Who’s “Partisan?”

We hear a lot these days about “partisan politics,” and you’re going to hear it even more, but like so many other parts of our language the term “partisan” has been massaged over the years to alter its meaning and shield those on the Left from the consequences of their own bad behavior.  “Partisan,” according to my old Webster’s Dictionary from college, is defined as:

 “A firm adherent to a party, faction, cause or person; especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.” 

To be labeled as “partisan,” therefore, would not be a compliment.  In fact, to anyone with a conscience it would be and should be a stinging insult in the context of how it’s typically used.  Thus the term became a problem for democrats who like to portray themselves as pure of heart and fair, even when they’re acting in a clearly partisan way.    When Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath and obstructing justice in the Monica Lewinsky affair, for instance, the action was denounced universally throughout the left-leaning media as “partisan.”  As I’m sure all of us recall, that insult was directed at republicans and was meant to taint the proceedings as a prejudiced and purely political attack.  The reality, of course, was that Clinton DID lie under oath and DID attempt to obstruct justice, so who was partisan – the party that sought to hold a lying president to account or the party that sought to protect a lying president regardless of his misbehavior?  It was democrats, not republicans, who showed a “blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance” to their party’s leader.  And so the leftwing media took it upon themselves to intentionally misuse (and thereby redefine) the word “partisan” to refer to any action taken by one party against a member of another party, regardless of its merits. 

Whoever controls the language controls the debate.

Fast forward to 2014 and Wikipedia now defines partisan this way: 

“In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party.”

Hmmm…that’s an interesting evolution.  In other words, now every member of a political party, regardless of his actions, is a partisan.  See how that works?  But notice that the old Webster’s definition is used by the media to apply to what republicans do, while the new Wikipedia version always applies to democrats. 

Never underestimate the deviousness of the Left.

These days the Benghazi investigations and the recent formation of the select committee, in particular, have rekindled the old indignant cries of “partisanship” by the democrats and their rabid friends in the media.  Amid the obvious missteps (lax security), failures (Americans dead and injured) and mistruths (the infamous video protest that never happened), somehow we are supposed to see moral equivalence on both sides of the Benghazi issue, even though one side seeks to know the truth while the other seeks to sweep the truth under the rug. 

Heads we win, tails you lose.

I’m not going to claim that partisanship is solely a sin of the Left.  Everyone’s guilty of prejudicial behavior towards the other side now and then, myself included.  But every act is not automatically a partisan act simply by virtue of who the target is or who the accusers are, and we should not sit back and quietly accept such mislabeling and abuse of the English language, yet we do.  ‘News’ anchors throw the word around right and left when conducting interviews, with never an objection raised.  “Partisanship” has become to politics what cries of “racist!” are to race:  a defense mechanism intended to insulate some (guess who?) from accountability for their actions.  Thus when Obama lies and blatantly disregards his oath to uphold the Constitution, those who object are declared either “partisan” and/or “racist” when of course the exact opposite is true.  A president – any president – should be expected to be truthful and to uphold the oath of his office, and anyone who objects to such accountability is the partisan. 

I understand this won’t change anything.  Dishonest tactics make up the playbook for democrats and that’s always going to be the case because that’s the only way they can win.  But WE don’t have to play along with the pretense.  We can take every opportunity to expose their tricks to the light of day, and that’s what my mission is here, today and every day.

˜CW

What I learned Today at the Huffington Post: Rachel Maddow is Another “Green” Hypocrite

“Climate change” is a man-made disaster, the Left tells us.  It’s all because we are gluttons with our energy use and our carbon footprints are much bigger than they need to be, they scold.  So it was with great amusement that I read today’s fawning piece in Huffpo about the addition to uber-liberal Rachel Maddow’s  second home:

Rachel Maddow's Retreat Has An Unusual Feature (Just Don't Call It An Outhouse)

Huffpo finds it charming that Maddow and her “partner” have added a bath house to their vacation home in Massachusetts.  Apparently it’s okay for liberals to have “retreats” and extra homes and such because they have to work so hard trying to keep the rest of us in line so they really need to get away from their main homes and relax, re-connect, re-charge, get back in touch with their liberalism, or whatever. 

“Designed by architect Nicole Migeon, primarily as a second bathroom for Maddow and her partner Susan Mikula's weekend getaway, the outhouse-like structure is what Maddow calls a "retreat within a retreat…" 

From New York Magazine:

“…Migeon—who worked with Maddow and Mikula on their West Village apartment—designed a one-room bathhouse tucked away in the woods. The simple pitched-roof ¬structure, more than just an outhouse, features vertical wood slats (made from sustainably grown cedar) that reference the design of old tobacco-drying barns in the area and conceal drains and vents while providing soft, diffused light; perfect for a low-key late-afternoon dip in the hot tub. Migeon worked with woodworker Chuck Bayliss to build the reclaimed-maple cabinets that hide an entertainment center and linen closet.”

Good thing they made sure to let us know that the cedar used to panel almost every inch of this bath house was “sustainably grown” and the cabinets were “reclaimed” (that’s the liberal word for “used”) so that Ms. Maddow doesn’t diminish her credibility as an environmentalist even though she owns two homes and just expanded her carbon footprint yet again.  If you look at the photos contained in the Huffpo piece you’ll see that quite a large number of cedar trees had to be sacrificed to create just the right ambience for Ms. Maddow’s bath house; but don’t worry because it turns out we can grow more cedar trees.  Who knew?

Apparently we are not to concern ourselves wondering about the extra energy consumed in traveling between the two residences or maintaining two homes (BTW, did you notice the carefully landscaped grounds around the bath house?), or the energy and other materials used to construct the bath house, re-locate the cabinets and heat the hot tub.  Instead we are supposed to admire Ms. Maddow for her commitment to environmentalism because she chose “sustainable” cedar (a lot of it!) and used cabinets. 

Well, you know what they say: 

An environmentalist is a liberal who already has their bath house in the woods.

˜CW

Standing with Charles Koch

From the Wall Street Journal Opinion Page:

Charles Koch: I’m Fighting to Restore a Free Society

Instead of welcoming free debate, collectivists engage in character assassination.

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation’s own government. That’s why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. “The natural progress of things,” Jefferson wrote, “is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” He knew that no government could possibly run citizens’ lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we’re “un-American” and trying to “rig the system,” that we’re against “environmental protection” or eager to “end workplace safety standards.” These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s observation, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:

Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our “commitment to a cleaner environment” and called us “a model for other companies.”

Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement.

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished.

Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people’s lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.

If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I’m dedicated to fighting for that vision. I’m convinced most Americans believe it’s worth fighting for, too.”

Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.

Dear Mr. Koch,

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for the resources you devote to fighting for liberty on behalf of all Americans.  Not the phony brand of liberty sold by the Left in this country, but liberty as the Founders defined it, with fundamental rights that must be respected.  I know that your efforts to restore limited government as prescribed by the Constitution will make you a hated man to the Left, and you will be vilified and demonized for the sin of helping your fellow Americans fight off the chains that the socialists are so eager to wrap us in.  They want this power very badly.  Thank you for that sacrifice.  You are a brave man and a true patriot and I stand with you.

˜CW

Just Because They Can

Anyone who’s been around babies knows the game where you place an object in front of a baby and the baby throws the object on the floor so that he may have the pleasure of watching you pick it up.  The baby never tires of this delightful game, because it marks the point in a child’s life where he first understands what it feels like to have power.  The game goes on indefinitely unless and until the adult refuses to play, at which point the baby will scream and so begins the real test of who is actually in charge. 

Fast forward to adulthood and unfortunately it turns out that some babies never quite grow up.  Oh they grow facial hair and sprout breasts and all that but alas that pretty much sums up their journey to adulthood.  While others grow up and realize that the earth does not revolve around them, these arrested individuals – let’s just go ahead and call them liberals – can think of nothing but their own egos.   Regardless of age they have not outgrown the sense of pleasure that comes from forcing others to bend to their will.  Consequently they spend an inordinate amount of time and effort crusading for the most unlikely causes. 

They sue to make parents and vets take down crosses memorializing their dead loved ones (“American Atheists Sue Over World Trade Center Cross”  ˜Abc News; “Grieving California mom takes down cross on road after group’s protest, more appear”  ˜Fox News).

They sue, boycott and otherwise bully to turn St. Patrick’s Day parades into LGBT propagandafests (“Gay rights politics get in the way of St. Patrick’s Day parades”  ˜The Washington Post).

They sue and bully towns and organizations to take away symbols of Christmas (“Man Sues to Eliminate Christmas” ˜ABC News).

They sue to protect obscure species of rodents, fish and bugs (“Lawsuit Launched Over Water Project That Will Hurt Endangered Kangaroo Rat”  ˜Center for Biological Diversity (yes, that’s a real organization);  “Activists To File Another Lawsuit Over Delta Smelt”  ˜Wineindustryinsight.com; “Groups file lawsuit over endangered NE beetle”  ˜AP)

The latest game involves an attack on the food industry as liberals and special interests have joined forces to demand costly and unnecessary changes to labeling regulations (“Liberal Groups, Democratic Members of Congress and Organic Food Industry Present President Obama with Demands for New Food Industry Labeling Regulations”  ˜The National Center for Public Policy Research); “Here we go again — Another California GMO-labeling bill introduced”  ˜American Council on Science and Health).  Never mind that these foods have a history of being perfectly safe.  Never mind that food producers already can and often do include this information on their labels.  Voluntary action does not satisfy the liberal’s inner need to make people do stuff.  According to Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and head of its Risk Analysis Division, "Mandatory labeling of GM foods fails every justification for requiring them: scientific, economic, legal, and most of all, common sense.  [This is] for the sole benefit of those seeking the labels."

Now, we know why the organic food industry is involved and we know why the lawyers are involved – money.  That’s right, the almighty dollar. But why do liberal groups and democrats want to make all these food producers jump through yet more hoops for no good reason?  Because they can, that’s why.  They’re throwing stuff on the floor so they can watch us pick it up.  It makes them they feel powerful.  Now they can sit around in their living rooms, high-fiving each other over their important victories as they pass around a joint. 

Conservative blogs abound with story after story examining the incomprehensible and trying to make sense of the hypocrisy and dishonesty.  Undoubtedly there sometimes are deeper motives at play, usually money and/or the desire to surreptitiously advance an unpopular agenda.  But in the absence of a clear motive the answer is very simple:  it’s just because they can.

P.S.

No doubt the lefties and the rare breed of rabid libertarian that stalks my blog will try to argue that conservatives are just as guilty based upon their history of opposing or regulating things like drug use, prostitution and same-sex marriage.  I know it may seem incredible to some that behaviors which have proven to have serious and far-reaching societal implications would be compared to, say, interfering with the habitat of a certain bug or erecting a cross to memorialize a dead child or soldier but trust me, the comparison will be made.  A combination of stunted mental maturity and deep immersion into the world of leftwing propaganda renders some folks incapable of making rational distinctions.  But by all means, let them make the argument.  I welcome the amusement.  

˜CW

Calling Bullshit on Rand Paul

This morning I learned with great annoyance and dismay that Rand Paul is the latest Republican to jump on the Republicans-need-to-be-more-inclusive bandwagon.   At a dinner event with GOP Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Paul suggested that Texas would be a democrat state within 10 years if the Republican Party doesn’t change its ways. 

“…we have to be a more welcoming party,” Paul said. “We have to welcome people of all races. We need to welcome people of all classes - business class, working class.”

“We need to have people with ties and without ties, with tattoos and without tattoos; with earrings, without earrings,” he said. “We need a more diverse party. We need a party that looks like America.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/09/rand-paul-warns-his-former-home-state-texas-could-turn-blue/

There are plenty of reasons to find fault with the Republican Party but for right now let’s focus just on Senator Paul’s remarks.  This strategy of using phony reasons to castigate one’s own party in order to supposedly “save” it absolutely dumbfounds me.  What kind of an idiot thinks he can “broaden the Republican tent” by reinforcing the Democrats’ false mantra that the Republican Party is nothing but of bunch of old white men who hate everybody else?  Whose side is Rand Paul on, anyways?  I challenge Senator Paul to bring us one, JUST ONE, person who has embraced conservative ideas and wanted to be part of the Republican Party but was rejected because of his skin color or his appearance.  He can’t because there aren’t any. 

   

Mr. Paul says, “We need a party that looks like America.”  As nice as it would be if characteristics like race, gender, age and culture played no role in people’s political persuasions that’s not the reality.  The Democrat Party has made sure of that and you’ll note, Senator Paul, that the Democrat Party doesn’t seem to be particularly concerned that their own party in no way mirrors the demographic make-up of the American population.  The Republican Party is not a social club.  It has a purpose and that purpose is to promote leadership that will live by the Constitution.  The goal of the Party should be to build a following around that, regardless of what it ultimately looks like, so please get your priorities straight.

There are two ways to broaden a political tent, Senator Paul.  One way is to welcome anyone regardless of where they stand on the issues.  This means you lose the focus on your Party’s mission and control of its direction, of course.  It means that you really have no purpose for existing except to bring people together under the meaningless banner of ‘Republican Party,’ for what little that’s worth.  The other way is to persuade people, either through education or by forced experience, that your platform is the right one.  In doing so you may or may not have a Party that “looks like America,” but you’ll have a Party that actually stands for something and has meaning.

In light of his remarks and his presidential aspirations, I would urge conservatives to be diligent in their attention to Rand Paul.  As a long-time Republican he knows as well as any of us that the Party does not reject people for the way they look or for their socio-economic status, so what is he doing here?  The “we-need-to-be-more-inclusive” song is often a prelude to suggesting that Republicans need to relax their stance on issues like illegal immigration, same-sex marriage, welfare programs and national defense, among others.  If Paul truly believes we’re on the wrong side of those issues, fair enough.  Let’s have an open, honest debate.  But let’s NOT do it in a misguided effort to broaden the tent.

˜CW

I will Not Pretend

To all leftists – past, present and future….

When you tell me that Americans’ choosing to be less productive because of Obamacare is a “good thing,” I will not pretend that you believe what you say.

When you tell me there’s “not a smidgeon” of corruption in the IRS targeting of your enemies, I will not pretend, as some will, that you are sincere.   We both know you lie.

When you tell me that $1 spent in food stamps puts $1.74 back in the economy, I will not pretend that you are anything but a brainless fool.

I will not pretend that you love the country you presume to “transform.”

I will not pretend that you stand for the rights of women if you embrace, defend or admire a serial woman abuser like Bill Clinton.

I will not pretend that your alliances with purveyors of anti-Americanism say nothing about you and your intentions towards this country.  I refuse to be that blind.

I will not pretend that you care about American soldiers when you play politics with the military.

I will not pretend that your actions do not speak louder than your phony words.

I will not pretend that you are a nice guy in over your head.

I will not pretend to respect a liar and a fraud, because liars and frauds do not deserve respect.

I will not pretend that your wide smile doesn’t hide the ruthless, vicious person you really are.

I will not pretend that you see yourself as a government servant.  We both know who you believe the servant to be.

I will not pretend, as so many do, that you care about the environment as you travel the world in your jets and limos.

I will not pretend that it means nothing when you say one thing and do another, because I’m not stupid.

I will not pretend that you care about education when you and your friends are responsible for its decline.

I will not pretend to respect you for the office you hold when you don’t honor that office yourself.

Don’t pee on me and tell me it’s raining.  I will not pretend that the emperor or empress is wearing clothes.  I will not be a polite, silent witness to my own destruction.

  

˜CW

Truisms: The Case against Liberalism

I hesitate to write this post because it’s going to require that for the sake of argument I accept the premise that liberalism is a well-intentioned, idealistic ideology intent on “making the world a better place.”  Really I would just as soon slam my hand in the car door than accept such a falsehood, but for the future of the nation I will make the sacrifice. 

Now to further set the stage, let’s have a word about truisms.  I’m a big fan of true crime shows.  I’m fascinated by the ways crimes are solved and how our justice system works (or doesn’t!).  Sometimes I will imagine that I am on the jury, and I’ll weigh the evidence to decide whether or not I would convict the accused.  During this process I will look for evidence that definitively points to guilt.  These are the truisms of the criminal justice world.  If the victim’s head is found in the defendant’s refrigerator, that’s a truism that pretty much seals the deal for me. 

Certain truisms in life are like the irrefutable pieces of evidence in a trial.  No reasonable analysis can be made while ignoring them, and yet that’s precisely what liberals do every day.  They ignore basic truisms that we know to exist; truisms that, if heeded, would make liberal policies impossible to sell (hence the reason they always lie).  Here is a sample of the truisms that come to mind:

Truism #1 – The more you reward certain behaviors, the more of them you’ll get.

I’d like to see someone dispute this perfectly simple fact.  Every parent and pet owner understands it.  And yet our federal, state and local governments, guided by the hand of liberalism, can’t spend money fast enough to reward people for not working, for making bad decisions and for sneaking into this country illegally; hence the number of people doing all of those things has EXPLODED.  Creating a nation of thieves and freeloaders does not fall under the heading of “making the world a better place,” particularly when it’s hardened the hearts of normally generous Americans who usually don’t mind helping people down on their luck but who’ve grown cynical and weary from decades of seeing their tax money squandered on people gaming the system.  The truly needy are the ones who will suffer in the end, so that’s a FAIL for liberalism.

Truism #2 – There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Too bad whoever coined this phrase doesn’t get royalties on it, as it is said over and over to confront the liberal lie that stuff which comes from the government is “free.”  Liberal goodies are all paid for by somebody, of course, but apparently saying, “You’ll now get free birth control forcibly paid for by your neighbors” just doesn’t have the same cheery ring to it.  As long as the freebies have to be paid for by somebody, the bill is going to eventually come due, so promises of free lunches are harbingers of liberal FAILURE.

Truism #3 –People are not careful consumers when they’re spending other people’s money.

Anyone want to dispute this?  Would government bureaucrats be spending billions of dollars on lavish conferences, robotic squirrels, bridges to nowhere, useless studies, benefits for dead people, and of course the infamous and overpriced Obamacare website if all of it were coming out of their own pockets?  The increasingly suppressed role of the consumer in healthcare is one of the top reasons that healthcare has become so expensive in recent decades.   We don’t know or care what it costs because the insurance company is paying the bill.  So what is the liberal response to this truism?  Answer:  take more power from the consumer and give it to the government.  FAIL.

Truism #4 – The correlational relationship between supply, demand and price is a well-known fact.

If you understand why dog poop is cheaper than diamonds then you understand Economics 101, which means you have no excuse for believing the ludicrous lie that Obamacare would somehow magically reduce the cost of healthcare, given that demand would be greatly increased while supply would be stagnant at best (I’ll give the libs that generous assumption so they can stay focused on the main point here).  We’ve already begun to see the effect of liberal meddling with the insurance and healthcare industries while pretending that the truism of supply and demand does not exist, and it is an EPIC FAIL.

Truism #5 – The pursuit of self-interest is the nature of human beings.

Businesses, like any other rational consumer, strive to pay the lowest possible amount for labor and other goods needed for their operations.  They profit whenever there’s a large pool of unskilled workers competing for jobs.  This competition for low-skilled jobs and the pressure it puts on wages is the worker’s incentive to seek the education, skills or experience they need to increase the value of their labor and better satisfy their own self-interest.  As they do so, the pool of unskilled labor shrinks and businesses have to offer more to attract good people.  This natural system works well until the liberals start messing with it.  By waiving their pens and insisting that the unskilled should be paid an artificially high wage because liberals deem that they deserve it, they rob businesses of the right to pursue self-interest and they upset the natural consequence of that - a better skilled and more productive work force.  It’s a lose-lose for everyone, and a major FAIL.

Truism #6 –The law of natural consequences is necessary to a functional society.

Liberals took away the natural consequences of having children out of wedlock (i.e. stigma and poverty), and now we have an epidemic of single mothers unable to adequately support their families.  The welfare rolls and Medicaid, in particular, have skyrocketed and are part of the growing debt that threatens to destroy this country.  By legislating and continually raising the minimum wage they took away the natural consequences of failing to become a skilled worker.  Now we have people who march and scream for better wages instead of aspiring for better jobs.  By removing or softening the consequence of walking away from mortgages and credit card debt, liberals have made it harder for everyone to get a loan.  Now they want to let people pass the buck for student loans they amassed at liberal-run universities.  Without natural consequences we are a nation of irresponsible freeloaders with little consideration for anyone but ourselves.  FAIL, FAIL, FAIL and FAIL.

The thing about truisms is that you can’t escape them, even if you’re a liberal.  There is no justice, social or otherwise, when we reward people for bad behavior.  Ignoring the basic laws of economics and suppressing the natural human drive for self-interest does not result in “economic equality.”  The “liberty” and “freedom” that liberals unbelievably profess to stand for cannot exist when we amass power in the government where some take it upon themselves to “spread the wealth” earned by others. 

Based on a preponderance of the evidence presented, there is no way that liberalism, as defined by liberals, can ever do what it purports to do.  It can never be anything but doomed.

˜CW