Whar! It’s what’s for dinner!

Posted by on March 16, 2013 11:36 am
Categories: Featured Entries Patriot Dispatches

All of the ingredients have been carefully added to the noxious stew over many years, nay decades, ever so slowly simmering away, sometimes on the public’s back burner, sometimes the front. But always the same ingredients, gently stirred into the mix: the appeals to ‘fairness’ (whatever became of the Democrat icon JFK’s observation that life isn’t fair? Really, isn’t that pretty much a Law?), near-hysterical emotionalism (balance, it’s for the children, greedy 1%, life’s lottery, “I saw dead bodies”, etc.), personal demonization of opponents, but most of all, hair-trigger anger, real or contrived, as a means of distraction and a way to get the discussion back to where they want it to be. (*shouting* “What difference, at this point, does it make”-Madame Secretary HRC)

All-in-all, the methodology is to take the easy way out, subliminally appealing to the Lazy Man in each of us; why work at thinking through situations, actions and consequences, basic philosophy, (these are very hard things to do), when you can take the easy, simple way out, run on raw emotions, chant bumper-sticker slogans, and thus feel so good about yourself? Especially useful when you have been able to non-educate the up-and-comers (what Rush calls young skulls full of mush) to feel (easy) rather than critically think (hard), then add the tasty garnish of ‘free stuff’ (Obamaphone! Student loans! Unemployment ‘benefits’! Food stamps!) and, as a bonus, nanny-state teacher’s (and sadly, peer) approval.

Tenderly fold into the mix equal quantities of hypocritical thin-skin sensitivity and a gooey glaze of propriety versus legality, and now we’re really cooking! The poorly educated but long tenured Senator from San Fran (D-Gungrabber) shrieks at being ‘lectured’ by a constitutional lawyer asking a simple question (which she never answered), while the Attorney General struggles with the basic difference between ‘appropriate’ versus ‘unconstitutional’ actions; which question, interestingly enough, came from that same constitutional lawyer, one Mr. Cruz.

From personal experience, I’ve learned that the awful thing about cookery is that sooner or later, somebody has to actually taste the stew. Especially when you’ve used up everything in the pantry to create it, and suppertime approaches. For a whole slew of reasons, we as a country are beginning dinner, and we’re not going to appreciate the cuisine, not even a little bit. How we react after gagging on this slop will be extremely interesting to experience. (Not surprising they want to disarm the populace…)

One response to Whar! It’s what’s for dinner!

  1. bobmontgomery March 17th, 2013 at 2:30 pm

    The names of any and all R-s who vote “aye” on any shred of the gunbrabbing bills, including background checks on private transfers, any type of registration, any type of infringement on private medical records, should be prominently displayed and castigated in these and other forums. There are constitutional provisions against both ex post facto laws and bills of attainder, not to mention the right to be secure in our persons and our property. And that’s even without relying on the supremely sacred Second Amendment.

Leave a Reply