Is the MFM Really Afraid of Political Violence From the Right, Or Is It Just Another Negative Political Attack? [*2] -- No, I'm quite sure they're really afraid. AND it's a negative political attack. The two are not mutually exclusive. They're afraid because it's well established now that liberals and leftists simply don't have the moral framework to adequately understand the motives and actions of people of the right--while the right has a much more balanced moral framework and can understand the leftist view. It's because the Left does not understand the Right that they oppose the policy recommendations of the Right. It's because the Right does understand the Left that they promote policies of freedom, and oppose policies of oppression.
The time has indeed come to put many things on the table. All of them are dusty, overpriced relics of discredited statist theories and collectivist ideology. How long has it been since Americans were allowed to tackle any serious problem by enhancing their liberty? Who can remember the last time we approached a situation by reducing the burden of regulation and taxation on our private citizens, unleashing their energy and creativity? When was the last time we were allowed to view a crisis as an opportunity for the private sector, rather than the State?
And don't try using the lies about deregulation causing the oil spill or the housing meltdown. Neither are true. Don't lie to me--or to yourself. Go find the truth, instead. If you have the courage to face the truth, that is. Maybe you don't. Maybe you want Someone To Make It Better. But nobody will. Nobody but you, that is. What are YOU doing?
Looting Taxpayers: Mortgage Interest Deduction Editon [*6] -- I'm starting to wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to simply revoke the privilege from the Federal Government of taking money in any way, shape, or form, from any citizen of the United States. Make the Federal Government "tax" the States. Let the States have control of the purse of the Feds. Pass a Consititutional Amendment limiting the Federal budget to some percentage of State budgets.
Don't tell me it can't happen. Don't tell me it's impossible. We're into an age where nothing is impossible, and nothing is off the table.
We need to do something drastic to bring some sense of fiscal discipline to Washington. Simply electing a bunch of fiscal realists (not even "fiscal conservatives"), while a good move, will not be enough.
A study: The temperature rise has caused the CO2 Increase, not the other way around [*22] -- Oh. Um, er, yeah . . . about all of that Cap and Trade, have to destroy the economy in order to save it stuff . . . never mind . . . of course, we will never, ever, ever hear this from the current generation of politicians and scientists who've gone all-in for global warming/climate change, will we? They've got too much skin in the game now to back out now.
Rand Paul Distances Himself From Libertarianism [*30] -- Actually, I think it would be best if libertarians distanced themselves from "Libertarianism" and started actually engaging Democrats, Republicans, and especially independents, rather than sitting in their basements muttering to each other . . .
Obama’s Moratorium Disaster: “Tens of Thousands” on Gulf Coast Will Lose Their Jobs [*35] -- This bunch simply has no more sophisticated conception of economics than "hey, lookie there, some money, give it to us!" They have no clue how money--or more accurately wealth--is made, and show no signs of being able to learn that simple but essential fact. They don't believe in the production of wealth. They believe that the economy is a "zero-sum game" where if one person is making money, somebody else must necessarily be losing money. This is a very primitive--one might say barbaric view of economics.
Almost half of the world's population has lower than optimal levels of vitamin D and scientists say the problem is getting worse as people spend more time indoors or cover up too quickly and completely when they are exposed to sunshine.
Non-white populations in less sunny climates are at higher risk since dark skin can make it harder for the body to absorb ultraviolet light.
Barack Obama’s message is quite clear: he is spiteful with regard to traditional Americans with traditional American values, spiteful with regard to America’s traditional allies and spiteful with regard to America’s traditional place as the beacon of liberty. Barack Obama prefers an America that is nuclear-neutered, bankrupt, statist and paralyzed with dhimmitude to an America that is exceptional.
This President intentionally makes a mockery of the Presidency — the leadership of the free world — because he believes the notion of the free world, as we have traditionally understood it, to be a mockery. He wishes it seems to reduce us from the free world to the Third World. The fundamental principles of Western Civilization are completely anathema to those of President Barack Obama. Hence Dorothy Rabinowitz’s characterization of him as an alien President.
Peter Singer, writing in the New York Times, asks whether a world without people wouldn’t be a better place. His argument is simple. If nobody is alive then nobody’s human rights can be violated. “Have you ever thought about whether to have a child? … But very few ask whether coming into existence is a good thing for the child itself.”
Good idea, Peter. You kill yourself first. I'll watch, and see how to do it.
Let's return now to my original question: What is wrong with Obama? My guess is a great deal. The answer is complex and likely includes some combination of the above.
Along with the brain issues are personality disorders: narcissism, paranoia, passive-aggressiveness. There's even the possibility of the most destructive character defect of all, an antisocial personality. Untreated abuse can foster antisocial traits, especially among boys.
If my assessment is accurate, what does this mean?
It means that liberals need to wake up and spit out the Kool-Aid...and that conservatives should put aside differences, band together, and elect as many Republicans as possible.
Because Obama will not change. He will not learn from his mistakes. He will not grow and mature from on-the-job experience. In fact, over time, Obama will likely become a more ferocious version of who he is today.
Why? Because this is a damaged person. Obama's fate was sealed years ago growing up in his strange and poisonous family. Later on, his empty vessel was filled with the hateful bile of men like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers.
Obama will not evolve; he will not rise to the occasion; he will not become the man he was meant to be. This is for one reason and one reason alone: