Monday, June 20, 2011

Leftwing Bullies and Hypocrites

“A gay rights activist threw glitter at Rep. Michele Bachmann Saturday…. Tim Pawlenty and … Newt Gingrich both had glitter tossed at them during recent book signings.  [the activist] called the attack "a really good-natured, light-hearted way to bring attention to … gay rights."

This behavior is nothing new.  Back in the 70’s Thomas Forcade, founder of the pro-marijuana magazine, High Times, began throwing pies at people whom he perceived to be opposed to his political agenda.  In doing so he started a trend among leftists and anarchists (pretty much the same thing) who proceeded to lob pies at people they deemed deserving of ridicule, ambushing them when they least expected it.  Needless to say their targets were mostly conservatives, and included people like Anita Bryant, William Buckley, G. Gordon Liddy, Ann Coulter and David Horowitz, among others.   People working as part of the activist group PETA regularly throw blood or “flour bombs” at people, mostly celebrities, who inspire their ire by wearing fur.

It is no coincidence that this behavior is almost exclusively engaged in by the Left, as it is part and parcel of the leftist mentality (and their inherent immaturity) that they assume it to be their right to bully those who don’t subscribe to their agenda.  Bullying is in fact at the strategic forefront of just about every group with a leftwing agenda, from the aggressive behavior we see at union protests to the frequent boycotts called for against conservative radio and t.v. shows in an attempt to put them out of business.

This is why I am bemused by all of the anti-bullying campaigns that we see liberals promoting everywhere these days.  The blind hypocrisy is nothing short of amazing. (“…a partner of MTV’s ‘Love is Louder’ Campaign), is just one example among many.  It’s sponsored by The View, for instance, which of course is the same program where regular co-host Joy Behar called Sharron Angle a "bitch" multiple times and said that she is "going to hell."  Feigning offense at an anti-illegal immigration ad put out by Angle, Behar challenged, “I’d like to see her do this ad in the South Bronx.  Come here, bitch!  Come to New York and do it!”

Fellow liberals out there apparently see nothing ironic about Joy “Come here, bitch” Behar sponsoring a campaign against bullying, and this epitomizes what conservatives are up against in this country. 

Thursday, June 9, 2011

No, No, No, No, No!!!!!

I cannot begin to tell you how insanely angry this makes me. 

Yesterday, judges on the appeals court hearing arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare questioned the notion of the government’s legal ability to compel private citizens to purchase products under the Commerce Clause.  Here’s how one reporter described the government’s response:

Katyal argued that healthcare is unique and unlike purchasing other products, like vegetables in a grocery store. “You can walk out of this courtroom and be hit by a bus,” he said. And if such a person has no insurance, a hospital and the taxpayers will have to pay the costs of his emergency care, he said.”

I may have missed it but so far I have never heard the correct and most obvious response to this argument:  Since when do hospitals and the taxpayers “have to” pay the costs for emergency care for people who are uninsured?  Is this requirement written in the Constitution somewhere?  No.  It is a completely false argument built on a completely contrived premise. 

This notion that other people are somehow responsible for services rendered to the uninsured is the culmination of many years of progressive brainwashing to the point where it seems almost everyone accepts this lie as fact.  If someone needs emergency care but has no insurance, the logical plan is that those people should be on the hook for the cost of that care.  This may mean they have to work out a long-term payment plan, but so be it.  That’s the consequence of not having insurance. So for those who complain about irresponsible people who shrug off the need for insurance, I say, “What better incentive could there be to encourage responsible behavior than the looming threat of an emergency room bill that you actually have to pay for yourself.”  Voila, problem solved.

Not only that, but two of the reasons emergency care is so outrageously expensive are tied to this easily fixable behavior.  People use the emergency room for minor illnesses precisely because they have no insurance and know they can’t be turned away.  If, by imposing real consequences, we motivate more people to buy insurance (and we definitely will), this will reduce the demand for emergency services and the cost to everyone else.  Secondly, by forcing people to take responsibility for the cost of their emergency care we would significantly reduce the unpaid costs that are spread to people and insurance companies who actually do pay, and this would further reduce healthcare costs.

So this falsehood that there is some sort of constitutionally imposed mandate for hospitals and taxpayers to pay for the uninsured is a lie of great consequence – purposely so.  It is, as we can see, the intentionally contrived basis for Obamacare.  Therefore we must never let it go unchallenged.

Monday, June 6, 2011

The REAL Problem with Weiner

Get ready for the spin.  You are going to be told that the Weiner scandal is a personal matter.  It’s just sex talk.  Conservatives are so uptight and judgmental.  Time to move on to important matters like the budget.  Oops, forget about that.

Don’t fall for that.  The issues involved here are much deeper.

First, let’s talk about the lie.  Liberals like to take conservatives to task for their prudishness.  They ridicule family values as old fashioned nonsense.  We need to get with the times.  And yet, even though their liberal constituents are supposedly so much more open-minded than the rest of us, for some reason liberal politicians always feel compelled to hide their behavior and then lie about it when caught.  Liberals have lower standards, to be sure, but the dirty little secret is that they, too, can be “judgmental.”  Weiner wasn’t ashamed of his behavior, as he claimed.  He didn’t want to lose his job.

But here’s what really makes this scandal important:  lies have consequences.  When you lie and claim that you didn’t do something others are accusing you of, then by default you intimate that THEY must be the liars.  Weiner implied that he had been “hacked” or “pranked,” and at one point I think he hinted that it could be the work of his political foes.  Aha!  Another right-wing conspiracy, just not so “vast” as the one that led to the false scandal against an innocent Bill Clinton.  Those mean republicans.  Is there nothing they won’t stoop to?

The fact is, if Weiner hadn’t been cornered with irrefutable proof of his behavior and his lies he would have, without conscience, fueled the charade of himself as the innocent victim of nasty right-wingers.  It doesn’t get much lower than that, although it’s what we’ve become accustomed to.