Jay Inslee calls the conscientious “Extremists”

Here’s another Unfit For The Internet award.  Although, it most certainly qualifies as unfit for anything.

If you haven’t seen the videos from Planned Parenthood selling body parts from aborted babies you should.  They are truly shocking and abhorrent.  The videos highlight something that the local and federal governments were not aware of.  That Planned Parenthood not only convinces women to have abortions and carries them out, but they harvest the bodies of the killed babies and sells the body parts.  Paying special attention to the parts that will bring in the most money.  The callous nature that these doctors show for the bodies of the babies shouldn’t be allowed.  Even Hillary Clinton has come out and said that the videos were disturbing.

Now comes in Jay Inslee, the moronic Governor of the State of Washington, to open his mouth and show why electing him was a mistake.  He released a statement after he received letters from people who have a conscience asking for either an investigation to start into these allegations or funding being removed from Planned Parenthood.  It’s not surprising that letters like these be sent to every governor in the union given the nature of this problem, but Governor Inslee doesn’t see it that way.  The Seattle PI’s article states…

“Planned Parenthood provides millions of women across the country access to a full range of affordable health care and family planning services,” Inslee said in a statement.  “National extremist organizations are engaged in a concerted effort to discredit, and ultimately eliminate, an organization that so many women rely on.” (emphasis mine)

That’s right, Inslee is calling people who conscientiously object to the selling of the body parts of the babies they are aborting “extremists”.  That’s right, if you have a conscience and feel that at the least an investigation to these allegations should be started, you are an extremist.  It’s apparently wrong to even ask for an investigation into likely illegal activities shown in the video.

But you would be remiss if you thought that this was an original thought out of the brain of Inslee.  It sounds as if he’s just parroting the how the President of Planned Parenthood feels about those who caught them in the act.  His statement and his choice of words speaks volumes about how he feels with those of conscience.  He’s telegraphed his actions and will not do his sworn duty to uphold the law.

And for his part, he has earned the Unfit For The Internet award.  Governor Inslee, you are unfit!


How many ways can you say something?

There’s so many ways that Democrats have upped their game which is causing their wins.  The Republicans and Conservatives have learned about some of these, but many they have not.  One of the biggest ways Democrats beat Republicans and Conservatives is how they construct their message

There was something that President Obama said early in his presidency that tipped me off to this tactic. I can’t remember the exact instance, but if memory serves me right, it was when the bulk of the country was against the bill that became the “Affordable Health Care Act”.  When President Obama was asked a question about either what he thought about the lack of support or what he thought went wrong, he admitted that the message wasn’t on point.  I remember hearing a few Conservative and Republican pundits think that he meant that his talks weren’t written well enough.  When I heard that, I thought that as well initially.  After thinking about it, the message meant the whole message, not just a bunch of talks and his comments, but the message that every Democrat Legislator, reporter, pundit, and blogger said. Its as if the Democrats very carefully structure and word their message so that it appeals to the most possible people.  In one way or another, the message is repeated not just by politicians, but by pundits and media in a seemingly coordinated effort.

This is evident in their constant changing of the terminology they use for what they are talking about if it’s not sticking.  A perfect example is this “Climate Change”.  Do you remember that the official term is “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?  Anthro as in anthropology, or the study of humans and their works.  Genic as in genesis, or the beginning of something.  Well, that’s a very unsexy and technical term that the many passionate voters wouldn’t understand let alone consistently pronounce or remember.  I would bet that if you surveyed these voters and asked them what “Anthropogenic Global Warming” was they wouldn’t be able to correctly answer.  However, they would understand “Global Warming”.  So, why not just get rid of “Anthropogenic” and just call it “Global Warming”?  That’s what the Democrats did.  But when there was legitimate evidence questioning the science and methods used to promote AGW they didn’t stop there, they went straight to “Climate Change”.  I mean, who would dare deny that the climate changes over the millennia?  Of course, anyone who disagrees with “Anthropogenic Global Warming” gets thrown into a group who denies “Climate Change”, regardless if that’s a logical fallacy.  This change is a changing of the message.

Most Conservatives and Republicans see that the Democrats do this.  Yet, we stick with the same tired language.  We’re against entitlements, yet we know that we need to provide support for those who are un/under employed to find a good job to be self sufficient.  But the message sounds like we think the poor are lazy.  We question the “consensus” of “Climate Change”, yet we love and support Conservation efforts.  But it’s easily changed to we want to make the air dirty and poison the water.  We don’t want to have an open immigration system and have a secure country, but we understand the desire that immigrants have to live the American Dream which needs rule of law.  Yet our message is easily contorted to sound like we are overly nationalistic and are xenophobic.  We don’t like it when police abuse their authority, but we support them because we know that they have to deal with some of the worst aspects of humanity.  Yet the message sounds like we want a police state, when in reality it’s the Democrats who want a police state. Conservatives understand that there is a whole picture, a context behind the clip, the struggle of the poor to make ends meet, yet we don’t know how to express our thoughts and desires in a way that helps those undecided voters understand what we are about and what we want.  Colloquial language changes, we should adapt our selves to these changes.

Here’s a good example of how changing your message works.  Watch the whole thing, it’s short…

Granted, the wording is a bit “bleeding heart”, but do you see how it makes the message different?  Instead of just saying “I’m blind”, saying something that others can relate to helps.  Avoiding words whose meanings and impacts have diminished over time and replacing them with more descriptive language would help.

The point is, we need to construct our message right, so that when the Democrat attack machine (major media, media apologists, political groups) try to construct an attack, their attacks sound more like they are attacking the very people they need to win elections.  This means the Black community, the Immigrant community, and those ever so important undecided voters.  These voters are important and ARE disillusioned with the Democrat party.  Not just because they are Black, or Hispanic, or Immigrant, but because with their support we gain the support of many more.

One word of caution.  We’ve caught the Democrats in lies as they spin their web of words.  I would say more lies than in any other period of time, there’s no need to list them here.  We must take care not to fall into this trap.  While the Democrats can get caught in multiple lies and still garner huge amounts of support (both in voters and in funds), a Republican or Conservative can not.  We must be careful in any messaging so that our message is true and honest.

I know I’m not the first conservative to talk about this.  This is something that I’ve noticed over the years.  We need to adapt to the changing cultural changes.  It doesn’t mean that we change our values that we hold dear.  It doesn’t mean that we have to give in to Progressive pressure in Congress or in the White House.  In fact, it could mean that we could win more and more.  We just have to wake up and look at how we are saying it, not necessarily what.  If we become good at it, we very well may be the ones who drive the change in language.

Also, I’m not an English major, or even a literary genus so please don’t take anything that I’ve written as a good example.  There’s folks out there with far better wordsmithing abilities than me.

Worse than Nixon…

Here’s a good article about how the Obama Administration (including the State Department) has tried to get around FOIA requests.

“…the Obama White House has turned stonewalling into an art form. A favorite tactic is to ignore or string out the requests. That’s what State did in Mrs. Clinton’s case, claiming it simply couldn’t get around to issuing her emails until next year…”

Well, that’s surprising.  No, not really.

Progressive Media takes a turn for the worse

We all know the season.  We need to find a replacement for President Obama and there’s no shortage of people who think they are capable, ready, and what this country needs.  With that there’s always the media who’s willing to try to persuade our viewpoints.  This provides for us a plethora of clips of media members asking some really stupid questions.  Gotcha questions.  One sided biased questions.  Even questions that might not even be questions but more of a editorial comment posed as a question.  We’ve already seen a few so far, but this has to be one of the worst so far.  Just sit back and get ready to get that creepy uncomfortable feeling down your back…

Yeah, um, apparently Cruz isn’t Cuban enough for Halperin and he wants the world to know.  Sorry, but that’s just a jerk thing to do Halperin.  You earned to Unfit for the Internet award!

How to troll Liberals and Progressives

Here’s another installment for the “Unfit for the Internet” files.  My daughter brought this to my attention yesterday.  Apparently, it’s making the rounds in the Progressive/Liberal low information voters right now.


About a week ago a one of those fake news sites (fake as in complete satire al a The Onion) posted up this story, about how the Hose Republicans are drafting up a bill that would give the First Daughters a dress code.  The so called “bill” is going to be titled the “The Respectable First Family Act”.  Which from the deranged mind of a Progressive, seems perfectly legit.

Here’s a snippet of the article:

“I shouldn’t need to justify why this bill is necessary to anyone, not after seeing what they were dressed like,” says the bill’s author, Congressman Richard Head (R-UT). “Did you see the photos from the march? The First Daughters looked like pole dancers. You could clearly see their knees and even an inch or two of their thighs. And one of them was wearing go-go dancer boots…

Now, this article isn’t really what I want to bring to your attention.  What I want you to do is search for “house republican dress code“.  Now, by the time you read this, the search results may be different.  However, there’s many sites of people posting comments containing their disgust for those Republicans, using names like “racist”, “morons” and other not so kind words.  That is until someone kindly let’s them know that yes, it is satire.  And then there’s a near audible sigh of relief and a well, their so stupid anyway comment.

And there’s a few sites which have posted this entirely as well with no indication that it’s a fake story.  Who knows if the people on the sites even care so long as it paints their opponents in a bad light.

Yeah, you’ve been trolled.  You’ve exposed yourself as the hateful, dismissive person you are.  I want to see more Progressives and Liberals being exposed for who they really are.

When giving thanks this year, think of this

Recently I learned a fact about the Pilgrims that settled in Plymouth that I wasn’t taught in my history classes.  Given the Progressive bent in education and the tendency of revising history for political purposes, I’m not entirely surprised.

Now, we know that the Pilgrims came to seek religious freedom.  They were puritans who wanted to be free to practice their religion the way then saw fit.  This much we know.  However, the one fact that doesn’t seem to be in the history books and all the stories is that the Pilgrims intended, and did for 2 years, for Plymouth to be a Collectivist Utopia based on the Communism of Plato’s Republic.  They wanted to take care of everyone on the colony so everyone worked and shared the fruit of their labors.  Nobody had private property and everyone got an equal share of the work and food.  What happened as a result of following this may be a reason why this has been excluded from history textbooks across the nation.

Now, the Governor of the colony, William Bradford, wrote down in his journal what the result was.

As Governor Bradford of the Plymouth Colony explained in his old English (though with the spelling modernized):

“For the young men that were able and fit for labor and service did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children, without recompense. The strong, or men of parts, had no more division of food, clothes, etc. then he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labor, and food, clothes, etc. with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignant and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc. they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could husbands brook it.”

It’s not surprising to me that there was resentment.  What’s interesting is that they did give the system a fighting chance, to the point that they had to make drastic changes or die of starvation:

Realizing that another season like those that had just passed would mean the extinction of the entire community, the elders of the colony decided to try something radically different: the introduction of private property rights and the right of the individual families to keep the fruits of their own labor.

As Governor Bradford put it:

“And so assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end . . . This had a very good success; for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted then otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little-ones with them to set corn, which before would a ledge weakness, and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.”

They switched to private property and individual responsibility.  Each family was responsible for their own.  As a result, they produced more as individual units.  So much so that they were able to trade surplus with others.   Communism failed and Freedom prevailed.

The last quote that I want to provide is this.

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years, and that amongst the Godly and sober men, may well convince of the vanity and conceit of Plato’s and other ancients; — that the taking away of property, and bringing into a common wealth, would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed confusion and discontent, and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort.”

The last of my thoughts is this.  When the LDS church headed west to avoid persecution and settled in the Great Salt Lake valley they did the same thing.  They gave each family a portion of the land to till and farm as their own.  For those not familiar with LDS church history, the members of the church prevailed and grew into a very industrious people.  Many visitors were surprised at how beautiful they had made the valley.  The state symbol is the Beehive, which symbolizes industry.

Read the full article from Richard Ebeling, he does a great job at describing what is going on.

Is he just being a contrarian or is there something to what he’s saying?

Gary Oldman was recently interviewed by Playboy and had some responses that will catch the ear of a few people.  Since its Playboy, I won’t be linking to their site but I am looking for an alternative link.  However, Independent Journal Review has sections of the interview available for reading without scantily clad women leering in the background.  Needless to say, some of his responses somewhat NSFW, or at least read at home away from kids.

Looks like he and I share similar feelings about “Political Correctness”:

“I just think political correctness is crap. That’s what I think about it. I think it’s like, take a f***ing joke. Get over it. … I don’t know about Mel. He got drunk and said a few things, but we’ve all said those things. We’re all f***ing hypocrites. That’s what I think about it.”

And the intellectual dishonesty when it comes to calling out racism:

“It’s our culture now, absolutely. At the Oscars, if you didn’t vote for 12 Years a Slave, you were a racist. You have to be very careful about what you say. I do have particular views and opinions that most of this town doesn’t share, but it’s not like I’m a fascist or a racist. There’s nothing like that in my history.”

Lot’s of people fee the same way as Gary when it comes the the hypocrisy of Liberal Media:

“Well, if I called Nancy Pelosi a c**t—and I’ll go one better, a f***ing useless c**t—I can’t really say that. But Bill Maher and Jon Stewart can, and nobody’s going to stop them from working because of it.”

One thing that is pointed out that has people hemming and hawing is the fact that despite his amazing body of work, he has only a single Academy Awards nomination.  Obviously with some of the things he’s said there will be a few roles he’ll not be invited to read for.  However, that doesn’t mean that we can’t support people like him.

And if you really need an answer the title of this post poses, yes, there is something to what he is saying.

Learning how to be offensive

Certain factions of the government (the “politically correct police” faction) is trying to force the American Football team, the Washington D. C. Redskins, to change their name.  Why?  Well, the term “Redskin” is apparently racist, or at the very least derogatory or offensive.  Before we really even entertain such nonsense there’s one question we need to ask: Where’s proof of the word being used in a derogatory manner within the last 10-15 years?

Do a search with Bing or Google for the word redskin and exclude “Washington”, “football”, “sports”, and “team” and see what you get.  Mostly definitions, some medical sites with pages on the skin condition, a movie, a used car lot website, and lot’s of sites saying that it’s offensive.  But after 10 pages of search results in both, I couldn’t find a single example of intentional derogatory usage.  If that’s not enough, feel free to go over to the News searches and see what’s there.  Just more people telling you that the word is offensive, but no actual offensive use.

Because how the word is used can change the definition of the word, the question of recent usage is an important question.  Take, for example the words “Gay” and “Queer”.  Try to use the words “Gay” or “Queer” as their original definitions and see how many confused or concerned looks you produce.  Most children will directly associate the word to the football team and will need to be educated as to what the word once was used as to show them that it could be used in an offensive way.  That to me shows that we are moving beyond using “Redskin” as a derogatory word.  As a simple, but effective test, I asked my High School aged daughter about the team Washington D. C. Redskins, and if she found that offensive or derogatory.  She just said it’s the same as the Yankees and couldn’t figure out why it was offensive or derogatory.  It goes to show, you have to be taught how to use it in an offensive or derogatory way in order to know it can be used that way.  In other words, those who are so worried about you being offensive teach you how to use certain words in an offensive or derogatory way.

This brings me to something I discovered in High School.  Being a typical adolescent who tries to be clever, my best friend and I began to use the word “friend” in a new way.  We were pretty consistent in that use of the word, which meant the completely opposite of the word.  Yes, we weren’t very nice at times.  Pretty soon, you did not want to be called “friend” by a certain group of people.  We realized just exactly what we had done, we took a good word and turned it into a bad one.  It was easy.  Does that mean that nobody should use the word “friend”?  No.

I don’t really think that the use of the word as it generally is today is offensive or derogatory.  I haven’t been able to find a recent example of it being used that way.  I feel that using the word in a positive way  In any case, someone will need to tell the Red Mesa High School that they will need to change their name as well.  I’m sure that the Navajo High School would be happy to be renamed the Vikings or something less offensive.

Oh, and please, if you are referring to the “Washington” on the East Coast, please remember that it’s “Washington D. C.” so you don’t confuse that group of malcontents with the State of Washington and our group of malcontents.  D. C. is slightly more corrupt.

Hashtag Diplomacy has no place in the White House

Sometimes, the Obama’s act as if they are still candidates for the Whitehouse, despite 6 years in the office as the President of the United States.  One of those moments happened recently.  I recently talked about Boko Haram, the slime ball terrorist who took over 250 school girls to sell on the sex black market because “Western Education” is evil, or so he thinks.  The First Lady had a picture of her with the hash tag #BringBackOurGirls on a piece of paper she was holding.  Lot’s of people praised Michelle for this act, and of course lot’s of people criticized it.  Just search for “Hashtag Diplomacy” and you’ll see what I mean.

Using social media is a great way to bring attention to issues to public attention or for public shaming.  If the general public doesn’t know about something, getting famous people to throw a hashtag out there so that people start using it is a great way to show the leaders of the country that it’s a topic that people care about.  Of course, the leaders typically will jump on the bandwagon and do nothing about it (case in point, President Obama and the coddling of the “99 percenters”).  It’s typically a tactic that you use to try to pressure someone to do something either by giving the perception of large numbers or shame.

Let’s make sure that we understand what’s going on here.  School girls, in a third world country are kidnapped by a terrorist group who’s name can loosely be translated as “western education is sinful”.  Given that, there is obviously an aversion there to anything western.  Maybe I’m grasping at straws here, but my guess that would include things like oh twitter, or facebook, or the internet.  So, when Michelle Obama and others use Hashtags to try to shame this group into letting the girls go, maybe they don’t care.  That’s assuming that they even get word on the fact that people are using hashtags against them.

So, what does it mean when the wife of the person who sits in what is supposed to be the most powerful position in the world uses a hashtag?  Well, it might as well have read something like this…


Hashtag Diplomacy in the Whitehouse

What is sad about Michelle Obama using a Hashtag is that it directly points to the failure of her husband’s Foreign Policy.  Sure, it was Hillary who refused to put this group on the terror list, but she’s an employee of President Obama who has the ultimate responsibility.  But with the great orator giving speech after speech after speech, we’re kind of tired of hearing him talk (and wow, does that guy like to hear himself speak).  Now, to be completely fair, President Obama has reportedly sent US Military officials to Nigeria to help out, which I hope means some serious justice for the girls and we can find them quickly.

Hillary Clinton is “on the wrong side of history” about Boko Haram

Quite literally, Hillary Clinton is on the wrong side of history when it comes to Boko Haram.  When she was the head of the State Department, she fought against labeling the now infamous Boko Haram a terrorist group.  The reason?  It would give them “creds”.

Designating them as official terrorists, the petition says, “would increase rather than diminish the threat from Boko Haram. It would give the group additional visibility and credibility among international terrorist networks. It would increase the chances that the group would direct its attacks against U.S. targets.”

Just where does this line of thinking come from?  Well, MoveOn.org of course.  Breitbart has an article on this, plus a link to the well written original Daily Beast article and others.

File this as another example of why Hillary is unqualified to be the President, let alone run for the office.