Right Truth

Rush Limbaugh Influencing Democrats

During the 2008 elections, at Rush Limbaugh's suggestion, many Republicans voted for Hillary Clinton.  It was called "operation chaos".   In a move very similar the Democrats have organized a 'vote for Sarah Palin' campaign.  It seems they think Barack Hussein Obama could easily beat Sarah Palin.

SharpieMarker writes:

"In what could be the most extreme and influential crowdsourcing project ever, Democrats are beginning to organize to purposely vote for Palin in the 2012 Republican primaries. Their theory is by having Palin as an opponent, Obama will have the best odds at winning reelection. Recent polls have shown that Obama comfortably leads Palin by 10-20 points, but Obama is statistically tied with Romney and barely ahead of Huckabee. They even have a state-by-state primary voting guide to help Democrats navigate various states' rules for voting Palin in Republican primaries."

Should be interesting, I suppose time will tell.  David B. Jenkins at Pajamas Media has a post comparing  and contrasting Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, hat tip Maggie's Notebook.  Read it all and read the comments.

few of the contrasts:

* Obama presents as a victim, Palin a victor
* Palin is gracious, Obama is a churl
* Obama has campaigning ability, Palin has executive ability
* Palin is spotless, Obama is corrupt
* Palin loves America, Obama apologizes for America
* Palin is polarizing, Obama is radioactive
*  Palin’s world view is Christian; Obama’s is Marxist

 

Sarah for President?  Israpundit says "YES!"  Also from Pajamas Media by David Solway, "There is probably no one more qualified for the White House than Sarah Palin.  But is she electable?" That is the 308.7 million question. 

...  She has a lot going for her: charm, personableness, natural smarts, moral probity, executive competence, independence of character, and a passionate love of country. These are undeniable advantages, or should be in any sane political environment.

At the same time, she steps up to the plate with two strikes against her — or, in an alternative baseball universe, with three, four, or five strikes already logged in the umpire’s clicker. PDS (Palin Derangement Syndrome) flourishes on the liberal-left, to the extent that a correspondent to Salon.com suggests “we get rid of Palin” by having her electrocuted like one of Michael Vick’s dogs. According to the media scuttlebutt and her innumerable liberal detractors, she is poorly educated, brings no foreign policy experience to the job, shoots her own dinner, comes across as politically unnuanced, and, perhaps the most cutting strike against her, lacks gravitas. These negatives are obviously serious disadvantages for anyone contemplating a run for the presidency, but are they valid criticisms? Is she really “out” before she even takes a swing? Let’s consider each of these knocks against her in turn.  [snip]

As Victor Volsky writes in American Thinker, “in the eyes of the political/cultural aristocracy, [Palin] is the embodiment of its worst nightmare: the revolt of the masses against their masters.” And she knows that the master class will mobilize its considerable reserves against her. The question is whether, by sheer force of character, will, and charisma, like an American version of Delacroix’s Marianne leading the charge at the electoral barricades, and by pursuing a tireless itinerary, she can prevail against overwhelming odds and bring to the American people authentic change and genuine hope for the future.

What the Left and the elite Right see as problems for Palin are what the center of this nation see as positives.  The majority of this nation is center-Right but by the time we get a say it seems our candidates have been chosen for us (McCain for example, who no true Conservative would ever have chosen for the Republican candidate).  

I personally think Palin would make a great president, but is backing her worth risking the possibility that Obama might get elected again?  I don't know the answer to that and I'm not sure that is a given.  Unfortunately we don't have much time to make our decision because politicians will be flocking to Iowa as soon as the ball drops in Times Square.  Heaven help us all.

The far Left does not have the power that Rush Limbaugh listeners have, so it should be interesting to watch their 'vote for Palin' efforts.  Will also be interesting to see what Rush himself has to say.  

 

 

The Winners Are In

The Council Has Spoken..New Years Eve Edition

JoshuaPundit on Dec 31 2010 at 2:20 am | Filed under: The Council Has Spoken!

Welcome to the results of the last Watcher’s Council contest of 2010. And it’s been quite a year, hasn’t it?

2011 promises to be even more interesting, and you can bet that the Watcher’s Council will be chronicling it.

Best wishes for the New Year to our readers from myself and the other members of the Watcher’s Council!

Appropriately, this week’s crown went to a recap/prediction piece on what could be in store for 2011.

In the Glittering Eye’s winning entry, Domestic Sitrep Dave Schuler focused on an analysis of where we are now and where we might be headed:

As the year draws to a close it seems appropriate to take stock of the conditions in which we find our country at the end of 2010. In this post I’ll consider three areas: the economy, politics, and the environment. I also plan to post a similar assessment of the international situation at the end of the year over at Outside the Beltway.

The economy is essentially moving sideways. The level of employment continues to deteriorate and the unemployment rate, at least to some degree an artifact, remains at 9.8%. The decrease in employment renders the unacceptably high unemployment rate that much less acceptable. {…}

The political situation at the close of 2010 remains uncertain. The November elections produced the largest change in the part affiliation of the House of Representatives since the end of World War II. Many of the incoming freshmen ran with Tea Party support or on a Tea Party-style platform. The upcoming months will show whether they genuinely believe in the small government gospel they’ve preached or whether they differ from their Democratic opponents primarily in how they want to spend tax dollars and the borrowed money on which the federal government depends.

Is he right? Time will tell.

Our non-Council winner was Discriminations for Journalistic History Lessons (Or Not) a fascinating piece in which the writer, John Rosenberg gives a very well written history lesson to the WAPO’S clueless E.J. Dionne on the causes and issues surrounding the Civil War.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

• *First place with 3 votes! – The Glittering Eye --Domestic sitrep
• Second place *t* with 2 votes –Joshuapundit- Standing Upright
• Second place *t* with 2 vote – Right Truth – When Illusion Meets Reality
• Third place *t* with 2/3 votes -The Colossus of Rhodey- Latest “torture”: hard blankets
• Third place *t* with 2/3 votes -The Razor- Because 27 Year Old Aspiring Models Drop Dead All the Time
• Third place *t* with 2/3 votes -GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD- FM 3-24 – v2.0

Non-Council Winners

• First place with 2 2/3 votes! – Discriminations- Journalistic History Lessons (Or Not) submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey
• Second place with 1 2/3 votes – Glen Greenwald – The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Third Place with 1 1/3 vote – Doug Ross – So The Democrats Finally Want Fiscal Responsibility? Great.Let’s End Their Disastrous War On Poverty submitted by Joshuapundit
• Fourth place *t* with 1 vote -The Propagandist – On The Twelve Evils Of Christmas submitted by Simply Jews
• Fourth place *t* with 2/3 votes - Big Lizards -The Turn of a Friendly Card submitted by Rhymes With Right
• Fifth place with 2/3 vote - al Hayat – President Obama’s First Two Years in the Middle East submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote Planck’s Constant- - Muslims Persecuting Christians As Usual submitted by Right Truth
• Sixth place *t* with 1/3 vote Israpundit- -How Can a Liberal Defend Israel submitted by VA Right

 

Ezra Klein Doesn't Know History

Aside from the fact that Ezra Klein doesn't know when the U.S. Constitution was written, by saying it cannot be understood because it's "100 years old", he must reject all great literature that is over 100 years old?

NewsBusters:

After playing clips of Republicans claiming they would reject legislation that couldn't be justified constitutionally, Klein complained, "The issue of the Constitution is that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago and what people believe it says differs from person to person and differs depending on what they want to get done."

(It was actually written 223 years ago, which is a slightly "more than 100.") Klein didn't expound on which parts "confuse" him the most.

Powerline:

Let's put aside, for a moment, the stupidity of claiming that anything written more than a century ago is so impenetrable as to be irrelevant. Klein said out loud, I think, what a great many progressives believe, ...  Progressive hostility to the Constitution is perhaps the great under-reported story of American politics.

Michelle Malkin:

Saul Alinsky’s over 100 years old too but Klein doesn’t seem to have much trouble relating to him. It’s not the age the left fears, it’s the constraint of the content.

A breakdown of the indecipherable complexities of the Constitution from Stephen Gutowski:

But lets cut Ezra some slack. I mean just look at the first amendment. It’s confusing as hell:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“Congress shall make no law”. What in the world could that mean?

 

The video:

. .

 

From Memeorandum:

Because its Over 100 Years Old  —  I actually think the dumbest part of this segment is where the host calls Ezra “the Nazis had some good ideas” Klein a wonk.  I mean... good lord.  —  Make sure you watch that again to get what hes arguing here.

Link Search: IceRocket, Google, and Ask

Discussion: The Right Scoop, RedState, Michelle Malkin and The Gateway Pundit

–

Discussion:

The Right Scoop:   Ezra Klein: Constitution too hard to understand

Moe Lane / RedState:   Klein's Crazy Constitutional Commentary.

Doug Powers / Michelle Malkin:   WaPo Columnist: The Constitution is Impossible to Understand …

Jim Hoft / The Gateway Pundit:   Lefty Boy Wonder & Journolist Founder Ezra Klein: “The Constitution …

Yes, the Constitution is binding

Link Search: IceRocket, Google, and Ask

+

Discussion: Mediaite

–

Discussion:

Jon Bershad / Mediaite:   Ezra Klein Clarifies His MSNBC U.S. Constitution Comments

Liberal Star Blogger Ezra Klein: Constitution 'Has No Binding Power …

Link Search: IceRocket, Google, and Ask

+

Discussion: Big Journalism, Mediaite and AmSpecBlog

 

Other News:

Leading RNC Candidate's Law Firm Supports Obamacare -- Says It's Constitutional, from Hyscience

Surely, this is a joke, right?

Unfortunately, it's for real. Clearly, this isn't the guy who needs to be leading the RNC for the next two years. After all, Steele was bad enough ... why take a step backward.

Meanwhile, the Left is loving this.

 

The Repeal of DADT: To March or to Sashay into the Future?

By Paul A. Ibbetson

On December 22, 2010, President Barack Obama signed a law that repeals the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays wishing to serve in the military. DADT was enacted by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and was a considered by many liberals a compassionate turn from the military’s previous ban on gays’ serving in the military. In a somewhat ironic turn of fate, in order to move the homosexual agenda forward Barack Obama would have to classify the social engineering escapades of Bill Clinton to be barbaric. At the repeal signing President Obama said that the new law would strengthen the country’s national security and upholds the values that the military fights to defend. He also spoke about the new law allowing skilled homosexuals who were previously turned away from the military to now join the American fighting forces and increase the ranks of our national defense.

To the case that Barack Obama makes for radically altering the standard of operations for military service, the President stands in complete opposition to the belief system of the founding fathers and the traditional standards of this country. How far is the gap between the value system that guides the current President on the issue of homosexuality in the military than that of the founding fathers?

Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media writes of George Washington’s opposition to homosexuals in the military.  In 1778 a soldier was court-martialed for attempted sodomy. The official record of the trial verdict and punishment makes clear Washington’s disgust with homosexual activity within the military’s ranks. The record of soldier Enslin’s attempted sodomy court-martial was discovered in a discussion by David Barton of Wall Builders on homosexuals in the military and was collected from the writings of George Washington from the General Orders at Valley Forge. It reads as follows: “At a General Court Martial where of Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom's Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss'd [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return.”

So while the Continental army was in the fight of its life and the projection of victory was unsure at best, George Washington found it of utmost importance to place high value on personal conduct within the military ranks. To maintain the dignity and the cohesion of the fighting force, Washington went beyond forbidding homosexuality within the ranks; he aggressively punished it. The reasoning behind Washington’s strong opposition to sodomy and other homosexual acts in the military was based in part to biblical values that repetitiously and without the slightest bit of ambiguity state that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination to God. Additionally, Washington, as well as other military leaders, understood the disruptive and demoralizing effects of promoting the homosexual lifestyle within the close confines of military duty. In other words, Washington had a very different vision from Obama’s on the ideals that the military fight to defend.

The biblical issue of morality is a message that finds only deaf ears today from the liberal left. The idea of God’s law when it comes into opposition of the homosexual agenda is framed with words such as “homophobia.” For the advocates that would follow the radical reframing of American values on military service created by Barack Obama, it is easier to say heterosexuals fear homosexuals than to say that God is right.

Even the mentality surrounding future military participation added by overt homosexuals that may wish to join a more gay-friendly armed forces, something that Obama touts as a bolstering factor to the country’s future national security, is full of warped inconsistencies. Many military experts have voiced concerns that existing U.S. soldiers will not want to share showers and other intimate living arrangements with overt homosexuals. My interview with retired Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, author of the book, “Conduct Unbecoming”, who was responsible for the Nuclear Football under President Bill Clinton, highlights one such voice of opposition. On my radio show Conscience of Kansas, Patterson stated his opposition to the repeal of DADT saying it would lead to lawsuits and a lowering of military morale. According to Patterson’s conversations with military personnel, he estimated that up to 25 percent of serving forces would leave, or consider leaving the military due to the repeal of DADT. A mass exodus of traditional soldiers would most likely outweigh any national security increase brought forth by overt gays entering the military.

In other words, from a national security standpoint, Barack Obama’s repeal of DADT will most likely make the country less safe, less secure. From a moralistic perspective, Barack Obama is doing far more damage than simply asking the military to march to a different cultural tune; he is demanding that they sashay into moral debauchery as defenders of the free world. The repeal of DADT is truly proof that America has come a long way; the problem is that we have come a long way all in the wrong direction.

Paul A. Ibbetson is a former Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and member of the Montgomery County Drug Task Force. Paul received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in Criminal Justice at Wichita State University, and is currently completing his Ph.D. in Sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the several books including the 2010 release, “Oliver’s Tale: A Squirrel’s Story of Love, Courage, and Revolution.” Paul is also the radio host of the Kansas Broadcasting Association’s 2008, 2009 and 2010 Entertainment Program of the Year, Conscience of Kansas airing on KSDB Manhattan 91.9 FM, www.ibbetsonusa.com. For interviews or questions, please contact him at ibbetson91.9@gmail.com

 

Man's Penis Amputated Following Misdiagnosis

The man, who is in his sixties, first visited a local clinic in Blekinge in southern Sweden in September 2009 for treatment of a urinary tract infection, the local Blekinge Läns Tidning (BLT) reported.

When he returned in March 2010 complaining of foreskin irritation, the doctor on duty at the time diagnosed the problem as a simple case of inflammation.

After three weeks passed without the prescribed treatment alleviating the man’s condition, he was instructed to seek further treatment at Blekinge Hospital.

But it took five months before he was able to schedule an appointment at the hospital.

When he finally met with doctors at the hospital, the man was informed he had cancer and his penis would have to be removed.

It remains unclear if the man would have been able to keep his penis had the cancer been detected sooner.

The matter has now been reported to the National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen) under Sweden’s Lex Maria laws, the informal name used to refer to regulations governing the reporting of injuries or incidents in the Swedish health care system.  --The Local/dl (news@thelocal.se, hat tip Marcus Wilder)

Be sure to go read the comments section which has comments similar to johnny1939 who says:

Look out USA this will be your lot after Obama care takes root. Unmotivated and sloppy care. He should sue the pants of that medical facility...not that he will get much in this country and it will not compensate his loss having to use bags etc. Poor man!  

 

 

 

Lesbians Receive Higher Wages Than Heterosexuals

I read that lesbians make 6% higher wages than heterosexual women.  The quick conclusion would be that the majority is being discriminated against. Reading the possible reasons why this would be true got me to thinking about the real reasons.  Stick with me here.  The reasons offered for this difference in salaries include...

... lesbian women are better-educated on average, are more likely to be white, live predominantly in cities, have fewer children, and are significantly more likely to be a professional.  (BigThink)

... being gay forces you to learn coping mechanisms and life skills and how to deal, things that you might not have ever had to do if you were straight and could skate by on that one particular brand of privilege.  (Autostraddle)

... testosterone and negotiation strategies. Women, on average, are less aggressive in wage negotiations. If testosterone correlates with aggressiveness in salary negotiations, and some evidence suggests higher than average testosterone levels among lesbians as compared to heterosexual women (though that evidence is contested), (Offsetting Behaviour)

 

Let's take the first reason for higher salaries for lesbians, education.  If lesbians are better educated, why is that?  Could it be that gay, lesbian, trans, bi, etc. have been given special privileges, special protections over the years.  Let's consider the possibility that if they are better educated they got that education because of a special status provided to them by the government.  Not all, no, but some.  Special admissions, special loans, special grants, to go along with their special status.  Again we have discrimination against the majority by the minority.

I could be wrong.  This reasoning doesn't always extend to other groups given special privilege, like Blacks  (In 2008, black men earned only 72% of what white men did; a female MBA grad will earn $4,600 less than her male counterpart.) 

When it comes to hiring practices and laws, discriminating against anyone who is lesbian is unacceptable.   In my opinion, discriminating against the majority who are heterosexual is a worse crime and that appears to be what is happening here.

What say you?

Government Abuse of Citizens

If you are a concerned American and protest the TSA pat downs and you get banned from flying.  If you are an airline pilot just trying to improve airport security by posting a video showing security failures,  federal agents show up at your house Dec. 2 to confiscate your legal weapon and suspend your Federal Flight Deck Officer credentials.  Tell a TSA agent not to touch your 'junk' and you are investigated and may face an $11,000 fine.   Anyone see a pattern here of abuse against our citizens by government?  Big Sis is getting too big for her britches.

What say you?

 

 

One Thing You Can Bet On in 2011 and 2012

In politics there is no such thing as a 'sure thing', except this:  No matter who runs for President of the United States as a Republican, they will try to connect themselves to Sarah Palin.  Assuming Palin doesn't run for President herself, she will be a big mover and shaker, even bigger than she was in 2010.  I've been watching potential Republican candidates and they all seem hesitant to say anything negative about Palin.  Either the 2012 candidates hope Palin will support them or they hope to be on a ballot with her.

Senator Jim DeMint, who Cubachi calls "one of the biggest conservative leaders in Washington" said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence “... would be a great candidate — he’s a good balanced guy, solid conservative, I don’t know if Thune is really thinking about it or not, but we got a good group out there...”.  On Sarah Palin DeMint said, “We’ve never spoken, but she left me a nice message, and I believe she’s done more for the Republican Party than anyone since Ronald Reagan...”. 

I've heard Mike Huckabee on numerous occasions try to connect himself with the TEA Party and Sarah Palin, which no true Conservative buys for one minute.  Huckabee isn't alone.  No matter how much we protest, the Republican old guard and the Democrats continue to push Mitt Romney as our number one candidate.  I reject that idea.  Again, he refuses to say anything negative about Palin.

Newt Gingrich also claims to be part of the TEA Party movement which is just silly.  Gingrich is a flip-flopper, saying whatever he things the majority wants to hear.  I reject him also.  He too says nothing negative about Palin.

No word from Bobby Jindal as to whether he might run, but Jeb Bush and Chris Christie assure us they are not running for president.

Other potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates include Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, just to name a few.  The list will be long you can be sure.  We can be thankful that John McCain is not running again.

Surprise From FaceBook

An interesting message on Facebook from someone calling himself Mohamed Slav:

I am an Arab who was born and lives in an Arab Muslim country, but I dropped it because Islam is contrary to the freedom and the supremacy of women ..
for me the woman is alone worthy of worship and adore.

I love to submit myself to a woman against Islam or an Israeli woman who would do me her dog and her slave, and uses me to fight Islam and Muslims ..
for a sexy dominatrix woman I am ready to betray Islam and Muslims and denounce Islam and insulting allah and mohamed.

I speak Arabic and French and I am bad in English, so I use google translation ..
my respect to you

your dog mohamed.

 No I'm not providing a link, yes I reported the message and blocked Mohamed the dog. 

 

Work Harder, the Government Needs Your Money

For Americans and Britons, you need to work harder to feed the government in 2011.  In 2010 Americans worked through April 9 for the government.  Britons will work until May 27, 2011 for their government and only after that date can they claim any of their labors for themselves.  How long will Americans have to work for the government in 2011?  No one seems to know for sure, but it is predicted they will work longer in 2011 than in 2010.  Even though the Bush tax cuts have been extended, there is much uncertainty for Americans.  It was predicted that Americans would spend more on taxes in 2010 than on food, shelter and clothing combined.  Scary thought.

British workers will have to toil until the end of May before their earnings are truly their own.

For the first 149 days of 2011, every penny earned will go to pay the taxman.

Despite drastic cuts, Britons will spend more days working to fund State spending this year than last. The so-called Tax Freedom Day will fall on May 29 next year, compared with May 27 this year. (Daily Mail)

Now that you are completely depressed, check out the fine articles submitted to the Watcher of Weasels Council this week:

Council Submissions

• Simply Jews – Rejected by Mossad
• Joshuapundit -Standing Upright
• GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – FM 3-24 – v2.0
• The Colossus of Rhodey – Latest “torture”: hard blankets
• Rhymes With Right – About Those Polar Bears
• Right Truth – When Illusion Meets Reality
• VA Right - Weighing Michael Steel’s Pros and Cons
• The Razor – Because 27 Year Old Aspiring Models Drop Dead All the Time
• The Glittering Eye -Domestic Sitrep
• Bookworm Room – A Christmas Appreciation – Updated
• Snapped Shot – A Family’s Grief, The Patriot Guard, And A “Thank You”

Honorable Mentions

• The Political Commentator – How Underfunded Are The Public Pension Plans In Your State?

Non-Council Submissions

• The Propagandist – On The Twelve Evils Of Christmas submitted by Simply Jews
• Doug Ross – So The Democrats Finally Want Fiscal Responsibility? Great.Let’s End Their Disastrous War On Poverty submitted by Joshuapundit
• al Hayat – President Obama’s First Two Years in the Middle East submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
• Discriminations – Journalistic History Lessons (Or Not) submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey
• Big Lizards – The Turn of a Fiendly Cardsubmitted by Rhymes with Right
• Planck’s Constant -Muslims Persecuting Christians As Usual submitted by Right Truth
• Israpundit – How Can a Liberal Defend Israel submitted by VA Right
• LatmaTV – Jihad Bells submitted by The Razor
• Glenn Greenwald – The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired submitted by The Glittering Eye
• Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion – The Mandate Is Obamacare’s Achilles’ Heel submitted by The Watcher
• The Augean Stables – On Atheist Morality submitted by The Watcher