The New Rules

From a rag Called “Global Grind”

If ever I thought myself objective and unbiased, the George Zimmerman trial is definitely not that moment.

So let’s cut to the chase. Any attorney, jury member, judge or white person in that courtroom is not going to understand Rachel Jeantel. And I don’t expect them to.

Yesterday,The Title was  “Why White people won’t understand”.

So it’s all about Race. Not the case or it’s merits.

Just Race. The victim was black. The Perp was “white” (more latino but who cares). Case closed. Whitey did it.

That’s all anyone needs to need to know. (she has 33,000 Likes on her Facebook link by the way).

And speaking of that word “nigga,” the court might not understand Trayvon and Rachel’s casual use of the word because of how often, no matter how controversial, it is used in our communities.

So aside from the argument that we took the power out of a degrading word and made it into a term of endearment, it’s used so much that it’s become a substitute for identifiers such as “that guy,” or “him,” etc. 

So we can use all we want because we want but if you use it and you ain’t black, you”re a racist and should be destroyed atom by atom until you are effectively dead you racist pig!
So you have an Orwell Doublethink (Diversity of Non-Diversity) mixed up with a kind of self-imposed “purity” slavery that just tears the unity that Dr. King wanted into a million tiny shreds.
And if you’re white and they are black, you are automatically Guilty and should “understand” that from the get go.
Much like Progressive Democrats and everyone else.
Funny That. 🙂
And now you understand Paula Deen’s problem. It’s about race and race-baiting, and race obsession and racial segregation (we’re black you’re white we want to hate you and be judged only be people who are exactly like us and  you don’t understand that-unity only with the other brothahs and sistahs) not the Law or even the truth.
There should be a Law for Whites and a Law for Blacks.
All of us being human is irrelevant.

So Paul Deen is, a cracker, so who cares what she thinks. She’s automatically guilt as charged. Case Closed.:)

Just Like George Zimmerman. (regardless of the actual verdict, mind you).

150 years after Gettysburg thinks haven’t come as far they had and many like it that way.

That’s all you need to know.

********

Derek Hunter: It seems almost quaint now that we were a nation where parents took care of their children, fed them, clothed them and made sure they stayed out of trouble and attended school. That when times were tough we turned to churches and civic organizations that were only too happy to help. Government took care of the “big stuff” and we took care of ourselves. Not anymore.

Life is much easier now. Many diseases have been wiped out or relegated to chronic from terminal. Tending the fields to feed one’s family is now a choice, not a necessity. Our nation went from not existing to being the richest in the world in an incredibly short time not because our government directed people what to do, but because it got out of their way and empowered them to do what they could.

As these hardships sank through technological advances brought about by the free market, do-gooders arose – idle hands and all that. Progressives, they were called. They are in both parties, though more heavily saturate the Democrat Party. Wealthy elites who found in themselves the arrogance to presume to “improve society” through social engineering, which was code for legislating their will. From this arrogance sprang nearly every despotic regime the world has seen in the last century and a half.

But constant failure and the deaths of hundreds of millions of human beings do not provide the cautionary tale they should to progressives. They are simply the eggs broken in pursuit of the yet-to-be achieved perfect omelet. And they’re still in the kitchen cooking.

They, of course, are largely exempt from the impact of their whims. Their money tucked away in tax shelters and trusts, they fly private while extolling the virtues of shrinking your carbon footprint, and hold conferences in places such as Davos and Aspen to discuss how society should be made to bow to their will to improve the economy for all. They could hold these events in places in need of the economic stimulus they seek to manufacture, such as Cleveland or Detroit. But they’d rather not for reasons unknown. Maybe those airports don’t have enough private jet parking or aren’t close enough to one of their vacation homes, but it’s most likely they don’t want to be reminded of the monuments to waste their philosophy has produced. Looking at a pile of your eggshells can be unappealing.

Detroit, Cleveland and many other cities are the petri dishes of their failure, filled with prisoners of their policies. Who wants to be reminded of that?

The safety net provided by welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and countless other programs has become a hammock. It’s not one of comfort; it’s just enough to ensnare generations with the promise of a better future that all too often does not arrive. Those trapped by the hollow promise of a hand-up become addicted to the hand-out, and transform into a voting base for progressives who swear that better future is just around the corner of a dead-end street.

And 20 Million Illegal Aliens await the Progressives “American Dream”.

Government takes an ever-larger role in people’s lives and it becomes the norm. It feeds children breakfast and lunch, then subsidizes dinner in a home it pays for or at least subsidizes the rent. Progressives have transformed the federal government from one designed to barely be noticed beyond times of emergency to an omnipresent silent partner in tens of millions of Americans lives.

It is sold as a soft landing, a comfortable couch covered in velvet to break the fall. But chains are chains, no matter what they’re made of. Under the guise of “freedom from want,” comfortable velvet shackles have been constructed right before our eyes. And this prison does nothing but grow.

Soon we will become dependent upon our warden for our health care, as government moves to envelope millions more in the plush prison of dependency. Our liberty has devolved to the point we accept, with consternation but not question, decisions of nine unelected judges.

No matter what the issue or the decision, how sad is it that our Founding Fathers, men who risked everything they had on this earth to create a nation where the individual was free from a tyrannical government, would have that nation devolve into one where we find its citizens waiting every June for decrees from the Supreme Court to determine what rights we have or what the definition of a word is? We are now a nation of people who seek validation for their thoughts, actions and very existence from a branch of government?

This isn’t just about the decisions of the Supreme Court this week; it’s about the decisions of all branches of government every week, every month, every year. It’s about the next great progressive idea – a compulsory year of national service for every American between the ages of 18 and 25. Sound far-fetched? The push is starting.

This week in Aspen, progressive elites gathered to start a push for the idea. Headed by the Huffington Post and the Franklin Project, the national (indentured) service idea – service to progressive causes, by the way – has people who either married into money or were born into billions supporting it, and they are connected. The “born on 3rd base and acting like they hit a triple” brigade has nothing but time on its hands and access to the halls of power.

Get used to the idea. The word “compulsory” wasn’t chosen by accident or lack of vocabulary. A government powerful enough to force you to buy something, to redefine words, to overrule the will of its people will think nothing of adding a few links to their chain. After all, what’s a little velvet slavery when it comes to the common good?

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

And tell you what you can and cannot do with it to boot!

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY!

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Deen of Political Correctness

Larry Elder: If Paula Deen is out because of her decades-old private use of the “n” word, what about its public and private use by MSNBC’s Al Sharpton? What about HBO host Bill Maher’s use of the “c” word?

The crisis Deen must deal with confirms the observation of John O’Sullivan, a former editor of National Review: “White racism exists, but its social power is weak; the social power against it, overwhelming.”

Deen has — so far — lost her show on the Food Network and her spokesperson gig for Smithfield Foods. QVC, Sears, Wal-Mart and others are deciding whether to continue their relationship with the embattled chef.

What did the 66-year-old native of Georgia do that now threatens their enterprises? In a deposition given in a harassment lawsuit filed by a white ex-employee at a Deen family-owned restaurant, Deen admitted using the “n-word” in the past, during a private conversation:

“When a black man burst into the bank that I was working at and put a gun to my head,” she said, “I didn’t feel real favorable to him.” Deen says she didn’t use the word during the holdup, but “probably” used it later, “in telling my husband.”

Asked if she ever used the word again, Deen responded, “I’m sure I have, but it’s been a very long time.” When pressed to recall specific instances, Deen could not, saying:

“I don’t know, maybe in repeating something that was said to me . .. But that’s just not a word that we use as time has gone on. Things have changed since the ’60s in the South. And my children and my brother object to that word being used in any cruel or mean behavior, as well as I do.”

Deen has, so far, apologized, apologized and apologized. That the ex-employee is white, not black, and worked for her for five years did not seem to matter. Nor does it seem to matter that others have not come forward to corroborate her alleged racism.

Does she refuse to hire blacks? Has she mistreated them or paid them below the wages of white workers? And, for what it’s worth, Deen supported and campaigned for Barack Obama.

If Deen’s crime is the private use of the n-word, why does the Rev. Al Sharpton, who hosts a nightly hour-long show on MSNBC, get a pass?

Sharpton rocketed to fame by falsely accusing two white men of raping and sodomizing black teenager Tawana Brawley. A New York grand jury investigation concluded the whole case was fraudulent and that Brawley flat-out lied to avoid punishment for staying out too late.

To this day, Sharpton refuses to apologize to former Assistant District Attorney Steven Pagones, one of the men Sharpton accused of rape, even after a jury found Sharpton liable for defamation.

One of Sharpton’s top aides became so disgusted with the farce that he turned against his boss. Sharpton, the former aide said, could not have cared less whether Brawley was telling the truth because, according to Sharpton, “We beat this, we will be the biggest n–gers in New York.”

Sharpton called the former Marine, magna cum laude graduate, lawyer, professor and then-Mayor David Dinkins — New York City’s first and only black mayor — a “n–ger whore.”

Apparently MSNBC and the Food Network see the “n” word differently.

Sharpton has called Jews “diamond merchants” and described whites moving businesses into Harlem as “interlopers.” He helped incite three days of anti-Semitic rioting in Crown Heights, where two people died and over 100 were wounded. A Columbia University professor called Crown Heights “a modern-day pogrom.”

Then there’s Freddy’s Fashion Mart. A Jewish store owner in Harlem was accused of driving a black record store subtenant out of business by raising his rent. At a rally meant to scare the Jewish owner away, Sharpton said:

“There is a systematic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business off 125th Street. I want to make it clear … that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.”

Later, one of the protesters, a black man, stormed Freddy’s Fashion Mart with a pistol, screaming: “It’s on now! All blacks out!” In addition to the shooting, he set fire to the building, eventually killing seven before turning the gun on himself.

If Deen is out because of the “n” word, what about HBO’s Bill Maher? On more than one occasion, he has publicly called Sarah Palin the “c” word. He has called her a “dumb tw-t” — a slang word for female genitalia. He has described her son Trig, who has Down syndrome, as “retarded.”

But, to be fair, neither Sharpton nor Maher — at least to our knowledge — has called Palin the “n” word. That must explain it.

 

So This is How Liberty Dies…

“We will admit dramatically more people than we ever have in our country’s history at a time when unemployment is high and the Congressional Budget Office has told us that average wages will go down for 12 years, that gross national product per capita will decline for 25-plus years, that unemployment will go up,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. “The amnesty will occur, but the enforcement is not going to occur, and the policies for future immigration are not serving the national interest.”

“I just think that immigration reform should be dependent on border security first … I’m fearful that this won’t fix illegal immigration and that we still will have significant illegal immigration with this bill.” -Sen. Rand Paul reacts to Senate passage of immigration bill

But it’s not like the Democrats care and the Republicans are too scared to have a backbone.

Now the fate of The Republic rest on the shoulders of “Jar Jar” Boehner.

So this is how Liberty Dies…

The ever-humble Senate, or self-described World’s Greatest Deliberative Body, forsook debate to railroad through 1,200 pages of unread amnesty legislation. Will the House be senatorial?

When Thomas Jefferson returned from Paris to discover, signed, sealed and delivered, what would prove to be the world’s most enduring Constitution, he is said to have asked George Washington over refreshments why the Framers established a Senate.

“Why did you pour that tea into your saucer?” Washington replied, we are told. “To cool it,” Jefferson answered. “We pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it,” Washington explained.

Right now, the United States Senate has never been more uncool. With senators lunging over their mahogany desks to speed through “comprehensive immigration reform,” you would think it was a post-Pearl Harbor declaration of war against Imperial Japan.

The Weekly Standard even nailed five Democratic senators blissfully ignorant of the content of the bill they support.

Asked “if the bill would create a financial incentive … to hire amnestied immigrants instead of American citizens,” Sen. Max Baucus of Montana replied, “I don’t know if that’s been solved.” “I just haven’t read it that closely to know,” said Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey Jr.

From Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut came this quip: “That’s a good question. I’d have to check.” Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware said, “I don’t have the time to drill down on it right now” and Sen. Barbara Boxer of California “replied with something of a non sequitur response before the senators-only elevator doors closed in my face,” the Standard reported.

They haven’t read it, and neither has the rest of the nation’s most exclusive old boys’ club. And to understand those 1,200 pages of legalese, it takes more than one reading.

Today, the most infamous example of phone-book-sized laws enacted without being read or understood is, of course, ObamaCare. Some of its most ardent supporters in Congress are today desperate to “fix” the unfixable, astronomically expensive monster they assured us we would love once we really got to know it.

In the case of amnesty for illegals, Democrats know that what they haven’t read will help them politically. It’s Republican senators — including, apparently, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, with his big ideas about 2016 — who have been driven to foolishness, inexplicably taking their political enemies’ advice on how amnesty for aliens is their key to winning future elections.

It will be up to the GOP majority in the House to carry out what is supposed to be the upper chamber’s role: unhurriedly scrutinizing and applying the brakes to yet another ill-considered “solution” that solves nothing. This monstrosity, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, points out, is “chock full of de facto earmarks, pork-barrel spending and special interest sweeteners.”

House Republicans might want to recall President Reagan’s 1988 State of the Union, when he dropped onto the rostrum “these behemoths”: thousands of pages of months-late budget bills that were “a total of 43 pounds of paper and ink.”

As the Great Communicator noted, “You had three hours — yes, three hours — to consider each” of the bills, “and it took 300 people at my Office of Management and Budget just to read” them. Big Government had corrupted the legislative process into an insult to the American people, in which serious, informed deliberation on proposed laws had been rendered quaintly obsolete.

That corruption is, if anything, only worse today. But the House can refuse to follow the Senate’s abdication on this unread giant, which does amnesty first and promises to fix the border later. Congressmen can vote it down, or pass a sorely needed bill that fixes the border without amnesty, challenging the Senate to follow.

The House, in other words, is presented with an uncommon opportunity to show the Senate how to do its job. The voters would be sure to appreciate it. (IBD)

But I won’t hold my breath.

Let Ministry of Truth “racist” bombardment onslaught commence!

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

The Final Arbiters

Thomas Jefferson: When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated …. — Letter to C. Hammond, July 1821

The Health and Human Services Department earlier this year exposed just how vast the government’s data collection efforts will be on millions of Americans as a result of ObamaCare.

Big Brother will be watching you! And he will know everything…. (and the Supreme Court is the final arbiter -see later farther down)

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., asked HHS to provide “a complete list of agencies that will interact with the Federal Data Services Hub.” The Hub is a central feature of ObamaCare, since it will be used by the new insurance exchanges to determine eligibility for benefits, exemptions from the federal mandate, and how much to grant in federal insurance subsidies.

In response, the HHS said the ObamaCare data hub will “interact” with seven other federal agencies: Social Security Administration, the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Veterans Administration, Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Defense and — believe it or not — the Peace Corps. Plus the Hub will plug into state Medicaid databases.

And what sort of data will be “routed through” the Hub? Social Security numbers, income, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, and enrollment status in other health plans, according to the HHS.

“The federal government is planning to quietly enact what could be the largest consolidation of personal data in the history of the republic,” noted Stephen Parente, a University of Minnesota finance professor.

Not to worry, says the Obama administration. “The hub will not store consumer information, but will securely transmit data between state and federal systems to verify consumer application information,” it claimed in an online fact sheet .

And no one will steal or hack anything. 🙂 No Wiki-Snowden… 🙂

But a regulatory notice filed by the administration in February tells a different story.

That filing describes a new “system of records” that will store names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, taxpayer status, gender, ethnicity, email addresses, telephone numbers on the millions of people expected to apply for coverage at the ObamaCare exchanges, as well as “tax return information from the IRS, income information from the Social Security Administration, and financial information from other third-party sources.”

They will also store data from businesses buying coverage through an exchange, including a “list of qualified employees and their tax ID numbers,” and keep it all on file for 10 years.

In addition, the filing says the federal government can disclose this information “without the consent of the individual” to a wide range of people, including “agency contractors, consultants, or grantees” who “need to have access to the records” to help run ObamaCare, as well as law enforcement officials to “investigate potential fraud.”

Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., complained that just months before ObamaCare officially starts, the Obama administration still hasn’t answered “even the most basic questions about the Data Hub,” such as who will have access to what information, or what training and clearances will be required.

Beyond these concerns is the government’s rather sorry record in protecting confidential information.

Late last year, for example, a hacker was able to gain access to a South Carolina database that contained Social Security numbers and bank account data on 3.6 million people.

A Government Accountability Office report found that weaknesses in IRS security systems “continue to jeopardize the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the financial and sensitive taxpayer information.”

A separate inspector general audit found that the IRS inadvertently disclosed information on thousands of taxpayers between 2009 and 2010. In 2011, the Social Security Administration accidentally released names, birth dates and Social Security numbers of tens of thousands of Americans.

If these government agencies can’t protect data kept on their own servers, how much more vulnerable will these databases be when they’re constantly getting tapped by the ObamaCare Data Hub?

In any case, creating even richer and more comprehensive databases on Americans will create a powerful incentive to abuse them among those looking to score political points by revealing private information or criminals who want to steal identities.

A recent CNN poll found that 62% of Americans say “government is so large and powerful that it threatens the rights and freedoms of ordinary Americans.”

What will the public think once ObamaCare and its vast data machine is in full force? (IBD)

More likely, what will they be allowed to think?

The Imperial Judiciary

A House, Senate and president together defending traditional marriage is ruled unconstitutional. Can a Roe v. Wade-like “right” to same-sex marriage — pulverizing religious liberty — be far behind?

Under ObamaCare, the Obama administration is already trying to force religious institutions to violate their precepts and fund abortions, or be found in violation of law. There is little, if any, distance between that kind of disregard for religious freedom and forcing churches to marry same-sex couples — a new kind of “shotgun wedding” for the 21st century.

That is where the imperial judiciary quite clearly intends to take us, running over anything standing in the way. As Justice Scalia’s scathing dissent in Wednesday’s 5-to-4 U.S. v. Windsor ruling observes: “In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy — Ronald Reagan’s biggest, longest-lasting mistake — joined with the high court’s four liberals, charging in his decision that large majorities of both houses of Congress, not to mention President Bill Clinton, in 1996 chose “to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage” today.

The court declared Congress “cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.” It takes the judicial elite to construe the Bill of Rights’ safeguard against being “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” as a license to keep elected officials from acting to protect man’s oldest institution from being revolutionized.

As Scalia noted, the court was “eager — hungry — to tell everyone its view of the legal question at the heart of this case” — so much so that it, unprecedentedly, took on a case in which the five justices actually “agree that the court below got it right.”

The result is “a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and everywhere ‘primary’ in its role.”

“The most important moral, political, and cultural decisions affecting our lives are steadily being removed from democratic control” Judget Bork 1996 (!)

Thomas Jefferson: If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law … Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

Thomas Jefferson: You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. ….Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820

“The Teahouse of the August Moon”. Glenn Ford plays an American officer attempting to explain democracy to the Japanese after World War II. He says, “democracy is where the people have the right to make the wrong decisions.” The statement is the essence of democracy. If elected officials make the wrong decision on behalf of the people voters can rectify the situation by electing replacement officials to make the right decisions. If non-elected officials make the wrong decisions the people have no recourse other than overthrowing the government.

People don’t become infallible just because they hold a high government office even if they are absolute monarchs who have supposedly been chosen by their deities to run the government. Those of us who are familiar with the history of the Supreme Court known that it is extremely fallible. The Supreme Court has made some extremely bad decisions, particularly.when it has gotten involved in social issues with decisions involving social theories rather than law.

The decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford is easily the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court. The Court attempted to use the case to deal with the divisive social issue of slavery. Chief Justice Roger Taney’s ruling inflamed northern public opinion against slavery which many northerners regarded as immoral. The decision insured that slavery would be a major issue in the 1860 presidential election. The decision didn’t cause the Civil War, but provided the catalyst to turn the controversy over slavery and broader economic issues into a war.

The 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision is the Court’s second worst decision. The Court’s acceptance of the questionable social concept of “separate but equal” condemned generations of black southerners to mistreatment including rape and murder. The Court refused to admit that “separate but equal” was nonsense until the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision.

“Separate but equal’ wasn’t the only nonsense theory the Court accepted in the late 19th Century. The Court prevented state government from protecting workers from exploitive employers by accepting a nonsense theory called “freedom of contract”. Under this theory, government protection of workers supposedly prevented their “free” ability to contract with employers. The Court ignored the fact that workers weren’t in a position to negotiate. They had to accept bad working conditions or risk possible starvation. (Free Republic)

So with the trend of making the Supreme Court the final arbiter of everything makes them supremely powerful and that is a very dangerous game.

After all, the people Boo-ing and Hissing the Supreme Court the day before on the Voting Rights Acts are the ones dancing in the street and celebrating the next day!
And Vice  Versa.
If that doesn’t mean the whole thing is unstable what does?
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

White Devils

The White Devils are evil and must be collared and chained because given half a second they will put black and minorities back on plantations and “disenfranchise” them.

Damn! Them Crackers!

That’s effectively what the race baiters are saying about the Voting Rights Act decision by the Supreme Court.

You must have “black” districts or “hispanic” districts just to be “fair”. But if you want to have a “white” district, you’re a racist! 🙂

So you must segregate to be “fair”.

And the Liberals in government must have a veto power on Voting decisions in racist states like Arizona, and South Carolina.

It must always be the Mid-1960s. Time can never move on. They must fight the good fight against the White Devils and The Uncle Toms….

Meet Ryan Patrick Winkler. He’s a 37-year-old liberal Minnesota state legislator with a B.A. in history from Harvard University and a J.D. from the University of Minnesota Law School. He’s also a coward, a bigot, a liar, and a textbook example of plantation progressivism. 

On Tuesday, Winkler took to Twitter to rant about the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down an onerous section of the Voting Rights Act. The 5-4 ruling overturned an unconstitutional requirement that states win federal preclearance approval of any changes to their election laws and procedures. Winkler fumed: “VRA majority is four accomplices to race discrimination and one Uncle Thomas.”

This Ivy League-trained public official and attorney relied on smug bigotry to make his case against a Supreme Court justice who happens to be black. “Uncle Thomas” wasn’t a typo. Denigration was the goal, not an accident. It was a knowing, deliberate smear.

After being called out by conservative social media users for his cheap attack on Clarence Thomas, Winkler then revealed his true color: yellow. He deleted the tweet (captured for posterity at my Twitter curation site, twitchy.com) and pleaded ignorance. 

“I did not understand ‘Uncle Tom’ as a racist term, and there seems to be some debate about it. I do apologize for it, however,” he sniveled. “I didn’t think it was offensive to suggest that Justice Thomas should be even more concerned about racial discrimination than colleagues,” he protested.

Holding a black man to a different intellectual standard based on his skin color. Accusing a non-white conservative of collectivist race traitorism. Employing one of the most infamous, overused epithets against minority conservatives in the Democratic lexicon. “Apologizing,” but disclaiming responsibility. Sorry . . . that he got caught. 

Just another day at the left-wing racist office.

Rabid liberal elitists expect and demand that we swallow their left-wing political orthodoxy whole and never question it. When we don’t yield, their racist and sexist diatribes against us are unmatched. My IQ, free will, skin color, eye shape, name, authenticity, and integrity have been routinely ridiculed or questioned for more than two decades because I happen to be an unapologetic brown female free-market conservative. My Twitter account biography jokingly includes the moniker “Oriental Auntie-Tom” — just one of thousands of slurs hurled at me by libs allergic to diversity of thought — for a reason. It’s a way to hold up an unflinching mirror at the holier-than-thou NoH8 haters and laugh. 

We conservatives “of color” are way past anger about the Uncle Tom/Aunt Tomasina attacks. We’re reviled by the left for our “betrayal” of our supposed tribes — accused of being Uncle Toms, Aunt Tomasinas, House Niggas, puppets of the White Man, Oreos, Sambos, lawn jockeys, coconuts, bananas, sellouts, and whores. This is how the left’s racial and ethnic tribalists have always rolled. But their insults are not bullets. They are badges of honor. The Uncle Tom card has been played out. 

Of course Winkler didn’t think it was offensive. Smarty-pants liberal racists never think they’re being racist. In their own sanctimonious minds, progressives of pallor can never be guilty of bigotry toward minority conservatives. Ignorance is strength. Slurs are compliments. Intolerance is tolerance. 

And when all else fails, left-wing prejudice is always just a well-intended joke. (PBS commentator Julianne Malveaux’s death wish for Justice Thomas set the standard: “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. . . . He is an absolutely reprehensible person.”) 

Back in her day, before the advent of democratizing social media, Malveaux and her elitist PBS friends could get away with such vile bile. But liberal crabs in the bucket, viciously trying to drag dissenters “of color” down, can no longer engage in hit-and-run with impunity. Conservatives on Twitter have changed the dynamic in an underappreciated, revolutionary way. The pushback against liberal political bigotry is bigger, stronger, and swifter than it’s ever been.

You can delete, but you cannot hide. (Michelle Malkin)

The fatuous claim that nothing significant has changed in the field of American race relations since the 1960s was expressed most perfectly yesterday by Senator Bernie Sanders. The Voting Rights Act, Sanders wrote, “is as necessary today as it was in the era of Jim Crow laws.” We wonder whether anybody genuinely believes this. Perhaps MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry does, for she went further than Sanders. “Damn,” Harris-Perry tweeted, “that citizenship thing was so great for awhile.”

Contrast this hyperbole with the Supreme Court’s actual ruling. By five votes to four, it held that, while certain states may still be required to submit changes in their voting rules for federal approval, Congress must update the data it uses to determine which are subject to its adjudication. The dramatic changes of the last 40 years, the majority concluded, have rendered the existing formula worthless. This should come as no surprise. That formula was last amended in 1972, while George Wallace was still governor of Alabama.

In making the case for reform, Chief Justice Roberts noted that

in the first decade after enactment of [Section 5] the Attorney General objected to 14.2 percent of proposed voting changes. In the last decade before reenactment, the Attorney General objected to a mere 0.16 percent.

The difference is remarkable. In 1965, Mississippi saw a gap of 63.2 percentage points between white and black voter-registration rates; by 2004, black voters were 3.8 percentage points more likely to be registered than their white counterparts. It is a similar story across the South. So successful has the Voting Rights Act been that New York University election specialist Rock Pildes recently observed that, instead of ensuring the franchise, the Justice Department now employs Section 5 primarily as a tool to ensure that minorities are well-represented in legislative bodies. For a law that was cast as a temporary emergency measure, this evolution is problematic.

Notwithstanding the peculiar claim of ABC’s Terry Moran yesterday morning that “now there is no Voting Rights Act operative in the United States,” the rest of the Voting Rights Act remains very much intact and in effect. Americans whose voting rights have been violated are still able to take to the federal courts and sue their local or state governments. The decision brings an end to the automatic and perpetual punishment of states that are guilty of crimes in decades past. It does nothing else.

Many of the Court’s critics appear to believe that the VRA serves as vital scaffolding, the even partial removal of which will prompt the United States to backslide into segregation or worse. This strikes us as nonsense. Like Boy Mulcaster complaining to Charles Ryder in Brideshead Revisited that he never got the chance to fight in the First World War, many of today’s naysayers exhibit a palpable regret that they missed the moral clarity of the 1960s. It is not the role of Congress to indulge them.

Justice Ginsburg complains that it is not the role of the Court to force a revision to the law. Perhaps not. Amending the law to reflect contemporary realities remains the right thing for Congress to do. Instead of gnashing our teeth and reliving old battles, we Americans should consider it a source of great pride that legal provisions contrived to ensure that the Jim Crow era was brought to a welcome close have finally outlived their necessity. (NRO)

So the Left will continue to CROW forever. That’s how their bread is buttered.

All Hail New Coke!

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Monday she is in talks with the NFL to help promote new insurance options under ObamaCare.

Sebelius said the football league has been “very actively and enthusiastically engaged” in discussions about a partnership to encourage people to enroll in newly available insurance plans.

“We’re having active discussions right now with a variety of sports affiliates” about both paid advertising and partnerships to encourage enrollment, Sebelius told reporters.

HHS is reportedly also in talks with the NBA to promote the law.

Partnerships with sports organizations are especially promising to HHS because the department hopes large numbers of young, healthy men will enroll in the law’s new coverage options. 

Attracting young, healthy people will help keep premiums from rising dramatically once the law begins offering new protections for more expensive patients — namely, banning insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions.

Ra ra sis boom ba! Or is that Ra Ra BIG SIS boom ba?

Because the young are the suckers they need to pay for the older people WITH the pre-existing conditions that will bankrupt the whole thing anyhow!

Monday Night Football Brought to you by ObamaCare!

Maybe we’ll even have an ObamaCare Field somewhere.

Big Brother Field. 🙂
The Sibelius Bowl!!
Gotta get the low information, young, morons where they live.
Maybe they sponsor a Facebook page or an App or an X-Box Game…
The administration and its allies, notably Enroll America, are pushing back against opponents of “Obamacare” with a media blitz, door-to-door canvassing and public events designed to direct potential enrollees to the exchanges.

Junk mail and Junk TV brought to you, by Big Brother. Oh happy Days. Happy, Happy Joy Joy!
I wonder if those commercial will be like the drug commercial you see these days. You know the one where they tout the benefit for about 10 seconds and spend the next 20 rattling off side effects that could kill you or give some OTHER crippling disease (that will undoubtedly have to be treated with even more drugs!).
So you’ll get the ra-ra 10 seconds and then… Nothing but more ra- ra!. This is ObamaCare and the Liberal Left we’re talking about. To them ObamaCare is Nirvana and nothing in this universe could ever be wrong with it no matter what.
If this spin doesn’t send the Earth off it’s axis nothing will.
What we need is a National BBQ day celebrating the glorious and wonderful expansion of Big Brother into every facet of your life forever!!
Let’s all Celebrate Big Brother. He’s so great!
A National Weenie Roast that can toast the end of Freedom as you know it!
And the target audience is too stupid to understand it. And if you want to educate them you’re just a fear-mongering Republican who hates everyone- you racist, misogynistic homophobe!
So beware. I’m sure the NSA is listening to me type this right now… <<middle finger to you>>>
Facing these critics, Enroll America President Anne Filipic filmed a three-minute video this month to explain the law’s benefits and launch the group’s “Get Covered America” campaign. The video, like the government’s website, tries to boil down the law into easy-to-understand options. (WP and The Hill)

Translation: Pablum for the stupid and lies of omission and enough spin to make it possible for you to kiss your own ass!
New Coke has arrived and let the Marketing Blitz begin! 🙂
Michael Ramirez Cartoon
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

The Rise of Big Brother

With reports that the Senate Immigration Bill will be passed without being read and that numerous “stimulus” pork bills have been added on to it for votes you know what’s coming next.

Bend over, the giant flange of government is going to give you yet another massive enema up your back side. And if you object, too f*cking bad because they are going to do it for THEIR political expediency and not for you.

On Andrea Tantaros radio show last week, conservative columnist and author Pat Buchanan warned of an unintended consequence of the immigration reform bill, a bill which doesn’t place a high priority on assimilation.

According to Tantaros, her previous guest, former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey, said that the immigration legislation funnels money to so-called community organizing groups like La Raza with the idea of teaching immigrants “American history, the Constitution and civic participation.” That leaves open the possibility of activist groups teaching with a partisan slant — and impedes assimilation. (DC)

And La Raza is a “moderate” group in the same way the SS was in Germany.
The extremist, very racist, anti-white group is well known to anyone who pays attention. But to the Politically Correct crowd there just another advocacy group. And The Politically Correct love a good “community organizer”. 🙂
After all, it was Homeland Security and Labor  that set up the Civil Rights Hotline to rat out bosses who were “abusing” illegals (not arresting the bosses for hiring them you notice).

“This has the potential of becoming the next major civil rights movement,” Schumer told Crowley. “I could envision in the late summer or early fall if Boehner tries to bottle the bill up or put something in without a path to citizenship … I could see a million people on the Mall in Washington.”

So how exactly do you have “Civil Rights” for people who came here and are here illegally to begin with?

Because THE AGENDA is THE AGENDA.

Bob Schieffer, SeeBS News: Do you think Republicans get it on immigration? Because people like Lindsey Graham are saying if you don’t do something, reaching out to Hispanics, you — it might not — you might not need to run anybody for president next time, because with the demographics changing in this country, it’s going to be impossible to elect a Republican president if you don’t get substantial Hispanic support.

Senator Sessions gamely pointed out that a new Congressional Budget Office study has found that the Gang of Eight bill would probably reduce illegal immigration by only 25 percent. “And CBO concludes that the legal immigration will be dramatically increased and we’ll have — in addition to that, we’re going to have lower wages and higher unemployment according to the CBO analysis of this bill,” Sessions said. “Why would any member of Congress want to vote for a bill at a time of high unemployment, falling wages, to bring in a huge surge of new labor that can only hurt the poorest among us the most?”

For Votes, Senator, for Votes.

Senator Schumer said, Boehner will have to bring the legislation to a vote even if a majority of Republicans are against it. Enough Democrats and Republicans, he said, will vote for approval.

We’ll just continuously call him a racist until he relents.  Because we all know “Jar Jar” Boehner has a principled backbone. 🙂

Then we’ll have all the power we need to make any opposition to us meaningless.

BIG BROTHER will truly arrive. And anyone who dares to speak out against him will be summarily punished as a thought criminal.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY (the Progressive Liberal Majority)

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH  (any non-liberal thought will be crushed and only Progressive Liberalism taught).

WAR IS PEACE (the war against the Anti-American “right wing” and the pull back to no involvement in the world).

After all, groups like La Raza will “moderate” their views when they have complete control over you, you white misogynistic, homophobic, politically in correct non-liberal racist!

And anyone who is an “uncle tom” to the cause will be dealt with as well.

Hegemony in Thought is Paramount.

Don’t give them even the opportunity to think of disagreeing with the Collective.

“To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free…to a time when truth exists, and what is done cannot be undone…From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink–greetings!” – George Orwell, 1984

 

 

Food For The Sowell X

Thomas Sowell: If there is ever a contest for words that substitute for thought, “diversity” should be recognized as the undisputed world champion.

You don’t need a speck of evidence, or a single step of logic, when you rhapsodize about the supposed benefits of diversity. The very idea of testing this wonderful, magical word against something as ugly as reality seems almost sordid.

To ask whether institutions that promote diversity 24/7 end up with better or worse relations between the races than institutions that pay no attention to it is only to get yourself regarded as a bad person. To cite hard evidence that places obsessed with diversity have worse race relations is to risk getting yourself labeled an incorrigible racist. Free thinking is not free.

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the government has a “compelling interest” in promoting diversity — apparently more compelling than the 14th Amendment’s requirement of “equal protection” of the law for everybody.

How does a racially homogeneous country like Japan manage to have high quality education, without the essential ingredient of diversity, for which there is supposedly a “compelling” need?

Conversely, why does India, one of the most diverse nations on Earth, have a record of intergroup intolerance and lethal violence today that is worse than that in the days of our Jim Crow South?

Even to ask such questions is to provoke charges of unworthy tactics, and motives too low to be dignified with an answer. Not that the true believers in diversity could answer anyway.

Among the candidates for runner-up to “diversity” as the top word for making thought obsolete is “fair.”

Apparently everyone is entitled to a “fair share” of a society’s prosperity, whether they worked 16-hour days to help create that prosperity or did nothing more than live off the taxpayers or depend on begging or crime to bring in a few bucks.

Apparently we owe them something just for gracing us with their presence, even if we feel that we could do without them quite well.

At the other end of the income scale, the rich are supposed to pay their “fair share” of taxes. But at neither end of the income scale is a “fair share” defined as a particular number or proportion, or in any other concrete way. It is just a political synonym for “more,” dressed up in moralistic-sounding rhetoric. What “fair” really means is more arbitrary power for government.

Another word that shuts down thought is “access.” People who fail to meet the standards for anything from college admission to a mortgage loan are often said to have been denied “access” or opportunity.

But equal access or equal opportunity is not the same as equal probability of success. Republicans are not denied an equal opportunity to vote in California, even though the chances of a Republican candidate actually getting elected in California are far less than the chances of a Democrat getting elected.

By the same token, if everyone is allowed to apply for college admission, or for a mortgage loan, and their applications are all judged by the same standards, then they have equal opportunity, even if the village idiot has a lower probability of getting into the Ivy League, and someone with a bad credit history is less likely to be lent money.

“Affordable” is another popular word that serves as a substitute for thought. To say that everyone is entitled to “affordable housing” is very different from saying that everyone should decide what kind of housing he or she can afford.

Government programs to promote “affordable housing” are programs to allow some people to decide what housing they want and force other people — taxpayers, landlords or whatever — to absorb a share of the cost of a decision that they had no voice in making.

More generally, making various things “affordable” in no way increases the amount of wealth in a society above what it would be when prices are “prohibitively expensive.” On the contrary, price controls reduce incentives to produce.

None of this is rocket science. But if you don’t stop and think, it doesn’t matter whether you are a genius or a moron. Words that stop people from thinking reduce even smart people to the same level as morons.

An God (Obama) know the Democrats want and need more morons.

The Underclass

Sheep Clothes 590 CDN logo

The most recent evidence comes from a Gallup survey of small businesses, commissioned by the Littler Mendelson consulting firm. Gallup found that more than four in 10 companies have frozen hiring because of Obama-Care, and almost one in five have cut workers to minimize the cost of the law.

Another 38% said they’d “pulled back on their plans to grow their business.”

Meanwhile, just 9% thought ObamaCare would be good for their business.

Littler Mendelson’s Steven Friedman called the findings “pretty startling.”

Evidence Stacking Up

This is hardly the first or only sign of ObamaCare’s harmful side effects on the job market.

A January survey by human resources consulting firm Adecco that half of small businesses said they planned to cut jobs, not hire new workers, or shift to more part-timers because of the law.

In March, the Federal Reserve reported that businesses were citing ObamaCare costs “as reasons for planned layoffs and reluctance to hire more staff.”

Earlier this year, Gallup found a sharp uptick in part-time work, with part-timers accounting for almost 21% of the labor force, up from 19% three years ago.

IBD’s Jed Graham reported in May that retailers had cut average weekly hours for nonsupervisory workers by 2%, the sharpest such decline in more than three decades.

Graham also reported on the explosion in temp jobs, noting that “in the past four months, the temp industry has added 99,000 jobs, a spurt that has outpaced the gains in every other sector, except the restaurant industry.”

Companies are starting to tell in quarterly earnings reports how they will be cutting hours or shifting to part-time help to avoid taking a massive Obama-Care hit to their bottom lines.

And last week, IBD reported that local governments across the country have been cutting part-time hours to 29 or fewer a week so they can avoid ObamaCare as much as possible.

Full-Time Problem

What’s driving all this jobs trauma is the ObamaCare mandate that every company with 50 or more full-time workers provide those workers “affordable” health benefits, or face fines that can add up to millions of dollars. The IRS decided in a ruling earlier this year that for the purposes of ObamaCare, a 30-hour workweek would be considered full time.

The situation has gotten bad enough that even Democrats who voted for the law are starting to worry about the mandate’s ill effects on jobs.

Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., has even teamed up with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on a bill that would define “full time” as 40 hours a week. Donnelly told the Washington Post that without that change, ObamaCare will “be a negative for our families.”

Who’s Ignorant?

ObamaCare backers claim that all this talk from small firms about cutting jobs comes from the fact that too many are ignorant of the law. “We need to do more educating about the law,” said Rhett Buttle of the Small Business Majority.

Organizing for Action (The Obama Campaign group) is launching a seven-figure ad campaign promoting Obamacare, as the administration works to convince more Americans to sign up for health care under the president’s signature law.

“Better coverage and lower costs, that’s what Obamacare means for them,” adds the narrator of the latest ad.

What universe of delusion do they live– It’s called Progressive Liberalism. It’s a mental disorder. It prevents reality from seeping in to their wish fulfillment.  The universe works the way they want it and if it doesn’t it’s not because they are delusional it’s because you’re mean, cruel and stupid and you want to deny their “enlightened” brilliance.

You’re the problem, not them!!

But the ones who’ve shown their ignorance are those Democrats who thought the federal government could sharply boost the cost of employment without having a negative effect on jobs.

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius even claimed that the employer mandate would provide small businesses an incentive to hire. “What I hear from folks is they see this as a huge step forward,” she said.

If Democrats really want to take a huge step forward on jobs, a good place to start would be repealing ObamaCare entirely. (IBD)

But since this was the Holy Grail of Government control and expansion that will never happen and it will never be their fault either.

“Proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing” (Douglas Adams) and Democrats have total faith in themselves so it must be someone elses fault when their schemes crash and burn.

There is no chance they could be wrong. There view of the universe just doesn’t spin that way.

You doubt it? Read on…

If you have to keep it a secret, you probably shouldn’t be doing it.

I guess you have to pass it to find out what’s in it. Maybe… 🙂

But the California legislature and the new Covered California health insurance exchange are conspiring to keep secret how they will dole out more than half a billion dollars in taxpayer dollars to contractors. The lion’s share of the money is going for what the exchange budget terms “outreach.”

In truth, the money is going to build Democratic Party enrollment.

The Obama administration granted a whopping $910 million to California to set up its insurance exchange. That money is not for bandages, surgery, nurses and doctors to care for the sick. Nor is it for insurance plans, though $910 million could buy generous coverage for at least 113,000 people!

Shockingly, the $910 million is slated for bureaucracy, including rich compensation packages for exchange employees ($360,000 a year for the executive director) and contracts for computer equipment, public relations and “outreach.”

Outreach is the largest expenditure and where the real monkey business occurs.

Amazingly, California legislators passed a law that the exchange could keep secret for a year who received the contracts and indefinitely how much they were paid. California’s open-records laws would otherwise prohibit such secrecy.

Last week, Republican U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and four other Republican senators on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee called for an investigation of California’s concealing information on contracts awarded using federal taxpayer money.

What is known so far suggests that California politicians are exploiting health reform to enroll millions of the uninsured in the Democratic Party and fill the coffers of left-wing interest groups with taxpayer money.

Here are the facts to back up that cynical picture:

California lawmakers passed a law (Senate Bill 35) requiring that voter registration be part of the health insurance exchange.

Last month, Covered California announced $37 million in grants to 48 organizations to build public awareness about the opening of the health exchange on Oct. 1.

Of the 48 organizations that got grants, only a handful are health-care related. The California NAACP received $600,000 to do door-to-door canvassing and presentations at community organizations.

Service Employees International Union, which says its mission is “economic justice,” received two grants totaling $2 million to make phone calls, robo-calls and go door to door.

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO got $1 million for door-to-door, one-on-one education and social networking. It describes its role as “engaging in both organizing and political campaigns, electing pro-union and pro-worker candidates.”

Community Health Councils, a California organization with a long history of political activism against fracking, for-profit hospitals, state budget cuts and oil exploration, got $1 million to conduct presentations at community and neighborhood meetings and one-to-one sessions.

These organizations, closely allied with the Democratic Party, are being funded by your tax dollars to conduct “outreach,” meaning the kind of phone banking and door-to-door canvassing that activists do to turn out the vote. They will turn out the uninsured to enroll on the exchanges and in the Democratic Party.

The $37 million awarded last month is only the first installment of California’s $190.4 million to be spent on contracts for “outreach” through December 2014.

In addition to outreach, California’s actual enrollment process is also outsourced to employees of community organizations, unions and health clinics. These enrollment “assisters” will be paid $58 for each enrollee they sign up. An additional $49 million is budgeted to pay them the first year, but in future years, assisters will be paid out of the premiums collected by the exchange.

The template is repeated in every state. The Obama health law creates a permanent stream of funding for unions and community activists by outsourcing insurance enrollment to them.

Assisters will also guide the uninsured to sign up for whatever non-health social services they may be eligible for, including welfare, food stamps and housing assistance, according to the manual prepared by the Community Health Councils for California’s implementation.

Anyone who remembers the days of James Curley, Boss Tweed and Tammany Hall gets the picture. If you were poor or a newcomer to this country, you went to the local ward boss and got whatever you needed in exchange for your vote.

The difference is that back then, politics was local. Now the Obama health law is institutionalizing this corrupt style of politics across the country. Whether you live in California or New York, local community activists and unions will be recruiting people to enroll in ObamaCare and sign up to be part of the permanent, beholden Democratic voting majority.

Add in the Illegal Aliens (“New Democrats”) and  Gee, you have a permanent underclass of dependence that will vote for you regardless of what you do to them or anyone else. What could possibly be better than that!
That’ll show the world how great they are.
And I have never said anything like that before….:)
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Trust Me 2

The Voice of the “Most Transparent” administration ever! 🙂

Jay Carney doesn’t have an answer for that. He hasn’t discussed that subject with the president. He will refer you to the Department of [insert agency here]. He refuses to speculate on that. He’ll have to get back to you.

But he appreciates the question.

A Yahoo News analysis of the 444 briefings that Carney has held since becoming White House press secretary has identified 13 distinct strains in the way he dodges a reporter’s question. Since Carney held his first daily briefing with reporters in the White House Brady Press Briefing Room on Feb. 16, 2011, for example, he’s used some variation of “I don’t have the answer” more than 1,900 times. In 1,383 cases he referred a question to someone else. But will he at least speculate on hypotheticals? No. In fact, he has refused to do so 525 times. (yahoo)

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/top-9-486-ways-jay-carney-won-t-104907191.html

The Gang of Eight says it has — presto! — fixed the big border security holes in their must-be-passed-yesterday amnesty package. After the 1986 fiasco, skeptics won’t settle for promises on paper.

Trust me, I know what I’m doing! 🙂

trust me trust-me-i-know-what-i-m-doing-2

The world will not come to an end if immigration reform with a so-called “path to citizenship” — i.e., phased-in amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens — doesn’t happen before the 2014 congressional elections. A number of Republican politicians have been terrified by their political enemies in both politics and the media into swallowing the dubious notion that the Grand Old Party’s long-term fortunes depend on an ethnic group totaling less than 9% of the electorate.

But the Republicans have been bullied into thinking it is the solution. When, in fact, it just benefits the bully.

But that group — Hispanics — actually gave a much bigger share of votes to Democrats in the election that took place after the last time Republicans got behind a big amnesty, the Reagan-backed ’86 immigration reform.

That was 3 million illegals. Now it’s at least 4 times that. Imagine what it’ll be the next time, and there will be a next time!

But the Democrats will have full autocratic control by then so it won’t matter what you think.

That fact should have taught the GOP a hard lesson: Democrats, the party of Big Government, always win when Republicans play on their turf by embracing the politics and policies of giving different groups favors.  The most politically effective way of doing favors, after all, is through promised government handouts.

And their is no more practiced at bribery than Democrats.

As of Thursday, the bill being pushed by the bipartisan Gang of Eight — which might more fittingly be called the Gang That Couldn’t Think Straight — is to feature a $3.2 billion “border surge” with promises of 20,000 more border police, 700 miles of new fencing and gadgetry ranging from video cameras, ground radar, lookout towers and even seismic monitors to more choppers, airplanes and even drones.

Well, that would be if the Democrats would actually build it. But they won’t. They’ll say they are, then thy won’t. Look at the Border Fence Act where BY LAW they have to build the fence and they don’t. What makes you think they’ll do it this time??

They promise that the Pentagon, the Homeland Security Department and the Government Accountability Office will have to validate the border as secure before illegals are let onto their path to American citizenship.

Bwah hahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Well, how about this: You do all those things to beef up the border first, as a national security priority.  (The global war on terror demands it.) If after a couple of years we find the border really is permanently secure — and it’ll take such a passage of time to know for sure — then we can talk about what form of relief there should be for the millions of people whose first act in America was to break our laws by entering surreptitiously.

Immigration reform will happen only with “broad bipartisan support,” House Speaker John Boehner warned on Thursday, and only if the plan is to do it properly.  “First and foremost,” Boehner said, “that means confidence that our borders are secure.”

But will a paper promise give the speaker confidence our borders are secured?  Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., oozed confidence Thursday as he promised of the new security provisions in the Gang of Eight bill that, once skeptics “see what’s in this bill, it’s almost overkill.”

The hard reality, as demonstrated time and again, most infamously in recent years by ObamaCare, is that even the authors of these big complicated laws themselves don’t know whether they really work until they are in operation.

The 1986 immigration reform was supposed to solve illegal immigration with employer penalties and other measures, yet here we are 11 million illegals and 27 years later. As Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, likes to say comparing the Gang of Eight’s bill to the ’86 mess: “Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.”

Amnesty is not an urgent priority; it can wait.  Fixing the border can’t. (IBD)

But Politics over the people reigns again…
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

brewer pelosi
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

A New Set of Jackboots

President Barack Obama will target carbon emissions from power plants as part of a second-term climate change agenda expected to be rolled out in the next few weeks, his top energy and climate adviser said on Wednesday.

And of course, what will that do to energy prices? Skyrocket them. Which won’t be his fault according to the Ministry of Truth.

So the poor, the middle class, everyone that the Democrats pander to and expect to vote for them because they kiss each other ass is going to get socked and socked hard for a Political Agenda masquerading as “science”.

“Our dangerous carbon emissions have come down, but we know we have to do more. And we will do more,” he said in a speech.

Of course, who produces much more than we do?  The Chinese.

Who’s ass was he just recently kissing in Person: The Chinese.

Who benefits the most: The Chinese.

Hmmm…I walks like Peking Duck…Quacks like Peking Duck…It must be GLOBAL WARMING!

And the sauce for the is duck: think of all the jobs lost and the unemployment and dependency that will rise. Certainly a good Democrat outcome. 🙂

She said the administration plans to expand energy efficiency standards for appliances, accelerate clean energy development on public lands and use the Clean Air Act to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in the power and energy sectors.

The Environmental Protection Agency is working to finish carbon emissions standards for new power plants. It is then expected to tackle regulations on existing power plants.

The Next Jackboots are being fitted for Big Brother Wardrobe…And of course, this will have no effect on energy prices like what you pay at the pump (After all the government wants everyone to drive an ObamaCar- The Chevy Volt) or at the thermostat (gotta have those solar panels or wind turbines).

What the world needs now is higher energy prices! That’s the ticket! 🙂

Remember 1979? That was the year of “We Are Family” by Sister Sledge, of “The Dukes of Hazard” on TV, and of “ Kramer vs. Kramer” on the silver screen. It was the year the Shah was forced out of Iran. It was before the web, before the personal computer, before the cell phone, before voicemail and answering machines. But not before the global warming campaign.

In January of 1979, a New York Times article was headlined: “Experts Tell How Antarctic Ice Could Cause Widespread Floods.” The abstract in the Times archives says: “If the West Antarctic ice sheet slips into the sea, as some glaciologists believe is possible, boats could be launched from the bottom steps of the Capitol in Washington and a third of Florida would be under water, a climate specialist said today.”

Mind you, 4 years earlier it was on the cover of Newsweek about Global Cooling!

By 1981 (think “Chariots of Fire“), the drum beat had taken effect. Quoting from the American Institute of Physics website: “A 1981 survey found that more than a third of American adults claimed they had heard or read about the greenhouse effect.”

So where’s the warming? Where are the gondolas pulling up to the Capitol? Where are the encroaching seas in Florida? Or anywhere? Where is the climate change which, for 33 years, has been just around the corner?

A generation and a half into climate change, née global warming, you can’t point to a single place on earth where the weather is noticeably different from what it was in 1979. Or 1879, for that matter. I don’t know what subliminal changes would be detected by precise instruments, but in terms of the human experience of climate, Boston is still Boston, Cairo is still Cairo, and Sydney is still Sydney.

After all this time, when the continuation of industrial civilization itself is on the table, shouldn’t there be some palpable, observable effect of the disaster that we are supposed to sacrifice our futures in order to avoid? Shouldn’t the doom-sayers be saying “We told you so!” backed up by a torrent of youtube videos of submerged locales and media stories reminding us about how it used to snow in Massachusetts?

Climate panic, after all, is fear of dramatic, life-altering climate changes, not about tenths of a degree. We are told that we must “take action right now before it’s Too Late!” That doesn’t mean: before it’s too late to avoid a Spring that comes a week earlier or summer heat records of 103 degrees instead of 102. It was to fend off utter disaster that we needed the Kyoto Treaty, carbon taxes, and Priuses.

With nothing panic-worthy–nothing even noticeable–ensuing after 33 years, one has to wonder whether external reality even matters amid the frenzy. (It’s recently been admitted that there has been no global warming for the last 16 years.) For the climate researchers, what matters may be gaining fame and government grants, but what about the climate-anxious trend-followers in the wider public? What explains their indifference to decade after decade of failed predictions?  Beyond sheer conformity, dare I suggest a psychological cause: a sense of personal anxiety projected outward? “The planet is endangered by carbon emissions” is far more palatable than “My life is endangered by my personal evasions.” Something is indeed careening out of control, but it isn’t the atmosphere.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Trade more freedom for security. It will cost you more than money!

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Princeton physics professor William Happer on why a large number of scientists don’t believe that carbon dioxide is causing global warming.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence. (WSJ)

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

But as I have said many times, to many Global Warming and it’s attendant Authoritarian and Ludite/Hippy views are almost religion and it’s heresy to defend to your death to defend their belief. Science, that agrees with them is only an excuse.

“For Proof Denies Faith and without Faith I am Nothing”– Douglas Adams

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
 Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

It’s still just AMNESTY

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and votes like a duck…It’s a Duck!

The Amnesty Duck!

The Senate on Tuesday voted against tough border security measures that it promised to put in place years ago. Tell us again why we should trust them to secure the borders later after granting amnesty first.

In a pair of votes, the Senate turned down a border fence it promised to build seven years ago and a biometric entry-exit system it promised to put in place 17 years ago. The history of these previous efforts to secure the nation’s borders is illuminating.

In 2006, Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, requiring 700 miles of double-tiered fencing get built along the Mexican border. Though the fence would only cover a fraction of that border, President Bush told Americans: “This bill will help protect the American people. This bill will make our borders more secure. It is an important step toward immigration reform.”

“We have a responsibility to secure our borders,” he added. “We take this responsibility seriously.”

Seriously? A year later, Congress quietly passed a law that largely neutered the fence requirement, and today, only 36 miles of it have been built.

Yet when Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., introduced a bill requiring that just half the original 700-mile fence get built before illegals gain amnesty, and the other 350 before they can gain citizenship, it went down in flames, with Sen. Marco Rubio and a few other Republicans voting against it.

Shortly after rejecting Thune’s fence, the Senate turned down an amendment introduced by David Vitter, R-La., that would have required a biometric entry-exit system at every land, sea and airport of entry before today’s illegals get green cards.

Congress promised to create this system way back in 1996 — part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act — to better track those entering and leaving the country. But it too never was built.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., gave the game away in explaining his opposition to this prudent idea. “I want biometrics as far as the eye can see, in as many ways as possible, post-9/11, to protect this nation,” he said. “But to make it a trigger, in light of how much it costs and how long it takes, I just think goes too far.”

So there you have it: Since the Senate is desperate to get amnesty done as soon as possible, it can’t let little inconveniences like securing the border or tracking people coming into the country get in the way.

As we’ve said many times in this space, border security has to come before any effort is made to grant legal status to today’s 11 million illegals. For good reason: Failure to do so will only encourage more to cross the border, in the justifiable belief that once here they, too, will get citizenship without having to wait in line. We’re already seeing illegal crossings increase even before the law is passed.

Plus, putting border security first would give those here illegally now an incentive to see security done quickly, creating a lobbying force that would be impossible to ignore.

History already proves that putting the carrot ahead of the stick doesn’t work. The 1986 immigration law also promised to close gaps in the border in exchange for amnesty. But as soon as soon as Democrats got amnesty on the books, they started putting roadblocks in the way of enforcement.

The result was that just three years after the bill’s passage, illegal border crossings had actually increased, and today the number in the country illegally has climbed fourfold.

A few days ago, Rubio said immigration reform had to ensure “that we will never have another wave of illegal immigration again.” But with the Senate turning down every meaningful border security measure, that’s the only thing we can guarantee will happen again if this bill becomes law. (IBD)

You can try to put “conservative” lipstick on the lawless amnesty mob. In the end, however, it’s still a lawless mob. The big government/big business alliance to protect illegal immigration got a lot of mileage using foolish Republicans Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan as front men. But the true colors of the open-borders grievance-mongers always show through.

After America said no to a pork-filled security-undermining amnesty bill in 2007, the No Illegal Alien Left Behind lobbyists changed their overtly thuggish tactics. They put down their upside-down American flags, stopped wearing their commie Che Guevara T-shirts and cloaked their radical “Aztlan” aspirations in the less divisive rhetoric of “reform” and “opportunity.”

It was all just an act, of course. Inevitably, the mask has slipped. Over the weekend, illegal alien protesters descended on the private residence of Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement lawyer Kris Kobach. As Twitchy.com reported on Saturday, 300 amnesty activists marched into Kobach’s neighborhood and barged up his driveway and right onto his doorstep. It’s how the Alinskyite “community organizers” roll.

Shouting into a bullhorn and waving their fists from his front porch, the property rights-invaders dubbed Kobach “King of Hate” for his work representing border security activists and federal customs enforcement agents who are fighting the systemic sabotage of immigration law. Thankfully, Kobach, his wife and their four young daughters were not home at the time.

But the aggrieved amnesty demanders are not done yet. And Kobach is not the only one in their crosshairs.

After tea party activist turned Kansas state representative Amanda Grosserode condemned the mob action publicly on Facebook, racist insults and threats littered her page. Roberto Medina Ramirez wrote: “I’ll give her something to be disgusted about!” Doris Lynn Crouse Gent chimed in: “OMG! Maybe her drive should be next.” Matt S. Bashaw echoed the call: “Maybe her house should be next.” Facebook user Jude Robinson also ranted on Grosserode’s page: “Since Kobach steals taxpayer money spreading hate around the country, he deserves what he gets.”

Dennis Paul Romero left this message for Grosserode: “(N)azi kkk and she is proud of it.” A user writing as “Paul-says Fckmarkzuck” left death threats under Romero’s comment: “Gotta start killing all the Nazis. Politicans (sic), bankers, and priests. Cops, lawyers, and Judges. ASAP.” The same user added: “Just another b*tch that needs to die off already.”

The radicals of Occupy Kansas posted an inflammatory photo of Grosserode with the race-baiting caption: “Kansas State legislator Amanda Grosserode says she is ‘disgusted’ by Hispanic protesters.” Grosserode wasn’t disgusted by their ethnicity. She was disgusted by their actions. No matter. Race/ethnic card: activated.

Gina Long pounced: “(S)he is stupid and doesn’t like brown people.” So did Diana Bauer: “Ah, poor Ms Grosserode; sorry that you find our Constitution so difficult to stomach. Or is it only whites that have the right to freedom of speech.” One Lupe Ramirez left his own message for Grosserode: “We are starting our fundraising and campaign to unseat you. Do you not realize how many Hispanics are in Kansas. You no longer live in Dorothy’s Kansas. You cannot represent your state, you don’t even know who they are.”

Grosserode isn’t backing down. She told me Tuesday that she will remain “vigilant” and has given local law enforcement a heads-up. The conservative mom and lawmaker notes sadly that “there are some who would say that when you are in elected office that you should expect this kind of thing. I would disagree. No one deserves threats nor threats to their home and family.”

But the amnesty vigilantes have no respect for borders, let alone private front porches, in their quest for another massive federal illegal alien bailout. They have no respect for law-abiding U.S. workers. They have no respect for law-abiding foreigners applying to get into our country the right and proper way.

As they besiege Capitol Hill this month demanding more rights and payoffs, take note: These groups do not stand for the American dream. They are a nightmare conglomeration of George Soros-funded social justice operatives, transnationalists and La Raza militants who detest U.S. sovereignty. National People’s Action, which spearheads progressive “direct actions” at the private homes of their political foes and led the march on Kobach’s home, is a “community organizing” nonprofit based in — you guessed it — Chicago.

NPA’s past shakedowns have involved busing in protesters and schoolchildren (using public school buses) to invade the private property of their victims and intimidate their families. They relish their brass knuckles with this anthem:

Who’s on your hit list NPA?

Who’s on your hit list for today?

Take no prisoner, take no names.

Kick ’em in the (a–) when they play their games.

As I first reported in 2004, NPA is funded by the Tides Foundation, the Ben and Jerry’s Foundation, and the MacArthur, Ford and Rockefeller foundations. It’s also funded by your tax dollars. My research found that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Education had all given tens of thousands of dollars in grants to NPA members for left-wing activism, identity politics and illegal alien benefits.

Rubio, Ryan and other Republicans who’ve made common cause with these welfare-state goons have betrayed fundamental principles of limited government and the rule of law. They’ve allied themselves with the mob. There’s nothing, not one thing, “conservative” about mass illegal alien amnesty. It’s the complete Chicago-ization of America. (michelle malkin)

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Trust me.

And Obamacare’s raft of regulations and costly benefit mandates will only drive prices higher. According to a new report from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, major health insurers expect average premiums for individuals to double — and in some cases, to quintuple. Small-business premiums will shoot up anywhere from 50 to 100 percent.

Of course, if premiums increase, the federal subsidies Obamacare established to keep them affordable will have to surge, too. The Congressional Budget Office recently raised expected subsidy costs over the next decade by $233 billion.

The Obamacare train is derailing right now. The only way to stop it from crippling taxpayers, small businesses, the health care system, and the economy is to cut the engine and pull hard on the brakes. (Forbes)

CBS News: Radical Muslims in Iran Are Pretty Much Like the Tea Party

Because the new President of Iran is “more reform minded” and “more conservative” than the insane Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that makes them like the Tea Party. Wow! what disrespectful and just downright ugly generalization.

But that’s the left for you. Anything that isn’t them must be “tea Party” radicals. Because we know they are all crazy racist, homophobic, misogynistic voter suppression asshole!

So anyone who anyone to the “right” of anyone else must be “tea party”. 🙂

Oh, and if the State passes a law that the Federal government is ignoring, well, you’re still screwed as the “motor voter” law was overturned because Big Brother takes precedence over all.

So much for the 10th Amendment. (or the first, or second…)

Trust me, I’m a federal government bureaucrat and I’m here to help you… 🙂

Thomas Sowell: Amid all the heated cross-currents of debate about the National Security Agency’s massive surveillance program, there is a growing distrust of the Obama administration that makes weighing the costs and benefits of the NSA program itself hard to assess.

The belated recognition of this administration’s contempt for the truth, for the American people and for the Constitution of the United States, has been long overdue.

But what if the NSA program has in fact thwarted terrorists and saved many American lives in ways that cannot be revealed publicly?

Nothing is easier than saying that you still don’t want your telephone records collected by the government. But the first time you have to collect the remains of your loved ones, after they have been killed by terrorists, telephone records can suddenly seem like a small price to pay to prevent such things.

The millions of records of phone calls collected every day virtually guarantee that nobody has the time to listen to them all, even if NSA could get a judge to authorize listening to what is said in all these calls, instead of just keeping a record of who called whom.

Moreover, Congressional oversight by members of both political parties limits what Barack Obama or any other president can get away with.

Are these safeguards foolproof? No. Nothing is ever foolproof.

As Edmund Burke said, more than two centuries ago: “Constitute government how you please, infinitely the greater part of it must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state.”

In other words, we do not have a choice whether to trust or not to trust government officials. Unless we are willing to risk anarchy or terrorism, the most we can do is set up checks and balances within government — and be a lot more careful in the future than we have been in the past when deciding whom to elect.

Anyone old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, when President John F. Kennedy took this country to the brink of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, may remember that there was nothing like the distrust and backlash against later presidents, whose controversial decisions risked nothing approaching the cataclysm that President Kennedy’s decision could have led to.

Even those of us who were not John F. Kennedy supporters, and who were not dazzled by the glitter and glamour of the Kennedy aura, nevertheless felt that the President of the United States was someone who knew much more than we did about the realities on which all our lives depended.

Whatever happened to that feeling? Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon happened — and both were shameless liars. They destroyed not only their own credibility, but the credibility of the office.

Even when Lyndon Johnson told us the truth at a crucial juncture during the Vietnam war — that the Communist offensive of 1968 was a defeat for them, even as the media depicted it as a defeat for us — we didn’t believe him.

In later years, Communist leaders themselves admitted that they had been devastated on the battlefield. But, by then it was too late. What the Communists lost militarily on the ground in Vietnam they won politically in the American media and in American public opinion.

More than 50,000 Americans lost their lives winning battles on the ground in Vietnam, only to have the war lost politically back home. We seem to be having a similar scenario unfolding today in Iraq, where soldiers won the war, only to have politicians lose the peace, as Iraq now increasingly aligns itself with Iran.

When Barack Obama squanders his own credibility with his glib lies, he is not just injuring himself during his time in office. He is inflicting a lasting wound on the country as a whole.

But we the voters are not blameless. Having chosen an untested man to be president, on the basis of rhetoric, style and symbolism, we have ourselves to blame if we now have only a choice between two potentially tragic fates — the loss of American lives to terrorism or a further dismantling of our freedoms that has already led many people to ask: “Is this still America?”

No. It isn’t. 😦

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Republicide

Republicide 590 CDN logo

Ann Coulter wondered on Thursday how dumb Republicans were on immigration. That day, two prominent GOP reform advocates — Sens. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush — rushed in to provide the answer.

On a radio show, Rubio, the leading Republican in the so-called Gang of Eight pushing the immigration bill, argued that the fines collected from 11 million newly legalized noncitizens were needed “to pay for border security.”

Never mind that the fines can be waived, or that on balance these formerly illegal immigrants could end up costing taxpayers billions. By Rubio’s logic we should let in still more illegals so we can fine them, too, and build an even stronger fence still further off in the future.

Bush argued the country needed immigration reform because immigrants are “more fertile” and “love families.” Oddly, he said this at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s “Road to the Majority” conference, apparently unaware that most of these more fertile immigrants will be voting Democratic, thereby making the possibility of a GOP majority more remote.

It’s not that Democrats are showing much more intelligence. Some don’t even know basic U.S. geography.

Nevada’s Democratic Sens. Harry Reid and Dean Heller want to grant Nevada border-state status so it can be included in the bill’s Southern Border Security Commission, even though it’s roughly 150 miles from Mexico.

And Sen. Mary Landrieu claimed on the Senate floor that South Dakota borders Canada — after complaining about the “dumb fence” idea for the Mexican border.

But Democrats can afford to be occasionally stupid on this issue, since Republicans are so eagerly helping them advance their political agenda.

The Republicans are so desperate to be liked they’ll destroy the very country they are “fighting” for. Forever.
And the Democrats just have to sit back and let them cut their own throats. The Republicans will even ask THEM to sharpen the knife and hand it to them.

On Guard 600 w logo

The Dance Continues…

“I think we need to do a better job of explaining to the American people exactly what is kept, what are the real restrictions on how—I’m just talking now for DHS, Department of Homeland Security–how we use it, how long we can keep it, how we share it, all those thing,” she explained.

Sound like ObamaCare. If we explained it better you’d love it?

On Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services announced $54 million in grants for Affordable Care Act navigators — people or organizations that will help explain the health law’s new programs.

$54 Million dollars to hire PR people. Wow! And they complain about the Sequester!

“they have a more educational role of providing “information and services in a fair, accurate and impartial manner,”

Bwah hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

So they’ll tell you you’re screwed in a happy, hapy joy joy kind of way.

No, that’s not creepy at all! 🙂

But here’s the funny part:

The White House wants to reverse $500 million in cuts to the Medicaid program meant to start in 2014, aiming to ensure that states have adequate funds to assist those that remain uninsured under the Affordable Care Act.

This was the little discussed and lot denied double counted “savings” that was going to make ObamaCare “affordable” back in 2009 when it was being hotly debated.

Counting these cuts as “savings” was half of the savings designed.

2011:

During a hearing on Capitol Hill Thursday, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget.

In her first appearance before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee since the health-care law passed, Kathleen Sebelius responded to a line of questioning by Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois about whether $500 billion in Medicare cuts were used to sustain the program or pay for the law.

“There is an issue here on the budget because your own actuary has said you can’t double-count,” said Shimkus. “You can’t count — they’re attacking Medicare on the CR when their bill, your law, cut $500 billion from Medicare.”

He continued: “Then you’re also using the same $500 billion to what? Say your funding health care. Your own actuary says you can’t do both. […] What’s the $500 billion in cuts for? Preserving Medicare or funding the health-care law?

Sebelius’ reply? “Both.” (DC)

“To better align DSH payments with expected levels of uncompensated care, the Budget proposes to begin reductions in 2015, instead of 2014,” the White House proposes.

The DSH cuts are supposed to start in 2014 with $500 million in reductions and get bigger each year. In 2022, the DSH program faces a $4 billion reduction.

In other words, do it AFTER the election. 🙂

What do you want to bet there will quietly be some more maneuvering when Hilary officially starts running for the post of Obama’s hand picked successor. 🙂

One of the enduring mysteries of President Obama’s health law is how its spending constraints and payroll tax hikes on high earners can be used to shore up Medicare finances and at the same time pay for a massive new entitlement program. Isn’t this double counting?

The short answer is: Yes, it is. You can’t spend the same money twice. And so, thanks to the new health law, federal deficits and debt will be hundreds of billions of dollars higher in the next decade alone.

Here’s how it works. When Congress considers legislation that alters taxes or spending related to Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, the changes are recorded not just on the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund’s books, but also on Congress’s “pay-as-you-go” scorecard.

The “paygo” requirement is supposed to force lawmakers to find “offsets” for new tax cuts or entitlement spending, and thus protect against adding to future federal budget deficits. Putting the Medicare payroll tax hikes and spending constraints on the “pay-as-you-go” ledger was instrumental in getting the health law through Congress, because doing so fostered a widespread misperception that the law would reduce future deficits.

But the same provisions add to the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund’s reserves, which expands Medicare’s spending authority. Medicare can only pay full benefits so long as its trust fund has sufficient reserves to meet these obligations. If the trust fund has insufficient resources, then spending must be cut automatically to ensure the fund does not go into deficit. The health law’s Medicare provisions prevent these spending cuts from taking place for several more years.

In short, the scoring convention is not widely understood and thus obscures the double-counting.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand this is to look at Social Security. If we generate $1 in savings within that program, then that’s $1 that Social Security can spend later. If we also claimed this same $1 to finance a new spending program, we would clearly be adding to the total federal deficit. There has long been bipartisan understanding of this aspect of Social Security, which is why Congress’s paygo rules prohibit using Social Security savings as an offset to pay for unrelated federal spending.

No such prohibition exists in the budget process against committing Medicare savings simultaneously to Medicare and to pay for a new federal program. It’s this budget loophole, unique to Medicare, that gives the health law’s spending constraints and payroll tax hikes the appearance of reducing federal deficits. But it is appearance, not reality. If you have only $1 of income and are obliged to pay a dollar each to two different recipients, then you will have to borrow another $1. This is effectively what the health law does. It authorizes far more in spending than it creates in savings.

How much more? Charles Blahous’s study, “The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act,” published last month by the Mercatus Center, found that the health law would add over $340 billion to federal deficits over the next 10 years. Over the longer term, deficits would run into the trillions.

Medicare spending cuts and tax increases have always been double-counted—recorded both on the paygo scorecard and added to the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund. No budgetary rules were bent. But the fiscal stakes in the Affordable Care Act are extraordinarily high. The health law’s Medicare hospital insurance spending cuts and tax hikes are now claimed to have eliminated most of the program’s medium- and long-term deficits—even as they have also paved the way for the most expensive entitlement expansion in a generation.

The government now has on its books two large, expensive and permanent entitlement commitments—the health law’s premium subsidies and the Medicare hospital insurance program—yet Congress has only identified enough resources to pay for one of them. (WSJ)

Now it wants to delay it until after the next election.

No, that’s not cynical and narcissistic at all… 🙂

They aren’t trying hide it again….No No not at all…

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The End of Days

First up,a lesson in mortality.

In 7 hours I will be attending a funeral of a friend I have known for 23 years.

He was only 35.

Remember to cherish your days and your friends.

************************************

Dr. Candice Chen, an assistant research professor of the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services and colleagues studied the career paths of 8,977 physicians who had graduated from 759 medical residency sites from 2006-08. Three to five years after the program ended, the researchers found 25.2 percent of the physicians worked as primary care doctors, although this number almost certainly was an overestimate because it included graduates who practiced as hospitalists, Chen said.

In addition, the researchers found 198 out of 759 institutions produced no rural physicians at all during the study period.

Currently, the United States is producing primary care physicians at rates that are “abysmally low,” Chen said.

***********

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer won a battle with state lawmakers this week, defying most other conservatives in her party to get a key component of President Obama’s Medicaid expansion through the Legislature.

The Arizona Senate voted Thursday to approve the measure 18 to 11. That followed approval earlier this week by the state House of Representatives.

The issue had inflamed passions and divided the Legislature for weeks. Things came to a head Tuesday when Brewer called lawmakers into the Capitol in Phoenix for a surprise special session.

Brewer — a vocal opponent of President Obama’s healthcare reform law — came out  in support of Medicaid expansion for her state in January and ended up leading a contingent of moderate Democrats and Republicans who won over the objections of some conservative Republicans.

“By joining me in extending health coverage to hundreds of thousands of Arizonans, legislators of my own party have come under sharp criticism in some quarters. Some have had threats made not just against their political future, but also their personal livelihood,” Brewer said in a prepared statement.

Brewer added: “But I also know this in my heart: The great majority of Arizonans stand with us. Our citizens have — time and again  — voted to extend cost-effective care to the working poor.”

She sold her soul to the company store for a few “federal” bucks and we got sold d0wn the river of despair and poverty as a state along with her. I have never been the biggest fan of our Governor. She was always just “better than the last one” (Janet Napolitano- Homeland Security Secretary).

You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don’t you call me ’cause I can’t go
I owe my soul to the company store

I wish I could impeach her and all the Republican Wimps at the legislature who gave into this tactic. What’s the point of having a Majority in both houses if you don’t bother to use it properly and you give into bully tactics.

This is yet another reason why Republicans drive me crazy and Liberal Democrats just piss me off.

Thanks Jan, you saddled a state in debt with even more debt. And all those new Illegals will thank you by voting for the next liberal Democrat for Governor.

Where does “federal money” come from Jan? Where? 🙂

Republicans lately have a death wish as a party.

And that’s very bad for America as a whole.

Comment from LA Times Article: These RINOs enter the game with the understanding that they are to act as sleepers until called upon to play the role of Judas goat when the time is right.  America today is UTTERLY corrupt, similar to 5th century Rome.

And it’s all about money for the political class as the hoards of barbarians flood over the gates and invade and swamp the citizenry.

I was right in 10th grade history when I wrote a paper comparing the US to the Roman Empire. And I was a complete political no-nothing back then! :0

Welcome to end of days.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

America’s Stupidiest

Democrats terrify Hispanics into thinking they’ll be lynched if they vote for Republicans, and then turn around and taunt Republicans for not winning a majority of the Hispanic vote.

This line of attack has real resonance with our stupidest Republicans. Which explains why Republicans are devoting all their energy to slightly increasing their share of the Hispanic vote while alienating everyone else in America.

It must be fun for liberals to manipulate Republicans into focusing on hopeless causes. Why don’t Democrats waste their time trying to win the votes of gun owners?

Because, “Vote for Me (Democrat), the other guy’s an asshole!” is working so well you don’t have to worry about ANYTHING you’re doing. You get a free pass because the other guy’s an asshole! 🙂

And the stupid, low-information moron will fall for it!

And the more informed voters will think, “god, that’s really stupid!”.

So you get a 2-fer and you can do anything you want because no one care what you’re doing… 🙂

As journalist Steve Sailer recently pointed out, the Hispanic vote terrifying Republicans isn’t that big. It actually declined in 2012. The Census Bureau finally released the real voter turnout numbers from the last election, and Hispanics came in at only 8.4% of the electorate, not 10% as claimed by the pro-amnesty crowd.

The sleeping giant of the last election wasn’t Hispanics; it was elderly black women, terrified of media claims that Republicans were trying to suppress the black vote and determined to keep the first African-American president in the White House.

Contrary to expectations, 10% more blacks voted in 2012 compared to 2008, even beating white voters, the usual turnout champions. Eligible black voters turned out at a rate of 66.2% vs. 64.1% of eligible white voters. Only 48% of eligible Hispanic voters went to the polls.

No one saw this coming, which is probably why Gallup had Romney up by 5 points before Hurricane Sandy hit, and up by 1 point in its last pre-election poll after the hurricane.

Only two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 — mostly women.

In raw numbers, nearly twice as many blacks voted as Hispanics, and nine times as many whites voted as Hispanics. (Ninety-eight million whites, 18 million blacks and 11 million Hispanics.)

So, naturally, the Republican Party’s entire battle plan going forward is to win slightly more votes from 8.4% of the electorate by giving them something they don’t want.

As columnist Byron York has shown, even if Mitt Romney had won 70% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. No Republican presidential candidate in at least 50 years has won even half of the Hispanic vote.

In the presidential election immediately after Reagan signed an amnesty bill in 1986, the Republican share of the Hispanic vote actually declined from 37% to 30% — and that was in a landslide election for the GOP. Combined, the two Bush presidents averaged 32.5% of the Hispanic vote — and they have Hispanics in their family Christmas cards.

John McCain, the leading amnesty proponent, won only 31% of the Hispanic vote, not much more than anti-amnesty Romney’s 27%. Amnesty is a gift to employers, not employees.The (pro-amnesty) Pew Research Hispanic Center has produced poll after poll showing that Hispanics don’t care about amnesty. In a poll last fall, Hispanic voters said they cared more about education, jobs and health care than immigration. They even care more about the federal budget deficit than immigration!

Also, note that Pew asked about “immigration,” not “amnesty.” Those Hispanics who said they cared about immigration might care about it the way I care about it — by supporting a fence and E-Verify.

Who convinced Republicans that Hispanic wages aren’t low enough and what they really need is an influx of low-wage workers competing for their jobs?

Maybe the greedy businessmen now running the Republican Party should talk with their Hispanic maids sometime. Ask Juanita if she’d like to have seven new immigrants competing with her for the opportunity to clean other people’s houses, so that her wages can be dropped from $20 an hour to $10 an hour.

A wise Latina, A.J. Delgado, recently explained on Mediaite.com why amnesty won’t win Republicans the Hispanic vote — even if they get credit for it. Her very first argument was: “Latinos will resent the added competition for jobs.”

But rich businessmen don’t care. Big Republican donors — and their campaign consultants — just want to make money. They don’t care about Hispanics, and they certainly don’t care what happens to the country. If the country is hurt, I don’t care, as long as I am doing better! This is the very definition of treason.

Hispanic voters are a small portion of the electorate. They don’t want amnesty, and they’re hopeless Democrats. So Republicans have decided the path to victory is to flood the country with lots more of them!

It’s as if Republicans convinced Democrats to fixate on banning birth control to win more pro-life voters. This would be great for Republicans because Democrats will never win a majority of pro-life voters, and about as many pro-lifers care about birth control as Hispanics care about amnesty.

But that still wouldn’t be as idiotic as what Republicans are doing because, according to Gallup, pro-lifers are nearly half of the electorate. Hispanics are only 8.4% of the electorate.

And it still wouldn’t be as stupid as the GOP pushing amnesty, because banning birth control wouldn’t create millions more voters who consistently vote against the Democrats.

Listening to Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus burble a few weeks ago on “Fox News Sunday” about how amnesty is going to push the Republicans to new electoral heights, one is reminded of Democratic pollster Pat Caddell’s reason for refusing to become a Republican:

No matter how enraged he gets at Democratic corruption, he says he can’t bear to join such a stupid party as the GOP. (Ann Coulter)

Me Either. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Government Will Save You

Good Guys 1  ObamaCare Death Panel 0
Sarah Murnaghan, a 10year-old girl with cystic fibrosis whose family fought to have her prioritized for adult organs, is getting a new set of lungs.
Despite being bureaucratic and arbitrarily “too young” for them (according to HHS).
Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Cash-strapped law enforcement agencies in Oregon stop answering calls, sending officers: ‘If he … assaults you, can you ask him to go away?’ 

The first clue as to how dangerous it is to live in Oregon’s Josephine County?

No one answers the phone at the sheriff’s office.

“Due to budgetary constraints,” says a recorded voice, “we are only able to answer the phone from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.”

In the cash-strapped county that is home to scenic Grants Pass, a special election was held this week asking voters to approve a tax levy so more deputies could be hired.

Last year, a woman was raped in her home after calling 911 and staying on the line for more than 10 minutes. She was told there were no officers available to help her.

Yet Josephine County residents said no to the extra property tax that would have cost about $300 a year for homes valued at $200,000.

Sheriff Gil Gilbertson says that defeat will force him to cut even more deputies — after laying off 65% of his staff last year.

He’s gone hat in hand to county commissioners, asking for more than $649,000 to keep what’s left of his staff — some 35 deputies charged with safeguarding more than 83,00 people.

“I’ve asked for money from the county to just maintain the status quo, which in my opinion is not safe,” he told the Daily News.

Josephine County is one of several jurisdictions across the country that have suffered huge federal budget cuts, which in turn caused drastic layoffs of local law enforcement officers and fire fighters.

Cincinnati and Detroit were among some of the big cities forced to fire scores of cops and firefighters this year after losing millions in funds from Washington.

Because begging for money from your Masters in Washington is always the way the Founding Fathers wanted it.

Earlier this year in Wisconsin’s Milwaukee County, Sheriff David Clarke Jr. urged residents to arm themselves and learn how to shoot because “simply calling 911 and waiting is no longer your best option.”

Clarke’s 30-second public service announcement, in which he said he had been forced to fire 48 staffers in 2012, made national news.

Josephine County has garnered similar headlines, thanks to the bluntness of its sheriff.

After having to fire 23 deputies after the 2012-2013 budget was passed was in July, Gilbertson issued a press release suggesting domestic violence victims “consider relocating to an area with adequate law enforcement services.’

Less than a month later, a woman called 911, saying her ex-boyfriend was trying to break into her house.

“He’s broken in before, busted down my door, assaulted me,” Michael Bellah’s victim told a dispatcher. She was told to hide.

The call came in at 4:58 a.m. on a Saturday. The strapped Josephine County sheriff’s deputies are only available Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

So the dispatcher transferred the woman, whose identity has not been published because she is a sex crime victim, to the state police.

And from there, things got even worse. The state police said they didn’t have anyone to send, either.

Dispatcher: “Uh, I don’t have anybody to send out there. You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away?”

Michael Bellah, the former boyfriend, did not go away.

“I’ve already told him I was calling you,” the woman tells the dispatcher. “He’s broken in before, busted down my door, assaulted me.”

The dispatcher tells the woman to hide somewhere in the house.

“It’s unfortunate you guys don’t have any law enforcement out there,” the dispatcher then says.

Bellah, who later pleaded guilty to kidnapping, assault and sexual abuse, busted down the front door, then beat and raped the woman.

Gilbertson said the attack is the sole rape case in Josephine County since last year.

The City of Grants Pass estimates that there has been a 73% increase in thefts and a 53% increase in burglaries, Gilbertson said.

He has no idea what the county-wide crime statistics are because he can’t spare a deputy to collate the data, he said.

Because of federal cuts to timber subsidies last year, Gilbertson said his budget dropped from $12 million in 2012 to $5.2 million this year.

You mean the pride of the Tree Huggers to screw the evil Loggers!! I guess environmentalism has consequences! 🙂

Also apparently, the locals passed on a Tax Increase to give them more money (because they don’t have any either- all the logging jobs dried up!).

Austerity is evil, after all. 🙂

Tuesday’s tax levy, which would have brought in more than $9 million to hire new deputies, was soundly defeated by more than 500 votes.

“The feds have laid claim to all the trees, we can’t cut them down (for timber sales), and now they’ve walked away and turned their backs on us,” Gilbertson said.

Well, they did that because the Tree Huggers don’t want you to cut them down because of the Sierra Club and other who want to “protect” the forest from humans at any cost.

Federal timber production and jobs at Oregon mills have fallen dramatically since 1990, when the northern spotted owl was listed under the Endangered Species Act. Bigger, more efficient mills and the huge housing construction drop in the recent recession contributed as well.

Rough & Ready was among 22 sawmills in Josephine and Jackson counties in 1975, the Phillippis said, down to none now.

“We have customers who are dying for it,” she said. “The only thing we don’t have is the logs.” (Oregon live)

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2013/05/rough_ready_lumber_josephine_c.html

The Obama Administration did the same with oil shale in Southern Utah.

So the government comes in and declares it off-limits (with help from Enviro-whackos) and then leaves you to rot. But don’t worry, government control of everything is much better than evil Corporate America!!

And the Enviro-whackos are proud of themselves. They are the righteous few!

“Then it was up to people who don’t have jobs to pay more taxes for law enforcement, and they just can’t do it,” he said.

So what will the sheriff’s department do?

“We’ll just do the best we can,” Gilbertson replied. “And crime will go up.”

We are From the Government and we are here to help you and we will save you from the evil corporatists! 🙂 (NY Daily News)
In much of western Oregon, the 1990s timber wars have given way to a shaky détente, with a focus on thinning and light-touch restoration in federal forests.

In southwest Oregon, the battle still runs hot.

High unemployment raises the stakes here. So does a storied timber history and a heavy reliance on dwindling logging revenues from federal forests to fund county government. Three Oregon Congressmen want to more than double logging in the region’s O&C Lands, forests shifted to the feds after an early 20th Century railroad deal went sour.

But the consequences are uniquely high for environmentalists, too, who said no to big increases in logging when Gov. John Kitzhaber convened an O&C Lands task force last year to attempt a compromise.

Josephine County and its neighbors sit in the Klamath-Siskiyou eco-region, one of the most biologically diverse places on the planet. The landscape, warmer than Douglas fir strongholds to the north, supports 36 species of conifers alone and some of Oregon’s top runs of salmon and steelhead.

Meanwhile, Josephine County voters decide today whether to increase their lowest-in-the-state property taxes to partially plug the gap left by logging reductions.

“Everybody views this as black and white, and it’s just not that way,” says Tom Tuchman, Kitzhaber’s forestry adviser. “Finding a balance is an incredibly difficult thing to do.” (Oregon Live)

But apparently having any effective law enforcement is even more so. 🙂

BUT AT LEAST YOU SAVED THE SPOTTED OWL!!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

More Inconvenient Truths

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The New York Times is wondering, as are other mainstream media outlets, “What to Make of a Warming Plateau.” If the media had a more critical eye, they’d see what they’ve been expecting is wrong.

The Times reported Monday that “The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that. And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace.”

And we all know from Liberal economics that a slowing in the growth is a “Cut”. 🙂

The reporter admits the break in temperature increases “highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system” and says the lack of warming “is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists.”

It shouldn’t be. As many of us have known for some time, the models that have been forecasting doom are deeply flawed.

While Times reporter Justin Gillis was preparing his story, former NASA climatologist Roy Spencer was posting a chart that shows just how far off the models have been.

Spencer, working with University of Alabama in Huntsville colleague John Christy, plotted lines of the predicted temperature increases from 73 models beginning in 1979 and then included the observed — that is, actual — temperatures from 1979 through the present.

What turned out is 70 lines increasing sharply, three increasing more modestly and the observed temperatures slogging along a low incline.

The observed temperatures increased less than one-fourth of a degree Celsius since 1979, while the mean increase of the 73 models, many of which will be used to write the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s next report, is three times as high.

Making the case against the models even stronger is the fact that the observed temperatures were taken from the tropical troposphere where, according to Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “the models project the strongest, least ambiguous, greenhouse warming signal.”

These observed temperatures were taken from four radiosonde datasets and two satellite datasets, which provided “virtually identical trends,” said Spencer.

Less reliable ground readings were not used. They are, says Christy, misleading, due to land-use changes.

“When humans alter the immediate landscape around the thermometer stations,” he told Congress last year, “there is a clear warming signal due simply to those alterations, especially at night.”

Given the clear evidence that the models are wrong, the next question is why. Spencer says he suspects “that the models’ positive feedbacks are too strong … and possibly of even the wrong sign.”

Dr Roy Spencer: Courtesy of John Christy, and based upon data from the KNMI Climate Explorer, below is a comparison of 44 climate models versus the UAH and RSS satellite observations for global lower tropospheric temperature variations, for the period 1979-2012 from the satellites, and for 1975 – 2025 for the models:
CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS
Clearly, there is increasing divergence over the years between the satellite observations (UAH, RSS) and the models. The reasons for the disagreement are not obvious, since there are at least a few possibilities:

1) the real climate system is not as sensitive to increasing CO2 as the models are programmed to be (my preferred explanation)

2) the extra surface heating from more CO2 has been diluted more than expected by increased mixing with cooler, deeper ocean waters (Trenberth’s explanation)

3) increased manmade aerosol pollution is causing a cooling influence, partly mitigating the manmade CO2 warming

If I am correct (explanation #1), then we will continue to see little warming into the future. Additional evidence for lower climate sensitivity in the above plot is the observed response to the 1991 Pinatubo eruption: the temporary temperature dip in 1992-93, and subsequent recovery, is weaker in the observations than in the models. This is exactly what would be predicted with lower climate sensitivity.

On the other hand, if Trenberth is correct (explanation #2), then there should be a period of rapid surface warming that resumes at some point, since the climate system must eventually try to achieve radiative energy equilibrium. Of course, exactly when that might be is unknown.

Explanation #3 (anthropogenic aerosol cooling), while theoretically possible, has always seemed like cheating to me since the magnitude of aerosol cooling is so uncertain it can be invoked in any amount desired to explain the observations. Besides, blaming a lack of warming on humans just seems a little bizarre.

The dark line in the above plot is the 44-model average, and it approximately represents what the IPCC uses for its official best estimate of projected warming. Obviously, there is a substantial disconnect between the models and observations for this statistic.

I find it disingenuous for those who claim that, because not ALL of individual the models disagree with the observations, the models are somehow vindicated. What those pundits fail to mention is that the few models which support weaker warming through 2012 are usually those with lower climate sensitivity.

So, if you are going to claim that the observations support some of the models, and least be honest and admit they support the models that are NOT consistent with the IPCC best estimates of warming.

On the same day the New York Times wondered where the warming went, the Washington Post thought it was a good idea to report that “Global emissions of carbon dioxide from energy use rose 1.4% to 31.6 gigatons in 2012, setting a record and putting the planet on course for temperature increases well above international climate goals.”

Just to keep the alarm ringing in our ears, we suppose. Because the next paragraph was even more frightening.

The Post reported that the International Energy Agency declared on Monday that “continuing that pace could mean a temperature increase over pre-industrial times of as much as 5.3 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit), which IEA chief economist Fatih Birol warned ‘would be a disaster for all countries.'”

A warming surge of that magnitude might well be disastrous. But it’s not a given, due to man’s capacity to adapt. And such a rise in temperatures is no sure thing.

There’s no way to say with any degree of certainty that it will happen. The many troubles with the inaccurate warming models tell us this.

The Spencer and Christy chart should be a crippling wound to the global warming fear industry and its supporters. They are, pardon the expression, running out of gas. Their story is fading into the dim past, the sort of place we’d all be if we yielded to their solutions for a problem that doesn’t exist.

“But Proof Denies Faith, and without Faith I am nothing” – Douglas Adams.

Global Warming is a religious faith to many on the left so proof that their religion is false will just set off their Inquisitional Heretic sensors and they will refuse to consider the heresy.

It is the “accepted consensus” of all who have a brain after all. So you can not prove something to someone who thinks you’re an unintelligent moron for disagreeing with them in the first place.

They are the Righteous Holy Warriors of the Cause. The Truth. The Light.The Right Thing.

And none shall pass, especially a heard of Inconvenient Truths. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

It’s a Drag

Everywhere you turn these days, liberals are bemoaning the harm caused by “austerity.” The left-wing Center for American Progress claims spending cuts will cost 2 million jobs over the next seven years. The Brookings Institution says they’ve already cost 2 million.

Former Obama Treasury Secretary Larry Summers complained last week that austerity postponed “the acceleration of recovery . . . more than it needed.” Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse took to Twitter to wonder “what our economy would be doing if not for #GOPSequester, GOP refusal to make needed investments.”

The press has swallowed this and routinely blames bad economic news on “Washington’s austerity drive.”

The liberals’ mantra is understandable, since it supports their belief in an endlessly increasing federal government while blaming any bad economic news at Republicans who have been pushing spending cuts.

But researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco looked at the data and came to a completely different conclusion. They find that it’s not the modest spending restraint pushed by Republicans that’s harming growth prospects, it’s the massive tax cuts Obama has engineered — tax hikes that liberals and the mainstream press ignore when they whine about austerity.

The researchers compared recent and projected spending and taxes to the historic norms at similar points in a business cycle. They found while deficits have fallen of late, spending is still higher, and tax receipts lower, than the norm at this point in a recovery. Fiscal policy, they say, has held back the recovery only “slightly to date.”

Over the next three years, however, the fiscal drag on the economy is “much bigger” — cutting projected growth by about 1 percentage point. But that’s not because of sequester-forced spending cuts.

“Despite all the attention federal spending cuts and sequestration have received, our calculations suggest they are not the main contributors to this projected drag,” they wrote. Even with the sequester, they found, outlays will stay above historic norms over the next three years.

Instead, the researchers found, “the excess fiscal drag on the horizon comes almost entirely from raising taxes.”

Taxes as a share of GDP are on track to rise well above historic averages and well above rates at comparable periods in previous recoveries.

And what explains this “super-cyclical” rise in taxes?

Well, let’s see. Obama forced through a $600 billion tax hike on upper-income families at the start of this year in the name of “fairness.”

Before that, he and his fellow Democrats imposed $1 trillion of new taxes for ObamaCare, taxes that are just now hitting the economy.

As a result, federal tax revenues as a share of GDP will hit 19.3% of GDP by 2015, a level reached just six times since World War II and well above the 17.9% average over the previous 40 years.

We’d only add that Obama’s other economic policies — an out-of-control regulatory state, the looming disaster known as ObamaCare, various attempts at industrial policy among them — have also weakened what should have been a robust recovery. (IBD)

But since it all fits The Agenda, it’s good. 🙂

After years of ignoring increasingly dire warnings, America is now facing a debilitating disability crisis — one draining tax dollars (and workers) from our economy.

Yet rather than reforming our broken entitlement programs, policymakers continue turning a blind eye to the root problems associated with these unsustainable behemoths: liberally defined benefits, lax bureaucrats, rubberstamping judges and rampant overpayments.

According to Cornell University’s latest “Disability Status Report,” 37.3 million Americans (or 12.1% of our population) claimed a disability in 2011. Many of these were legitimate ailments afflicting older retirees — but America’s disability epidemic cannot be chalked up exclusively to an aging population.

According to the U.S. Social Security Administration, 10.9 million working age Americans (and family members) received disability insurance payments in February — while another 8.2 million received supplemental security income payments.

Over the course of the year the total tab for these benefits could exceed $180 billion, an ongoing explosion of disability-related dependency that has pushed this program to the brink of insolvency.

That’s not hyperbole, either. A year ago the Social Security Board of Trustees announced the disability trust fund would be exhausted in 2016 — two years earlier than the previous estimate.

Open Definition

How did we arrive at this point? Well, after remaining relatively flat during the late 1970s and 1980s, the number of disability dependents spiked by 84% from 1990-2003 while the costs associated with the program climbed from $38 billion to $77 billion annually.

The last five years have seen even more unsustainable growth as the number of workers receiving disability payments jumped from 7.1 million in December 2007 to 8.8 million in February 2013 — a 22.5% increase. Meanwhile, annual applications for disability benefits nearly doubled over the last decade — from 1.5 million in 2001 to 2.8 million a year ago.

The primary driver of this unchecked expansion is government’s ever-expanding definition of “disability” — with mitigating factor presumptions, combinations of non-severe impairments (such as “persistent anxiety” and “chronic fatigue”) and liberal interpretation standards making it much easier for individuals to claim a “total disability.”

Government even takes into account external factors such as the job market in reaching its determination.

“If there are not a ‘significant number’ of jobs available, then a claimant … is deemed to be ‘disabled’ even though he or she is still capable of competitive work, albeit at a reduced level of performance,” an article in the Cato Institute’s Regulation Magazine noted.

The impact of downwardly defining “disability” can be seen in a recent analysis of government data conducted by reporter Chana Joffe-Walt of NPR. According to Joffe-Walt’s report, there has been a fundamental shift in the nature of disability claims — away from serious and easily provable conditions and toward more dubious ailments.

In 1961 heart disease, stroke and related ailments made up the largest category of disability recipients (25.7%) — while a much smaller group (8.3%) cited harder-to-prove “back pain and other musculoskeletal problems.”

Flawed System

As of 2011, however, the heart disease and stroke category shrank to 10.6% of the dependent population while the back pain group exploded to 33.8%. Meanwhile, mental illness — another harder-to-prove category — saw its share of the disability population climb from 9.6% to 19.2%.

Last September, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., — a medical doctor — exposed several other major problems with the system when he conducted an investigation into disability benefit award decisions. According to his report, more than a quarter of disability cases analyzed by his committee “failed to properly address insufficient, contradictory or incomplete evidence.”

Coburn’s probe also found disability examiners and Social Security administrative law judges authorizing benefits “without citing adequate, objective medical evidence to support the finding; without explaining the medical basis for the decision; without showing how the claimant met basic listing elements; or at times without taking into account or explaining contradictory evidence.”

Poor hearing practices, late and insufficient evidence, misuse of medical listings and woefully outdated job listings for claimants with limited disabilities were also among the problems uncovered by Coburn’s investigation.

Taxpayers should not be forced to continue subsidizing such an inherently flawed, financially unsustainable system.

Unless action is taken now, bailout demands will likely overwhelm politicians of both parties who ignored the oncoming default all these years.

Unfortunately, with the exception of a handful of leaders such as Coburn, there remains virtually no appetite in Washington, D.C., to substantively address either the disability problem or our government’s broader entitlement addiction.

Gotta kiss up tio the dependent. They vote for politician to feed their drug habits. And politicians want them to feed their power addiction.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy