“I Want To Hear Them Scream”

Charlie Martin (read the whole thing)

Right now, I want to talk to you… you personally… about how battles are won and lost. Why? Because your life depends on it, soldier. You… sitting there in your office chair and grimacing at the unspeakable horrors that crawl out of the president’s mouth like under-boiled crawdads… are really sitting on the front lines of a war. And you will fight in it, like it or not, because out here there is just one alternative. Don’t believe me? Take one look at that debt clock, and then go ask those master clock-makers in Greece what happens when that sucker ticks too long. The life on the line in the culture war is your life. It’s time to take it seriously.[snip]

I’ve been fortunate enough to hear a lot of liberals whine, moan, grouse, grouch, and pitch temper tantrums. In the midst of all of it they’ve got one tactic that seems unfailingly effective, however, and why this should be, I don’t know. They just tell conservatives something is out of bounds, and magically, it’s suddenly out of bounds. If something is really effective, or gathering steam, well then, it’s crazy and can’t be used. I often wonder to myself, how does that mystical process work?[snip]

But you must learn that when your enemy tells you he is in pain, that’s a good thing, and you should do lots more of whatever you just did. I’m not telling you that “nice guys finish last”. Stupid guys finish last. The way we act in one-on-one conflicts would be laughed out of the tactics book by a battalion of pacifist dodos armed with sharpened vegetables. I’m not telling you to “fight fire with fire”. I’m not advocating for voting in the name of the dead or saying we need militant people swinging batons wandering around outside polling places. You’ll know I’m reading from the Democrat playbook the day I tell you that our politicians ought to use massive sums of public money to pay off voting groups. I’m not telling you “the ends justify the means”. In the boisterous history of political theory a call for the grassroots members to cherish the discomfort of their opposites is so quaintly polite as to be practically invisible… not that you’d know it by looking around you these days. The means are hardly extreme. And answer me this: if you aren’t looking to make them uncomfortable, why talk to them at all? All I really want you to do is act like you actually want your country back, not like it would be kind of convenient if they could see their way clear to considering the possibility of potentially relinquishing at least a small portion of the nation they’re crushing with their intolerable regime of lies.

HOW OBAMA--AND THE MEDIA--LOST EGYPT, AND ISRAEL, TOO

I have predicted how the Arab Spring would develop for several years.  I have never been to Egypt, or for that matter any part of the Middle East.  I am a student of human nature.  Human nature is not immutable, but people who believe they can create a "new Soviet man" or and "Ubermensch" is severely deluded, and if they achieve power they can - and have - killed millions.  But it's this kind of magical thinking that believes  that the overthrow of Mubarak or K-Daffy would lead to a Western style of democracy.  

What amazes me is how people can delude themselves into believing what they want to believe.  (Like all those smart people like Ann Althouse and Walter Russell Mead who voted for Obama).

At Breitbart's Big Peace an essay by Virgil 

In the first and second parts of this series on the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover of Egypt--and what it means for the US and its allies--we noted that both the Obama administration and the mainstream media have consistently misjudged the political ambitions of the Brotherhood during and after the Tahrir Square eruption in January 2011.

And then, we further noted, every time their misjudgments were demonstrated, every time the Brotherhood scored a gain, the Obamans and the MSM responded by insisting that nothing bad was happening. In other words, the message was: yes, we always get it wrong--but trust us anyway.  

So now let’s take a closer look at the most recent events in the Middle East as a whole, and how they might affect Israel. And let’s begin to consider whether or not this consistency of misjudgment is just relentless stupidity--or, in fact, part of a sinister pattern that could undermine the Jewish State’s ability to defend itself.  

Read the whole thing.  

“If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”

Abraham Lincoln.

While the people retain their virtue, and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government, in the short space of four years.

While the people retain their virtue. 

 That's the key, isn't it?  We will see this November.

Truth rule for politicians - a radical reform proposal.

I realize that I’m going to make a radical proposal.  But all commonly accepted wisdom was once radical departure from common thought. 

I’m a financial advisor.  If I get caught promising a certain return, I get put out of business.  If I get caught promising any of my clients that if they follow my advice they will get a certain outcome I will be prosecuted.  I can’t use client testimonials in advertising.  If I misrepresent my competitors I get prosecuted.  The fact is, if I lie, exaggerate or misrepresent the past, the present or the future I am liable. 

Why are politicians not held to my standard?  Are they less powerful?  Are they less consequential?  Do they have less of an impact on the people of this country that I do? 

No. 

Do they get to make the rules?  Yes!  Who’re the people who get to call you even when you are on the “do not call list?”  Politicians!   

Who gets to promise to create 10 million new good paying jobs without fear that they will be prosecuted for lying? Politicians! 

Who get to lie about their opponents with no fear of the hand of the law?  Politicians! 

I propose a new objective for the Tea Party.    Let’s get a law passed that makes it a crime for a politician to promise something that he does not deliver. 

Let’s get a law passed that makes it a crime for a politician to make a claim about his opponent that is untrue. 

For those who claim that would inhibit free speech, I ask why do these very same rules apply to people in my industry and it’s not found unconstitutional?   Are political figures somehow above the laws they pass for other people?  From Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, that he is grown so great? 

Politician, especially politicians – because they control an incredibly large part of our lives – should be held to standards of truthfulness that exceeds those of other professions.  I realize that’s a radical thought, but it could be the single biggest contribution that an merging political movement could get behind. 

And who is going to support political liars?  We still outnumber politicians.

Palin, Obama, Breitbart, The Press and Tingles

Sarah Palin on Breitbart (read the whole thing):

Barack Obama and I both served in political office in states with a serious corruption problem. Though there is a big difference between serving as the CEO of a city, then a state, and regulating domestic energy resources, and being a liberal Community Organizer, bear with me on the comparison. The difference between my record and Barack Obama’s is that I fought the corrupt political machine my entire career (and I have twenty years of scars to prove it) on the local, state, and national level. But Obama didn’t fight the corruption he encountered. He went along with it to advance his career. Graft, cronyism, and quid pro quo are the methods of the Chicago political machine from which he emerged.

You would think the media – those watchdogs of the public trust – would be interested in this. But they refused to vet Barack Obama. With tingles up their legs, they shielded him.

If the media had done their job of vetting him, we wouldn’t have been shocked that within days after Obama’s election, his close political associate Rod Blagojevich was caught trying to sell Obama’s vacant Senate seat.

If the media had done their job of vetting him, we wouldn’t be astonished to see all the billion dollar green energy kickbacks going to his campaign cronies as the nation heads towards bankruptcy.

If the media had done their job of vetting him, we wouldn’t be surprised that Obama brought these same Chicago “pay-to-play” practices to the White House.

This corruption was entirely predictable. But the mainstream media, who work under our Constitutional right of freedom of the press which our sons and daughters fight in war zones today to protect, dropped the ball and failed America by refusing to vet their chosen candidate.

So, as Breitbart declared in his last CPAC speech, we – the everyday patriotic citizens of the United States – will do the vetting the media refused to do.

This is a first step. Ultimately, Breitbart’s goal was to expose what he called the corrupt Democrat Media Complex. He wanted to break it up because he understood how the left uses its dominance of the mainstream media and pop culture to advance its objectives and marginalize its political foes.

A political class that feels entitled to rule over the rest of us.

Roger Kimball

It’s not just our habits of dependency that need to be broken. The habits of control and penchant for feeding dependency on the part of our political leaders also need to be curbed. Rasmussen is right: “While most voters view excessive government spending as the problem, those who feel entitled to rule over the rest of us see the voters as the problem. And that’s the real entitlement crisis facing the nation today. The political class wants to govern like it’s 1775, a time when kings were kings and consent of the governed didn’t matter.”

Our job is to remind them, as vividly as possible, that it matters quite a lot. Tea party, anyone?

Be Breitbart