Archive for Conservative Nonsense

British Parliamentarian Cannot Tell The Difference Between Street Protest And Terror Attack

The mind of the formerly highest ranking British Muslim in the Parliament on display here

Here’s the Tweet from the British Twit:

Israeli extremists storm Al Aqsa & intimidate worshippers
Palestinian extremists storm synagogue & kill 4 worshippers

And here’s more about her:

Former UK Foreign Office Minister and previous Conservative Party Chairman Baroness Sayeeda Warsi started a social media storm after she tweeted a message that clearly implied equivalence between the Har Nof terrorists and Israelis protesting over Temple Mount.

The controversial politician, who – until her resignation in protest at Government policy which she complained was far too tolerant of Israel’s action in defending itself against Hamas rocketry during the recent Gaza war – had been the highest ranked Muslim in British politics with a seat at the Cabinet table.

But her outburst, just hours after the terrorist atrocity, led to a sharp rebuke from her successor as Conservative Party Chairman Grant Shapps who tweeted that Warsi only spoke for herself and not for their Party.

We at BTL direct a lot of criticism to Leftists, but this is a Conservative Jew hater. Just saying’.

– Aggie

Comments

An Early Conservative Supporter Of Obama Wants ObamaCare Gone

Peggy Noonan had great things to say about Obama in 2008. Today, not so much.

The Obama administration has an implementation problem. More than any administration of the modern era they know how to talk but have trouble doing. They give speeches about ObamaCare but when it’s unveiled what the public sees is a Potemkin village designed by the noted architect Rube Goldberg. They speak ringingly about the case for action in Syria but can’t build support in the U.S. foreign-policy community, in Congress, among the public. Recovery summer is always next summer. They have trouble implementing. Which, of course, is the most boring but crucial part of governing. It’s not enough to talk, you must perform.

There is an odd sense with members of this administration that they think words are actions. Maybe that’s why they tweet so much. Maybe they imagine Bashar Assad seeing their tweets and musing: “”Ah, Samantha is upset—then I shall change my entire policy, in respect for her emotions!”

That gets us to the real story of last week, this week and the future, the one beyond the shutdown, the one that normal people are both fully aware of and fully understand, and that is the utter and catastrophic debut of ObamaCare. Even for those who expected problems, and that would be everyone who follows government, it has been a shock.

They had 3½ years to set it up! They knew exactly when it would be unveiled, on Oct. 1, 2013. On that date, they knew, millions could be expected to go online to see if they benefit.

What they got was the administration’s version of Project ORCA, the Romney campaign’s computerized voter-turnout system that crashed with such flair on Election Day.

Ah, it can happen to anyone, I suppose?

After the administration floated the fiction that the problems were due to heavy usage, the Journal tracked down insurance and technology experts who said the real problems were inadequate coding and flaws in the architecture of the system.

There were no enrollments in Delaware in three days. North Carolina got one enrollee. In Kansas ObamaCare was unable to report a single enrollment. A senior Louisiana state official told me zero people enrolled the first day, eight the second. The founder of McAfee slammed the system’s lack of security on Fox Business Network, calling it a hacker’s happiest nocturnal fantasy. He predicted millions of identity thefts. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius—grilled, surprisingly, on “The Daily Show”—sounded like a blithering idiot as she failed to justify why, in the middle of the chaos, individuals cannot be granted a one-year delay, just as businesses have been.

More ominously, many of those who got into the system complained of sticker shock—high premiums, high deductibles.

BTL, how bad is schadenfreude? Am I doomed to hell? Because, just to be honest, I’m getting a real kick outta this. All those swarmy, arrogant people, with all their support in the tech community, cannot even build a website? We have one for social security, right? Medicare? These O-bots put their pants on backwards in the morning.

But I must admit, I reserve my strongest disdain for the conservatives who were mesmerized by Mr. Obama in 2007, 2008. David Brooks, you out there? Creased pants? That is what matters in a Commander-in-Chief? And Noonan too made a very emotional argument for his election. Enjoy, guys!

– Aggie

Comments

John McCain or Lucas McCain?

I don’t ordinarily cite Mother Jones as a source, but they’ve nailed it:

Untitled

Even before he was caught playing poker on his iPhone at a Senate hearing on Wednesday, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had already sent a message: Anything less than an extensive aerial assault on the Syrian regime by American forces would be an unacceptable approach to the conflict in the Middle East. This was hardly surprising. Over the last two decades, McCain has rarely missed an opportunity to call for the escalation of an international conflict. Since the mid-1990s, he’s pushed for regime change in more than a half-dozen countries—occasionally with disastrous consequences.

Here’s a quick review of McCain’s eagerness for military action and foreign entanglements.

SYRIA

Fighting words: “Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. The only realistic way to do so is with foreign air power.”

What he wanted: Airstrikes, culminating in regime change.

What was it good for? TBD.

Angry McCains: Five

Who can forget?

IRAN

Fighting words: “It’s that old Beach Boys song, ‘Bomb Iran’? Bomb bomb bomb…”

What was it good for? Unspecified air strikes; unspecified support for dissident groups.

What he got: TBD.

Angry McCains: Three

Many more, and very enjoyable! Though it has to be said that this one’s a bit of a reach:

CHINA

Fighting words: “The Arab Spring is coming to China.”

What he wanted: Totally unclear.

What was it good for? Nothing.

Angry McCains: One

Comments (1)

Sydney Down Under

Anthony Weiner still want to be mayor of New York City.

Goody:

Sydney Leathers is promoting safe sex after saying she regrets having unprotected intercourse in her porn debut with an actor who days earlier slept with a star diagnosed as HIV positive.

In a statement today, Leathers said: ‘Some might call me a hypocrite for suddenly having this message about safe sex because I chose not to use a condom while filming my movie, Weiner and Me.

‘I don’t think I’m a hypocrite though. I think it would be foolish of me to not learn from a teachable moment like this. Had I not said anything about this, it would have felt like a missed opportunity on my part. And we all know I don’t like to miss opportunities.’

Leathers recently made the film Weiner And Me after a sexting relationship with the New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner.

I hope she’s okay. Besides, we know how HIV is really transmitted:

Pat Robertson believes gay men are knowingly spreading the HIV virus while shaking hands with others using a special ring.

The host of the 700 Club and founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network made the remarks Tuesday and said attacks are most prevalent in cities like San Francisco.

‘You know what they do in San Francisco, some in the gay community there they want to get people so if they got the stuff they’ll have a ring, you shake hands, and the ring’s got a little thing where you cut your finger,’ Robertson said. ‘Really. It’s that kind of vicious stuff, which would be the equivalent of murder.’

So as long as you only boinked him, Sydney, and didn’t shake his hand, you should be fine. What a kooky world. No wonder there are Captain Arizonas in it!

Comments

Our Sleazy Congress

This is why the American public is so cynical.

On Wednesday, immediately after the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a proposed ruling that allowed the federal government to subsidize the health insurance premiums of Congressional staffers–even though that may not be allowed under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)–Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) released the hold he had placed on President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the agency.

Last week, Coburn blocked the nomination of Katherine Archuleta–who was the national political director for Obama’s 2012 campaign–after a Senate committee approved her nomination “in an attempt to force OPM to explain its position” on the Obamacare subsidies.

In a proposed ruling that will be published in the Federal Register on Thursday, OPM deemed that the federal government could still subsidize 75% of the cost of the insurance premiums of plans Congressional aides must now purchase on government-run exchanges. Lawmakers and aides will not be eligible for tax credits to offset the premiums. Right after the announcement, Coburn dropped his his hold on the nomination

We have Harry Potter Law in this country.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Fecund Foreigners Flock to Our Friendly Confines

Embarrassing:

Making an argument for overhauling the nation’s immigration system Friday to a crowd of conservative activists, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush claimed immigrants were “more fertile” and thus a great benefit to American society.

His remark appeared to be an inarticulate reference to immigrants’ fertility rates, which data show are higher than native-born Americans.

“Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans over the last 20 years. Immigrants are more fertile, and they love families, and they have more intact families, and they bring a younger population. Immigrants create an engine of economic prosperity,” Bush said at the annual Faith and Freedom conference in the nation’s capital.

Before we ridicule, can we at least agree on “immigration”? We love immigration. Love it as no one but descendants of immigrants can. But we don’t love illegal immigration. For while illegal aliens can be “fertile” and can “love their families” (native-borns don’t?), they can’t create businesses. Taking jobs from native borns, living tax-free, burdening the social welfare system, their “engine of economic prosperity” sputters at best, and at worst drags down the rest of the economy.

Now, to the ridicule. Rush?

Did you know that? Did you know that immigrants are more fertile than native born Americans? Did you know that immigrants create far more businesses than native born Americans? Did you know that? Did you know that they love their families and they have more intact families than native born Americans? And they bring a younger population and an engine of economic prosperity. I don’t know. I’m looking at the economic engine that they brought to California. I’m looking at the economic prosperity that’s, I mean, barely containable out in California. I’m looking at it, I don’t really see it, but I’m looking at it.

“Fertile” is borderline racist. In fact, it crosses the border about as easily as those fruitful “immigrants” about whom he waxes so rhapsodic. It summons images of packs of “immigrant” children, barely a year apart, swarming over their weary but high-yielding “immigrant” parents. I love immigrants because they fervently believe (or should) in the political and economic systems we native-borns take for granted. I do not love them (or not merely) because they are rich in loam and composted material.

But looked at more broadly, “fertile” is purely and vilely racist. Many black Americans, native-borns all, oppose the push for amnesty and increased immigration, legal and illegal, because they need the work. The unemployment rate for black men, aged 20 and over, jumped last month from 12.6% to 13.5%. Among black youth, aged 16 to 19 (both sexes), unemployment stands at 42.6%. Don’t they love their families? Can’t they create economic prosperity?

What Jeb Bush, as compassionate a conservative as there is, seems to be getting at is that black Americans aren’t fertile and their families are less intact. On that, as much as it pains me to concede, he is right. The statistics on abortion in the black community are blood-curdling, the “intactness” of the black family only slightly less so. After centuries of slavery, and another century of Jim Crow, we’ve added an additional half-century of holocaust on black Americans and their families. I don’t know what black people did to deserve it, but I think it’s more than enough punishment.

The facts of life are conservative, as Maggie Thatcher said. We have an underclass of people crying out for economic justice, while our political establishment (both left and right) seeks to push them further down the ladder of opportunity. Rather than keep them in want, supplying them with the barest necessities but no chance of advancement, we should insist that they work, and give them every opportunity to do so. The immigrant experience that we romanticize describes people arriving here with nothing, and building lives for themselves and their (many) descendants, under the protection of the freedoms we guarantee.

You might say African slaves were the original illegal immigrants (slavery being a crime against God, if not man). Where’s their pathway to citizenship?

Comments (3)

Turning Off the Twenty-Somethings

This opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal echoes something Aggie said repeatedly during the campaign:

In politics, as in life, perception is key. The Chicago machine and the Democratic National Committee as a whole have perfected the art of marketing, even when they’ve got nothing to sell. They’re like a used-car salesman who pushes lemons on unsuspecting drivers and never gets caught. Democrats can home in on Latinos, blacks, single women, young voters—and have them chanting “Four more years!” before they know what hit them.

I happen to be one of the latter, a college student at a time when youth is a hot political commodity. Most kids my age bristle at the word “conservative,” and I don’t blame them. The right has done nothing to welcome young people.

Shame on Republicans for not seizing the opportunity this time around. They could so easily define their brand as the true advocate of rebellion; a “stick it to the government” movement in the spirit of the 1960s hippie wave.

The party of pro-choice, pro-gay has such a hold on young people because those are issues they can care about easily. Not many 20-year-olds can hold a coherent conversation about Social Security reform or double taxation, but all of them can argue passionately for gay rights.

As a member of this all-important demographic, I know that neither I nor (almost) anybody else coming of age today supports the Republican social agenda. That’s the way the country is moving—so just deal with it. Modernize and prioritize.

Though it may be painful, though it may be costly at the polls in the short run, Republicans don’t have a future unless they break up with the religious right and the gay-bashing, Bible-thumping fringe that gives the party such a bad rap with every young voter. By fighting to legally ban abortion, the party undercuts the potential to paint itself as a rebel against the governmental-control machine.

Embracing a more liberal social agenda doesn’t require anyone to abandon her own personal values; it’s possible to keep faith and the party too. But the evangelical set essentially hijacked the Republican Party in the 1970s; now we need to take it back.

I’m not sure I’d put it in those terms, but there sure is more to being a Republican (or a conservative, if you prefer) than demonizing gays and the right to choose. I don’t hate evangelicals for their views, even if I don’t share them, but I know that their preferred candidate, let’s say Rick Santorum, would lose in a landslide.

I may agree this country is going to hell, but I stick with the lower-case h. It’s not hellfire and brimstone I fear, but red ink and socialism. The writer, a young woman, makes a point worth heeding. Republicans have turned off youth so much, not even double-digit unemployment under Obamanomics will drive them to vote for the GOP.

Comments (4)

Race Belongs to the Slowest

Ever stop to think as we spiral down the toilet bowl that maybe we’re exactly where we belong?

The politically incorrect rapper Snoop Dog put his two cents in the heated national debate leading up to the November election, posting online a foul-mouthed yet funny list of reasons why he would vote for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney.

The 40-year-old hip hop-turned-reggae artist, who had recently changed his name to Snoop Lion, posted a photo of the handwritten list originally created by @DragonflyJonez on Friday.

The number one justification for not voting for the Republican candidate is that ‘He is a white n**ga,’ followed by: ‘He looks like he says ‘n**ga’ all the time.’

Before you go feeling all superior:

A Republican member of Arkansas’ House of Representatives has written a book calling African Americans’ slavery a ‘blessing in disguise’ prompting outrage as a fellow state candidate writes advocating deporting all Muslims.

In Jon Hubbard’s outspoken 2009 book ‘Letters to the Editor: Confessions of a Frustrated Conservative’ the first-term Republican from Jonesboro asked ‘would an existence spent in slavery have been any crueller than a life spent in sub-Saharan Africa?’

Claimed written during his 2008 political season, Hubbard states that his book’s motivation is to inspire others to ‘express’ themselves like him if mutually concerned about America’s future.

His writing created outrage among his own political party, however, with members finding the publication similarly disgraceful to a second book by Arkansas House candidate Charlie Fuqua of Batesville who advocates deporting all Muslims.

Fuqua, who served in the Arkansas House from 1996 to 1998, wrote there is ‘no solution to the Muslim problem short of expelling all followers of the religion from the United States,’ in his 2012 book, titled ‘God’s Law.’

Before you go too far thinking that’s how all Arkansas Republicans think (an understandable, if unfair, conjecture):

State GOP Chairman Doyle Webb called the books ‘highly offensive’ on Saturday and U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, a Republican who represents northeast Arkansas, called the writings ‘divisive and racially inflammatory.’

I won’t defend or attack anyone quoted above. I just wonder who has done more harm to the foundation of civil society: a couple of [bleep]-kicking clod-hoppers from East [bleep] Arkansas no one’s ever heard of talking ignorant nonsense; or a pot-smoking, gun-toting, prostitute-pimping (proudly so), Farrakhan-following, Heathrow-trashing, accused-murdering multimillionaire. Who spreads trash like this, lending his name and prestige (if you can call it that) to something that would have my kid grounded for life after the first line.

I just wonder.

PS: I don’t condemn everything listed above. My pot-smoking days are long behind me (and they numbered in the single digits), but who hasn’t wanted to trash a duty-free shop? Especially if you can afford it? The cost of a few bottles of Macallan 18 y.o. malt and several Coach handbags are sofa change to Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr.

Comments (3)

My Akin Back

Democrats, man. They [bleep] up everything they touch:

There’s a reason why Democrats spent over $1.5 million trying to help Akin win his three-way primary. He was the most conservative candidate in the field — and the most unpredictable one. He shook up his campaign staff late last year. He recently released a head-scratching and jumbled campaign ad. And Democrats have already launched a microsite highlighting his controversial statements that won’t play well with moderates. (“America has got the equivalent of the stage III cancer of socialism because the federal government is tampering in all kinds of stuff it has no business tampering in,” Akin once said.)

I don’t see a problem with the socialism comment, though cancer victims might be perplexed. Socialism is a disease, and it is terminal if not treated. Look at Europe for the most recent example.

But assuming Missouri has a closed primary system (meaning, at least, that Democrats can’t vote, and maybe not Independents either), Republicans are solely responsible for making this dolt their nominee. There ought to be a way to get him out.

Comments (1)

Ye Cannae Shove Ye Granny Aff a Cliff

For those ignorant of the little ditty:

Oh, you cannot shove your granny off the bus,
Oh, you cannot shove your granny off the bus,
Oh, you cannot shove your granny,
‘Cause she’s your mammy’s mammy.
Oh, you cannot shove your granny off the bus!

And now its relevance:

Two Texas physicians are trying to spark a doctor-led, coast-to-coast push against Obamacare’s takeover of the doctor-patient relationship.

Their initial, self-funded TV ad shows an actor, portraying President Barack Obama, throwing a frightened grandmother over a cliff.

The grandmother say she wants a pacemaker to save her life, but Obama’s voice announces that “maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer.”

Obama made that comment at a White House event in 2009, while talking about a 100-year-old woman who got a pacemaker that kept her alive for five years.

“We wanted to give him credit … in his own words,” said Dr. Kristin Held, an ophthalmologist in San Antonio, Texas, and a co-founder of AmericanDoctors4Truth, which favors a more free-market medical system.

The ads are running in Texas and in Virginia, but they’re also prompting other doctors to donate funds for broadcasts in other states, she said: “We’re getting it from individual doctors — [they’re saying], ‘Take $5,000, take $10,000, take $20.’”

Future ads will use other quotes from Obama and will show doctors saving grandmothers from Obama’s health care policies, she told The Daily Caller.

The reference, of course, is to the classy ad the Dems ran depicting Paul Ryan shoving an old lady off a cliff. It’s tit-for-tat, but then Obama is a boob.

Comments (3)

Breitbart

I don’t have a lot to say about Andrew Breitbart, except that I’m always sad when someone dies with a wife and young kids (Osama being the exception that proves the rule). I appreciated much of his work and admired his courage, even if I (maybe especially because I) went about expressing my incoherent rage differently. I think I posted the clip of him screaming at a scraggly group of Occu-poopers to “behave” themselves, and calling them rapists. I was on his side, but they were too pathetic and hopeless to be worthy of his froth-flecked fury.

But if you can judge a man by his enemies, I loved Andrew Breitbart and wanted to have his babies:

As for the impotent rage, it has not stopped with Breitbart’s death. Charlie Sperling of the Washington Examiner reports on some of the lefty dyslogies on Twitter, starting with a relatively tame tweet from Slate’s Matthew Yglesias: “Conventions around dead people are ridiculous. The world outlook is slightly improved with @AndrewBrietbart dead.”

Over at DailyKos.com, one “Misteropus1″ rants: “He was a piece of sh–. Period. Just because he is now dead does not change that fact. At all. . . . He deserves no respect, not while he’s living and certainly not in his afterlife.” Later Mr. O sort of apologizes to Breitbart’s widow and four children, but adds: “Nevertheless, I still feel strongly about how I feel (obviously).”

Over at Esquire Mark Warren has a moment of restraint: “Terrible news, about Andrew Breitbart, who himself could be terrible. No wife, nor any child, deserves such horrendous news. Four kids will grow up without a father, and that is probably the only thing worth saying today.” But he is not even circumspect enough to realize that if you are going to write “that is probably the only thing worth saying today,” you should stop there.

Breitbart, Alinskyite to the end, took this sort of thing with great good humor. We followed him on Twitter, where he was constantly retweeting hate tweets. If dead men could use social media, this would be one of the busiest days of Breitbart’s afterlife.

Instead, it is left to the Daily Caller’s “Jim” “Treacher” to retweet the posthumous hate. Warning: The language is often obscene and the rhetoric hateful. If that offends your sensibilities, don’t click through. But if, like us, you appreciated Breitbart’s ability to drive his detractors crazy, you will find the Treacher retweets oddly comforting.

Whatever life lessons the Left learned in kindergarten, they have become horrible, horrible people.

Comments (4)

God Bless Adam Carolla

I use Glenn Beck’s take because it’s censored and put in context. Do enjoy!

I swear to all I hold holy that I was thinking about envy today while walking the Bloodthirsty Puppy. There’s a reason it’s one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »