Part of the frustration we conservatives feel, is simply the refusal of the political left to debate within the confines of what actual reality would dictate to be the starting point for any discussion in the arena of ideas. The spin of events as a regular interpretation to fit a narrative before any substantive discussion takes place has become so regular an occurrence, that whenever anybody questions the given premise, watching liberals try to comprehend the objection is a little like watching the science fiction cult classic, "Scanners." In that movie, a psychic killer would strike, and we were treated to 15 or so seconds of film time devoted to people's heads vibrating with a glazed look in their eyes until their heads literally just exploded. We,ll of course have to review some examples.
The President has been traveling the country lately, drumming up popular support for his Buffett Rule, which as it turns out is nothing more than a proposed increase in the Capital Gains Rate. During his latest attempt to legislate, "fairness," otherwise known by sane people as class envy, he claims that this is his attempt to solve our deficit spending problem. The media's part of the spin, not one person associated with the major media openly laughed at our President when he made this statement. Let's be honest with one another, that statement not only deserves derision, but outright open guffaws. According to the CBO, using the laughably inaccurate baseline budgeting technique, estimates that the Buffett Rule would increase our revenues by $3 Billion per year. Baseline budgeting of course, as we've discussed before, is a purposefully dishonest accounting trick which by law, forces things which have been proven to create a decrease in revenue to be viewed as an increase, and vice versa. In this instance, it assumes that the Warren Buffetts of the world will not take steps to shelter their wealth from taxation by placing their investments over seas, as they have every other time we've penalized their capital gains. Assuming however that we did actually increase the federal revenues by $3 Billion rather than what historically has always been the result of such measures, how much deficit reduction would this rule actually accomplish. Well, as luck would have it, a simple amount of 3rd grade level math can answer this question for us. Our deficit currently is $1.6 Trillion per year. We'll round down to 1.5, just to make it easy. A Trillion is exactly 1000 time a Billion. So, the $3 Billion would be able to cover the $1.5 Trillion in 500 years, assuming no interest, inflation, future deficits, book keeping errors, or future total collapses of our entire economy as predicted by the CBO in 2027. That entire discussion takes place even before we consider the already in place whopping debt of $15 Trillion and change. With all of this, not a single main stream media source has ever questioned their masters about the math, spending as a part of the problem, introducing more and even more expensive entitlements to the legally obligated portion of our non existent budget, which by the way, has not been passed since the Democrats took control of the House in 2007.
Another example happened during the Obamacare debate. When asked by a conservative blogger about where in the Constitution the Democrats found authority to pass such sweeping legislation that clearly violates every principle upon which our republic was founded, Nancy Pelosi simply laughed and answered, "are you serious?." Within each reporting of the main stream media, there was a plethora of liberal pundits, posing as objective news reporters who were gleefully pointing out that anyone who thought that the challenges of the law in the court system had any merit were intellectually inferior. So, when Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy pointed out, very astutely, that this particular legislation has some real problems with the Tenth Amendment, namely that it gives the Executive Branch an unchecked authority to just grant itself new power, the same liberal press had a fun to watch meltdown. There was nothing quite like watching Jeffrey Toobin, the CNN Legal Expert, describe the oral arguments at the supreme court to be a, "train wreck," as if the vast majority of the American People were not dead set against this law, and indeed hoping for the high court to strike this monstrous destruction of our entire way of life down. Yet when President Obama described it days later, he proclaimed it to be bi-partisan effort passed with approval of a large majority in our Legislative Branch. Not a single laugh was recorded amongst the press covering the President at that moment, which is something reality would have dictated.
I read somewhere this morning that when the President or any of his minions speak, we should expect to hear the theme music from the, "Twilight Zone," and that famous Rod Serling narration. My apologies to whomever I quoted, I can not remember where I had read it. That statement really strikes at the nub of the matter doesn't it. In order to see things through the liberal prism, you need to exist, mentally anyhow in an alternate universe, where facts are indeed subjective, and distinctions between good and evil, honesty and falsehood are merely a matter of semantics. It doesn't matter in the slightest that decreases across the board in marginal tax rates have always resulted in increases in federal revenues, we will still assume that by increasing taxes on people we don't want you to like will result in a deficit reduction. It doesn't matter at all that our spending on asinine uses of our money, and that the government has not ever succeeded in any of its endeavors into what should be the private sector, those who wish to make their own decisions as to what to do with the fruits of their own labor are labeled as selfish, and the people who did nothing to produce those fruits are labeled as righteous when they come to confiscate that wealth. We have real live examples of the model cities,(Detroit,) fiasco in existence already in America, yet I am still seeing it being taught as a part of our elementary education curricula.
About a year ago, a friend of mine signed me up for a facebook group of liberals who wished to discuss politics on line. It seems that they wanted a few conservatives to debate. It took me about 10 days to be kicked out of the group. One of the college kiddies told me after the third day that he thought it would be nice if, as a conservative, I would write about why all conservatives were knuckle dragging redneck morons who were not smart enough to just accept the liberal worldview. He thought I would be spending my time explaining why we supported Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, even when everyone, wink wink, knew that they did not deserve to be defended for their obvious crimes against dear leader. Cue the Twilight Zone music. As it turns out, they were completely unprepared for any actual argument which went against their worldview, and they certainly were not willing to read such blasphemous words. Tough to debate with someone who is unwilling to at the very least acknowledge your side of the debate. This is where we are in America now. Compromise is just another word for let us have our own way. I used to think that the left worked so hard at censorship because they did not feel capable of defeating us in the arena of ideas, but I realized something even more nefarious is happening here. They would never know if they were capable of defeating us in that arena, as they have never once contemplated any of our arguments. How could they? They simply don't want to take the chance that an alternative view point exists, anywhere. In order for people to be continuously against their will to behave as the political elites wish, they must be totally controlled. That is why they are always striving to silence the right. It's not that they fear losing the debate, it's that they don't want to allow a debate to take place.