Jay Sherman was a man well ahead of his time.

It's a shame people don't take his advice. Because....

You belong to the State, but it's your choice...

So first there's this.



Doesn't it feel great to belong?

Via Zombie who does a bit more digging:

But now a new video has emerged to put the fear of Big Brother in you. The folks at RevealPolitics walked around the convention asking Democratic delegates how they felt about “belonging” to the government. The interviews were probably originally intended to show delegates alarmed and repulsed by their own party’s tone-deaf propagandizing. Instead, what the interviewers came away with was a bone-chilling peek into an alternate universe in which slaves love their chains.

And here's RevealPolitics' vid:




I'm reminded of thiS Samual Adams quote (which I saw pop up a few times in comments today)

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom — go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!

Zombie realizes that its' not just Liberals not knowing where the Nanny state and big government leads "But this video reveals a horrible new truth: They do know that Big Government leads to a nation of slaves — and they’re glad about this fact!"

Emphasis in original. And this aside of Zombie shows an interesting interpretation of "belonging to government"

(I had also assumed that the interviewed Democrats might point out that there are subtle variations in the definition of the phrase “belong to,” and that the video shown on the Big Screen may have simply been trying to say that we all “belong to” the government in the same sense that we might “belong to” a club, and didn’t mean to imply that we “belong to” the government in the way a slave “belongs to” its master.

But no! Almost every single one of the interviewed Democrats willingly interpreted the phrase “belong to” as being synonymous with “owned by,” and gave their enthusiastic approval to being owned by the government. Only a few of the interviewees didn’t make it clear whether or not they were speaking of “belonging to” a big club known as the government; the rest openly conceded that they are owned by the government.)

Well at least they're the "party of choice"!

Via Hot air we have Reason doing a great little bit on the Democrats and choice:



Okay... so really... their view on choice is pretty well summed up by this bumper-sticker.

And I'm reminded of this vid about choice when it comes to "being green".

And Reason didn't even ask about gun rights.

And with a forth vid (this time not embedded) .Rep Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) thought that in 1898 slavery was still legal in Brooklyn... due to the Dutch.

Geeze, no wonder these clowns thought they could lie about their history. It's not like they know it at all.

Via Glenn Reynolds who points out: "Just remember, the more power you give government, the more power you give to people who thought that slavery in the United States persisted under the Dutch as late as 1898."

The Democrats have always supported Civil Rights. Oceania withholds comment.

This bit on the Democrat's own history is some brazen to the point of Orwellian and Stalin style airbrushing.

For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers' rights, and women's rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union. Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you'll see why we're proud to be Democrats.

Emphasis added. There's more lies and insanity that can be read here.

But let's just focus on the bolded par. Well? Civil War anyone? Remember the poltical process that lead up to it? How the Republican Party got formed? What the Democratic party was doing at the time?

You know, for the science-based, teacher-caring, intelligent party the Dems are really counting on American citizens being historically ignorant.

How ignorant? This ignorant.

During the first half of the 19th Century, the Democratic Party was the party of racism oppression and slavery. This is not a debatable assertion, it’s simply a fact. The Democrats were divided over slavery, between those who accommodated it and those who actively supported it. Their party officially supported slavery in its six platforms from 1840 to 1860. They opposed the constitutional amendments that wiped out slavery and set the freed slaves on the path to full voting citizenship. They repealed a Republican-passed civil rights law in 1892. Again, not debatable: Simply a fact.

Now the Dems can, and do, claim that they got better and cleaned house. There's also that the Democratic party (and the Whig party) were split on the issue of Slavery. For example the Free Soilers were anti-slavery, and the Southern Democrats took the lead of the Fire Eaters by bing quite pro-slavery. But to deny that the Democratic party, (even the Democratic National Committee dates to 1848) has an acceptance of slavery in its roots is insane.

Just look at the 1860 presidential election.

And it is good that they no longer openly support slavery as part of their political platform. But I guess it's too much to even admit to skeletons like that.

And of course the Dems are still against other civil rights.

Tim Minchin and why its only edgy to mock some Abrahamic religions.

Tim Minchin funny guy and does some funny songs. I particularly like the pace of this one. His whole point is that he's under a time limit and I think that makes for a much tighter song.

And yeah he mocks Christianity and much of the standard British/anglosphere "button down" tender sensibilities. But he also omits some other ones. Ones that show there as sensibilities that he at least tacitly supports adhering too.

When I Tweeted this morning in response to this "Really looking forward to hearing Tim Minchin's fearless comedy song about Mohammed", some members of his fan club – including the ephebically pouty-smile-tastic Prof Brian Cox, no less – Tweeted back that he had written a funny song sending up Islam called "Ten Foot Cock And A Few Hundred Virgins."

Actually, though, when you examine the lyrics, you realise that the title is about as daring as it gets. Nor is it directed specifically at Islam. It's an equal-opportunities offence number, which also has a dig at Christianity, rapture-based cults and religion generally. Sure, it's brave even to broach Islam at all. But no way does it criticise Mohammed – or indeed, even mention him – with the same unbridled satirical glee Minchin deploys on Jesus (above) and has done in the past on the Pope. Had he done so, he'd be needing a bodyguard this Christmas.

Again, let me stress, this isn't a plea to Minchin to acquire set of cojones and commit suicide through the medium of satire. I wouldn't write a rude song about Islam if you paid me a million quid. Or even ten million. But what I equally wouldn't do is compromise my integrity by laying heavily into one soft-target religion while treating a rival one, far more ripe for satire, with kid gloves. To do so would, I think, make me look a hypocrite and a fraud.

But hey, why single out Minchin? The problem I describe is absolutely endemic among the liberal left trenderati.

Emphasis added. That kinda says it all. Christianity is mocked. And yeah have fun. Fertile ground there.

But Islam isn't, and why? Fear. Yes there's fear of offering the "ternderati" but there's also fear of being killed.

For making a song mocking a religion. Talk about the elephant in the room.

And one commmenter going by just "Guest" also points out the tightrope of religious satire: "Perhaps Minchin should also sing antisemitic songs as well. And anti-Hindu songs, and anti-Shinto songs, and anti-Zoroastrian songs....."

I dunno, when you mock those religions you seem to have less odds of getting killed for it.

Nice incentives there, eh?

More and more Politics is reminding me of a Plane about to slam into a mountain.

Where Party A looks at the situation and says "We've going to crash! We should open the windows, stick out our arms, and flap."

And Party B gets all bug-eyed and goes. "What are you crazy! We're not going to crash! Everything is fine."

It's hard to be a good teacher...

But very easy to be a bad teacher.

Just watch this clip from Waiting for Superman.



Take note of how few teachers get fired.
And the vast improvements even a small dismissal in poor performers would have.

This is why the US education system is a Red Queen's race.

Scary how it's considered wise and progressive to force the Medical Industry to act like the Education Industry.

All from Ace of Spaces which shows some truly sadistic bullying done by a teacher on a student. Who of course wasn't fired.

"Legitimate Rape": Horrifying War on Women. "Legitimate Need to Carry a Gun": Common Sense

Let's start with a meme of Abstinence only swimming and water safety. Haha. Denying life jackets because it encourages reckless behavior.

It's a funny point. Risk is a part of life, and the State trying to make you "better" for your own good is tyrannical.

But that link came from a French Canadian who is verymuch in support of gun control. Meaning he thinks "abstinence only" is perfectly valid with guns.

So again:
Abstinence only Sex Ed: Insane.
Absoinance only Water Safety: A funny joke.
Abstinence only Self Defense: Progressive.

Replace drowning with "gun deaths", and you see the same nonsense: the gun will be taken away from you, having a gun in the house makes it more likely that you'll get shot, if you carry a gun you must be inviting trouble.

The whole "Nobody should have guns" sounds awfully familiar don't it?


Here you have a person that demands a woman should be able to abort a fetus conceived when she was raped. A gruesome situation, but fair enough. You want to be compassionate to the woman that was raped. Even to the cost of the potential citizen of the fetus, but just focus on the woman.

Because, the same person then demands that this woman be forbidden from carrying a gun....

Something that could have prevented said rape.

Yes, if you fight back you might not win. That doesn't mean it was your fault that you were attacked, but not fighting back drops the odds of winning down to zero. Don't depend on the kindness and self-restraint of someone willing to break the most fundamental parts of the social compact.

And the right tools really help improve your odds. Especially if your attacker is a foot taller and fifty pounds heavier. At the very least a gun in the right hands would have put the attacker and the potential victim on an equal footing force wise.

Or is killing rapists and having the risk of more guns in the hands of regular people too... "socially upsetting"?

Call me crazy, but I'd rather have more dead rapists than more rape victims.

Here's the saddest part. Canada does have Conceal Carry on the books. And one of the provisions for their Authorization to Carry licence is to enable women that have been victimized to be able to carry guns for self defense.

A permit has never been issued on those grounds.

I'll repeat that. Despite there being a Canadian Carry Permit, despite it having a provision to enable victimized women to defend themselves. A permit has never been issued on those grounds.

Apparently that's how it works in Canada:

In Canada, unless you're an armed car guard or a trapper, to gain an "Authorization to Carry" you would have to make a strong case that your life or that of a loved one was in imminent danger from one or more other individuals, that police protection was not sufficient in the circumstances, and that your possession of the firearm could reasonably be justified for protecting you or your loved ones from death or grievous bodily harm.

So burley he-men like trappers and security gaurds can carry but women cannot?
No war-on-women there.

If Akin is so evil for not wanting rape victims to get abortions, how evil are all the gun control people that don't want rape victims to carry guns? Or potential rape victims, or regular people who don't want to be victimized?

Or is that not "legitimate self defense"?

Is suck it up, tough it out, and think of England only a compassionate stance when talking about the rape itself? Does it only only become barbaric when telling the woman to suffer though the ensuing pregnancy?


Carry your damn guns.