because (the rich, fates, God, etc.) has it out for me".  "Look at the (low)class of people I have to deal with".  "I'll never be special".  "Success is only for the few, not for me".  And on, and on, and on, and on........

Well, is it true?  Sure seems to be, sometimes.  Especially once you compare and contrast the "common man" of today with that of just a few generations ago.  Look at the titans of industry and invention in the late 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries and the mark they left on, not just the world, but individuals.  The great discoveries and inventions of Ben Franklin, Thomas Edison, and Eli Whitney;  the great industrialists Carnegie, Mellon, Ford, and Rockefeller.  Each one of these men, as well as many others, transformed the world they lived in with the greatness of their minds but their greatest impact may well have been in something unmeasurable. 

Those great men all served, first and foremost, as examples.  Examples to the so-called "commons" of what was within the scope of mans' abilities.  Whether they were aware of it or not, they were beacons lighting the way for others to follow along behind, enabling them to attain their own greatness.  For each U.S. Steel and Standard Oil, there was a solitary farmer who conceived of the idea of a hay rake that could be towed behind motive power (either horse or tractor) to reduce the effort and time needed to bring in the harvest of winter stores.  For every Lewis & Clark, Jim Bowie, and Daniel Boone, there was a frontier man with his family pursuing their future across the trackless expanse, often with nothing more than a desire to live life on their own terms, and a certitude that they were both capable of achieving their ends and worthy of the goal, once achieved.

In those long ago days it was not considered at all unusual for a young man of 14 or 15 to strike out on his own, inspired perhaps by stories of the early explorers and adventurers.  Perhaps he would join up with a rancher as a hand on a cattle drive, spending weeks battling the elements (and hostile raiders) moving immense herds of animals to and from winter and summer grazing, and to the great cattle fairs in Kansas City and Oklahoma City.  Or, maybe he would decide that he was more suited to the trades, and his parents would apprentice him to a master blacksmith, cobbler, or furniture maker, where he would often spend the next 5-7 years of his life living away from his family, learning the trade under the tutelage of a master craftsman with the eventual goal of setting himself up with a business of his own.  Doing so would also necessitate that he move away to a neighboring community he determined had a need for his craft and could provide enough custom for him to support a wife and family.  In each of these cases, tens of thousands of young men over the years pursued their lives and futures.  Every one of them confident that they had what it would take to succeed, boldly stepping up to claim their due from life.

Unfortunately, that all began to change around the turn of the 20th century.  With greater immigration from Europe came greater influence by the dogmas and popular thinking of the day with it's emphasis on "altruism" and the "right" of the downtrodden to be taken care of at the expense of others.  It was promoted as the kind, compassionate, "Christian" thing to do.  Along with the immigrant farmers and potential businessmen were a great number of clergy who had decided that this new "America" needed them as critical safeguards against the many "sins" that came with the acquisition of wealth, as well as to provide comfort to those less able than others.  If the immediate comfort of those unfortunates had been all they concerned themselves with the damage might not have been so severe.  Instead, they began preaching that it wasn't their fault they didn't succeed.  It was the greed of the industrialists' taking advantage of them that was the cause of their lack and their misfortune.   The great industrialists, business leaders and bankers began to be seen not as inspiring examples of what was possible, but as icons of oppression.  Symbols of the "evils of money and greed".  These clergy (of all faiths and doctrines) preached the obligation of everyone else to fulfill the "holy duty" to take care of "the least of these", alternating their sermons with screeds against "greedy capitalists", while they, themselves, never answered the question of "how much is enough?"  The only answer ever given was:  "More."

Obviously, this found great favor with the "common people".  Not necessarily because they were intrinsically evil or greedy, but who wouldn't look longingly at the promise of relief from the drudgery of their daily labors?  Who wouldn't be attracted, at least a little, to the idea that they could attain riches and comfort, perhaps even a bit of luxury and ease?  As it always is, such evil is seductive and deceptively innocent in it's appeal.  After all, isn't it only right to help those struggling?  Isn't it simple human kindness to feed and clothe the poor?  After all, how much do you need?

The evil is in the reduced expectation that people see to themselves and provide for their own families.  Eventually the ability, even the desire, to provide for themselves atrophies away.  What do you think the reaction was in the 1700-1800's when people met with misfortune or lost a job?  They assessed, they decided on a course of action, and they did what was necessary to survive and provide.  Now?  We've got 99 weeks of unemployment "insurance" and some 84 different government programs designed to transfer wealth from producers to dependents.  The evil is that "common people" have been conditioned to see this as no more than their due.  Their mantra isn't "Pick yourself up and dust yourself off" any longer; now it's "It's not my fault!  You owe me!"

It's even become irredeemably embedded in our so-called schools.  They never used to "grade on a curve".  If you couldn't pass the class, you stayed until you could.  If you weren't capable of rising as high as some of the others, you were helped to reach your potential,  but not at the cost of holding the other students back.  Now?  Not only do we grade on a curve, most public schools have abandoned the idea of excellence altogether, opting instead to teach to the lowest common denominator;  holding all of the minds in the class to the pace of the slowest among them so as not to harm his/her "self-esteem".  Some schools have even ceased any mention, much less celebration, of excellence as a goal to strive for and have eliminated the titles of Valedictorian and Salutatorian from the graduating class because it might make the rest of he students feel "less accomplished".  Here's a newsflash fer ya, sparky.  They are "less accomplished".  Can any of you even imagine the 15-16yr old school children of today living and breathing the lifestyle of their ancestors?  Do you believe any of the "young adult" protesters that proliferate like fleas on a mongrel dog at any international conference of business leaders could even conceive of the reality of apprenticing (for little or no pay) for a number of years to learn a marketable skill and then having to go out and find a marketplace and compete?

America has spent the last 120 or so years in a real "race to the bottom".  In so doing she has come close to crippling the singular attribute of the American citizen:  the proud, independent spirit of man than says, "I can.  I will."  Our only hope is that it hasn't been bred out of us altogether.



 

The Worst of Both Worlds

The scandals that plague the Obama administration continue to grow, widen and deepen, seemingly by the day; while reports of additional governmental misconduct continue to bubble up like the miasma from a festering swamp.  In addition to the controversies concerning Benghazi, the IRS (now it's reported that as many as eighty-eight agents may be in possession of sensitive, private financial information on both prospective 501(c)(4) groups as well as individual Republican donors) and the DOJ (it now appears that AG Eric Holder may well have perjured himself before Congress), it's now being reported that the EPA may be involved in a culture of discrimination against conservative groups as well, with some conservative groups reporting that they were singled by the department for penalties and red tape while more liberal leaning groups were given a pass.

Have we ever seen anything like the Obama "regime"?  We've got a government run by politicians that can't seem to find their own asses with both hands, a map, compass, and an Indian guide!  When it comes to being able to competently attend to the needs of the nation, they're completely clueless (I'm being kind here).  They can't encourage economic growth, they're too busy coming up with 10's of thousands of new regulations limiting what business can/can't/must/must not do.  They can't/won't create an environment that results in new businesses and businessmen creating new jobs, they're too busy promoting the advantages of being on the public dole, developing new programs and new ways to get people addicted to a government check.  They can't/won't do what is necessary to defend and protect America's interests abroad; they insult our oldest and most dedicated allies, while pandering to violent, extremist regimes.  They don't preserve an individual American's Constitutional rights to free speech and to keep and bear arms, but they'll eagerly provide tanks, fighter jets and arms to groups such the Muslim Brotherhood and consider arming other militant groups (like we've never seen that go wrong), while creating new federal laws and backing local initiatives aimed at limiting/preventing law-abiding Americans ability to purchase and use firearms for their own protection and enjoyment.

On top of all this, it now looks like the current administration is attempting to divert attention, distort facts, deflect responsibility, and cover up a massive culture of corruption but it's so inept, it can't even manage to do that (although, in Obama's defense, perhaps no one could cover up such a large pile).

I repeat, have we ever seen anything like it?  I'd say yes, but you've got to go to two previous Presidents to do it.  Let's look at Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon.

Richard Nixon presided over a country divided over the Vietnam War.  He was a tough-talking Republican, once reminding Americans in a speech that "We are a nation of laws.  No man is above the law, no man is below the law, and we are going to have law and order.......".  Turns out he was a phony on many fronts.  First, let's just get this out of the way, he was NOT a conservative.  In his way, he was every bit the Progressive his predecessor, Lyndon B. Johnson, was.  As for the "rule of law"?  Well, we know how that turned out.  Just Google "Watergate scandal".  You may be surprised at just how tame his violations seem in the light of modern political conduct and situational ethics, but it was enough to force (for the only time) the resignation of a sitting President.  He was responsible for the institution of government departments such as the EPA, with all of it's mandates, regulations and controls on private businesses of all kinds.  All in the name of promoting the "common good", of course.  He also was the first American President to officially visit China, at the time long considered an adversarial nation.

Then there's Jimmy Carter.  The peanut farmer who rose to the highest office in the land.  Retrospectively, we have to ask "What in the hell were you thinkin'?!"  He was manifestly unqualified for the job.  Running a peanut farm in rural Georgia is a great number of steps below running the greatest country in the world, but the election of Carter was seen as a great victory for the common man.  Now a "real American" would run the country, not a politician.  Well, how did that turn out?  Double-digit inflation, mortgage rates in the upper teens & credit card/interest rates in the twenties and historically high unemployment. We even had a "misery index" to tell us just how bad things were.  He was a weak President and his weakness emboldened the Arab nations to reach for more power internationally, resulting in the Arab (OPEC) Oil Embargo of the 1970's which caused widespread shortages, blocks-long lines for gas (kinda like what we saw after Sandy in NYC) and gas rationing, both how much gas you were allowed to purchase and when you were allowed to buy it.  In the name of conservation of now scarce resources, Mr. Carter created the Department of Energy, instituted the infamous 55 mile-per-hour national speed limit and ridiculously lowered the thermostat in the White House to 68 degrees, famously appearing on national television in a cardigan sweater urging Americans to follow his lead.  His weakness also led to  America betraying and abandoning the Shah of Iran, leading directly to the student revolution that resulted in the capture and holding hostage of American citizens for more than a year.  It also led to the creation of the Islamic theocracy of the Ayatollahs and the elevation of future Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  It's impossible to imagine the scope of damage that that single event has caused throughout the world.

Now, let's review: 

You've got Jimmy Carter, peanut farmer turned President.  You've got Barack Obama, "community organizer" turned President. 

You've got Jimmy Carter, presiding over a country suffering from a bad economy, high unemployment and increasing prices and unable to remedy any of it.  Ditto Barack Obama. 

You've got Jimmy Carter, whose weakness in international relations and foreign policy led to the rise of violent, radical Arab groups and attacks on Americans in the Middle East.  You've got Barack Obama, whose weakness in international relations and foreign policy led directly to the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, spreading violence throughout the region, and the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the deaths of 4 Americans. 

You've got Richard Nixon, who gave us the EPA and all it's regulations.  You've got Barack Obama, who's greatly added to the power and scope of that organization and others, and who has encouraged the proliferation of innumerable regulations, "putting his boot on the neck" of American businesses. 

You've got Richard Nixon, who was convicted of using federal government agencies to go after his political enemies, including using the power of the IRS to target individuals.  Ditto, Barack Obama. 

Richard Nixon had an "enemies list".  Barack Obama had a "kill list". 

Some accused Richard Nixon of somewhat thuggish tactics on capital hill.  Barack Obama has exceeded that, bringing "Chicago politics" to Washington.

Jimmy Carter was at least honest in his convictions.  He spent the years since his Presidency largely out of the spotlight, working on philanthropic causes such as Habitat for Humanity.  To quote from Lord of the Rings: "A fool, but an honest fool."

Richard Nixon at least had enough honor left to him at the end to resign the Presidency, rather than subject an already divided country to the upheaval of impeachment proceedings.

I don't think we can expect Barack Obama to emulate either of these men in the last specifics.  He doesn't have the humility.

Barack Obama:  More corrupt than Nixon, more inept than Carter.  The worst of both worlds, indeed.