What is the driving force behind the left?

Posted on by

Looking at everything the left does, it’s about taking things away from people.  It’s what they do.  The last few days, it seems they’re in a crusade against cats.  Feral cats, they say.  They kill a lot of birds and mice.  Well, the devil you say.  It takes leftists to tell us that, who would have ever imagined such a thing.  But give in to them, and they’ll be after pets in people’s back yards, and then they’ll be after indoor cats.  Cede any territory to the left, they occupy it, form a beachhead, and go for more.  Ironic, since they seem to hate war.

If it isn’t cats, it’s guns, Nativity scenes, flags, Christmas trees, prayer, bake sales, walking while texting (or was it texting while walking?).  And they always want more tax revenue so they can continue to spend a trillion more than what they take in.  But there is a common theme.  Even when they’re not taking something, they’re preventing something from taking place.

Their goal is to suck the enjoyment out of people’s lives.  I really believe that’s their main purpose.  They want everybody to be as miserable as they are.  They think they’re miserable because of the right preventing them from not being miserable, while it’s they’re natural state and they seem to want it to spread to everybody else.  They get more and more of what they say they want, but they’re still just as angry as ever, snarling their slogans, acting morally outraged, chronically offended.  People said electing BHO would improve race relations, we get flash mobs instead.  Give them what they want, their behavior gets worse, they’re more miserable, and we’re miserable, too.

Compromise is impossible because they offer nothing in return.  If a person has four acres of land and a leftist wants to take two so everybody else can have their fair share of acres, does it make sense to negotiate to only give up one?  That’s essentially what negotiating with them produces.

We need to stop them from taking stuff from us, which is hard when they’ve corrupted the courts.  I’m starting to think states that want to be free of the left will have to secede.  There doesn’t seem to be any other solution.

“I’ve done what was possible to do”

Posted on by

Says Hillary as she leaves the State Department.  This is standard for the Democrat party.  When a Republican holds a position, he or she is a miserable failure due to stupidity, incompetence, or indifference.  If a Democrat had been in the position, he or she could have achieved whatever needed to be done due to intelligence, ability, drive, and strength of personality.  Then when they get the job and leave without accomplishing shit or making things far worse than they were, they did every thing they could and the job is too big for one person.  Then next time a Republican is in charge, it’s stupidity, incompetence, or indifference again and the job is eminently doable if a Democrat is there instead.

Seems like people would grow wise to this, but not enough do.  If there is global warming, it’s from what the Democrat party spews every day of every year.  Hot air and don the hip boots.  Hillary sucked at the job and the best she could do was say so eloquently, “What difference does it make?”

New York is now the safest state out of all 57

Posted on by

Yes, indeed.  If a criminal wants to commit a crime involving a firearm, he’ll only be able to use a ten round magazine now, and even then he’ll only be able to load seven.  If he’s caught with more, he’s in big trouble.  Seriously, where does one even begin with something like this?

With the Democrat party, that’s where.  If you’re a member of the Democrat party, who is the worst of the worst?  I mean, the absolute embodiment of pure evil manifesting itself in subhuman form.  Evil so malignant, just the thought of it makes you sputter and spew and emit steam from your orifices, completely devoid of coherent through.  (Oh, wait.  Scratch that last one, it’s a normal state.)  People so despicable, Democrats tweet calls for their murder.

Is it Adam Lanza?  No, he’s never mentioned.  Half the members of the Democrat party don’t even know his name.  If you clicked on the link in the previous paragraph, you’ll know it’s the National Rifle Association.  To a lib, the NRA is the cause of all murders.  That might seem strange, but it’s a standard liberal tactic designed to further a predefined agenda just waiting for an event to allow them to put it into law.

Leftism 101:  Leftists have agendas, one of which is gun control.  When an event takes place, such as a school shooting, they see an opportunity and try to enact gun control.  Currently, it’s “assault weapons,” which are scary-looking guns with a military appearance, such as pistol grips.  Their solutions won’t stop the problem, but it impacts millions of law abiding Americans.  (This is really the intent, of course.  Their agenda.)  So naturally, the left encounters opposition, the most notable of which is the NRA.  This is the point where the criminals are no longer mentioned.  The real problem is the political opposition, not the true source of the problem.

When the objective is to enact an agenda, as opposed to solving a problem, the enemy is the political opposition.  This is why the left is calling for the murder of NRA members.  These are the same people who would be picketing outside the prison if Adam Lanza had lived to stand trial and received a capital sentence.  The only capital crime, to the left, is to oppose them.

We have 57 states

Posted on by

Which means 57 states that can run things the way they want, more or less.  Lately it’s becoming less.  A lot less.  Things work pretty smoothly when the federal government leaves things alone.  With so many states, there will be some that are socialist paradises with electric cars and rainbow flags and some that are conservative, with pickups full of cigarette butts and rifle racks parked in church parking lots.  People can move to the state that suits them best.  It’s a good system.

But what happens when the federal government attempts to turn the entire government into a socialist paradise, where the ashtrays hold Starbucks gift cards, the rifle racks are empty, and there are no churches to park at?  Exaggerating?  Not in the long run, this is what we’re headed for.  And what happens when dozens of red states have no representation and the federal government isn’t content to let a good system work the way it has?

I don’t know what happens, but eventually the right, which has remained civil throughout it all, will have had enough.  My suggestion?  Passive resistance.  Shrug.  Just stop delivering goods to the big cities.  The libs in their electric cars will get very hungry very fast.  They need the people they look down their noses at and ridicule.  If they keep pushing things, maybe it’s time they learned it.

Have fun with some libs

Posted on by

Libs are upset their taxes went up.  Actually, a lot of people had their taxes go up.  But the libs thought it was great when the “rich” got an increase.  What they didn’t know was that their payroll taxes were going up as well.  Their Democrat party representatives–if the Democrat party can be said to represent anybody with a paycheck–didn’t know either because they didn’t read the bill.  No problem, the bill was written by fellow Democrats, so no need to read it.  Passing a Democrat party bill is success in itself, everything else is extraneous nonsense.  Such as the text.  Just put it out there and vote three minutes later.

We’ve had a tough time lately, we conservatives.  But the left is still wretchedly miserable, as they always are, so let’s have a little fun with them.  If a leftist complains about his or her diminished paycheck, muster up all the condescension you can and act like they do.

“Do you really need that extra money?”  Libs like to ask us if we need what they’re trying to take, as if not needing means we’re not entitled to have it and they are.

“It’s only a few dollars, and it will help the government receive badly-needed revenue.”  That’s what they say when they want a sales tax increase.  It’s not much.

“We all have to pay our fair share and not be greedy.”   They’ll like that one, LOL.

Once you’re done tormenting them with these, ask them this.  Do you really believe for a second that the Democrat party can run trillion dollar deficits indefinitely and the rich alone are going to pay for it?

When the left wants a “national conversation”

Posted on by

It means a “national conversation” complete with opposing viewpoints is already taking place and they want to stop it, then gain control of whatever topic they purport to want a “national conversation” about.  Watch for pressure from the left to get pro-gun videos removed from YouTube.  A lot of conservatives are voicing their opinions there.

“Why do you need an ‘assault weapon’?”

Posted on by

It’s in quotes because the left often asks this.  “Assault weapon” is in embedded quotes because it’s a false term they use.  But putting that aside, what’s the premise behind the question and what is its source?  The left is attempting to establish entitlement to ownership based on need and make the owner justify his ownership.  In this case it’s a firearm they hate, but it can be extended to anything once the premise is established as a legitimate one.  It’s not legitimate in this country, or morally legitimate anywhere.

The source is Marxism, to each according to his needs.  Most of what people own isn’t really needed, including the conspicuous consumption of the left.  Algore’s private jets, the Obama’s Hawaiian vacations, with Michelle riding on a separate jet.  You can buy a lot of guns with what that costs–if you can find any–even at current prices.  Jets and vacations aren’t needed, so using the left’s reasoning, they shouldn’t have them.  It doesn’t work that way because they’re the privileged class, of course.

So how to answer a leftist?  Simply tell him to MYOFB.  Rights aren’t based on needs in this country.  Refer him to the constitution and tell him that so far, it takes precedence over his Marxist premises.

U.S. Customs stops chemical attack at L.A. port

Posted on by

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers seized the ducks — dressed as snowmen, gingerbread men, penguins and reindeer — which were valued at $18,522, after determining they contained the chemical phthalate in excess of the limit which may be harmful to children.

Yes, there was an attempted chemical attack right here in the United States, and the perps were wearing disguises.  The plan was to slaughter children by poisoning them with some unpronounceable chemical.  Yes, they rounded up 35,000 rubber duckies!

The downside is that 18,000 children won’t find a rubber ducky under the tree this Christmas because the government rounded them all up on some pretext.  Call me cynical, but I don’t believe for a second that one child would have been harmed by those duckies.  I have no doubt that phthalate (yes, I copy and pasted that one) can be harmful, but is there enough in a ducky to harm a kid?  Probably not.  The biggest danger from that stuff would be to give it to kids on a spelling test, and hurt their self esteem when they can’t get it right.

So what’s the real story here?  How do they find these things out?  Do they pry open crates with crowbars and use a phthalate testing kit?  Were they tipped off by some whistleblower?  Are unions involved?  (The last one is likely, now isn’t it?)  Who knows, but it’s certain we’ll never know the backstory on this one.

 

COEXIST

Posted on by

You’ve seen those bumper stickers, or maybe not.  Maybe they’re just in liberal areas, which I have the misfortune to live in and near.  They’re stickers that have religious symbols for the letters, and leftists like to put them on their VW buses as a way to preach to people they think preach too much.  As usual, people are coexisting just fine without the left directing them to do.  And as usual, the left is unable to coexist with people themselves.

Here’s an example of people coexisting without being directed to.

Residents in a Newhall senior apartment complex are protesting an order from management to remove their beloved Christmas tree from the community room because, they were told, it’s a religious symbol.

On Tuesday, Tarzana-based JB Partners Group Inc. sent a memo to staff at The Willows senior apartment building demanding they take down Christmas trees and menorahs in communal areas.

Note that there is tolerance at work here.  Christmas trees and Menorahs in the same room together.  There is also extreme intolerance, and it’s coming from the left.  Nothing new, really.

These are elderly people, who aren’t harming anybody.  The left wants to take something that brings them happiness away from them.  Think about it it.  Just about everything the left does means taking something from somebody.  If I think of an example where the left offers something without taking from someone else, I’ll let you know.

What if your offspring constantly spent more than his (or her) allowance?

Posted on by

Supposing you gave your kid $10 a week allowance and he spent $12, borrowing $2.  He said $10 wasn’t enough, and you raised it to $12.  Then he spent $15, because $12 wasn’t enough.  Then it was $20.  After a while, he owed more than a week’s worth of allowance, and then a month’s.  Eventually, you’d get fed up and tell him you were lowering it from $20 (double what it was originally) to $19, and that he’d have to spend less.

This is common sense, right?  The only ridiculous part would be letting it double in the first place.

Ahhh, but the kid throws a fit.  He tells you your greedy, and that you need to pay what’s fair.  And he asks you how he’s supposed to pay for a decrease to $19, as if it’s his money and everything you earn and still have is what you’re allowed to keep by your own kid.  Would you put up with this?

Of course you would, because you already do.  The hypothetical scenario above is what the government does constantly.  No matter what it receives, it spends more.  And it’s your fault it doesn’t have enough, even though it takes in more and more all the time.  People accept the premise the government doesn’t take in enough money, but it takes in more than it needs and wastes it.  So consider this.  Do you believe the government spends money efficiently?  Of course not.

So why believe it needs more, when the best way to force efficiency is to decrease what it has to waste?