OBITUARY

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Mr. Common Sense.

Mr. Sense had been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such value lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm and that life isn't always fair.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not kids, are in charge).

His health began to rapidly deteriorate when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Mr. Sense declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin to a student; but, could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Finally, Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband; churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense finally gave up the ghost after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot, she spilled a bit in her lap, and was awarded a huge financial settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Discretion; his daughter, Responsibility; and his son, Reason.

He is survived by two stepbrothers; My Rights and Ima Whiner.

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

Democrats reveal their contempt for voters

Democrats reveal their contempt for voters
July 18th, 2005

Amazing, isn't it? The Democrats are so arrogant that they cannot refrain from publicly boasting to fellow New York Times-reading elites how they manipulate the yahoos out there (that is, you and me).

One example of yahoo-deception in this New York Times Sunday Magazine article is the successful Democratic effort to fool the public into believing the Constitutional design of checks and balances was being gutted by Republicans who were trying to stop Democratic efforts to filibuster the Administration's appointments of Federal judges.

In reality, this principle of checks and balances refers to the reasoning behind having three separate branches of government. It does not refer to a parliamentary tactic using a minority of Congressmen to frustrate majority rule. Indeed if anyone can be accused of abusing tradition it would be the Democrats who have misappropriated the filibuster power of the Senate, blocking majority-supported nominees as they had never before been blocked in the entire history of that august body.

Geoff Garmin, a leading Democrat pollster, blithely admits that the Democrats manipulated the public's view of this issue because the concept of a filibuster was "beyond the pay grade of the American voter."

How revealing of the Democratic mindset regarding John Q. Public! They nakedly proclaim the view that the majority of Americans as being ignorant and beneath contempt. While advertisers happily pony up tens of thousands of dollars for a single page advert in the Sunday Times Magazine, Democrats seem to think nobody will notice their disregard of the intelligence of their constituents. The worldview is so deeply ingrained that they do not even see it as something remarkable to be discussing in the national forum.

Of course, since their friends in the National Education Association have done such a stellar job of educating Americans, the commentary is probably sadly accurate.

The article provides a revealing blueprint of Democratic efforts to control the hearts and minds of a public they view as being ignorant and beneath contempt. The usual suspects play their assigned roles: Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, and the rest of the supporting cast.

The theorist behind these latest strategies is George Lakoff, a left Coast linguist who teaches at Berkeley [what is it about linguists hating Republicans? Chomsky, Lakoff, and who else?).

Lakoff may not have a workable strategy for Democrat victory, but that may be beside the point. He knows how to make his Democrat clients feel better and make money while doing so (taking a page from pollster Zogby, perhaps?)

Lakoff views Republicans as embodying an image of a strict father who lays down inflexible rules and imbues his family with a strong moral order. Liberals, on the other hand, are seen as nurturing parents who teach their children to pursue happiness and care for those around him. In other words, Republicans are martinets with a cramped view of the world around them; liberals are charitable and care for everyone's well-being.

Lakoff is the epitome of the type of evil genius (wannabe division) that George Orwell warned us about when he wrote "1984" and created the concept of the Thought Police. Orwell’s portrayal of a dystopian society where language was one of the tools used to control people was a reflection on Nazi and Stalinistic tyranny. But Orwell also stated that his views were also a reflection of what he observed in the bureaucracies created by the Labor Party when they obtained power in England after World War Two.

A cautionary word to the Democrats: overweening pride has brought down others in history and it will do so again.

Ed Lasky

Arguing with Liberals, and Why I've Stopped

This is a great article by Pat Sajak. He hits the nail on the head when it states that for liberals, its superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt. Liberals feel that they are superior in every manner and should make your decisions for you. When they call the rest of us backward, fascist, and intolerate; I wish they would look in the mirror and see that they are actually the ones that fit that mold. I long for the day when I hear the popping sound of the collective liberal head being pulled from their backends.

Arguing with Liberals, and Why I've Stopped

Arguing with Liberals, and Why I've StoppedEvery time I argue with a Liberal, I’m reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds. In addition, because they were parents, they could threaten me in ways I couldn’t threaten them, and they could say things I could never say.

Recently, for example, I was discussing the United Sates Supreme Court with on of my many Liberal friends out in Los Angeles when she said, without any discernable embarrassment, that Justice Anton Scalia was “worse than Hitler”. Realizing she wasn’t alive during World War II and perhaps she may have been absent on those days when her schoolmates were studying Nazism, I reminded her of some of Hitler’s more egregious crimes against humanity, suggesting she may have overstated the case. She had not; Scalia was worse. As I often did when my parents threatened to send me to my room, I let the conversation die.

Aside from being rhetorically hysterical—and demeaning to the memory of those who suffered so terribly as a result of Hitler and the Nazis—it served to remind me of how difficult it is to have serious discussions about politics or social issues with committed members of the Left. They tend to do things like accusing members of the Right of sowing the seeds of hatred while, at the same time, comparing them to mass murderers. And they do this while completely missing the irony.

The moral superiority they bring to the table allows them to alter the playing field and the rules in their favor. They can say and do things the other side can’t because, after all, they have the greater good on their side. If a Conservative—one of the bad guys—complains about the content of music, films or television shows aimed at children, he is being a prude who wants to tell other people what to read or listen to or watch; he is a censor determined to legislate morality. If, however, a Liberal complains about speech and, in fact, supports laws against certain kinds of speech, it is right and good because we must be protected from this “hate speech” or “politically incorrect” speech. (Of course, they—being the good guys—will decide exactly what that is.)

Protests about Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor and self-proclaimed Native American, who, among other things, likened some Sept. 11 victims to Adolf Eichmann (there go those pesky Nazis again), were characterized by much of the Left as an effort to stifle academic freedom. But, when Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers’ job is put in jeopardy over a caveat-filled musing about science and gender, it’s okay, because what he said was sooo wrong (even if it has to be mis-characterized to make the point).

When Liberals want to legislate what you’re allowed to drive or what you should eat or how much support you can give to a political candidate or what you can or can’t say, they are doing it for altruistic reasons. The excesses of the Left are to be excused because these folks operate from the higher moral ground and the benefit of the greater wisdom and intelligence gained from that perspective.

In a different West Coast conversation, I complained to another Liberal friend about some of the Left’s tone concerning the 2004 elections. I thought it insulting to hear those “red state” voters caricatured as red-necked rubes. My friend asked, “Well, don’t you think that people who live in large urban areas, who travel and read and speak other languages are better able to make informed choices?” It turns out it is superiority, not familiarity, which breeds contempt.

The rhetoric has become so super-heated that, sadly, I find myself having fewer and fewer political discussions these days. And while I miss the spirited give-and-take, when Supreme Court Justices become worse than Hitler and when those who vote a certain way do so because they’re idiots, it’s time to talk about the weather.

To Kill an American

For those fanatics that so hate Americans.................

To Kill an American

You probably missed it in the rush of news last week, but there was actually a report that someone in Pakistan had published in a newspaper an offer of a reward to anyone who killed an American, any American. So an Australian dentist wrote the following to let everyone know what an American is ... so they would know when they found one. (Good one, mate!!!!)

An American is English, or French, or Italian, Irish, German, Spanish, Polish, Russian or Greek.

An American may also be Canadian, Mexican, African, Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Australian, Iranian, Asian, or Arab, or Pakistani, or Afghan.

An American may also be a Comanche, Cherokee, Osage, Blackfoot, Navaho, Apache, Seminole or one of the many other tribes known as native Americans.

An American is Christian, or he could be Jewish, or Buddhist, or Muslim.In fact, there are more Muslims in America than in Afghanistan. The only difference is that in America they are free to worship as each of them chooses.

An American is also free to believe in no religion. For that he will answer only to God, not to the government, or to armed thugs claiming to speak for the government and for God.

An American lives in the most prosperous land in the history of the world.

The root of that prosperity can be found in the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes the God given right of each person to the pursuit of happiness.

An American is generous. Americans have helped out just about every other nation in the world in their time of need, never asking a thing in return.

When Afghanistan was over-run by the Soviet army 20 years ago, Americans came with arms and supplies to enable the people to win back their country!

As of the morning of September 11, Americans had given more than any other nation to the poor in Afghanistan.

Americans welcome the best of everything, the best products, the best books, the best music, the best food, and the best services. But they also welcome the least.

The national symbol of America, The Statue of Liberty, welcomes your tired and your poor, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores, the homeless, tempest tossed. These in fact are the people who built America.

Some of them were working in the Twin Towers the morning of September 11, 2001 earning a better life for their families. It's been told that the World Trade Center victims were from at least 30 different countries, cultures, and first languages, including those that aided and abetted the terrorists.

So you can try to kill an American if you must. Hitler did. So did General Tojo, and Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung, and other blood-thirsty tyrants in the world.

But, in doing so you would just be killing yourself. Because Americans are not a particular people from a particular place. They are the embodiment of the human spirit of freedom. Everyone who holds to that spirit, everywhere, is an American.