Visit this site for verifiably accurate opinions on all things political - in contradistinction to the INcorrect opinions you are likely to find elsewhere. I'm an American Libertarian Nationalist Republican. Ponder that one a while. Almost all are welcome, but at the request of management: no vegetarians or soccer fans, please. We have our reasons. Thank you and welcome to: Revealed Truth.
New for 2005!
51 Things You Can Do To Annoy The Politically Correct
Links Worth a Look:
Blogs That Reveal Truth
Ace of Spades HQ
Iraq the Model
Kim's Daily Rant
Michael The ArchAngel
Right Wing News
Best of the Web
Enter Stage Right
Institute for Justice
Kudlow's Money Politic$
Media Rsrch Center
Poor and Stupid
Tech Central Station
Flags of the World
Yours is a Very Bad Hotel
Unintentionally Hilarious Leftist Paranoia
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ˌäps\ Function: noun plural Usage: often attributive Etymology: psychological operations Date: 1966
: military operations usually aimed at influencing the enemy's state of mind through noncombative means (as distribution of leaflets)
(Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, www.m-w.com)
I don't know who is doing it, but I'm getting a stronger feeling with each passing day that a massive psyops campaign is underway to demoralize the conservative movement. Consider:
David Frum has written a book ("Comeback: A Conservatism That Can Win Again) in which he suggest that conservatives re energize their movement by abandon silly superstitions about free markets and the sanctity of life.
Frum's prescription to fight looming socialism? Socialized medicine and turning Social Security into a welfare program. With friends like these......
Laura Ingraham, an ostensibly conservative commentator, earnestly tells conservatives that they must heed the media's predictable election-year bleating about widespread economic "angst" despite near record low unemployment and an economic expansion entering its sixth year. Conservatives desperately clinging to their outmoded faith in capitalism just "don't get it" she tut-tuts as Couric, Williams, Schieffer and their friends nod in approval.
The field of GOP presidential aspirants has been narrowed to two Rockefeller Republicans, a cranky septuagenarian who has made an all-too-lengthy career of sticking it to conservatives, a populist naif, and but one authentic, thoughtful conservative who has apparently managed to personally offend virtually every member of the mainstream media, judging by the press coverage of Fred Dalton Thompson.
We are bombarded daily with stories about the inevitability of Democrat gains in the 2008 elections. The issues all favor them, we're told. Health care! Global Warming! Ending the war in Iraq! And of course....Economic Angst! This is what the electorate is concerned with, and ONLY the Democrats can give them what they want.
Even with all this, conservatives still had one reed of hope: Hillary Clinton. Despised by a substantial percentage of the population, distrusted by more, her nomination was sure to result in an invigoration of the Republican base and a crossover of a substantial number of independents to the GOP nominee come November.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the coronation. The Wicked Witch of the West was displaced by the Human Rorschach Test. Democrats, by apparently rejecting Hillary Clinton in favor of Barak Obama, have chosen a candidate who offers every white person who has ever suspected himself of harboring ignoble racial sentiments the chance for absolution without the uncomfortable psychic exposure of the confessional. Just check that "D" box and all sins are forgiven. Free at last!
The left has always had the advantage of a mainstream media animated largely by a left-leaning agenda. For the first time, though, at least since the dark days when GOP congressional leadership consisted of the likes of Bob Michels and Bob Dole, a good portion of the Loyal Opposition has decided not to oppose.
Oh, there are still some stalwarts, but they're almost exclusively consigned to the realm of talk radio - home of conservatism's foot soldiers. But while the Rush Limbaughs and the Mark Levins nobly fight their ground battles; the boys at NRO and the Weekly Standard have apparently concluded that the fight for economic liberty is just so-eighties. If they aren't urging us to fend off socialism by embracing it, they're championing the cause of politicians who would have drawn their unmitigated scorn a mere decade ago.
Mitt Romney? Please. In the 80's and early 90's he would have been lucky to get a sit-down with Bill Buckley. Now National Review would have us believe he is the second coming of Barry Goldwater.
So who is orchestrating this nefarious psyops operation? The Illuminati? The Council on Foreign Relations? The Bildebergers?
Are we living a true-life Invasion of the Body Snatchers?
Who knows? They - whoever THEY are - are far too clever to have their machinations discerned by the likes of me. But if you should hear of me championing the cause of Mel Martinez for President in 2012.....
Tell my friends I stayed awake as long as I could.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Too Much Information
Yes, it's a bit cliche. But it's also eminently true as concerns the subject of this Peggy Noonan column in OpinionJournal.com.
" I was at a wedding, standing just off the dance floor, when a pleasant young man in his 20s approached, introduced himself and asked where I'd had my hair done. I shook his offered hand and began to answer, but before I could he said, 'I'm gay, by the way.' I nodded as if this were my business, but thought: I wonder why a total stranger thinks I want to know what he wishes to do with his genitals? What an odd way to say hello.
We live in a time in which people routinely violate their own privacy.
I don't think the young man lacked a sense of privacy. I suspect if I'd said,'Tell me your annual salary,' he would have bridled. That's personal.
Maybe he wanted me to approve ('That's wonderful!') or disapprove ('Unclean!'). Maybe he felt compelled to announce his orientation because homosexuals are so often told that not to declare is to be closeted, and to be closeted is shameful. Maybe he was doing what he thinks he must to do to show integrity.
Whatever his thinking, it has occurred to me that in the old, clucking, busybody America it was not unusual to meet people who needed to be told, 'That's none of your business.'
But in the new and infinitely stranger America there are a lot of people who need to be told, 'Buddy, that's none of my business.'
Or, as people began saying about five years ago, 'Too much information!'"
The column is about the recent phenomenon of people sharing the excruciating details of their illnesses with the general public. Ironically, Noonan concludes that this sort of thing is positive with respect to illnesses like cancer.
Maybe so. But Noonan's column got me to thinking again about the national scourge of the Twelve Step People.
Surely you know one. Maybe you ARE one. You know, the ones who are compelled to let you know within 30 seconds of making your acquaintance that they're alcoholics/drug addicts/hooked on phonics? I never know quite what to say to them, other than "Hey, I just LOVED the Days of Wine and Roses!"
They've got to be among the most annoying people in America. And the fascination of our national media with the "recovery" of celebrities and athletes from their addictions has only made it worse. I've never quite understood the ideology that celebrates the "recovery" of addicts more than it does the strength of those who never succumbed to addiction.
As for me, I think there's a lot of truth in the old joke:
"What's the difference between drunks and alcoholics?"
Answer: Drunks don't have meetings.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Media hypocrisy on the filibuster
The shamelessness of the mainstream media in its presentation of the filibuster of Bush judicial nominees is truly a sight to behold. Check out this article on Powerline.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune recently editorialized in support of keeping the filibuster.
"To end debate in the Senate and force a vote requires a successful motion for "cloture," which takes 60 yeas to pass. From the first days of the Senate, the principle of unlimited debate was the hallmark that set it apart from the House....
In his statement on the 'nuclear option,' [Senator Norm] Coleman says that senators have a 'right to vote 'yes' or 'no' on judges.' In fact, they have that right in a cloture vote; it simply takes 60 of them to advance a nomination...."
But here's what the same vermin at the MST had to say back in 1994 when Bill Clinton's domestic agenda was threatened by GOP filibusters in the senate:
"The 'Action, Not Gridlock' group hopes greater public awareness will rein in the Senate minority's impulse to filibuster. The group has been loath thus far to propose a rules change to make cloture easier for the majority to attain. But a reasonable proposal, like the one advocated by Don Fraser, would provide a useful rallying point for reformers. Fraser favors gradually dropping from 60 to 50 percent the vote required for cloture, over a period of days or weeks. Prolonged debate would still be possible, but a vote could not be forever delayed.
As Fraser notes and the other 'Action, Not Gridlock' participants surely know, the filibuster is a formidable foe...Many Senators in the majority still defend the practice. That's why those who would end the overuse of filibusters dare not pull their punches. They should go on the offensive with a reform plan, and prepare for an arduous but very worthwhile fight."
There's simply no end to the hypocrisy of the likes of the editorial board of the Minneapolis Star Tribune. You know and I know that if the GOP was filibustering a dozen Clinton appellate court nominees it would me front page news and we'd be hearing breathless reports on CNN every 10 minutes about Republican obstructionism. I'm sick to death of it. Which is why I grow more and more angry about the likes of John McCain and Lincoln Chaffee. They do as much harm as good.
It's time for conservatives to start running serious primary opponents to these RINOS
What would Pablo Serra do?
"I made a pilgrimage to Santiago seeking to resolve the Social Security debate with a simple question: What would Pablo Serra do?
I wanted to compare our pensions to see the results of an accidental experiment that began in 1961, when he and I were friends in second grade at a school in Chile. He remained in Chile and became the test subject; I returned to America as the control group.
By the time we finished college, both of our countries' pension systems were going broke. Chile responded by pioneering a system of private accounts in 1981. America rescued its traditional system in the early 1980's by cutting benefits and raising taxes, with the promise that the extra money would go into a trust to finance the baby boomers' retirement.
As it happened, our countries have required our employers to set aside roughly the same portion of our income, a little over 12 percent, which pays for disability insurance as well as the pension program. It also covers, in Pablo's case, the fees charged by the mutual-fund company managing his money....
After comparing our relative payments to our pension systems (since salaries are higher in America, I had contributed more), we extrapolated what would have happened if I'd put my money into Pablo's mutual fund instead of the Social Security trust fund. We came up with three projections for my old age, each one offering a pension that, like Social Security's, would be indexed to compensate for inflation:
(1) Retire in 10 years, at age 62, with an annual pension of $55,000. That would be more than triple the $18,000 I can expect from Social Security at that age.
(2) Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $70,000. That would be almost triple the $25,000 pension promised by Social Security starting a year later, at age 66.
(3)Retire at age 65 with an annual pension of $53,000 and a one-time cash payment of $223,000.
You may suspect that Pablo has prospered only because he's a sophisticated investor, but he simply put his money into one of the most popular mutual funds. He has more money in it than most Chileans because his salary is above average, but lower-paid workers who contributed to that fund for the same period of time would be in relatively good shape, too, because their projected pension would amount to more than 90 percent of their salaries...."
This is more than I typically exerpt, but I thought it important to make the point. Said point being: Democrats care not one whit for the welfare of Social Security recipients. They care only for maintaining their power base through the ongoing wealth transfer aspect of Social Security.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Hey, Chris Byrnes of Anarchangel has a new job! Check out his site and wish him well.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
And now you know.....the REST of the story
You've probably heard all about the "crisis" at Trinity International University here in the Chicago area. Threatening, racist letters were received by police, leading to the evacuation of minority students from the Trinity campus.
Local racial scab-picker and race-baiter Mary Mitchell pontificated at length on the subject in one of her recent columns in the Chicago Sun Times. "Moving minorities into hotels won't solve Trinity crisis" screamed the headline accompanying her recent blatherings on the subject.
"Among my concerns is that Trinity -- a religious institution -- is involved at all. That hiding among the sheep is a wolf who is threatening to kill another human being because of his or her race. If I had a child at Trinity, I'd be more worried about how many more wolves there might be."
Wolves, indeed. It turns out that the author of the letters is a piece of garbage by the name of Alicia Hardin. And Alicia is NOT of the caucasian persuasion.
No, it seems that poor Alicia "was unhappy at Trinity and wanted to leave." So the little darling started writing her letters in the hopes that her parents would pull her out of the school for the sake of her safety.
So is Ms. Hardin being held without bail, underneath the jail? The FBI was dragged in, after all. Untold resources of local and federal law enforcement were consumed in tracking down the threat to minority students at Trinity International...this will surely be treated as a serious matter.
Nope. She was released upon posting $5000 bail. "It's kind of a sad story, actually," said Lt. (and world class moron) Ron Price, apparently of the Bannockburn, Illinois police department.
I'm sure this resolution will be given the same national attention the original "crisis" was.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Oh, did I mention that I was going back to Phoenix for a week?
Probably not. Sorry about that.
I stumbled across something on TV tonight though that got my blood boiling enough on my first day home to make up for the lost week.
Whilst looking up baseball scores online, my attention was diverted to a show on Fox (some type of newsmagazine - I'm not sure the name) featuring a 5 year-old-girl named "Jaisha" (my phonetic spelling) who was throwing a tantrum in her kindergarten class.
No...."tantrum" doesn't quite describe it. For reasons of which I'm not entirely certain, she was destroying the classroom. As in pulling books off shelves, tossing furniture around and generally disheveling everything in her vicinity. Oh, and she punched her teacher too. And screamed. Loudly. Without pause.
So, unable to control her, the school authorities called the police, who proceeded to handcuff the little bastard. And you guessed it. The talking head on the Fox newsmagazine show was positively SCANDALIZED that this little angel was handcuffed. "UNNECESSARY," he bellowed. I'm sure this will be the story line adopted by the major media. Here's one early sample.
Maybe it was unnecessary to handcuff this prospective resident of the Florida correction system. Maybe. But it was certainly more constructive than her attempt to dismantle her classroom. And the latter concerns me far more than the former.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Exhibit #537 in Support of the proposition that John McCain is Pond Scum
The vile little dirtbag is at it again. Now he's saying he's going to support the Democrats if the GOP tries to stop the filibuster of judicial nominees.
WASHINGTON - Arizona Sen. John McCain said yesterday that if fellow Republicans succeed in banning the filibuster for judicial nominees, they could extend it to nixing debate on any subject.
I'm now more convinced than ever that McCain has no intention of seeking the GOP presidential nomination in 2008. Alternatively, if he does, he's even dumber than I think.
Were he to somehow get the nomination, I'd have to vote Constitution Party or something. It would be the end of the GOP for some time.
Speaking of 2008, guess who the generally sensible Howard Fineman says some GOP insiders are touting for the party's nod. I'll give you 10 names and bet you can't guess it.
I'm a big fan of this guy. After Reagan and Gingrich, he probably had more to do with making the GOP a majority party than anyone. But talk about a dark horse!
The answer can be found here.
Ahhh, but even more delicious than the prospect of President Barbour might be the prospect of Pope Ratzinger.
Who? Apparently a leading candidate to replace John Paul II is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the man who presently heads the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. That's the body charged with promulgating official Catholic doctrine.
So what? So, he's VERY conservative. Much more so than JPII. The international media would be sent into an absolute tizzy. GOD, it would be fun. If you doubt it, check out this brief passage from the web site of The Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club.
"As Grand Inquisitor for Mother Rome, Ratzinger keeps himself busy in service to the Truth: correcting theological error, silencing dissenting theologians, and stomping down heresy wherever it may rear its ugly head -- and, consequently, has received somewhat of a notorious reputation among the liberal media and 'enlightened' intelligentsia of pseudo-Catholic universities."