Preparing a Good Crisis

There is a saying today that has been popularized by liberals: never waste a good crisis. Both Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton have publicly espoused this position. A "good crisis", in their opinion, is one which permits them to enact into law policies or measures which advance a typically leftist political agenda and which are in themselves so otherwise unpopular or contrary to the prevailing political views that they would be rejected out of hand. The "good crisis" provides the either sufficient political cover to explain why these unpopular policies must be enacted, or sufficient distraction to keep the citizens attention elsewhere.

Of course, one must make certain that a "good crisis", or at least one which the media can propagate and hold forth as a crisis, is highlighted before the public.

Also, there is the possibility that a "bad crisis" could occur. A "bad crisis" would prevent the enactment of the agenda-driven policies. A "bad crisis", from a liberal point of view, would be actual or impending loss of political control. An example would be lowering poll numbers suggesting a loss of the next Presidential election by Mr. Obama.

Worse still, in order to achieve certain results, the "good crisis" must occur at the right time. Fortunately, this is a field in which liberals have a great deal of experience to draw on. While social conservatives typically have moral restraints upon the creation of crises, liberals, who typically draw on Socialist theory and pattern, do not suffer such impediment. Remember how Hitler, a Fascist Socialist (Quadrant 4) created the pretext of the Polish "attack" on Germany to justify his invasion of Poland, by killing a few Poles and staging the aftermath of the "attack" for his media. Now that is not to claim American liberals are Fascist, but only to demonstrate the mastery of ruthless propaganda that has exemplified socialism of all stripes in the last century.

The vast right-wing conspiracy which so bedeviled the Clinton Presidency, made up of talk radio hosts and ignorant Americans holding on to their guns and their religion, turned out to be a bust. They held a Tea Party; no shooting, no looting, no crisis. Tea Partiers even cleaned up after themselves, and all they used was the electoral process to vote in some new representatives.

So it appears that it is time to prepare a good crisis. Like most things, if you want it done right, you have to do it yourself. And that is what the Socialists are doing. The Occupy Movement is partnering with socialist and workers-anarchist movements to initiate "direct action" on May Day, to shut down the American economy, to bring America to its knees for a day. All of these movements share some form of the raised clenched fist in their logo; the symbol of resistance to authority, and of unity in the progressive cause of socialism, and they share the common goal of promoting socialism.

One investigator links these activities to a variety of Soros-funded groups.  It's hard to know if that is true, and one hopes it isn't. Unfortunately, the media cannot be expected to investigate the question, either. But if it is, then the activities are not only not random, but are coordinated efforts which seem intended to undermine U.S. security.

After all, if there are "riots" in the U.S., would the President be able to sit by and do nothing? Of course not; he might even "be forced" to declare a national emergency. In that case, the President might even be forced to bring his Executive Order for National Defense Preparedness into play.  And it doesn't have to happen all at once; that's the great thing about a do-it-yourself crisis with a cheerleading media, the timing is so manageable. Hopefully, such a cynical ploy is not intended, but with this Administration, one never knows.

War on Women?

There is a war on women. It's not the one you think it is; this isn't really about the "war on women" as the liberals have framed it. That debate, as framed and narrated by liberals, suggests that the right to abortion, abortifacients and contraceptives, trumps all other rights and privileges, even those embedded in the Bill of Rights. If you don't agree, you are part of the "war on women". Conservatives can't frame it that way; it's not about the woman, or women's rights. We see a woman carrying a live, unborn child (i.e. fetus, latin, unborn child) to an abortionist, and when the woman emerges, the living child has been killed. It is the baby-killing which offends us, or more accurately, which we understand offends God. So that "war on women" should be recognized as part of the Liberal's War on Children.

No, this is about the Liberal's War on Women. Madame Senator Feinstein recently wrote Senate Majority Leader Reid asking that no votes be scheduled on two bills which would ensure reciprocity of concealed-carry laws between states. The unspoken political rational, of course, is two-fold. The erstwhile Democratic Senators ardently oppose gun rights for anyone but their own bodyguards; and as with Obamacare, they just don't care what the Constitution says. Equally importantly, they don't want to be on record against gun rights before an election, because many Americans do believe in the Constitution.

You may not agree that this is part of any Liberal War on Humans, or even that there is a Liberal War on Humans, but it is. Liberals are at war with everyone; they want abortion, euthanasia, population control, free access to deadly addictive drugs, you name it. They seem to approve of anything that kills people; humanity is, in their mind, a great danger and offense to the planet, if nothing else.

In this case, they have presented a ludicrous argument against these concealed carry bills. Madame Feinstein writes, "Imagine that a man who has been convicted of a domestic violence crime against a woman he had been dating seeks — and obtains — a permit to carry a concealed firearm from his state of residence. Under the concealed carry reciprocity bills, he could legally travel across state lines and confront his former girlfriend ..."

Obviously, you have to imagine it- what man has ever filed an application to legally carry a firearm across state lines for the stated purpose of killing his girlfriend?

Have you ever seen the old Bugs Bunny cartoons out of the Fifties? In some of them there appears the dapper little gangster, Rocky, and his outsized loutish henchman, Mugsy. Try to imagine these in Madame Feinstein's incredulous scenario:

Rocky: "My goilfriend has run outa state. Get da guns, we are teachin' her a lesson."

Mugsy: "But, but, but, Rocky! Our guns ain't licensed, and we don't got permits! We can't take da guns outa state!"

Rocky: "C'mere, Mugsy." (Pow! Whack!) "Now get dis. We are da bad guys. We don't license our guns and we don't get permits, got it? We are goin' to commit a crime and we DON'T take registered guns! We DON'T tell da cops, get it?"

In the cartoons, it's comedic; in the real world, it isn't.

Consider the reality. Without reciprocity, the abuse victim moves or travels out of state. As a law-abiding citizen and crime victim she leaves her gun behind- prohibited by law from protecting herself.

Yet none of these legal niceties about licenses, permits, and reciprocity is likely to deter or even occur to the murderously enraged and demented abuser.

It is the abuse victim whom Madame Feinstein endangers, even in the scenario she proposes. As with all liberal gun control proprosals, it is the innocents who are rendered helpless and left to die. In the liberal mind, though, this presumably works toward the greater good of population reduction, a primary goal of the Liberal War on Humans.

Channeling Jimmy

Last year, as fuel prices rose precipitously, Mr. Obama appointed a panel to look into the situation. Originally, Energy Secretary Chu had indicated that the price increases were desireable to bring costs into line with European energy prices. The high prices would force people to reduce driving and bring down consumption. In response to public pressure arising from public discontent with the rising gas prices so ardently desired by Chu, the Administration (publicly) backtracked and decided that the better solution, politically, was to seek lower energy prices- at least through the election.

Now, obviously, the rise in fuel prices could not have been due to the policies of the Obama Administration. As Obama says, America is producing more barrels of petroleum now than in the past, and the Bush Adminstration can't be given credit for that- even though its policies encouraged and expanded drilling and production. After all, it's not as if the Obama Administration has ignored Court orders to lift moratoriums on drilling and issue permits, or slow-walked permit applications, or closed Federal lands to drilling- even though the Obama Administration has in fact done all that.

It may be presumed that Obama 1) wants to be re-elected so he will have the "flexibility" to implement his policies of "change" without accountability to the electorate, and 2) wants to ensure that prices don't go higher until after the election. So Obama, channeling Jimmy Carter, has come up with what a big-government statist would see as a win-win solution. The solution? More regulation and more government control of the oil market. Obama has asked for 52 Billion Dollars to tighten his grip in this arena. Isn't it blindingly obvious that highly trained and compassionate government bureaucrats could deal with the vagaries of supply, demand, availability, and price more efficiently than bumbling businesspeople? Jimmy Carter thought regulation wasthe answer too, and it led to some serious problems back in ancient history, back in the '70's.

The possible problems are irrelevant to Obama, though; spotty supply and shortages resulting from regulations won't affect him, and price hikes after the election won't keep him out of office. So he considers it a win-win; he gets re-elected and extends intrusive government at the same time.

Is it Stupid Conservatives?

- or another Carefully Flawed Study!

A new study has been released by a research team at the University of Arkansas which finds that "conservatism" is a default condition for those who are "cognitively impaired" or have "low brainpower."  The authors of the study suggest that it is likely to offend both the left and the right wings of the political spectrum, but that is disingenuous as best, since the study panders to the left's preconception that those on the right just need to be "educated" to overcome their prejudices.

First of all, the study appears to be based on a definition of conservatism which is obviously not related to conservatism: "an emphasis on personal responsibility, acceptance of hierarchy, and a preference for the status quo." This is mostly meaningless drivel. After all, if you visit nearly any activist group meeting or website, whether conservative or liberal, you can be sure that you will be implored to take personal responsibility and act toward the goals they propound. Just look at Greenpeace or PETA websites. Does that make these groups "conservative"? Not hardly; both conservatives and liberals would be offended by any claim that these are conservative groups.

And "acceptance of hierarchy and a preference for the status quo" as conservative qualities merely express the erroneous built-in liberal assumptions that liberals do not have a preference for the status quo, that they do not accept hierarchy. Both assumptions are demonstrably untrue; look at the liberal uproar that surrounds court cases which seem to imperil liberal institutions like Affirmative Action, or the imposition of Obamacare with its hundreds of Boards, Panels, and Agencies. Liberals actually love the status quo and hierarchy when it's their status quo and their hierarchy.

Second, the study seems to be based on the premise that people fall back on preconceived positions when they are busy, impaired (as by drugs or alcohol), or under stress, and that these positions may be either poorly or not thought through. In accord with the liberal dogma, the assumption is that all conservative positions are poorly or not at all thought through. Yet it would be a surprise if people didn't remain in or fall back to a comfort zone when busy, under stress or impaired. The culture is made up of about twice as many conservatives as liberals, so any random group can be expected to contain conservatives by about a two to one ratio. If a study like this is to be valid, you would have to make a study of self-identified liberals and determine how many become conservatives when they are busy or drunk.

Third, the authors noted that their study subjects were mostly "political centrists". By definition, this is one group that does not strongly hold political ideologies. Even with a reasonable definition of "conservative", which the study clearly did not have, political centrists could not be expected to be reasonable candidates for such a study.

This is clearly just another example of the axiom "garbage in, garbage out." This is a "study" engineered and designed expressly and solely to give liberals a talking point- and nothing else. It is not a case of stupid conservatives, but a carefully designed and deeply flawed study. The authors of the study are correct; both the left and the right should feel offended by the study- as a waste of time and public funds. Beware, however; you can be sure the left-wing academia is busily creating more of these little carefully flawed jewels to influence the uncritical voting public during the campaign season.

April Fool: Liberal vs. Liberal

By now, everybody "knows" about the death of Trayvon Martin. Martin was a young black man; his shooting at the hands of a "white" man has enraged many in the black communities.

The national media has pressed the story hard, pushing the theory that the motive for the shooting was clearly Racism. It is important to remember that Racism, like Tolerance, has a specific definition when used by liberals; Racism is racially motivated harm toward a member of the Black community. By definition, liberals know that Blacks therefore cannot be Racist; witness the deafening silence in the national media about the two (Black) teenagers who ran down a (White) preteen, setting him on fire with gasoline. You aren't hearing Al or Jesse preaching hate about that- it's not Racist.

Yet as more facts come out, it becomes increasingly clear that Zimmerman is anything but "white". He apparently has black family members and tutors black children. He is clearly Hispanic.

Many in the Democrat party, including the President, jumped quickly on board the mindless, we-don't -need-facts condemnation of the shooter as a Racist.

There seems one inescapable issue here for the Democrat Party, however. Both the Black community and the Hispanic/Latino community are typically considered solid Democrat voting blocks. The Democrats seem to be using the tragedy to try to score points with the Black Community. If they continue to do so, they risk alienating Hispanic voters by sacrificing Zimmerman to the "mob justice" lynching that the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are screaming for.

Worse yet for the Democrats, the Hispanic community might begin to realize that the Republican conservatives- who are for the most part asking that a sane and measured investigation take place- are not "anti-Hispanic" as the Democrats crow, but are actually "anti-illegal." While that is the truth, truth is not something most liberals are heavily in favor of when it interferes with the narrative, as witnessed by the fact that the media has already tried to claim that Zimmerman, actually a registered Democrat,  was driven by right-wing ideology.

Gun control might become the Democrats ultimate issue here, but Democrats are also on record having supported "stand your ground" laws, having voted unanimously for the Florida law.  It's not even certain that the "stand your ground" law applies since it could be a question of self-defense.

In short, the Republicans hardly have a dog in this fight; this is liberal vs. liberal, and it's really no April fool's joke.