YOU’RE A sensible, principled conservative. You want America to be a land of boundless opportunity and freedom, where people are treated as individuals and judged on their merits. You reject the divisive identity politics of the left – what matters most about any of us, you would insist, is not race or class or ethnic origins: it is personal character and achievement. There are few things about contemporary politics you deplore more than the demonizing or scapegoating of entire groups (“white males,’’ “the rich,’’ “the Christian right,’’ “gun owners’’), as though every member of the group is interchangeable and indistinguishable, wholly defined by a single disparaging label.

But let someone mention “illegal immigrants,’’ and your principles fly out the window.

So when Governor Deval Patrick recommends allowing young illegal immigrants – residents of Massachusetts who have graduated from high school – to attend a public college and pay in-state tuition, you flip out. This is outrageous, you protest. It rewards people who broke the rules. It’s unfair to the taxpayers who subsidize public higher education. Why should an illegal immigrant get a valuable tuition break that Massachusetts wouldn’t give to a kid from Maine or New Hampshire?

You vigorously agree with Charlie Baker, a Republican candidate for governor. “If you’re illegally here, you’re illegally here,’’ Baker said last week. “The notion that we should treat illegal immigrants with the same benefits and opportunities that legal immigrants and legal citizens have doesn’t make any sense to me.’’

Jeff goes on in that vein for awhile, complaining about treatment of illegals who are just looking for a better life. Since it is bad form to excerpt an entire post/column/article, I would suggest clicking the link to read the whole thing before continuing.

Done? What Jeff is missing is that the people looking for a better life entered the country illegally. Why should we excuse that behavior? We shouldn’t embrace that behavior just so they can build the American dream. If they want to live the American dream, they should come to our country legally and apply for citizenship, just like so many others, not start their American Dream off by scoffing at and breaking our laws. It is a simple proposition. Not to mention that so many illegals end up not attempting to assimilate, but, instead, demand everyone accommodate them.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

An anti-Palin screed somehow ended up on Psychology Today’s website. I know, I know, it’s shocking that Psychology Today could sponsor something that is less science than it is PC, hatespeak against conservatives, what with psychology being so scientific and all — but, there you have it. Penned by one Bella DePaulo, the piece really has little worth as a work of science and is little but a political rant filled with name calling and hate for Governor Sarah Palin and anyone that might support her. In the piece Palin is termed a “special liar” by the writer and conservatives are painted as willfully ignorant, knuckle dragging troglodytes.

As I mentioned, DePaulo originally posted her political hit piece at the website of Psychology Today but has since moved the piece to the Huffington Post apparently because the PT website was getting slammed by complaints — and rightfully so.

I have to say the move to the HuffPo was a good one. After all, as little worth as the “science” of psychology offers the world, HuffPo offers even less so and that is precisely where this dreck of DePaulo’s belongs.

Now in place of her original piece at the PT website DePaulo posted a rambling lament that Palin’s supporters dared to attack her hatespeak. She whines that people are mean to her there. She whines that comments were so bellicose. She whines so much I’d suggest she change her name to Bellow DeWino! Jeeze. Give it a rest lady.

So who is this DePaulo? Bella DePaulo is a “social psychologist” that fancies herself an expert on liars. That she fancies herself such an expert is somewhat amusing seeing as how her status of being a “social psychologist” must give her ample opportunity to employ a tale or two on how legitimate her Ph.D. is. The legitimacy of social psychology aside, DePaulo’s chief area of interest is singles, or the unmarried. In other words, she is an opponent of marriage.

So what did she say about Palin?

From my post as an outside observer, it seems to me that Sarah Palin doesn’t care much about the truth. In that way, she is a very special liar. Instead, Palin seems to love the effect her disingenuous pronouncements have on her audiences and so she just runs with them. Her fans adore her claims about “death panels” and about Obama supposedly “palling around with terrorists” and all the rest. Look at how they roar with approval and fervor when she tosses that red, bloody moose meat to them – how can the mere (non) truth-value of what she is saying ever compete with that? Plus, the fact that her taunts drive her detractors over the edge – well, that just adds to the fun!

Sarah Palin seems to relish the reaction she gets to her claims and complaints. Among her core fan base, the theme that the mean media and the full-of-themselves campaign staffers were unfair to noble, authentic, small-town Sarah seems to be a winner. Whether it is really true is almost irrelevant.

It is interesting that DePaulo uses the “pals around with terrorists” and “death panels” lines as examples of Palin’s “lies.” After all, both are true. Obama IS a close personal friend of domestic terrorist William Ayers and his horrid, murderous spouse Bernadine Dohren and the government bureaucrats that will decide who is allowed to get medical care after Obamacare is passed are easily termed “death panels” since they will be the ones to say who will be allowed to get medical care and who won’t. That necessarily entails that someone won’t get healthcare by government fiat and will, therefore, DIE as a result. That is a perfect description of a death panel, wouldn’t you say?

What DePaulo has to say about Palin, though, isn’t nearly as interesting as all her whining she has since added to her posts, the one at Psychology Today and HuffPo both. She is such a whiner that it simply amazes. Everyone is out to get her, it seems.

If you want to read about “psychology” DePaulo’s two postings is very worthwhile reading. It reveals a petty, whiney, self-important, prima donna with an over developed sense of superiority who displays just a tinge of paranoia. Now THERE is some “psychology” well revealed.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

President Barack Obama on Saturday urged Americans to show patience over the economy and argued that his just-concluded Asia trip was critical for U.S. exports, countering criticism he had returned empty-handed.

With unemployment at a generation high of 10.2 percent and once-lofty popularity ratings down, Obama said a December White House forum will leave no stone unturned in the hunt for jobs.

“Even though it will take time, I can promise you this: we are moving in the right direction; that the steps we are taking are helping,” Obama said in his weekly address, amid signs that the public is getting impatient for results.

Got that, folks? He’s working his tail off, doing everything necessary. Yeah, about that, Lynn Sweet reports (and appears to be the only one doing so)

Your pooler has been informed that POTUS golfed at Andrews with trip director Marvin Nicholson, legislative affairs staffer Eugene Kang and campaign photographer David Katz.

Being president is a tough job, and everyone needs some down time, but, being president is a tough job, and a lot is required. He campaigned for the job (after lying about not running until his first term as a Senator was completed,) but he seems to want all the trappings of being president, but, not the responsibilities.

Don’t forget, he said that the Generational Theft Act needed to be passed RIGHT NOW back in February, without debate, saying things like

“I believe that legislation of this enormous magnitude, that by necessity we are moving quickly — we’re not moving quickly because we’re trying to jamb something down people’s throats.  We’re moving quickly because we’re told that if we don’t move quickly, that the economy is going keep on getting worse, and we’ll have another 2 or 3 or 4 million jobs loss this year.”

Yet, while the economy looks to be recovering, for the moment, and let’s hope we do not see a doubly dip, private sector jobs are still not there. What jobs are supposedly being created are mostly government jobs, and temporary ones, at that.

Of course, on the flip side, the more time he spends doing other things, the less time he has to damage the United States as we know it.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

With a 60 to 39 vote, the Senate has passed the motion to proceed to move on with the debate over Obamacare. Again, it is important to note that this is only a vote to begin the floor debate on the bill. It is not a vote to pass Obamacare.

In the Washington Examiner, Byron York has an excellent point when he asks, “why was it so hard for Democrats even to start the healthcare debate?”

The extraordinary thing about the dramatic events surrounding the health care bill in the Senate is that there is any drama in it at all. Lawmakers are simply voting to begin debate on their version of health care reform. Just begin debate — not end it, and not move on to a final vote.

If Democrats, with a 60-vote majority in the Senate, were not able to begin debate on the top Democratic policy priority in a generation — well, that would be a devastating turn of events, both for the party and for President Obama. And yet just starting debate has proved difficult, and only today did the 60th Democratic vote fall in place in favor of beginning the process.

I have made this point myself as it happens. On Nov. 19, I was writing about the sly, underhanded tricks that Reid was using to advance the Senate debate on Obamacare but why, I wondered, are these tricks even necessary? If this bill has the wide-spread support that the Democrats keep claiming it has, why all the dirty tricks, obfuscations, and rules bending?

If this bill was a legitimate bill would all of these dirty tricks be necessary? Further, if this bill had such wide acceptance and agreement among Congress and the people alike, why are Democrats afraid to let everyone see the bill?

York is essentially echoing my point and adding that this bill does not have wide support in Congress or among the voters that Reid, Pelosi, and the President are pretending it has. The fact that Reid had to work so hard to get this thing even to a stage where further debate could be had is telling.

We still have a chance to kill this bill, people. We must keep the pressure on our Congressmen.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

This guy’s passion is what draws people to him.

- Education is key, and not just for our children. To that end, we will be conducting a series of conventions. These will be full-day experiences where you will be immersed in learning about topics ranging from self-reliance, community organizing, the economy and how to be a political force in your own neighborhood and country. The first one will be in Orlando at UCF Arena on March 27th…
- All of the above will culminate in The Plan, a book that will provide specific policies, principles and, most importantly, action steps that each of us can take to play a role in this Refounding.

- On August 28, 2010, I ask you, your family and neighbors to join me at the feet of Abraham Lincoln on the National Mall for the unveiling of The Plan and the birthday of a new national movement to restore our great country.

I haven’t heard the plan, so I can’t comment on whether it will work or if it’s a Glenn Beck daydream, but taking action to fill this vacuum is commendable. I’m looking forward to hearing the details.

Update: Responding to some feedback…some capitalists don’t think it is cohesive to build a movement and try to sell a book in the same move. Would it help if Beck stated a certain portion of the proceeds would go towards promoting the movement?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) penned a letter to Holder and Defense Secretary Robert Gates suggesting military trials would be a more appropriate venue for the accused terrorists.
“As a former prosecutor, I am not yet convinced that the right decision was made in these cases, nor that the presumption in favor of federal criminal trials over military tribunals for these detainees should continue,” Skelton wrote. …
“The decision to terminate the prosecution of these self-confessed terrorists in military commissions, transfer them to the United States, and bring them into a federal courthouse for trial raises many serious questions which I would like you both to address in a full committee briefing on December 3, 2009, at 1:00 PM,” Skelton requested.

As I’ve said before, Holder’s bowing to the ACLU on this will prove to be one of the most stupid decisions ever made and will put a mess on the plate for Democrats.

Ed Morrissey sums it up:

This is the first significant public pushback from a Democratic Congressman, although some in the Senate expressed at least reservations during Holder’s appearance this week. It probably won’t be the last. After all, it was a Democratic Congress that passed the current military commissions system, working with a Republican President, to find a system that would get the blessing of the Supreme Court while maintaining security for our war efforts in intelligence. Without the Democrats in 2007, there would have been no military commissions system at all. That default would have forced KSM and everyone else at Gitmo into federal court eventually, an outcome that few wanted to see … at least in 2007.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Hat tip: Hot Air

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

A few weeks ago we reported on how the Services Employees International Union was attempting to fix the vote in Sonoma County, California so that Sonoma’s in-home healthcare workers would end up with SEIU representation instead of NUHW representation.

Well, Sonoma wasn’t an isolated case. The SEIU used the same vote fixing tactics in Fresno County.

Andy Stern’s SEIU is playing hardball, using techniques that harken back to the mob-infested old days in order to win the game of representation. And THIS is the guy that President Obama is taking close counsel from? A goon. A thug. A mob-like hitman.

It’s the Chicago Way, alright. From Chicago to Fresno and Sonoma Counties all the way to the White House. This president and his cronies are instituting mob action everywhere they go.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

CNS News did some investigating, and Ed Morrissey came up with this analysis:

At least ostensibly, this is an unfunded mandate on the states, which run the exchanges. What happens when no insurer in the state offers abortion coverage? At the moment, 87% of all abortions are purchased outside of third-party payers, so this is not an academic question. Do the feds intend to shut down an exchange that doesn’t offer an abortion plan? Or do they expect the states then to cover abortions instead?

… Once Congress stops re-enabling the Hyde Amendment, the mandates in Reid’s Section 1303 will force the federal government to supply the coverage for abortion where state exchanges have none. It will give the federal government an entree into broader health-insurance offerings, and that will have one ironic effect: it will crowd out those few private insurance plans that offer elective abortion coverage. Where Stupak’s opponents insisted that his language would create a “price signal” that would encourage private insurers to abandon abortion coverage, this would all but guarantee the same result, as private insurers would get undercut by the federal plan that would come into play.

This is nothing more than a mandate for federally-funded abortions. How long would it take a court to make that same determination? I suspect that Planned Parenthood and NARAL already have their legal counsel preparing for it.

It’s not exactly a surprise that the health care bill would include funding for abortion. Feminists have been howling about the Stupak amendment, the abortion lobby has been furious. Liberals were bound to cave in to their demands, and they were bound to try to hide it from the federal public. It is typical of liberals. And it’s infuriating to anyone with any kind of morals or respect for the sanctity of life. It’s bad enough that abortion is celebrated as some kind of right in this country, like it’s glorious for a woman to be able to go and kill her baby. Feminists in particular revel in it, like it’s some kind of sacred cow. Apparently, you have to be a member of the “I <3 Abortion" club in order to be a feminist in today's world. There are currently about 1.3 million abortions performed a year, and this isn't good enough for feminists. They not only want abortion to be free and legal, they want it to be paid for by Americans whether they like it or not. It has to be taxpayer-funded.

It's important that we all understand this. It's not good enough for feminists just to have abortion be legal and freely accessible. Any woman who wants to can get an abortion. And there is already $300 million a year in taxpayer subsidies for Planned Parenthood. There's plenty of federal funding for abortion, but feminists always want more. It isn't enough for abortion to be legal, it isn't enough for it to be federally subsidized. How much do they want? Does every single abortion performed need to be taxpayer funded so that any woman who wants one never has to pay for it out of her own pocket? It's a disgusting state of affairs. Half the country is morally opposed to abortion. But liberals are a special group of people. If they believe in something, then everyone must be for it and it must be federally mandated and subsidized. If they don't believe in something, then no one should believe in it and it must be totally banned. And so, thanks to this mental outlook and the carping of the feminist/abortion lobby, we are now looking at forcing half of the people in this country to fund something to which they are virulently opposed.

Burn up that switchboard today. You can find contact information for your senators here.

Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

One of the world’s most famous children’s toys, Barbie, has been given a makeover – wearing a burkha.

Wearing the traditional Islamic dress, the iconic doll is going undercover for a charity auction in connection with Sotheby’s for Save The Children.

More than 500 Barbies went on show yesterday at the Salone dei Cinquecento, in Florence, Italy.

Wait, was that about saving the children with a doll wearing clothing that is designed to be repressive in the Muslim world?

The company director of Laird Assessors from The Wirral, Cheshire, said: ‘Bring it on Burkha Barbie, I think this is a great idea.

‘I think this is really important for girls, wherever they are from they should have the opportunity to play with a Barbie that they feel represents them.

There are so many things wrong with that statement, I do not even know where to begin. I guess all the young girls will be able to learn what it is like to live in the coming European Caliphate. At one time, long ago when Arabs mostly lived in the desert, it might have made sense. Both men and women wore them to protect from the sun and sand, and so that it would be easier to hide who one was during warfare. Now, it simply stands for repression and subjugation of women.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post