February 14th, 2013

Rush Limbaugh has an epiphany about Obama

Part of this humorous rant by Rush Limbaugh is thick sarcasm, and part of it is a straightforward acknowledgement of a new realization he’s come to about Obama.

I hardly ever listen to talk shows, and so I’m quite unfamiliar with Rush Limbaugh’s program except what I read about it now and then in the press or the blogosphere. But it’s my impression that this election has knocked him for a loop like no other has before it. Perhaps, as with many conservatives, it surprised him most because he thought the American people were thinking a certain way and it turns out they were thinking another way. Some of his boundless self-confidence may have been shattered, and he’s had to regroup.

That’s what his post-State-of-the-Union-Address rant sounds like. Although much of it is funny, it’s a bleak kind of humor, and there is this kernel of very serious truth within it:

…I do want to tell you something here that has been sort of an eye opener for me. Now, it may have been something that you understood long ago. It may have been something you put together long ago. I must confess that I only just realized this today. And it’s about trying to understand how could so many people say they disagree with Obama’s policies and yet reelect him…

How in the world can people be dissatisfied with the country’s direction while at the same time support the very agenda that’s causing it? This just doesn’t compute to you and me. We recognize that it is Obama’s agenda which is leading to the problems this country has and thus the dissatisfaction that people have regarding the country’s direction. But the majority of people who vote, there is no connection of those two things whatsoever…

So Obama is not at all connected to the tragic destruction of this country. He is seen as somebody who wants to fix it…Now, maybe one reason is that he’s successfully blamed Bush all these years and the exit polling data last November, vast majority of people still do blame Bush for the economy, but it’s more than that. It’s that Obama never, ever, allows himself to be seen as governing. He is constantly campaigning.

Obama is constantly seen as in competition with what’s happening in Washington. It is though there are straw men. There are men behind curtains. There are invisible, evil people doing all this to the country. He’s trying to expose them and he’s working very hard. Romney is one of them. Bush was one of them. There are a bunch of other people, we don’t know who they are. But Obama is trying to find them. He’s trying to expose them and trying to fix all this. Obama is not seen as the guy behind the curtains pulling the levers. Obama is not seen as the guy who does not like the way the country was founded and is trying to take this country in a different direction. He’s not seen at all in the way he really is. It can’t all be because of the media…

This is what you and I are gonna have to learn and learn fast. No matter what is said, no matter what evidence happens, no matter what’s reported, it will not be possible to connect Obama to the negativity that’s happening in the country today because he’s campaigning against it himself. That’s the reason for the perpetual, never-ending campaign. It is why, in eight years, he will never allow himself for even one day to be seen as actually governing or presiding over any of this.

He’s always going to be running against the very things he’s doing.

Has there ever before been a president who presents himself as a mediator and conciliator while simultaneously stirring up hatred and conflict? And been so successful at the deception? Has there ever before been a president who will not leave his fingerprints on anything? And gets away with it? Has there ever before been a president so inclined to blame his predecessors, and for so long, and with whom the American people has so cooperated with in that endeavor?

And I think Limbaugh is correct in saying that, although the sycophantic press is of course heavily, heavily involved, it is not the whole explanation or even close to it. The American people has lost the ability to see clearly and to demand performance from Obama. Obama is the first president to not be judged on his record.

[ADDENDUM: And this, newly released, is right in line with Obama’s presidential history of taking responsibility for nothing:

Bowing to pressure from Senate Republicans, the White House disclosed on Thursday that President Barack Obama did not personally ask the Libyan government for help during September’s deadly terrorist attack on the American compound in Benghazi. Instead, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reached out on his behalf, according to a letter from Obama’s official government lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, to key Republicans.

“Secretary Clinton called Libyan President Magariaf on behalf of the President on the evening of September 11, 2012 to coordinate additional support to protect Americans in Libya and access to Libyan territory,” she wrote.

The response to this will probably be the usual crickets chriping. Or for all I know, praise for something-or-other—perhaps for 2016 President-elect Hillary.

So why was this oh-so-informational information that explains absolutely nothing about why Obama failed to do so, or what he was doing instead, finally released now? Here’s why:

Ruemmler’s response, obtained by Yahoo News, could clear a major obstacle to the confirmation of Republican former Sen. Chuck Hagel to be defense secretary.

GOP senators had vowed to block his nomination unless the White House detailed Obama’s personal outreach to Libyan officials during the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.

He must really want Hagel at Defense.]

85 Responses to “Rush Limbaugh has an epiphany about Obama”

  1. Bob from Virginia Says:

    Performance is unimportant, image is the only thing that matters. Obama is the fashion; analysis ends there. Most people have not felt the negative effects of any of his policies, and enough of those who have don’t attribute those to him. Ergo there is no need to act against the current fashion.

    Note: For fashion one could substitute the word “fashionthink”. A term that indicates that people are acting as a herd when it comes to analysis; they feel they are evaluating when all they are doing is avoiding the tension that comes from being different.

  2. Mark in Portland Says:

    If you look at the 2012 election results you will see that the reason he was re-elected was racial preference, pure and simple. Let’s assume that everyone considers the economy to be in the toilet. The white vote reflected that of an electorate ready to throw the bum out. No other racial group reflected that. It reflected an electorate thoroughly happy with the job the president is doing.

    These immediate post election percentages might have changed some but I bet they’re still in this ballpark:
    White Men – Romney 64% Obama 35%
    White Women – Romney 57% Obama 42%
    Hispanic Men – Obama 65% Romney 34%
    Hispanic Women – Obama 76% Romney 23%
    Black Men – Obama 87% Romney 12%
    Black Women – Obama 96% Romney 3%
    Asian Total – Obama 73% Romney 26%

    The white vote can no longer overwhelm the extreme ethnic voting of other groups. This is the situation Democrats have been hoping for and predicting. A functioning democracy is done for if the voting occurs along tribal lines: see any third world country. We are there. This is why Rush is depressed.

  3. southpaw Says:

    neo said “although the sycophantic press is of course heavily, heavily involved, it is not the whole explanation or even close to it. ”
    I might have to disagree with on this one. I think if the media were to report exactly what Rush has said, and ask the questions you have asked, the whole charade would come crashing down on him. By media, I mean to include entertainment media and culture, which so many nitwit Americans associate with news or information. If popular culture were to ridicule him along with CNN, MSNBC, et. al., the public’s collective unconsciousness would be follow the lead. If it were uncool to be an Obama supporter, it would evaporate. Seems to me there’s as more cult hero worship than there is actual intellectual support, but that’s fostered by media of all kinds, not just the network “news”.

  4. neo-neocon Says:

    southpaw: oh, I agree that if the media were to report things honestly and critically, the vote might indeed have gone differently. That was not my point at all. My point is that even with the media support, I believe that even as recently as twenty years ago Obama would not have won.

    And it’s not just demographics, either (although that’s part if it, too). People have lost the ability to observe and judge for themselves, they have lost the values of individuality and responsibility, welfare and unwed motherhood and all that stuff has lost its stigma, and indeed (although it may not be as much as 47%) many people have gotten very used to government helping them and have become dependent on that and afraid of it being taken away by the big bad Republicans.

    That has all been developing over the last few decades, and it has all reached critical mass. Yes, the media is a big big part of it, and without their support Obama would not have been successful. But even with their support, he should not have been successful—and wouldn’t have been, but for those changes in attitude (which are themselves partly a result of the media’s efforts for many decades, but are also very much the result of changes in education, entertainment, and social attitudes about the family).

  5. T Says:

    I think that these observations (yours and Limbaugh’s) are quite to the point. I offer that one of the reasons that Obama has been successful is that there is no other criticism of him, except from sources that have been demonized by the mainstream media. Fox News? Oh we all know that they’re archconservative conspiracy theorists. Sean Hannity? A right-wing hack. Michelle Bachmann? Enough said.

    It’s not only that these sources have been disparaged, it’s that we do not yet have that broad-based alternative media which gives them a fair hearing and treats the message as a serious message. Again this situation will not change until there is a credible conservative component to the national dialogue. The current media establishment will do everything it can to keep that from happening. IMO it must come from outside the box.

  6. expat Says:


    How do we get Anna Wintour, Oprah, Steven Spielberg, and the rappers to see the light?

  7. Lizzy Says:

    Rush is right. We knew Obama was good at leaving no trace prior to his 2008 election: no records (transcripts, law review articles, etc.), no long-time personal friends or past girlfriends, no career accomplishments beyond getting hired or elected, a habit of voting present.
    It never occurred to me that he’d be able to pull this off while in office. He couldn’t do this without the press, his forever campaign team, and a lot of loyal people taking fire for him (e.g. Holder on Fast * Furious).

  8. mizpants Says:

    The population has been so dumbed down that it no longer recognizes or respects the law of contradiction.

  9. DirtyJobsGuy Says:

    Neo, as a New Yorker by upbringing you should know that this is a big city thing. The NYC City Council is a joke filled by Tweed wannabees owned by the municipal unions and ethnic groups. To get around this the voters elect a king in the form the mayor to keep the city from falling apart. The same is/was true in Chicago where the crooked aldermen were tolerated so long as the Daley’s could keep the basic city functions running and the upper income areas reasonably safe.

    Obama cuts the same deal. He doesn’t need to run against Washington so much as he runs as the guy who will make sure your piece of the pie is preserved. By giving you your gift you are asked to turn aside while less seemly corruption goes on. But the flaw is the same as in NYC or Chicago, eventually the crime/decay gets too big and guy gets swept in. The key is to reform the basic structure when “Mr. Clean” gets voted in. Guliani saved NYC but he could not reform the basic city political structure.

  10. rickl Says:

    A corrupt city political machine is seemingly self-perpetuating, but the city is surrounded by a nation that isn’t necessarily run that way.

    Can the nation as a whole survive being governed by a corrupt political machine?

  11. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    All of the factors mentioned are valid and relevant. It is all of a piece.

    That said, IMO Mark of Portland gets closest to the primary factor for why Obama was reelected. There is great confusion in the minds of the average voter, as to the difference between culture and race.

    Whites who have rejected Obama have not done so because of race but because of his policies and lack of support for cultural values that reason and logic find superior; support for the Constitution, a strong work ethic, personal responsibility and accountability, that actions have consequences, the value of education, logic and reason, and the importance of parental role models and familial bonds are some of those cultural values.

    Black voters who voted for Obama did NOT do so because of culture but because of race and ever increasing entitlements. Hispanics did so because of Obama’s support for amnesty and ever increasing entitlements.

    IMO, Asian voters made a calculated decision that they do better under democrats, reaping the advantages that affirmative action etc, provide while their cultural embrace of hard work, education, individual responsibility and familial obligations provides the foundation for societal achievement.

    White voters who voted for Obama did so because of their belief that Obama supports their cultural values; i.e. the values of the left and the kool-aid fed to liberals.

  12. Mike Says:

    By definition Obama is diabolical. The devil is the father of lies – and therefore thefts and murders and every evil. Obama is strictly speaking a disciple of diabolos.

    To ever say differently about him is to acquiesce in the lie.

    Since this happens so much, I must conclude that the great majority of people are also invested in the lie.

    M. Scott Peck wrote a book about this – “The People of the Lie”.

    This is America. This is probably a majority of conservatives. It is absolutely every single Democrat there is, even your friends and relatives. Each and every one being liars invested in lies.

    Yet again, is this a surprise? That it is shocking to many is even more shocking. People have no idea that, as Jeremiah said, “The heart of man inclines to wickedness” (or words to that effect).

    We thought we’d evolved past that or something? Ha ha ha. The joke is on us.

    It is time for America to get real with itself again. That means telling the truth about the evil people we allow to lead us; and telling the truth about the way we cover our eyes to them because we are too cowardly to fight lies and liars. Too close to home.

  13. George Pal Says:

    This must be what so many psyhcophants see as his incredible intellect, his easy of mastery over everything. The evil genius of doing nothing and having it credited as working hard to make the tough decisions.

    “I’ve watched him make decisions that would make another man or woman’s hair curl” Joe Biden

    Have that on a loop, echoed throughout the media, repeated daily (Groundhog Day?) The man who could not be bothered to stay awake during Benghazi is sleepless in the saddle making a hard decision. I suppose we’re to believe there’s a direct relationship between the vacations he takes and the hard decisions he makes.

  14. T Says:

    “as Jeremiah said, “The heart of man inclines to wickedness” . . . . We thought we’d evolved past that or something?”

    Where human behavior is concerned, there is nothing new under the sun.

  15. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Can the nation as a whole survive being governed by a corrupt political machine?”

    Perhaps. At present, the answer to that question is very much up in the air.

    There is now a slim majority that is providing support for the machinations of the left. The ‘political wind’ is clearly at their back. But battles do not necessarily win the war and while 52% voted for Obama, 48% firmly reject him.

    In a representative democracy, majority rules but within the framework and legal constraints of our Constitution. Which is of course why Obama and the democrats are doing all they can to weaken it and circumvent it, as the changes the left seeks are dependent upon circumventing the Constitution.

    Tocqueville warned of the “Tyranny of the Majority” as did Jefferson and others. Fortunately, more than anything else, the Constitution is designed to constrain the “Tyranny of the Majority”.

    On the right, the great burning political question of the moment is how do we turn things around?

    Any campaign must start with a strategy.

    Sun Tzu, perhaps the greatest strategist yet produced, in his “The Art of War” observed that, “Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”

    The Republican Party has been engaged in tactics without strategy.

    Perhaps the foremost part of any strategy is to deny the enemy (and the American left is our enemy for they would impose upon others their views) the implementation of their strategy.

    The left’s strategy is to effect cultural change that circumvents and overturns our Constitutional protections. Thus maintaining those Constitutional protections is imperative if we are to deny the left a critical portion of its strategy.

    Today on the website ‘American Thinker’ an article was posted that describes a method that may be employed to deny the left its latest attempt to overturn and circumvent the second amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    That method could be employed to block other attempts by Obama to circumvent the Constitution when compliance at the State level is critical to Obama success.

    In the article I have linked to above the author describes a method for legal, de facto nullification of Federal legislation and executive regulation.

    I’m no legal scholar but given the situation, it is certainly worth exploring every possibility.

  16. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    T @ 3.34,
    “Where human behavior is concerned, there is nothing new under the sun.”

    Not to entirely disagree but never say never;-)

    Though not only a man, I believe Jesus’ proclaiming, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” qualifies as something new under the sun…

  17. artfldgr Says:

    it’s my impression that this election has knocked him for a loop like no other has before it.

    no… not thrown at all… go read him and stop listening to the blogosphere as the majority is parroting left points…
    they are always claiming something like that regardless of any validity.

    you can read the transcripts to his show, and you can then get a feel for it.

    Some of his boundless self-confidence may have been shattered, and he’s had to regroup.

    definitely reading too much of the leftsist press
    they want you to think the same of others too

    No matter what is said, no matter what evidence happens, no matter what’s reported, it will not be possible to connect Obama to the negativity that’s happening in the country today because he’s campaigning against it himself. That’s the reason for the perpetual, never-ending campaign. It is why, in eight years, he will never allow himself for even one day to be seen as actually governing or presiding over any of this.

    now… where did obama learn that from?

    and how would you know if you werent interested prior to these events?

    Has there ever before been a president who presents himself as a mediator and conciliator while simultaneously stirring up hatred and conflict?

    YES… but not of the United States…

    And been so successful at the deception?

    YES… but not in the United States, or Germany

    Has there ever before been a president who will not leave his fingerprints on anything?

    YES… and despite having them stained for a short while, had them washed clean anew

    And gets away with it?

    YES… and amazingly so…

    Has there ever before been a president so inclined to blame his predecessors, and for so long, and with whom the American people has so cooperated with in that endeavor?

    YES… (given the way your statement is worded)

    although the sycophantic press is of course heavily, heavily involved, it is not the whole explanation or even close to it. The American people has lost the ability to see clearly and to demand performance from Obama.

    not true… they are all seeing clearly but you have yet to understand why they are caught in the tower of babel, how it was done, and so on.

    you CAN read about it, but its in the area you all want to deny exists or even has an effect!!!! which is what your trained to do. yet you know how much of your tax dollars goes to that thing that has no effect?

    the problem is that you ahve about 200 years of very complicated history and things to get through, and despite saying so for over 6 years, your just 6 years farther behind.

    Agency 1: annual budget of $8 billion last year

    Agency 2: 1963 was US $550 million (inflation-adjusted US$ 4.2 billion in 2013) // 1997 was US $26.6 billion (inflation-adjusted US$ 38.5 billion in 2013) // 2005 44 billion

    Agency 3: Budget Classified
    Agency 4: Budget Classified

    Agency 5: In 1971 around $1 billion (inflation adjusted US$ 5.7 billion in 2013) // 1994, the annual budget had risen to $6 billion (inflation adjusted US$ 9.4 billion in 2013) // 2010 it is estimated to amount to $15 billion (inflation adjusted US$ 16 billion in 2013)

    over all… the current estimated budget for all of them is well over 80-120 billion a year… not to mention other sources.

    in fact, when you all read stuff like this (warning shocking graphs that will bowl you over)

    the above is missing… its always missing..

    in fact… here is another great set of graphs of things

    but again… if you look… the billions on the above are not listed.

    so what can you spend 80 billion a year on, and have no effect anywhere?


    1.3 billion rubles for the FSB, 1.8 billion rubles for the Federal Protection Service, and 650 million rubles for the Foreign Intelligence Service. In other words, the classification by agency implies that these three special services get just over 3 billion rubles. But now let’s look at what they actually receive, according to the functional classification – 91 billion rubles!

    91 billion…
    and they put out thousands of operatives from special operative schools… (and i have not bothered with china, india, pakistan, UK, israel, etc)

    is it any freaking wonder that without protecting our press, and so on, that ALL Those places have a foot in the game?

    combined we are talking over a trillion a year mostly focused on hurting and collapsing the US…

    with the left liberals here for 100 years hiding it, minimizing it, declaring it over, and so on…

    yet here we are, with two Stalinist making deals to support each other, and the person asking the questions has not learned enough about the real Stalin, to separate the image and myths that the left created that fog things up

    everything Obama is doing is from Stalin book..
    with anything he can use from any other book..

    but you have to understand the strain of the species tree and which branch of it these people are on.

    the demonizing going on, will match the stuff of Stalin, not Hitler… as hitler didnt demonize everyone that was critical for taking their property… but stalin did. hitler barelyused race unless you think jews are a race not a religion… but if he was as racist as neo nazis, he sure didnt show it (the books by black nazis in Africa were suppressed as well as others… to create thsi racist version and expand it. we as Americans forget that prior to America, most people have lived on and in their lands for over 1000 years. and so had lines and lineages they called home with very few outsiders. a perception USA people don’t have)

    you can go to youtube and see the speeches and things of the people that laid out what would happen.

    it was the left that claimed it wouldnt then when it did it was unknown and unintended, then did it over and over again. but we forgot that what would happen was already detailed, they denied it and it happened that way, so someone knew!!!!

    but merit was no longer the judge.
    and THATS your key to this..

    next post

  18. Gringo Says:

    Has there ever before been a president so inclined to blame his predecessors, and for so long, and with whom the American people has so cooperated with in that endeavor?

    It has been my impression that FDR ran against Hoover well after 1932.

  19. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Mike @ 3.27,

    “I must conclude that the great majority of people are also invested in the lie.”

    There is a difference between self-deception, naivete, gullibility and embracing a lie. For to lie is to knowingly tell an untruth.

    Were that not true, there would have been no rationale basis for not adjudging the entire German people to have all been NAZI’s, guilty of war crimes and deserving of the death penalty. The same would hold true of the Iranian people today, Cuba, etc. Even the entire American South in the aftermath of the civil war.

    Denying the truth is not the same as constructing an untruth. Were it not so, then what basis for Jesus’ forgiveness of Peter after his denial of him, not once but three times?

  20. physicsguy Says:

    ” It’s that Obama never, ever, allows himself to be seen as governing. He is constantly campaigning. ”

    This one statement by Rush really nailed it for me. I once asked a lib friend of mine when has BHO ever put in a true week’s worth of work at the Oval Office. He couldn’t answer. We have all attributed it to laziness, but now I am thinking it may be more a brilliant strategy to further lull those low info voters to sleep.

    If one is constantly campaigning, and not governing, then one is absolved from blame… absolutely genius in a political sense.

  21. neo-neocon Says:

    Gringo: yes, but I’m pretty sure FDR was not still doing it in 1936.

  22. artfldgr Says:

    when merit is not allowed to be used, then what?

    by what measure do you then use to decide who to follow, who to believe, who to suport, etc.

    remember, good people want to do it right, and so will abandon comon sense and such if someone offers a “better way” and thats what was done.

    the women were offered a better way than merit…

    it was better for them, for as long as you measured their ability by honest merit, they lose, and men win.

    The average 18- year-old man is 70.2 inches tall and weighs 144.8 pounds, whereas the average woman of the same age is 64.4 inches tall and weighs 126.6 pounds. This difference in size affects the absolute amount of physical work that can be performed by men and women.

    so.. as long as the measure was merit and tied to real world measures and usefulness, women lose.

    Men have 50 percent greater total muscle mass, based on weight, than do women. A woman who is the
    same size as her male counterpart is generally only 80 percent as strong. Therefore, men usually have an
    advantage in strength, speed, and power over women.

    so as long as men are men, they can overturn the feminists in a week… IF they are allowed to act, and so on. so they neutered them so they would not be allowed to use their own strengths.

    this is why you measure womens work, but there is no measure of mens… only the measure of womens work men dont do. (so body guard, heavy lifting, toilets, repairs, mowing lawns, etc… is not counted)

    now if you never read the reams of arguments the justify this, its because your not part of their crew nor do you have an interest (nor do you know to read what your opposition reads!)

    so you probably missed out on the 40 years of unopposed reasoning that established these things as superior to merit!

    Women carry about 10 percentage points more body fat than do men of the same age. Men accumulate fat primarily in the back, chest, and abdomen; women gain fat in the buttocks, arms, and thighs. Also, because the center of gravity is lower in women than in men, women must overcome more resistance in activities that require movement of the lower body.

    Women have less bone mass than men, but their pelvic structure is wider. This difference gives men
    an advantage in running efficiency.

    The average woman’s heart is 25 percent smaller than the average man’s. Thus, the man’s heart can pump more blood with each beat. The larger heart size contributes to the slower resting heart rate (five to eight beats a minute slower) in males. This lower rate is evident both at rest and at any given level of submaximal exercise. Thus, for any given work rate, the faster heart rate means that most women will become fatigued sooner than men.

    so where do they do better?
    Women generally are more flexible than men.

    The lung capacity of men is 25 to 30 percent greater than that of women. This gives men still another advantage in the processing of oxygen and in doing aerobic work such as running.

    i got this from a website detailing the differences between male soldiers and female soldiers… and how with special attention, women can perform like the men… (really?)

    and do you want to get into the 60 years of IQ tests with always the same results? (and before you say that feminists beat the men, the feminists are following what men invented, not women!)

    so with all that, how do you make them equal?

    you get people used to ignoring reality… and you crush all the things that would clue them in on it, and make everyone jump on anyone who shows it, lists it, or even tries to make it seem prevalent… that way, you wake up one day, and suddenly you realize its all over… and the chance to stop it was 15 years go (yay Vday and vagina monologes. the ideology that says all men are rapists and thats al they are. where are the women that DONT beleive that arguing with the ones that do? there arent any… they dont want to betray their sisters. they are normalized to betray their children, husbands, grandparents and so on!)

    so for EACH point that would normally lead even a child to say… Angelina, you cant beat up mike Tyson… especially not mussing your hair and makeup

    women signed on to it, as the adoption of that would put them on top… and you can drug, shame, or get the state to beat up the men who say otherwise.

    with that, the state easily teams up as theenemy of my enemy is my friend. and so the males who would protect the nation, make sure its moral, fight for freedom, were neutralized in favor of stalinist feminism, which the leaders all say thats what they wanted, what they worked for and what we are going to get.
    [edited for length by n-n]

  23. kaba Says:

    We are just beginning to reap what we’ve sown for at least the last forty years.

    We have had an education system more bent to propaganda than pursuit of truth.

    We have banned God from the public square and mocked the idea of morality. Questions of good and evil and right and wrong are all relative and subject to personal whim.

    We have diminished and disparaged the role of fathers in the family.

    We’ve grown comfortable in our progress and prosperity and wrongly assumed it would always be so.

    Bad days are coming my friends. And whether we can recover to once again be a free and prosperous culture are very much in doubt.

  24. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: of course, when I wrote “has there ever been a president who…” I meant a US president. I’m well aware that other countries have had such leaders.

    And no, I have read absolutely nothing in the MSM or the leftist press about Rush Limbaugh. In fact, although I allude to having read a few things about him, I’m talking about past controversies that happened some time ago (i.e. the Sandra Fluke thing—and even then, I read fairly little about it). I am not alluding to anything recent at all.

    My impressions of Limbaugh are completely my own, based pretty much only on reading the transcript of the broadcast I linked. That’s what I hear in that monologue.

    And since I’ve already said I virtually never listen to his show or any other talk show, it’s obvious I’m no expert on Rush Limbaugh. But that’s my impression.

    You keep making assumptions and jumping to conclusions that are not correct.

  25. Steve D Says:

    ‘This just doesn’t compute to you and me.’

    Ever wonder why so many people want BOTH entitlement programs AND small government? And why they see no contradiction. This statement by Rush demonstrates why the conservatives are gradually losing ground. I sure hope it eventually does compute or else we’re staring at end of freedom in America.

  26. artfldgr Says:

    by the way, the only people who can steal the wind from the current power, is other women who are not part of that power…

    however, they have no connections to other countries, and the money from them and advice and assistance

    the oter countries are helping them win, because if they win (As they have) the whole country loses.

    can you imagine a war like wwii, and these liberals and women and ows people are your saviuors?

    that should scare the crap out of you if you know what the other side has, does, is willing to do, and how much that fact above, makes them smile and wanting to move before that door closes.

    you can beat up the man that loves you till he seems weak, as he is not really what you make him to be, and he wont beat you into submission. if he was, women would not have gotten two feet. he loves them so much, and wants to be loved so much he is willing to stand aside and let the whole of it fall to pieces IF thats what they want

    and the foreign opposition who set that up knows it. if he will die for her, he will certainly do anything for her, so all you have to do is control her! and you control her through commiseration in hate, which is how women knit their little social groups. read sociology papers and think tank white papers that discuss intervening.

    now the key here is that the women are taught these nice men are mean, and the mean men are nice. the more their lives went down the tubes, the more they looked to the leaders telling them they are working to fix this.

    this is the SAME formulat obama is using… the more the liberals make things bad, the more the people who are liberal, give them power.

    the more bad advice women get, the more feminists can blame men, and so be the friend of women and give them more advice.

    since obamas major constituency is women… and metrosexuals and the groups that respond to this…

    he is just taking advantage of the cultural preparation that was done with women, so that they know how to respond sot such behavior.

    this is why the non liberals dont get it. they dont know how its done, they just know it IS done. they also cant do it without sacrificing their morals.

    what good is it to save something if one has to become the other to do it? what do you preserve that way, and what do you always lose that way?

    this campaigning trick is what feminism has been doiing for 100 years… Obama is not doing it new.

    what do you think the campaign for equality is, the campaing against rape is, the campaing against violence against wome, the campaing for red dress, edducation, and on and on.

    they are always campaigning and the women know that when their bell rings they have to respond. so when obama rang their bell, the dogs drool

    BF skinner would be proud and laughing
    proud cause it works, laughing cause their egos wont let them accept it works, and so they cant escape it as they cant admit it

    trapped they ahve to ride this horse to the grave

    and in the meantime, write tons of ariticles asking, were are the men we removed… why did they leave? why arent they the way we hated them for being? why didnt they save us? why why why..

  27. Holmes Says:

    This is right on.

    But what does he want at this point? I guess he wants the last two years of a D congress, and that’s really the goal. He’ll avoid any sort of hard decisions, try to isolate the R’s and delegitimize them (I mean, Biden is using the phrase “legitimate news sources” now in reference to Fox News. You can almost see him recalling the marching orders.) They just need two years of unchecked power to finish the job. So the goal is really 2016. He’ll be campaigning until then.

  28. artfldgr Says:

    And no, I have read absolutely nothing in the MSM or the leftist press about Rush Limbaugh

    half of what they write about him they dont use his name, so you ARE reading about him, or what he says or his talking point which they are addressing, but they dont want to advertise to you he said it. you might go to check him out!!!

    ie. address the talking points but not who said them

    IF you want, i can take the time to show you what i am basing on… but i am not wrong… analyse what you said and what i said, and dont be general be specific and literal. then you will see where either i got it wrong, or your loose in what your saying so i have to pick an answer, not know the answer cause you were clear.

    but so far you have decided to be non specific, not take up that challenge and not dissect it. here or in mail. so nothing i can do when there are 4 options, you see only one, and i pick one of the other three that can fit too. ALSO, your never assuming i know something i am saying something, but if i explain it all your going to cut me down… so i casnt explain it and be clear, and all that… thats literary suicide here!!!

    this is the problem with minimal speech and sound bites and not liking long posts and i explained that before…

    people who are more alike than different dont realize that they are aligning things and so those three other answers are not in their heads either and you think your clear. but i can easily show you that we are very loose in speech, and you can even pull out linquistic books and learn that womens speech is different than men… they suggest more and men have to guess more.

    from the book, you just dont understand…
    (men and women in speech)

    the authoress explains that women are indirect in their speech. it keeps them from offending, and allows them to dissimulate if the social reaction is not what they expected… men are more precise and will fight over the point… sometimes to death if its enough. women generally wont.

    her book is how this kind of thing gets inthe way of our relationships (And if your astute you woudl ralize is something that peopel whos tudy sociology would use)

    she tells the story of a man and a woman driving, and as they pass a place she asks if he is thirsty. he says no, and drives on… she is upset, she thinks she was clear, why did he not stop?

    because he is literal, he does not see a question asked of him, being a question applying to her! if she is thirsty, men would rather she say, i am thirsty, lets go there. but she dissimulates.. she asks if he is thirsty, and either hopes he is, hopes the idea makes him thirsty so he pulls over, or the last which pisses her off wonders why he dont cause if she asked if he was, she must be!!!

    the book is full of such stuff, and we often dont know we do it

    aspergers makes things a bit more literal for me… so in the example above, i would never think that she was thirsty as all i woudl see is what she said, not what she implied, dissimulated, or did in a way where if it didnt go the way she wanted she could passive aggressively work from there. (not implying passive agressive as a condition, but as a thing we all do from time to time)

    You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation

    Women and men live in different worlds…made of different words.

    by the way, feminism plays this against each other. in that we are the same so why is he different. the effect is the same with aspergeers and you can even read bout it. the woman tends to think he is being different purposefully, and so gets angry. after all, we are not supposed to be different so why would we have to learn to accommodate each other?

    You Just Don’t Understand

    from her book
    For most women, the language of conversation is primarily a language of rapport: a way of establishing connections and negotiating relationships … For most men, talk is primarily a means to preserve independence and negotiate and maintain status in a hierarchical social order.

    and so, your going to be less precise as that gives you room to correct a mistake… but if he does that, he is less competent and things don’t work out so well with the world… (if she doesn’t, things don’t work out so well in the social world)

    this is why when women are upset, they get more upset when the man doesnt do rapport, but does mr fixit… to him her problem is something to solve, to her its an opportunity to have rapport, and she will solve it once she gets stroked a bit…

    This leads to conversations at cross-purposes, since both parties may miss the other’s metamessages, with attendant misunderstandings—for example, a woman complaining about the lingering effects of a medical procedure, who may merely be seeking empathy from female friends by doing so, becomes angry at her husband when he suggests a solution involving further surgery. Men and women both perceive the other gender as the more talkative, and they are both accurate, since studies show men speak more in public settings about public topics while women dominate private conversation within and about relationships. The latter is frequently derided as gossip by both genders, and Tannen devotes an entire chapter to exploring its social functions as a way of connecting speaker and listener to a larger group.

    Men often dominate conversations in public, even where they know less about a subject than a female interlocutor, because they use conversation to establish status. Women, on the other hand, often listen more because they have been socialized to be accommodating. These patterns, which begin in childhood, mean, for instance, that men are far more likely to interrupt another speaker, and not to take it personally when they are themselves interrupted, while women are more likely to finish each other’s sentences.

    These patterns have paradoxical effects. Men use the language of conflict to create connections, and conversely women can use the language of connection to create conflict. “Women and men are inclined to understand each other in terms of their own styles because we assume we all live in the same world.”[4] If the genders would keep this in mind and adjust accordingly, Tannen believes, much discord between them could be averted.

    note she is careful to say socialized…so they publish her

    but there is now way that all the countries and places have women socialized the same. in fact, the women that are feminists are constantly harping that this difference here is what they think is the men cheating and being pushy!!! (read above in other post if you havent excised the releveant part)

    of course… such a book may help men and women get along better… so the criticism is marxist and feminist and neutralizes most women from using the book to learn (Which would violate equality ideas and so betray her sisters and cause guilt)

    Tannen’s book, Freed says, “simultaneously perpetuates negative stereotypes of women, excuses men their interactive failings, and distorts by omission the accumulated knowledge of our discipline.” While Tannen accurately cites the factual findings of one researcher on the development of linguistic interaction among children, she uses them to support notions of intrinsic gender difference whereas the actual research finds greater similarities. Her readable anecdotes support unjustified generalizations that fail to take ethnic differences into account. “As an American Jewish woman married to an Irish American man,” says Freed, “the constellation of conversational traits that I live with is completely at odds with those described by Tannen.” She also points out that men and women are able to communicate with each other quite well when courting

    there is also a time aspect too. i dont have the time to read more carefully and so on… i have to post fast and not get in trouble for it. also, if i dont post fast and so on, your going to cut me down and i lose two hours research work in a few seconds. but if the research work takes 10 minutes, i only lose 5 mins of my life to the garbate can.

    so.. i am adapting… i cant write less, and i cant shorten the pertinent information.. its what it is. but i CAN get faster, less specific, looser, and shoot from the hip more.

    then when you delete it, it dont hurt so much to lose.
    so far i must have lost a coupld of days of my life to the trash for nothing. and i dont have much time left given the stroke last friday…


  29. artfldgr Says:

    Men always adapt…
    we do it for our mates and why they select us
    just ask a marine… or the wife of one.. .

    Improvise, Adapt and Overcome….

    the problem is that they are going to adapt to a winning strategy, not what you want them to adapt as that is automatically a losing strategy (adapt to what your enemyh wants, you lose)

    this is why they dont try to turn the men
    they realized last century that was their mistake
    you turn the women, you turn the men
    for without mates, the men are nothing…

    the feminists mistake is that by making them nothing
    they don’t need mates, and so they are sitting this out. unlike women, men are made to mostly not mate!!! while women are made to have their clock mostly tick…

    so while obama is using the techniques of feminism and so the women are trained like pavlov to respond…

    they responded to the 70% pay thing. but thats not real. they respond and are trained to respond to the campaigning request… its pavlovian now.. (skinnerian?)

    now the MOST hysterical thing (no pun intended) is that women are not allowed to know themselves!!! why? well tsun tsu explains that.

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle”

    they dont know their declared enemy (their mates) as its their leaders that talk for the other side the same way liberals tell liberals what conservatives are and never find out from conservatives (or classical liberals).

    they dont know themselves, because the whole of the ideology is to dictate to them what they are while telling them what they have been for 100,000 years or more is something else!!!

    and so… knowing neither the enemy or themselves, in the long run, they are losing every battle…

    because to win and not survive is to lose.

    or to quote a popular movie

    sometimes you have to lose to win..
    and sometimes when you win, you lose

    go ask Pyrrhic

  30. southpaw Says:

    Expat : If I knew the answer to that I’d be the great right hope. (which would be pretty funny for a left hander)
    Neo – I would only add to your last comment about stigmas — in my lifetime and yours, the stigma of relying on government has been transformed from being on those who rely on help to those who pay for it. As kids growing up, it was pounded into our heads it was our responsibility to take care of ourselves and not to expect anything from anyone. Now the stigma is reversed and directed at those of us who can’t accept that people on perpetual public assistance have no other choice. You’re made to feel guilty for being sucessful enough to pay your taxes, not get thrown out of your home, stay out of debt, and keep your job. Even the conservative media tends to talk about simple goals like these as virtually beyond the grasp of most people. It’s bewildering. At some point, everyone who has ever had a stable life has made some sacrifices to educate themselves or obtain a skill that will pay the bills – except nowadays this idea is treated as if it’s never been harder for the average person to do.

  31. Ann Says:

    Gringo said…”It has been my impression that FDR ran against Hoover well after 1932.”

    Neo said…”Gringo: yes, but I’m pretty sure FDR was not still doing it in 1936.”

    FDR might not have mentioned Hoover by name, but he certainly paints the Republicans pretty much as monsters in his Madison Square Garden speech, October 31, 1936:

    For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

    The whole speech, in fact, makes Obama look like an amateur rabble-rouser!

  32. carl in atlanta Says:

    Geoffrey Britain at 3:42 pm:

    ” The left’s strategy is to effect cultural change that circumvents and overturns our Constitutional protections.”

    You may be right. If so, shouldn’t our strategy be to “effect cultural change that restores and preserves our Constitutional protections”?

    How the heck do we implement that strategy?

    What tactics DO we use?

  33. MissJean Says:

    I always thought that Obama was merely doing what over-promoted white-collar managers do: delegate their tasks to their underlings and fill their calendar with information-debriefings (at which they delegate more) and glad-handing meetings with customers (both internal and external). If they’re personable enough to the right clients, they can last a long time before upper management discovers that a subordinate is running things.

  34. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: it seems that although you have been reading and writing in the comments section of this blog for a long time, you do not believe that I know what I think and why, and when I say a certain thing does not influence me it does not. So there’s really no point in trying to convince you otherwise.

    Also, over and over, in the comments section, we have had discussions in which you have misinterpreted my words by reading things into them that aren’t there, or failing to see things that are there. I don’t see that changing, either, nor can I see any way to change it. So I suppose it will continue to happen at times.

  35. Artfldgr Says:

    well, you can sure see that the whole of everything is lining up to make sure those evil people from last century dont get away

    Principal bars white students from tutoring program…

    Parents Complain About School Aid Excluding Whites From Tutoring Program
    A school principal said no white children were allowed at an after-school tutoring program, and now some parents call it discrimination.

    The principal at Mission Viejo Elementary in Aurora sent a letter telling parents the program is only for students of color.

    “I was infuriated. I didn’t understand why they would include or exclude certain groups,” said parent Nicole Cox, who is white.

    “We have come so far in all of these years to show everybody that everyone is equal, that everyone should be treated equally … this is a form of bullying,” Cox said.

    Before Cox could complain to the school, Pearson contacted her directly. His voicemail only seemed to reinforce the segregated tutoring idea.

    “This is Andre Pearson. It’s focused for and designed for children of color, but certainly, if we have space for other kids who have needs, we can definitely meet those needs,” Pearson told Cox in the voicemail.

    the same technique that obama uses.
    this woman says WE, but she has no idea that this IS what she was supporting and her mother, and so on!!!

    the technique is the same… but hey! you cant discuss technique till you admit X is X..
    so we can notice it with obama, as we admit X is X, but we dont notice it with the movement it originated in, because we are taught to see X as Y… (no pun intended)

  36. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    Holmes @ 4:45,

    I too believe that is his strategy and goal. He would/will use that two years to effect as much “fundamental transformation” as possible.

    carl in atlanta,

    I doubt, at this point, that we can effect direct counter cultural change. What we can do is demonstrate the flaws in rationale and consequential results of the cultural changes that the left seeks and has already wrought.

    As example, Larry Elder has an excellent article in which he states that, the No. 1 social problem in America is children growing up without fathers.

    “In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote “The Negro Family: A Case for National Action.” At the time, 25 percent of blacks were born outside of wedlock, a number that the future Democratic Senator from New York said was catastrophic to the black community.

    Moynihan wrote: “A community that allows a large number of young men to grow up in broken homes, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any rational expectations about the future — that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure — that is not only to be expected, it is very near to inevitable.”

    Today, 75 percent of black children enter a world without a father in the home.”

    David Horowitz’s excellent article on how to respond to the left is of great tactical value.

    I’ve repeatedly pointed out that the MSM can be neutered as a propaganda organ and even turned into a force for objectivity by purchasing controlling interests in the publicly held parent corporations that control the journalistic agenda of the mass media.

    The major donors to the Republican Party, who control the party through their financial influence must be awoken to the ‘writing on the wall’ that the 2012 election revealed. Namely that the left has passed a critical political tipping point and that if they continue to advance in their goals, the wealthy’s entire assets will be forfeit. That it is now not a matter of if but of when.

    That the RINO’s are merely delaying the day when capitalism dies and thus the only way to stop the left is to wholeheartedly throw their financial support behind those who believe in small government values.

    A winning strategy against the left requires;

    That conservatives and major financial supporters of capitalism fight on the same side.

    That the MSM be neutralized and then forced to objective honesty.

    That conservatives and republicans frame their responses to the left’s attacks by ‘counter punching’ with the same emotionally laden terms.

    That those emotion laden responses be factually based and speak to consequence.

    That the states, which are overwhelmingly conservative adopt constitutionally legal methods of nullification of illegal federal initiatives so as to block the left’s attempts at circumventing the Constitution. As outlined in the article I linked to @ 3:42.

    Finally, that we prepare for the collapse of the left’s policies, which shall lead to sovereign bankruptcy, as it is now mathematically inescapable. And that we will almost certainly experience a nuclear terrorist attack upon an American city.

    When those eventuate (not if) we may be assured that the left will seek both to blame the right for these disasters and, to use the crisis to ‘double down’ on their policies, so as to effect even more “fundamental transformation” of America.

  37. SGT Caz Says:

    There’s a basic cultural reality that I think most everyone posting about this is missing.

    You guys talk as if the average American wants to see leadership in deed more than word. That’s not the case. It’s obvious enough that, in a democracy, image is indeed everything. You run for office, you sell ideas and you sell your personality. It’s capitalistic in the sense that you are trying to acquire market share, although with one important exception; you are not selling to people who work for the power they are using. These are votes, not dollars. You can sell to the lowest common denominator all day, you can sell to people who have no understanding of how hierarchies work, and you can certainly sell to people who’s life narrative is filled with tiny, subjective tragedies, and who want to have someone in power who, regardless of other people’s definitions of merit, will make the excuses for you and never use their power to allow consequences for those who screw up, right down to enforcing property rights.

    I side with the American right because society needs to have a functioning social ideology and a functioning system of hierarchy. Most voters are not under this impression. To them, authority is synonymous with oppression, power is synonymous with guilt, and empathy is synonymous with moral righteousness. That is precisely the kind of simple-mindedness which drives those who believe in responsibility completely mad. And it makes society more and more ungovernable with every passing generation. We are enabling this.

    Obama is a product of this mess, a product of a political marketplace where legitimacy is dependent on intuitive responses to someone’s personality and nothing more sophisticated. I’m being extremely blunt about this, and I apologize for the offense I’m sure to cause, but: so long as people believe that democracy holds status of legitimacy over capitalism, as a form of authority and hierarchy, this will continue to happen. As long as people are not coerced into accepting the nature of honor and responsibility an individualistic system requires and instead see it as a means to an end of greater living standards regardless of merit, this will continue to happen. There is a serious conflict between democracy and capitalism that will have to be more thoroughly resolved than it is now if you want to see a populace which understands how necessary it is to be a part of a society – a part of a legitimate, working hierarchy – instead of using society to fund their existential adventures.

    The people do not want competent leadership; they want leadership that tells them what they want to hear. They do not want strength; they want a friend who can give them the world on a platter. They do not want to help themselves; they want someone in charge to help them, while telling them that they deserve it. And they do not want to live in a world where real difficulty creates real meaning; egalitarianism is nihilism, and that sounds like a sweet release through certain ears.

  38. OMMAG Says:

    Televangelists never have to produce a walk through the pearly gates either…. Obama = the televangelist president.

    The shallow man.

  39. neo-neocon Says:

    Ann: you write that FDR made Obama look like an amateur rabble-rouser. I agree about that. As I wrote here:

    Well, on reading FDR’s little heart-to-heart talk to the people about SCOTUS, I have to say that compared to Roosevelt Obama’s a piker, a model of restraint. Not only that, but note what a master of propaganda with a folksy touch FDR was, in comparison to Obama. In that respect—getting the tone right to get his message across—FDR was more like Reagan.

    It’s worth reading the whole thing to get the flavor of what he’s doing—how he brings the listener in as a co-conspirator in the task of rebuilding America, and how he heightens the sense of urgency and impending catastrophe if he doesn’t get what he wants…

    There were a lot of differences between the two, however. The biggest one was that FDR really did do a lot of stuff (not all of it good by any means). But he was a man of action—and, for better or for worse, a leader. He surrounded himself with people of his political persuasion (big government liberals) of course, but they were not the mediocrities in which Obama specializes. Nor was FDR a braggart.

  40. Artfldgr Says:


    so what your saying is that your conversion started a few years back, and someone who knew this on going for 30 years doesnt know more than you. so we are equal, and like a true convert, you think the majority of work was the start of the conversion, not that changing sides is the start of a long hard slog with tons of stuff you dont know.

    why is it that people generally think that they aquire specific information the minute a condition has changed, thought hey have not spent 30 years reading the details, following things, and so on.

    how much have you read on “Illusion of knowing”?

    of course you find it easier to say i am wrong, and keep saying so, rather than try to find out why i think i am right… what clues are you giving off? do you even know they are clues?

    Illusion of Knowing-Same or Different Emotional Responses Compared to Knowing?
    Lund University Cognitive Science

    Illusion of knowing, IK, is a phenomenon that may hinder effective learning since participants do not know when they have missed critical information. One explanation given for the illusion is that participants do not get a signal of error- a signal corresponding to that something is not understood.

    HOW do you KNOW that you KNOW since you cant compare what you know against the whole?

    only someone that knows a lot more knows what you know, by comparing what you say, how you say it, and dropped clues… and comparing it to the large amount of informatino they know.

    this is the damn thing i have been talking about for ages… but the emotional feeling of having heard something and thinking you know… overwhelms the idea of APPLYING the knowlege and so having different answers!

    ie. when you actually know whats missing, your answers and perspective change… its impossible to acquire knowing in the real sense without it changing what you do, as you would have to ignore the principal you just learned to continue onwards.

    in this case. you dont know what i am cluing on, as you don’t know the information. like a student with a professor that says i know, then cant APPLY the knowlege in a useful way to derive something.

    even the left socialists know about this as they originated the study of humans to control them or rather, manipulate them to the best they are able

    Svinicki’s sixth chapter addresses what I suspect is a fairly common phenomenon in philosophy classrooms: “the illusion of comprehension,” i.e., when students believe they have mastered some skill, body of knowledge, etc., only to witness themselves failing to demonstrate their mastery in subsequent learning tasks. It’s the “I understood when you explained it in class” phenomenon. Svinicki traces this illusion to various factors:

    Students confuse superficial familiarity with deep knowledge. I suppose an example of this might be the student who can recite the definition of argumentative validity but cannot recognize it in arguments.
    Students study in ways that reinforce this illusion. Introductory students who study by memorizing material are likely to be surprised come test time when they are asked to analyze evidence, extend their knowledge to new problems, defend claims, and the like.
    Students listen to expert depictions of knowledge and assume that their comprehension is like that of the experts.

    now tell me your not human..

    i am waiting for you to be able to tell us what it is, not post it as a question to find out yourself.

    how hard is that? if you know it so well, you can spot it everywhere… from rush, to feminists, to other groups…

    even if you voraciously read from the moment you discovered what you did, you could not catch up to 150 years of thought that was mostly not ever in front of you.

    or are you claiming you can? it took me half my life to read enough to know, and you just woke up a few years ago.

    Students must learn better way to monitor their own understanding while they’re learning, and we must structure our class time so that these false senses of understanding will not survive. The first step in combating students’ illusion of knowing is to confront them on a regular basis with evidence of their knowing or lack of it. Svinicki

    now… if you ahve a better way… and you know and can show me, let me know.

    in fact.. if you know this subject, you might know that there is a general call for better methods!!! so if you have a good one, maybe you can create a whole new pedagogy of education!

    traipse through Wittgenstein’s: What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence

    Illusion Series 3: The Illusion of Knowing Our Own Minds

    Do we really know how our own minds work? We are very good at thinking and reflecting on how we think, but do our ideas about how we think actually accord with the reality of our behavior and it’s influences?

    Here’s an interview article from Scientific American, two collections of psychological research articles and several video presentations, including one by philosopher Daniel Dennett, that all show that we are not very knowledgeable about our own minds, after all.

    The Certainty Bias: A Potentially Dangerous Mental Flaw
    A neurologist explains why you shouldn’t believe in political candidates that sound too sure of themselves.

    What first got you interested in studying the mental state of certainty?
    A personal confession: I have always been puzzled by those who seem utterly confident in their knowledge. Perhaps this is a constitutional defect on my part, but I seldom have the sense of knowing unequivocally that I am right. Consequently I have looked upon those who ooze self-confidence and certainty with a combination of envy and suspicion. At a professional level, I have long wondered why so many physicians will recommend unproven, even risky therapies simply because they “know” that these treatments work.

    It is easy to be cynical and suspect the worst of motives, from greed to ignorance, but I have known many first-rate, highly concerned and seemingly well motivated physicians who, nevertheless, operate based upon gut feelings and personal beliefs even in the face of contrary scientific evidence. After years of rumination, it gradually dawned on me that there may be an underlying biological component to such behavior.

    There are two separate aspects of a thought, namely the actual thought, and an independent involuntary assessment of the accuracy of that thought.

    To get a feeling for this separation, look at the Muller-Lyer optical illusion.

    Even when we consciously know and can accurately determine that these two horizontal lines are the same length, we experience the simultaneous disquieting sensation that this thought—the lines are of equal length—is not correct. This isn’t a feeling that we can easily overcome through logic and reason; it simply happens to us.

    This sensation is a manifestation of a separate category of mental activity—-unconscious calculations as to the accuracy of any given thought. On the positive side, such feelings can vary from a modest sense of being right, such as understanding that Christmas falls on December 25, to a profound a-ha, “Eureka” or sense of a spiritual epiphany. William James referred to the latter—the mystical experience—as “felt knowledge,” a mental sensation that isn’t a thought, but feels like a thought.

    Once we realize that the brain has very powerful inbuilt involuntary mechanisms for assessing unconscious cognitive activity, it is easy to see how it can send into consciousness a message that we know something that we can’t presently recall—the modest tip-of-the-tongue feeling. At the other end of the spectrum would be the profound “feeling of knowing” that accompanies unconsciously held beliefs—a major component of the unshakeable attachment to fundamentalist beliefs—both religious and otherwise—such as belief in UFOs or false memories

    unlike most people, i usually know i am right (or i bow out of the talk) because i have such a freaky memory… i can compare with everything i have ever read in the past… and i can remember all those references and so, i can use empiricism to determine through external means what the facts are.

    the thing is that with such deep subjects, and such shallow facts, and all this stuff that relates to us as animals. i am forever in the dark of how to convince someone of something i see.

    ESPECIALLY when the point to it is something that hits their ego, like knowing, not knowing, which puts people who are status concious into a heirarchy.

    heck… if you want to, this goes back to things like zen koans. we have already had the discussion of what is the sound of one hand clapping.

    its a great test to see if people know!! if they don’t say enlightenment, then they don’t know. its a specific test about a specific thing, and most people will either make a joke, or take it literally, which then they think is funny.

    NOBODY except those who read or have heard of MUMONKAN…

    One of the most famous legends spun about Bodhidharma is that the seeker Hui-k’o (Huike) patiently stood deep in the nocturnal snow outside the old master’s cave, yearning for instruction. He finally hacked off his own left forearm and presented it as a demonstration of his sincere aspiration for complete enlightenment. (In Daoxuan’s earlier and likely more accurate account, wandering bandits had cut off his arm.) Bodhidharma told Hui-k’o: “This enlightenment is not to be sought through another.” Hui-k’o begged to have his agitated self or mind pacified. The sage retorted, “Show me your self and I will pacify it.” Hui-k’o said “I’ve sought it many years but can’t get hold of it.” Bodhidharma then declared: “There! It is pacified once and for all!” Upon hearing this, suddenly Hui-k’o completely awakened to his transcendent True Nature before/beyond the ego-self. He was free in/as his Ever-Free Nature. Hui-k’o would be designated the second Patriarch of Ch’an Buddhism.

    But what about that forearm—was it still with Hui-k’o? Did he care? Was he not the fullness and wholeness of Perfect Realization? In any case, now we know where Hakuin (d.1768) got his famous Zen koan: “What is the sound of one hand clapping?”

    And if you pity Hui-k’o for that silly old lost forearm, he’s still got one very good arm with which to smack you!

    and so. i smack till the person realizes (or not) that they don’t know what they think they know yet. and that their ignorance is not a way of knowing. and that only someone who actually knows, can test whether the other knows.

    this is all basic stuff, but way beyond average people who never ever get this deep except in small spaces.
    [edited for length by n-n]

  41. parker Says:

    “… the city is surrounded by a nation that isn’t necessarily run that way.”

    No, we are not run that way. We have our difficulties and partisan issues, but we settle our differences without rancor.

    http://tinyurl.com/ahy7det Even Illinois!

    I see the resistance stiffening. Those in the metro areas will have to fend for themselves, out in fly over country we shall survive. There are not enough DC jackbooted thugs to control us.

    Think about this: http://www.warren.af.mil/ and this: ttp://militarybases.com/texas/ and this: http://militarybases.com/oklahoma and this: http://militarybases.com/north-dakota/ and this: http://militarybases.com/south-dakota/ and this: http://militarybases.com/montana/ and red state after red state.

    We have superior firepower. Let the hunger games begin. We own the sky. Death from above. Let the hunger games begin.

  42. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “You guys talk as if the average American wants to see leadership in deed more than word. That’s not the case. It’s obvious enough that, in a democracy, image is indeed everything…The people do not want competent leadership; they want leadership that tells them what they want to hear. They do not want strength; they want a friend who can give them the world on a platter. They do not want to help themselves; they want someone in charge to help them, while telling them that they deserve it.” SGT Caz

    There is much truth to your characterization for many of the 47% that Romney spoke of. You apply it however to the 48% who voted against Obama, all of whom, to one degree or another, see clearly that whereof you speak.

    You also indicate these flaws to be inherent to a democracy. Were that so, the ‘greatest generation’ could never have found the intestinal fortitude to fight a world war on two simultaneous fronts.

    It is a lack of maturity in the American public and decades of leftist cultural conditioning is responsible for much of that immaturity.

    Might I suggest that when crisis arrives, image assumes far less importance? Chamberlain strongly led in the polls and was far more the image of a statesman than Churchill but when Dunkirk arrived, the British people turned to the man of substance and vision and remained with him even after he told them that all he had to offer was “blood, sweat, and tears”.

    Our time of crisis shall arrive in due time, there’s no avoiding it and crises bring out both the worst and best in people.

    Were human nature as completely self-indulgent and narcissistic as you indicate, there would be no heroes, no sacrifices made by individuals, no civilization, only allegiance to the tribe.

    The glass is certainly half empty. It is also half full.

  43. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: if you begin with an incorrect understanding about what I’m saying and what I’m thinking, I simply can’t set you straight. The gap between what you think I’m thinking and saying, and what I’m actually thinking and saying, is too profound.

    Or rather, if it could be done, it appears that it would take an amount of time that I don’t have within the constraints of this blog. I can only try to communicate as clearly as I can, and clear up what I have time to clear up.

    In that spirit I will say that your statement, “so what your saying is that your conversion started a few years back, and someone who knew this on going for 30 years doesnt know more than you. so we are equal, and like a true convert, you think the majority of work was the start of the conversion, not that changing sides is the start of a long hard slog with tons of stuff you dont know” is incorrect. I am not saying you don’t know more than me, for example, about the history of Communism. I would be some sort of egomaniac to think that was true, because it just isn’t true. And I am well aware that the gaining of political and historical knowledge goes on probably for a lifetime, if one is open to it.

    Nothing I have said in this thread (or any other, actually, as far as I can recall) ought to have led you to the conclusion that I say or think what you seem to think I do. Perhaps it will shed some light on it all if I say that when I state that you have often misunderstood what I’m saying and thinking, it doesn’t have anything to do with the factual or historical information you have imparted on the blog (most of which I don’t even disagree with or challenge), but your characterization of my thoughts and my statements about my own beliefs and/or motivations or opinions or thought processes. You actually read my words wrong over and over, and the message I’m trying to impart.

    So it’s really not about whether you remember what I’m saying or have ever said. It’s about whether you understand or misunderstand it in the first place. I’m not saying you always misunderstand; sometimes you understand, or course, but misunderstandings come very frequently. So it’s not about memory, nor is it about facts. It’s about the flaws and difficulties inherent in human to human communication.

  44. Teri Pittman Says:

    We have reached a point where we have a total disconnect between reality and what is portrayed to us in the media. Anyone that reads about the economy can tell that the Obama administration has been devastating to blacks in particular. The housing boom wound up crushing the minorities that it was supposed to convert into home owners. Before he was President, Obama helped turn low income people out on the street during winter, so that his rich friends could profit from renovating those properties. Yet he “cares more about you and me”.

    We are encouraged to do things “for the children”, yet we are supposed to ignore the huge number of abortions, again primarily affecting minorities. It’s not murder, it’s a “choice”. We get to see journalists, who should be unbiased by the very nature of their job, turn into cheerleaders and liars on the air. Obama never said Benghazi was caused by a video, just ignore those videos showing that he said that. 4.3% unemployment was terrible under Bush. Obama can’t get it to drop under 7.9% but we are in recovery. We don’t even question the government wanting even more involvement in school, with new programs to take children away from their parents at an even younger age. We have stripped our history and heritage out of our schools and created a generation that spends more of their lives in school and comes out with less real education than any generation before. Yet somehow, we have no way to even attempt to educate those young people on our real history.

    I do not have a fix for this, but I wish we could broadcast Dr. Benjamin Carson 24 hours a day for a month. It would be a start.

  45. soupcon Says:

    Just refer to him as President Agitator from now on.

  46. parker Says:

    “Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” — Frederic Bastiat

  47. Ymarsakar Says:

    Americans have been made to be that way. Just as shackling a slave from birth will inculcate a fear of freedom, and a preference for stability, even if that means the stability of slavery.

  48. Ymarsakar Says:

    “so what your saying is that your conversion started a few years back, and someone who knew this on going for 30 years doesnt know more than you. ”

    It doesn’t really matter whether people knew about what was happening in the US decades ago. Their presence just shows that people who know, still can’t get things done, like getting rid of evil.

    Humans are flawed and it is this reason why propaganda is so effective for so little cost. No two people know the same thing, even if they think they are doing the same job at the same time.

    “it doesn’t have anything to do with the factual or historical information you have ”

    I would also like to note that finding or having information from other historical authors, is not the same as summarizing, distilling, and configuring the information to modern problems.

    Thus it can become the case that people who know of events because they have the words of the ancients, yet still does not adequately know where to go from there, because mimicking the work of the ancients is merely copying. To build upon the past, one must seek what the ancients sought, and not merely copy their results unto the paper of the present.

    There is a long line of defectors and what not who know, not just the Leftist alliance’s white paper political campaigns, but also the dark and black box classified wet work side of the Left. However, what they all share is that no matter what they did in the past or knew then or now, they were powerless to truly behead the Left and its membership body in terms of power or leadership cohesion.

    I am more interested in what will destroy the Left, than the various histories which if people read and believed, might have prevented us from getting to where we are. We are already here though.

  49. neo-neocon Says:

    Ymarsaker: I agree. We can only go forward from where we are today.

    It also has to do with numbers. The majority of people do not see what’s been happening in front of their eyes—and that is both because of human nature, and because of the cleverness of the left in its ability to deceive.

  50. Ymarsakar Says:

    Fortunately, the Left has made much of the work for us. The inner cities are slave rebellions waiting to happen. Those who knew of the rebellions before the US Civil War will be familiar with this potential.

    The American people hate evil and want Obama to fight against it. One isn’t getting anywhere by trying to convince blacks in cities that “racism “and “institutional slavery” doesn’t exist. It does exist. Obama and the Left sustain it, make it exist, and maintain its existence. They are also seen as fighting against it.

    All one has to do to turn the mob’s rage upon the enemies of the State is to subvert their propaganda and invert it. Point the attacker’s gun at their own head and force them to pull the trigger, with their broken index finger.

    While many people prepare for Final Roll Call and Armageddon, the final battle between Good and Evil, others were counseling us that civil war was bad and that politics is the way to fix it. Still waiting for something called politics to fix things in the uS, though.

  51. thomass Says:

    I think we all knew this was going on. It was even worse in his first election… and leftists always get a lot cover for this kind of thing. They’ve trained people to get turned off when you talk about leftism (Mccarthyist!)… but somehow everyone here is a ‘right wing extremist’ btw… but yeah; Obama has really pulled it off in the largest way for the greatest length of time….

    But the reason it is good that Rush brought it up is the frog boil thing. We all knew it was going on, it has been going on for decades, but yeah… Obama has really done it at such a new level that in a way it is new again or different than before…

    That and as the powerline guys tried to break it to us before the election… you know FDR got re elected too. Progressive ideas, when pitched right, are not unpopular in the US….

  52. thomass Says:

    neo-neocon Says:

    “Gringo: yes, but I’m pretty sure FDR was not still doing it in 1936.”

    We were all raised with the progressive mantra about FDR saving us from the lazair faire republican depression. I don’t know that it was seriously challenged until near the end of the 80s. Conservatives started poking around and reading about that period and wondering about the liberal narrative. By 2000 we were reading old liberal books [much] more often than liberals… and noting how full of it they were (re: the robber barons believed in social Darwinism…. there was actually a social Darwinism school of thought… progressives wanted to protect those deemed imperfect from them… blaw blaw blaw… et cetera… all lies…).

  53. neo-neocon Says:

    thomass: did you see my comment here? If not, I’ll repeat it for you.

    As I wrote here:

    Well, on reading FDR’s little heart-to-heart talk to the people about SCOTUS, I have to say that compared to Roosevelt Obama’s a piker, a model of restraint. Not only that, but note what a master of propaganda with a folksy touch FDR was, in comparison to Obama. In that respect—getting the tone right to get his message across—FDR was more like Reagan.

    It’s worth reading the whole thing to get the flavor of what he’s doing—how he brings the listener in as a co-conspirator in the task of rebuilding America, and how he heightens the sense of urgency and impending catastrophe if he doesn’t get what he wants…

    There were a lot of differences between the two, however. The biggest one was that FDR really did do a lot of stuff (not all of it good by any means). But he was a man of action—and, for better or for worse, a leader. He surrounded himself with people of his political persuasion (big government liberals) of course, but they were not the mediocrities in which Obama specializes. Nor was FDR a braggart.

  54. Ymarsakar Says:

    I wouldn’t bother repeating things too much. People either want to do things and get it done, or they don’t. One can lead a horse to water but cannot make it drink.

    FDR had the advantage that he lived in a “ask what you can do for your country” time, when the Left had yet to corrupt 52% of the population. The way the Left works is through incremental totalitarian tyranny, which is a little bit different from marxist revolutionary concepts or socialist democracies. A mad dog leader at the top will rot the nation from the top down, but because the roots are strong, things still get done. Now a days, of course, people are still eating, but the corruption is large enough that visible dark spots are appearing on the health meter. Corruption that initially began with previous Leftist work, like FDR’s social security and Johnson’s black welfare mercy.

    The Left is not particularly against using the dangers of a war to frighten people into giving power to a tyranny. That’s pretty much what happened in several European countries already. War is not what they are really against in the end.

    On another topic, the Left controls so much power and wealth mainly because they have so many slaves or people indebted to the Left. Asians, for example, vote Democrat because they see Democrats as being the only hope to get their relatives through Ice or INS. The INS, a problem created by Democrat bureaucracy more or less, is getting Demoncrats Asian votes, more or less. Given no alternative, the people give their vote of authority to those that will feed them food for survival.

    I wouldn’t “solve” this by adding some “new law” or “bill”. I would merely dissolve INS and ICE, entirely, replacing it with something else. Just like the US did with Saddam’s party and the Sunni Triangle military.

    Some things cannot be fixed. They have to be purified and made anew. If the US survives this test, it will only be because of how much we learned from all the other nations the LEft murdered in the past 100 years.

  55. KLSmith Says:

    Geoffrey Britain: see you got an optimism transplant:)
    I find your usually sharp logic to be a bit off tonight. People of honor, strength, and character will always exist. The problem becomes when they are overwhelmingly outnumbered. And if you don’t think we are overrun with self-indulgent narcissistic people – You Tube.
    The glass was half empty before the election. Four more years to work their magic.
    Obama has modeled himself after Castro and Chavez because it works. And our media are willingly compliant. And I think you incorrectly assuming that a lot of Republicans are pro free market capitalists as opposed to big government crony capitalists. (See: Timothy P Carney).
    And people do want someone to tell them what they want to hear. Even our side. I am sentient enough to realize my longing for a smaller less intrusive government is probably no less a pipe dream than the utopian dreams of the left. Albeit, more worthy because my dream results in more liberty not totalitarianism.

  56. Ymarsakar Says:

    ‘He either fears his fate too much,
    Or his dessert is small,
    Who fears to put it to the touch,
    And win or lose it all.’

    “I would rather die having spoken in my manner, than speak in your manner and live. For neither in war nor yet in law ought any man use every way of escaping death. For often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death, if a man is willing to say or do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs deeper than death.”

    “Cause pain before you injure. Injure before you maim. Maim before you kill. And if you must kill, make it a clean kill. Squeeze every drop of life from the opponent. Because life is so precious, it cannot be wasted, even in death.”

    “Let him cut your skin, and you cut his flesh. Let him cut your flesh, and you cut his bones. Let him cut your bones, and you cut off his life.”

    “Achieve your mission with all your might.
    Despair not until your last breath.
    Make your death count!”

    De Oppresso Liber

    Ironically, the “oppressed” weren’t foreign third nation nationals. It was us all along. Our own family. Our own neighbors. Our own countrymen.

    I find myself more and more relating to Socrates’ position. That was his quote before the death tribunal of Athens’ Democratic Assembly, btw. How far will the Left’s evil run, I wonder. Have we avoided unrighteousness given how we have taken no revenge or balanced the scales for what the Leftist alliance did to the Vietnamese and Americans? To the Iraqis and Americans? To the Afghans and Rhodesians? To the inner city blacks and American children? Was the justification back then that we couldn’t solve everyone’s worldly problems, we had to look out for our own national interests? But if that was true, how the hell did we end up here? With our national interests “well served”, that is. What did all those people really die for, I wonder. Did the woman Kennedy drowned, really die to ensure Kennedy became a “lion of a man” so that he could pave the way for social engineering on feminism? Was that really what happened, I wonder.

    Oh well, we’ll see soon enough: what awaits us. Evil works. I admit it. What also works is cutting off a person’s head so that no amount of propaganda will make anyone think that corpse is alive. Propaganda works. Evil works. Killing people works too, strangely enough, better than the last two.

    (Bonus points to anyone that already knows where these quotes came from and their authors. I left it out as a mystery treat.)

  57. Mr. Frank Says:

    I’ve been wondering if historians will tell the truth about Obama some day. With Truman it took a couple of decades to turn around the assessment. My concern is that the media record is so corrupt that an honest researcher might be unable to discover reality.

  58. SGT Caz Says:

    “You also indicate these flaws to be inherent to a democracy. Were that so, the ‘greatest generation’ could never have found the intestinal fortitude to fight a world war on two simultaneous fronts.

    It is a lack of maturity in the American public and decades of leftist cultural conditioning is responsible for much of that immaturity.” -Goeffrey Britain

    I can’t agree, sorry. This generation is still enjoying the greatest period of economic prosperity known to man, to such a degree that they have never known scarcity. And they still want more, standards of living rising while standards of performance drop to the participation trophy level. The greatest generation dealt with the Great Depression, and was infused with a sense of mutual sacrifice made necessary by economic conditions. The alphabet soup programs created by FDR had just begun taking progressivism to the next level, and were nowhere near the scope of what this generation has grown up with as being second nature. More contemporary examples would be Vietnam and Afghanistan, which did not bring about nearly the same response. And anyway, there are a few other cultural factors to consider, structural issues that make this situation unlike any other.

    First, this generation is openly rejecting the organized church. Abhor this comment if you like, but religion is a chore; there are few young people who WANT to get up early on Sunday morning if they have a choice, particularly if there’s something good on TV. From my view, the organized church has been in a bunker mentality since the 1970’s, and now must coax people into the pews by trying to make church out to be an enjoyable social gathering with minimal commitment or sacrifice. The structural result of this has been damning for the cohesion of parochial communities, making it difficult to use anything resembling consequences, like shame or trouble finding employment, to condition young people into respecting their values.

    Second, much related, is the fate of the family. I trust I need not explain what has happened to fatherhood, and the discipline it promotes for both parent and child.

    And finally, the last two were made possible with serious changes in communications infrastructure. Radio, TV, and the web have brought about tremendous convenience, and also a massive change in the nature of cultural identity. The situation has matured into a market of ideas that gives people what they want, where people can pick their own version of truth, at tremendous social cohesion. Just like the second industrial revolution brought forth corporate business that hurt local businesses, the broadening of cultural perceptions through media has damaged the authority of parents, religion, and the local perspective itself. Attention is cultural currency, and the media pulls huge yields by appealing to the simplest forms of ideals; undifferentiated empathy, emotions over substance, unquestioning inclusion over holding standards, and the tyranny of newness and novelty that maintains the cultural adolescence. But this isn’t a conspiracy, but rather good ratings; it’s what people WANT to be, what they default to when not pushed to grow up. There are huge numbers that just want life to be easy, who passively take their worldview from dumbed-down entertainment and moronically simple news stories that rely on emotionally manipulative spin, making the viewer feel like they can DO something and be a part of a change to a kinder, gentler world.

    Sorry for the Debbie Downer run, but to shamelessly rip off the CIC’s speech, this time it’s different. The nature of social structure, the nature of individualism, the nature of accountability, the nature of perception have all changed. I don’t see a “conventional” crisis of any kind blowing through all of this smoke, particularly if clear vision requires that the viewer admit to being responsible. It’s so much easier to be a victim, and democracy treats the best and the worst equally. Is there a rational reason to have faith that this will just work out for the best?

  59. thomass Says:

    neo-neocon Says:

    “thomass: did you see my comment here? If not, I’ll repeat it for you.”

    Thanks, yeah, missed it. Good points… but even if FDR didn’t blame anyone else for the depression.. almost all liberals did when I was growing up. Now that the history is better known they are more hesitant…

  60. Bob From Virginia Says:

    This generation is going to get what it deserves.

  61. Don Carlos Says:

    The point of comparing BHO to FDR and finding BHO a lesser demon is what, exactly? They’re both demons. and demons are evil.

    Demon ranking is at least somewhat subjective.

    You will get an argument from me that BHO is the greater demon: he is driving the car into the ditch, deliberately destroying what is left of America, whereas with FDR the car was already in the ditch and he failed to pull it out (perhaps deliberately). That FDR did some other bad things matters not in demon ranking.

    FDR failed to resuscitate the patient (the Nazis and Japs did that by using the defibrillator to apply a burst of electric energy to jolt the national ‘patient’), but BHO is practicing euthanasia, aka murdering that patient, who would otherwise continue to live.

    BHO is the greater demon, the greater evil.

  62. Bob From Virginia Says:

    I just watched a picture about fake psychics and how they operate. I understand the Obama phenomena a bit more now. At least I know how to categorize him.

    BTW Limbaugh’s observation that Obama campaigns against what he is responsible for is not a new observation. Recall his SOTU address in which he denounced the spiraling debt without mentioning that he was the one responsible for the spiraling debt.


    Let’s remember that Obama is a symptom of a rot; sooner or later an an amoral politician would have made a campaign into a religion in order to win an election. Obama just came on the stage when enough of the electorate was immature enough to buy into his hokum. Neo is right, an earlier generation was have laughed Obama off the stage, even with the support of the press.

    And I now know who can be trusted to write a history of these times, the same people who write books exposing fake psychics.

  63. neo-neocon Says:

    Don Carlos: actually, if you read what I wrote, I made it pretty clear that I found Obama a greater demon than FDR, not lesser.

    Not that it matters all that much, but I just wanted to set the record straight.

  64. blert Says:

    Because we are so close to it: we tend to miss the over-arching change in the nature of political discourse when radio, later TV, permits the high and mighty to arch past their peers in eloquence — to project agitprop to the proles — in a single bound.

    It was not for nothing that ALL of the world went towards the ‘center’ when radio went commercial/ universal.

    Our MSM is now conditioned to free-riding on this oratorical radiation — from the King Bee to the hive’s minds.


    Dissociation by dependent children (over the maladministration of their parents) is now promoted into macro-politics.

    Rush is missed the mass neurosis inflicted when compelled, economic, infantilization tucked the polity into the crib. The citizenry is reduced to thumb-sucking cry-babies.

    The Wan is deducting paychecks downwards into a (Federal) (weekly) allowance.

    Arbitrary, centralized, penury was famously scrawled across the ledgers of Henry VII — with Yorkists in mind — early in the Sixteenth Century. He was centuries ahead of the EPA — and BP.

    And, as a prequel to the BP saga, King Henry VII held his ‘penalties’ in abeyance — a Debit of Damoclese — much in the style of the $ 20,000,000,000 penalty-stash from BP.

    Henry VIII was able to unite Lancaster and York (he being a son of both houses) by ‘running against his father.’ He wiped the slates clean.

    Unlike Barry, Henry had too much authority, and so, was unable to continue to run ‘against the government.’


    Which brings us all to his feckless operational style: he sees himself as a teamster that can get away with blaming his horses!

    Those back in the coach actually are buying the idea that his chosen leads can’t find the safe and sure road — even though the team’s been over this same ground time and again.

    He ran for office so that he might set the raft of state adrift.

    At best, we’ve got Huckleberry tooting a bong, kicking back as the Big Muddy takes us all south.

    At worst, we’ve got Odysseus, most famous for being the sole survivor, able to tell any tell of his missing crew — and pretty harsh with the house guests, too.

    Imagine what American history will read like when Barry gets through rewriting it.

  65. Maggie's Farm Says:

    Friday morning links…

    Toon above via Theo Russsian jets intercept meteor Lawyers Panic Over Litigation Crisis Of Their Making New husband inhibited in bed Pre-K Government – The feds are going to educate your toddler no matter the evidence. Politicizing Philanthro…

  66. Highlander Says:

    Affirmative Action is at play here too. Obama owes his every success to it. In fact, he is nothing without it. He can do the things he does and get away with them, partly because of a corrupt press, partly because of an ignorant electorate, but always because of Affirmative Action and the societal toxins it produces. The corruption of the press is a corruption, in part, induced by a belief in Affirmative Action. And Affirmative Action takes it’s rightful place in the dumbing down of the American electorate as well. A low-information voter doesn’t pay enough attention to politics to be able to spot the inconsistencies of Obama’s policies, but he sure as hell can tell you how good he feels that we have a black president.

    Affirmative Action is a common denominator across the conditions that gave us Obama. It is a big reason why he is not judged on his record. The standards for this president are different from all those that came before him. He is the first Affirmative Action president.

  67. Ymarsakar Says:

    A lot of people thought the LEft, or at least the Democrat members in that alliance, were just another political party, no worse or better than Republicans. At least Democrats were a little bit less corrupt, and actually tried to do something for the disadvantaged people in the US. They were just incompetent corrupt politicians. People who disagreed about how to go about fixing America’s problems.

    The truth of the matter happened to be slightly different. A decade or even centuries long plan to hold dominion over a nation by first killing it and remaking it anew in the image of the tyrants’. Just as the Founding Fathers experimented with a system to produce liberty, the LEft experiments with a system to produce slavery in the modern world.

    If the Left is merely another political party, that agrees to disagree about affairs in the US, why then do you think the Leftist alliance is composed of pro homosexual gay lobbyists as well as virulent anti-homosexual hating blacks in the inner cities? Why is the Leftist alliance composed of Muslim Brotherhood women hating cliques, and composed of NOW feminism leagues?

    Would the GOP be able to hold an alliance together composed of people who are fiscal conservatives and people who think fiscal conservatives should be stoned in the public square?

    Evil is unique in the sense that they can do what Good cannot, the vice a versa is true as well. But they don’t do it because of politics, but because they are evil.

  68. Don Carlos Says:

    I was not responding to you specifically, but to the thread in general. I am glad we agree on Obama as the greater demon!
    BTW, Rush has a website-one does not need to listen to him live! He and Mark Levin are important voices for good, though I fear they are futile.

  69. southpaw Says:

    SGT Caz you bring up a fair point about the culture and to the extent that Obama satisfies that I tend to agree.
    As far as Rush’s epiphany, I think he is half right in what Obama is doing; your explanaton of why it works is certainly plausible. I don’t however agree that this is a brilliant strategy he concocted; it’s just who he is. He’s been a story teller his whole life; part time professor; community organizer, state senator who did nothing; US senator who mostly voted “present”. This lack of productivity or problem solving might be deliberate, but I doubt it. He’s learned all his life the rules that apply to everyone else don’t apply to him. I give him credit for that – for the few who have ever dared question his lack of actual achievements, he’s explained it with racism or other things beyond his control, and the willingness of people to accept the excuses are not due to their brilliance, instead they’re testimony to a culture that has refrained from judging performance in favor of fairy tales and idealistic intentions. His excuses are as mundane and unimaginative as any that have ever been offered – racism, ATM machines, his predecessors, etc. Nothing new here – just shamelessly and unapologetically delivered and accepted. These worked early in his career and early life, because in large part, he’s black. Our present culture excuses all forms of sub-par performance if the excuse is politically correct. Most of our upbringing was different – excuses for failure or bad performance which blame others used to be considered worse than the failure itself. Now theye’re embraced if the excuse is politically correct.
    I don’t believe there was ever any understanding or assumption on his part that anybody would expect him to do anything as a legislator, or president, or that he in fact felt he needed to do more for any of those jobs than to show up and bullshit his way through. And the MSM and a good part of the public has proved him right. When you listen to him, you sense that’s ALL he knows how to do, and that’s all he’s ever done. And why not? Nobody has ever asked more of him. Even as a high school student, he had excuses for lack of playing time; it wasn’t due to being average, it was due to his “style of play not being white enough”. A person who makes statements like these that go unchallenged for a lifetime come to believe their own own bullshit as fact. So I would even submit he has come to believe through these learned experiences that what he’s doing IS what a president or leader does, and that actual problem solving and work are not his responsibility. But none of this is new — it’s called a politician — which is different from a leader or a problem solver, whose visions tend to identify actions and results, instead of words.
    Rush is tied in knots not because Obama is a genius, but because he can’t accept he’s misjudged the culture to the extent he has. Obama is a product of the culture you described. Geoffrey Britain is not wrong in that 48% might not be impressed by the stories, but the people in the middle who sway the balance are more squishy and unprincipled than those who can be counted on to choose a side, so here we are, watching the ship go down.

  70. regularjoeski Says:

    Why do people keep assuming the Obama actually won with a majority of living breathing voters who only voted once. He won the counted ballots. His majority came from piling up huge vote totals in rotten districts. He actually lost the majority of congressional districts. Until ballot security is improved no one really knows if he won. I am afraid that with the last election we passed into pre-revolutionary times; a corrupt non responsive aristo class, productive citizens who are fast arming themselves, stolen elections, government functionaries who are incompetent and greedy, etc. Add in too many rules and you get an explosion waiting to happen. As the founder of the Ming dynasty said, “The penalty for being late is death, the penalty for rebellion is death, we are already late, why not rebel?”

  71. artfldgr Says:

    REPORT: Russian lawmaker denies meteorite, claims US weapons tests…

  72. artfldgr Says:

    Moscow. Farid Akberov – APA. Russian nationalist lawmaker Vladimir Zhirinovsky, long known for his flamboyance and outrageous remarks, said Friday that meteorite fragments had not rained down on Russia in the morning, but that the light flashes and tremors in several of the country’s regions resulted from US weapons tests, APA reports quoting RIA Novosti.

    “Those aren’t meteors falling, it’s the Americans testing new weapons,” Zhirinovsky, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party, told journalists several hours after the Emergencies Ministry began issuing statements on the incident, which has injured hundreds and damaged scores of buildings.

    He also said US Secretary of State John Kerry had wanted to warn Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov about the “provocation” on Monday, but couldn’t reach him – a reference to US State Department comments earlier this week that Kerry had spent several days trying to speak to Lavrov by phone to discuss North Korea and Syria.

    Outer space has its own laws, Zhirinovsky went on.

  73. artfldgr Says:

    Supreme Court to conference on Obama eligibility today

    Today, February 15, 2013, Attorney Orly Taitz brings her request to move the Obama eligibility challenge from conference to the oral hearing stage at the US Supreme Court. She is moving forward in spite of the fact that four African-American Supreme Court clerks refused to allow Taitz to see the signature of Justice Anthony Kennedy who denied her petition originally.

    the odds are such that no one but the wackiest bookmaker will bet

  74. artfldgr Says:

    The crux of the Taitz challenge to Barack Obama’s legitimacy to serve as US President involves the following charges: use of forged IDs; stolen CT Social Security number; last name not legally his; fraudulent claim to being US Citizen; legal last name is SOEBARKAH on certified copy of passport records of Obama’s mother S. Ann Dunham; (Taitz is presenting this passport evidence!); Obama’s Indonesian school records show his citizenship to be Indonesian; credible expert testimony by law enforcement individuals in sworn affidavits showing the birth certificate and selective service certificates are forged; the 2009 Social Security number on Obama’s tax returns failed both E-Verify and SSNVUS.

  75. artfldgr Says:

    at some point there will be war..
    and our peoples are not prepared for jobs let alone survival… (and the other side was so ruthless it murdered millions of its own, think it will be nice to people that are not their own?)

    Russian MP blames meteor shower on US secret arms test

    “There are a dozen of children among the victims, although their wounds are light,” Vladimir Stepanov from the National Crisis Management Center has been reported as saying Friday.

    [i guess newtown is teaching people around the world what works with US leftists who will then fight from inside based on what is said! anyone want to bet how long before we hear a copy in the US?]

    Why is the Department of Homeland Security buying so many bullets? February 14, 2013

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/14/why-is-department-homeland-security-buying-so-many-bullets/

    The Homeland Security Department wants to buy more than 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the next four or five years. It says it needs them — roughly the equivalent of five bullets for every person in the United States — for law enforcement agents in training and on duty.

    ICE’s ammunition requests in the last year included:

    –450 million rounds of .40-caliber duty ammunition

    –40 million rounds of rifle ammunition a year for as many as five years, for a total bullet-buy of 200 million rounds

    –176,000 rifle rounds on a separate contract

    –25,000 blank rounds

    Social Security Administration posted a notice that it was buying 174,000 hollow point bullets.

  76. artfldgr Says:

    Meteorite Explosion over Russia – Collected Videos

  77. carl in atlanta Says:

    ??? Is this thread morphing from Rush’s epiphany to meteor showers and ammo?

  78. G Joubert Says:

    My contribution to this thread is to opine that it’s fundamentally dysfunctional and unhealthy in the extreme for the black population (or any population bloc) to vote 90+% for one side’s candidate. Even in previous elections they go for the Dem at numbers between 85 and 90 percent, so we can’t say it’s totally a racial solidarity thing with BHO. Very disturbing, just from an objective non-partisan political science point of view. Suffice it to say it does not bode well for the future of the democracy.

    We REALLY underestimate the extent to which the black subculture in this country has evolved and developed as dysfunctionally as it has. I guess that’s what you get with a legacy of 200 years of slavery, followed by 100 years of Jim Crow, followed by 50 years of liberal dependency-creating program “solutions.”

    Funny thing is, Republicans used to be blacks’ party of choice. The Republican party was formed in the first place precisely to free the slaves, carried out by the first Republican president, Abe Lincoln. Many people don’t know it, but Martin Luther King was a registered Republican, as were many blacks of his era, especially in the South.

    I remember the debates surrounding passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which southern Democrats in the Senate filibustered, including Al Gore Sr.), and this happened during the 1964 presidential campaign. It was Republicans, led by Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, who shepherded the bill through, not Democrats. But the Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater voted against the bill on state’s rights grounds. LBJ and other Democrats used Goldwater’s no vote as a cudgel against him, and against Republicans generally, and the Democrats falsely packaged themselves as the ones who pushed it through, together with their false portrayal of the Republicans as being opposed, based on Goldwater’s no vote.

  79. DNW Says:

    Considering the thrust of some recent postings, Horowitz, Limbaugh, and I think an essay in the NYT, I’m curious as to how many continue to believe the old saw that conservatives and libertarians on the one hand, and modern liberals on the other, “at base” and when left to their own devices, really want the same things out of life? How many continue to believe that they interpret reality, and experience meaning, and find their satisfactions in much the same ways; differing only as to the recommended mechanics involved in most effectively getting the maximum number of their fellows there?

    Or, is it finally sinking into some conservatives that when liberals say that they do not believe in natural kinds, and that even should there be “natural kinds”, no inferences could be drawn from their existence anyway, that they, the progressives, mean it?

    And if finally, fewer now carry the torch of “we are all fundamentally the same” than used to, as recent essays linked to here seem to indicate, what has taken so long? What did it finally take? For liberals to finally come out themselves and patiently spell out for the average thick-headed conservative exactly what it is the anthropological implications of the progressive belief system entail for a common morality, not to mention the notion of a common humanity?

    Are conservatives then, beginning to grasp and get it through their thick stolid heads and filters that when the leftist says that he wishes to remake humanity to his own vision, and that there is no objective reason why he should not, that he really does mean and believe it?

    You don’t have to definitively answer the “one humanity” question one way or another to see what is transpiring. The question “Are they bad men fundamentally like us or are they a different moral kind altogether?” can be bracketed. All you have to do in order to grasp what is happening is to recognize the hypothetical [logical] implications for yourself in sharing a political space with, and making yourself vulnerable to, hedonic nihilists, in the name of some spurious, and ex hypothesi groundless, solidarity.

    Yet it seems that to this day, or at least almost to this day, many would rather die, than face the fact.


  80. thomass Says:

    DNW Says:

    I got that stuff a long time ago. I’ve just known it so long I can’t really freak out about it.

  81. ELC Says:

    I have noticed that liberals have trouble with the concept of cause and effect. I suppose, that being the case, they would also have trouble with the law of non-contradiction.

    In other words, they just can’t think straight.

  82. beverly Says:

    Leftism = Slavery.

    THAT is what Ayn Rand realized at age twelve: it’s not just the Means of Leftism that are immoral, it’s the End itself — enslaving other human beings and taking the product of their labors and doing with it as They will.


  83. House of Eratosthenes Says:

    […] Neo-Neocon discusses. […]

  84. Ymarsakar Says:

    “Why do people keep assuming the Obama actually won with a majority of living breathing voters who only voted once. He won the counted ballots. His majority came from piling up huge vote totals in rotten districts.”

    Of course, that’s assumed by some in the know. Those who still believe in elections solving our problems, however, are not yet ready to abandon the principle or the function, however. Although at the current rate, the Left may declare emergency rule and abandon elections first, should the outcome of their enslavement plans reach full critical success.

    “Suffice it to say it does not bode well for the future of the democracy.”

    It’s about the same democracy as Saddam getting 99% of the votes. Dictators and tyrants know that democracy is one of the most efficient ways to rule over power as it lets people think they actually have a say.

    Btw, overseers and slaves don’t need to think straight.

    Beverly, I would say it is evil rather than rotten. The latter seems all too natural an occurrence of entropy.

  85. мебель Says:

    I am sure this paragraph has touched all the internet visitors,
    its really really pleasant article on building up new weblog.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.

Monthly Archives


Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge