A Good Monday Morning

Beware! Are Lefties in Hollywood Messing with the Classic Movies?

Diogenes - Sunday 6/16

One of my favorite things is curling up late at night and watching old classic movies. First, they just had to colorize some classics, but recently, I noticed something I'd never seen before.

Things started appearing in the background of some old movies that weren't there before........

LOOK FOR YOURSELVES

AND SEE WHAT I MEAN.

Here's a shot from David Butler's 1930's 
futurist classic 'Just Imagine'  

...and a scene from a classic silent horror movie 
from the 1930s

....a shot from Charlie Chaplain's
'Little Dictator '

....this from 'Picture of Dorian Grey'

Not even the foreign movies are safe from these guys
....this from an old Ingrid Bergman flick.

a scene from Fritz Lang's
silent epic 'Metropolis'

a scene from  
'Bride of John Kerry Frankenstein'

.....and they're even messing with the
freakin' 'Phantom of the Opera'!

Have these people no shame!!!!!

___________________________________________

His friends stomp on the Flag, any wonder he stomps on the Constitution.

Article I  
Section 1 - The Legislature 
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

Article I
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
"To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization........"

“In many ways, President Obama has fulfilled the dream of an imperial presidency that Richard Nixon strived for. On everything from (the Defense of Marriage Act) to the gaming laws, this is a president who is now functioning as a super legislator. He is effectively negating parts of the criminal code because he disagrees with them. That does go beyond the pale.”. . .

Keep Reading

_______________________________________

Brought To You By Lemmings for Obama

About Richard Nixon...

Matthew - 6/16

"Woodward and Bernstein, themselves, have created a cottage industry of their own -- the political scandal “insider” book, the myth that because they once had fortune dump the half-story of a lifetime into their laps that they're some kind of exalted defender of the universe -- that has made them filthy rich men. Don’t buy this “fighting to tell the truth” crap either has spouted since the ‘70’s:  they’re in it for the money and the accolades they get from their even-lazier compatriots. They always were. And they got lucky...."

Matthew's Week End Commentary

The Lunatic's Asylum 

I read this today, a defense of Richard Milhous Nixon, a.k.a. Tricky Dick of Watergate Fame.

It was written by Conrad Black, who himself knows a thing or two about being railroaded by his enemies, especially the political kind.

I found this article interesting because Black uses the phrase "criminalization of policy and partisan differences", and means that to say that both ends of the political spectrum routinely accuse the other of being the absolute worst people born since Hitler and Genghis Khan had identical triplets. According to this sort of mindset, anything the other side has to say on any subject is reflexively responded to by it's counterpart as the grossest crime, or the most egregious abuse of human rights, and probably an indication that one side or the other would like to run a conveyor belt full of kittens through industrial wood chippers and sell the resulting mess as luncheon meat in your kid's school cafeteria.

No one gets the benefit of the doubt, anymore, no serious question ever gets the fair hearing it deserves.

 Undoubtedly Black is correct in his assertion that most political exchange since the days of Watergate has been tinged with this hyper-partisanship, and one side does, indeed, engage in this sort of constipated thinking more often than the other, but then again, they're at the vanguard of a political philosophy which, on the one hand, believes there is no such thing as human nature, and then on the other, regulates the hell out of human nature just as soon as it rears it's ugly head, but then never admits it made an incorrect assumption in the first place.

 But, let's put the truism that most Leftists are petty little dictators with really poor potty training in their backgrounds, who could never be elected to anything if they ever told the truth aside for a second because there's another issue that Black brings up in his column, which intrigues me more, and that is the supposed heroes of Watergate, the so-called intrepid reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the reporters who broke the story and began the process of destroying a president.

Now, I'm too young to remember Watergate as little more than a word heard coming out of the television, so don't expect me to wax poetic with fond memories of the Nixon Administration, I was all of five or six years old at the time. However, I have studied the scandal in my adult years, and have come to a conclusion that didn't really require a shitload of historical research:

The New Huffington Post Online Magazine Launches ........ on Obama.

Damn, Even They Get!

________________________________

Slipping One Past the Libs....SCORE!

__________________________________________________________

Proof Positive......

h/t Broadside Betty

________________________________________________

Political Bookends: The Left-Right Spectrum

Diogenes - 6/13 

Which of these two narratives most closely matches your political perspective? I already know the answer of most readers who come here.....but I digress.

Once upon a time people lived in societies that were unequal and oppressive, where the rich got richer and the poor got exploited. Chattel slavery, child labor, economic inequality, racism, sexism and discriminations of all types abounded until the liberal tradition of fairness, justice, care and equality brought about a free and fair society. And now conservatives want to turn back the clock in the name of greed and God.

or....... 

Once upon a time people lived in societies that embraced values and tradition, where people took personal responsibility, worked hard, enjoyed the fruits of their labor and through charity helped those in need. Marriage, family, faith, honor, loyalty, sanctity, and respect for authority and the rule of law brought about a free and fair society. But then liberals came along and destroyed everything in the name of “progress” and utopian social engineering.

 Although we may quibble over the details, political science research shows that the great majority of people fall on a left-right spectrum with these two grand narratives as bookends. And the story we tell about ourselves reflects the ancient tradition of “once upon a time things were bad, and now they're good thanks to our party” or “once upon a time things were good, but now they're bad thanks to the other party.” So consistent are we in our beliefs that if you hew to the first narrative, I predict you read the New York Times, listen to progressive talk radio, watch CNN, are pro-choice and anti-gun, adhere to separation of church and state, are in favor of universal health care, and vote for measures to redistribute wealth and tax the rich. 

If you lean toward the second narrative, I predict you read the Wall Street Journal, listen to conservative talk radio, watch Fox News, are pro-life and anti–gun control, believe America is a Christian nation that should not ban religious expressions in the public sphere, are against universal health care, and vote against measures to redistribute wealth and punish job creators.

In his remarkably enlightening book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion , University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that "to both liberals and conservatives produce large cooperative groups, tribes, and nations without the glue of kinship. But at the same time, our righteous minds guarantee that our cooperative groups will always be cursed by moralistic strife.” Thus, he shows, morality binds us together into cohesive groups but blinds us to the ideas and motives of those in other groups.

Our dual moral nature leads Haidt to conclude that we need both liberals and conservatives in competition to reach a livable middle ground. As philosopher John Stuart Mill noted a century and a half ago: “A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.”

But with that said, if the party in power is a destroyer of all that came before, (such as we have today) the common good is endangered and it must be soundly defeated for more sensible leadership. Need I say more........

Image via The Looking Spoon.com 
____________________________________________________________

Even Ex-Commies Know Krugman is a D**K

Taki's Magazine

Estonia to Krugman: Y’all Needs to Chill

The ex-Soviet satellite state of Estonia is home to slightly over a million people and is smaller than Vermont and New Hampshire combined. Yet in the contentious debate between “austerity” and “stimulus”—i.e., ceasing to spend far more than you have versus further indenturing your citizen-vassals for generations—it’s becoming the mouse that roared.

A few facts about the thumbnail-sized Baltic nation:

• In a 2006 State of World Liberty Index review of 159 countries based on “economic and personal freedoms,” Estonia ranked first.

• As of 2010, it boasted—by far—the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of all countries in the eurozone.

• It’s the eurozone’s only country to report budget surpluses for two years running.

• Its economy is growing faster than any other nation in the EU.

Estonian austerity (Esterity?) programs, as well as the fact that the country has adopted a Friedmanesque flat tax since 1994, would seem to be responsible for at least a few of these glittering statistics. Yet this is highly uncomfortable for economists who make their living by urging statist intervention and deficit spending.

When it seemed as if Estonia was bouncing back from a deep recession by using policies that statist economists insist would only drive countries deeper into economic despair, Nobel laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the country the “poster child for austerity defenders” and saw fit to pee on their parade last week.

Bane of anti-globalists and a self-described “unabashed defender of the welfare state,” Krugman was critical of Obama’s initial stimulus plan only because he said it was far too small. He has likened European austerity attempts to a “medieval doctor, you're sick so he bleeds you, you get even sicker he bleeds you some more.”

Apparently unbeknownst to Krugman, the same metaphor could be used to describe extracting further tribute from already stressed taxpayers.

After Krugman pooh-poohed the recent successes of the diminutive nation known as the “Baltic Tiger,” bow tie-wearing Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves (pronounced “ILL-vis”) took Krugman to task on Twitter. Ilves left the following string of posts in what some are suggesting was a drunken rage on June 6:

"Let’s write about something we know nothing about & be smug, overbearing & patronizing: after all, they’re just wogs…."

"Guess a Nobel in trade means you can pontificate on fiscal matters & declare my country a “wasteland”. Must be a Princeton vs Columbia thing."

Keep Reading

____________________________________________