LL Battles #2

2/27/2012

"It's the Democrat Party that instantly comes to mind when someone mentions family values, sex within the marriage, and two-parent households. (Sarcasm alert.) As Reagan said, "The Federal Government declared war on poverty, and poverty won." The Democrats today rail about poverty and racial injustice, yet that's what the Democrat programs implemented in the 1960s, and championed ever since, were designed to eliminate. Instead they created a class of government-dependent Americans and foster racial divisiveness and resentment. The experiment has failed."

LL Battles #1

In another forum I frequently take on Liberals who post various political comments. Usually their comments are anonymous, filled with inaccuracies, mistakes and outright lies. I first started posting to correct their misinformation, and this has led to some battles that put the Battle of Helm's Deep to shame. I express my opinions -- infuriating those on the Left who want to silence opposition -- and usually support my points with facts and data, providing links to document the validity of my information. 


I don't comment with any hope of convincing the Left's True Believers -- they're relentless in their zeal to be stupid. But there are readers who won't get the other side of the story, stripped of misinformation, without my posts.  We all contribute what we can, so I put in my two cents' worth.


I hope you enjoy the new series of "reposts" of my comments as they cover a variety of different subjects. I'll edit them a bit so they make sense, but my points will be intact. Some of them are a bit dated, so read them in context of the date.

9/28/11

"The Tea Party has more strong opposition than strong support (barely.) Given the pounding the Tea Party has taken in the media, that's to be expected. (How many people still believe Tea Partiers spit on black congressmen and called them the n-word?) So in that sense, you're right.

However, more Americans identify with Conservative political ideology than any other. That means that more Americans agree with the Tea Party stance on issues -- their agenda, if you will. 

Moreover, which group is it that's energized and enthusiastic about next year's election? It ain't Democrats, that's for sure. Here's what Politico wroteabout what Democrats have to look forward to in 2012: "Now, resigned to the likelihood that the president will be a down-ballot drag in many races and absent signs of an electoral wave on the horizon, Democrats are scaling back their expectations." Ol' Professor Hopenchange ain't lookin' so good."

Santorum and the Left's attack on America

The most convincing argument so far made for Rick Santorum was expressed in a recent column by Star Parker.  Titled “The Left Fuels Santorum Surge,” Parker's column touts Santorum’s consistency.  “Santorum stands out in the current Republican field in the clarity of his image and identity. There is little doubt about who the man is and there are no glaring inconsistencies between who he says he is today and his past behavior and positions…. So the issue with Santorum is whether you buy what he is selling.”

Parker goes on to commend Santorum for his refusal to shy away from social issues.  The Left, she argues, engages in battle every chance it gets to mold our culture into what it wants. The courts found California’s Proposition 8, defining marriage as between a man and a woman, unconstitutional; the uproar that caused the Susan G. Komen foundation to reinstate its funding of Planned Parenthood; the Obama administration’s insistence that the Catholic church provide contraceptives to its employees.  

“The three high profile left wing victories of recent weeks all touch these key areas.

• End the traditional institution of marriage as a bulwark of our society.
• Continue to promote sex as recreation and relegate the life this activity creates as a trivial byproduct which we allow to be destroyed with ease.
• Destroy the sanctity of private property so government can finance irresponsibility with other people’s money.”

Rick Santorum, Parker says, is the only Republican candidate who has consistently fought against the Left’s deforming of America.

What exactly is Planned Parenthood's business?

 Planned Parenthood publicizes itself as a women's health organization. When the subject of abortion comes up, they (and their advocates) claim that abortion makes up only 3% of their services. However, ex-employees say that they were forced to push abortions because of their profitability. What's the deal?

Income

In their 2008-2009 annual report, PP claimed revenue from their "health centers" of $404.9 million. That "3%" figure is out of nearly 11 million "total services," meaning just over 328,000 abortions. The price for a PP abortion ranges from $300-$950. Using an average price of $625, that's $205 million revenue from abortions out of $404.9 total revenue from PP "health centers" - 50.6%.

Does PP actually provide "health services" for pregnant women?

A pregnant woman enters PP. That woman will either a) Receive prenatal care to help her baby, making her a "prenatal client" or b) Receive help placing the baby for adoption; (These first two may overlap;) or c) Receive an abortion. 

Using info from Planned Parenthood, we find that in 2008 PP had 9,433 prenatal clients, 2405 aid with adoption clients, and performed 324,008 abortions. Of the 335,846 pregnancies, at least 96.5% ended in abortion.

***

Planned Parenthood is what it is, and the information above speaks for itself. Why, then, does PP act so coy about what is clearly a huge part of their business? It's as though McDonalds was bashful about saying they sell hamburgers.

Who's really unemployed?

This video explains it.

Satisfying in so many ways

Recent headline from the Huffington Post: "Obama Wall Street Fundraising Evaporates as Donors Flee to Romney."  Apparently the financial world which gave so much money to Obama in 2008 is now investing in Romney. One passage from the story which is particularly satisfying:


"Why the world of finance is leaving Obama is a subject of some irritation among Democratic fundraisers. Wall Street executives, after all, have thrived under the Obama administration. The Justice Department has been notoriously slow in pursuing investigations of fraud. Ditto for the Securities Exchange Commission."


Why is this satisfying? It contradicts what so many Democrats have claimed, and confirms so much of what the rest of the world knew.

• Obama received huge amounts of cash from Wall Street, even as he demonized them.
• The Obama administration has paid back that fundraising with its quid pro quo practices.
• The Obama administration uses the Justice Department and other federal agencies as political tools.

We can only hope that the Wall Street money is effectively used to oust Obama & Co.

Classiest way to respond to a thoughtless interruption

Way more gracious and spontaneous than I could ever be.

Other People Say Smart Stuff, Too - Part XXXIV

John Ransom has written another column whose title spells it all out: "15 Questions the Mainstream Media Would Ask Barack Obama If He Were a Republican." Some samples:

• In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was "leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future." Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?
• Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?
• How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that's appropriate for an American President?
• If they could, don't you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?

You get the gist.  Read the column.

The case against "mentee"

The word mentor derives from Greek mythology.  When Odysseus left to fight in the Trojan War, he left his friend Mentor in charge of Odysseus’s son Telemachus.  When the goddess Athena visited Telemachus, she took the form of Mentor and advised him to resist the advice of others and to go in search of his father.

In modern usage, a mentor is an advisor and teacher to another person, usually someone younger and less experienced.  In other words, we are calling that person the name of the historical Mentor, just as we call someone who gives presents a “Secret Santa,” or a smaller person (or company, etc.) going against a much larger entity a “David” going against a “Goliath.”

The backformation word mentee treats the word mentor, with its –or ending, as if it means “one who ments.” Thus a mentee would be “one who is mented.” This is clearly not the case. Although a contractor is one who contracts (for a particular job,) an author is not one who “auths.”  Employers employ employees, detainers detain detainees, but mentors do not ment mentees.

There exists a perfectly good word for the role of someone who a mentor mentors – protégé.  The dictionary defines protégé as “a person under the patronage, protection or care of someone interested in his career or welfare.”  In other words, the exact description of one who has a mentor.

It takes the twisted mind of a sociopath or a bureaucrat to create a horrendous, misbegotten atrocity and encourage its use to replace a lovely, useful, and faithful word such as protégé.  Those who repeat the process are just as guilty of verbal crimes against humanity as the creator (with its –or ending.) For the sake of your soul, use the correct word.

I thought I'd got sick of these things

1. I'm not a Justin Bieber fan.
2. Over-choreographed wedding dances have used up their freshness.
3. Too many people these days want to video themselves, purely to feed their ego.
Having said all that, this one is kind of neat.

Yeah, let's run everything through the government

From a recent column by Hadley Heath: 

If we were to run the roughly $950 billion spent on anti-poverty programs in 2011 by the 49 million Americans who are poor, we'd have nearly $19,400 per person. That's $77,600 for a family of four, which would clearly surpass the federal poverty line. ($22,350 for a family of four.)

"Of course, instead of going directly to the poor, government money passes through the pipeline of federal, state and local-level bureaucrats paid to administer welfare programs. These additional costs mean fewer resources go to the people in need."

Forget "where's our Reagan?" -- Where's our Thatcher??

Smart, well-spoken, quick as a whip and sharp as a tack -- "wiping the floor" with her opposition in debate. That was Margaret Thatcher.

Why Gingrich is the man, per Thomas Sowell

Dr. Thomas Sowell is one of the best thinkers in America today.  (I've quoted him numerous times before.)  In this recent column, he spells out how Newt Gingrich has proven he should be the Republican presidential nominee.

Funny how time affects people differently

Reductio ad Klanum, in the mainstream media*

MSNBC "award winning journalist" and anchor Thomas Roberts reported that Mitt Romney's slogan "Keep America America" is similar to one the Ku Klux Klan used in the 1920s.  The report includes a graphic stating "ROMNEY'S KKK SLOGAN?"  Roberts made sure to include the fact that the slogan was "a rallying cry for the group's campaign of violence and intimidation against blacks, gays and Jews."  That darn Mormon Romney must have the same intentions, right?  At least that's what MSNBC implied.




* Or at least as mainstream as MSNBC can claim to be with its couple of dozen viewers.

The Fantastic Republican Field

The narrative being put forth by the media and Democrats (technically separate groups, but the same) is that the Republican field of presidential candidates is weak. Here's what I had to say in another forum:

Republican candidates include a governor, two US Representatives, three former governors, a former Speaker of the House, and a former US Senator. This field is at least the equal of the '08 Democrats.

Having made that declaration, I took a look back at the Democrat field of 2008:
- Barack Obama - US Senator for only two years before starting his campaign for President. Survived being a member of Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years without hearing any of the sermons; associate of terrorist William Ayres and convicted felon Tony Rezko. The claims of "lack of experience" by his opponents subsequently being proved true.
- Hillary Clinton – Elected US Senator of a state where she didn’t live because she was the wife of a popular ex-President.  No prior elected office, but author of universal healthcare debacle and Travelgate scandal of 1993, while serving as wife of a popular President.
- John Edwards – Indicted on six felony charges related to his extramarital affair, facing 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine.
- Bill Richardson – Currently the subject of a grand jury investigation around his allegedly paying $250,000 to quiet a woman who had threatened to file sexual harassment complaint. The money came from donations raised for his presidential campaign, a federal no-no. (What? You hadn't heard about this?)
- Dennis Kucinich – Greatest claim to fame is being considered the most extreme Liberal in Congress.
- Joe Biden – Dropped his candidacy in 1988 after being busted for plagiarizing a speech. Most well known for his verbal gaffes. (Example: Urged a wheelchair-bound veteran to “stand up and take a bow.”) Chosen as Obama’s VP.
- Mike Gravel – Unknown Senator from Alaska. He’s most famous for this “artistic” campaign video:

- Christopher Dodd – Beneficiary of a sweetheart loan from disgraced mortgage lender Countrywide; defended Fannie Mae as “fundamentally sound;” authored a provision that allowed AIG executives to take government-provided “bailout” money as bonuses. The government gave AIG $170 million; executives took $165 million as their bonus. Most famous for a notorious sexual attack of a waitress (along with Ted Kennedy.)

- Tom Vilsack – Best known for tying for the title of the least scandalous of 2008 Democrat presidential candidates.

- Evan Bayh – According to the Washington Post, “wasn’t a particularly distinguished senator…an ordinary politician.” Outstanding in not taking a stand. Tied with Vilsack.

In comparison, today's offering of Republican presidential candidates don't look so bad. Not bad at all.

Most patriotic house decorations in America

As the poster on YouTube put it: "This is a light show as only Republicans know how to put on."

Rats, sinking ships, etc.

Democrat congressman Barney Frank has announced his plans not to seek reelection in 2012.  That handwriting on the wall for Democrats must be depressingly clear.


Frank is best remembered for his spirited (and videoed) defense of Franklin Raines and Fannie Mae in 2004.  Or maybe it's the corrupt Dodd-Frank legislation.  Regardless, it's another rat deserting the sinking Democrat ship.

What does Obama understand about economics?

Not as much as you'd think.

Well, it's not so much what he understands, as what he believes.  Democrats refuse to work on any deficit reduction that does not include tax increases.  They euphemistically cite those increases to "increase revenue," but that's not what motivtes Democrats, particularly Obama.  Here's why he wants tax increases:

To be more "fair"



To "spread the wealth around"



Because at a certain point "you've made enough money."

Gingrich kills again

The best debater in the world, and the smartest man in any room he walks into, guts the MSNBC moderators and the media at the Republican debate.