Skip to comments.Failing Liberals Turn To Oppression To Hold On To Power
Posted on 02/17/2014 3:50:33 AM PST by Kaslin
If youre a conservative, you don't need to silence the opposition.
In fact, we conservatives want liberals to talk, to make buffoons of themselves, to prove their folly. We want liberals to expound upon their ridiculous ideas, to show the world exactly what they're about. Nancy Pelosi? Give that tiresome woman a microphone. Chatty liberals are the best advertisement for conservatism.
But liberals just cant have conservatives speaking. Well tell the truth, and thats why liberals need to shut us up.
Their traditional intimidation tactics are wearing out. Calling someone a racist used to be a devastating moral indictment. Liberals promiscuous employment of the word first turned it into a cliché and then into an ironic punchline.
I know, saying that out loud is racist. And sexist. And cisgender heteronormative, whatever the hell that means.
So now liberals have stepped up to formal governmental repression. Take the IRS scandal or ex-scandal, in the eyes of the mainstream media. The Obama administration, at the urging of red state Democrat senators who are about to lose their seats because of their track records of failure, are doing everything they can to turn the taxman loose on the organizations that are pointing out their track records of failure.
Sure, the liberals come up with excuses, with justifications, with rationales for this prima facie oppression. But understand that the left was never against political repression. The left is only against being repressed itself.
Its open season on everyone else. Don't dare bow down to god whose name isnt spelled "G O V E R N M E N T." Todays heretic hunters work for Kathleen Sebelius, ready to burn you at the stake for expecting grown men and women to come up with the dough for their own contraceptives. No one expects the HHS Inquisition!
The Federal Communications Commission just floated a trial balloon about going out to radio and television stations to evaluate reporters on how they cover the news. There was a time when journalists' response to a government inquiry into how they did their job would be "Go to hell, you goose-stepping bureaucratic flunky."
Not anymore. Now, their response is slavish submission to their progressive governmental dominatrix. When supposedly independent, iconoclastic liberal journalists let themselves to be dominated by the feds, their safeword is Hillary.
Liberalism has to muzzle the truth because it operates on lies. It is built on lies, fueled by lies, and creates an empire of lies.
Look at the Obamacare scam. Liberals don't even blink at the fact that its foundational premise that if you liked your health care, you could keep it, was a lie. Theyre not even offended by the lie. Theyre offended that we point out that it was a lie.
Now the same people who got us into this mess are telling us we should go along and trust them to fix the same damn problem that they created in the first place. Liberals are the Lucys of American politics, holding the football and promising that this time itll be different. We need to stop being the Charlie Browns.
In the Senate, liberals toss traditions like the filibuster out the window for political expediency. The president creates his own laws or changes ones that are already in place on a whim. There are no norms, there are no standards. Everything is a short-term political gambit, and little things like the Constitution are just obstacles to progress.
How does all this end well? It doesn't. It can't. That is, unless the American people come to their senses and demand that the Constitution, as it is written, be respected. That change come through the political process, through persuasion rather than diktat.
But if that doesn't happen, what then? What becomes of our system? How do we act when we take power again? Should we also ignore those same principles that we seek to reaffirm in order to reaffirm them?
Does the next Republican president simply announce that he's repealing Obamacare by executive order? Does he simply refuse to implement other laws we dislike? Does he refuse to collect foolish taxes? Does he use his prosecutorial discretion to decide to refuse to prosecute his allies? Is that what we want?
No, it is not what we want, but it may be what we get. We are not ones for unilateral disarmament. Our constitutional system is not a suicide pact, as many have observed. The liberals aren't going to like it when we apply the same ruthlessness to them.
If the rules of the game are now that there are no rules, then the only political currency is raw power. But we know what happens when there are no rules, where pure power is the sole measure of right and wrong. I served in countries like that. They are full of mass graves
The American systems strength is not that everyone always wins. It is that the system cultivates our ability to lose gracefully, to understand that you were heard, that you had your say, that there was a process, and that you lost fair and square. It sustains itself by reinforcing its own legitimacy.
But if your losses arent fair, if you haven't been heard, if the rules have been bent or broken or ignored, that crucial legitimacy is gone. And then there are no rules to respect.
What keeps this grand experiment in freedom going is that we honored, at least until now, our Constitutions boundaries. Sure, we pushed at the edges, nudged the envelope, sometimes fudged the line, but what is happening now is different. What's happening now is that the line is being erased.
Vicious truthing is my term for it.
It’s the usual pattern for totalitarians. They know best how people should behave and think, and they will use force to make them.
Once the government is broken beyond the point of no return, the solutions cannot be found within the present system. Radical transformation of our Federal government or totalitarian tyranny is coming.
I think it is already here.
DEMS STOOP TO CONQUEUR--- Vulnerable Dems want IRS to step up
by Alexander Bolton, The Hill, 2/13/14
Senate Democrats facing tough elections this year want the IRS to play a more aggressive role in regulating outside groups expected to spend millions of dollars on their races. In the wake of the IRS targeting scandal, the Democrats are publicly prodding the agency instead of lobbying them directly.
Dems are also careful to say the IRS should treat conservative and liberal groups equally, but theyre concerned about an impending tidal wave of attack ads funded by GOP-allied organizations. Much of the funding for those groups is secret, in contrast to the donations lawmakers collect, which must be reported publicly.
One of the most powerful groups is Americans for Prosperity, funded by the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. It has already spent close to $30 million on ads attacking Democrats this election cycle.
If theyre claiming the tax relief, the tax benefit to be a nonprofit for social relief or social justice, then thats what they should be doing, said Sen. Mark Begich (D), who faces a competitive race in Alaska. If its to give them cover so they can do political activity, thats abusing the tax code. And either side."
Asked if the IRS should play a more active role policing political advocacy by groups that claim to be focused on social welfare, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) responded, Absolutely. Both on the left and the right, she said. As taxpayers, we should not be providing a write-off to groups to do political activity, and thats exactly what were doing.
Shaheen called the glut of political spending by self-described social welfare groups that qualify under section 501(c) (4) of the tax code outrageous. Shaheen is in a good position now but could find herself embroiled in a tight campaign if former Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass) challenges her.
Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.), the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, said the IRS has jurisdiction over 501(c)(4) groups, as well as charities, which fall under section 5/01(c)(3) of the tax code and sometimes engage in quasi-political activity.
That whole 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4) [issue], those are IRS numbers. It is inherently an internal revenue matter, he said. There are two things you dont want in political money, in the fundraising world and expenditure world. You dont want secret money, and you dont want unlimited money, and thats what we have now. --SNIP--
MOMENTS TO REMEMBER AT THE VOTING BOOTH
<><> Seven US Senators ask the IRS to Investigate political opponents....
<><> Elijah Cummings led the Democrat pack in smearing Englebrecht....
<><> Obama said Tea Parties were a "threat to democracy."
They are among the loyal Democrats who voted in lockstep to throw Americans off their health plans. The lock-stepping Democrat drumbeat --- "keep your plan" ---- rang throughout the land --- in the historic straight Dem party-line vote for Obamacare.
FACTS ON FILE As far back as 2008, at the presidential debate in Nashville, Democrat candidate Obama advanced his signature plan that was ultimately enacted (by an historic straight Democrat party-line vote) into the "Affordable Care Act:
OBAMA: "No. 1, let me just repeat, if youve got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it. All Im going to do is help you to lower the premiums on it. Youll still have choice of doctor.
Repeated over and over ---- with the promise that every American would be saving $2500.00 on healthcare costs.
LOCK-STEPPING PARTY LOYALTY NOT SEEN SINCE 1930-40's ERA EUROPE:
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.): if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it My understanding is that if you have health coverage that you like you can keep it. As I said, you may have missed my remarks at the beginning of the call, but one of the things I that I said as a requirement that I have for supporting a Democrat bill is that if you have health coverage that you like you should be able to keep that. under every scenario that Ive seen, if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it. (Sen. Shaheen, Health Care Questions From Across New Hampshire, Accessed 11/13/13)
SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-Alaska): If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want. (Sen. Begich, Townhall Event, 7/27/09)
SEN MARK PRYOR (DEM-ARK) He did something no prominent Democrat dares to do. He defended the hated "Obamacare;" Pryor said he was quite proud to have voted for it. (Sen Mark Pryor, Arkansas Times,Aug 15, 2013 .)
Conservatives seem to be incapable of understanding that the Democrats have imported 20 million Socialist voters since the Reagan Amnesty in 1986.
This evening I sat down with my calculator and figured out what would have happened in Texas if every eligible voter in the state had voted in 2012.
Romney would have won Texas by just 30,000 votes, in other words, by less than 1% of the total vote.
Romney - 8.44 million
Obama - 8.41 million
Where do those numbers come from?
I used the Census Bureau for 2012 population and ethnic percentage.
I used Pew Research for Texas eligible voters - Hispanic(44%), Black(70%), white(78%) - no eligibility numbers available for Native Americans, Asians, and Mixed Race, so I used 50%, which I think is probably low.
There was no “National Exit Poll” in Texas in 2012.
So, I used the 2008 Texas NEP for how whites voted - 73% Republican.
I could not find a 2008 Texas NEP for Blacks, so I used the 2012 National NEP for Blacks - 93% Democrat.
I could not find a 2008 Texas NEP for Hispanics, so I used a 2012 Texas “Latino Decisions” poll for Hispanics - 70% Democrat.
I could not find Texas exit polls for Asians, Native Americans, and Mixed Race, so I used 70% Democrat, which is 5%-10% lower than the 2012 National NEP.
What does all this mean?
It means that the ONLY reason Republicans won the real election in Texas by 1.26 million votes is because of turn out.
White Conservatives turn out to vote at a much higher rate than all the other ethnic and political groups.
In 2016, if Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, and white liberals turn out at the SAME rate as white Conservatives, Texas will be a 50-50 toss up.
If any D Senator claims they did not know about "the keep your plan, lie" then they are lying as they had a chance to change it in 2010. All D Senators voted against this bill.
Because of Hollywood, many Europeans imagine Americans as being either like cowboys, or gangsters, two popular American movie genres. The irony of this is that Europeans are not entirely mistaken in this regard.
The ideal Republican is a “cowboy”, in his manners and behavior. And he is a firm believer that if there are problems, they should be fixed soon before they become worse.
But the ideal Democrat is something of a cross between a corrupt big city political machine member, and an organized crime gangster.
The strong points for the Democrats are all in big city machine cities (with the exception of the Arkansas state machine), in political factions that can be well described as mobs.
And like the mob, they follow the same rules:
1) The entire purpose of government is to reward your friends and punish your enemies. The objective of power is power itself, and to insure you keep power.
2) Everything the mob produces goes to “the big boss”, who then dispenses some of it to his chief lieutenants, who continue the payoffs down the hierarchy.
3) Day to day business is to continually look for new grafts, skimming, cheating, defrauding, extortion, etc. When offered legitimacy, like a good honest job, they are puzzled, think it’s a trick, and reject it.
4) Mobs are opposed to prosperity, because when people are prosperous, they have no need for mobs. So mobsters, and Democrats, are always looking to impoverish others and make them dependent on the mob, or government, for everything.
Nice post-—great reminder.