"You will never be the best version of yourself if you allow other people to convince you, that you can't be better because of your skin color, because of your sexual identity, because of the community you came from... you must resist those narratives at all costs if you truly want to be successful in America." - Charley Kirk
In this April 2, 2015, file photo, a visitor leaves the Sacramento Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Rancho Cordova, Calif. The number of veterans seeking health care but ending up on waiting lists of one month or more is 50 percent higher now than it was a year ago when a scandal over false records and long wait times wracked the Department of Veterans Affairs, The New York Times reported Saturday, June 20, 2015, online ahead of its Sunday editions.
RICH PEDRONCELLI/AP
The Associated Press
Published: June 21, 2015
WASHINGTON — The number of veterans seeking health care but ending up on waiting lists of one month or more is 50 percent higher now than it was a year ago when a scandal over false records and long wait times wracked the Department of Veterans Affairs, The New York Times reported.
The VA also faces a budget shortfall of nearly $3 billion, the Times reported in a story posted online ahead of its Sunday editions. The agency is considering furloughs, hiring freezes and other significant moves to reduce the gap, the newspaper reported.
In the last year, the VA has increased capacity by more than 7 million patient visits per year, double what officials originally thought they needed to fix shortcomings, the Times reported. However, the newspaper added, department officials did not anticipate just how much physician workloads and demand from veterans would continue to soar. At some major veterans hospitals, demand was up by one-fifth, the paper reported.
Citing interviews with department officials and internal department budget documents it had obtained, the Times reported that doctors and nurses have handled 2.7 million more appointments than in any previous year, while authorizing 900,000 additional patients to see outside physicians.
We're hearing a great deal about "banning" recently.
The left is very big about "banning" when the thing THEY want "banned" is on their agenda.
They want to ignore the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and ban guns.
They want to ignore the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and ban flags.
They want to ignore the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and ban conservative speakers... particularly on college campuses.
They want THEIR freedom.... their freedom to burn My Flag, for example. But if THEY perceive something THEY don't like?
Ban it.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is quite the stilted, hypocritical view of freedom.
The left believes in "freedom," as long as it's THEIR version of it.
Today, for example, "racism" was dissected by Greg Jayne channeling Jon Stewart.
Have to wonder: when is Greg going to channel someone when that person disagrees with him?
I won't live that long, to be sure.
But like everything else in life, the left ascribes all blame to the right... and to racism exclusively based on skin color, or the lack thereof, so they strike out at symbols as if those symbols caused the deaths in that South Carolina church.
The Nation is shocked and sickened by what happened in that church. But what happened in that church is called "Friday" in Chicago, and no one gives a damn.
Why? The primary difference between the victims of Chicago's murder tornado that goes on week after week after week with the rare peep from any of the race hucksters making a buck off of the blood of these people and children... spilled primarily... by those of the same color.
Where's Jayne's and Stewart's demands to fix THAT slaughterhouse where hundreds are murdered EVERY YEAR... most black... by other blacks.
Where's the demand for change on that, save for, banning guns?
That's not remotely the case, however. A sick, twisted individual caused those deaths. And the issue of racism is far more complicated.
First, racism as a source is colorblind.
Is there condemnation of black racism?
Of course not.
Instead, we get this "white privilege" bullshit.
Well, in the Civil War, 600,000 white Union troops or so had the "white privilege" of getting killed to end the practice of slavery.
An equal number or so were maimed by wounds and disease. Anything owed the people of a darker skin color was paid in full with that sacrifice.
And here we are, some 150 years later, still inculcating everyone, regardless of color, that to be a black in the year 2015 is to be a victim of racism, a stereotype fostered by the Jaynes and the Stewarts of the world.
I definitely experienced this. There was a time in my 20s when everything I learned about the history of racism made me hate myself, my Whiteness, my ancestors... and my descendants. I remember deciding that I couldn't have biological children because I didn't want to propagate my privilege biologically.
Racism of the type Jayne channels Stewart for certainly does exist.
But it's practitioners are of all colors... not just white. And the causes have many facets.
And as cancers on our society such as affirmative action, where mediocrity of the right skin tone is prized over achievement regardless of color continue to eat away at our society at the expense of personal achievement... racism becomes that chronic condition that removes the element of personal responsibility from the equation of life.
Encapsulated by the racist mayor of Baltimore who, essentially, declared a large part of that city a riot zone that resulted in police essentially standing by and watching thugs loot and burn primarily minority owned businesses... while she had the expectation the Obama government would just write her a huge FEMA check to cover the damage.
After all, she's black and Obama's black, and he already craps all over the law and the Constitution... so what could go wrong?
My oldest is in law school. He's half-Asian. He worked his butt off throughout his academic life to achieve his goals. He takes total responsibility for his failures and his successes, as complete a responsibility as possible.
NO ONE has given him anything. He's no doubt (rightfully) proud of that.
Is that a function of his diluted by white-privilege Asian blood line?
Does anyone reading this believe that it could be?
Or is it, perhaps, instead an inculcation by his parentage that HE is solely responsible for his outcomes and that while he may encounter racism in his life, he has to overcome it and continue his march to whatever he wants to be in life? That his kinda brown skin may be a speed bump of sorts, but not an insurmountable wall? And that he, as an individual, is the one most responsible for his outcomes?
Is that what the parents of other minorities teach their children?
When I was young,,, from around age 6 to age 12, I was one of the few white kids attending T.T. Minor Elementary in Seattle... a primarily black school located in the heart of Seattle's Central District on Capitol Hill.
As a result, *I* experienced racism... just not of the variety talked about in this day and age.
Like the leftists who fail to ever serve in the military dictating what the military should do, those like Jayne and Stewart who do not have multi-racial children, do not and have not directly experienced racism on any level... seem to be the ones talking about it the most... rarely developing any meaningful plan to deal with it.
They have no actual experience with these issues, you see: they go by what they've "seen," or "heard," or "read" or, in the case of Jayne, because someone (Stewart) told him to think that way.
The repeating of this ignorance, for example,
"We're bringing it on ourselves. And that's the thing. Al-Qaida, all those guys, ISIS, they're not s#!* compared to the damage that we can apparently do to ourselves on a regular basis."
First, neither Jayne nor Stewart have a clue what ISIS is doing. They deliberately chose NOT to know, because to know would bring the moral imperative that we must act, that we must work to eradicate ISIS and it's followers from the face of the earth. And that's far too uncomfortable a conclusion for those who never served to arrive at.
Second, as I have shown, much of the damage is, in fact, self-inflicted. But they fail to recognize or understand what the causes for that actually are... and they certainly fail to offer any vision on how to address those causes..
Save for the Nazi-like banning of a flag which they are the sole arbiters of determining the meaning of.
Unfortunately, they also neglected to show where eliminating said flag would have, in any way, made any difference in any of these outcomes, anywhere.
Because it wouldn't.
So, here we have a classic example of political bait and switch: the confusion of motion with action.
Jayne finishes off his leftist screed with this beaut:
Think about that. The Confederate battle flag still flies, 150 years after the end of the Civil War, on the grounds of the South Carolina state capital. And Confederate generals are honored for their brave fight to preserve the right to enslave other human beings. And we wonder whether this tacit approval of a despicable history has anything to do with the racial divide in this country.
It must make Greg's head hurt to consider that the flag in question may mean something else... something different.
Nope. He's the only guy that can make that call, so he makes it.
Others may take a different view that might pique white leftist liberal Jayne's guilt just a touch.
(I got these links from Lew Water's blog)
Odd, isn't it? Something of a dichotomy. A couple of white boys that don't know any more about race than they do quantum mechanics, point to a flag as if it were the cause of all of our problems... when they fail to even begin to explore the actual root causes of the problems.
Because THAT self-examination is far, far too painful. And those who see symbolism over substance as the crux of the matter are not interested in introspection.
None of that matters to them.
The only thing that matters is that we see it their way and we agree with them... automatons, if you will. And if we DON'T see it their way?
Lying Lefty never ceases to amaze. The idea that a fringe-leftist of the old school with a mind welded shut decades ago would urge US to keep an "open mind" to the trashing he's got in mind to smack the GOP candidates he hates this election... like most elections... is among the very largest acts of hypocrisy yet from the warped keyboard of Lying Lefty Lou.
Just about every election cycle, Lying Lefty is forced to play to stereotype.
He makes up mythical friends (And who would ever think of a pathological liar as having a "friend?") to portray himself as something he's not.
He uses these fictional people as metaphors. He also makes them up because if anyone actually ever DID say the crap Lying Lefty claims they said, there's a strong possibility they'd be hauled into court for a sanity hearing.
This issue came up a few days ago when I
was chatting with a friend. I consider this friend a bright, objective,
observational kind of guy. He said he regularly reads The Columbian and
finds it to be neither liberal nor conservative.
Sure. That looks legit. Anyone moronic enough to agree with Lying Lefty... even made up, imaginary friends... is automatically considered "...bright, objective..." and "observational."
If Lying Lefty's imaginary friend had looked at Lou and said, "Lou, you print that rag like the democrat party paid you by the word. You're lucky one of those who's character you've attempted to assassinate hasn't sued you and that swindle-sheet you print into bankruptcy," there's not a lot of chance THAT quote from the fake "friend" would have ever seen the light of day.
Kind of like the color of Lying Lefty's hair is all natural.
Lying Lefty Lou
If such a "friend" would utter the words Lying Lefty actually claimed, he wouldn't be let out without a keeper, his vision of reality so far afield from the real world.
And, of course, my friend has it right. (Lying Lefty says-edit)
As do many others in our beautiful community. I've personally spoken to
thousands of residents in our community. Both liberals and
conservatives. Many of them have come in to buy a Don't Do Stupid Stuff mug. When I go up to our front desk to say hi, what do I hear most?
"I don't always agree with what you write, but I do enjoy your column. It makes us think."
Perfect!
So many lies in so few lines.
Most people reading Lying Lefty's column have an entirely different reaction... like nausea.
The fact is that for the past two years or so, no thought has been required. Who has to "think" about recycled hatred? Easily 80% of the time, when the narcissistic editor of the local Pravda Izvestia isn't patting himself on the back because someone he may have been allowed to get coffee for died somewhere, it's beat the crap out of Madore/Mielke/Benton day.
It's like trying to read the hatred of the C3G2 hate group. It's the same thing, every day: fringe-leftist haters feeding on the by-product of their existence, whipped up by the Klan-like mentality of a fringe-left editor, being led like sheep to the political slaughter.
Too stupid to understand how someone who drinks hair coloring by the gallon can led them like cattle to the butcher shop.
And who else of our acquaintance , has recently been outed for the same kind of thing?
That's right: the delusional Lying Lefty Rachel Dolezal of white girl ≠ black girl fame.
The irony of all of this is that Lying Lefty already knows it.
Here's the first tell:
If you're one of the 500 to 700 or so who read my meager effort on a daily basis, you're already well aware of the fact that in the entirety of Lying Lefty's tenure... his painful, divisive, left-wing mouth piece lying tenure... Lying Lefty has NEVER treated the pols of the left the same way he does those to the right of Mao.
His hatred of those opposed to his agenda (unless they wear a skirt)... rather unfettered like a playground bully... uncontrolled by his keeper, Scott Campbell... is part and parcel of why the rag struggles so much.
He has singled out some of those on his Enemies List: Certainly Don Benton, who this scumbag has made his own personal project for over a decade, including endorsing someone else for election based on the fact that he was NOT Don Benton in the 2000 election cycle... and being brazen enough to ADMIT as much in print... (And Lying Lefty whines about why some in the GOP smart enough to tell the democratian to fuck off when it comes to editorial boards)
“...although sincere and well-intentioned, (Peterson) lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the important policy questions for Southwest Washington and the state. About the only attribute in his favor is the fact that he’s not Don Benton. And on that admittedly flimsy basis, we endorse Peterson.”
As well as Tom Mielke and Lying Lefty has CERTAINLY been psychotic in his hatred of David Madore and Brent Boger... who he was gearing up to beat up like he'd tried to beat me up... until even the left had enough of Lying Lefty's bullshit and started slapping him around like a rented illegal alien... and Peter Van Nortwick was also singled out for Special Treatment that would have made Heinrich Himmler applaud in print.
Lying Lefty acts this way because he knows there's nothing anyone can do about it. He's the punk... the senior citizen, brain drenched in "Just For Men" hair-coloring slimeball who can pretty much do whatever he wants, whenever he wants to, while most cower in fear of that scumbag.
Which brings us to the second tell... the obvious tell, where once again, Lying Lefty repeats the lie, thus:
In other words, I am an equal opportunity
head-banger.
Folks... if he WERE such a creature... he wouldn't have to tell you. You'd already know it.
He is a liar. Plain and simple.
When there is a vacant seat up, there's a huge certainty that no matter who is running, he'll support the leftist.
17th Legislative District Representative: Democrat Tim Probst
49th Legislative District State representative: Democrat Jim Jacks
Clark County commissioner: District 1: Democrat Pam Brokaw
Number of democrat incumbents this newspaper endorsed AGAINST: ZERO
Number of Republican incumbents this newspaper endorsed against: ONE
They
endorsed David Carrier (Who didn't even LIVE in the 17th District) against one of the most heavily,
bi-partisan-endorsed and experienced state senators in SW Washington,
Don Benton.
So, on one hand, we have the editor of the
editorial page telling us that party had nothing to do with it, and on
the other hand, this same paper ONLY ENDORSED DEMOCRATS FOR OPEN SEATS,
AND ONLY ADVOCATED THE REMOVAL OF A REPUBLICAN... AND NOT ONE DEMOCRAT.
There's much more history that puts the lie to much of what Lying Lefty babbles, but you get the gist of it.
He protests WAYYYYYY too much when it comes to making an effort to convince people that he's even handed when the facts prove otherwise.
Here's the thing: I don't care if Lying Lefty takes a position on anything.
Where he's been a divisive, abysmal failure with his pathological hatred of the right is his two-fold failure to first, admit it... and second, treat everyone the same.
That's his cowardice, you see. By falsely portraying himself as even-handed, he wants to give it more power when he's whipping anyone to the right of Lenin in ways that no democrat ever has to worry about... even the drunk state representatives who assault female staffers get the kid-glove treatment.
Right Jack?
And the irony in all of this is simple and clear: if what this scummy worm were saying was close to true...
... He wouldn't have to say it at all.
But what he's doing here is quite simply setting up his crushing attacks and his already picked endorsements so that when he hammers on the Republican candidates he hates (Likely Benton, Madore, Mielke and to a little bet lesser extent, Stewart) he'll want the sheeple to actually believe that it's because it's what he thinks is best... and not because he's a pathological liar who hates with a passion those smart enough to oppose his agenda.
So when this scumbag likely endorses Boldt... even though Boldt has sold his political soul and aligned himself with the heretofore, opposed-to-everything-Boldt-stands-for fringe left (Wonder how they got past Boldt's formerly militant pro-life stance. Oh, well, I guess that's just one of those "flexible" positions of Boldt) it's NOT going to be because Boldt was a rabid pro-CRC Scammer who hates the very idea of letting the people make their own decisions on issues like this... it's because Dalesandro is well meaning but lacks experience... and everyone else running is a Republican and we need "balance" running the board.
Or some such garbage.
When in reality, it's because Boldt has sold out the GOP and because he did almost everything he could to rabidly support Lying Lefty's agenda... people be damned.
Just like the hate-based charter was "best." Just like the theft and corruption of the CRC Scam that he so rapidly supports and so rabidly hates Madore, Mielke and Benton for helping to kill was "best."
Who gives a rat's ass what the people want on the issues? In Lying Lefty's world, it's what HE wants that matters.
I expect that Lying Lefty will endorse Boldt and the guy who runs the C3G2 Hate Group, fringe-leftist Chuck Green.
They're known quantities when it comes to Lying Lefty's agenda... they'll carry his water like the 13th Amendment was the 13th Suggestion... and they'll kiss his ass every hour on the hour to get his support, considering how little they'll have of it from anyone else.
Because those who kiss his ring?
He will publicly kiss their ass.
And when Lying Lefty Lou tells you he's "...an equal opportunity
head-banger," that's precisely and actually as true as Rachel Dolezal telling you she's black.
Having sold us out on the gas tax scam, it was inevitable that the GOP Senate would/will sell us all the way out on everything else as well.
The democrats, sensing blood in the water, are demanding unneeded tax increases while they hold the state hostage with a bogus "shut down threat" coming up in a few days.
Here's how the Senate can regain the "mo" and get this back under control.
1. Drop a bill, right now, with the current budget in place that will make this budget the same for the next biennium. Take the last budget, put a current bill number on it, drop it and pass it. Today.
At the federal level, this is a version of a "continuing resolution." The fed does it all the time. So can our legislature.
Give both sides 15 minutes to complain in floor speeches and then hold a roll call vote and PASS it. Send it to the House.
2. Tell the dems in the House that they have 72 hours to approve your transportation budget unless they want to take the gas tax out of it... which, in fact, should never have been in it in the first place... then they get 96 hours or the whole thing is off the table. Over. Done.
Adjourn. Go home.
And wait.
That's what the GOP SHOULD do... but will they?
Off course not. They're letting the dems call all the shots (Ending negotiations on the transpo budget until the general fund is passed? Swell, The GOP can do the same on the general fund until the transpo budget is passed.) because they've only got a single testicle in the GOP Leadership between them.
See?
The GOP Senate can't even PROPERLY screw the people. They're even incompetent about THAT.
