Read The Union Label

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

Of all the cynical frauds of the Obama administration, few are so despicable as sacrificing the education of poor and minority children to the interests of the teachers’ unions.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s attempt to suppress the spread of charter schools in Louisiana was just one of the signs of that cynicism. His nationwide threats of legal action against schools that discipline more black students than he thinks they should are at least as damaging.

Charter schools are hated by teachers’ unions and by much of the educational establishment in general. They seem to be especially hated when they succeed in educating minority children whom the educational establishment says cannot be educated.

Apparently it can be done when you don’t have to hire unionized teachers with iron-clad tenure, and when you don’t have to follow the dogmas in vogue in the educational establishment.

Last year, there was an attempt to shut down the American Indian Model Schools in Oakland, California — schools that had been ranked among the top schools in the nation, schools with the top test scores in their district and the fourth highest scores in the entire state of California.

The reason given was that the former — repeat, FORMER — head of these schools was accused of financial irregularities. Since there are courts of law to determine the guilt or innocence of individuals, why should school children be punished by having their schools shut down, immediately and permanently, before any court even held a trial?

Fortunately, a court order prevented this planned vindictive closing of this highly successful charter school with minority students. But the attempt shows the animus and the cynical disregard of the education of children who have few other places to get a comparable education.

Attorney General Holder’s threats of legal action against schools where minority students are disciplined more often than he wants are a much more sweeping and damaging blow to the education of poor and minority students across the country.

Among the biggest obstacles to educating children in many ghetto schools are disruptive students whose antics, threats and violence can make education virtually impossible. If only 10 percent of the students are this way, that sacrifices the education of the other 90 percent.

The idea that Eric Holder, or anybody else, can sit in Washington and determine how many disciplinary actions against individual students are warranted or unwarranted in schools across the length and breadth of this country would be laughable if it were not so tragic.

Relying on racial statistics tells you nothing, unless you believe that black male students cannot possibly be more disruptive than Asian female students, or that students in crime-ridden neighborhoods cannot possibly require disciplinary actions more often than children in the most staid, middle-class neighborhoods.

Attorney General Holder is not fool enough to believe either of those things. Why then is he pursuing this numbers game?

The most obvious answer is politics. Anything that promotes a sense of grievance from charges of racial discrimination offers hope of energizing the black vote to turn out to vote for Democrats, which is especially needed when support from other voters is weakening in the wake of Obama administration scandals and fiascoes.

Eric Holder’s other big racial crusade, against requiring identification for voting, is the same political game. And it is carried out with the same cynical promotion of fears, with orchestrated hysteria from other Democrats — as if having to show identification to vote is like a revival of the Ku Klux Klan.

Blacks, whites and everybody else can be asked for identification these days, whether cashing a check or using a credit card at a local store or going to an airport — or even getting into some political meetings called to protest voter ID laws.

But to sacrifice the education of children, especially children for whom education may be their only ticket out of poverty, is truly a new low. As someone once said to Senator Joe McCarthy, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?”

Why would they? THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA and no one is allowed to get in the way of it. Period.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Just Shut The Hell Up!

Before you snatch defeat YET AGAIN from the jaws of obvious victory!

Principle: ObamaCare is failing and more unchecked immigration would ensure Republicans’ demise, yet GOP leaders are surrendering on both issues. Poised to win big in November, their best strategy may be to shut up.

Sometimes it seems as if top congressional Republicans have seen the movie “Animal House” one too many times, specifically the hazing scene with Kevin Bacon repeatedly saying, “Thank you, sir. May I have another?” each time he gets paddled on his rear.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, sees a very dubious stat claiming that more than 600,000 residents of her state got new insurance through the state exchange, and she proceeds to declare that ObamaCare is a permanent fixture of American life.

“We need to look at reforming the exchanges” instead of repealing ObamaCare, said the fourth-ranking House GOP leader, whose election to that post a year and a half ago was described by TheHill.com as “a victory for party leaders over insurgent conservatives.”

Wow, the Exchange Reform Party. That’s really what Ronald Reagan had in mind when he emphasized that ideas have consequences, so Republicans must raise “a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors.”

What would Rodgers’ “reforming the exchanges” slogan be for the GOP congressional campaigns this year? “Fine-Tuning We Can Believe In”?

She — and, frankly, other GOP leaders, too — are allowing President Obama to set the political narrative.

Earlier this month, the president sneered that Republicans were going “through the stages of grief” over losing on ObamaCare. In other words, this is Social Security or Medicare all over again, with the GOP complaining and vowing to repeal a new entitlement, but eventually coming to accept and embrace it as irreversible.

With its skyrocketing costs, botched bureaucracy and numerous promises betrayed, ObamaCare is one of the least popular government schemes in history, yet “leaders” such as Rodgers are keen to follow whatever socialist unknown it leads to.

Pale pastel indeed. And not content with only flagellating themselves on ObamaCare, House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders continue their needless, self-destructive push for immigration “reform.”

As pointed out in the Washington Post over the weekend, registering a multitude of Hispanics through amnesty could quickly enhance their voting clout in now-solid red states such as Texas and Arizona, possibly “reducing Republicans’ already weak standing with the Hispanic voters (and future voters)” — an unthinkable shot in the foot for the party to inflict on itself.

When Democrats accuse the Tea Party of holding a gun to the heads of the GOP, they have it mixed up. Republicans are holding a gun to their own heads. Why? Certain big business interests insist they do this so they can employ the cheap, unskilled labor that our Democrat-friendly immigration policies produce — and that an amnesty-based “reform” would only perpetuate.

If Republicans wish to win — a big if — it’s time to stop the self-loathing, demand ObamaCare’s repeal and refuse to legalize millions of new Democrats.

But they have “Jar Jar” Boehner as a Leader!

And Jar Jar was the deciding vote for the Empire.

Coincidence? I hope not.

 

The Obama Decision-Making Pipeline

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Bear Facts

Live Science: “Melting Arctic sea ice has contributed considerably more to warming at the top of the world than previously predicted by climate models, according to a new analysis of 30 years of satellite observations.

Not Live Science: Five meters of ice– about 16 feet thick – is threatening the survival of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region along Alaska’s Arctic coast, according to Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career.

That’s because the thick ice ridges could prevent ringed seals, the bears’ major prey, from creating breathing holes they need to survive in the frigid waters, Crockford told CNSNews.com.

Prompted by reports of the heaviest sea ice conditions on the East Coast ‘in decades’ and news that ice on the Great Lakes is, for mid-April, the worst it’s been since records began, I took a close look at the ice thickness charts for the Arctic,” Crockford noted in her Polar Bear Science blog on April 18th.

Well, that’s Politically Incorrect. Can’t have that…

“Sea ice charts aren’t a guarantee that this heavy spring ice phenomenon is developing in the Beaufort, but they could be a warning,” she wrote, noting that they “don’t bode well” for the Beaufort bears.

“What happens is that really thick ice moves in because currents and winds from Greenland and the Canadian islands push it against the shore,” Crockford told CNSNews.com.

“The male seals arrive in the area in early spring to set up breeding territories. They drill a hole through the ice to maintain breathing holes close to the shore. But there’s a limit. They can drill through two meters (about seven feet) of ice. But too much beyond that and they’re in trouble.”

ringed seal

Ringed seal (NOAA)

“The reason that’s important is that seals mate right after the pups, who are born in April, are weaned. So the male seal wants to be there, but he has to have breathing holes. If the ice is too thick, he has to move off someplace else,” she explained.

But this is the same time that female polar bears are just emerging with their newborn cubs from maternity dens either on or near the shore.

“When those bears come out of their dens in the spring, they need to find seals right away because they will have gone six months without eating,” Crockford said. “If there are no seals, they have to go further out, where there’s thinner ice.”

“Spring and early summer are really a critical time for polar bears. That’s when they need to eat as many seals as they can because that’s when they put on fat for the rest of the year. If they have trouble doing that in the spring, they’re in big trouble.”

There were comparably high levels of spring ice in the Beaufort Sea in 2004 and 2006, when bear counts were “one of the pieces of evidence used to have the bears listed as ‘threatened’ in the U.S.,” Crockford pointed out.

“Polar bear biologists were finding some bears quite thin and found a population decline,” she said, which they attributed to melting summer ice caused by global warming.

“But the biologists were not there to see the thick [spring] ice. All they saw was thin bears,” she pointed out. “They blamed the poor condition of the bears on summer ice, instead of acknowledging that it was likely the condition of the ice in the spring that was the cause of the problem.”

“Female [polar bears] with cubs having trouble feeding are one aspect of the repercussions of thick ice,” Crockford added. “The other repercussion is that other bears, instead of hanging around and starving, probably left the area. They could have gone to the Chukchi Sea, which is located between the U.S. and Russia near the Bering Strait.”

PBSG logo

The international IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) conducted a polar bear population survey for the area in 2006. It reported a decline in the adult polar bear population and reduced cub survival rates, which was used to list the bears as a “threatened species” in the U.S. in 2008.

But the PBSG did not take into account the fact that polar bears “can just move” to other areas if their food supply is limited, Crockford told CNSNews.com. “If some of those bears were part of that count, it would look like they died,” she pointed out.

In its 2013 status update, released on February 14th, the PBSG repeated its 2006 “reduced” population estimate, putting the Southern Beaufort Sea at 1,526 bears and “declining due to a negative trend in sea ice conditions, particularly over the continental shelf, resulting from the continuing effects of climate warming.”

However, in what Crockford characterizes as an “astonishing admission,” the update also stated that “it is important to note that there is the potential for un-modeled spatial heterogeneity in mark-recapture sampling that could bias survival and abundance estimates. A thorough re-assessment of survival and abundance is underway and a final result is anticipated in 2014.”

“What’s shocking is that the PBSG have now admitted that the ‘movement of bears’ issue essentially invalidates the 2006 population estimate and the much-touted ‘reduced survival of cubs’,” Crockford said in a March 24th blog post.

“This is a cyclical pattern that is quite specific to that part of Alaska, which has been known about since the 1970s,” when wildife biologists noticed “ten times as many seals as usual in the Chukchi Sea. There were more bears, too,” Crockford told CNSNews.com.

“It seems to happen every 10 years, so it should be expected by people who work in the area. And not just by people who study polar bears, but also people who study seals.”

“It looks like similar conditions are setting up now, and we know the timing is right,” she added. “We’re keeping an eye on it.” (CNS)

 

 

Budget Busting

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) dealt the Obama administration yet another reality check when scrutinizing the President’s FY2015 budget proposal. The Budget offered by the President does nothing more than increases our debt and deficits without any substantive reforms to the main drivers of spending.

In what has turned into a regular occurrence, the President will offer a policy with populist appeal — such as increasing the minimum wage – only to have the negative impacts of the proposal exposed by non-partisan analysis from those outside the West Wing.

CBO’s latest report on the President’s budget points out the mathematical reality: This is not a serious attempt to fix the nation’s finances.

Remember when the CBO was the Darling of the Left because they fed them garbage about ObamaCare and got garbage out and they were all happy…Well, I bet this will unfriend them…:)

Deficits

“CBO estimates that the federal deficit would total $492 billion in 2014 and that the cumulative deficit over the 2015-2024 period would amount to $7.6 trillion.”

Debt

“Federal debt held by the public would increase from $12.8 trillion, or 74 percent of GDP, at the end of 2014 to $19.9 trillion at the end of 2024.” Overall debt in the country will soon approach $20 trillion, adding to our already crushing debt burden. This will continue to exacerbate adverse effects on the economy.  According to a CBO report published earlier this year, economic growth is projected to slow to 2 percent by 2017.

Mandatory Spending

“All of the proposed policies affecting Medicare other than freezing payment rates for physicians would reduce outlays by a total of $373 billion over 10 years.”  NOTE: Medicare and Social Security have a combined unfunded liability of $30.3 trillion according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Discretionary Spending

“Over the 2015-2024 period, the President’s proposals other than those involving the reclassification of transportation programs and the phasing down of funding for overseas contingency operations would boost spending for discretionary programs by $433 billion.

Bottom Line: The President’s budget fails the most basic test in trying to get our country back on a fiscally sustainable path. He increases spending across his budget while offering no real reforms to the real drivers of the country’s debt i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

Instead of even starting a conversation about the country’s spending problems the President makes things worse with this irresponsible budget – a budget that will leave American taxpayers drowning in red ink for years to come. (AFP)

“If anyone was hoping for a serious budget that did more than increase Washington spending and find new ways to tax job creators, it sure sounds like they’ll be disappointed,” said Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.).(WSJ)

Like Democrats know how do anything else.

As for “bi-partisan compromise”? Well, the Democrats put out some bait. Then they said you have to raise taxes to take the bait. If you don’t take the bait we’ll bash you for “doing nothing” and if you do we’ll bash you for raising taxes. We win!

Now that’s “Bi-Partisan” 🙂

The following is a statement from Brian H. Graff, Executive Director/CEO of the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries (ASPPA) in response to the proposed fiscal year 2015 budget President Barack Obama released today:

“Unfortunately, this year’s budget proposal includes the same wrong-headed attacks on employer-sponsored retirement plans as last year. The double tax on contributions to 401(k) plans and the misguided $3 million cap on the value of retirement benefits do not close any loopholes or curb any abuse. They punish small business owners who sponsor retirement plans for themselves and their employees. It is disappointing that an administration that claims to be concerned about giving more American workers access to retirement savings would discourage small business owners from maintaining the 401(k) plans they have now.

Under the “double taxation” budget proposal, small business owners earning more than $250,000 would have to pay tax on contributions in the year the contributions are made, and then pay tax at the full rate when contributions are distributed at retirement. This amounts to a penalty for saving through a 401(k) plan. Who could blame a small business owner for thinking that if the government is going to penalize them for saving in a retirement plan, maybe they should not have that plan?

In addition, if a small business owner has saved $3 million in his or her 401(k) account, or has a pension from another plan and a modest amount in their 401(k) or IRA, they won’t be allowed to save any more. Without any further incentive to keep the plan, many small business owners will now either shut down the plan or reduce contributions for workers. This means that employees of small businesses will now lose out not only on the opportunity to save at work, but also on contributions the owner would have made on their behalf to pass nondiscrimination rules.

The proposed retirement savings cap in the president’s budget is not closing a loophole and is not correcting some perceived abuse of the rules. There are already caps on contributions and a cap on the pay that can be used to calculate benefits. This proposed cap would basically punish savers for starting to save for retirement when they are young or investing “too successfully.” EBRI estimates that even at current low interest rates, 1 in 10 current 401(k) participants will likely hit the cap if they continue to save in a 401(k) plan until retirement. Since the cap shrinks as interest rates increase, while account balances will grow faster, the higher interest rates climb, the more savers will end up being affected by the cap.

We think it is grossly unfair that this proposal would limit a small business owner to retirement benefits that are nowhere near as valuable as executives’ at large corporations. Small business can’t use the nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements that provide millions – even billions – of dollars in retirement benefits to big corporate executives. Every time retirement plan limits are cut, the corporate CEOs get more nonqualified retirement benefits. It’s the small business owners and their employees who lose out, and that just isn’t fair.

President Obama’s own pension, based on reasonable actuarial assumptions, is worth at least $5 million. That’s 40% more than the small business retirement savings cap permitted under the president’s budget. Is the president saying his own pension is a loophole too? It’s simply wrong to attack small business owners who have responsibly maintained retirement plans for themselves and their workers.”

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 

The Twilight of America

Our nation has now slipped into the twilight of its years from the sunlight of its heyday. Many are asking themselves “How did this happen”, an even larger chunk of people are licking their Cheetos stained fingers, turning on the Kardashians and asking, “Gee what will I get for Christmas?”

Who’s on “Dancing with The Stars”?

With the House still firmly in the hands of the GOP who have been labeled as woman hating corporate thieves, and the Senate now weakened by 2 more years of internal strife and struggle with the right wing, the power of the Presidency is now stronger than ever, and firmly in the hands of a leftist who uses the Constitution as a guideline rather than as the rule of law.

The impotent Congress will now be in no position to argue when Obama issues executive order after executive order in the coming months which will be merely be a further consolidation of power masked under the guise of saving us from a do-nothing Congress.

People often use the expression “how could this happen?” when things go horribly wrong, or the old standby “why me?”, and blame the world around them for all perceived injustices that are perpetrated on their persons.  Yet, they never look to the answer that any rational adult observing from the outside would offer them—namely to suggest that they should look in the mirror and examine their own lives a bit more carefully, as well as their voting record.

Assuming they vote of course. According to the math, the majority of Americans didn’t even vote in the last 2 elections. Even less will now vote as they grow disenfranchised and dissatisfied with the specter of a government that watches our every move and waiting for a mistake to cash in on.

So pardon me if I don’t weep too much for the fate that is about to befall them and the predicament their children will eventually be placed in. As the role and power of the Presidency grows, liberty will shrink and American lives will continually become more directed by an unfeeling and arbitrary bureaucracy. Compartmentalized and like a horse with blinders on, people will continue to vote for more government to solve their own problems and fulfill their own shallow needs without regard to the subtle implications of a nation that is financially and morally bankrupt.

Many will blame Obama for this change to a statist government; others still will blame the GOP or the minor political parties. Pseudo intellectuals will point out the finer details of campaign finance issues and cronyism. The wool scarf wearing Occupy Wall Street crowd will blame corporate greed. In the end, all of it is merely a load of pasture patties wafting on the wind. Obama is merely the symptom to a much greater problem of rampant self-interest and fueled by a desire to be famous and pretty rather than free.

The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of everyone who wakes up in the morning and puts on a pair of pants and turns on the TV and is more concerned about their own petty little needs rather than the question of the direction of society and the role of government in everyone’s lives.

People will line up for their free pills, their subsidized housing, education and automobiles, and their government-sponsored health care and wonder why they have no money in their pockets. The elderly of previous generations will pass into the night and turn over their enormous wealth to the next generation not realizing that it has already been spent, with government confiscating more and more in the name of ‘fairness’.

It is not the end of America despite what pundits are saying, it is a worse fate. Like a lame horse stumbling around the track while the audience gasps in horror, America will become a modern day Portugal, a nation of wandering sailors who drink lots of spirits and talk fondly of the ‘good old days’ when they ran the world.

Put a pillow over Uncle Sam’s face please, it’s the only decent thing to do.

People will exclaim ‘we will become another Greece’. If only we were that lucky to have society collapse. At least then we would have a chance to rebuild, instead of living in a perpetual coma from a botched lobotomy,  like Ken Kesey’s Randall McMurphy, a symbol to all that would cross the American government, which is now a modern day Nurse Ratched.

Put a pillow over Uncle Sam’s face please, it’s the only decent thing to do.

As for me, I will remain to the bitter end and circling the wagons to defend what is left as best I can to try and preserve what I can of that golden time when men walked free in the sunlight, instead of basking in the glow of a solar panel powered utopic promise that is merely a roof over a tin shack run by our government slumlords. (Thomas Purcell)

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

Cry Racism

The careless overuse of the word “racist” by people who try to gain by belittling those who disagree with them, has so cheapened the word that it really has no validity to me any longer.

Good people who don’t have a racist bone in their entire bodies are routinely branded as racists by foul-mouthed opportunists and people who have never had an original thought in their lives, and are only capable of repeating what they have heard others say, people who can’t defend their position against a rational premise so they resort to insults.

I have been called a racist by people who know nothing at all about me except that I have criticized Barack Obama for doing things that I genuinely feel are detrimental to the country.

It’s little more than a knee jerk reaction, as a famous Englishman once said, “… sound and fury.  Signifying nothing.”

Never mind the validity of the supposedly “racist” statement or the intent with which it was made, it doesn’t even matter what was said, but rather who it was said about that moves them to a frenzy of four letter words, comic innuendo, juvenile hyperbole and unreasonable name calling.

Any person who throws his or her hat into the rabid ring of politics should check their ethnicity at the door and take their heart off their sleeve because their stand on policy is going to be attacked by either the left or the right.

And what about the “war on women”, another meaningless slogan that you can bet will be used frequently in the next presidential election.

We all know that Hillary Clinton is going to run in the presidential primaries, she may act coy about it but it’s just part of the game and everybody knows that the lion’s share of the media are going to be on her side, promoting, defending and making excuses for the things that took place during her tenure as Secretary of State and shadowy happenings from her distant past.

Those brave enough to take her to task can depend on being called misogynists, Neanderthals and 19th century throwbacks who can’t accept the thought of a woman president. They will be soundly chastised and dragged through deep editorial mud for their “sexist” attitudes.

My question is, if Ms. Clinton and her media sycophants wither under the verbal sparring of political opponent: what is she going to do when she faces down Vladimir Putin, the Mullahs of the Middle East and the assorted nuts and bolts who rule their people with an iron hand and could care less about insulting a female?

There is definitely racism in America and it isn’t confined to any one ethnic or social group, it is both overt and covert, some groups and individuals not even trying to hide their intolerance and others who veil theirs behind insincere words, but when someone criticizes a person of a different race for something they disagree with it’s not racism, it is opinion and they have a right to express it.

Anti-Semitism is a way of life with some of the Islamic sects, but it seems the American media takes little notice of the fact.

Recently, the bureau of land management had a face off with Cliven Bundy, a rancher in Nevada over grazing his cattle on federal land and not paying the federal government for the grazing rights. The Feds showed up in force and were met by scores of concerned citizens who had gathered to support the rancher.

There were guns on both sides and the whole situation could have turned ugly had the Feds not used some rare common sense and packed up and left.

I am not qualified to argue Mr. Bundy’s case, pro or con. He feels that the land he grazes his cattle on should not be controlled by the federal government, but faithfully pays his state and county taxes.

At least, in my estimation, the Feds overstepped their authority when they tried to round up Mr. Bundy’s cattle and take them off the land.

Now turn the coin over. According to media accounts, Al Sharpton’s National Action Network owes millions of dollars in back taxes and not one federal agent has shown up at his door to take away his possessions.

In fact, the president and the attorney general both spoke at their recent convention.

And what about the two New Black Panthers who intimidated voters at a Philadelphia polling place whom Eric Holder’s Justice Department never prosecuted?

Is not selective enforcement of the law along racial lines not racism? And has it not been practically institutionalized during the Obama administration?

Power hungry politicians and hate mongers – with help from the media – have done a good job of keeping the racial pot stirred among Americans, using the results to their advantage.

I’ve never seen the nation this deeply divided.

Being born and raised in the Deep South in the days before the repeal of the Jim Crow laws, I know first hand what a racist is. Racism is motivated by ignorance and blind hate and manifests itself in hurtful ways, and none of them as mild as criticizing the policies of a minority politician.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Bless You, Charlie.

race card 2Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

High Cost of Liberalism

Liberals can be disarming. In fact, they are for disarming anybody who can be disarmed, whether domestically or internationally.

Unfortunately, the people who are the easiest to disarm are the ones who are the most peaceful — and disarming them makes them vulnerable to those who are the least peaceful.

We are currently getting a painful demonstration of that in Ukraine. When Ukraine became an independent nation, it gave up all the nuclear missiles that were on its territory from the days when it had been part of the Soviet Union.

At that time, Ukraine had the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world. Do you think Putin would have attacked Ukraine if it still had those nuclear weapons? Or do you think it is just a coincidence that nations with nuclear weapons don’t get invaded?

Among those who urged Ukraine to reduce even its conventional, non-nuclear weapons as well, was a new United States Senator named Barack Obama. He was all for disarmament then, and apparently even now as President of the United States. He has refused Ukraine’s request for weapons with which to defend itself.

As with so many things that liberals do, the disarmament crusade is judged by its good intentions, not by its actual consequences.

Indeed, many liberals seem unaware that the consequences could be anything other than what they hope for. That is why disarmament advocates are called “the peace movement.”

Whether disarmament has in fact led to peace, more often than military deterrence has, is something that could be argued on the basis of the facts of history — but it seldom is.

Liberals almost never talk about disarmament in terms of evidence of its consequences, whether they are discussing gun control at home or international disarmament agreements.

International disarmament agreements flourished between the two World Wars. Just a few years after the end of the First World War there were the Washington Naval Agreements of 1921-1922 that led to the United States actually sinking some of its own warships. Then there was the celebrated Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, in which nations renounced war, with France’s Foreign Minister Aristide Briand declaring, “Away with rifles, machine guns, and cannon!” The “international community” loved it.

In Britain, the Labour Party repeatedly voted against military armaments during most of the decade of the 1930s. A popular argument of the time was that Britain should disarm “as an example to others.”

Unfortunately, Hitler did not follow that example. He was busy building the most powerful military machine on the continent of Europe.

Nor did Germany or Japan allow the Washington Naval Agreements to cramp their style. The fact that Britain and America limited the size of their battleships simply meant that Germany and Japan had larger battleships when World War II began.

What is happening in Ukraine today is just a continuation of the old story about nations that disarm increasing the chances of being attacked by nations that do not disarm.

Any number of empirical studies about domestic gun control laws tell much the same story. Gun control advocates seldom, if ever, present hard evidence that gun crimes in general, or murder rates in particular, go down after gun control laws are passed or tightened.

That is the crucial question about gun control laws. But liberals settle that question by assumption. Then they can turn their attention to denouncing the National Rifle Association.

But neither the National Rifle Association nor the Second Amendment is the crucial issue. If the hard facts show that gun control laws actually reduce the murder rate, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Amendments have been repealed.

If in fact tighter gun control laws reduced the murder rate, that would be the liberals’ ace of trumps. Why then do the liberals not play their ace of trumps, by showing us such hard facts? Because they don’t have any such hard facts. So they give us lofty rhetoric and outraged indignation instead. (Thomas Sowell)

Feigned, faked, and phony as a Liberal “deficit reduction”. 🙂

So we get more fear tactics, because that’s their main weapon.

No one expects the Gun Inquisition…

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen
And it’s Still “No!” 🙂
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

A Matter of Trust

Public Trust: Sixty-one percent polled say President Obama lies “some of the time” or “most of the time” on matters of national importance. Americans have to ask: Why do we let him get away with it?

It’s no surprise that a Fox News poll of 1,012 registered voters last week found immense distrust of a president whose main domestic initiative was based on a lie. The shock is that the same poll found his disapproval level down to its lowest since last fall.

Asked, “How often do you think Barack Obama lies to the country on important matters?” 37% replied “most of the time” while 24% answered “some of the time.” Twenty percent said, “Only now and then.”

The least popular response was “never,” with only 15% considering our president completely honest when he’s speaking to the nation about big things.

Not only does this mean that 61% believe Obama to be a habitual liar, with most of those believing that most of what comes from his mouth is a lie; it also means that 81% think he has lied as president about important matters at least occasionally.

How could they not? For years, millions trusted him when he swore that “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it. If you like the doctor you have, you can keep your doctor, too. The only change you’ll see are falling costs as our reforms take hold.”

None of that has been true, of course. Yet this same president only last May could be found engaging in a near-self parody.

“Don’t let people confuse you,” he told a group of ObamaCare supporters in the East Room. “Don’t let them run the okey-doke on you. Don’t be bamboozled.”

Even Richard Nixon was not this brazen.

The nation was disgusted with Nixon’s offenses, and public pressure forced him from office. But this latest Fox poll found that Obama’s approval fell to 51% from the 53%-55% range of Fox’s seven previous polls. You have to go back to early October 2013, when it was 49%, to find approval of Obama lower.

German physician Anton Delbrueck, about 120 years ago, decided that a new psychological classification — “pseudologia fantastica” — was required after noting that some of his patients were incessant liars. Whether that explains the last two Democrat presidents, today we might need a joint psychological/sociological study of the mass tendency of the country to accept systematic lying from the highest level of government.

Vote for me, the Other Guy’s an asshole and it’s corollary, I would vote for the other because I’m told he’s an asshole. So I’ll stick with my ideologically comfortable asshole.

The researchers can start with the country’s establishment media. Last week, White House press secretary Jay Carney, interviewed at George Washington University, remarked that during 2012 “probably the toughest interview” Obama was subjected to was the one conducted by funnyman Jon Stewart.”Probably the most substantive, challenging interview Barack Obama had in the election year was with the anchor of ‘The Daily Show,’ ” Carney said.Not “serious” TV interviewers such as Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes,” whose questions of Obama in the heat of the 2012 campaign included:”Where do you go to kind of sort things out on your own? And when do you find time to just be alone with your own thoughts?”Not “Good Morning America’s” Robin Roberts, who in May of that election year, while using her interview to provide a nationally televised forum for Obama’s big switch on same-sex marriage — another broken promise — threw this hardball:”Mother’s Day. Sasha and Malia. Do you have plans for Mrs. Obama?”It is disgraceful enough for the most prominent journalists to refuse to ask real questions of the most powerful politician in the country because they share his left-wing ideology.But when a large majority of the public recognizes a president as a habitual liar, it is outrageous and entirely un-American for the most powerful within the nation’s press to let him get away with his lies, and betray what they claim to stand for.

Unless, of course they are the Ministry of Truth which is an Orwellian misnomer and in reality serves the opposite of its purported namesake: it is responsible for any necessary falsification of historical events. The book describes a willful fooling of posterity using doctored historical archives to show a government-approved version of events.
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.
Which it is.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Food For the Sowell :Pricing

Liberals advocate many wonderful things. In fact, I suspect that most conservatives would prefer to live in the kind of world envisioned by liberals, rather than in the kind of world envisioned by conservatives.

Unfortunately, the only kind of world that any of us can live in is the world that actually exists. Trying to live in the kind of world that liberals envision has costs that will not go away just because these costs are often ignored by liberals.

Because, since they are morally and ethically superior in their own heads what they say and what they believe is so vastly superior…

One of those costs appeared in an announcement of a house for sale in Palo Alto, the community adjacent to Stanford University, an institution that is as politically correct as they come.

The house is for sale at $1,498,000. It is a 1,010 square foot bungalow with two bedrooms, one bath and a garage. Although the announcement does not mention it, this bungalow is located near a commuter railroad line, with trains passing regularly throughout the day.

Lest you think this house must be some kind of designer’s dream, loaded with high-tech stuff, it was built in 1942 and, even if it was larger, no one would mistake it for the Taj Mahal or San Simeon.

This house is not an aberration, and its price is not out of line with other housing prices in Palo Alto. One couple who had lived in their 1,200 square foot home in Palo Alto for 20 years decided to sell it, and posted an asking price just under $1.3 million.

Competition for that house forced the selling price up to $1.7 million.

Another Palo Alto house, this one with 1,292 square feet of space, is on the market for $2,285,000. It was built in 1895.

Even a vacant lot in Palo Alto costs more than a spacious middle-class home costs in most of the rest of the country.

How does this tie in with liberalism?

In this part of California, liberalism reigns supreme and “open space” is virtually a religion. What that lovely phrase means is that there are vast amounts of empty land where the law forbids anybody from building anything.

Anyone who has taken Economics 1 knows that preventing the supply from rising to meet the demand means that prices are going to rise. Housing is no exception.

Yet when my wife wrote in a local Palo Alto newspaper, many years ago, that preventing the building of housing would cause existing housing to become far too expensive for most people to afford it, she was deluged with more outraged letters than I get from readers of a nationally syndicated column.

What she said was treated as blasphemy against the religion of “open space” — and open space is just one of the wonderful things about the world envisioned by liberals that is ruinously expensive in the mundane world where the rest of us live.

But since it their intention that matters to them, and not the results. And you can’t violate the mantra because you are the superior life form and you must prove it everyday.

Of course, you’re not. But try telling that to a tye-died in the wool Liberal!

Much as many liberals like to put guilt trips on other people, they seldom seek out, much less acknowledge and take responsibility for, the bad consequences of their own actions.

Why should they, they are superior, so their beliefs are superior and if thy just work hard enough (and suppress everyone else more) then you’ll believe it to. Or else.

There are people who claim that astronomical housing prices in places like Palo Alto and San Francisco are due to a scarcity of land. But there is enough vacant land (“open space”) on the other side of the 280 Freeway that goes past Palo Alto to build another Palo Alto or two — except for laws and policies that make that impossible.

After all, Central California is suffering from a massive drought, but they won’t divert water to the farmers because of an inedible fish, the delta smelt. It’s “environmentally” more important than farmers and crops.

So they’ll  happily create a dust bowl in order to save their fish. Then turn around and blame global warming for it. Thus, they are not at fault for doing nothing about it.

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/you-smelt-it-you-dealt-it/

As in San Francisco and other parts of the country where housing prices skyrocketed after building homes was prohibited or severely restricted, this began in Palo Alto in the 1970s.

Housing prices in Palo Alto nearly quadrupled during that decade. This was not due to expensive new houses being built, because not a single new house was built in Palo Alto in the 1970s. The same old houses simply shot up in price.

It was very much the same story in San Francisco, which was a bastion of liberalism then as now. There too, incredibly high prices are charged for small houses, often jammed close together. A local newspaper described a graduate student looking for a place to rent who was “visiting one exorbitantly priced hovel after another.”

That is part of the unacknowledged cost of “open space,” and just part of the high cost of liberalism.

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 

Bio Hazard

WASHINGTON (AP) — Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration’s conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.

Not to mention all that corn that is now, not FOOD! 🙂

A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.

While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won’t meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.

The conclusions deal a blow to what are known as cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.

The biofuel industry and administration officials immediately criticized the research as flawed. They said it was too simplistic in its analysis of carbon loss from soil, which can vary over a single field, and vastly overestimated how much residue farmers actually would remove once the market gets underway.

“The core analysis depicts an extreme scenario that no responsible farmer or business would ever employ because it would ruin both the land and the long-term supply of feedstock. It makes no agronomic or business sense,” said Jan Koninckx, global business director for biorefineries at DuPont.

Later this year the company is scheduled to finish a $200 million-plus facility in Nevada, Iowa, that will produce 30 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol using corn residue from nearby farms. An assessment paid for by DuPont said that the ethanol it will produce there could be more than 100 percent better than gasoline in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

The research is among the first to attempt to quantify, over 12 Corn Belt states, how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere when the stalks, leaves and cobs that make up residue are removed and used to make biofuel, instead of left to naturally replenish the soil with carbon. The study found that regardless of how much corn residue is taken off the field, the process contributes to global warming.

“I knew this research would be contentious,” said Adam Liska, the lead author and an assistant professor of biological systems engineering at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. “I’m amazed it has not come out more solidly until now.”

The Environmental Protection Agency’s own analysis, which assumed about half of corn residue would be removed from fields, found that fuel made from corn residue, also known as stover, would meet the standard in the energy law. That standard requires cellulosic biofuels to release 60 percent less carbon pollution than gasoline.

Cellulosic biofuels that don’t meet that threshold could be almost impossible to make and sell. Producers wouldn’t earn the $1 per gallon subsidy they need to make these expensive fuels and still make a profit. Refiners would shun the fuels because they wouldn’t meet their legal obligation to use minimum amounts of next-generation biofuels.

EPA spokeswoman Liz Purchia said in a statement that the study “does not provide useful information relevant to the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from corn stover ethanol.”

But an AP investigation last year found that the EPA’s analysis of corn-based ethanol failed to predict the environmental consequences accurately.

The departments of Agriculture and Energy have initiated programs with farmers to make sure residue is harvested sustainably. For instance, farmers will not receive any federal assistance for conservation programs if too much corn residue is removed.

A peer-reviewed study performed at the Energy Department’s Argonne National Laboratory in 2012 found that biofuels made with corn residue were 95 percent better than gasoline in greenhouse gas emissions. That study assumed some of the residue harvested would replace power produced from coal, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but it’s unclear whether future biorefineries would do that.

Liska agrees that using some of the residue to make electricity, or planting cover crops, would reduce carbon emissions. But he did not include those in his computer simulation.

Still, corn residue is likely to be a big source early on for cellulosic biofuels, which have struggled to reach commercial scale. Last year, for the fifth time, the EPA proposed reducing the amount required by law. It set a target of 17 million gallons for 2014. The law envisioned 1.75 billion gallons being produced this year.

“The study says it will be very hard to make a biofuel that has a better greenhouse gas impact than gasoline using corn residue,” which puts it in the same boat as corn-based ethanol, said David Tilman, a professor at the University of Minnesota who has done research on biofuels’ emissions from the farm to the tailpipe.

Tilman said it was the best study on the issue he has seen so far. (AP)

 

Paid Your Taxes

You just paid your taxes, and this is what you bought

By Andrew Collins | Watchdog.org

Uncle Sam thanks you.

An $876,752 study on snail sex

You Just Paid Your Taxes America... This Is What You Bought
Via tumblr.com

A University of Iowa study is trying to figure out if it’s better for snails to reproduce sexually or asexually.

A $16 million tropical vacation

You Just Paid Your Taxes America... This Is What You Bought
Via chicka-chicka-gifs.tumblr.com

That was the final price tag on President Obama’s most recent holiday vacations to Hawaii and Africa.

A $750,000 study on how kid cartoons contribute to obesity

You Just Paid Your Taxes America... This Is What You Bought
Via media.giphy.com

The National Science Foundation awarded two grants totaling $750,000 to find out if cartoon characters are making children overweight.

A $2.4 million program to develop “origami condoms”

You Just Paid Your Taxes America... This Is What You Bought
Via img3.wikia.nocookie.net

If you must know, it includes male and female versions, and the “first of its kind anal condom.”

A $30,410 “beauty salon” in a federal prison

You Just Paid Your Taxes America... This Is What You Bought
Via strawberrylicorice.tumblr.com

At least it’s a women’s federal prison.

Millions in drugs for prisoners

You Just Paid Your Taxes America... This Is What You Bought
Via cheezburger.com

Medicare sent millions in improper payments to incarcerated persons.

A $98,670 outhouse

You Just Paid Your Taxes America... This Is What You Bought
Via media.giphy.com

The Federal Bureau of Land Management may have just built the most expensive outhouse ever at the Swede Park Trail Head in Alaska.

$700 million of Obamacare promotion

You Just Paid Your Taxes America... This Is What You Bought
Via anodtothegods.com

The big doozy. Despite President Obama’s claim that the government did not “make a hard sell” for Obamacare, his administration spent nearly $700 million to promote the law.

How I Can Help YOU

Recommendations of Working Group III of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (whew!):

More regulation from “experts”, technocrats and bureaucrats at supranational organizations, such as the one whose initials begin with U and end with N
More taxpayer subsidies for expensive, inefficient renewable energy (but it make environmentalist and greenie-weenie liberals feel better that poor people are paying more for their energy so that’s why people who produce an income have to pay higher taxes to support that too!!)
More nuclear power (with shale gas used as a transitional fuel to replace coal) The last nuclear Plant built in this country? 1978.
The abandonment of fossil fuels (North Dakota, which has seen a boom on account of the oil and gas industry, had the lowest unemployment rate of 2.6 percent, which has been stable since January. But they are politically incorrect jobs so they don’t count, ignore them.
—Boo Hiss! That’s that “laser like focus” on Jobs the Democrats keep talking about…)

Less meat consumption (Are you now or have you ever been a meat eater! Boo Hiss!)
A single, globally-regulated price for carbon dioxide (hey, you want some black market CO2??) The Air Police!!!
More local-**government-enforced** walking, cycling and public transportation (But hey, who needs freedom after all. Government will control you for your own good!!)
More back-door wealth redistribution from the West to the developing world in the name of “sustainability” (otherwise you “hate poor people” you know!

Now doesn’t that just make your heart flutter and you cheeks flush with pride at how superior you are??

Then you’re not a Progressive Liberal, you planet-destroying, evil , greedy bastard! 🙂

Oh and…

But according to the FDA, we don’t pay attention to the calorie counts, and we eat things that are bad for us and regret it later.

If only we knew ahead of time and actually appreciated the impact that food might have on our waist, we’d make better decisions and walk away from the Cheetos that are begging us to buy.

It’s as if the government thinks we don’t already know that a bag of chips or a candy bar — or those really disgusting-but-oh-so-satisfying-frosting-coated cinnamon rolls — aren’t good for us.

Aye, and there’s the rub. We don’t do what bureaucrats and politicians in Washington, D.C., think we should.

That means, according to the FDA, the market has failed.

Yes, when consumers don’t want something and companies aren’t forcing it on us, that’s a market failure.

Funny, but I thought that meant the market was actually succeeding.

Not according to the FDA, which arrogantly thinks it can correct this market failure.

“Although many of the usual market failures that justify regulatory action … do not apply here, the primary support for regulatory intervention is that there are systematic biases in how consumers process information and weigh current benefits (from consuming higher calorie foods) against future costs (higher probability of obesity and its comorbidities). The bias is more directly related to the requirements of this proposed rule: Consumer demand for calorie information does not create incentives for the provision of calorie information at the vending machine. This market failure occurs because at the time of purchase, consumers do not value calorie information as much as they do later, when the effects of excess calorie consumption are evident.” (so we the government must save you from yourself!)

We don’t want to know how much that Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup is going to impact our experience with the weight scale the next morning, and we’re OK with eating it today.

That’s because we’re biased in how we act and government must counter us.

“…(S)tudies suggest that calorie information often lacks salience, or relevance, for consumers at the time of purchase and consumption, even though they may experience regret about their decisions at a later date. This tendency may explain why consumers have not generally demanded calorie and other nutrition information for food sold from vending machines before, or at, the point of purchase, even if they may, at a later point in time, value that information.”

Look at us!  We are so terrible.

Government must save us from ourselves! And liberals must save us all, it’s their holy mission. So they must control every aspect of our lives from birth to beyond death because we are just not competent enough to do it on our own and they are just so vastly superior in every aspect that they must rule over us for our own good!

Thankfully, the government is going to step in. They’re going to make that calorie information so obvious we can’t possibly ignore it. Then we’ll happily do what they want and forgo the barbecued kettle chips.

So what if you crave salt and fat, have some Tofu and soybean paste instead!

Yeah, right.

You’d think that was bad enough — until you read further and find out they don’t know if it will work.

According to the FDA, obesity is a problem and since many Americans get food and snacks from vending machines, putting calorie information on the machines will result in a “significant effect on calorie intake, the prevalence of obesity, and thus the cost of health care and lost productivity.”

But there’s a problem with that theory.

The proposed requirements mitigate the apparent market failure in information provision stemming from present-biased preferences, although not necessarily the tendency of consumers to underutilize that information.”

The FDA admits it “lacks data on how consumers will substitute among caloric sources.”

And doesn’t really care because this makes them feel superior and that “they did something” to fight the even fat merchants!

Getting people off their fat asses on the coach )collecting government welfare) and getting a job doesn’t occur to them, apparently.

That means the administration has no idea if you’ll see the calorie signs and go without your afternoon Snickers only to pig out on gelato after dinner to make up for it.

But at least they warned you! And when you ignore their stern warnings they will have to step it up and ban them next! 🙂

The FDA admits it doesn’t know if posting calorie counts will reduce obesity. It didn’t test its theory to see if posting the calories will actually cause people to choose differently. Plus, officials point out, only 5 percent of money spent outside the home goes to food in vending machines.

But it makes them feel better, and to a Liberal, that’s all that matters in life.

This isn’t the market — you — deciding what you want. This is nanny-state government deciding you’re not making the right decisions about the food you eat and imposing costly regulations with the hope maybe you’ll make their choice for you instead.

And what if you don’t? What if you continue to eat chips and candy from a vending machine? What regulation will they come up with next?

Well, that’s where The Food Police come in. 🙂

But hey, if the bureaucratic elitists can save just one person from becoming obese, isn’t it worth it? (Ohio watchdog.org)

And you can sit there and pay multiple times more for the energy to light and heat/cool that house of yours as you enjoy that over-price unhealthy snack and the Food Police, The Air Police, and The Health Care Police all come rushing to your door to stop you!

Congrats, Citizen., You’re in Orwell’s world now. Be Happy.

They are the Government and they are here to help you! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Move On

Remember when the “debate” over Global Warming was over when the Liberals said they’d reached a “consensus” so you best just shut up and move on to more important things because they are right and you’re wrong and that’s just the end of it?

Well…the pattern repeats. Shocked? I’m not.

the president recommended that his party robustly defend Obamacare, while simultaneously averring that it’s time to “move on” and deal with other issues. A telling contradiction. We love Obamacare and will defend it passionately, but it’s imperative that we change the subject! The American people, he said, are more interested in more jobs, a growing economy, and improving wages than re-fighting the Obamacare battle. Perhaps he’s unaware that the latter is empirically impeding the former litany of goals he laid out. Perhaps not. The important message is that Obamacare is working, resistance is futile, and we ought not waste our energy on it anymore. Tell that to these widows, or to this poor woman:

 

After receiving her new health coverage in January through the New York State of Health Marketplace, Arden Heights resident Margaret Figueroa, 49, who suffers from two chronic illnesses, went to her pharmacy to fill her prescriptions. Although her insurance company, EmblemHealth, assured her she was covered, her insurance card was denied. While she had signed up for new health coverage — because her insurance carrier dropped her old plan — the company’s internal paperwork apparently wasn’t filed. She also learned that all her long-time doctors didn’t accept the new insurance plan. For Ms. Figueroa, who suffers from a rare neurological disease called Arnold Chiari Malformation and Syringomyelia, this has led to three months of excruciating pain, withdrawal symptoms and immobility. “It’s hard,” said Ms. Figueroa, through her tears Wednesday at a press conference at Rep. Michael Grimm’s (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn) New Dorp office. “I have been in pain. I’ve been vomiting. I lost 22 pounds. The pain is unbearable. My medication helps me function during the day,” added Ms. Figueroa, who has undergone four brain surgeries for her conditions, which require her to take numerous amounts of medication.

 
Silence, subject! The debate is over. And horror stories like yours have been “debunked” by Harry Reid and the media (“All of them are untrue”)– a “fact” that the president helpfully mentioned today, in an effort to minimize the financial and medical hardships his signature law is inflicting on millions of people.

Because after all, they are the superior beings. They are morally superior, intellectually superior and they have decided they are 100% correct and nothing can stop them. Certainly, not you neanderthal “deniers” who just want to cause suffering and pain. 🙂

President Obama’s (second) “Mission Accomplished” pep rally on behalf of his unpopular signature accomplishment was as shrill, demagogic and dishonest as one might expect. Especially insulting was his feigned confusion over why Republicans are so “angry” about people getting healthcare. Yeah, that’s it. People aren’t angry about millions of consumers losing the preferred coverage and doctors after being misled by Democrats’ “lie of the year.” People aren’t furious over steep premium increases and shocking out-of-pocket costs. They’re not upset that their hours are being reduced, or that the taxpayer-funded “cost curve” has been bent up, or that their new coverage options are severely limited. No, they’re mad that some individuals are gaining coverage, or whatever. This president routinely seems pathologically incapable of making an intellectually honest argument — let alone a generous one — even as he celebrates himself as a pragmatic non-ideologue. (Guy Benson)

And or course if you disagree, it’s obviously because he’s black and you’re a racist!

Move along, Move along, Nothing to see here.

The Great and Powerful OZ commands it!

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 

internet liberal jefferson

 

 

 

Straw Meet Camel

Buried deep on the website of the U.S. Census Bureau is a number every American citizen, and especially those entrusted with public office, should know. It is 86,429,000.

That is the number of Americans who in 2012 got up every morning and went to work — in the private sector — and did it week after week after week.

These are the people who built America, and these are the people who can sustain it as a free country. The liberal media have not made them famous like the polar bear, but they are truly a threatened species.

It is not a rancher with a few hundred head of cattle that is attacking their habitat, nor an energy company developing a fossil fuel. It is big government and its primary weapon — an ever-expanding welfare state.

First, let’s look at the basic taxonomy of the full-time, year-round American worker.

In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, approximately 103,087,000 people worked full-time, year-round in the United States. “A full-time, year-round worker is a person who worked 35 or more hours per week (full time) and 50 or more weeks during the previous calendar year (year round),” said the Census Bureau. “For school personnel, summer vacation is counted as weeks worked if they are scheduled to return to their job in the fall.”

Of the 103,087,000 full-time, year-round workers, 16,606,000 worked for the government. That included 12,597,000 who worked for state and local government and 4,009,000 who worked for the federal government.

The 86,429,000 Americans who worked full-time, year-round in the private sector, included 77,392,000 employed as wage and salary workers for private-sector enterprises and 9,037,000 who worked for themselves. (There were also approximately 52,000 who worked full-time, year-round without pay in a family enterprise.)

At first glance, 86,429,000 might seem like a healthy population of full-time private-sector workers. But then you need to look at what they are up against.

The Census Bureau also estimates the size of the benefit-receiving population.

This population, too, falls into two broad categories. The first includes those who receive benefits for public services they performed or in exchange for payroll taxes they dutifully paid their entire working lives. Among these, for example, are those receiving veteran’s benefits, those on unemployment and those getting Medicare and Social Security.

The second category includes those who get “means-tested” government benefits — or welfare. These include, for example, those who get Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, public housing, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Women, Infants Children.

Let’s examine this second category first, which the Census Bureau reports as “anyone residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits from the program.”

In the last quarter of 2011, according to the Census Bureau, approximately 82,457,000 people lived in households where one or more people were on Medicaid. 49,073,000 lived in households were someone got food stamps. 23,228,000 lived in households where one or more got WIC. 20,223,000 lived in households where one or more got SSI. 13,433,000 lived in public or government-subsidized housing.

Of course, it stands to reason that some people lived in households that received more than one welfare benefit at a time. To account for this, the Census Bureau published a neat composite statistic: There were 108,592,000 people in the fourth quarter of 2011 who lived in a household that included people on “one or more means-tested program.”

Those 108,592,000 outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private-sector workers who inhabited the United States in 2012 by almost 1.3 to 1.

This brings us to the first category of benefit receivers. There were 49,901,000 people receiving Social Security in the fourth quarter of 2011, and 46,440,000 receiving Medicare. There were also 5,098,000 getting unemployment compensation.

And there were also, 3,178,000 veterans receiving benefits and 34,000 veterans getting educational assistance.

All told, including both the welfare recipients and the non-welfare beneficiaries, there were 151,014,000 who “received benefits from one or more programs” in the fourth quarter of 2011. Subtract the 3,212,000 veterans, who served their country in the most profound way possible, and that leaves 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers.

The 147,802,000 non-veteran benefit takers outnumbered the 86,429,000 full-time private sector workers 1.7 to 1.

How much more can the 86,429,000 endure?

As more baby boomers retire, and as Obamacare comes fully online — with its expanded Medicaid rolls and federally subsidized health insurance for anyone earning less than 400 percent of the poverty level — the number of takers will inevitably expand. And the number of full-time private-sector workers might also contract.

According to new IRS data, the 1.35 million taxpayers that represent the highest-earning one percent of the Americans who filed federal income tax returns in 2010 earned 18.9% of the total gross income and paid 37.4% of all federal income taxes paid in that year.  In contrast, the 128.3 million taxpayers in the bottom 95% of all U.S. taxpayers in 2010 earned 66.2% of gross income and that group paid 40.9% of all taxes paid. In other words, the top 1 percent (1.35 million) of American taxpayers paid almost as much federal income tax in 2010 ($354.8 billion) as the entire bottom 95% of American tax filers ($388.4 billion)

But they are the evil “greedy” rich after all…

Eventually, there will be too few carrying too many, and America will break. (CNS)

But since that’s what the Democrats want… 🙂

We are From the Government and we are here to help you.

Don’t vote for that other guy, he’s an asshole who hates everyone and will just hurt you. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Snow Job

First, a Global Warming update: Detroit snow record: A spring storm broke Detroit’s 133-year-old record for snowfall totals: This winter, Detroit got 94.8 inches of snow, topping the previous record from 1880-1881 by more than an inch.

In Flint, 1.3 inches fell as of Tuesday morning, pushing the seasonal total to 83.9 inches. That exceeded the previous Flint seasonal record of 82.9 inches from the winter of 1974-1975.

I remember that  winter. I was there. And you were no Global Warming…

The Thought Police:

A school-wide questionnaire at Western Washington University (WWU) asked the community “How do we make sure that in future years ‘we are not as white as we are today?’”

No Racism here… 🙂

The question, released through the communications and marketing department’s daily newsletter Western Today, comes on the heels of admonishments given in multiple convocation addresses by WWU President Bruce Shepard for the university’s “failure” to be less white.

No Racism Here….

“In the decades ahead, should we be as white as we are today, we will be relentlessly driven toward mediocrity; or, become a sad shadow of our current self.”   

“Every year, from this stage and at this time, you have heard me say that, if in decades ahead, we are as white as we are today, we will have failed as university,” Shepard said in the 2012 speech.

No Racism here. After all, white people are evil, everyone knows that! 🙂

So on that bombshell…

Jonah Goldberg: Liberal fascism is alive and well, and seemingly everywhere one looks these days. Not since the dark days of Stalin’s purges have so many so-called progressives exercised so much violent aggression against their enemies. It is indeed a dark time to be considered an enemy of the left-liberal alliance, as so many recent victims can attest.

First, a bunch of Twitter users got mad at Stephen Colbert, leading to Comedy Central agreeing to end his show — forever. Regardless of the merit of the anti-Colbert complaint, it was chilling to see free speech trampled upon as a gaggle of vaguely organized people on Twitter successfully browbeat a massive media conglomerate into sort of apologizing for a joke.

As bleak as that episode was, it was just the warmup for the unprecedented onslaught of rage unleashed against Brenden Eich, the former CEO of Mozilla, who was hounded from his job merely for donating $1,000 to a political campaign organized around stripping same-sex couples of the right to have their unions recognized by the state. The gay mafia is real, my friends, which is why Eich is now dead in an unmarked grave somewhere outside Philly. Or at least no longer the CEO of a tech company, which is basically the next-worse thing.

Sure, Eich’s resignation was his own decision, prompted in part by the resignations of some members of Mozilla’s board — in other words, it was internal strife, not external protest, that led to his decision to leave the company — but the gays and their gay-sympathizers were frightfully unfair to Eich, by expressing disapproval of his totally legitimate decision to spend money denying them various rights. The entire affair reflected a terrifying new status quo, in which tech executives don’t have the complete freedom to say whatever they like. What’s next? Will it no longer be socially acceptable for men to make unwanted sexual advances toward women?



Still, the worst of the new intolerance was yet to come. Last week, Brandeis University announced that it would rescind an honorary degree it planned to award to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an internationally feted survivor of horrific abuse as a Somali-born former Muslim. Hirsi Ali is now a best-selling author and critic of religious extremism — a hero to the victims of Islamic Extremism worldwide, or at least a hero to various Americans and Europeans who imagine themselves the foot soldiers in a global war against Islamism. Brandeis’ decision to cave to pressure from the left-wing/Islamofascist militants and cancel Hirsi Ali’s honor has been castigated by champions of freedom around the world.

Hirsi Ali’s crime? Offending the Liberal Thought Police. And a bit of lying about her background. Like, sort of lying about most of it. And then also saying inflammatory things about Muslims. Inflammatory bordering on eliminationist. With a lot of stuff about how Islam must be “crushed” and “we are at war with Islam”; and so on. Plus the thing about how she sort of sympathized with Anders Breivik.

Still, to silence Hirsi Ali for her beliefs is a shocking violation of academic freedom. Louis Brandeis and John Podhoretz’s uncle would be appalled. Sure, Brandeis extended Hirsi Ali an invitation to speak after rescinding her completely meaningless honor, but not giving someone a prize is still a form of censorship.

All of these seemingly unconnected incidents can be understood with one simple word: fascism. Liberal fascism. “Fascism” as a term has been abused by leftists over the decades, but it is a definable and concrete thing. Essentially, fascism is when a bunch of people criticize something they disapprove of or are offended by, and ask that the thing or person that offends them not be rewarded in some fashion. (Mussolini got his start as a sort of Italian proto-”hashtag activist,” uniting his “followers” against Slavic people and socialists.) One of the most important features of liberal fascism, as it is practiced in the 21st century, is that while none of its victims ever die or go to jail, it is still always directly and exactly comparable to some sort of horrific historical (or literary) atrocity.

Like the Inquisition. Or the gulags. (“That term may be perverse, but it is not an exaggeration.”) Or honor killings. Or Orwell’s “Thought Police.” Or racist minstrelsy. Or McCarthyism. Whatever you want to call it, it is an appalling violation of the supposed tenet of liberal tolerance when liberals refuse to tolerate bigots and creeps. Obviously Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Brenden Eich, Alec Baldwin and Charles Murray are all still rich, free, influential and suffering no actual material or physical hardships for their beliefs, but people were rude about them on Twitter. Papa Joe himself would be proud.
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

They Care Too Much

If you’ve ever engaged in a debate with a progressive, you know first-hand the definition of futility. After a few minutes, they run out of whatever talking points they just read in Mother Jones or Salon, and out come the names. It used to take longer – there were even reported cases of debates reaching double-digits in minutes before the expletives and personal attacks began.

I find it’s almost instantaneous depending on the level of Progressive your attempting to communicate with.

Orwell would be proud of the near mindlessness of the behavior.

Cries of racism/sexism/homophobia used to be where Democrats ended up in a debate. Now, it’s where they start. What once was simply the last arrow in their quiver has turned into their favorite.

Now, the name-calling is the only arrow they use. It’s not by accident. After five and a half years of a Democratic president and liberal policies, the country is much worse off than before. Recessions come and go – it’s a fact of economics. They stick around only when government acts as if it can “fix” them. As we approach our fifth “Recovery Summer,” the economy is deeper into that ditch the president spoke of back in 2010. Democrats point to the stock market as proof of economic success but decry income inequality and systematically block Americans from investing a tiny portion of their Social Security in it to get their families a taste.

They care too much to set you free.

The failed progressive economic policies are but the tip of an iceberg of disaster, scandals and lies from which Democrats need people distracted if they are to have any hope of holding on to the Senate this fall. The media wants to play along and aid its fellow travelers, but reporters do have a job to do and time and column inches to fill, so a bone must be thrown.

Enter the “isms.”

In an act that should be classified as satire, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke this week to the National Action Network and claimed Republicans are subjecting him and the president to unprecedented mistreatment because they’re black. NAN is the shakedown wing of Al Sharpton’s empire. Sharpton is the preeminent race-baiter in the world today, with ruined lives, riots and a body count left in his wake. Once rightly a pariah for his hatred and corruption, the former FBI informant and MSNBC host’s annual conference is now such an important part of the progressive’s marketing strategy that it not only warranted a visit from the AG, but from the president himself.

Holder nailed himself to the victimhood cross in front of an audience assembled by a man who works in false charges of racism the way Michelangelo worked in marble. This wasn’t by accident.

The media ran with Holder’s lie without reporting on what precipitated it – his “abuse” at the hands of Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, the day before during a congressional hearing. Gohmert wants documents from the Justice Department so Congress can perform the oversight duty it used to do, and Holder is refusing. Considering Holder is currently in contempt of Congress for withholding other documents, there’s no reason to believe he’ll ever comply.

But the stories about Holder’s remarks to NAN didn’t bother delving into why he had his confrontation with Gohmert. They simply ignored that aspect of the exchange. Salon, in a particularly mindless piece of milk-bone journalism (which is saying something) claimed Holder went “off-script” with his victimhood claim. (I won’t link to it because why should I give them clicks they earn money from?) But Holder didn’t go off-script. Crying racism is the script – it is all they have left. That they make it and other cries of victimhood to people who truly have been victims of various “isms” in their lives illustrates just how despicable and desperate they are.

No philosophy has victimized, harmed, killed, imprisoned and ruined more lives than progressivism. It was born out of a sense of superiority – the thought that a few educated elites know better how other people should live their lives than those people themselves – and has used bullying, terror, murder, oppression and lies to advance it. Progressives bathed in Jim Crow and birth eugenics to breed “undesirable people” out of existence. Given there were more abortions of black babies in New York City than births in 2012, eugenics is alive and well, just simply rebranded.

But people aren’t taught the history or the present reality of the progressive philosophy. They know only what they hear in the media. Enter Hank Aaron.

Hank Aaron is a hero. He was one of the greatest baseball players ever, and still the home run king if you discount “juiced” round trippers. He went through an unimaginable Hell when he broke Babe Ruth’s record. Racists sent him death threats more disgusting than you can imagine, and he persevered. But he apparently didn’t learn from it.

This week Aaron compared Republican opposition to Obama’s agenda to the KKK.

What’s amazing to me is how Aaron doesn’t recognize that those Klansmen who were threatening his life were Democrats; the party of eugenics is the progressives. The message and methods have changed, but the objective hasn’t. Slavery still exists, it’s just now based on income rather than race. Government “largesse” is the new plantation and nearly half the people in the country live there, unaware they’re stuck in Plato’s Cave.

Racism is alive and well today, and it lives where it was born – on the left. What’s more racist than demanding a president, an attorney general, or anyone be treated differently, be deferred to, simply because of skin color? That’s what they’re arguing for, and that’s the essence of racism. I’d believe Barack Obama and Eric Holder are the victims of racism if “A-hole” was a race. But it’s not.

If progressives want to see racism, they need to find a reflective surface. While the media reports endlessly about an idiot Republican kissing a staffer, a Democrat representative in Illinois refers to a black conservative as “a half” black. She apologized “if she offended anyone,” not for what she said or for being a disgusting human being. A Democrat in Alabama said Republicans would support abortion if their daughters got pregnant by a black man, then attacked interracial adoptive families. He hasn’t apologized because he hasn’t had to. He “votes right,” so he can say disgusting things.

If you made this stuff up, you would me mocked as an absurdist. But if you truly believe it, if you believe in the superiority of the politician over the person, of the progressive agenda über alles, you get elected as a Democrat and/or a show on MSNBC. (Derek Hunter)

Are you know have you ever been…?

And these are the more “compassionate” and “sensitive”. 🙂

HAIL HYDRA!

Home Superior Liberalis uber alles!! 🙂

Vote For a Democrat, because the other guy’s a racist, misogynistic,intolerant, hater asshole! 🙂

 

 

 

Selfishness

I have often mused about selfishness, especially in politics.

So take it away Thomas Sowell.

The recent Supreme Court decision over-ruling some Federal Election Commission restrictions on political campaign contributions has provoked angry reactions on the left. That is what often happens whenever the High Court rules that the First Amendment means what it says — free speech for everybody.

When the Supreme Court declared in 2010 that both unions and corporations had a right to buy political ads, that was considered outrageous by the left. President Obama called the decision “devastating” and said it “will open the floodgates for special interests.”

 

Those unfamiliar with political rhetoric may not know that “special interests” mean people who support your opponents. One’s own organized supporters — such as labor unions supporting President Obama — are never called “special interests.”

All politicians are against “special interests,” by definition. They all want their own supporters to have the right to free speech, but not those individuals and groups so benighted as to support their opponents.

Even in an age of polarization and gridlock, the one area in which it is easy to get bipartisan support in Congress is in passing campaign finance laws, restricting how much money can be spent publicizing political candidates. What Congressional Democrats and Republicans have in common is that they are all incumbents, and they all want to keep their jobs.

Publicity is necessary to win elections, and incumbents get millions of dollars’ worth of free publicity from the media. Incumbents can all pontificate in Congress and be covered by C-SPAN. They can get interviewed on network television, have their pictures in the newspapers, and send out mail to their constituents back home — and none of this costs them a dime.

Congressional staffs, paid by the taxpayers, are supposed to help members of Congress with the burdens of their office, but a major part of their staff’s work is to help get them re-elected.

That’s not just during campaign years. Everything members of Congress do is done with an eye toward re-election.

Any outsider who wants to challenge an incumbent at the next Congressional election has to pay hard cash to buy ads and arrange other forms of publicity, in order just to get some comparable amount of name-recognition, so as to have any serious chance of winning an election against an incumbent.

Few people have the kind of money it takes for such a campaign, so they have to raise money — in the millions of dollars — to pay for what incumbents get free of charge.

Campaign finance laws that restrict who can contribute how much money, who can run political ads, etc., are all restrictions on political challengers who have to buy their own publicity.

If truth-in-packaging laws applied to Congress, a campaign finance law would have to be labeled an “Incumbents Protection Act.”

The very high rate of incumbent re-elections, even while polls show the public disgusted with Congress in general, shows how well incumbents are protected.

The media are accessories to this scam. So long as the information and opinions that reach the public are selected by mainstream media people, whom polls show to be overwhelmingly on the left, the left’s view of the world prevails.

Hence the great alarm in the media, and in equally one-sided academia, over the emergence of conservative talk radio programs and the Fox News Channel on television.

No longer can the three big broadcast television networks determine what the public will and will not see, nor two or three leading newspapers determine what is and is not news. Nobody wants to give up that kind of power.

When businesses that are demonized in the mainstream media, and in academia, can buy ads to present their side of the story, that is regarded in both the media and academia as distortion. At the very least, it can cost the left their self-awarded halo.

It is fascinating to see how some people — in both politics and the media — can depict their own narrow self-interest as a holy crusade for the greater good of society. The ability of the human mind to rationalize is one of the wonders of the world.

CYNIC: a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons.

Read that when I was 17. When I fully understood it, my “independent” streak in politics was born.

 

Cancellation

Canceling: In the early Internet days, AOL had a unique way of inflating its enrollment data: Just make it impossible to cancel the service. Looks like Obama is using this sorry tactic to keep his ObamaCare numbers up.

Writing in the Washington Times this week, Drew Johnson tells his tale of woe dealing with ObamaCare. No, it wasn’t the signing-up part that has received all the attention. Johnson wanted to cancel his policy shortly after enrolling, because he’d gained employer coverage. Then he found himself trapped in a bureaucratic nightmare.

The Liberals want to be that mother (like on “The Goldbergs”) that smothers you to death with there love. 🙂

First, his insurance company said he had to go to the ObamaCare exchange to cancel the plan. But HealthCare.gov wouldn’t let Johnson sign back in, and no one on the phone could help.

“All I can do is help you sign up,” a help line worker told Johnson. “That’s all anyone here can do.”

One way in, no one gets out! 🙂

After three days and countless hours, Johnson finally got on the website, where he was able to wend his way toward a cancellation page.

Johnson isn’t alone. A local Florida news station reported that “people who signed up for coverage are finding it impossible to cancel their plans.” It tells the story of Andrew Robinson. Even after spending six weeks and “50 to 60 hours on the phone, his policy is still not canceled.”

Fox News detailed the travails of a Missouri woman who, after fruitlessly trying to cancel through the normal ObamaCare channels, ended up driving to the Kansas City offices of Blue Cross for help.

All of them noted that calling the 800-number was useless. Even the “specialists” supposedly able to perform a cancellation were no help.

Back in the dial-up Internet days, AOL used precisely this strategy to inflate its revenues. Callers who tried to cancel got the runaround, and even when they thought they were out, AOL kept sending bills. Agents who thwarted cancellation efforts got more money.

I have had an AOL account for 30 years this month. I signed up the year BEFORE it became AOL. It was Quantum Link, a BBS for Commodore 64’s.

I still have it. I don’t pay any money for it.

I also use for my spam catcher. If some website wants an email address so they can send me spam, they get that one.

I think that’s only appropriate. 🙂

At least frustrated AOL consumers had recourse. After settling a class-action suit with New York in 2004 for $1.25 million and another with 48 states in 2007 for $3 million, AOL finally mended its ways.

Unlike AOL, ObamaCare can force people to buy its product. And aggrieved consumers who find themselves trapped have no choice but to grin and bear it.

And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the private sector and a government-run program. (IBD)

We are from the Government and we are here to help you! 🙂

You are too incompetent to do anything without Government Assistance! 🙂

Don’t Worry, Be Happy.

Vote for the Democrat,  because the other guy’s an Asshole! 🙂

We are “fair”, “compassionate” and “tolerant”. As long as you do what we say, when we say it, and because we said it. And you don’t step off the Thought Police reservation at any time. EVER!

Love ya! Kiss Kiss! Give Mama Government a Big Hug!! 🙂

 

Missing Irony

HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius will now get to enjoy one of the benefits of Obamacare touted by Democrats: She’ll have a lot more time to make dinner.

HAIL HYDRA! She’ll be back in some way, somewhere. Just less visible.

But now at least the next person who’s the head of HHS can continuously say, “But I wasn’t there so I didn’t have anything to do with it. Don’t blame me.” when they blow you off… 🙂

That’s because like a lot of other Obamacare victims, she has now lost her job.

Thank goodness her insurance is portable.

Unlike ours. 🙂

In losing her job as the head of Health and Human Services, she can take satisfaction that she now gets to see Obamacare in the same way the rest of us do, as a job destroyer.

If anybody in the media sees the irony in the fact that Sebelius lost her job because of the disastrous implementation of a disastrous law that have cost so many others their jobs, they’re not acting like it.

“Kathleen Sebelius,” writes the New York Times, “the health and human services secretary, is resigning, ending a stormy five-year tenure marred by the disastrous rollout of President Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act.”

Hooray for the president!

Boo for traitors who can’t implement our traitorous laws!

At the beginning of the month—yes, the month of April– we were all treated to a round of triumphant celebration by the leftist wing of the left-wing party as Obamacare was declared to be not just a success, but a stunning triumph of the will over Republican obstructionism, lies– thank you Harry Reid– misogyny and misanthropy.

Four and a Half Years (of Struggle) Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice, is what they will someday name the book if a Democrat writes one about the implementation of Obamacare.

Google it; you’ll see.

And again, they’ll miss the irony.

That liberals decided of their own accord that they would crown April Fools’ Day–forever after– as Obamacare Day, is again another irony that seems to be lost on people who believe that a variety selection of chilled cheeses is much more important than having a variety selection of competent doctors.

I mean let’s face it: There really aren’t any good wines that go with doctor anyway.

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

“Interviews with two dozen contractors, current and former government officials, insurance executives and consumer advocates, as well as an examination of confidential administration documents, point to a series of missteps — financial, technical and managerial — that led to the troubles” with the rollout of Obamacare conceded the New York Times in October.

Liberals will try to paint this as the failure of one person.

And they will be right. And they will be wrong.

Right premise; wrong person.

“Secretary of HHS will soon become known as the worst job in America,” says my friend, political consultant Tony Marsh. “It doesn’t matter how competent the director, no one can make this goofy law work.”

Pin the goofy law on our goofy president.

But then you’d be a racist!! 🙂

Whatever else people might say about Barack Obama, even liberals have to admit that when it comes to managerial prowess–even when having the benefit of his pen and telephone– the only executive action the president seems to get right is his tee time.

Don’t let the awesome size of the Obamacare debacle shrink the significance of the other debacles Obama has presided over: $1 trillion stimulus, failed; a Department of Energy loan program for green companies, failed too, just to name two in a growing database of Obama disasters.

Who could’ve predicted at a time when unprecedented money and resources would go into alternative energy production via fiat by the federal government, that the “green” industry would see an unprecedented number of bankruptcies, failures and collapses?

Conservatives could have, and did.

Because the question goes to the fundamental flaw that Democrats have when it comes to governance. If it were all about money and power and influence, Democrats would never have a problem; nor would communists.

But eventually human nature takes over; and human nature is the enemy of control freaks, a.k.a. progressives.

Human nature can’t control the progressive agenda, no matter how many jobs are lost. Democrats and the president mean to implement Obamacare even if they have to fire us all one by one.

That’s where the Thought Police come in. Control thought, control people.

In the old days, in order for healthcare to happen, you only needed to have a sick person.

Under the Democrats, you only need to have one very, very sick person right at the top, so he can do the firing of the rest of us. (John Ransom)

HAIL HYDRA!

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Shut up!

Charles Krauthammer: Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Washington Post demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.

The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

Thought Police: It is their job to uncover and punish thoughtcrime. The Thought Police use surveillance and psychological monitoring to find and eliminate members of society who challenge the party’s authority and ideology.[6]

The Thought Police of Orwell and their pursuit of thoughtcrime were based on the methods used by the totalitarian states and ideologies of the 20th century.

The term “Thought Police”, by extension, has come to refer to real or perceived enforcement of ideological correctness.

Sound like the Left? 🙂

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

Sometimes the word comes from on high, as when the president of the United States declares the science of global warming to be “settled.” Anyone who disagrees is then branded “anti-science” and, better still, a “denier” — a brilliantly chosen calumny meant to impute to the climate skeptic the opprobrium normally reserved for the hatemongers and crackpots who deny the Holocaust.

Then last week, another outbreak. The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage.

Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

To oppose it is nothing but bigotry akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.

Like the CEO of Mozilla who resigned under pressure just 10 days into his job when it was disclosed that six years earlier he had donated to California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

But why stop with Brendan Eich, the victim of this high-tech lynching? Prop 8 passed by half a million votes. Six million Californians joined Eich in the crime of “privileging” traditional marriage. So did Barack Obama.

In that same year, he declared that his Christian beliefs made him oppose gay marriage.

Yet under the new dispensation, this is outright bigotry. By that logic, the man whom the left so ecstatically carried to the White House in 2008 was equally a bigot.

The whole thing is so stupid as to be unworthy of exegesis. There is no logic. What’s at play is sheer ideological prejudice — and the enforcement of the new totalitarian norm that declares, unilaterally, certain issues to be closed.

To this magic circle of forced conformity, the left would like to add certain other policies, resistance to which is deemed a “war on women.” It’s a colorful synonym for sexism. Leveling the charge is a crude way to cut off debate.

Thus, to oppose late-term abortion is to make war on women’s “reproductive health,” as is questioning Obamacare’s mandate of free contraception for all.

Some oppose the regulation because of its impingement on the free exercise of religion, others on the simpler (non-theological) grounds of a skewed hierarchy of values.

Under the new law, everything is covered, but a few choice things are given away free. To what does contraception owe its exalted status? Why should it rank above, say, antibiotics for a sick child, for which that same mother must co-pay?

Say that, however, and you are accused of denying women “access to contraception.”

Or try objecting to the new so-called Paycheck Fairness Act for women, which is little more than a full-employment act for trial lawyers. Sex discrimination is already illegal.

What these new laws do is relieve the plaintiffs of proving intentional discrimination. To bring suit, they need only to show that women make less in that workplace.

Like the White House, where women make 88 cents to the men’s dollar?

That’s called “disparate impact.” Does anyone really think Obama consciously discriminates against female employees, rather than the disparity being a reflection of experience, work history, etc.?

But just to raise such questions is to betray heretical tendencies.

The good news is that the “war on women” charge is mostly cynicism, fodder for campaign-year demagoguery. But the trend is growing.

Oppose the current consensus and you’re a denier, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, an enemy of the people.

Long a staple of academia, the totalitarian impulse is spreading. What to do? Defend the dissenters, even if — perhaps, especially if — you disagree with their policy. It is — it was? — the American way.

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson