Every murderous totalitarian government of the 20th century began with some insulated group of faux-intellectuals congratulating each other on how smart they are, and fantasizing about how, if they could just install a dictatorship-for-a-day, they could right all the wrongs in the world.

It is the ultimate fantasy of the narcissist. And we’ve got whole generations of them, in control of our media and our government, all intent on “remaking America.”

Elizabeth Scalia, May 24, 2010

Goldman has become the focus of demonization by the Obama administration at a time when the Democrats want to introduce yet another massive “reform” package. But reform does not always mean improvement, and the massive bill as now structured could turn banks considered “too big to fail” into taxpayer-backed public utilities, and lead to bureaucrats overseeing lending policies.

Peter Foster, April 27, 2010

And you know what? I realized listening to this rhetoric that it reminded me of something. It reminded me of Tiger Woods’ text messages to his mistress that were made public last week, where he said, and I quote: “I want to treat you rough, throw you around, spank and slap you and make you sore. I want to hold you down and choke you while I f*** that ass that I own. Then I’m going to tell you to shut the f*** up while I slap your face and pull your hair for making noise.” Unquote. [laughter]

And this, I believe, perfectly represents the attitude the Democrats should now have in their dealings with the Republican Party. [applause]

Yes, it does. That’s what they should be saying to the Republicans: “Shut the f*** up while I slap your face for making noise! Now pass the cap-and-trade law, you stupid bitch, and repeat after me, ‘global warming is real.’” [applause]

The Democrats need to push the rest of their agenda while their boot is on the neck of the greedy, poisonous old reptile. Who cares if cap-and-trade bill isn’t popular, neither was health care. Your poll numbers may have descended a bit, but so did your testicles.

So don’t stop. We need to regulate the banks, we need to overhaul immigration, we need to end corporate welfare including at the Pentagon, we need to bring troops home from everywhere, we need to end the drug war, and we need to put terrorists and other human rights violators on trial in civilian courts — starting with Dick Cheney. [applause]

Democrats, in conclusion, Democrats in America were put on earth to do one thing: Drag the ignorant hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which in their case is the 19th. And by passing health care, the Democrats saved their brand.

But of course, it’s Ann Coulter who should be locked up for hate speech.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org

Sustainable Development, which sprung fully-armed from the fretful socialist head of the UN’s Brundtland Commission, is indeed a religion, and it has a devil: capitalism. It thus seems suicidal for any company to accommodate it, let alone embrace it. It has no workable definition except for the feel good notion of “looking after the future.” It explicitly rejects free markets as leading to resource exhaustion and environmental destruction. As such it is not based on science, much less economics, but on primitive pre-market assumptions, which just happen to be very useful to prospective “global governors.”

Peter Foster, November 10, 2009

On the heels of Ford’s better-than-expected third quarter profits and its promise of solid profitability by 2011, 68% of Americans adults hold a favorable opinion of the one company that passed on a government bailout. Ford continues to far outdistance public perceptions of General Motors and Chrysler.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 24% view Ford unfavorably.
But just 34% of Americans have a favorable opinion of GM, while 56% view the automaker unfavorably.
Chrysler’s ratings are even lower, with just 29% who view the company favorably. Sixty-three percent (63%) view Chrysler unfavorably.

Rasmussen Reports, November 4, 2009

What is the matter with Michael Ignatieff that this is so? What’s missing from the portrait? Why, with so fresh and unspotted a leader, do the Liberals lack energy, borrow what little drama they possess from the tired, sham outrages of Question Period? It’s difficult to pinpoint. It’s not because of the “just-visiting” ads. They speak more to the narrowness of his opponents than to the flaws of their target. Nor has he been seriously spattered by cherry-picked quotations from some of his writings – his musings on the torture debate, for example – or his inclination toward the first person plural, the “we” in his writings, while tenured in America. They’re predictable “hit points” but they don’t really resonate. It isn’t any perceptible difficulties (I leave the spat over Quebec nominations out of the mix for now) with his caucus.

What has he to say to Canadians? Why did he come home? How is a Canada with Michael Ignatieff as its leader a better, different Canada than one without him? What’s special, distinct and intrinsic to his personality and style that adds something to the country he proposes to lead? Mr. Ignatieff has not only not answered these most basic questions. He signals by style and statement that he hasn’t worked out the answers for himself, not to speak of his fellow citizens.

Rex Murphy, September 28, 2009

In this critique of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, Rex Murphy has identified the essence of what the Liberal Party in Canada has come to represent over the last few decades. They are a party without a clear vision for Canada, as I have written before. When in opposition they seem to have a grasp on what they don’t want to do: they would scrap the GST; they would withdraw from the free trade deal; etc. But when in power they promptly do the opposite. Perhaps then Ignatieff is the perfect leader for the Liberals. As his record indicates his is “flexible” in his ideology, ready to reverse his position as soon as it appears it might score some political points. And perhaps the Liberal Party is exactly where it belongs – sitting in the opposition benches – as it appears all they are capable of is opposing.

President Ahmadinejad has said things, particularly about the state of Israel, the Jewish people, and the holocaust, that are absolutely repugnant. It is unfitting that somebody like that would be giving those kind of remarks before the United Nations General Assembly. Canada does not want to be equivocal at all in terms of our view on that; we find it disgraceful, unacceptable, and we’re going to be absolutely clear on that.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, September 23, 2009

It is becoming increasingly clear that some in the Democratic Party need a serious history lesson. Slavery was racist, Jim Crow laws were racist, segregation was racist – opposing a radical political agenda is not. Americans of all races and political mindsets applauded the election of America’s first African American president; it was a proud moment for every American. But our pride in electing an African-American president does not override our right to disagree with President Obama’s policies. It is obvious certain politicians are attempting to exploit racial anger to make up for their own policy failings.

President Obama’s campaign promised to move America beyond the bitter divides of yesterday. But for leaders of the Democrat Party to characterize Americans’ disapproval of the president’s policies as being based on race is an outrage and troubling sign about the lengths Democrats will go to disparage all who disagree with them. Playing the race card shows that Democrats are willing to deal from the bottom of the deck. Our political system has no place for this. President Obama should join me in calling for an end to these attacks by members of his party and a renewal of honest debate.

Michael Steele, September 17, 2009

Conservative documentarian James O’Keefe and writer Hannah Giles, working for the BigGovernment.com website, posed as a pimp and prostitute during visits to ACORN offices in Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and Brooklyn. ACORN housing officials and tax advisers offered them brazen suggestions on how to lie on their applications, disguise their income, obscure their child sex-ring business and hide cash from abusive johns. (“When you buy the house with the backyard, you get a tin,” an ACORN counselor in New York told Giles, “and you bury it down in there, cover it and put the grass over it.”)

Summing up the ACORN Housing Corporation philosophy, another Brooklyn ACORN official told the undercover pair bluntly: “Honesty is not going to get you the house.”

ACORN spokesman Scott Levenson blasted the investigation as “gotcha journalism.” Echoing ACORN’s defenders, MSNBC anchor Norah O’Donnell fretted on Tuesday that Giles and O’Keefe’s methods “might be viewed as entrapment. That some conservative activists used hidden cameras to get this stuff on camera.”

O’Donnell has apparently forgotten the inglorious history of news “entrapment” by her betters at NBC News.

This is the network that surreptitiously rigged GM pickup trucks in staged crash tests in 1993 to show that the vehicles were unsafe — and failed to inform viewers that the simulations used incendiary devices to ignite the explosions. Jane Pauley admitted in a nationally televised apology that “NBC’s contractor did put incendiary devices under the trucks to ensure there would be a fire if gasoline were released from the gas tank. NBC personnel knew this before we aired the program, but the public was not informed because consultants at the scene told us the devices did not start the fire. We agree with GM that we should have told the viewer about these devices.”

Source.

If you’re not yet familiar with this developing story you should visit:
www.biggovernment.org

—–

Related: “Jon Stewart Mocks Media on ACORN Story: ‘Where the Hell Were You?”

How has “liberty” become the inspirational code word of conservatives rather than liberals? (A prominent example is radio host Mark Levin’s book “Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto,” which was No. 1 on the New York Times bestseller list for nearly three months without receiving major reviews, including in the Times.) I always thought that the Democratic Party is the freedom party — but I must be living in the nostalgic past. Remember Bob Dylan’s 1964 song “Chimes of Freedom,” made famous by the Byrds? And here’s Richie Havens electrifying the audience at Woodstock with “Freedom! Freedom!” Even Linda Ronstadt, in the 1967 song “A Different Drum,” with the Stone Ponys, provided a soaring motto for that decade: “All I’m saying is I’m not ready/ For any person, place or thing/ To try and pull the reins in on me.”

But affluent middle-class Democrats now seem to be complacently servile toward authority and automatically believe everything party leaders tell them. Why? Is it because the new professional class is a glossy product of generically institutionalized learning? Independent thought and logical analysis of argument are no longer taught. Elite education in the U.S. has become a frenetic assembly line of competitive college application to schools where ideological brainwashing is so pandemic that it’s invisible. The top schools, from the Ivy League on down, promote “critical thinking,” which sounds good but is in fact just a style of rote regurgitation of hackneyed approved terms (“racism, sexism, homophobia”) when confronted with any social issue. The Democratic brain has been marinating so long in those clichés that it’s positively pickled.

Source.