Well look who took Churchill to heart about being a liberal at 40 (emphasis is mine)....
John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death - according to the tragic Beatles star's last personal assistant.
Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon's death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self....
"He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he'd been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy's naivete."
More at The Toronto Sun
We have seen for a generation or so the product of what kind of leadership the narcissism of the 60's can produce...a lot of hippies never found their brain. Lennon's story is only shocking because of the icon he has become to the left. The saying attributed to Winston Churchill...
"If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain."
...has so much traction because it's so true.
You have to wonder what the heck happened to make the guy who wrote "Imagine" lose his imagination, the most important ingredient needed to fall for liberal arguments, to say nothing of that song.
"Naivete" is the key word in all of this. Imagination covers over reason and allows you to accept whatever you want to believe, liberals proceed to act on their imagination with near reckless abandon for how the world really works.
This is why I really really REALLY wish my modest proposal to build a real life Matrix for anyone left of center shouldn't go unheeded. It wouldn't be hard to figure out who belongs there, at 18 everyone takes a test with questions like:
"What's a four-letter profanity for money"
If your answer is "what?"...CONGRATULATIONS! You answered the question correctly and get to live in the real world.
If your answer is "capitalism"...CONGRATULATIONS! You answered the question correctly and get to spend a lifetime in the Matrix trying to bend "reality" to your liberal will.
I'm telling you, this is a great idea. Liberals get the control they've always wanted, and conservatives get the freedom mankind has always deserved.
You know, I've had a funny feeling for a while about this for a while, but he was killed a week before I was born. I'm not a big believer of reincarnation, but it may finally explain why I've always had the hots for Yoko Ono.Add a comment
David Brooks over at the New York Times thinks Obama's presidential style has made him a great Senate majority leader. Which I guess could be a great compliment, if you're a crossing guard.
That's not a shot at Obama, because a crossing guards are technically leaders too.
The public follows crossing guards out into oncoming traffic solely on the sense of hope they provide that it's safe to cross. So they never make that call unless its safe for them to cross too.
The stop signs they carry contain a message they intend for everyone else to follow but them. If nobody wants to listen to them then they'll just get run over, and there isn't anything they can really do about it.
Basically, crossing guards are the teleprompterless, underachieving, yet more successful step-cousin of Barack Obama.
One major difference I can think of is that crossing guards have more executive experience, they assess the situation on the street, make a judgement call, and then they just go for it. They don't confer with the kids and their parents. They don't think about it for 40 days or sleep on it (whichever ends first).
If a bunch of cars pile up in the intersection they definitely don't go off and play golf to clear their head.
Does that mean a good leader has to be a dictator? No, but we are facing problems that could end America as we know it, and right now crossing guards are more decisive than the President of the United States.
For starters, I'm going to go out on a limb and say they'd probably hold that stop sign up against our debt as it approaches the limit line.
They probably don't bow to foreign cars either.
Also, for crossing guards this....
....means "stop." For Obama it means "do I need a manicure Mahmoud?"
We should start having co-presidents, one can get things done and make decisions, and the other can bask in the glow of adoration and the medias flashing cameras until epilepsy sets in.Add a comment
h/t iOwnTheWorldAdd a comment
The best email I've seen in a while.
Add a comment
While hiking down along the border this morning, I saw a Muslim extremist fall into the Rio Grande River; he was struggling to stay afloat because of all the guns and bombs he was carrying.
Along with him was a Mexican who was also struggling to stay afloat because of the large backpack of drugs that was strapped to his back. If they didn't get help they'd surely drown.
Being a responsible Texan, and law abiding citizen, I know I have to help those in distress.
I immediately informed the El Paso County Sheriff's Office and Homeland Security.
It is now 4 pm, both have drowned, and neither authority has responded.
I'm starting to think I wasted two stamps...
Is Chris Wallace's latest Fox News Sunday stunt the meat in a controversy sandwich that he's building?
Well is she? Did Wallace miss her debate performance in New Hampshire?
Unless she's his lab rat for some psychology thesis, what purpose does the question serve? She's not going to say yes.
While Wallace did apologize, what makes Michele Bachmann the lucky recipient of such a question when the left itself is a bunch of flakes...
Here's a snowflake (one of a kind that melts under heat).
Here's a cornflake (no explanation needed here).
and then we have...
At the time this was, somehow, supposed to be a compliment because "THEY'RE GRRRRRRRREAT!" Which is something crack addicts say about what they use to frost their flakes, so it's a good thing President Obama didn't endorse Kellogs's "kindness" in any way
....I guess it's a thing us flake-haters can't understand.
In any case, take these flakes deep fry and cheese stuff them, and you have completed your recipe for liberalism.
That's why the country falls for them so much, they look tasty enough to binge on. After a short while your ass explodes, your depth perception gets screwed up because your second chin blocks your view of the floor, your appetite for anything healthy starts to fade.
Michele Bachmann isn't a flake, like any other conservative that sticks to their principles she would be more like the fat-burning workout the country needs to shed itself of its disgusting habits and feel good about itself again.
Oh geez Michele, why do you have to make the limb so wobbly? The MSM is going to bust her pretty hard for this. I sure do hope they don't ask her when Iowa became one of the 57 states, or if she owns any television sets from the 1920's. In other words, this is a much easier "mistake" to make than ones made by the frosted flakes (in fairness her campaign still contends it's not mistake and does justify that position).
But still...help a conservative brother out Michele!Add a comment
It's always entertaining to watch liberals like Maureen Dowd in her latest column trip over their own brilliance. Starting off with...
HE was born this way.
Not bisexual. Not even bipartisan. Just binary.
Our president likes to be on both sides at once.....
...and conclude with...
With each equivocation, the man in the Oval Office shields his identity and cloaks who the real Barack Obama is.
He should draw inspiration from the gay community: one thing gays have to do, after all, is declare who they are at all costs.
On some of the most important issues facing this nation, it is time for the president to come out of the closet.
Wasn't that SO clever how it wasn't about being gay.....and then it was? Is there any wonder why liberals get out of their leaders what their ideology puts into our system?
All they ever are is a confused hot mess of indecision, so of course the president they propagandize for would be too.
That's because liberalism at its core is something that doesn't sell well to most of the country. Obama's "obviously Christian" views on gay marriage are "evolving" because most of the country disagrees with his actual support for it.
He commits our military to action in Libya so he can point to at least one instance where America doesn't have a timid wilting flower of a President, and riding Bush's coattails on Afghanistan and Iraq isn't cutting it.....so he flexes this manhood while hiding behind the NATO skirt being worn by France.
He likes to lead from behind because it's not in liberalism's DNA to lead for real. Now we're stuck with President Buttsniffer. That's why his unofficial tag line when he bows before foreign leaders is "turn around."
When you think about it, it does kind of make sense that "leading from behind" is the only way to really guide gay marriage policy, or force rich people to "spread the wealth."
"Leading from behind" is actually the perfect way to nutshell liberalism's effect on America.
I guess the point is that "bi" means "gay in denial" and Obama should just join the side they're on already. So he should heed Dowd's advice and...
Trade in the blue ties for pink ones
Stimulate the economy by signaling it's time to buy stock in the company that owns Virginia Slims.
Hatch a deficit reduction scheme that includes participation in a special edition of some Home and Garden show with a "partner" as they work with a real estate agent to sell the White House. (not sell out, he's already done that)
He needs to just be himself, then the rest of the nation can finally join conservatives in realizing that we have leadership we can believe in...changing.Add a comment
The key issue at this point becomes the fact that hitting the debt ceiling doesn't force an automatic default or a government shutdown. Revenue continues to come in to the federal government. There's simply a gap between how much comes in and how much the government is supposed to spend....From Stink Progress
I never realized that government is SUPPOSED to spend the money it "budgets." Silly little me, I always thought it was choosing to overspend.
So imagine my surprise when I tried this out in the real world. I went to my unemployed neighbor and informed him that I'm supposed to be driving a car that has 4 hubcaps. So I needed him to fork over one of his. Nevermind he only had four, and if I made myself "whole" then he wouldn't be.
All I know is he better hope I don't lose one three more times....because then his ass is supposed to be grass.
What would I do without 40 watt bulbs of liberal brilliance like the one provided above by Matthew Yglesias? Every business I've ever worked for developed budgets based on the money that is available from revenue.
This must be why Obama keeps chiding the private sector to "step up" and just hire people already, because there are people out there that they're SUPPOSED to employ!
If government is SUPPOSED to spend what it budgets, guess what liberals think you're SUPPOSED to do...
Tax increases, particularly if targeted at the wealthy, show themselves again and again to be among the most popular ways to reduce the budget deficit.....
If you've gotten lost, the first thing to do is try and go back to way you came. After a decade of spending increases and tax cuts, that's what a package of spending cuts and tax increases would do. There's nothing radical about that notion, nothing that should force a halt to discussions and the sort of rhetoric we're hearing from the Republican side.
More from Ezra Klein here
Oh, is popularity a determinant factor of good policy now? How worried were liberals about popularity polls when they jammed down ObamaCare?
For a political party that prides themselves on nuance this is fantasitically two-dimensional rationale for tax hikes in a down economy. This is the end of the fiscal rope, and if debt were a foreign country that doesn't rhyme with "China," liberals would've spent stimulus money on white flags from France already.
Like I mentioned before this is more about Democrats futile effort to procure increasingly scare oxygen to keep their big government pipe dream on life support. Liberals are asking the country to accept the idea that the America we were raised with is over and done. Therefore government should, like the fat lady it is, be allowed to belt out a rendition of "Let Freedom Ring" while she sits on taxpayers.
Klein can site studies (in his column linked above) about "stabilizing" the debt (not prevention of it increasing, and definitely not reducing it...psssh!) by expiring the Bush tax cuts put out from groups funded by...........George Soros........all he wants, but no amount of liberal number dropping will hide the inescapable fact that the structure of govnerment must change, because even in the estimation of Soros's flying monkeys our debt still would've risen by trillions.
Fiddling with tax increases, even when it's in front of a backdrop of spending cuts (which was around $200 billion/year or just under 20% of the deficit, when talks stalled), is mathematically impossible to end our current deficits, much less bring down the debt.....even if the economy was rocking out like a Weiner Twitter party this would never be a feasible approach to solving the problem....
Liberals need the tax increases because they need to continue justifying their existence in American politics. Like any private sector business that can't sustain its size, government can't just cut spending, it has to shrink down to a size it can manage, period, end of story. This is government by and for the people, not by and for the ego of an increasingly defiant, arrogant and desperate liberal ideology.Add a comment
Republicans, including Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani, made a "strategic blunder" by making a joke of Barack Obama's work as a community organizer, Newt Gingrich says in a new book about the radical ACORN group.
It was "not helpful" for Palin and Giuliani to mock community organizing in their speeches at the 2008 Republican National ConventionMore at The American Spectator
Gingrich is right. I don't KNOW that he's right, but I'm taking his word for it. If anyone knows STRATEGIC BLUNDERS it's this guy....
It was a STRATEGIC BLUNDER to go on a cruise while his campaign was still trying to find its sea legs after his other STRATEGIC BLUNDER of criticizing the only serious attempt by Paul Ryan to deal with entitlement reform.
If we really want to go there, it was also a STRATEGIC BLUNDER to leave your wife for another woman.....TWICE. Unless you're a Democrat, then it's a litmus test.
Newt is getting by on the fact he is one of the smartest Republicans out there today, but he's obviously not that smart, or this post wouldn't exist.
But what about the merit of his assertion?
"It would have been better if Republican leaders "had gotten up and said, here is what [Obama] was teaching, and they had taken the audience through the five principles of [radical organizer Saul] Alinsky."
Yes, that would've been entirely appropriate for Sarah Palin's nomination speech, to turn it into a history lesson on "commieunity" organizing.
I don't disagree that's what the McCain campaign should've done, which would've provided the air power needed to bolster conservative media hitting Obama on his past...but the presidential debates, and general election campaign speeches are better forums for that. Unfortunately for Gingrich, he wont know what it will be like to participate in either.Add a comment