CEdmundWright.com

Clean SLATE? “Den of Liberals” is “Justifiable Cause” According to Liberal Publication!

C. Edmund Wright — Sun, 19 May 2013 17:49:44 +0000

“If these scandals are indeed affecting the ideological landscape, this is bad news for liberals….making it look like conservatives fundamentally understand something that liberals do not.” – Slate Chief Political Correspondent John Dickerson summing up his piece titled “Justifiable Cause.”

It is a bizzaro world indeed when left leaning Slate makes a better case for limited government than the Republican establishment managed to make during the 2012 cycle. Yet for the second time in less than a week, two different writers from Slate have done so, making compelling arguments for conservatism, and tweaking the establishment at the same time for good measure by observing that “the Obama Administration is making a better case for conservatism than Mitt Romney ever did.”

This is not to say that Slate is turning right, nor is that their intention. But words do mean things, and in stunning pieces from Dickerson on Tuesday and political reporter David Weigel Sunday, words at Slate make one hell of a good case for Tea Party limited government conservatism.

A “Den of Liberals” is not just how conservatives view every government bureaucracy, it’s very the headline of Sunday’s editorial from Mr. Weigel, who adds in the sub-head that “the IRS, like most government agencies, leans left. It’s just a fact of life.” Uh oh. That’s more or less game, set and match to us right there, but Weigel piles on, attacking the very foundation of so-called “civil service:”

“In theory, the civil-servant structure should make an organization less prone to an eruption of bias or of hive-mind behavior. But that’s not how it works. Liberals are more likely to enter the civil service, and to stick to it, than conservatives are. And why not? Conservatives want to shrink the size of government; Republicans have negotiated deals federally, and in the states, that slashed or froze the size of the bureaucracies.”

Let me translate: Weigel is figuring out that bureaucracies can never be impartial venues of grievance for conservatives because bureaucrats are liberal by nature. Thus impartiality is not possible. Well shazam! Welcome to our world!

And Weigel goes on, citing the obvious that was confirmed by Gallup polling: “State and local government employees are far more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Now, does that excuse the IRS’s behavior? No. It explains the behavior.”

Which of course it does, and it explains why our Founders opposed intrusive centralized government in the first place. Human nature will not be thwarted, which was the point Mr. Dickerson made on Tuesday when he wrote in Slate that “economist James Buchanan, who won the Nobel Prize in 1986 for his work studying economic incentives in government…(demonstrated) that politicians are not benevolent agents of the common good but humans acting in their own self-interest or for a special interest.” In other words, the entire theory of civil service is actually self-service when these so-called angels get the power of government at their disposal. This is why liberals and Democrats are by definition more corrupt corporately than conservatives and Republicans – and while Dickerson might not like that extrapolation – he more or less admitted it by adding that “since Democrats and Republicans alike are sinful…keep the government small to limit the damage.”

Is it just me, or is it fun when liberal light bulbs start popping up?

Dickerson then very correctly applied conservative thought to the gun control issue, stating:

“This moment may allow some insight into the views of those who opposed gun control legislation. Republicans senators who ultimately voted against the Manchin–Toomey compromise talked about “paranoia” among some gun owners about a national gun registry. Liberals pointed out that the Manchin–Toomey legislation had provisions…in place to discourage excessive behavior. Conservatives saw it a different way. Excessive behavior (in government) is inherent.”

Indeed, moments of insight to be sure. That’s what we are enjoying now. The IRS issue, the EPA favoritism issue, the DOJ-Associated Press issue and even Benghazi – are not scandals really. They are moments of insight – insight into the liberal mind and into what applied liberalism is pre-ordained to lead to. Four years ago as the Tea Party movement was erupting and evolving, none of these scandals had occurred. It didn’t matter. Conservatives knew that events such as these were inevitable with Barack Obama and his ilk in charge. We knew this is what Obama Care held in store for us.

Or, in the words of Slate’s John Dickerson, “conservatives fundamentally understand something that liberals do not.” Shazam indeed.

All About Obama – And Yet, Not About Obama At All

C. Edmund Wright — Sat, 18 May 2013 01:04:04 +0000

As we find out more each hour about the depth of the IRS’s shenanigans, the cover up in Benghazi, the EPA’s favoritism, the snooping of AP reporters – and as we vaguely recall abominations known as Pigford, or Gibson Guitar, and other incidents, it is intuitive to think scandal.

But these are not really scandals. Oh, they are scandalous, but the salient point is that they are standard operating procedure for big government liberals who are intent on controlling a population. These are merely examples of liberals being liberal, and of course, right now the king liberal is Obama. But beyond Obama, this is just who liberals are and this is what they do. So instead of thinking scandal, rather think of Obama’s 2008 words “if they bring a knife, we’ll bring a gun.”

Bring a gun indeed.

That’s what the IRS is – government’s ultimate gun in a sense, or at least their ultimate hammer, one empowered by the government gun. All government agencies compel actions behind the power of the gun. To torture the metaphor further, this is why liberals love government agencies and why they populate them, not to mention why they dislike citizens having guns. A government agency can simultaneously extract income to be redistributed while sending a clear message to would be political opponents. The bureaucrats can routinely pulls off the statist daily double!

And all the while these cubicle perps remain unelected, un-seeable and usually unaccountable. In their arrogance, they taunt their innocent victims with the words “so sue us.” It’s the perfect crime: America is being stolen in broad daylight, and we are paying the thieves who do it, and those like Obama who inspire such actions hide behind case specific deniability.

As such, these revelations are all about Obama, and yet, not about Obama at all. They are all about Obama in that the nameless faceless bureaucrats at the IRS, the EPA and in other alphabet agencies are clearly doing what Obama wants to be done. They are harassing groups and individuals that have been called enemies by Obama himself. Moreover this is a man who told a Chicago radio station that our Constitution was flawed in that it limited “redistributive rights,” admitting that party B should have the right to some of party A’s income – and that the Federal government should be the entity to make it happen.

And so, he has made it happen. That’s what Pigford is about, and certainly part of what the IRS scandal is about. It is clear that Obama likes the harassment of Tea Party groups, that he likes big conservative donors being punished, and likes income being redistributed. Everyone knows this, and that includes every bureaucrat in every government agency with the power to do any of the above. Which is why in a sense, this is not about Obama at all, or at least not primarily.

Thus the real political danger here is to remain obsessed with details surrounding Obama personally – and to miss the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the inherent flaw of big government liberalism. Whether or not Obama ordered the IRS to do this or that, and whether or not he knew in 2010 or 2011 or 2012 or 2013 that they had done it, is frankly not relevant. The same details and timelines surrounding Pigford, or Benghazi, or the EPA harassment and favoritism are just as irrelevant.

Thus, to be consumed with “what did he know and when did he know it” is to miss the critical point. He knew this is what he wanted and he knew it 40 years ago.

The essence is that liberals were running the IRS, the DOJ, the EPA and the State Department when all of these obscenities occurred. They were put in charge by Obama, or by Obama acolytes, precisely because they were liberals and would act precisely this way in just these situations. This is the principle known as the Führerprinzip, where each government figure protects the leader from technical responsibility of their daily deeds, and yet, each must always work towards the leaders’ known ultimate ends each and every day.

We all know that Obama probably directed, and certainly knew about, all of these scandals early on. And even if somehow he didn’t, he certainly applauded all of this. We also know most of his sycophantic followers will never believe that, and we know that proving it might be impossible anyway. To get caught up in those details will only muddy the important lesson. The important lesson is that these so-called scandals are merely what inherently results from big government. The important lesson is that we (conservatives) are right about this, and liberals are wrong. Jon Stewart and David Axelrod have almost admitted as much in the past week. The specific names, the faces, the details, etc, are just distractions.

Yes, this is all about Obama, and yet, this is not about Obama at all. This is all about what liberalism is by definition, and it’s much easier to sell that notion than it is to defrock a specific messianic liberal.

The Liberals Terrifying Choice

C. Edmund Wright — Thu, 16 May 2013 17:19:25 +0000

American liberals – be they member of the media, elected Democrats or even low information voters – might have a terrifying choice to make. They must decide if they are willing to throw the man they have sycophantically worshipped for 5 years under the scandal bus, or would they prefer to sacrifice their very ideology, not to mention Obama Care itself, to keep the fictional fantasy of Barack Obama afloat.

You know that fantasy, the one where Obama is simultaneously some kind of uber- intelligent god, and yet, finds out about massive problems in his own administration only by listening to Friday’s newscasts.

Short of a total denial mentality, they have no other choice, and this much was more ore less signaled recently by none other than Obama’s top aide, David Axelrod. Axelrod,, as he told Joe Scarborough that “some folks down in the bureaucracy, and you know we have a large government, took it upon themselves to (act)… in a way that was as I said idiotic, and also dangerous because of the political implications.”

Oops. Axe stepped in it big time, and he will never get the stench of this comment totally off of his shoes.

Yes, the man who invented the fundamentally scandalous industry known as political Astro-Turfing was talking about the IRS/Tea Party scandal, but he could have been talking about the Pigford scandal, the AP scandal, the EPA scandal, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, or the Obama Care train wreck just as well. These scandals are all Obama, Axelrod, liberal and bureaucratically big government by definition. These scandals, or others just like them, were Obama’s pre-ordained destiny, and Axe just let that slip.

In other words, in his rush to blindly protect a man he has an obsession with, Axelrod just admitted the very ideology that drives that same man is an inherent failure. Indeed, some ‘folks down in the bureaucracy’ were up to no good, and whether or not they took it upon themselves in not particularly relevant. That’s the problem with big government liberalism in the first place: those folks “down in the bureaucracy” of a large government are always prone to being idiotic, dangerous and political. And their job security is protected by the very fact that they are tucked away in some cubicle somewhere “down in the bureaucracy” of a “vast government.”

Sometimes they are told to be idiotic, dangerous and political, and sometimes they simply act that way out of natural implication. In fact, they are often picked for these sorts of tendencies. This is how bureaucracies operate, and until human nature is altered permanently, this will be reality. The results are the same.

This is not to say that all bureaucrats are idiotic, dangerous and political, but simply that all bureaucracies operate in a collective way that end up being all of that. And when they end up making decisions that are idiotic, dangerous and political, they ruin peoples’ lives, businesses, and their dignity. And when this same group of “folks down in the bureaucracy” is given control of one sixth of the nation’s economy, not to mention our health, it’s only going to get more idiotic, dangerous and political to live in this country.

Conservatives instinctively knew all of this years ago. This is why we are conservative. When we warned of death panels, we were dismissed as paranoid and extreme. When we warned of nameless faceless unaccountable bureaucrats making decisions about life and death while having access to all kinds of personal information like voter registration and associations, we were ridiculed as racist and preposterous.

Memo to our low information friends: we were right. How does “told you so” taste exactly?

Now, even liberals like Slate’s Chief Political Correspondent John Dickerson is waking up to the validity of conservative concerns, stating this week that “the Obama Administration is making the case for conservatism better than Mitt Romney ever did.” The well deserved slap at Mitt and his campaign aside, what Dickerson was admitting is that big government is being exposed as incompetent, inefficient, corrupt and overtly political by definition.

(He was also pointing out that the GOP establishment is afraid of the big important philosophical conversations, but that’s another column, or book, altogether.)

And while Axe would certainly dispute Dickerson’s logical conclusion per se, he as much as admitted the same to Scarborough – attempting to protect Obama personally by saying “when you’re President…there’s so much (government) beneath you, that you can’t know, because the government’s so vast.”

Which of course is the Tea Party point in the first place. Government is too big, too vast, and too bureaucratic. No one can know what they’re up to. And this, not Obama, is the point.

I think all of these scandals, and the way Axelrod is trying to explain them away, might just be making that point for us. He and other liberals have to make a terrifying choice: do they burst big government’s bubble, or simply Obama’s. Are these scandals the result of a criminal administration, or the result of big government by definition? They have no other choice.

C. Edmund Wright is author of WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again

Failing Upward, The GOP Establishment Way

C. Edmund Wright — Wed, 15 May 2013 15:25:33 +0000

Beneath the radar, drowned out by Benghazi, a splashy murder trial and an even splashier kidnapping, there was one of those inconsequential “inside baseball” career stories that is normally of interest only to a select few inside the nation’s ruling class. In this case, however, there are teachable moments well above and beyond the people involved. It was a tiny event, and yet, it explains so much about how and why Mitt Romney lost, and how and why the GOP establishment so often does.

A key Romney aid and spokesperson, who committed one of the biggest blunders of the entire 2012 Presidential Campaign, was recently hired by a big Obama supporter to handle communications for a liberal propaganda group. The Politico describes it this way:

Andrea Saul, the press secretary for Mitt Romney’s 2012 Presidential campaign, has been hired by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg as communications director for Sandberg’s “Lean In” project, an organization ”committed to offering women the ongoing inspiration and support to help them achieve their goals.”

“Andrea is joining us to run Communications and help reach women – and men – so that we can all work together towards a more equal world,” Sandberg wrote on her Facebook page on Tuesday.

Saul has also served as communications director for then-Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and worked on Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. Sandberg is a well-known Obama fundraiser and on the president’s jobs is council.

To refresh your memory, when the Obama Campaign was pushing the dark fairy tale that Romney killed a woman – who had never worked for him – with the abominable “cancer ad,” it was Saul who responded with the ‘face palm’ remark that “if (she) had been in Massachusetts under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care.”

This was a typical see, we can be good liberals too type response, and of course only reinforced the meme that Romney was the godfather of Obama Care. That she was totally oblivious to the fact that her statement would neuter the impact of Obama Care on the election is astonishing, and speaks to her tone deafness regarding what should have been the major Republican issue of the entire campaign.

That Romney did not fire her on the spot speaks to the fact that this tone deafness and incompetence went right to the top of the Campaign. Either that, or Mitt was so spooked by the so-called “Binders full of women” comment and other assorted non-issues that he was afraid to fire a woman. There’s no excuse regardless. This was an utter failure on the part of the campaign. Saul’s resume should have been jettisoned from the binder.

What is so frustrating is that any reasonable assessment of Saul’s career prior to the Romney Campaign would have foretold such a disastrous performance. As The Politico article states, she had worked for two of the most isolated and out of touch Republican campaigns in modern history, the recent spectacular failures of Charlie Crist and John McCain. She has also worked for GOP squishes Orrin Hatch and Carly Fiorina.

Prior to participating in those catastrophes, Saul graduated from a girls boarding school and then from liberal leaning Vanderbilt, and from there went to short stints with NBC and a lobbying/PR firm in Washington – before getting into campaign work. It was pre-ordained that she would know nothing of the real world, having never spent any time in it.

Her career is so typical of the “daddy got me a job” consultants the GOP establishment hires – and promotes over and over again, in spite of their abject failures. To be fair, I don’t know whether her successful and well-connected industrialist father got her a job or not, but her career path example holds. Her life is paved with connections, yet is devoid of any entrepreneurial or military experience, or any other kind of experience that would be helpful with regard to proper conservative grounding.

And she is not alone. Her path is very characteristic of those who now populate the nepotistic and incompetent world of the GOP consultant class. These creatures of DC very often move from academia straight to some job related to or in government, and remain clueless to just how clueless they are about anything real and substantive.

And why shouldn’t they be? Washington is booming. These cool kids orbit the D.C bubble and make easy money while dispensing with their absurd advice. They bounce from non-profits to media outlets to congressional staffs to think tanks to campaigns, and never pay a price for failure. In fact, their resumes swell, just as government does. And the RNC just can’t wait to pay them big bucks every even year cycle.

You can bet Saul made good money in 2012, and will be easily employed in 2014. In fact, she may already have her gig lined up. And in the meantime, not being familiar with why conservatism works and liberalism fails, Saul will of course fit right in with Sheryl Sandberg’s “Lean In” project.

How perfect. Mitt’s worst advisor and spokesperson’s latest career move is to work on a project named after MSNBC’s latest positioning slogan. Welcome to the fail upward world of establishment consulting. And they think we are the problem.

C. Edmund Wright is author of the recent book: WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost Again

TYPICAL: Mitt’s Worst Advisor Moves to Left Wing Job

C. Edmund Wright — Thu, 09 May 2013 14:47:46 +0000

Among Mitt Romney’s incompetent advisors, Andrea Saul stands out as perhaps the worst of the lot. To be sure, the competition for this dubious distinction is fierce, but Saul wrapped it up with her “Romney Care” response to the abominable “cancer ad” run by friends of Obama. Well, in the true spirit of failing ones way up, not to mention validating conservative claims that Mitt and his team have no idea what conservatism means, check out Saul’s next career move :From the POLITICO:

Andrea Saul, the press secretary for Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign, has been hired by Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg as communications director for Sandberg’s “Lean In” project, an organization ”committed to offering women the ongoing inspiration and support to help them achieve their goals.”

“Andrea is joining us to run Communications and help reach women – and men – so that we can all work together towards a more equal world,” Sandberg wrote on her Facebook page on Tuesday.

So there you have it: the perfect establishment consultant: McCain, Crist, Romney, now working for a far left group. The GOP must stop hiring these clueless “daddy got me a job” consultants.

San Fran Digging Southern Family Values – Curry Style

C. Edmund Wright — Mon, 06 May 2013 15:44:29 +0000

While it’s safe to say that many in San Francisco celebrated the fact that NBA player Jason Collins is openly gay, those same fans are even happier that former NBA star Dell Curry is definitely not. Dell’s son Stephen, the ‘can’t take your eyes off of him’ star of tiny Davidson College’s magical run through the NCAA’s a few years ago, is now leading the Golden State Warriors on an amazing journey of their own.

Yes, I know that technically the Warriors are now located across the bridge in Oakland, but this is a San Fran team. The Warrior’s old school uniforms still feature the bridge – and overtly harken back to the days when “The City” was spread across their chests – and “the city” did not refer to Oakland. Besides, they are moving back across that bridge in a couple years anyway.

And as was the case when Davidson charged into the Elite Eight a few years ago – getting within a single bad bounce of beating eventual champion Kansas – the baby faced Curry simply looks too young and too nice to be the hoops assassin he is. He is an elite player to be sure, but his game is somehow even more mesmerizing than it is effective. And it is VERY effective. Yes, Curry broke the NBA’s all time record for made 3-pointers in a single season. And yes, his combination of scoring, assists and shooting percentage has set one of those obscure ESPN only combo statistics. And yes, the Warriors rolled the favored Denver Nuggets out of the play-offs 4 games to 2 behind his shooting.

But Curry’s impact on the Warriors, the NBA, and especially San Francisco is deeper than that. As several NBA analysts have mentioned, Curry has a special bond going on with the fans in Golden State’s Oracle Arena. The atmosphere in the arena is one of the best in the NBA to begin with, and they love all their Warriors – but there is something palpable and magical between the Steph and the Bay Area fans. All it takes is one little run at a home game to demonstrate it.

“When he’s shooting the ball that way” says ESPN’s Kenny Smith, “it’s the top arena in the country. I was like…I gotta go see this…that electricity…there’s no (other) arena that does that…it’s like everybody in unison is saying the same oohs and ahhs. It’s an unbelievable feeling.” Smith is right, and it comes across on TV as well.

To be fair, Jarrett Jack, Harrison Barnes and David Lee are also great shooters having great seasons. And coach Mark Jackson is having one of those years where every move he makes is the right one, and his relationship with the fans is also something special. All of that is important too.

But this is Curry’s team and Curry’s story, something that can be observed by visiting #dubnation, a hash tag that is certainly trending. What else is observable is that this is also a San Francisco story. And that’s the amazing irony. Curry grew up near Charlotte, some three thousand geographic miles – and a million light years away from the Bay Area culturally. The son of an NBA player of 16 years, he was raised in what is nothing short of a storybook family by Dell and Sonya. He accepted Christ as a youth, and his faith has continued to guide his life ever since. In prep school he had to be forced not to pass too much. In his spare time he had shooting contests and one on ones with his Dad and his younger brother Seth, who recently finished his career at Duke. At Davidson, Steph hung out with non-athletes in the student union after games. To this day, he still marks his sneakers with Bible scriptures – and is spending this off-season in sub-Saharan Africa with his wife on mission work.

Curry certainly looks like he would be a nice person, and apparently he genuinely is. And his game, a combination of a saccharine sweet shooting stroke, and a series of mind boggling and peerless dribble reversals, is must see TV. There is just something about his game that is different than any other player’s. He is the boy next door, in his driveway practicing fantasy shots –except that it’s taking place in the real NBA and in the real play-offs. And yes, they are all going in!

And in the city where the phrase “bitter clingers” was first uttered – where the airport may be soon named for a gay activist – where public employees get their gender altering surgeries paid for by the taxpayers – a product of Mayberry type values is now the unquestioned favorite son.

As astonishing as it is, the love for Curry in San Fran is pure; as pure as a jumper from any of the three Curry men hanging out at home after church on Sunday. Nothing but net!

The Mascot Nazis (NOW AVAIL AT BREITBART.COM)

C. Edmund Wright — Thu, 02 May 2013 11:26:00 +0000

While seemingly everybody and his brother, including the President, were sprinting to microphones, ESPN cameras and twitter accounts to make sure they were among the first to slobber all over Jason Collins, another division of the PC police has also been busy lately: the mascot Nazis.

Last week, this particular group was in a semi-tizzy over the newly redesigned Huskie logo for UConn athletics, with one feminist student insisting the new meaner logo would “intimidate women and empower (the) rape culture.” And this week, with ESPN going wall to wall with Jason’s closet, D.C. Councilman David Grosso revived the spat over the NFL’s Redskins moniker by “calling on” the team to change the name because, naturally, it is “racist and derogatory.” This has been stated before of course. Meanwhile, noted Native American expert Elizabeth Warren was not available for comment.

All of which demonstrates that political correctness is a chronic condition, hypocritical at its foundation, and one that will never go away. Succinctly, the mascot police will never be pleased. While incensed over the fact that sobriquets like Redskins, Seminoles, Indians, Braves and even Warriors insult Native Americans by belittling their cultures, they can be equally self-righteous over other mascots unfairly glorifying other cultures. To wit, in 2003, there was a big to do at UMass over the nickname “Minutemen,” who represent a bunch of God fearing white guys with guns! Aided by the animal rights crowd no less, the Minutemen held off an attempt to change the name to Grey Wolves. You can’t make this stuff up.

In 1994, the UAB Blazers jettisoned “Blaze,” a character who was deemed “too male and too Caucasian,” and replaced him with a dragon. No word yet from Jeremy Lin on how the Asian community feels about that.

So, where does all of this consternation over mascots go from here? RGIII, who has the advantage of being black and talented, yet carries the stigma of being Christian, heterosexual, a “cornball brother” and of maybe being – wait for it – Republican – gave soft covert support for keeping the name by tweeting about political correctness earlier this week. With all of his baggage, Griffin’s take will only rev up the PC crowd. The news for team owner Daniel Snyder could only get worse if Tim Tebow were to tweet support for the name ‘Skins.

Which brings up a tangent to these discussions that no one mentions. Snyder, who I have no affection for, is a private citizen who paid a ton of money for the NFL franchise known as “The Redskins.” A large part of what he was paying for was the name equity, and in pro sports, that equity resides in the nickname. No one is a Washington fan, but millions areRedskins fans. In fact, across Southern Virginia and much of the Carolinas, Washington is hated but the Redskins are loved. If the name goes, I’m betting so do many of the fans. Snyder will lose a lot of value, for which he will no doubt be upset. How niggardly of him.

Then there is the slippery slope issue. Is it okay to glorify a bunch of white guys with weapons – like Vikings, Patriots, Tar Heels, Cowboys, Mountaineers, or perhaps Commodores? Then there’s white folks out for money or property like Steelers, 49ers, Hoosiers and Sooners. And if it’s insulting to Native Americans to be a mascot, why is it glorifying to a bunch of white guys in the first place? Then there’s religion: where do we come down on Angels and (Blue) Devils? Let’s not forget the most schizo name of all, the Demon Deacons. I won’t even mention the Fighting Irish.

And are small folks insulted by Titans and Giants? Dolphins are worshipped by the PC crowd, so is calling a team the Dolphins a good thing or a bad thing? I’m so confused. And while we’re at it, since the mascot cops forced the NBA team in Washington to change the Bullets to the Wizards, did anyone notice that Wizard is a rank in the KKK? And what the hell is a Laker in the first place? (Probably an ex-Viking).

These questions are perhaps humorously absurd, yet no more absurd than this entire discussion is. The point is that the PC thought police and speech police crowd will never be satisfied. For them to be satisfied is for them to be out of business. Thus, even if every team is called the Wildcats, and all the players are bi-sexual and brown-skinned, the mascot nazis will find something to be upset about, incuding being called nazis.

Unless, perhaps, we can get a blessing from Jason Collins. He is, after all, the new standard for courage, understanding, enlightenment and wisdom. Or so I’ve heard all week from ESPN. What say you, Jason? Redskins? Redtails? And will you be offended if an NBA announcer says you “like the ball down low?”

Announcing New Award: The “Stunned Liberal” Award

C. Edmund Wright — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 20:42:52 +0000

There is definitely a need to formalize and memorialize this award – the STUNNED LIBERAL AWARD – going to liberals as they have their “lightbulb” moment.

Today: Barry Diller for realizing that buying Newsweek “was a mistake” and saying he wished he didn’t do it.

Last week: The award goes to Max Baucus, for finally figuring out that Obama Care is “a train wreck.” MORE TO COME on this highly contested award.

Over the weekend; The New York Times for discovering the Pigford Scandal.

Pigford, etc: Obama’s Government is Criminal Enterprise

C. Edmund Wright — Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:21:46 +0000

The lessons that are now inescapble related to the USDA Pigford scandal (which were actually obvious to many on the right years ago) – are now bvious even to the remarkably uncurious New York Times – and these lessons tell us that our big controlling bureaucratic Obama government is nothing but a criminal enterprise. And what the criminals are doing is stealing the country in broad daylight – and redistributing it to their preferred constituencies. It’s the most perfect of crimes. It’s the grandest of all larcenies.

Now to be sure, this is not all the “fault” of Obama per se, but that’s immaterial. This is liberal, Saul Alinsky, bureaucratic Politburo type corruption that is inherent, imbedded, and in place from top to bottom. Obama, while not officially a part of all of it, is in favor of all of it – has always been – and has shifted it into turbo over drive since taking office.

With respects to Pigford, he and Eric Holder intervened in a story that was winding down and made sure the American taxpayer was on the hook for an additional 4 billion (with a b) in damages ostensibly to farmers who had been discrimminated against. And then, to make sure this redistributive scheme was maximize, blacks, hispanics and women were allowed to get their share of the loot even if they had never farmed a minute in their lives. In fact, some recieved 50 thousand dollars who were not even alive at the time.

None of this was by accident.

Meanwhile, Obama’s liberal trial lawyer buddies were cashing in with hundreds of millions of attorney’s fees as a result. This, my friends, is liberalism in action. It is nothing short of a criminal enterprise in action. This is who we re-elected, a man obsessed with stealing from honest citizens and giving the fruits of their labor to the takers, enriching his attorney and bureaucratic cronies along the way. This is what Hope and Change means, and what we always knew it meant.

Now even the New York Times has it figured out.

Since Everyone’s Talking About it Again: Bush’s Legacy: (from 2009)

C. Edmund Wright — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 01:28:53 +0000

Republished from American Thinker, January 2009: BUSH’S LEGACY: NONE OF THE ABOVE by C. Edmund Wright:

Will the legacy of George W. Bush be the deranged Keith Olbermann style analysis of today’s media? Or will it ultimately become the flowery “he was a decent man who kept us safe” eulogy offered up by the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill Sammon? Or something in-between?

None of the above.

Allow me to submit: George Bush’s legacy will be the end of Ronald Reagan’s impact and the beginning of Barack Obama’s. Rush Limbaugh, opening his November 5^th show, said during what might well be the most anticipated five seconds in all of talk radio history:

“…well my friends, the new tone has come home to roost.” Indeed. And his implication was that the new tone (and related GOP psychoses) led to the election results and that this roosting will have profound negative impact for years to come on the country. In other words, Bush’s legacy.

From the start, the “new tone” strategy was akin to a circular firing squad — doomed by a basic design flaw. But as it failed, Bush and Karl Rove’s answer was not to re-examine the strategy, it was to make the circle even rounder. The more “new tone” they got, the more their enemies hated them and the less their supporters liked them. Down down down went the “Republican brand.”

Thus, it can be said the defeat of the party of Reagan had been self-engineered by the administration for at least eight years.

(Only the Wellstone Memorial in 2002 and an extraordinarily weak Kerry campaign in 2004 disguised the drip drip drip erosion effect of the new tone on the GOP.)

Since Presidential terms are not isolated in a political-historical vacuum, the following election result is by definition part of the previous President’s legacy. An administration’s perceivedsuccesses or failures have more to do with who wins the next election than perhaps any other factor.

Bush’s actions as president were largely not failures. His “new tone” communications strategy, however, was an unmitigated disaster that led to nearly 80 percent of the country thining they were.

Consider the track record: 9-11 was inspired, dreamed up, planned, financed and rehearsed during the Clinton years but was attributed to “Bush’s watch.” The response to Hurricane Katrina was largely a failure on the part of Democrat-controlled Louisiana politics but of course was blamed on Bush and Republicans. Thirty plus years of liberal energy policy restricting domestic supply led to four dollar gas yet Bush, capitalism, Big Oil and Republicans got the blame. Decades of liberal cronyism, politically correct lending pressures and incompetent Democrat control of Fannie and Freddie crashed the housing market and by extension an overleveraged economy, but Bush and free enterprise absorbed the hit.

Of course a liberal media allowed these beliefs to fester, but the new tone dictated that no one from the administration dare challenge any of this. We “must not assign blame,” you know.

Conversely, Bush’s tax cuts helped bring the economy out of the 9-11 shock and the tech bubble, yet neither he nor conservative ideals are credited. Hawkish military and intelligence policies — including the hated wire tapping — did the impossible by preventing another 9-11 type attack for seven plus years, but no credit accrues to the President or conservatism. And “the Surge” is winning the Iraq War, but again, neither he nor his supporter’s beliefs are connected with this success.

All the new tone did was to guarantee that Bush — and by extension his party and his supporters — never got credit for anything good yet got blamed for every problem.

Connect the dots. This, not reality, led to the historically tiny approval ratings — which led to the nomination of a candidate like McCain who wanted to run against Bush — which led to the 2008 election defeats — which will lead to God knows how much trouble in the near future under extremely liberal governance.

Pardon me for saying so, but this “decent man” (and I’ll cede that point) who I voted for twice appeared somewhat naïve and perhaps arrogant in “misover-estimating” his Texas charm’s ability to bring about a “new tone” in Washington.

Moreover, he was not elected to do that by his supporters — nor was there ever a shred of evidence that his detractors wanted a new tone. As Bush came to find out, leftist rattlesnakes are not vulnerable to his charm. They bite back, period. Was this really such a surprise?

Say great words about Clinton in the White House? Let Ted Kennedy and John Edwards write legislation? Give the UN months to act? Throw Rummy and Scooter under the bus? Sign CFR? Play nice with Putin? No matter. The left still called Bush a cowboy and a terrorist and a Nazi and to this day hate him more than they hate anyone on the planet.

More to the point, by extension, they also hate us and what we stand for. That is, they hate much of what America has stood for.

Memo to President Bush: this was NOT your fight alone. This was not YOUR office. It is our office and our fight. You shouldn’t have capitulated on our important principles to establish a new tone that only you wanted.

To this day he seems not to have realized just how devastating the “new tone” was to his supporters and what we stand for, even as he admits the failure of the new tone. This misguided strategy (including compassionate conservatism) is nothing more than an extension of Bush 41′s “kinder and gentler” America. It is a rollback of official support for Reaganism’s successes by embarrassed Republicans who seem not to understand it. Since Reaganism was good for America, the weakening of it necessarily hurts America.

And this will be his defining legacy. Bush’s refusal to fight back has allowed the left to define conservatism, capitalism, business, profit, terrorism and Reaganism. The born again Christian Bush has some admirable ideals, but he appears to have missed how he should have applied the Biblical principle of stewardship of the ideals his supporters elected him to uphold.

The failure to use the bully pulpit to explain and define key principles has contributed to an ignorant American electorate now poised to drive us further and further left. No one in the White House, aside from the all too short tenure of Tony Snow, had the vaguest notion of how to use that pulpit to fight this.

In the early days after 9-11, Bush “the cowboy” had approval ratings in the 90′s and was making cocksure statements of moral clarity about the “axis of evil” and being “with us or against us.” America’s role on the planet was clear, as was Bush’s vision of it. The only naysayers then were, well, Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

But somehow he tired of the cowboy image. Or he ran scared of it. Never mind that he is a cowboy and that people (except for American liberals) LOVE cowboys. So he became a nice decent meek man who preferred not to dirty his hands with political realities and he thought it was noble of himself to fall on the sword at every calamity.

We need nice decent meek men in this country. We just don’t need them as President. Sometimes we need the confident cowboy. Frankly, the institutions that made this country great have lost too much blood from Bush’s misguided thinking that he could fall on his sword alone. The Presidency does not work that way. The nation will suffer from this blood letting, which is largely Bush’s responsibility, and his legacy will ultimately reflect that. Sadly.