Some Bipartisan Compromise I Can Live With

In the spirit of unity and just wanting to get along, John Hawkins - who writes for both Right Wing News and Town Hall.com - has come up with some compromises with liberals that I can live with.

1) There are far too many people in our prisons who have been failed by our society. That certainly isn’t their fault. That’s why we need to release a few million prisoners into halfway houses in liberal neighborhoods. 

2) America needs to lead the way in alternative energy; so it should be illegal for liberals to power their homes with anything other than windmills and solar energy. On the upside, since this will mean a lot of time in the dark, these liberals will gain the added bonus of being able to get back to nature.

3) Bodyguards for liberal politicians, celebrities, and athletes shouldn’t be able to use guns. After all, people don’t kill people; guns kill people — so by removing the guns from those bodyguards, those people will be safer than ever!

4) We do need to make sure that everyone gets a “working wage.” So, let’s raise the minimum wage to $100 an hour. We can start by raising the salaries of chauffeurs, gardeners, nannies, cooks, and maids in Hollywood and expand from there until we all make at least $100 an hour and will thus, be rich! But wait….if we were all rich, then we’d all be exploitive and evil….ah, that’s something to figure out in the next column.

5) We do need to bring illegal aliens “out of the shadows,” which is why any illegal aliens captured in America who aren’t immediately deported should be shipped to Berkeley or San Francisco, where they can live in peace, use the schools, and collect government benefits until their trials…well, if they show up for their trials.

6) Union labor is important, which is why liberal businesses should be legally obligated to ONLY use unionized labor. Granted, that might mean long delays, their competitors dramatically undercutting them on costs, or even going out of business, but wouldn’t that be worth it for those people if they got to put more money in the pockets of union members?

7) Fairness is very important. That’s why we need to apply the Fairness Doctrine to newspaper editorial pages, MSNBC, Current TV, and the Huffington Post.

8) We all know animals (and trees) should have the same rights as human beings; so is it really worth it to save human lives if animals have suffered to make it possible? That’s why it should be illegal to sell liberals insulin, antibiotics, drugs that fight AIDS/HIV and any other medicines that were made possible by testing that was done on animals.

9) Let’s put salary caps in place to keep rich guys from earning money that they don’t deserve. How about a maximum of $100,000 for any actor’s appearance in a film? That seems fair, right? Wouldn’t you agree to star in a major motion picture for $100,000?

10) Increasing diversity is an important goal; so we should set quotas to insure that every newspaper staff in America (and we can’t forget MSNBC) have as many minorities present as there are in the population. It would also be nice ifNetroots Nation wasn’t as white as a snowstorm in Maine; so maybe next year some of those white, liberal attendees could give up their tickets to people of color.

11) Obviously America has a problem creating jobs right now because of greedy businessmen, but there's an easy remedy. We confiscate the homes of all the liberals who supported Kelo, pay them whatever government officials think is a "fair" rate, and then give the land away to homeless people so they can start their own businesses. Hello, prosperity!

12) Since liberals believe fossil fuels are ruining the planet, they shouldn't be able to drive oil powered cars. But, never fear! As always, the government will come to the rescue by providing each of them with a free bike!

13) As we all know, criminals are just victims of society, while the police are the real problem! It would be tempting to make liberal cities police-free zones, but perhaps that goes a bit too far. So, from now on, police won't be allowed to have guns or use any sort of force in left-wing cities. Instead, the police can just use the power of reasoning to talk it out with the criminals and convince them to do the right thing!

14) Liberal students with good grades in college should have points taken off their test scores and given to students who haven't done quite as well. After all, successful students shouldn't begrudge sharing their success with those who've been less fortunate.

15) When a liberal stands before a judge, that judge should be allowed to put him in prison, let him go, bankrupt him, or do anything he wants based on nothing more than his whims. Why? I got two words for you: "Living Constitution."

16) As Al Gore noted recently (despite his four children), we need a lot more "fertility management" to keep the population down and save Mother Gaia! Liberals can lead the way by being forced to adopt China's "one child" policy. Of course, if they make a "mistake" and get pregnant, then they’ll have to "choose" to have an abortion.

17) Every liberal in America should have to get Canadian citizenship and then, when a Republican wins, all of them should have to move there until a Democrat President is re-elected -- well, if a Democrat President were ever re-elected.

18) As we've learned from the patriotic millionaires, wealthy liberals want to pay higher taxes. So, we should indulge them. Wealthy liberals should pay the same tax rates we had under Jimmy Carter, while other rich people should continue on under the current tax rates.

19) If illegal aliens are just undocumented Americans looking for a better life, then burglars are just undocumented houseguests looking for a better life. That's why every liberal home should be an unlocked "sanctuary city" for any burglar, homeless person, or crazy-eyed drifter who just needs a place to crash for a little while!

20) Since corporations and the rich get ahead by taking advantage of society, liberals should only be allowed to work for poor people. That might reduce the size of their job market a bit, but their lives would become much more virtuous!

Don't you just love these? 

A Good Case Against a New Constitutional Convention

I know that a number of my fellow conservative and/or libertarian bloggers believe that calling a new constitutional convention would be a good idea.  I am not so sure after reading an article by David Limbaugh where he makes a pretty persuasive case against holding a new constitutional convention.  In May 14, 1787 both federalists and antifederalists got together to form a new government.  Well, actually some only wanted to revise the Articles of Confederation.  Could you honestly imagine liberals and conservatives - Democrats and Republicans and Libertarians - getting together at a new constitutional convention and agreeing upon what should be in the new constitution?  Or how our constitution should be revised?  I believe that the Constitution that our Founders came up with is a once in a lifetime, special document. I don't believe that we could do better job of preventing men or women from usurping their power upon us or from perverting the constitution for political gain by creating a new constitution.

John Adams stated that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We simply must take our country back from an immoral and irreligious people who are intent on transforming the United States of America into the socialist states of America.  We need to kick the bums out.

Here is David Limbaugh's article:

The left's assault on liberty never rests, so don't ever be sucked into supporting the dangerous idea of a new constitutional convention, even if its stated purposes purport to be limited.

Recently, CNN's Fareed Zakaria spoke admiringly of how "Iceland is actually junking its own constitution and starting anew and ... soliciting ideas from all of Iceland's 320,000 citizens, with the help of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube."

Zakaria beamed as he ticked off some of the wonderful ideas proposed by Icelanders, such as "guaranteed good health care" and "campaign finance systems that make corporate donations illegal."

Putting aside the obvious question of how Barack Obama, Russ Feingold and John McCain managed to get on Iceland's social networks, I hope idealistic Americans don't get any ideas from this tiny nation's dubious project.

Oh, wait. Our geniuses are already well ahead of Iceland's. A friend called me in February to tell me of a proposed resolution circulating in the Missouri House in support of a national convention to consider amendments to the U.S. Constitution. She asked me to help discourage the Republican leadership from pursuing this ill-considered idea. She didn't have to convince me.

I could have understood if just Democrats were behind it, but I was surprised that Republicans were also involved. Another highway to hell paved with good intentions, I assumed. I'm thankful that the initiative lost steam.

I understand the frustration conservatives feel about the federal government's virtually unchecked growth over the past 75 years and how this is destroying our liberties and bankrupting our nation. But the Constitution isn't the problem. Rewriting it isn't the solution. CONTINUED 

Jason Mattera Interviews Ann Coulter: Liberal Contradictory Thinking & Liberal Mob Endangering America

Ann Coulter's new book "Demonic: How The Liberal Mob is Endangering America" is a must read for me.

Libya: Two Videos from Jack Hunter

Conservative political commentator and talk radio host Jack Hunter, who alienated many Neoconservatives with his criticisms of George W. Bush's foreign policy in the early 2000s, offers two very thought-provoking videos here. I'm posting them because I think Hunter raises a number of compelling issues on American intervention on Libya. Specifically, he likens President Barack Obama's actions in recent weeks to Bush's foreign policy approach to the post-9/11 wars. Hunter is saying what I've been saying on this Blog from the start of this intervention. Obama and the Democrats are adopting a Neoconservative approach to Libya that involves regime change, forging alliances with indigenous elements within the country, and military actions in the form of Coalition airstrikes to carry out this agenda.

Meantime, at home, America is in a lot of trouble economically. Hunter and others like him are insisting that it is high time to pay attention to matters closer to home. While I have some differences of opinion about what needs to be done in the country, I agree with his concerns about the United States continuing its role as a global policeman. This is a costly endeavor and, by its very nature, it's highly selective. It is impossible to argue that what is happening in Libya is far worse than what is happening in the Ivory Coast. Why pick one above the other, when the crises inside both countries are so strikingly similar in so many respects, particularly when it comes to the violence unfolding in both places? This is not to say the United States should become a hardcore isolationist nation. There are things that Washington can do to help those who are struggling to uphold the primacy of human rights. It is difficult to see how dropping bombs from airplanes is one of them.

Libya: Up is Down, Left is Right, White is Black, War is Peace, Democrat is Republican... Twist it all around & what've you got?

OK. Let me see if I've got this straight (because I'm pretty damned confused right now)...

The current Commander in Chief of the United States, Barack Obama, favors U.S. military intervention in Libya - which he defended in a speech tonight (in the video above) - yet he opposed it in Iraq and (as far as anyone can tell) waffled on the issue of Afghanistan.

Sound inconsistent? Obama is not alone. This current intervention highlights incredible inconsistencies on both sides of the political spectrum.

Conservative Republicans, who backed military intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, are - in large numbers, anyway (with definite exceptions) - opposed to Obama's current intervention in Libya. As Mississippi Governor (and potential 2012 G.O.P. candidate) Haley Barbour told the Wall Street Journal: "What are we doing in Libya? I mean, we have to be careful in my mind about getting into nation-building exercises, whether it's Libya or somewhere else. We've been in Afghanistan for 10 years." (Source)

Where was Barbour when the Antiwar Movement was out in the streets marching against the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Missing in Action.

Longtime Indiana Republican Senator Richard Lugar echoed Barbour's concerns on Sunday's Meet the Press on NBC:

There have to be objectives and a plan and an agreement that we're prepared to devote the military forces but also the money. It makes no sense in the front room, where in Congress we are debating seemingly every day the deficits, the debt ceiling situation coming up, the huge economic problems we have -- but in the back room we are spending money on a military situation in Libya.

To be fair, there are some conservative Republicans rallying around Obama, but many are opposing this current intervention. Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times explained what he called the "Republican dilemma":

Republican presidential hopefuls have been scrambling to figure out the right vocabulary for denouncing President Obama's decision to launch U.S. planes and ships into action against Libya's Moammar Gaddafi. Because Obama made the decision, they know they're against it. But it took most of them a day or two to settle on exactly why, in part because so many of them had called for intervention before Obama pulled the trigger.

According to McManus, Newt Gingrich, another likely GOP presidential hopeful, flip-flopped on Libya, first stating, "This is a moment to get rid of Gaddafi. Do it. Get it over with." Then Obama intervened and Gingrich said, "It is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity. Iran and North Korea are vastly bigger threats.... There are a lot of bad dictators doing bad things."

You'd think these GOPers, who were so impassioned in their support of George W. Bush's interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq - often for the same reasons (when WMDs were debunked, they switched to a largely human rights defense of the Iraq War, and human rights was often at the center of justifications for the Afghan War) - would support Obama's Libya intervention, which would be consistent with their reasons for supporting the two post-9/11 wars. And, like I said, some do. But many oppose Obama - and with a passion.

On the other side of the political spectrum, the Left is no more consistent than their Right-wing counterparts. As was the case with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are plenty on the Left who are opposed to the Libya intervention.

But there are a surprising number of liberals and lefties who are cheering on Obama's tough new Libya policy. "I would like to urge the left to chew gum and walk at the same time," said Juan Cole, one of the most eloquent and brilliant and scholarly opponents of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. In his "An Open Letter to the Left on Libya," Cole came to Obama's defense in a strongly worded Blog entry.

An excerpt:

If we just don’t care if the people of Benghazi are subjected to murder and repression on a vast scale, we aren’t people of the Left. We should avoid making ‘foreign intervention’ an absolute taboo the way the Right makes abortion an absolute taboo if doing so makes us heartless (inflexible a priori positions often lead to heartlessness). It is now easy to forget that Winston Churchill held absolutely odious positions from a Left point of view and was an insufferable colonialist who opposed letting India go in 1947. His writings are full of racial stereotypes that are deeply offensive when read today. Some of his interventions were nevertheless noble and were almost universally supported by the Left of his day. The UN allies now rolling back Qaddafi are doing a good thing, whatever you think of some of their individual leaders.

Cole isn't alone. There are other leftist defenders of U.S. military operations in Libya, including veteran liberal/leftish political columnist John Judis and L.A. Weekly columnist and author Marc Cooper. While Cole and Judis are quite respectful and fair toward those who disagree with them, Cooper is downright nasty to anyone voicing doubts about the intervention. He saved one of his most vicious attacks for Phyllis Bennis, a respected progressive-left commentator and author who opposed Obama's Libya policy. In a nakedly ad hominem comment mirroring the most infantile sort of Sixties-era left-wing sectarianism imaginable, Cooper remarked that he's known Bennis "for years - even back when she was a Maoist and relaundered herself as some sort of reasonable 'analyst' an (sic) shrouded with the legitimacy of the Institute for Policy Studies."

What Cooper doesn't say in his blog is that much of what Bennis says mirrors the same sort of rhetoric used by antiwar activists in their opposition to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Moreover, if the pro-war leftists in America who defend U.S. intervention in Libya were being consistent, they would've supported the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, after all, Washington was instrumental in overthrowing one of the worst regimes in modern history, the Taliban, which repressed Afghanistan's civilian population far more violently than Gadaffi has done in Libya. The Taliban is, in fact, South Asia's equivalent of the Khmer Rouge - insane, brutal, violent, to the point of being apocalyptic. Corrupt as the government of Hamid Karzai is, when it comes to human rights, it is a huge improvement over the Taliban.

And in Iraq, once you strip away all of the now thoroughly refuted claims of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), U.S. military intervention resulted in the overthrow of one of the worst tyrants of the past 30 years. Say what you will about current-day Iraq, but the fragile government there has far greater respect for human rights than Saddam Hussein ever did. Saddam was a monster, and some of the most impassioned defenders of the Coalition bombings in Libya were dead-set against U.S. military operations to overthrow him.

So Libya is right, but Afghanistan and Iraq are wrong? If one bases their support of Coalition bombing of Libya purely on human rights, how is it possible to defend Libya but not Afghanistan and/or Iraq?

Is it because Afghanistan and Iraq involved large-scale commitments of ground troops, but Libya doesn't? Is it because those two post-9/11 wars have dragged on for years and have been extremely costly, both in dollars and human lives? If that's the argument, then it's a chicken-shit one. If you accept that the Libya intervention is a justified struggle against an aggressive and violent dictator trying to harm his own people, then you should be willing to put the proverbial money where your mouth is and back an all-out, full-scale military attack to stop Gaddafi from doing what he's doing. Unless, of course, at some level, you don't really buy it.

You hear a lot of defenders of the Libya intervention saying, "Libya is not Iraq." Talk about a hollow cliché. What does that mean, exactly? Does it mean that Obama is too timid to send ground combat troops into Libya? Does that mean it was wrong to overthrow Saddam Hussein, a worse tyrant that Gaddafi? Does it mean that the Bush administration lied to push the country into war in Iraq, but Obama didn't with Libya, so therefore this intervention is OK but Iraq wasn't? Why should it matter that Bush lied if the end result in Iraq is that a monstrous despot was removed from power? Isn't Obama pushing for intervention in Libya for the same reasons - to prevent a bloodthirsty dictator from harming his own people?

So why oppose Iraq and Afghanistan but not Libya? Is it because George W. Bush spearheaded the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq and you can't trust him (and he's a Republican), whereas the intervention in Libya was the doing of Obama, whose motives are pure as snow? Perhaps partisanship is at work in all of these glaring inconsistencies, whether we're talking about the Right or the Left.

If it's right to intervene in Libya for human rights purposes, why not do the same thing in the Ivory Coast, where - as U.S. News and World Report points out - the violence is just as intense, if not more so, than it is in Libya? As U.S. News and World Report notes:

Thousands of supporters of Ivory Coast’s President Laurent Gbagbo enlisted in his army last week, fueling fears of renewed chaos in West Africa. Gbagbo’s refusal to accept his electoral defeat to Alassane Ouattara in the country’s November presidential election triggered bloody clashes between loyalists and Ouattara supporters. Rapes and killings, reportedly by Gbagbo’s forces, have left more than 400 dead. Over 50 people were killed last week alone. Gbagbo officials are encouraging young activists to join the army and fight against “the terrorists,” or backers of Ouattara, whom the United States and the rest of the international community recognize as the legitimate leader. Ouattara called on the United Nations to use force to protect civilians.

Where are the liberal and Democratic Party establishment and left-leaning defenders of U.S. intervention in Libya on the issue of the Ivory Coast? Answer: They're nowhere to be heard.

So what is with all of these wild inconsistencies on both sides of the political spectrum? Is it all about partisanship? Is it that "Good" Democrats were supposed to oppose the war in Iraq, waffle on Afghanistan, and take a hawkish position on coalition bombings of Libya, whereas "Good" Republicans are supposed to defend Bush's war against Saddam, be slightly less enthusiastic (but still supportive) about Afghanistan and oppose Obama on Libya?

If you can figure out this insanity and you think it amounts to anything other than blind partisanship, please - please - let me know.

Addendum: If you get a chance, see Christopher Hitchens' article in Slate.com titled, "The Iraq Effect: If Saddam Hussein were still in power, this year's Arab uprisings would never have happened." Essentially, Hitchens raises many of the issues I've raised here, but from a different angle. I do not agree with Hitchens apology for the Iraq War, just as I do not agree with the Iraq War itself, but if I were to support it, I'd support it for the exact same reasons he does.

A Reformed Liberal and Regretful Obama Voter

This woman began to question liberalism and it's claims.  She began to question statements made by President Obama, Democrats, and the MSM so she did her homework and found out what they claimed was either false, misrepresented or exaggerated greatly.



H/T Just a Conservative Girl 

CNN Anchor Praises Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Terrorists

Some might think that this should be shocking. It isn't.  Libs have been supporting terrorists and our enemies for a long while but it wasn't until more recently that they felt comfortable openly praising terrorists.  I think all these Commies should be sent on a slow boat to China.

SICKOS Want Sarah Palin Dead: Twitter Users Wish Death on Palin

H/T Breitbart 

Palin Derangement Syndrome has come out of the woodworks in a major way since the shooting. The Left consists of some seriously disturbed individuals.

Trigger The Vote

 TriggertheVote.org contains all of your one stop shopping needs for voting. You can register to vote -- even if your in the military and live overseas -- and you are able find your polling place by simply clicking onto your state.  So, if you know anyone that isn't registered, please get them to register so that they can help us send these liberals and RINOS packing in November.

Liberals and Muslims Paths Converge

I have been thinking about how much both liberals and Muslims have been working together lately.  Both of their paths seem to converge and now they are working in concert to impose intolerance on other religions such as traditional Christianity and the Jewish faith or those religious peoples' that do not follow the religion of Islam. I mean before this Ground Zero Mosque debate, when have you ever heard or seen liberals defending any person's right to religion?  Liberals are usually attacking Christianity and shouting "separation of Church and State" from the rooftops, pushing the secularization of America to the enth degree, but for some reason now they are defending the Muslims and the religion of Islam when that particular religion was either perverted or correctly applied when 19 Muslims murdered 3000 innocents on September 11, 2001 only a stone's throw away from Ground Zero.  But, separation of Church and State means absolutely nothing to liberals in this intance.

Liberals want to "transform" America and destroy all that America is from within, while Muslims want to destroy the West, especially America, from the outside and create a Caliphate.  Both liberals and Muslims want to destroy America and make it their own -albeit in different ways- but they are committed to working together to destroy America. And, that is where their paths converge, to destroy America by working together to dismantle any trace amounts of America being a Judeo-Christian nation, and our Republic.    

Just recently I found an article written by Michael Youssef that exposes a writer on an Arab website who proceeded to explain to her Arabic readers about the Unitarian Church and many “other Christian denominations,” referring mainly to mainline denominations, and why Muslims should be supportive of them.


She said they are not like those “traditional Christians” who believe in the divinity of Christ. They, like us “Muslims,” believe that Jesus was just a good prophet: ‘To be sure, they do not believe in Mohammad as the true prophet of Allah, but we can get along with them.”

Then, Michael Youssef points out, yet, one more reason why both Muslims and liberals, or Muslims, Unitarians and the liberal mainline denominations are working together -- they all reject Biblical truth.

We must stop both liberals and Muslims

from destroying America!!!

Racial Demagoguery by the Left Five Years After Hurricane Katrina

I found this great article by Michelle Malkin on the Left's infatuation with using the race card for political opportunistic purposes five years later, after Hurricane Katrina. 


This weekend, on the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, civil rights activists and hip-hop stars will hold what they call a “healing ceremony” to commemorate the disaster. President Obama will speak at a separate event in New Orleans on Sunday.


But don’t expect any of these reconciliation-seeking leaders to confront the indelible stain of racial demagoguery left by the left in Katrina’s aftermath. Hating George W. Bush means never having to say you’re sorry.

The Olympic gold medal for racial grievance-mongering went to rapper Kanye West, who railed during a supposedly nonpolitical nationwide telethon that the government was shooting “us,” that “those are my people down there,” and that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people!” West’s vulgar exploitation of a charity drive—which was meant to unite America—left most viewers with the same aghast, frozen expression as the one on comedian Mike Myers’ face as he tried to rescue their fundraising segment from the sewage.

Not to be outdone, the Congressional Black Caucus convened a press conference to blast news reporters for describing Katrina victims as “refugees.” Yes, really.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson echoed their complaint: “It is racist to call American citizens refugees.” Refugees are, by dictionary definition, “exiles who flee for safety.”

How this could be construed as bigoted remains as much a mystery as the source of unhinged Huffington Post blogger and self-proclaimed “social justice advocate” Randall Robinson’s bogus claim “that black hurricane victims in New Orleans have begun eating corpses to survive.”  CONTINUED

Dismantling America

Thomas Sowell on Shredding the Constitution and thus dismantling America:

"We the people" are the familiar opening words of the Constitution of the United States-- the framework for a self-governing people, free from the arbitrary edicts of rulers. It was the blueprint for America, and the success of America made that blueprint something that other nations sought to follow.

At the time when it was written, however, the Constitution was a radical departure from the autocratic governments of the 18th century. Since it was something so new and different, the reasons for the Constitution's provisions were spelled out in "The Federalist," a book written by three of the writers of the Constitution, as a sort of instruction guide to a new product.

The Constitution was not only a challenge to the despotic governments of its time, it has been a continuing challenge-- to this day-- to all those who think that ordinary people should be ruled by their betters, whether an elite of blood, or of books or of whatever else gives people a puffed-up sense of importance.

While the kings of old have faded into the mists of history, the principle of the divine rights of kings to impose whatever they wish on the masses lives on today in the rampaging presumptions of those who consider themselves anointed to impose their notions on others.  CONTINUED