In government vindictiveness, Tea Party vindication

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar
 

It turns out the Tea Party was right.

The raison d'ĂȘtre of the loosely affiliated grassroots organizations is that a big government threatens freedoms, especially if it's in the wrong hands. This week's revelations that the Obama Administration lied about the circumstances surrounding the death of the American ambassador at Benghazi, spied on the Associated Press, and intimidated conservative groups with the IRS clued in the mainstream media on what the Tea Party has known for years.

Not only has this administration rapidly centralized power but has turned the government against the American people in an unprecedented way, and it's not just the three scandals from this week.

Some liberals and libertarians deserve credit for raising concerns about sacrificing liberty for security in the wake of 9/11. We were fine when that power was pointed at our enemies in Al Qaeda. They warned us that in the wrong hands, it could be used against us.

Obama campaigned on ending some controversial Bush-era security programs. Liberals ate it up. Not only did he keep them, however, he expanded them and his administration has used them against his own country. Liberals didn't care.

Who did care, were the Tea Party groups. Many participants became disenchanted with Bush, especially in his second term. But size of his government was nothing compared to Obama, who showed a radical ideological streak that put no limit on the size of government--blended with nasty, brutal Chicago politics.

Thanks to an ill-informed public, an adoring press, and a golden tongue, Obama was able to get away with abuses of power. While the mainstream media may have just learned about his problems this week, conservatives reported it way back--but they were mocked and ignored, until now.

If the mainstream media was doing its job in 2008, there's no way Obama's campaign would have survived Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and Tony Rezko, let alone his anti-American upbringing or heavy drug use.

The press ignored even the existence of the Tea Party at first, which caught fire in its opposition to Obamacare.  Without mainstream media help, the Democrats were able to push it through with shady maneuvers.

Alone, conservatives tried unsuccessfully to hold Obama's Attorney General accountable for the Fast & Furious gunwalking scandal.  They pointed out that his Green Jobs Czar was a self admitted 9/11 Truther and communist. They railed against the partial nationalization of the healthcare, auto, and financial sectors, to no avail. Solyndra didn't make a dent, and taxpayer money flowed to Obama backers. He supported the violent Occupy movement--can you imagine what the press would say if Romney backed the Tea Party and it turned violent? The press had nothing but praise for it. Then there was massive ammo purchases and an assault on the second amendment.  Don't forget about Obama's war on whistleblowers.  Or his war on Libya without Congressional approval that he said would last weeks but lasted months.

Either the flagging economy or Benghazi should have cost him reelection, but instead he sailed in. Rand Paul had to filibuster just to get him to say he wouldn't target American citizens in a drone strike.

All of it was ignored by everyone but conservatives.

But now that the election is over, we're starting to hear about Benghazi, the IRS targeting of the Tea Party, and the overly aggressive pursuit of whistleblowers, all of which took place before he was reelected.

Now, the mainstream media has finally validated only a few conservative fears of this corrupt administration, which is worse than Nixon's.  There's lots more. Can Obama's disciples spin the news cycle back to his advantage? Will the press lose interest and the public go back to sleep?

Probably.

But there's a chance that scandals' momentum will highlight his other, previously ignored ones. Whether or not Obama sustains permanent political damage, the Tea Party can at least be assured that they were in the right all along.

The gift that keeps on giving

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar
 

This is pretty funny. David Atkins, the chairman of the Ventura County Democratic Party, just officially called for a Simi Valley councilman's resignation over "vile" online activity. Apparently, a Republican councilman and LAPD veteran clicked "Like" on a picture of scantily clad women with guns on his private Facebook page.

That and a couple of similar "likes" led Atkins to declare his "vile activity online serves as a clear sign that he lacks the judgment necessary to serve in elected office." He added the "conduct and the material he likes are certainly not representative of the values held by most people in Simi Valley."

I guess he's saying most men in Simi don't find female models attractive?  Set aside that this whole thing is a laughingly weak accusation. It's even more amusing considering the timing. Atkins thinks this is a huge scandal, on the eve of the Benghazi hearings, which he'll ignore. Priceless.

But for a really good laugh, consider what Atkins himself posts on his social networks. Remember, Atkins wants this councilman to resign because of a few things he clicked "Like" on.

In 2011, his own party had to distance itself from him when he posted on Twitter that people in Simi Valley should "just put your white hoods on already" in response to some opposition to redistricting. He wrote that, "It's so clear that most of these old white people from East Ventura are terribly afraid of brown people in Oxnard/LA."

Remember, Atkins was upset that the Facebook likes are "not representative of the values held by most people in Simi Valley."

But this is!

"...hardcore conservatives want nothing more than to use minorities for target practice."

And this!

"The only way forward is to defeat and expose them for what they are: racist, bloodthirsty lunatics..."

These are both from Atkins' Daily Kos blog.

He also has a bit of a potty mouth, which honestly I don't have a problem with. But it makes for delicious irony when that person accuses other people of being "vile" online.









And that's only from the last month. Van Jones lost his job when he called Republicans "assholes," by the way. Honestly, the language doesn't bother me, except I wonder how much hate is inside him for him not to be able to control himself even though he's in a high-profile position.

What's more offensive to me is the lefty ideology, which I just don't get. Things like this:



I think I see what he's saying about protecting the life of the mother, but it's such a callous way to discuss the innocent and helpless. 

The hate, the radical politics, and the inability to self-censor (or if he already IS self-censoring, then we got a bigger problem) made Atkins a curious choice for VC Democratic Party Chairman. But it's entertaining, like when a crazy person gets on TV. Especially when he accuses other people of being vile online. Maybe he's got more on the councilman and is waiting to release it. If not, and this is all he's got, then he's pretty foolish, given his history.

If the councilman had posted and tweeted the words Atkins has, Atkins would use that as justification to call for his head.

But remember--it's Republicans who are hypocrites!







May Day Seattle: radical left-wing violence

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar
 

Another far-left cause, another riot and clashes with police.

Police used "flash bangs" and pepper spray against some protesters who pelted them with rocks and bottles late Wednesday, as violence erupted during May Day in Seattle.

Several dozen protesters, many using bandanas to cover their faces, began clashing with police in downtown Seattle hours after a peaceful immigrant-rights march ended.

The May Day protests in Seattle the previous year turned violent as well and in Los Angeles several years before. It's not just May Day either--let's not forget to mention the infamous Occupy Protests. There's something about anti-capitalism that brings out the worst in people.

When the "far right" protests? Millions of people in lawn chairs waving flags at Tea Party rallies.

That not only is strong evidence for the civility of their guiding ideology, but is an indictment on the media.

Can you imagine if a Tea Party rally turned as violent as a May Day or Occupy protest, with pepper spray and fires and vandalism? It would be front-page news for weeks.

But when the far left does it, it's just protesters being protesters. More of the usual--which is a sad commentary on that political ideology.

Minimum wage increases hurt workers

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar
 

Minimum wage law increases are popular, but so is ice cream. That doesn't make them good for you.

A California bill would increase the minimum wage from $8.00 per hour to over $9.25 and provide for future increases to keep pace with inflation.

I want people to make more money, but a minimum wage is not the way to do it, particularly if your labor is worth less than $9.25 an hour.

If a worker's labor is worth $6 an hour--say he's unskilled or inexperienced--then a business isn't likely to employ him at $9.25. The worker will quickly find himself making $0 an hour since he won't have a job.

That's hard on high school kids trying to get a job to get some experience under their belt. Why would an employer hire an inexperienced student for $9.25 when a more experienced adult could have the job and have more to contribute? The student will have a harder time getting experience so he can one day make more than minimum wage.

Nor is it good for unskilled adults. Why hire an unskilled adult at $9.25 (or $8, for that matter) when a more skilled one will also work for that wage?

Minimum wage laws negatively impact the very people politicians say they are trying to help. After all, they don't have control over the real minimum wage, which is always $0 an hour--the wage someone gets when they can't find work.

Newspapers choose political correctness over accuracy, again

Share: Share on Facebook submit to reddit StumbleUpon Toolbar
 

The Associated Press last week officially omitted "illegal immigrant" from its stylebook. Many media outlets already use the term "undocumented immigrant" to describe people who are living in the United States illegally.

The Star is one such newspaper. On Saturday, Start Editor John Moore wrote:

For the past two years, The Star's style ...has used the term "undocumented immigrant" instead of "illegal immigrant" in news stories when discussing a person who is living in this country illegally.

He's right.  Why? The reasoning is simple. People aren't illegal, as the lefty saying goes.

Kathleen Carroll, executive editor of the AP, said in an interview with Poynter.org that the use of labels in writing is "kind of a lazy device that those of us who type for a living can become overly reliant on as a shortcut. It ends up pigeonholing people or creating long descriptive titles where you use some main event in someone's life to become the modifier before their name."

Uh, "undocumented immigrant" is no different as a lazy, pigeonholing device than "illegal immigrant," using her logic. It's still a label, isn't it? It's just a softer one, which conveniently downplays the illegal part.  You could go with "one who is in the country illegally", but that sort of conflicts with Carroll's reluctance to use "long descriptive titles." Heck, calling someone an immigrant period, even one who is here legally, is a label. Should we drop that too?

It doesn't help her reasoning that "undocumented immigrant is less accurate than "illegal immigrant." Some illegal immigrants ARE documented--with stolen information. However, all of them are illegal. Why not use the most accurate term?

The truth of the matter is that the AP dropped "illegal immigrant" because of political correctness--they caved to political pressure from special interest groups or they themselves fall on the left-hand side of the illegal immigration issue. They are just fine with labels, especially when it comes to labeling conservatives. There are lots of people who want to influence the debate by changing the terms and the AP is facilitating that. Fine for an advocacy group, not fine for objective journalists.

IngeMusings
Topic
This blog attempts to add perspective and context to local and national politics, through a variety of disciplines, such as history, economics, and philosophy--all tempered with common sense. About the author

Eric Ingemunson's commentary has been featured on Hannity, CNN, NBC, Inside Edition, and KFI's The John and Ken Show. Eric was born and raised in Ventura County and currently resides in Moorpark. He earned a master's degree in Public Policy and Administration from California Lutheran University. As a conservative, Eric supports smaller government, less taxation, more individual freedom, the rule of law, and a strict adherence to the Constitution.
  • InsofsFrese: A familiar comprar viagra would belly miss your horror man's read more
  • IGTWCWXUvf: zolpidem 10 mg ambien 4 years - ambien in early read more
  • TVrSnLpnKS: buy diazepam buy valium 90 pills - valium like drugs read more
  • ELEYPoqUCY: redirected valium for travel anxiety - purchase valium overnight read more
  • longchamp shoes chicago: Yes! Finally something about %keyword1%. read more
  • christianlouboutinoutletuk: I was recommended this web site by my cousin. I'm read more
  • longchamp pliage l: I used to be recommended this blog via my cousin. read more
  • christianlouboutinpliable: I'm pretty pleased to uncover this web site. I wanted read more
  • ceinture longchamp homme: Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the pictures on read more
  • viagra: soin visage soin visage soin visage soin visage read more