Sarah Rips Obama A New One

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here's another blast from Sarah:

Going Rogue in the Wrong Direction

As more information about the IRS scandal trickles out daily, the White House’s involvement is becoming clearer. Those of us who’ve been warning about the demise of freedom with Barack Obama’s efforts to “fundamentally transform” our great nation are about to witness some sad vindication. Will awakened Americans finally join us in saying “enough is enough”?

The president would like us to believe that he only learned about the IRS corruption from watching the news. But we recently learned that the White House was actively working with the IRS on how to roll out the story of this scandal. So, Mr. President, how can you have your staff work on the roll out of the biggest controversy since Watergate, and yet claim that you only heard about it by watching the news with the rest of us?

For the President to deny any knowledge of what was brewing and to claim to know nothing about the Benghazi cover-up or anything about anything White House-related lately, he’s either a liar or a hugely incompetent CEO. You decide.

Yesterday, we also learned that the top IRS official involved in the targeting scandal is planning on pleading the Fifth during her Congressional hearings. That's keen – she’ll be able to enjoy her Fifth Amendment rights in a hearing about how her intimidating organization denied Americans the ability to fully exercise their First Amendment rights.

Keep in mind that the IRS considers you guilty until proven innocent when they audit you. The Fifth Amendment doesn’t apply.

This scandal is not just about the IRS targeting Americans to deny them tax-except status or subjecting them to harassing retaliatory audits. The IRS also leaked to leftwing reporters the confidential application information submitted by conservative groups.

The IRS claims that their leaking of information was “inadvertent and unintentional disclosures by the employees involved.” They at first blamed the entire IRS scandal on a couple of employees who “went rogue,” but we soon found out that this was just more malarkey coming from the president’s spokesman. But even if these were “inadvertent and unintentional disclosures,” is that supposed to make us feel better? With the IRS running Obamacare, what are the chances that our confidential information and medical records will “inadvertently” and “unintentionally” be disclosed? Please remember that some of us warned America about the dangers of having the IRS play such a big role in the administration of Obamacare. We were laughed at and mocked relentlessly back then. It sure doesn’t seem funny now, does it?

This IRS scandal is especially terrible because Americans live in fear of the IRS like no other entity because this monstrous bureaucracy has the power to take your hard-earned money. Your wages are the sum of your labors; hence, the IRS has the power to steal the fruits of your labors. Average Americans live in fear of making an error on their tax returns that could cost them massive amounts of money, plus their reputation and good name. If a small business makes a mistake, the IRS can shut them down and send them to jail.

The IRS has always been the face of intimidating and controlling big government. Now it’s the face of corrupt big government that actively attacks the people it is supposed to serve. This isn’t the change America was hoping for, Mr. President, but it certainly is transformative.

Average everyday Americans like my dad and his non-political buddies are outraged by this IRS scandal, perhaps more so than all the other White House fiascos that are making the radical Left’s intentions crystal clear. It’s because this IRS cluster hits close to home for everyone. It’s tangible proof of how a corrupt government can intimidate and target a person’s record, reputation, and life, and make them feel helpless.

These Obama administration scandals are a sad and stark reminder that only limited government can ensure liberty. At our core, we Americans just want to be left alone to live freely, peacefully, and productively.

Last year the Obama campaign told us that government is something we all “belong” to. I guess they’re right because when the government is powerful enough to target, intimidate, and harass us, we do “belong” to them. The real question is: Will we stand for this?

These atrocious government actions are bigger, uglier, and much more dangerous than “a few rogue employees.” It’s time for all Americans to stand together and join in the growing outraged chorus that looks at our out-of-control government and says, “Enough is enough!”

There's a gem in the middle of that. It's one of the main reasons I support Sarah and dismiss the accusations of her wanting to establish a theocracy. It just ain't true.

"These Obama administration scandals are a sad and stark reminder that only limited government can ensure liberty. At our core, we Americans just want to be left alone to live freely, peacefully, and productively."

Amen.

And if she ever gets in power again, I believe she will do it, not just talk about it and sell out. I see it easily. She will chop down the size of government and release constraints on individual rights--especially those in the economic and intellectual realm.

Michael

[Dglgmut]

She gave her approval to Ron Paul when everyone else was calling him crazy, so she's okay with me.

[Brant Gaede]

I get the impression Kacy chased himself off OL. (For now?)

--Brant

he bemoaned ad hominem but did little ad intellectualum which was all that was needed to stop the former

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I think Kacy wanted me to take a position on his feud instead of calling the whole thing silly, which is what I did.

When people get all wound up about what others write about them in public, either they haven't developed their online chops yet, or they are insecure about what others think and don't trust readers to come to their own conclusions.

And that's even sillier on this forum because OL readers tend to be really, really smart.

If, over the years, I were overly-concerned and felt I had to defend my reputation to the death every time someone wrote something bad about me (and there certainly has been a crap-load of that), OL simply would not exist.

Kacy's a good dude with an awesome mind. So are his sidekicks. I sincerely believe that.

(But, boy, are those dudes sidekicks. They can't even say, "Good morning!" without saying it somehow proves Kacy is this or that. Hopefully one day they will grow out of it and become their own men.)

In terms of coming and going, what any of them chooses as good for them is also good for OL.

If they leave, that's good for OL. If they only lurk, that's good for OL. If they stay and post and interact with people here, that's good for OL.

Even should they become trolls who need traffic cop attention (which I doubt will ever happen), that's also good for OL.

Here we are equal opportunity goodness.

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

Michael - SB and I have been up-front that we're here for our own entertainment. Since we aren't being compensated for our contributions, I think it's safe to say that most here are seeking the same in some form or another. As Brant points out, idle hands perform the devil's work. All I really asked from Kacy was a demonstrated willingness to question his own assumptions and engage in good-faith debate. Unfortunately, that prerequisite was never met by him, so our tires were perennially stuck in the mud with ad hominem back-and-forth and other junk-food entertainment where the substance should have been. "Glenn Beck sucks" "No, he doesn't" becomes a wearisome exercise rather quickly, and one gets the distinct impression in such threads that we're really just an audience to the originator playing solitaire with himself. I'm not particularly concerned with what popular entertainers (it's important to remember they are entertainers) say on their programs to get ratings. Nor do I consider "Rand Paul - drug warrior" to be topic worth any serous investigation or response. Now if the topic were "How principled do we want to be with our votes?," I find that a much more interesting topic, which is why I attempted (and failed) to steer the discussion in that direction.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since we aren't being compensated for our contributions...

RB,

Nor are you paying for this platform.

If you get no value here, there is no obligation to do anything. If you do get value here, you are free to participate without charge or compensation.

There is no implicit "you are doing OL a favor" in that arrangement. Let me be clear. You are not doing me, or anyone else, a favor by being here.

Here's the way it works. You receive value and you give it if you like. And the currency is intellectual, not monetary. That's it. Nothing more. Any other perception of this arrangement is a mistake.

With one exception. We do have donors who sometimes contribute money. Some people do that because they find their own value in it, and that sure helps, too. I believe all who use OL owe them a thank you. But nobody is required to donate anything.

On another point, you're still trying to prove Kacy wrong, aren't you? Do you think someday you will ever achieve that fundamental goal that seems to drive much of your writing?

(Hint -- OL readers don't need to be controlled. They are perfectly capable of coming to their own conclusions.)

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

Michael - I'm furiously rereading my post to determine how you misunderstood my meaning so badly. That we receive value here through dialog was precisely the point I was attempting to make. It is the reason I read and post here, and I neither expect nor deserve any monetary compensation for it. As SB said, ideas are the coin of this realm, and that is precisely the kind of return on investment I am seeking here.

My list of examples (to which Dennis and SB so kindly added) was intended to demonstrate that Kacy *can* be convinced of his wrongheadedness, but a controlled blasting of his calcified mental defenses (what I believe you call cybernetic programs) is required before any real progress can be made. This is why your chastisement of the "Alex Jones sucks" game didn't take the first round, and subsquent entries in the "Fill-in-the-blank sucks" series materialized shortly after. I'm sure you recognize the pattern of antagonizing conservatives even more clearly now that you are familiar with his social media feed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

RB,

I don't really care what Kacy thinks unless I am discussing something with him.

I don't speak for other OL members, but knowing them like I do, I'm pretty sure many feel the same.

Using Kacy's rhetoric as an example of cybernetic thinking is one thing. It's instructive--not of him, but of the process. Each person who posts is subject to being evaluated. Rand said, "Judge and be prepared to be judged." Some people are interested in processes and ideas, and others are interested in the person.

So some (like me) will take apart his rhetoric and others will call him good or evil or somewhere in between.

Whatever.

But trying to control him and obsessively pointing the finger at him all the time is weird. What I have seen so far is way beyond expressing an opinion or engaging in playful banter.

This is actually a first here on OL, i.e., 3 dudes show up and start playing tattle-tag on each other with all the melodramatic intensity of a soap opera, with 2 on one side and 1 on the other.

You, RB, have an awesome mind. I've read some of your posts, so I speak from looking and evaluating.

Why not reprogram your own cybernetic goal and use that beautiful instrument for something of real value instead of Kacy Kacy Kacy Kacy Kacy?

Nobody gives a crap about the Kacy stuff. When you keep grinding on and on about him like you do, I get the impression I'm looking at a high-pedigree race horse tethered to a ugly old half-broken wooden wagon and delivering groceries on dirt roads in farm-country.

Anyway, it's your instrument, not mine. Your life. Your choice.

Michael

[Robert Baratheon]

Michael - Frankly, I was off the topic until Brant reintroduced it and you responded. I interpreted that as a green light to share my input as a participant in said feud. I apologize if it was not intended as such. Looking forward to many good discussions on OL.

[PDS]

Reasonable minds accept that, at some point in an individual's rise to celebrity, his or her writings morph into more of a "brand" where direct authorship is replaced with systematic endorsement. So ragging on Sarah Palin for not writing every one of her opinion pieces and newsletters is just belaboring the obvious and besides the point. Yes, these celebrity politicians are profiting from the work of others, but they become accountable for the works of others as well. If we're being honest, Obama's central duty is reading scripts that are prepared for him, i.e., he is a brand, complete with his own logo. Reasonable minds know and accept this. But, rightly so, we hold him accountable for the ideas that fly under his brand as if they are his own, and we should now approach Sarah Palin's brand in the same way.

Amen! It is delightful seeing reason at work in a head not my own.

That's what OL is for: rare treats of rationality.

--Brant

watch the gears go 'round, albeit rarely

Agreed!

RB is much better when not laced with Kacy.

[Robert Baratheon]

Reasonable minds accept that, at some point in an individual's rise to celebrity, his or her writings morph into more of a "brand" where direct authorship is replaced with systematic endorsement. So ragging on Sarah Palin for not writing every one of her opinion pieces and newsletters is just belaboring the obvious and besides the point. Yes, these celebrity politicians are profiting from the work of others, but they become accountable for the works of others as well. If we're being honest, Obama's central duty is reading scripts that are prepared for him, i.e., he is a brand, complete with his own logo. Reasonable minds know and accept this. But, rightly so, we hold him accountable for the ideas that fly under his brand as if they are his own, and we should now approach Sarah Palin's brand in the same way.

Amen! It is delightful seeing reason at work in a head not my own.

That's what OL is for: rare treats of rationality.

--Brant

watch the gears go 'round, albeit rarely

Agreed!

RB is much better when not laced with Kacy.

I'm hesitant to interrupt the praise, PDS, and it is very much appreciated. But in the interest of full disclosure, my comments were a rebuttal to post #2 in which Kacy's admonished Sarah Palin for not authoring everything published under her name.

[PDS]

Reasonable minds accept that, at some point in an individual's rise to celebrity, his or her writings morph into more of a "brand" where direct authorship is replaced with systematic endorsement. So ragging on Sarah Palin for not writing every one of her opinion pieces and newsletters is just belaboring the obvious and besides the point. Yes, these celebrity politicians are profiting from the work of others, but they become accountable for the works of others as well. If we're being honest, Obama's central duty is reading scripts that are prepared for him, i.e., he is a brand, complete with his own logo. Reasonable minds know and accept this. But, rightly so, we hold him accountable for the ideas that fly under his brand as if they are his own, and we should now approach Sarah Palin's brand in the same way.

Amen! It is delightful seeing reason at work in a head not my own.

That's what OL is for: rare treats of rationality.

--Brant

watch the gears go 'round, albeit rarely

Agreed!

RB is much better when not laced with Kacy.

I'm hesitant to interrupt the praise, PDS, and it is very much appreciated. But in the interest of full disclosure, my comments were a rebuttal to post #2 in which Kacy's admonished Sarah Palin for not authoring everything published under her name.

I know.

But I will never let mere facts get in the way of a good jab or semi-decent pun.

You really are better when riding bareback, and I hope you stick around this forum.

Your point about branding is especially apt, both as regards Palin and Obama. I would dare say the last President who did his own thinking may have been Clinton. That's a rather unpleasant thought.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

RB is much better when not laced with Kacy.

David,

I can easily see that phrase becoming a thing:

God, he's so Kacy-laced!

Boy, did we Kacy-lace that sucker!

Sorry, I was just Kacy-lacing...

Michael