- Liberals are nuts. I know, I know; It's WorldNetDaily, sometimes called WorldNutDaily. But psychologist Dr. Lyle Rossiter makes the case in his book The Liberal Mind. Rossiter says that "A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do.... A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do." Further, "the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population" by "creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation; augmenting primitive feelings of envy; [and] rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government." Just sayin'.
- "Evangelical" leader working hard to deflate the term. Richard Cizik is the Chief Lobbyist and Vice President for Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, and an Obama-supporter. In the Virginia primary, Cizik felt fine about supporting the most viciously anti-child politician ever to seek the Presidency, rather than a solidly pro-life Republican candidate. Particularly, Cizik felt that Obama, who said deciding when life began was "above my pay-grade," and viewed inconvenient grandchildren as "punishments" who should be killed at will, was less ignorant and more humble than the woman who knowingly gave birth to a child with Downs Syndrome. Plus, Cizik thinks evangelicals should back off of their opposition to special rights for particular sexual perversions. Sigh.
- What would you think of a headline that read "Texas bill would force patients to be fully informed before major surgery"? Wouldn't you think it an odd title? What about this, then: Texas bill would force woman to see ultrasound of fetus before abortion? Well, of course that makes sense, because (A) it's in a branch of the MSM; and (2) the MSM regards abortion as a sacrament, not a surgery.
- But won't that bill become academic once Cizik's man Obama signs FOCA as his first presidential act?
- And now, for something completely different, just... oh, my gosh. It doesn't even say whence it's "imported." And what's sadder — I'm sure people actually buy it. (And I feel sure I can guess who they voted for.) And on that subject...
- The One has already further distinguished himself from previous president-elects. How? By not attending church. Instead, he goes to the gym. (He clearly hasn't read this nor this... among a great many other things.) Obama's excuse is that he doesn't want his large retinue to upset the worshipers. My response: you don't think gyms are filled with worshipers?
- To that, someone might retort, "A gym isn't a place of Christian worship!" To which my surrejoinder would be: neither was his last church. (Ba-dum bum.)
- If it were Bush, the headline would read, "Bush chooses retinue that is threatening to worshipers!"
- Back to lighter fare, non-bariatrically speaking: chocolates so good, they're irresistible!
Friday, December 05, 2008
Of note (and subject to updates later as needed):