Category Archives: Politics on the left

C’mon, which one is the bigger idiot?

Posted on by
Reply

This is from a speech by Obama himself:

“I got a letter a while back from a gentleman living in Colorado, and clearly an intelligent guy, and he had taken a lot of time to write this letter. And he said, you know, I voted for you twice, but I’m feeling disillusioned,'” Obama said.

“And I get letters, people say, ‘You are an idiot,’ and here’s what you didn’t do, and here’s the program that is terrible, and all kinds of stuff. But this gentleman, he said, I voted for you twice but I’m deeply disappointed. And it went on and on, chronicling all the things that hadn’t gotten done,” added Obama.

Anyone who voted for Obama twice is certifiably stupid.

Thank goodness there were none in the State Department

Posted on by
Reply

This is from a write up of Cornered, a 1945 film I’ve never heard of. But this is the part that is incredible, especially since, as everyone knows, there were no communists in Hollywood at the time:

Scott immediately hired the author of The Last Mile and his original choice from the beginning, writer John Wexley. A hard line Communist Party member, Wexley gave the dialogue a distinctly socialist stance, thinly disguised as antifascist drama, much to the chagrin of Dmytryk and Scott. While they too had ties to the Communist Party, Dmytryk and Scott did not want to weigh down the drama with party-approved rhetoric. Wexley was soon relieved of duty, and John Paxton was hired to tone down the Communist propaganda and punch up the antifascist angle, while adding more action and tightening up the pace of the story. . . .

Shortly before Cornered was to be released, Wexley summoned Dmytryk and Scott to a Communist cell meeting where he lambasted them for erasing the Party lines from the film and then demanded their removal from the Red ranks. In effect, Wexley and the Party faithful were upbraiding Dmytryk and Scott for practicing creative freedom. According to Dmytryk, this incident led to him quitting the Communist Party in Hollywood.

A common sense program for action

Posted on by
Reply

Let me see if I have this straight.

Public spending on wind farms will create jobs, save the planet, restore the economy to strong rates of economic growth and raise our standard of living.

And in spite of the obvious common sense of this program, there are still people who are opposed. I have to say, it’s incredible what some people will believe.

Obama smoking

Posted on by
Reply

obama smoking

It’s not just that a picture has finally surfaced of Obama reaching for a cigarette. What is remarkable to the point of astonishment is that it has taken six years for such a photo to finally see the light of day. This is not Obama sneaking off to the toilet to have a secret fag. If this is what he does normally, smokes with others around, then why you or I should think we know anything at all about what is going on is a real question. The picture is also not from some obscure source. It is from The Washington Post with the title, Let President Obama have a cigarette, already. Here’s part of the excuse-machine that is already being cranked up:

But for God’s sake. Let the man smoke an occasional cigarette if he wants to. “One cigarette takes 11 minutes off your life,” Obama’s NIH would tell him. So smoke three and don’t plan on watching a last episode of “Parks and Rec.”

Maybe Obama smokes two packs a day, which, at his age, is not healthy. That seems very unlikely; given his reliance on Nicorette — for which he has also been criticized — it’s fair to assume that his use of actual cigarettes is more sporadic. Even if he does, the guy has the best health care and the lousiest gig in the world. If he develops a preexisting condition as a result: good news!

If he’s not smoking on camera, if he’s not passing out Marlboros at the White House Halloween party, let him have an occasional cigarette. For those of you tempted to e-mail me a lengthy harangue about how irresponsible that attitude is, feel free. Please include your own personal bad habit and what your plan is to kick it.

Liars without character, both the president and the media that follows him around.

Recognising the left for what it is

Posted on by
Reply

Some thoughts by Laura Rosen Cohen on why the left manages to get it together and the right does not. I am only going to repeat the first two because I think her third point is irrelevant if not actually wrong.

1) It’s about the end result and the power: Leftists are very serious about power and therefore have more solidarity. It’s all about the power. They may loathe each other personally, but the goal is power so they protect each other, till death do they part. There is no moral, financial, philosophical ‘outrage’ so large as to distract from the goal of complete power There is unity in their evil. They are ruthlessly loyal to one another as long as the party line is followed.

2) Corruption pays, lies and morally reprehensible behaviour is encouraged, tolerated and unpunished: There is very little amoral behaviour that gets punished nowadays. It emanates from the White House and that is the example being set by the former bastion of freedom and morality. Even when the disgusting stories of corruption, lies and tyranny get out in the open, most people heave a collective yawn. The individuals who do try to make a difference are punished with lawsuits, intimidation and personal threats to their safety. They are bankrupted, slandered and libeled. Not a single element of their personal or professional life goes unchecked and unexposed. Organs of democratic states are employed against them in order to destroy them.

We make a big deal out of the supposed hypocrisy of the left but there is almost none at all. If they believed what they said themselves, you could call it that. But when Julia was setting up her slush fund, or Hillary selling to the highest bidder, they were not unaware that these kinds of things must never see the light of day since they are indefensible. They did what they did to give themselves money and power, and they say what they say to protect their positions. They throw a few crumbs at the voting mob paid for invariably by others, but there is not the slightest chance that they would ever live amongst them, and they certainly do not like them. The elites hang out with others of the same class, while many of the fools who support them find their lives enveloped in hopelessness and misery.

On the right the major problem is that we do not protect our own. We allow the left to run over our people with lies and slander without rising up to defend and attack in turn. A strategy of defence is needed. Where I think it must begin is with a refusal to brand leftist actions as hypocrisy but as out and out falsehood intended to deceive. If you think that Bill Shorten or Julian Gillard or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama care a fig for you or anything about you then you are a sucker. They are leading you around by your envy of the success others have had. If by now you haven’t worked out that the left is overwhelmingly led by people who are only in it for themselves, then you are merely deceiving yourself. But in your ignorance, you are not only making things worse for me, you are making things worse for yourself as well.

Auditioning for the ABC

Posted on by
Reply

She is obviously auditioning for a gig at the ABC when she is finally relieved of her present post:

The head of Australia’s human rights watchdog has linked Indon­esia’s refusal to negotiate on the death penalty for executed Bali drug-smugglers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran to the Abbott government’s policy of turning back the boats.

Human Rights Commission president Gillian Triggs said nobody could disagree with the need to stop refugees drowning at sea. “Boats have got to stop,” she said. “But have we thought about what the consequences are of pushing people back to our neighbour Indonesia? Is it any wonder that Indonesia will not engage with us on other issues that we care about, like the death penalty?”

It is more than their drowning that had to stop although that’s part of it. Their coming was what had to stop, as every country in the region has now made clear. The story provides a brief reminder of just how out of it she is:

The Weekend Australian revealed on Saturday that she had ordered $5.9 million in compensation payments in just three years, making up more than half of all recommended payouts since 1996. This included a call for $350,000 in compensation for John Basikbasik, who was detained for eight years after serving a seven-year jail sentence for bashing his pregnant wife to death.

I know there are serious issues around but when human rights are put in the hands of people who don’t seem to understand them bad things do flow.

“We’re racists and that’s why PM won’t allow same-sex marriage”

Posted on by
Reply

From Cut & Paste today:

Playing identity politics is easier than thinking. RMIT University’s Steve Kates, Catallaxy, yesterday:

What genuine problem has a party of the left actually solved anytime in the last forty years? Parties of the left never solve any actual problems, they only make existing problems worse and create new ones along the way … But the parties of the left are good at finding solutions for things that are not a problem at all … There are lots of such fake problems invented by the left and promoted through the media … to become controversial issues in immediate need of solution. Conservatives then have the choice of doing nothing since they think there is nothing to be done, and therefore end up hammered by the press and the left for not taking such problems seriously. Or they do take these up and legitimise the issue.

QED. Policy analyst Miriam Lyons, the ABC’s Q&A, Monday:

There was a time in Australian history where Irish Australians were extremely discriminated against.

Or … Q from Q&A:

My question is for Anthony Albanese. What do you say of recent criticism of the influence of Joe de Bruyn’s union, the SDA, over your party? How can we trust you when you say that you support marriage equality yet you have allowed a super union to bully you into stalling it for a significant amount of time?

Let alone this Q&A leap of logic:

Since the state of New York legalised gay marriage, it has brought $259 million to their economy. So I ask the panel this: if Tony Abbott is all for small business, then why doesn’t he agree with the 72 per cent of Australians who agree with legalising gay marriage and also bring these added funds to our kind of failing economy?

That kid will go places. Parliamentary secretary Scott Ryan, AM Agenda, Sky News, yesterday:

I didn’t watch Q&A. I find my weeks start better when I don’t watch it.

What genuine problem has a party of the left actually solved anytime in the last forty years?

Posted on by
Reply

Parties of the left never solve any actual problems, they only make existing problems worse and create new ones along the way.

Our economies are swimming in debt and deficits, with regulatory overload that makes recovery in any meaningful way almost an impossibility. We had a budget in surplus and an economy with zero debt. Then we elected Labor and we will never achieve any such thing again.

The boats were stopped not once but twice. It was first done by John Howard, and has been done again by Tony Abbott. In between, R-G-R allowed thousands to arrive, with the well understood aim of creating a voting class that would give them success at subsequent elections, irrespective of the harm done to the country by allowing illegal migrants to flood our shores.

If there are industrial relations problems, you can solve them either by resisting union demands or by conceding them. The first option will give you a stronger economy, the second a two-tier system in which union members and their leaders do well while others do worse.

But the parties of the left are good at finding solutions for things that are not a problem at all. Take the prime example, global warming. The planet isn’t even warming for any reason whatsoever, never mind because of the use of carbon-based fuels. But the left have created a crisis atmosphere, and have stepped forward with solutions that wouldn’t even make sense if there actually was such a problem, but which allows plenty of money to be distributed to their crony-capitalist friends while burdening the economy with taxes and imposts that are certain to make us less well off but will give the government more money to spread around at its own discretion.

There are lots of such fake problems invented by the left and promoted through the media (i.e. by the marketing arm of the left) to become controversial issue in immediate need of solution. Conservatives then have the choice of doing nothing since they think there is nothing to be done, and therefore end up hammered by the press and the left for not taking such problems seriously. Or they do take these up and legitimise the issue while offering solutions that are intended to be less damaging than those offered by the left.

There was a time when the left tried to solve genuine problems and were legitimate parties of ideas. Almost invariably bad ideas, which generally have left a trail of damage, but at least they were honestly conceived. They no longer have any ideas at all, other than the usual plunder and distribute to the mendicant classes which they have created and who will most reliably vote for them.

I’m not sure there is any solution for conservatives than to try to take these people on by pointing out that they do an immense amount of harm, almost never do good, and our problems are invariably made worse every time a government of the left is elected. Except, even if you wished to undertake such a campaign, how would you get the message out?