Story #1 relates that bigotry, or at least “approved” bigotry is still with us, but it has changed its targets. #2 gives a new example of chutzpa as practiced by the Obama Administration. #3 should be unsettling for Obama supporters. It seems that SCOTUS’s approval rating rose after Obama attacked the Court. #4 shows while Eric Holder should be in support of voter ID laws. #5 tells that neo-nazis have gone to Sanford Florida. #6 relates that Obamacare adds to the deficit. It doesn’t subtract from it as its proponents claimed it would. And finally #7 demonstrates who the settled science of nutrition blaming fats for obesity and heart disease was wrong and it’s actually sugar. Next thing you know they’ll tell us that the sun is the cause of global warming.
1. Bigotry: They’ve only changed the targets
…But have we done away with approved bigotries ? Hardly. We just keep changing the targets.
Recall the attitudes of feminists in the '60s and '70s toward housewives.
As an experiment, you might today try bringing a big-haired woman -- perhaps a Dallas socialite -- to a Manhattan cocktail party or gallery opening.
Go ahead. I dare you.
And may God have mercy on those who live in a trailer park.
These thoughts were all prompted by three recent events when someone I had just met, and with whom I was having a friendly drink, launched into a jeremiad against "Christians."
They are awful, I was told. Rank hypocrites. Hateful people.
This isn't an altogether rare phenomenon, of course. In fact, it is epidemic.
I suppose I should have felt complimented. The unspoken assumption is that I am smart enough and sophisticated enough to share these attitudes.
Unfortunately, I'm not. I continue to find bigotries of every description pathologically indistinguishable.
I have found one highly effective way to force these bigots to stand eye-to-eye with their bigotry.
Simply ask them to substitute another minority for Christians and repeat the statement. Blacks are rank hypocrites? Muslims are hateful people?
No?
Then why do you feel so comfortable saying these things about Christians?
I like to think this is a quiet and loving way to teach a good moral lesson, but the response so far indicates that it will always result in anger….
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/bigotrys_permanent_appeal.html#ixzz1rRxzKlkc
The left has always been bigots. They just change who they are bigoted against.
2. It Takes A Lot Of Nerve…
…to criticize Mitt Romney’s support for the House Republicans’ budget when Senate Democrats won’t even write one, in violation of the law, and President Obama’s budgets can’t garner a single vote. But that is nevertheless what Obama did:
When President Barack Obama criticized Mitt Romney by name this week for embracing a controversial Republican budget proposal, he worded his attack carefully and with bite.
“(Romney) said that he’s ‘very supportive’ of this new budget, and he even called it ‘marvelous’ — which is a word you don’t often hear when it comes to describing a budget,” Obama said during a speech on Tuesday, before adding: “It’s a word you don’t often hear generally.”
You certainly don’t hear it said about Obama’s budget. His FY 2012 budget was voted down 97-0 in the Senate, and his FY 2013 budget was voted down 414-0 in the House. The Senate’s Democratic leadership is trying to prevent it from coming up for a vote in that body, lest it be skunked again. But Obama has no intention of offering a serious budget proposal; he is 100% politics, 0% policy.
I remember when the left complained because Bush didn’t put the Iraq war on the budget. For the past three years the Democrats refuse to put anything on the budget. Obama has proposed budget that have been defeated 511-0 during that time. No one in the Democratic Party appear to be serious about the budget, the deficit, or the country’s fiscal problems.
3. SCOTUS Popularity Up after Obama attack
Just before the highly publicized hearing on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law, ratings for the U.S. Supreme Court had fallen to the lowest level ever measured by Rasmussen Reports. Now, following the hearings, approval of the court is way up.
Forty-one percent (41%) of Likely U.S. Voters now rate the Supreme Court’s performance as good or excellent, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s up 13 points from 28% in mid-March and is the court’s highest ratings in two-and-a-half years.
Nineteen percent (19%) still rate the court’s work record as poor, unchanged from last month.
It is impossible to know if the improved perceptions of the court came from the hearings themselves, President Obama’s comments cautioning the court about overturning a law passed by Congress, or from other factors. Approval of the court had fallen in three consecutive quarterly surveys prior to the health care hearings….
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_update
Obama has a magic touch. Everything he’s against turns to gold.
4. Why We Need Voter ID Laws Now
Attorney General Eric Holder is a staunch opponent of laws requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls to improve ballot security. He calls them “unnecessary” and has blocked their implementation in Texas and South Carolina, citing the fear they would discriminate against minorities.
I wonder what Holder will think when he learns just how easy it was for someone to be offered his ballot just by mentioning his name in a Washington, D.C., polling place in Tuesday’s primaries
Holder’s opposition to ID laws comes in spite of the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in 2008, authored by liberal Justice John Paul Stevens, that upheld the constitutionality of Indiana’s tough ID requirement. When groups sue to block photo-ID laws in court, they can’t seem to produce real-world examples of people who have actually been denied the right to vote. According to opinion polls, over 75 percent of Americans — including majorities of Hispanics and African-Americans — routinely support such laws….
O’Keefe is at it again, but this time his undercover person could have voted in place of AG Holder.
5. White Supremists patrolling Sanford Florida
Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/2012/04/heavily_armed_neo-nazis_patrol.php
Law enforcement needs to get hold of the situation. Let the investigation continue, but right now between the escalation by black groups such as the New Black Panthers and celebrities chiming in and now this with Neo-Nazis patrolling Sanford, we have a tinderbox ready to go up in flames.
6. New Study: Obamacare to add $340 billion to the deficit
President Obama’s landmark health-care initiative, long touted as a means to control costs, will actually add more than $340 billion to the nation’s budget woes over the next decade, according to a new study by a Republican member of the board that oversees Medicare financing.
The study is set to be released Tuesday by Charles Blahous, a conservative policy analyst whom Obama approved in 2010 as the GOP trustee for Medicare and Social Security. His analysis challenges the conventional wisdom that the health-care law, which calls for an expensive expansion of coverage for the uninsured beginning in 2014, will nonetheless reduce deficits by raising taxes and cutting payments to Medicare providers…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/health-care-law-will-add-340-billion-to-deficit-new-study-finds/2012/04/09/gIQAti1o6S_story.html
The financing of Obamacare has always been done with smoke and mirrors. But as Nancy Pelosi said, “We need to pass the bill to find out what’s in it,” and evidently how much it is going to cost.
7. At Last Settled Science that everyone agree on
Once upon a time, there was a medical “consensus” that fats and cholesterol in the blood were major causes of heart disease. Armed with this “settled science,” the public health establishment moved in the 1970s to expunge the offending substances, beyond a basic minimum deemed to be necessary, from Americans’ diets. Food bureaucrats established dietary guidelines. Physicians ordered billions of dollars of blood tests. Pharmaceutical companies made tens of billions of dollars on drugs that suppressed cholesterol levels. Food companies, castigated in some quarters as soulless merchants of dietary corruption, were compelled to report the nutritional breakdown of their packaged products. Badgered by public officialdom and the media over the decades, Americans slowly, grudgingly changed their eating habits.
What good did it do them? Americans are more overweight, more prone to diabetes and more at risk of heart disease than ever before. Now, it transpires, the public health consensus and settled science might not have gotten it right. A new wave of scientific research finds that the worst culprit of all is sugar. CBS‘ “60 Minutes” hit the highlights of that research in a show broadcast April 1, “Is Sugar Toxic?”
In that segment, Dr. Gupta interviewed Dr. Lustig, a pediatric endocrinologist who was the proverbial voice in the wilderness for years.
Gupta: “What are all these diseases that you say are linked to sugar?”
Lustig: “Obesity, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension and heart disease itself.”
Gupta: “So, with the best of intentions, they said, it’s time to reduce fat in the American diet.”
Lustig: “And we did. And guess what? Heart disease, metabolic syndrome, diabetes and death are skyrocketing.”
Gupta: “Dr. Lustig believes that’s primarily because we replaced a lot of that fat with added sugars.”
Lustig: “When you take the fat out of the food, it tastes like cardboard. The food industry knew that. So they replaced it with sugar.”
Prediction 1: Often wrong but never in doubt, the progressives and do-gooders will develop amnesia about the past 40 years of regulatory activism. The old “settled science” will go down the memory hole, to be replaced with a new “settled science.” With new demons to castigate and a new cause to justify meddling in peoples’ lives on the grounds that they are too ignorant, slothful or obstinate to do what’s good for them, progressives will embark joyfully upon a new crusade. Soon we’ll be hearing how sugar is as addictive as cocaine. (Oh, wait, Dr. Gupta quoted a different scientist saying exactly that.) Sugar companies will replace the fat peddlers at McDonald’s as the new villains du jour. (Dr. Gupta also interviewed a sugar-industry lobbyist.)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/apr/6/sugar-shock/
Wait until they find out that global warming has been caused by the sun! Of course most any 5 year old could tell you that (I picked 5 since that would be before the child would have started school and been brain washed by the AGW crowd).
No comments:
Post a Comment