Unqualified Liberal Idiots - Part Two

Obama, being the idiot that he is, said that the only people with the right to object to immigration are native Americans.  Think about how stupid a statement that is.  He said that only people like me (and probably you), that were born here in America, have the right to complain about all the people coming into this country.  


What does being born here, have anything to do with one’s ability to reason that a country, like boat, or concert venue, has an ideal maximum capacity?  We all have that right, no matter where we were born, no matter who our ancestors were, and no matter which country we are citizens of.  I have the right to object to immigration into the United States, England, France, or any other country.  It’s called freedom of speech.  It’s in the constitution.  Obama, obviously is not familiar with that document (Even though he claims to be a constitutional scholar.  So much for the quality of education at our colleges and universities.), and maybe that’s why he has been violating it since he took office.


People like Obama, often talk about rights, but it is quite obvious that they don’t understand what rights are, since they appear to be so anxious to claim that certain people don’t have them, or impose policies that infringe upon them.


Here’s the partial, super short course on rights for all you liberals out there.  We all have the right to say whatever we want, and we all have the right to own any type of arms we want, without any government infringement upon either of those two rights.  There’s more, but I’m sure no liberals are interested.  By the time one becomes an adult, a person either understands this concept, or probably never will.


Now, let’s talk about something that many people often confuse with rights, and that is, qualifications.  They are two different things.  We are all born with rights, and we all have the same rights, regardless of what any government says.  A government can violate a person’s rights, but it can’t take them away.  People who live under a totalitarian government have the right to criticize that government, although they might get shot if they do.


Qualifications, however are a different animal.  They are either assigned or earned.  Some good examples are: Obama is not qualified to be president, because he was not born in America, or Obama is not qualified to be president because he has virtually no previous experience in politics, or in the private sector.


Now, if we look at Darlena Cunha and the recent article she wrote, we must all agree that she has the right to say what she did, but does she have the qualifications to be published and taken seriously?  


By the standards of the outfits that publish her articles, she absolutely does.  She’s a liberal, and I don’t think the publications she contributes to have any other qualifications, but does she have the qualifications for us to take her seriously?  We’ll now examine her article, and both you and I can be the judges.


Let’s start with the headline:

Ferguson: In Defense of Rioting



Pretty weak.  Imagine a headline that said “In Defense of Murder”, or “In Defense of Rape”, but maybe, this was just an attention getter, so we’ll let that slide.


Then we got the sub headline which contains an obvious factual error:

“The violent protests in Ferguson, Mo., are part of the American experience. Peaceful protesting is a luxury only available to those safely in mainstream culture”

Uh, Darlena, peaceful protesting is something available to anyone, even inmates of prisons and asylums, or is she saying that everything Martin Luther King did was a waste of time?


It continues to get worse as she goes on:


“When a police officer shoots a young, unarmed black man in the streets, then does not face indictment, anger in the community is inevitable. It’s what we do with that anger that counts. In such a case, is rioting so wrong?”


Is she stupid?  A person does not have to be armed to be dangerous.  What would she do if she was a police officer and someone twice her size was charging at her?  If she didn’t shoot him when she had the chance, there would be a high probability that he would overpower her, take her gun, and shoot her.


She is not only stupid, she shows she is a racist by her prejudice.  She writes, “anger in the community is inevitable”.   Inevitable.  So what she is saying that whenever a cop shoots a young unarmed black man, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how obvious it was that the officer was justified in his actions, blacks in the community are always going to automatically ignore everything else, and get “angry”.  I give blacks more credit than that, and I believe that I am supported by the fact that the black communities do not riot, every time something similar has happened.


Wait a minute, I think she’s giving all of us  a free pass to raise hell:


“Riots are a necessary part of the evolution of society. Unfortunately, we do not live in a universal utopia where people have the basic human rights they deserve simply for existing, and until we get there, the legitimate frustration, sorrow and pain of the marginalized voices will boil over, spilling out into our streets.”


So she’ll be all OK with it, if conservative groups start burning down buildings because of the government infringing on our second amendment rights, NSA spying, unchecked immigration, or any other issue where our voices have been marginalized?


She goes on:


“Because when you have succeeded, it ceases to be a possibility, in our capitalist society, that anyone else helped you. And if no one helped you succeed, then no one is holding anyone else back from succeeding. Except they did help you, and they are holding people back. So that blaming someone else for your failures in the United States may very well be an astute observation of reality, particularly as it comes to white privilege versus black privilege. And, yes, they are different, and they are tied to race, and that doesn’t make me a racist, it makes me a realist. If anything, I am racist because I am white. Until I have had to walk in a person of color’s skin, I will never understand, I will always take things for granted, and I will be inherently privileged. But by ignoring the very real issues this country still faces in terms of race to promote an as-of-yet imaginary colorblind society, we contribute to the problem at hand, which is centuries of abuses lobbied against other humans on no basis but that of their skin color.”


Who’s holding them back?  What other country has bent over farther backwards with legislation designed to help a certain group of people?   Darlena, and people like her, love to make excuses for some people’s poor performance and behavior.  I have yet to see an example, where making excuses for an individual, or a group of people, has improved their lot in life.  As for white privilege, did she ever stop to consider that whites may have earned it?


Darlena, tries to compare the Ferguson riots to the Boston Tea Party:


“However, even the Tea Party gets its name from a riot, The Boston Tea Party. For those who need a quick history brush-up, in 1773 American protesters dumped an entire shipment of tea into the Boston Harbor to protest The Tea Act, which colonists maintained violated their rights. In response to this costly protest and civil unrest, the British government enforced The Coercive Acts, ending local government in Massachusetts, which in turn led to the American Revolution and created our great country.”


She got her history right (Not too hard, you just look it up.), but came up with a pretty twisted conclusion.  


That protest back in 1773 was meant to effect political and societal change, and while the destruction of property in that case may not have ended in loss of human life, the revolution that took place afterward certainly did. What separates a heralded victory in history from an attempt at societal change, a cry for help from the country’s trampled, today? The fact that we won.
So, burning down down the buildings in your own neighborhood that belong to people that had absolutely nothing to do a police shooting incident is the same as dumping tea from a British ship to protest a tax on tea?  The complaint of the colonists was that they were taxed by the British government without having any representation in that government.  The citizens of Ferguson and all other black communities, do have representation in our government.  That’s why we have goofballs like Sheila Jackson Lee and Maxine Waters in office.  There is absolutely no legitimate comparison between the motivation or the consequences of the Ferguson riots and the Boston Tea Party.


Darlena truly demonstrates that she does not have the qualifications to be taken seriously by anyone:


“Blacks in this country are more apt to riot because they are one of the populations here who still need to.”


Says who?  Darlena?  Blacks need to riot?  What about a farmer whose property rights have been violated?  What about law abiding citizens that whose second amendment rights are being violated?  What about Tea Party groups that have been targeted by the IRS?  Those who were spied upon by the NSA?  What about all of us, including and especially blacks, whose livelihoods are threatened by unchecked immigration?  


Either rioting can never be justified at all, or it’s OK for any group with a grievance.  Saying anything else, is saying that one group has a right that other groups do not have, and what could be more unfair, what could be more un-American than that?


If you think as I do, that Darlena draws erroneous conclusions and simply misses the facts when they are staring her in the face, perhaps it’s because she has experienced so few things, and thus, gained so little knowledge in her life.
  









Unqualified Liberal Idiots - Part One

I sit here and look out the window at my 1985 Toyota truck that I recently “finished” rebuilding. (There’s still a million piddly-assed things i’ve got to do on it.)  I feel both shame and pride.  


Shame, that I can’t afford to just go out and buy brand new one ton truck with a power fold v-plow, but pride, that I was able to overcome so many problems and obstacles during the build, and that I was able to make a dependable, good looking truck for less than $2500, including the initial purchase price of the truck, plow, and all improvements.


I also feel a sense of both pride and shame about what I learned and the what skills I improved.  Shame, that at 52 years old, I didn’t already know or know how to do some things.  Shame, that I was even afraid to try some things. but pride, that I now know all those things now, and would not hesitate to do them again, should I ever need to.  


Even though I have owned eight snowplows (six Westerns, one Meyers, and a Northman) over the past thirty five years, I still learned some things that seem so obvious to me now.   My welding, oxy-acetylene cutting, and automotive diagnostic skills were all put to the ultimate tests, and this greatly improved all of these skills in the process.


The whole ordeal was much more than just a truck improvement.  It was really more about self improvement, from gaining an “outside the box” type of thinking when searching for parts on the internet, to refining my logic when trying to diagnose and solve problems.  So much of what I learned, so many things that I already knew and were reconfirmed, will have practical value that is useful far beyond the scope of auto repair.


When I think about I know now compared to what I knew when I bought my first truck (A ‘58 Chevy), way back in 1978, I can’t help but think of all the other experiences I’ve had since then, and how they have been such valuable resources necessary in order to put things into perspective today.


Raising feeder pigs, owning a lawn and landscape business, forced me to learn many things and acquire many skills, simply because I couldn’t afford to pay someone else to do various things for me.  I consider myself, to have a better than average knowledge of all of the things listed below.  If fact, about the only people who would know more about these things, would be those who specialize in these areas for their full time occupations.
  • economics
  • money management
  • history
  • current events
  • farming
  • mechanics
  • auto body repair
  • welding
  • oxy-acetylene cutting
  • electricity
  • plumbing
  • carpentry
  • animal health
  • plant health
  • physics
  • chemistry
  • general science
  • truck driving
  • heavy equipment operation
  • engineering
  • journalism


The most important thing about this list is not the individual items themselves, but the fact that so knowledge that one gains from being familiar with these things is transferable to so many other areas.  Principles tend to remain the same across different fields.


In college economics classes, I learned about “diminishing marginal returns”, a concept that liberals who advocate ever increasing government regulation seem to be unable to grasp.  In my plant science classes, I learned that plants cannot absorb anything in organic form through their roots, which means that the whole concept of “organic produce” is a farce.


Raising pigs, I quickly learned that caring for the runt of the litter is a complete waste of time and counterproductive to the success of your whole operation.  Any time spent trying to force feed a weak pig (which is almost certain to die anyway) with a syringe, is valuable time lost that could have been spent monitoring the healthy ones.  The best thing you can do with a weak pig is make it a dead pig, and then move on to making sure that the rest stay healthy.


I also quickly learned about priorities.  Many people think that you can increase your pigs produced per year by sending a lot of time in the farrowing rooms, but if you’re doing things right, the farrowing rooms will take care of themselves.  Sows have been having babies for tens of thousands of years and they know what they’re doing.  The area where you can really make a difference is by spending more of your time in the breeding/gestation area.  If the sows don’t get bred, nothing else matters.


Running the lawn and landscape business, I learned about people.  Everyone has their biggest problem, and that’s what they focus upon.  That’s why the business owner doesn’t give a shit what you did, as long as you showed up and mowed the lawn, (petty details don’t even make it on his radar screen, he’s got other things to worry about) and an old retired lady calls you up and bitches about the fact that you missed trimming around one tree. (Her lawn is the only thing she has to worry about.)

Why am I even mentioning any of this?  Because I want you to read this story, and maybe, do a little research on its author.   Look at how narrow the scope her life has been.  How many of the things that I listed above, do you think she might be proficient at?  Tomorrow, I will comment on her story, and you tell me, if it is her or I, that has more credibility.  

Obama says "Only most of us have the right to object to immigration."

Or was he talking about Indians?


source: The Independent


Obama: The only people with the right to object to immigration are Native Americans

POTUS admitted that 'stitching folks from different backgrounds together' is 'hard but worth doing'







I thought I had everyone squared away on this last year, by posting this and this.  (Click on and read those links.  They’re awesome.  Some of my best work)  Well, we all know that this guy’s a slow learner.  Let’s quick review, to get this douchebag up to speed.  

Obama:


I am a Native American, everyone in my family, for four generations, are Native Americans, almost everyone I know, is a Native American.  Native American means: born in America, nothing more, nothing less. You are not a Native American, because you were born in Kenya.  


Those people you must be referring to, whose ancestors lived in tee pees and fought the cowboys, are Indians.  Got it?  Indians!  Why are they Indians?  Because that’s what we always called ‘em, ever since Columbus discovered America and some half-wit (probably some white liberal) throwing two terms together and tacking some lame definition to them that no intelligent person could have possibly come up with, simply by examining the definitions of either of the terms separately, isn’t going to change things.


It should be noted that almost every Indian (The American Indian kind, not the convenience store kind), is also a Native American, so they definitely have the same right (and obligation) to object to immigration as I do.  As an American citizen, you also have that right, even though you were born in Kenya.


Now, do Indians have any special rights that I, any other Native Americans, or any foreign born, legal citizen do not have?  No! With the exception of the fact that foreign born citizens cannot become president of the United States.  Hey!  What a minute!  What’s going on here?  You were born in Kenya!  


Now where was I?  Oh yeah!  Do Indians have any special rights that I, any other Native American, or foreign born, legal citizen do not have?  Of course not!  (With the exception of what goes on, at the rez.)  Our country was founded on equal rights for everyone. (Do I really need to address the slavery crap?  That problem was rectified about 150 years ago. Anyway, that’s none of your concern, because you descended from whites, and Africans that were never in this country during the existence of slavery, and you were born in Kenya.)


Finally, do Indians have any special claims to this area we now refer to the United States of America that the rest of us Native Americans do not have?  Absolutely not!  Why?  Because we got the land fair and square by overpowering them.  That’s how it works, and just because you and your liberal buddies might not like it, that doesn’t change a thing.  Being there first doesn’t count for anything,  Just ask any group that lost territory to another group in a war.


Now I’m a reasonable man, and I am more than willing to support giving this land back to the Indians, but only if we start with the earliest offenders, and work our way forward from there.  As soon as we get all the lands in Europe, Asia, and Africa that were conquered in war, back to whoever originally occupied it, I will be happy to comply, but I’ll be damned if I ever am going to go along with any of this “only us Native Americans are going to have to feel guilty about how we got our land” shit.

Why don’t you shut up, stop trying to destroy this country, and go back to Kenya?

Ramos Goes Gruber

I saw this at truth revolt, and immediately noticed something that raised some questions in my mind.  I checked the comments to see if anyone else had the same thoughts, but I didn’t see anything.  It seems so obvious to me.  Am I the only one who made the connection and came up with same questions?  Read the following story (especially the parts highlighted in yellow), and see if the same questions come to you.



Univision's Ramos To Journalists: 'Stop Pretending We're Neutral'

'We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.'

Univision's Jorge Ramos was presented the Burton Benjamin Memorial Award for "lifetime achievement in defending press freedom" Tuesday at the 2014 Committee to Protect Journalists International Press Freedom Awards.
During his speech before the group of journalists and media executives, Ramos made the case for journalists to drop the facade of impartiality and to use their voices and influence not just to inform but as activists to change policy:
"The best of journalism happens when we take a stand: when we question those who are in power, when we confront the politicians who abuse their authority, when we denounce an injustice," Ramos said. "The best of journalism happens when we side with the victims, with the most vulnerable, with those who have no rights. The best of journalism happens when we, purposely, stop pretending that we are neutral and recognize that we have a moral obligation to tell truth to power."
The Huffington Post reports that the journalist many consider to be one of the most influential in America used the Iraq war as an example of what journalists should do with their power:
"Sadly, we stayed silent before the war in Iraq and thousands of American soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraq civilians died unnecessarily," he continued. "We have to learn from that. Silence is the worst sin in journalism. But the best is when journalism becomes a way of doing justice and speaking truth to power."
Ramos pointed to a quote by the great Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel to bring his point home: “We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim.”


Are you thinking what I’m thinking?  Would you like to ask Ramos these questions?:
Then, why aren’t the vast majority of journalists overt conservatives?
  • Who is in power right now?
  • Which politician is blatantly abusing his power, right now?
  • Why aren’t most journalists speaking truth to him, right now?
  • Who’s rights are being trampled on, right now?
  • Who’s concerns and desires are being completely ignored, right now?
The truth here is, that Ramos isn’t concerned about any of the things he claims to be concerned about.  He is only concerned with promoting liberalism, and thus, destroying everything that made this country great.  He is too stupid to look at other countries that have gone down the path he suggests we follow, and see the ultimate destination, but he still thinks that he is smarter than all of us.  
Everyone was so shocked by the comments by Jonathan Gruber, but liberals have always been this way.  The don’t admit (and never will admit), that they’re wrong, but through their arrogance, they readily reveal their disingenuousness, ulterior motives, dishonesty, and their belief that all of the rest of us are too stupid to notice.
 


Happy Thansgiving

Author's note:  I've got stuff to do today, and I'm too lazy to proofread this.  Ignore the mistakes and/or figure out what I was trying to say for yourself.

Years ago, I first heard while listening to Rush.  The real story of the first Thanksgiving and the failure of communism.  Nowadays, every year, many bloggers will post same story, and I don’t disagree with them for doing so.  It’s a story that should be repeated as often as possible.  

The moral of the story is, communism doesn’t work, but let’s take a look at why it doesn’t.

Communism fails everywhere, every time, it is tried, and it’s not because (as liberals believe) a failure in execution.  It is due to a failure in principle.  Human beings are selfish and lazy.  They tend to not give a full effort unless they think that the fruits of their labor is going directly to themselves.  To confirm this, all you have to do is observe the amount of sweat produced during a community project versus when a farm family is trying to get all their hay up in the mow before it rains.

“Selfish” and “lazy” are generally pejorative terms, but being selfish and lazy are also two vital ingredients of survival.  A caveman didn’t expend any more effort at any given time, than he needed to, because he knew he might need to exert much more effort at a moments notice, at any given time.  (Like if a dinosaur snuck up on him and he had to quickly run away.)  Today, we call that, energy conservation.  

Being selfish and lazy are also two of the main ingredients for invention and human evolution.  Why did cavemen invent and use tools in the first place?  Because they made life easier, and that appealed to the laziness of human nature.  The more tools the cavemen invented to save themselves time and effort, the more time and effort could be devoted to developing new technologies.  Eventually, the cavemen with these technologies, permanently displaced those tribes who did not. Selfishness and laziness are in our DNA.  They’re not necessarily bad things, they’re just not conducive communal living.

OK, so we admit that we are all, by nature, selfish and lazy, and we understand that those two aspects of human nature are main reasons why communism does not work.  So why then, do we still have people who advocate communism, socialism, or some form of  it?  Oddly enough, the thought process of these people is driven by the very things that make communism fail.  They’re selfish and lazy.

“How can that be?” you might ask, “that the ingredients that drive human progress and evolution are same factors that motivate people to push a failed ideology?”   Go get a drink and a snack.  Explaining this is gonna take a while.

Alright, you all settled in?  Here it is.  Even though we are all selfish and lazy, we are not all stupid, we’re not all cowards, we’re not all greedy, and we all don’t have a lust for power.  All liberals however, have at least one of those last four attributes, any one of which can make one susceptible to lure of communism.  Let’s take a look as to how.

Easiest explanations first.  Many liberals are just too stupid to even have ever considered any of the things I have just written above.  They never even thought about the fact that socialism and human nature are at odds with each other, or they naive enough to think, “This time, things are going to be different.”

Liberals are often cowards. They’re just as selfish and lazy as anyone else, but they are afraid of looking as if they are.  That is why they tend to gravitate towards things like government, academia, or community service.  Areas where there is no direct comparison with a competitor, or other measure of effectiveness.  These are the type of people that would rather participate in a tug of war at a picnic, than a race.  If their team loses, nothing can be blamed directly on them.  These people often once tried and failed to make it in the real world, and rather than trying again, they quit entirely.  

There’s nothing wrong with that.  We need community organizers (or do we?) too.  The problem is, that these people resent the people that did try and try again, and then eventually succeeded.  That’s where that “You didn’t build that”, “It takes a village”, “99% vs 1%” crap comes from.  It’s OK to be lazy (we all are), just don’t resent those who weren’t quite as lazy as you.

The funny thing about liberals is that although they are the first to accept Darwinism as vehicle to explain away the existence of God, they are the least likely to accept the modern day consequences of it. The people I described in the above paragraphs, should been swept away long ago, but now, we either find homes for them in government or education, or we simply give them money.

Although liberals share the same qualities of laziness and selfishness as everyone else, many of them lack the competitive spirit that most of the rest of us have.  Their favorite solutions to the problems of disparity always involve taking from the winners and giving to the losers.  The end result of this will always be more losers, and fewer even trying to be winners.  Eventual failure for all, is guaranteed.

Greed is a term that liberals love to toss around, but like laziness and selfishness, depending upon how you define it, greed is not always a bad thing.  Lefties will describe a rich businessman as being greedy, but in his pursuit of wealth, the businessman enriched many more people than just himself.  In a free market, you cannot conduct a transaction without enriching someone else.  A customer values a baker’s bread more than the money the baker is charging for it and vice versa, plus the government takes their share to run all those wonderful liberal programs.  Even if the baker is greedy, other people benefit from his greedy scheme of turning bread into money.  These last two sentences can be described as “creating wealth”.

My definition of greed is obtaining wealth without creating it.  Like say, a community organizer, from Illinois, who was born in Kenya, never produced a dime of wealth in his life, and is hell bent on taking as much wealth from people who did create it as he possibly can.  Another example might be a community organizer that somehow manages to make money simply by infusing himself whenever there is a case of racial tension that makes national headlines, and nets even more money by not paying his, as liberals love to say, “fair share” of taxes.

The people in the above paragraphs are lucky liberals, who managed to use their greedy desires into wealth at the expense of others under the current economic system we now have.  There are still more, many more with every bit as much desire for wealth and power with just as little work ethic and competitive spirit.  These are the people who openly express the desire to bring about a full blown communist revolution, thinking that they will be the ones in power is such a thing ever occurred.  They’re too stupid to realize that, that is a very dangerous game.  They should look at Russian history and note how many people who supported the Bolshevik Revolution, simply disappeared shortly after it was over.

All of the different types of liberals that are described above are both selfish and lazy, but unlike the caveman, unlike the businessman, they don’t produce anything that creates any wealth or benefits mankind in any way.  Neither does communism/socialism.  Can you think of any item (other than various forms of punishment, murder, and torture) that was invented in a communist country?

Communism always fails.  No matter where it is tried.  No matter what level at which it is imposed.  Either from within, because of laziness and selfishness of the people who must endure it, or from the outside, by being economically overwhelmed by people/countries that have a competitive spirit and are allowed to produce as much wealth as they can.

Happy Thanksgiving, and when you’re thinking of things to be thankful for, be sure to be thankful (that at least up until now) don’t live under the tyranny of communism.