This is a blog post from The Hill’s Pete Kasperowicz

Read the original here

Last night I listened in on Keith “hey someone pay my way to the haj” Ellison’s phone town hall meeting.

He parroted all the Dem talking points, talked up the preliminary CBO scoring as if it was real, until later in the meeting when he had to admit it was a preliminary scoring of the bill. For the sake of “transparency”, you know.

To the Congressman’s credit, when I hopped into the queue to ask a question, his staffer didn’t disqualify my question out of hand.

Ellison represents MN CD5, which covers much of Minneapolis proper, and some first ring suburbs, like mine. So he is not operating in enemy territory, if you know what I mean.

He had some seminar callers who wanted to know when we might expect a move to a single-payer system.

He was quick to assure the callers who questioned the need to take such drastic action, that they could keep their current heathcare, skirting the truth that they will make it nearly impossible for your employers to keep providing insurance for you.

The one guy who brought up the blatant unconstitutionality of imposing a requirement to purchase a product from the Government was told that everybody needed to buy healthcare to keep the pool large to spread the cost over a larger group of people. He neither addressed the real question, nor offered any explanation of why it is constitutional.

There was a pretty fair mix of pro and con questions, so the Congressman’s staff is to be commended.

Although I was not afforded the chance to ask my question, you could leave a message at the end of the call.

My message was this:

If you vote for this clearly unconstitutional bill, I will work tirelessly to make sure you are not returned to Washington.

Take it to the bank.

Tolerance is a component of political correctness. It is a means used by the left to stifle debate and argument over right and wrong.
Tolerance, by definition, from dictionary.com is as follows:
One: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude towards those who opinions practices race religions and nationalities etc. are different from one’s own; freedom from bigotry.
Two: a fair, objective, and permissive attitude towards opinions and practices that differ from one’s own.
Three: interest in and concern for ideas, opinions, practices, etc., for into one’s own; a liberal, undogmatic viewpoint.
Four: the act or capability of enduring; endurance: “my tolerance of noise is limited.”
Now for myself, out of these definitions, the one that describes what conservatives are expected to apply is the fourth. “The act of capability or enduring.” The definition currently prescribed by the politically correct machine, is the first i.e. a fair, objective, and permissive attitude towards those whose opinions, practices, race, religions, and nationalities, etc. are different from one’s own. In other words, “Whatever I do, you must accept, and view as normal”.
However, this first definition is a club used by progressives to isolate, deride, and paint those of us who may not necessarily be on board with the latest definition of “civil rights” to further the progressive cause.
It is through the use of this club that many ideas that run contrary to the societal norm of the majority of Americans have been thrust into the mainstream.
First, to be viewed as victims that require pity, and special status.

Second, to equate behavior outside of societal norms as behavior that must be accepted as normal.

As an example, I give you the continuing battle for gay marriage. I am not here to cast judgment on gay people, what their wants and needs are, I am using this particular instance as an example of how tolerance is used as a club by the left.
First, there have always been gay people on earth. It’s really not an arguable fact, when there are so many examples in recent and ancient history that prove this to be so. There’s no point in arguing over whether this is a genetically ordained or chosen behavior, because that’s not the point of what I’m talking about.
One: when people started “coming out of the closet”, for lack of a better expression, the cry from the gay factions was that “We’re here, we’re queer, get over it.” Which, for most fair-minded people was just fine, they were willing to get over it.
Not being satisfied with the idea that their behavior would be tolerated (but not embraced) by society at large, there was a rush to put out ever more self-aggrandizing displays of their cause. Gay Day parades, Gay Pride weeks, these things had but one purpose: to bring into the public consciousness that this was normal behavior and despite anybody’s objection to it on moral, or philosophical grounds, you, as the public will have to accept this, or be guilty of being “intolerant”.
This of course, was aided and abetted by the Federal Government, who dared not to be seen as being intolerant.
When fair-minded people tolerated (endured) this amount of integration into society, then the next phase of the indoctrination was started, which was to indoctrinate the youth by bringing into the school system, the “Why Wendy has 2 Mommies”, or “Why Johnny has 2 Daddies” books. Then, the cultural curriculum could be foisted upon a new generation that has come to believe through their indoctrination that it is perfectly normal for Wendy to have two mommies.

Once again aided and abetted by the Federal Government.
This in turn, has led to the next phase of forced normalization, which is to define gay marriage as being the same as heterosexual marriage.
This forced normalization, or “tolerance”, if you will, of the idea that gay marriage is equal to heterosexual marriage has been met with furious resistance across the nation. While there have been some victories for the concept of gay marriage in the United States, they are not the norm.
Currently, the resistance to gay marriage being legalized, runs pretty strongly throughout the U.S. You can see that the measure has failed twice in California, which by all intents and purposes, should be the mecca for such legislation. And yet California voters have roundly resisted the idea twice. So, what has the reaction to this obvious rejection of the normalization of gay marriage been? The movement, has pulled out the old playbook of suing, demonstrating, demonizing those who disagree with him, and, the saddest thing of all, which is to compare themselves and their “struggle”, to the civil rights movement in the early 60s. This, of course, is blatant bullshit, and an attempt to prey on any white guilt left over from the 60s.
This is only one example of the use of the club of “tolerance” by the left. Every time there is a new group of victims designated, there is a great hue and cry for the new “victims” to be set aside special privileges, perhaps special rights, and special protections to keep them safe from the majority of Americans, thereby depriving them the ability to integrate.

What is the solution for dealing with “tolerance”?

First, I do believe that there are certain things in a society that are tolerated for the greater good. Every day, we tolerate certain behaviors by others that run contrary to our own moral and philosophical compasses. In some respects, even day to day politeness is an example of tolerance in action.
When tolerance (as practiced by the left) becomes oppressive to the point where you cannot speak your mind about what you believe to be right and wrong, because you will be cast as an unenlightened, intolerant redneck, the whole game has gone too far.

What I can tell you is what I believe. It is my belief that I will no longer be silent about what I believe to be right and wrong. I will no longer tolerate bad behavior, I will no longer be cast as some sort of right wing Neanderthal, because I don’t believe as the left-wing herd does.
You, are perfectly free to do as you will. I don’t have a problem with it, as long as you don’t try to shove your beliefs down my throat by threats, intimidation, or legislation.
Tolerance, as currently practiced is a means to an end. As I go through the various components of political correctness, you may start to see a pattern develop. A pattern when brought to its logical conclusion, will have necessarily brought about the repression of a free man or woman to state their own political, personal, religious, or philosophical views without fear of reprisal.

Political correctness, and one of its component parts, tolerance, are one of the greatest threats to our First Amendment currently being foisted upon the American people. Unfortunately, there are many more.

I’ll close with a quote from a great British television series from the 60s, “The Prisoner”.
“Be Seeing You”

From Real Clear Politics

Henry Olsen has an article that bears looking at. Find it here.

It lays out what ha happened in the past, and what needs to be done in the future to ensure the current lurch to the left is a blip on the screen of history, much like the failed Presidency of Jimmy Carter.

It is important to learn from the past, from both victories and defeats. The liberals understand that in order to perpetuate their agenda, they need to control the voting blocks of the urban dwellers, traditionally those under the thumb of the welfare state, beholden to the purveyors of the crack that has corrupted generations now. The crack of the Great Society experiment, the crack of the entitlement idea, the crack of vicitmhood. These are a few the linchpins of the Democrats system of control. Others include keeping the population concentrated in the urban areas. The concept of property ownership is something that needs to be beaten down by the Dem’s in order to keep the populous dependent. When people aspire towards ownership, the liberals lose a powerful ally in their fight for control. I’m not talking about the ACORN or CRA methods of ownership either. I’m talking about working for it, and what comes from seeing that dream realised, pride in self.

As is becoming clear, self esteem cannot be given to someone, it must be earned by doing esteem-able things. We have 2-3 generations of namby-pamby little wusses on our hands who have not had to work to achieve anything at all. Like I have been told many times, a little suffering is good for the soul.

It’s time to lay a little suffering on the liberals

Consensus, defined by Webster

1 a : general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey>

b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

2 : group solidarity in sentiment and belief

Rightly or wrongly consensus seems to be an important thing here in the 21st century. With consensus you can scam the population of most of the developed countries on the planet into believing that somehow man is more powerful than the factors in the Universe that influence the Earth’s weather, like the Sun. This consensus proceeds from admitted falsified data that was used to “prove” a result that was pre-determined.

That “result”? That “man” (defined as being any white male of European descent, who has been successful in any way at raising the standard of living for a group of people above living in mud huts, and worshiping the Sun,  Gaia, or any number of liberal constructs that create guilt) has the power to make the Earth hotter, therefore damning the rest of the planet to bake in Hell for all Eternity. And creating the stage for a takeover of the world economy by a group of people (insert your favorite shadow conspiracy here) that could not care less whether Earth warms or not.

When these “scientists” were caught with their collective pants down, due to some still unknown operative spreading a substantial package of e-mails, data, and other goodies to the new media, the denizens of the internet, who spread that data far and wide. Their response was to double down, denying they falsified data, saying that only “peer reviewed” science (consensus) counted. They even brought out their Chief Useful Idiot, Algore, to proclaim that “the science is settled”.

It didn’t work. Since then, the house of cards has been crumbling, and there has been much new information about how many tentacles of the scam have been revealed, and how far they reach. They go to NASA, different universities, and into the governments of the USA and the UK. The UN has always been at the center of the scam from the beginning, and that is a world wide problem to be dealt with.

Here at home, Cap and Tax at least at this time seems to be dead. There is an end run coming from the EPA, who would have to claim powers they clearly don’t have in order to try and further the ball given to them by Beloved Leader, who at this point has been pretty much stymied in his attempts to get his agenda to kill the energy industry, and plunge the country into further disarray.

If these scams continue, and they no doubt will, continuing work will be required to keep us safe from those would would take your right to have a comfortable existence, and keep the fruits of your labor.

There will be more musings coming.

Go here and read it.

Here, let me run some quotes from the article:

“The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.”

“According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this”

“But the effects are not confined to the Northern Hemisphere. Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

‘They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries.

‘We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’”

“Like Prof Latif, Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles.

But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.

These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’”

“William Gray, emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, said that while he believed there had been some background rise caused by greenhouse gases, the computer models used by advocates of man-made warming had hugely exaggerated their effect.

According to Prof Gray, these distort the way the atmosphere works. ‘Most of the rise in temperature from the Seventies to the Nineties was natural,’ he said. ‘Very little was down to CO2 – in my view, as little as five to ten per cent.’”

“The longer the cold spell lasts, the harder it may be to persuade the public of that assertion.”

That being said. I would like to add my own little epilogue to the above story. Seeing how even an uneducated curmudgeon like myself saw through this from the beginning, I would like to say this:

YEAH!!!! EAT IT BITCHES, TAKE YOUR GAIA WORSHIPING, GRANOLA-EATING, VOLVO DRIVING, BIRKENSTOCK WEARING ASSES AND GO BACK TO WOODSTOCK, YOU FILTHY HIPPIES. I HOPE YOU ALL ROT IN HELL FOR TRYING TO GUILT US INTO BELIEVING YOUR RIGGED “SCIENCE”.

Whew, I feel better now.