When it comes to the race card game, you can’t win with a liberal. If you’re conservative, you’re racist no matter how you play it. As the 2012 GOP Convention progresses, this liberal con game is once again in play. You’d think Republicans would have learned by now. When it comes to issues on race, you may as well be playing Three Card Monty with a downtown street hustler. No matter how you play it, you will lose.
During the convention, the Dems and their compliant media toadies have used a ruse that everyone should be well aware of by now. Republicans get accused of pandering to minorities when they’re included, and accused of purposely excluding them when they’re not. Republicans are racist either way, in this liberal heads-I-win-tails-you-lose shell game.
Yesterday, karma may have finally caught up with the liberal media when Yahoo’s Washington Bureau Chief David Chalian was fired after he was recorded at the Republican National Convention saying the GOP was “happy to have a party with black people drowning.” Racist, idiotic, and just a little bit confusing. Was Chalian implying that only blacks were going to drown as a result of hurricane flooding? What about whites—wouldn’t they drown too? Or does he believe that whites are more buoyant with better swimming skills than blacks? We’ll probably never know what was really going through that liberal muddled mind.
One thing that would make the incident deliciously complete would be if the Romney campaign offered Chalian a job. In fact I’d recommend that the RNC make a big public deal out of it. They could release a statement saying, “We’re dedicated to putting Americans back to work, not firing them.”
Hey, if there were some such thing as Fantasy Politics similar to what they have in professional sports, that’s how I’d play it.
When Barack Obama made his since-gone-viral “you didn’t build that” speech (Twitter #YDBT) he turned over a very telling card in a socialist hand that he’s been building since his 2008 campaign. Now that DC Hold’em 2012 is in full play, the cards are taking shape for everyone to see.
As you might recall during the 2008 campaign, Obama told Ohio resident “Joe the Plumber” that we needed to “spread the wealth.” There were plenty of savvy political players who believed that he had just tipped his hand, yet the suckers remained at the table and checked their bets. Then days before the election Obama raised the stakes and said that he intended to “fundamentally transform America.” The chumps stayed in the game, and Obama took the White House.
Now that Barack “Hawaiian Slim” Obama continues turning over his cards, one might wonder why there are still dupes at the table ripe for fleecing. The answer comes in three words: Government funded entitlements. Obama is no doubt pleased with the progress he’s made in the fundamental transformation he’s sought: a new class of Americans who are not only beholden to the State, they’ve embraced their servitude. Obama said it himself. “It’s working.”
Back in the old days, slaves didn’t like being slaves. They aspired to liberty—even willing to risk their lives for a chance at freedom. But the 20th century gave us the insidious promises of socialism, a flawed system that continues to attract the slow learners on the Left. Barak Obama is betting that he can still keep enough pidgeons in the game who’ll buy into his shady hand.
Not one to hedge his bets, Obama sweetened the pot with his latest declaration of “a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared.” Can there be any doubt where he wants to take this country? A statist collective that would even impress Europe. Really, the only question that remains in this drawn out round of political poker is if voters in November will call his bluff.
Conservative blogger John Hawkins said it much better than I could, but I’d like to add to his list of “10 Concepts Liberals Talk About Incessantly But Don’t Understand.” For example, when libs say “infrastructure” they mean “government funded projects that siphon away tax dollars and employ unionized government labor.” And when they say “the wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes,” they mean “take as much of their money as possible until they’re not wealthy anymore.” And by the way “wealthy” usually means “any conservative with money.”
It’s too early to fully grasp the ramifications of the 6-28-12 SCOTUS decision. Reasoned analysis will take days, weeks, and months. For now everyone seems to be asking, “How bad was this decision for the future of America?”
My first reaction was a flash of history. In Germany, March 1933, Parliament passed the Enabling Act, by a vote of 444–94. It changed the Weimar Constitution to allow Hitler’s government to pass laws without parliamentary debate. From that point onward the country was a dictatorship, and Hitler’s regime was now the law of the land. And it all happened under the auspices of German law.
Thankfully, we haven’t gotten to that point yet. But we’re certainly one step closer. And keep in mind that totalitarian regimes don’t have to take the form of a blustery military coup, marching into the capitol to the tune of glorious revolution. Should the US become a genuine tyrannical regime, it will evolve in subtle increments, appearing benevolent all the while, welcomed with smiles and open arms. Then one day we’ll wake up, look around and say, “Wha hoppin?”
Liberal-speak is like a Mad Magazine “When They Say. . .They Really Mean” satire, except there’s no good punchlines. My new patent-pending Liberal-Speak Translat-O-Tron has been designed to address this issue.
Every now and then you’ll find a leftist who’s bold enough to criticize the US Constitution as an inherently flawed document. It’s good when they do that, because each time it demonstrates the Left’s ignorance and misunderstandings of the purpose and point of why the American founders signed it in the first place.
You’ll find a recent example published in the New York Times. The title alone will tell you much: Our Imbecilic Constitution written by some law professor (again, there’s a tell). It’s just another example of what American citizens are up against when dealing with progressive politics. Don’t think for a minute that there aren’t plenty of liberals out there who would radically change the Constitution if they thought they could get away with it.
For so many liberals in Congress, the Constitution is an inconvenience, and impediment, a stubborn fly in the ointment to their destructive agendas. It gets in the way of what they’d like to do if they could. I find it a bit mind boggling that they don’t recognize that’s exactly why the Constitution was written and ratified: to prevent overreaching politicians from getting their meddling little hands into everyone else’s business.
It was Thomas Paine that correctly described government as “a necessary evil.” For most liberals, I suspect that the US Constitution is at best, a necessary evil–one they will tolerate if they must, but one they will ruin if they can.