Democrats' "diversity": It's a trap!

On my FB wall, I had brought up this thread from the Twitchy website.  Oh, if only my Democrat-supporting friends had only asked me - I would have told them that all the promises that were made by the Dems during the election would be paid by the rest of us; and not by those evil rich people!  Wait!  I did tell them!  Over and over!  But of course, they didn't listen! 

Well, it's time to bring it up again; even if it's to say "I told you so!"  :-)

There's two things that I'm going to bring up here, and that's the Democrats' usual lines about their being the party of "the little people", and their being the party of "diversity". 
For one, they call us - they call you - "little people".  How does that make you feel; that your party thinks of you as "little people"?  That means that they can do without you when they don't need your vote.  You're someone to walk over when they don't have to care about you, which is every other time that's not an election season.  Do you like your party taking such dismissive attitudes towards you?

And consider this: Why do they call you "little people", unless that means that they think of themselves as "above you"?  Or to put it another way,

"Above"

you

"little people."

Your party thinks you're a bug.  No wait - bugs are actually cared about by the Democratic party - it's why the EPA is always out to stop various private sector ventures - to save some bug or owl or snail darter.  Oh, if only the Democratic Party cared as much about you as they do their little spotted owl or snail darter!

But no, you're less than a bug.  You're someone to use and abuse because they know that you feel that you have no choice.  You stick with the Dems because you think that the GOP is no alternative.  Do you like your party thinking of you that way - taking you for granted, and thinking that we should be grateful for whatever crumbs that they do throw our way? 

"No, wait!" you are probably thinking.  "That can't be right!  "They're the party of diversity!  They care about us because they serve our various interests!"  Let's break down the Democratic idea of "diversity".  Trust me, it ain't gonna be pretty.

The reason that the Democrats pull this "diversity" line at you is not to give a voice to a group that normally wouldn't be heard from.  Instead it's to divide you; it's to compartmentalize you into smaller and smaller groups.  Not only that, you're also being made to focus on your own little interests instead of looking at the big picture.  You walk willingly into their little schemes because of the trail of bread crumbs they lay down that leads you there.

For example, they can take the very large group of women and break them down to white women, Hispanic women, and so forth.  Then they're broken down further as straight Hispanic women and gay Hispanic women.  Then they're broken down even more to gay Hispanic women, bisexual Hispanic women, transgender Hispanic women, and so forth. Then they're broken down more to gay Hispanic women who were abused as children.  So you see, the groups get smaller and smaller and increasingly specialized.  Soon they get you down to tiny little groups so that you feel like you're special and that you are finally being heard from by party bigwigs.  Unfortunately, what's happening instead is that you're being herded and divided.  You're being made to live in tiny little groups, but you don't even see it.

The Dems want you to live in these tiny insular, compact, and compartmentalized little groups - or what they call "communities" to make it sound better - so that you will stay focused on the little picture.  Why?  So that you will be so busy fighting each other over your little interests that you won't see how they are using you for their own interests, and thus you won't stand united against them.  In other words, the Dems want a "Disunited States" so that you are easier to control. It's a tactic familiarly known as "Divide and Conquer".

If you all are united together, then you're harder to control.  But if you're caught up in your own little agendas and your own little causes, then they'll keep you entertained so that you think you're accomplishing something for your little causes, while you're actually serving their interests by not banding together to stand united against their manipulation.  

Can you see this now?  Can you see how the Dems sell you a faulty bill of goods by disguising it as being for your own good?  Can you see now the sales pitch that they've been giving you all this time so that you won't see what they're doing right in front of your eyes?  Can you see now that you're being played?  Maybe you need one more example. 

Consider how the Tea Party is treated verses the Occupy groups.  The Tea Party is considered the enemy by the Dems because they are an actual threat to the ways that the Dems have done things.  If the "little people" wake up to how they've been used all this time, then the Dems' de facto empire soon collapses much like the old Soviet Union did (and yes, I did make that comparison for a reason).  The Tea Party is a grassroots movement that, were the Dems true to their beliefs about being a "party of the little people" in the true sense of the phrase, then they'd welcome this uprising of the regular citizens.  Ignore the usual criticisms of members of the Tea Party being a bunch of moronic lowbrow inbreeders.  That's a desperate tactic to discredit a movement that has had legs for over two years now.  Do your own research and find out for yourself.

Contrast the Tea Party with the Occupy movement.  Occupiers are more the Dems' speed, because they are even more conditioned to follow the Democratic party line than your average American.  They are, in other words, a group of fanatical loyalists who buy the "divide and conquer" diversity strategy hook, line, and sinker.  Because of that, they'll never be a threat to the Dem power structure.  Occupy is a movement with no order, no direction, and most importantly, no moral code to guide it - in other words, a perfect organization for the Dems to manipulate to their own interests.

I've said many times that I'm the child of Marxists, so I know the Dems' plans close up, because I grew up with them.  I've also seen how those among the traditional constituency of the Democratic voting base are treated if they try to do things other than what the Dems have planned out for them.  There's no leniency, nor deviation from the way things are done.  You either accept it, or you will be demolished in a number of ways.  You don't have to be beaten or killed for your life to be ruined.  Think about that.

So you are not "empowered" by the Dems, you are their tool for their own agendas.  The sooner you open your eyes to that, the sooner you'll see why you all need to stand together.  Stop being a tool.  Stop being a fool.  Stand up, and stand united. If enough of us pull together, we can truly be a "United" States again.

Next time I'll bring up how the GOP manipulates its party base as well, and pretty much for the same reasons as the Democrats.  All the more reason that the rest of us need to remember what being an American really means.

My prediction about the upcoming Palin film

Friends,

I've told you many times that I know my liberal friends' thinking inside and out, having been born and raised by Marxist parents.   Thus, here is my prediction of how the media will respond to Sarah Palin's upcoming film (**especially** if it helps rocket her popularity among the voters):

It will be compared to Leni Riefenstahl's film, Triumph of the Will. 
And if you try to cite Godwin's Law to those who compare Palin's film to Triumph, they'll just dismiss you with "This is different!"

You watch.  I'm going to be right about this.  :-)

OMG! WTF?? AYS?!? LOL!!!!

A rare Saturday post, but I just had to comment on this story!

It is referring to Sarah Palin's Facebook comments in response to President Obama's State of the Union address. She says in the first paragraph, and I quote:

"The President’s State of the Union address boiled down to this message: “The era of big government is here as long as I am, so help me pay for it.” He dubbed it a “Winning The Future” speech, but the title’s acronym seemed more accurate than much of the content."

The acronym in question is, of course, "WTF", which stands for "What the F(udge)?" (You thought I really was gonna say "fuck", didn't you? LOL). What I REALLY love is one of the comments in that linked article above, which says the following, and I suggest that you read it aloud in a condescending and pompous voice so that you can get a sense of how pompous it sounds. Ready? Put on your "pompous ass" voice now!

"Serious presidential candidates choose words and perform actions carefully. Serious presidential candidates from both ends of the political spectrum realize that there is little to be gained and much to lose, from cheap shots and sophomoric humor."

HAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! I love it! Did you or did you not sound like a pompous ass when you read that? Why do I say this? Well friends, imagine if Obama had made this WTF reference to a Palin speech in which she had some expression like "We the Few" or somesuch statment. Do you think the media would be talking about his "cheap shots and sophmoric humor"? HELL NO! And if you think so, then you haven't been reading my blog long enough!

Here is what they would have said, and I can write it pretty much word-for-word:

"Obama demonstrated once again his grasp on current issues and his great understanding of the young and technologically connected generation when he devastated a statement by Sarah Palin, who is still stinging from her previous comments of "blood libel" in regards to the gunman in Tuscon, Arizona, in which one of her attack ads had a crosshair on the district of Rep Gabrielle Giffords who is still recovering from her injuries she suffered on that day. In a speech made yesterday, Palin made reference to "We the Few" in regards to the conservative political newcomers in the House. President Obama had this response: 'She dubbed it a “We the Few” speech, but the title’s acronym seemed more accurate than much of the content."

Not only that, Rachel Madow and the like would have been constantly running his response on their shows, and Saturday Night Live would have had a skit in which an actor portraying him would be using these text acronyms while texting people he knows. See? Do I know these liberal nutjobs or what?

Okay, back to my weekend! :-D

Oh, BTW, be sure to turn off your "pompous ass" voice now, before someone kicks your ass for talking down to them in a pompous voice....

DANGER! Tim Tebow Ad! WARNING!

DANGER! DANGER! WARNING! WARNING!

TIM TEBOW AD BELOW! NSFW! NSFW!



Geez, given all the hub-bub over this ad, it really wasn't much, was it? It just had you refer to their site for more info. It didn't cause the fall of mankind or turn the female side of the country against the pro-choice movement and result in the total abandonment of feminism, did it?

Hell, as a prolife conservative, I have to hear a lot of crap in the news and entertainment media that I don't want to hear, but I'm not going around demanding that their free speech rights be taken away! If anything, I PREFER that they show how stupid they are! That's the beauty of our society's free speech values!

By the way, if you want to see the rest of that story, click here.

Focus on the Family

Just make sure none of your anti-free speech feminist nutjob co-workers aren't close by to hear you listening to it, or they'll sue you for harassment!

My daily dialogues in real life

I got the response below from someone named Joseph in regards to my previous blog entry on being both pro-life and pro-death penalty. I was going to respond to Joseph in the commentary section of that post, but my response got a little long, so I thought I would just put it here instead. It will also give you all a little insight into my goings-on in real life. :-)

Here's Joseph's response:

Hi. I read your blog post on your explanation on you being pro-life and pro-death penalty. I have a question to ask you. In your daily life, have you been having conversations with people that disagree with you, and you feel you need to express your thoughts that have been on your mind? I'm only curious and all. With regards to your question to pro-choicers on whatever or not there is an abortion that they would oppose, then logically the answer would be 'no'. Then it would not be pro-choice. You answered your own question. Of course you probably already knew that.

Joseph,

First, thanks for your response. Let me go ahead and tackle your observations in order.

I do indeed have these discussions in real life! And most of these discussions are because I'm a conservative among a bunch of liberals. Just think of that show, The View. Among the people I know, I am one Elizabeth Hasselbeck among a bunch of Barbara Walters and Whoopi Goldbergs. Fortunately, our debates and discussions - nearly all of which are impromptu - are civil, even if we do get loud on occasion. In fact, it was during one of these discussions that the boss "discovered" me, and asked me about doing this blog. He felt that my style of discussion could carry over to a blog. I have to say that I enjoyed blogging a lot more than I ever thought I would, so I'm glad the boss talked me into it.

Anyway, it occurred to me that I could head off a lot of these discussions in real life by answering their questions here on my blog. Many questions I get have been asked numerous other times, so rather than repeat myself time and time again, I tell them to go to my blog and see what I say there about "X" issue, and then get back to me if they have any other questions. This blog also allows me to organize my thoughts rather than go all over the place like my real life impromptu discussions do.

And Joseph, my fellow debaters even debate about my blog! LOL Well, they like how I explain myself, but they disagree with many of my answers - just like they do in real life, actually. Why should that change? Also, the more feminist among the group think that the title Busty Superhero Chick only adds to the objectification of women - and to an extent I agree, and am working on that. In the meantime, I will stick to my goal of challenging you guys on your obsession of boobs. I recently got an idea of just how much of a lost cause such a challenge is, but hey - I don't give up easily. ;-)

Here's the thing, dudes: I could challenge your obsession with boobs the way some of my radical feminist friends do- by protests and mass mailings (both by snail mail and e-mail) and by railing ad nauseum about what scum men are. But if I did that, the only ones who would read my blog would be a very narrow group of women who have anti-social tendencies; and in case you didn't know it, women with anti-social tendencies are not fun to be around. I was about to suggest that you try hanging around such a woman to find out, but then I don't want you to hate me afterwards. ;-)

So anyway, I chose the other means of challenging you dudes' obsession with boobs: with humor. Funny thing though, I kinda fell into the trap of objectifying women in the process, but hey - live and learn. I still think this can be done, and I'll keep working at it.

Okay Joseph, in regards to your second observation as to the fact that persons who are pro-choice can't offer an abortion that they oppose, I agree with you. It also demonstrates that what they support is not "choice" in the true sense of the word, but instead choosing only abortion. If being pro-choice really were about having choices, then Octomom would have been a pro-choice hero and celebrity. Think about it! She did *choose*, right?

So really, the term "pro-choice" is an oxymoron, because there is only one choice that is acceptable to the true pro-choice activist, and that's the choice of abortion. "Pro-abortion" is actually more accurate to define such people, but that's not a pleasant term, which is why "pro-choice" was chosen instead.

It's a bit ironic that I, as a prolifer, can take into consideration the life of the mother (as demonstrated in my previous blog entry). But prochoicers, being locked into only one "choice" as they are, cannot at all take the life of the baby into consideration.

Q&A: Pro-life and pro-death penalty?

Time for a little Q&A. This question comes from folks whom are pro-choice (on the abortion issue, of course) and who view my being pro-life and pro-death penalty as being a contradiction. Here is what they view as the contradiction: They think that if I say that all life is sacred, then that should include the lives of criminals.

And indeed it does. But understand that we ARE talking about two different groups of people! The unborn are innocent and not guilty of any crime whatsoever, unless you call their "inconvenient existence" for their mothers a crime. Someone on death row, however, has been tried and judged. Unlike the unborn, the criminals on death row have had their day in court.

Understand that I do view the lives of those on death row as sacred, but they chose to waste their lives by committing crimes so heinous that the only justice that can be delivered for their victims is by death. We are talking here about serial murderers and the like. Now please tell me that a serial murderer is on par morally with an unborn child committing the "crime" of "an inconvenient existence"! And yet, the serial murderer gets more of a chance to appeal their death sentence than does the unborn.

What has always bugged me about pro-choice liberals is that they can always find it in their hearts to find sympathy for convicted criminals, but none at all for the unborn. I find that a contradiction that I'd LOVE to hear an explanation on how they can think in such a way, and also how they can justify it. After all, if I can be called hard-hearted for having no sympathy for the execution of a serial murderer, how much more hard-hearted does a pro-choicer have to be to have no sympathy for the unborn who are executed in the womb?

And while we're at it, let me go ahead an address a question that is often posed to me: Is there an abortion that I WOULD support? The answer is yes. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the unborn has no chance of survival while the danger to the mother's life is great. Thus, there is no reason to put the mother through such danger for an unborn that has no chance for survival. Now I pose a question right back for you pro-choicers: Is there an abortion that you would totally oppose?

So in summary, I can be both pro-life and pro-death penalty, because comparing those two issues is comparing apples and oranges. If someone wants to try to link the two to expose an alleged conflict in my thinking, then they would have to justify that same conflict in reverse.

As for the recent efforts of exoneration of inmates on death row via DNA sampling, then I say bring it on. Justice is justice, and fair is fair. If DNA evidence exonerates an innocent on death row, then more power to those who go to the effort of exonerating them. There is no conflict in this for me, because we are still talking about justice. Even I admit that the justice system can fail, but I still stand by my support of the death penalty.