CNS:
President Obama said Tuesday he would not sign a budget agreement to keep the government running that cuts funding for Planned Parenthood and the Environmental Protection Agency.
“There can be some negotiation about composition,” Obama told reporters shortly after discussions with congressional leaders on the budget.
“What we can’t be doing is using last year’s budget process to have arguments about abortion, to have arguments about the Environmental Protection Agency, to try to use this budget negotiation as a vehicle for every ideological or political difference between the two parties. That’s what the legislature is for, to have those arguments, but not stuff it all into one budget bill.”
So what do you think: Is it that Obama doesn’t see the irony of jamming federal government spending bills with pro-choice funding and green initiatives as something other than “a vehicle for every ideological or political difference between the two parties”? Or is it that he knows that the mainstream media won’t do a thing to suss it out?
Essentially, what Obama and the left have done, with help from the media, is foster a narrative in which the de facto state of nature — the non-ideological, non-political state of the world as it exists untarnished by the stain of human self-interest — consists of abortion “rights” and an unrestrained bureaucratic arm of the central government tasked with policing the exhalation put out by the human pollutant.
But of course this is nonsense. And it’s time someone in GOP leadership stands up and answers these special pleadings from the left that suggest a progressive “pragmatism” where there is, of course, nothing but base political will made most insidious by the insistence that it represent the acceptable parameters of any debate.
— Although they may want to be careful to answer the charges in ways that won’t upset moderates and independents. Otherwise it’s like, you know, “Hello? Why so deranged?”
I watched Bumblefuck on TV for about 13.7 seconds last night, and even the overwhelming calm of Jamaica could not keep me from throwing things at the television. What a fucking small pathetic joke of a President he is.
How utterly perverse. The Framers are spinning at enormous velocity.
Apparently nobody up there gets it, boss, and those that do bump up against it from time to time shudder and back away from dealing with it. The public is wising up but the morons who seek higher office are by definition unwise.
The same culture that gives us these horrors has produced a “counterbalance” that largely refuses to see them. The whole mess has shifted miles left, which is to say, into madness.
I know, by nature, the left is pragmatic in the extreme, using useful political bromides and platitudes as cover for their statist agenda, so I continually puzzle why they cling to abortion when it continues to be a rampant, sanctioned genocide of people who are their best, most loyal constituents. (and I’m not just talking about inner-city blacks, but Hispanics, poor whites, etc. as well) In other words, why encourage the elimination of so many potential leftist voters??? I know, off topic, but where’s the angle here?
The Left is all about the ‘now’.
There is no past (“Collectivism will work this time because we’re super-smart and we really want it to!”) and there is no future (“no, you can’t have cheap, abundant nuclear energy, electricity so inexpensive that it wouldn’t even be cost-effective to meter it”).
‘Free’ abortion in demand (or as close to that as they can turn the ratchet) is what their actual right-now voting constituents want. That it deprives them of huge numbers of potential voters 20 years in the future is of no concern. We’ll just import them from Mexico as needed.
Side note: further the corruption of language and meaning, I’d posit that the Early Progressives (Teddy, Wilson, FDR et al) were at least interested in progress. The Panama Canal, the beginnings of the national roadway system, the rural electrification project, etc. They wanted to actually improve the lives of their citizens — albeit through suspect, anti-liberty means — and they liked America as a shining beacon of hope to the rest of the world.
The new breed of ‘progressive’ seems far more invested in “everyone should be equally miserable, and then we’ll just define the new status quo as ‘way better than that old winners-and-losers system'”.
I mean, look back at the ’30s – in the midst of a world-wide depression, we were doing great things. The Empire State Building was built in 444 days; you couldn’t even get the environmental impact studies done in that time, today. Where’s my new Twin Towers, 10 years after the fact? It’s inconceivable that anyone would even try to build a Hoover Dam at this point. And so on.
*That it deprives them of huge numbers of potential voters 20 years in the future is of no concern. We’ll just import them from Mexico as needed.*
Or dig up some dead voters. Its the Chicago way.
I mean, look back at the ’30s – in the midst of a world-wide depression, we were doing great things. The Empire State Building was built in 444 days; you couldn’t even get the environmental impact studies done in that time, today.
Indeed, though it’s a dangerously narrow jump from that sort of ambition to the kind of “China For A Day” scenario that Thomas Friedman so wishes we’d pursue. Advocates of Great American Projects should be careful to draw distinctions between government steamrolling, “private” projects that are really just Congress picking a company to favor, and truly private projects where the government’s role is limited to getting out of the damn way.
(I’m probably sensitive to this sort of thing, since I know of way too many people who’ve built huge mansions or lost humble family homes in northern MN based solely on how friendly they were with a certain Senator who used to be on the Transportation Committee. There’s a surprising number of 4-lane highways linking 4,000-person towns up there.)
[…] on the White House bullying that surely had plenty to do with this: Essentially, what Obama and the left have done, with help […]