I just received an email that requested I visit an anti ‘r-word’ website and pledge my support towards ending use of the word ‘retarded’, which these P.C. pussies boldly refer to as the ‘r-word’.

I went to the site. This is what I wrote:

“I pledge and support the elimination of Politically Correct insanity that would eliminate the use of a completely acceptable and accurate word from our vocabulary rather than admonish those who would misuse it.”

Yes, I’m fully aware they won’t publish it.

This uproar over Rahm Emanuel’s use of the term ‘fucking retarded’ is ridiculous; his response and the media reaction is pure insanity.

It’s not the word that is the problem, it’s the use of the word as a pejorative. I’ll even go so far as to admit that its as a pejorative is a rather large problem. But is the answer really to ban the word or refer to it – in a most infantile way – as the ‘r-word’?

Of course not.

Banning a word or referring to it as we once did as children (MOM! JOEY SAID THE F-WORD!!) does nothing but attempt to mask the problem. It’s like trying to fix rust by hiding it under a fresh coat of paint.

The idea, that by somehow eliminating a word deemed offensive from our vocabulary we will also eliminate the stigma attached to its misuse, is flawed to its core. The stigma will simply transfer to whatever word or term is used to replace it. In fact, it already has. If you haven’t heard the jokes and slurs centered on the word ‘challenged’, you have simply not been listening.

If we want to attack the underlying problem, we start – as we do in so many situations where the PC police would otherwise attempt to run the show – by teaching our children the difference between right and wrong, and that intentionally insulting anyone – regardless of physical/mental abilities or lack thereof – is unacceptable. That is where this whole argument should begin and end. Unfortunately, this would require both discipline and personal responsibility, two concepts virtually unknown to the liberal PC crowd except as the occasional punch line.

The word ‘retarded’, like it or not, is accurate and correct when applied to those now referred to ‘mentally challenged’ (or whatever the acceptable-pc-obfuscation-of-the-week happens to be as of this writing), and probably the least offensive of any of the PC-concocted terms created to replace it.

I’m not going to devote a lot of time to this, but in closing I would like you to consider the following: how many words in the English language are or can be used in an ‘offensive’ manner? If we eliminated all of them, what would we be left with?

We as free Americans need to draw the line.

American Thinker has a great piece on this very subject this morning that begins with a Confucius quote:

“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”

…..

-Cnation

From the GOP:

Pence Decries Democrat Debt Limit Increase and PAYGO

“American people long for this administration and this Congress to lead us away from the brink of fiscal disaster

Washington, DC – U.S. Congressman Mike Pence, Chairman of the House Republican Conference, delivered the following remarks today on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in opposition to H. J. Res. 45, Democrat legislation that will increase the national debt limit by a record $1.9 trillion:

“Time for a little bit of truth telling about their side and about our side. The truth telling about our side is that back when we were in charge we didn’t do so well on controlling runaway federal spending. My colleagues, who know me well, know that I, many times, found myself at cross purposes in fighting the president of my own party and some leadership of my own party in some of those big spending fights. But under the last administration we doubled the national debt. I want to stipulate to that. But frankly, that’s no excuse for what’s happening today, Madam Speaker.

“Over the last three years, the Democrat majority has literally broken the ceiling on fiscal responsibility, and as I just admitted, that ceiling was pretty high. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January, 2007, the national debt had increased by $3.96 trillion, a 42 percent increase in three years. To keep up with this spending binge, Congress has increased the debt limit five times over the last 19 months. Three times since the current administration took office one year ago. And the statutory debt increase that comes before us today, $1.9 trillion, is the largest one-time debt increase in U.S. history.

“This is the fifth increase, as I mentioned, in the last 19 months. This one-time increase in the debt limit of $1.9 trillion is actually larger than the entire GDP of almost every country in the world.  It’s larger than the GDP of Canada, Russia, Spain, or Brazil. And it’s larger than the GDP of Australia and Poland combined. The American people are looking at this extraordinary gusher of spending and debt and they are asking the question: ‘When will it stop?’  And the answer is, as we look at the budget that the administration submitted earlier this week, no time soon.

“I hasten to add, the administration, just this week, announced plans for a budget $3.8 trillion in scope, with a $1.6 trillion deficit and $2 trillion in higher taxes.  And let me say with respect, the American people looking in ought not to be deceived by the promises of fiscal discipline known as ‘PAYGO.’  And the truth is, the bill before us today is 58 pages long and 32 of those pages are all the programs that are exempted from the PAYGO requirements.  Forty percent of federal spending is exempted from the fiscal discipline fix that we’re being told is encompassed in PAYGO.  The truth is, PAYGO really means here in Washington: you pay and they go on spending.

“The fact is that what we see here is a failure of leadership.  President Obama, as a United States Senator, said in March of 2006, when he came out against raising the debt limit in a vote, ‘The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s recklessness.  America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.’  So said then-Senator Barack Obama, March 2006.  Let me suggest he was right, then, and his words are equally true today.

“The American people long for us to put our fiscal house in order.  They long for us to embrace true fiscal discipline and reform.  They long for this administration and this Congress to lead us away from the brink of fiscal disaster.
This PAYGO, this debt ceiling vote, is no solution, and I urge its opposition.”

To view this floor speech, click here.

…..

-Cnation

When Did the American People Elect Eric Holder Commander in Chief?

Following weeks of strong bipartisan criticism of their handling of terror trials and detainees, Attorney General Eric Holder released a letter yesterday defending the Obama administration’s criminal justice system approach to prosecuting the war against al-Qaeda. Defending his administration’s handling of the Flight 253 terrorist, Holder wrote: “I made the decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab with federal crimes, and to seek his detention in connection with those charges, the knowledge of, and with no objection from, all other relevant departments of the government.”

First, this statement directly contradicts the sworn Congressional testimony of Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair who, when asked by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) under oath if he had been consulted about how Abdulmutallab should have been interrogated, responded: “I was not consulted.” Under intense political pressure from the White House, Blair has since said his remarks were “misconstrued.” But his politically-pressured retraction was not made under oath. His initial statement was. At the very minimum, Congress must demand that both Holder and Blair testify under oath to settle this contradiction.

But more importantly, both the personal pronouns and the underlying substance of Holder’s letter speaks volumes about this administration’s approach to protecting the American people. Holder wrote yesterday: “Neither advising Abdulmutallab of his Miranda rights nor granting him access to counsel prevents us from obtaining intelligence from him. On the contrary, history shows that the federal justice system is an extremely effective tool for gathering intelligence.” Holder appears to be arguing that reading suspects their Miranda rights is a great way to get them to talk. But as American University law professor Kenneth Anderson notes: “The point of offering suspects the Miranda warning and associated rights is not in order to persuade them to talk, but in order to make sure they know they don’t have to and, if they have much in the way of brains, won’t.” Read the rest of this entry »

…fucking Avatarded:

…..

-Cnation

A Budget for a European Welfare State

Last Friday, President Barack Obama accepted an invitation from House Republicans to speak and answer questions at the Republican House Issues Conference. During the Q&A period, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) pressed the President: The spending bills that you’ve signed into law, the domestic discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated level beginning next year. … So my question is, why not start freezing spending now?" President Obama replied: "The fact of the matter is, is that most of the increases in this year’s budget, this past year’s budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession. So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before I was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. … Now, the reason that I’m not proposing the discretionary freeze take into effect this year — we prepared a budget for 2010, it’s now going forward — is, again, I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best. And what they will say is that if you either increase taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a de-stimulative effect and potentially you’d see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off." First of all, note that the President never contradicted Rep. Ryan’s factual claim that discretionary spending under President Obama has increased 84%. But more importantly, notice how eagerly the President attempts to make it seem like he had no choice in the matter by shifting the blame for our nation’s deficits to other administrations. Earlier in that same Q&A, the President said he did not want "to re-litigate the past." Fair enough. Our focus should be on our future policies, and the budget the Obama administration released yesterday is a great place to start. Heritage Foundation fellow Brian Riedl has completed a quick analysis of the budget released yesterday, and this is what President Obama’s policies would do:

• Permanently expand the federal government by nearly 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) over 2007 pre-recession levels;
• Raise taxes on all Americans by more than $2 trillion over the next decade (counting health care reform and cap and trade);
• Raise taxes for 3.2 million small businesses and upper-income taxpayers by an average of $300,000 over the next decade;
• Leave permanent deficits that top $1 trillion in as late as 2020; and
• Double the publicly held national debt to over $18 trillion.

Riedl adds: "Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per U.S. household. President Obama would hike it to $36,000 per household by 2020 — an inflation-adjusted $12,000-per-household expansion of government." The deficit reduction measures proposed in the President’s budget are all more rhetoric than action. The Pay-as-You-Go provisions and spending freeze cover such tiny fractions of the budget and are so filled with loopholes that they are destined to be ineffectual. The President’s Deficit Reduction Commission is compromised by a lack of legislative "fast track" protections, a deadline that sends recommendations to a lame duck Congress, and a complete lack of any public hearings that allow for Americans’ input. Commenting on the President Obama’s budget, Rep. Ryan tells National Review Online: "This budget presents a choice of two futures. … This budget is about more than specific programs or policies. It is really about the American idea, and whether we want to move towards a European-style welfare state." Or as then-California Gov. Ronald Reagan put it in a slightly different context over 40 years ago: "This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves."

The downward spiral continues as the most inept and destructive administration in American history works its magic.

From Reuters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House will predict a record budget deficit in the current fiscal year and more big shortfalls for the next decade in its upcoming budget proposal, a congressional source told Reuters on Sunday.

In its budget proposal to be released on Monday, the White House predicts a record $1.6 trillion budget deficit for the fiscal year that ends September 30, the Capitol Hill source said.

According to the estimate, deficits will narrow to $700 billion by fiscal 2013 before gradually rising back to $1.0 trillion by the end of the decade, the source said.

President Barack Obama will seek to strike a balance between reducing the deficit over the long term and stimulating the economy in the short term to ease the pain of double-digit unemployment.

Criticized by Republicans as a big spender, Obama used his State of the Union address last week to tell Americans he would dig the country out of a “massive fiscal hole.”

That hole is even deeper than previously believed, according to the estimate by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

The estimate for the current fiscal year is significantly higher than the $1.35 trillion figure forecast by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office last week.

Despite the difference, both estimates indicate that the deficit will continue to hover at a level not seen since World War Two, when measured as a percentage of the economy. Last year the government posted a $1.4 trillion deficit.

Notice that the throngs of liberal weasels who were all over president Bush for his deficits – a fraction of what the Obama administration has rung up – are nowhere to be found on this. It’s really quite amazing, isn’t it?

…..

-Cnation