The Future

Youth: As riots roil Ferguson and Baltimore, a new poll shows it isn’t just inner-city youth who are disaffected. It seems young adults across America are profoundly dissatisfied with the big institutions of their country.

A new Harvard University Institute of Politics poll suggests that 18-29-year-olds have a deep distrust of major American institutions. Such profound distrust doesn’t bode well for our future.

Only the U.S. military and scientists score over 50% when young Americans are asked if they trust them.

To be sure, many of those institutions (see chart) might deserve distrust. The biased mainstream media has plainly done a poor job. So has Congress. And so have local, state and federal government agencies.

Still, it’s disquieting to see that America’s young adults have so little faith in the institutions of the richest, freest nation ever. And the cynicism starts early.

A big part of the blame belongs to 40 years of liberal control of our education system, which, coupled with the decline of intact families, has left an entire generation deeply distrustful of America and the institutions that have, over the years, worked quite well.

From the start, kids are taught a litany: America is racist, greedy and hypocritical. Such instruction alienates them from their society and culture.

Yet the doubt and alienation come despite the fact that many young Americans know little about our nation’s history or how its government works.

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

–George Orwell

Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

Thus removing any concept or thought pattern not desired by the ruling elite.

How could you have a slogan like “freedom is slavery” when the concept of freedom has been abolished?

“Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.”

A new survey of eighth graders by the National Assessment of Educational Progress underscores this. It found less than a quarter of those tested are proficient in civics, geography and U.S. history.

Locally, it was reported here that 650 3rd Graders who couldn’t read were going to passed onto the 4th Grade. First of all, if they are roughly 8 years old and they can’t read to begin with is a problem that no one wants to address.

In just a few years they too will be cynical young adults, just as those in the Harvard poll.

“If the next generation doesn’t understand the causes and the purpose of our American Revolution, the reasons for the separation of powers in our government or the role of the states in our federal system, that generation isn’t likely to notice when its liberties slowly slip away and will not be equipped to hold elected officials accountable,” said Roger Beckett, executive director of the Ashbrook Center.

But damn, they’ll know everything about Snap Chat and The Kardashians!

He’s absoutely right. If young Americans do not understand how our system ideally works, they have no way of understanding what’s wrong — or how to fix it.

Which I think was the point all along. But then the old guard dies off and these “feel good” idiots take over the country is doomed.

Unfortunately, our young are deeply susceptible to liberal teachers sneering that “nothing works” in America and that today’s students are victims of social forces beyond their control — race, wealth inequality, gender, whatever — not masters of their own fates.

Are we being too harsh on our education system?

NO.

Not at all. Since the 1960s, K-12 educators have used the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s theories of “cultural Marxism” to indoctrinate kids with poisonous, anti-social ideas — ranging from multiculturalism, political correctness and diversity, to affirmative action, social justice and inequality.

Meanwhile, they relegate fact-based study of history, geography and culture to the academic ash heap.

No longer teaching a fact-based curriculum, left-wing teachers, unions and administrators can fill young heads with all sorts of useless, nihilistic nonsense.

Yes, young adults might be right: Our institutions are flawed and dysfunctional. But they should also know this: In democracy, you get the institutions you deserve. (IBD)

They just think they are “entitled” and “enlightened” because the Left wing has told them so since birth.

Among college-aged Americans, 58 percent report a positive view of socialism and 56 percent a positive view of capitalism. In contrast,  only 28 percent of seniors have a positive view of socialism while 61 percent have a favorable view of capitalism. This may give the impression young people are trending socialist.

However, college-aged Americans are far more supportive of a free market system (72%) than they are of a government-managed economy (49%). Seniors concur with young people on the free market system (74%), while only 28 percent have a positive view of a government-managed economy.

Several forces could likely be at play. First, young people don’t know what these words mean. The fact that they are more favorable toward socialism than a government-managed economy, which if anything is socialism-lite, demonstrates this. Second, young people like free markets and the technology, products, and wealth it creates, but they also want to feel confident the poor have access to what they need. In their minds socialism might simply connote a social safety net rather than government ownership. Third, individuals often trend left in their youth, but may change as they age. Fourth, this cohort of young people may be systematically different from older generations in holding a preference for both markets and government activism. It remains to be determined how this young generation will make the trade-off when markets and government action are at odds. (reason.com)

The Death of Martin Luther King, Jr

50 Years of Democrat rule and the complete loss of the principles that got them their rights in the first place.

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

The president of the Baltimore City Council apologized for calling rioters “thugs” at a press conference Tuesday, calling those responsible for the violence “misdirected” youths. Standing side-by-side with self-proclaimed gang members, Jack Young said that gang members stood in front of stores to prevent looting and retracted claims that gang members were targeting the Baltimore police. “We are all Baltimoreans,” Young said. Almost 200 people were arrested during Monday night’s riots. At least 144 vehicles and 15 buildings were burned, according to the mayor’s office.

No wonder the left can’t identify Radical Muslims as Radical Muslims.

Orwell’s principle wrought forth

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

CLASS/GENDER/RACE  WAR IS PEACE

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Then  there’s Salon.com (Leftists) that ADVOCATES violence as the only means, and non-violence (ala MLK) is worthless.

I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful. The bad-apple rhetoric would have us believe that most Baltimore protesters are demonstrating the right way—as is their constitutional right—and only a few are disrupting the peace, giving the movement a bad name.

This spin should be disregarded, first because of the virtual media blackout of any of the action happening on the ground, particularly over the weekend. Equally, it makes no sense to cite the Constitution in any demonstration for Black civil rights (that document was not written about us, remember?), but certainly not one organized specifically to call attention to the fact that the state breaks its own laws with regard to the oppressed on a nearly constant basis.

But there is an even bigger problem. Referring to Black Lives Matter protests, as well as organic responses to police and state violence as “non-violent” or “peaceful” erases the actual climate in which these movements are acting, the militant strategies that have rendered them effective, and the long history of riots and direct action on which they are built.

I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.

Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.

Telling someone to be peaceful and shaming their militance not only lacks a nuanced and historical political understanding, it is literally a deadly and irresponsible demand.

The political goals of rioters in Baltimore are not unclear—just as they were not unclear when poor, Black people rioted in Ferguson last fall. When the free market, real estate, the elected government, the legal system have all shown you they are not going to protect you—in fact, that they are the sources of the greatest violence you face—then political action becomes about stopping the machine that is trying to kill you, even if only for a moment, getting the boot off your neck, even if it only allows you a second of air. This is exactly what blocking off streets, disrupting white consumerism, and destroying state property are designed to do.

When there is more concern for white sports fans in the vicinity of a riot than the Black people facing off with police, there is mounting justification for the rage and pain of Black communities in this country.

What kinds of actions will it take to make it widely understood that all policing is racist terror, and justice can only come with its permanent abolition?

Black power, Queer power, power to Baltimore, and to all oppressed people who know what time it is.

But not to worry, it’s not their fault, after all, they’re hearts are in the right place and they “care” unlike Republicans…

President Obama  made clear that the reason the citizens of Baltimore are rioting out of control is – wait for it – because Republicans have failed to pass his legislative agenda.
They haven’t thrown enough money at the problem!!

Throwing money at a problem – especially Federal money – might make elected leadership feel good, and prevent upper class white liberals from having to face the reality of inner city life by keeping it at a safe distance with checks from the IRS, but it seldom does anything to repair infrastructure or rebuild an eroding community. And it certainly does nothing to improve the quality of leadership that people in flailing urban areas experience (and Baltimore looks to be the same story). In Detroit, it took a plotline straight out of Gotham City – the mysterious death of a stripper and the mayoral persecution of two rogue cops looking to bring her and her family justice – to start the ball rolling on reform. The Federal government threw millions – billions – at Detroit to bail it out, and it spent it all on hookers and cocaine. 

Literally.

But far be it from Barack Obama to address the real root causes of violence. I suppose the good news is he’s too busy than to use the city as a prop for a photo opportunity. (American Spectator)

The Daily Caller asked Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, if the city’s leadership had failed, since the West Baltimore area was still being rebuilt from the 1968 riots. Hoyer replied, “We have to invest in making sure that we have proper infrastructure and proper housing so that we have neighborhoods that are safe and that we safe conditions in which to live.”

“But I wouldn’t call it a failure, certainly, of Baltimore,” he added. “But we’re going to have to as a country invest if we’re going to have the kinds of communities we want.

MLK is dead.

Not just physically, but spiritually DEAD.

For Freedom

Forget for a moment the ever-failing economy, the implosion of our foreign policy coherence, and our virtually unilateral withdrawal in the war on terror under Barack Obama’s presidency. If liberty lovers don’t start fighting back soon, we’ll forfeit our freedom of thought and religious expression under the assault of fascist leftist activists in our culture.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

Let’s just look at two of the many recent events that should have us very concerned. As you may have guessed, they revolve around the controversial matter of same-sex marriage. At the outset, let me say that this issue is no longer about same-sex marriage or gay rights; it is about our basic liberties.

George Orwell — ‘He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.’

First, we read via The New York Times that “Ian Reisner, one of the two gay hoteliers facing boycott calls for hosting an event for Senator Ted Cruz, who is adamantly opposed to same-sex marriage, apologized to the gay community for showing ‘poor judgment.'”

What was Reisner’s sin for which he is now openly flaying himself in faux repentance? He and his business partner allowed Sen. Cruz to participate in a “fireside chat” for about a dozen people, which was not even a fundraiser. But as soon as word got out, gay activists apparently mobilized in force through social media outlets and phone calls calling for boycotts of Reisner’s properties.

An ostensibly shocked Reisner, in an effort to stanch the bleeding represented by more than 8,200 likes on a Facebook page calling for the boycott, apologized on Facebook. “I am shaken to my bones by the e-mails, texts, postings and phone calls of the past few days. I made a terrible mistake,” wrote Reisner.

Yes, he made the unforgivable “mistake” of hosting an event for a presidential candidate who has different views on social issues than the fascist boycott organizers have — and he has himself, for that matter, seeing as he’s a prominent figure in the gay rights community, according to the Times.

Supporters of same-sex marriage, as many used to predict would happen, are not content with their recent victories on the issue. They obviously want to punish anyone who dissents for any reason — including religious and conscience reasons — and also bludgeon those (such as Reisner) who even inadvertently assist those who dissent (such as Cruz).

Next, we should consider the horrendous ordeal of Aaron and Melissa Klein, who used to own Sweet Cakes by Melissa, a bakery they built from scratch in Sandy, Oregon, in 2013. When they respectfully declined, on religious grounds, the request of two women to bake a cake for their wedding, the happy couple filed a civil complaint against them for failing to provide them equal service in a place of public accommodation. You know, live and let live — the attitude the activists and their fellow liberal foxhole buddies told us they would have if they prevailed in their quest to legalize same-sex marriage.

A group of unspecified people — real or robotic constructs of social media legerdemain — went into battle. “They got together and harassed all of our vendors,” Melissa said. The vendors, according to The Daily Signal, folded and took Sweet Cakes off their referral lists, resulting in a 65 to 70 percent reduction in the Kleins’ annual income, forcing them to close the bakery. (The Kleins have five children, and Melissa is reduced to baking a few cakes a month at home. Aaron now has a job as a garbage collector.)

But that heartless result wasn’t enough for the victors. They pursued their legal action against the Kleins with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, and last Friday, an administrative law judge with that agency recommended the Kleins be fined $135,000 for the damages caused to the happy — and now happily married — couple.

As a result – Aaron and Melissa Klein could lose everything they own — including their home in the name of “tolerance”.

When I first heard about this, my jaw literally dropped, and that takes quite a bit in this upside-down, crazy world we’ve grown to understand we now inhabit.

Aaron Klein said: “This country should be able to tolerate diverse opinions. I never once have said that my fight is (to) stop what they call equality.”

Sorry, Aaron, and I do mean I am profoundly sorry for the injustice that has been imposed on you, but these activists are not willing to tolerate diverse opinions. They don’t care that you are not proactively trying to oppose their march for whatever it is they’re marching for. It appears that the true quest of leftist gay activists — and not just gay activists but those of many other leftist causes in this country (e.g., “climate change”) — is to wholly shut down and censor opposing opinions, whether thought or expressed, whether publicly or privately.

“The past was dead, the future was unimaginable. What certainty had he that a single human creature now living was on his side? And what way of knowing that the dominion of the Party would not endure for ever? Like an answer, the three slogans on the white face of the Ministry of Truth came back to him:

WAR IS PEACE  (Even a “Culture” or “Social” War)

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

THE MINISTRY OF TRUTH IS WATCHING YOU!

I repeat: The real fight on these types of issues in this nation is no longer about the underlying “rights” involved. It concerns the appalling mission of activists to marshal the coercive power of government and of commercial blackmail to compel other people to agree (and publicly say they agree) with their opinions on issues they deem important.

DO AS WE SAY, THINK AS WE SAY, OR ELSE!

Isn’t it ironic that the people who are pushing for these rights always wave banners of tolerance, love, compassion and liberty? More than ironic, it’s outrageous. And fewer and fewer people of principle are standing up to this tyrannical bullying because, understandably, they don’t want to put themselves in the crosshairs of this gestapo. But history tells us the logical conclusion of this story. Some socially liberal Republicans naively believe that this is only about the social issues themselves, but it’s about liberty.

God help us. (David Limbaugh)

It’s Baltimore. It’s Ferguson.Stand around and let the crazies destroy and get it out of their system, they’ll take your freedom with them.

When they are done taking your freedom of religion and conscience from you, what will they take next??

To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free, when men are different from one another and do not live alone — to a time when truth exists and what is done cannot be undone:
From the age of uniformity, from the age of solitude, from the age of Big Brother, from the age of doublethink — greetings !–George Orwell

Just say “NO” to Watermelons

 

Watermelon Environmentalists Cause Global Warming

UN Communists Hide In Global Warming Trojan Horse

United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political

system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

Brett Stevens was both humorous and thought-provoking when he announced a while

back that “Liberalism Caused Global Warming.” I have political evidence that suggests

that he may have even had an empirical point. You see there are two types of

environmental activists. Honest ones believe that the government should assume greater

powers in order to prevent environmental pollution from doing terrible things to people

and places they care about. Dishonest environmental activists (AKA Watermelons*) just

believe the government should get more power over the lives and wallets of the citizenry.

The environment provides an excellent vehicle to usurp power and control the property

of other citizens.

United Nations Climate Chief Christiana Figueres is clearly a dishonest environmental

activist. She informs us that Communist China, the world’s leading source of CO2

pollution for several consecutive years since 2007, has the right type of governmental

system to fight Global Warming. This can only bring me back to questioning why

Christiana Figueres calls herself an environmentalist. If she wants to reduce the extent to

which human pollution could potentially warm the terrestrial climate, she should not

encourage the world emulate a nation that emits 25% of the world’s industrial CO2

pollution on an annual basis. Not only that, they get about 25% as much GDP per ton of

CO2 as the United States and about 13% as much GDP per ton of CO2 as Germany or

Japan.

To demonstrate just how wrong Christiana Figueres and her cohorts at the UN truly are,

we look at two pieces of data. The United States Government tracks CO2 pollution by

nation, by year at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. They are properly

diligent in making this data available to the public. The table below** displays the

world’s top 10 CO2 polluters by nation for 2010.

Rank	Nation	Metric Tons CO2
1	China	2259856
2	USA	1481608
3	India	547811
4	Russia	474714
5	Japan	319257
6	Germany	203268
7	Iran	155880
8	Korea	154777
9	Canada	136116
10	UK	134580

We then compare these pollution stats to how much economic output each of these

polluter nations produces. The World Bank tracks national GDPs by country by year.

The 2010 GDPs in Base Year USD $M for each top 10 CO2 polluter nation follows below.

Rank	Nation	GDP USD $M
1	USA	14,582,400
2	China	5,878,629
3	Japan	5,497,813
4	Germany	3,309,669
6	UK	2,246,079
9	India	1,729,010
10	Canada	1,574,052
11	Russia	1,479,819
14	Korea, Rep.	1,014,483
29	Iran	331,015

So to finish walking the dog on this analysis, we can take the GDP and divide it by the

polluter nation’s CO2 emissions***. This allows us to evaluate what trade-off we make

every time one of the top 10 CO2 polluters emits another ton. Lower dollar figures

indicate a greater environmental cost per dollar of GDP produced. It can also allow us to

run back-of-the-envelope experiments such as determining how much CO2 China or

Japan would have to emit to produce the US 2010 GDP. My own tabulation of this

experiment follows below.

Rank	Nation	$M GDP/Tons CO2	Tons CO2 to Produce US GDP
1	Japan	17.221	846,797.313
2	UK	16.690	873,744.598
3	Germany	16.282	895,598.709
4	Canada	11.564	1,261,011.681
5	USA	9.842	1,481,608.000
6	Korea	6.554	2,224,798.370
7	India	3.156	4,620,215.668
8	Russia	3.117	4,677,916.308
9	China	2.601	5,605,749.935
10	Iran	2.124	6,867,074.036

If Christiana Figueres were to arrive in New York and announce that the United States

had a lot to learn from other countries in reducing CO2 pollution per unit of wealth

produced, I would find her obnoxious but impossible to refute. She veers into the

self-serving Leftist stupid when she claims we should be learning it from the Communist

Chinese. The top 10 CO2 polluter nations produced about $37.5 Trillion in national

wealth. At the USA’s rate of CO2 pollution, these nations would have emitted 3.8 Million

Tons. At Japan’s rate, they would collectively emitted 2.2 Million Tons; at China’s

rate….14.5 million.

Pace Christiana Figueres; the United States needs to learn and do better on this issue.

Contra the dishonest, UN Watermelon Environmentalist, we sure don’t need to be

learning from a Communist dictatorship. If we accepted her prescription, and the UN

was truly correct about CO2 impacts on terrestrial climate, then Watermelon

Environmentalists would cause Global Warming.

*- Watermelon Environmentalist: Behind all the acronyms and the jargon, they say, is a conspiracy to promote a nakedly political aim – anti-big business; anti-free market; pro-tax increases. In short, green on the outside but red on the inside..
** – (HT:HTML.am) for the table source code.
***- We’ll call this our Dead Millibear Index (HT:Al Gore)

Do Inquiring Minds Want to Know?

Christopher Booker: Last month, we are told, the world enjoyed “its hottest March since records began in 1880”. This year, according to “US government scientists”, already bids to outrank 2014 as “the hottest ever”. The figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were based, like all the other three official surface temperature records on which the world’s scientists and politicians rely, on data compiled from a network of weather stations by NOAA’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN).

But here there is a puzzle. These temperature records are not the only ones with official status. The other two, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama (UAH), are based on a quite different method of measuring temperature data, by satellites. And these, as they have increasingly done in recent years, give a strikingly different picture. Neither shows last month as anything like the hottest March on record, any more than they showed 2014 as “the hottest year ever”.

An adjusted graph from the Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Back in January and February, two items in this column attracted more than 42,000 comments to the Telegraph website from all over the world. The provocative headings given to them were “Climategate the sequel: how we are still being tricked by flawed data on global warming” and “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest scientific scandal”.

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

Below, the raw data in graph form

For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.

Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

The Science is Settled

It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims.

According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”

The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.

The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”

So 36% for not man-made means The Alarmist have a “consensus” and the “science is settled”. The 64% that don’t believe them must therefore be morons. So time to lie even more and step up the political arm of this control agenda because the facts don’t matter and their sanctimony and “rightness” must be assured.

Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”

So 24+17 (that’s more than 36 right?) against the IPCC “gods” of “consensus. The scientist in this survey must be complete morons not to bow down to the “the truth” of the Alarmist Wolf Criers. 🙂

The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”

24+17+10 against the IPCC. So the IPCC “consensus” and The President therefore MUST be right? 🙂

The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”

24+17+10+5 = We have liftoff! The IPCC and The Global Warming Chicken Littles must be right! 🙂

Taken together, these four skeptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’

And they use typical condescending and childish ad homimems to quell your disagreement with their ‘superior intellect’ and their ‘superior knowledge’ of the situation which obviously you are too stupid to understand.

Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are skeptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe.

Yeah, but any scientist who isn’t with the Party Line is a mislead moron who doesn’t speak for the “consensus”.

People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged “consensus” have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus. (Forbes)

But you’ll never hear that from The Ministry of Truth or our Alarmist President who thinks Global Warming is more important than Iranian  Nukes or the Beheading Terrorists. After all, they aren’t on the Totalitarian Control Agenda so they don’t really matter. 🙂

You must be an idiot to oppose their superiority over you.

Sounds like the average Leftist to me. Now that’s a Consensus… 🙂

Hollywood Follies

Well, since WordPress said it published this yesterday, then didn’t…

Welcome to Hollywood, where dreams become real — and where logic, reason and Economics 101 become dreams.

Take the current battle over the minimum wage. In Los Angeles County, the minimum wage is $9 per hour.

You mean, in the heart of Liberalism it’s not $15 already? 🙂

Theater actors, however, can be paid as little as $7 a performance, and an actor can even work long rehearsal hours with no pay.

Three decades ago, L.A. County actors sued their union for an exception to union wages for theaters with 99 seats or fewer seats.

Why do these stage actors work for so little? They want to work. By working, they improve their skills, stay sharp and or perhaps have a chance to get spotted by an agent.

Some say simply having something to do is better than just sitting around and waiting for a casting agent to call.

Actors Equity, the national union, wants to change this. According to the New York Times: “The union, seizing a moment when organized labor is having some success pressuring low-wage employers to pay higher salaries, says many of this city’s small theaters — which currently pay actors nothing for rehearsals, and stipends as low as $7 per (hour for) performances — should start paying California’s minimum wage of $9 an hour.”

But then a very Republican thing happened — 66% of the union members voted against a higher minimum wage.

Traitors to THE CAUSE. How dare they make a rational decision! They must have been contaminated by Republicans. We need to get the Ministry of Truth on this right away to stop this!

Their rationale was simple: A higher minimum wage means fewer plays get performed. Fewer plays mean fewer opportunities for actors and therefore fewer opportunities to gain experience, stay in practice or get discovered.

But that’s not the Party Line! The Party Line says everyone will prosper if you raise the minimum wage. They are lying out their teeth and in the face of the facts, but hey, since when was The Party Line about the actual people. 🙂

But the union’s national council ignored this advisory vote and ordered, with some exceptions, a $9 per hour minimum wage.

When it comes to their own lives, these actors understand the law of economics: Artificially raise the cost of a good — in this case the price of an actor in a stage play — and you reduce the demand for actors.

Last year, meanwhile, actor Kevin Spacey lobbied Maryland lawmakers to extend their tax credit program. He films his Netflix series, “House of Cards,” in Maryland.

That state offers generous tax credits and relaxed union rules, so the Netflix series earned more money than would be the case if the show filmed in Hollywood.

In Maryland, a production company can claim a credit on its income taxes equivalent to 25% to 27% of the costs of their film or TV production. If the credit is larger than a company’s tax liability, the company can receive a refund from the state.

“Maryland has capped the total value of credits it offers,” writes the Washington Post, “with the amount varying by year but averaging about $12.5 million. Ten productions have been approved for credits since 2012. But the vast majority of the $62.5 million in funding has been allotted to ‘House of Cards’ ($37.6 million) and ‘Veep’ ($22.7 million).”

Hollywood studios aggressively seek tax credits and other benefits when determining where to shoot a TV series or movie.

That’s why Vancouver, British Columbia became known in the 1990’s especially, as “Hollywood North” when the Canadian dollar and the Canadians themselves made TV production so much cheaper than LA.

When a shoot takes place other than Hollywood, studios call the out-of-state production a “runaway production.” Brilliant marketing.

Hollywood says, “We don’t want to shoot outside of California, but, you see, our hands are tied. We have no choice. The production ran away from us, lured by text credits and generous union rules.” When a manufacturer, however, decides to move a facility to a different location — to take advantage of tax breaks — critics call this outsourcing.

How dare they! Don’t they have The Leftist Agenda script!! Capitalism is evil! 🙂

When it comes to politics, the Hollywood community votes for the party that seeks to raise the minimum wage and taxes on the rich.

But when it comes to making “the magic” of Hollywood, they are a bit more pragmatic and self-interested.

The foundation of wealth redistribution is imposing higher and higher taxes on the so-called rich. Yet after pulling the lever for the tax-hike party, the Hollywood community demands tax breaks for its own industry.

Because THEY ARE THE RICH, and as always with Liberals the rules don’t apply to them. The rules are for thee, not for me.

A higher minimum wage is an article of faith for Democrats, whose party believes that society exploits poor workers. “A raise of the federal minimum wage is one of those common-sense proposals that is both good for the economy and good for the country,” says Democratic Party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

<<SQUAWK>>

“This is a good first step to show we are committed to helping Americans who work hard and play by the rules. And as we tend to this core American value, we will expand the middle class, which will always be the backbone of this nation’s economy.

Socialism contracts the middle class.

“These principles are essential to Democrats like me, but they do not have to be exclusive to Democrats. We would welcome Republicans to join us in the achievement of improving wages and creating new momentum for the U.S. economy.”

Where’s my barf bag?…

Another Hollywood denizen, Pat Sajak, host of “Wheel of Fortune,” recently offered a different perspective on the minimum wage. “When I had minimum wage jobs,” he tweeted, “my goal was to better myself, not to better the minimum wage.” (Larry Elder)

Throw him off the train, he’s a heretic! He is not of The Body!! He speaks evil thoughts!

California, The Granola State. What isn’t fruits and nuts is flakes.

That Slice of Social Justice Pie

Democrats think they have the issue of the 2016 election: income inequality. The theory is that so few Americans control so much of the wealth in the country that the rest of us, the “99 percent,” will rise up and demand “fairness.” It’s jealously, plain and simple. And its success, as much as there has been, is based on ignorance.

Bill Gates is worth more than you or I ever will be. Actually, he’s worth more than you, me, and pretty much everyone we know ever will be. But he’s not rich because we’re poor. In fact, we’re not poor at all.

Gates made his money, created it. Before Microsoft existed the value of Microsoft didn’t exist. It was created and grew from nothing, or a relatively small investment. It also grew from hard work and a risk. Gates left Harvard to start the company; he didn’t rob a bank, he bet on himself, his vision and ability. And he won.

Unless someone literally stole from someone else, no one is poor because someone else got rich. That appears to be a difficult concept for many to understand, particularly the “social justice warriors” who obstruct traffic demanding their slice of other people’s pie.

But they do understand it; they just hope others don’t. The chanters against the “1 percent” play on the ignorance of their misguided flock. That ignorance runs deep.

The unenlightened narcissism and greed runs deeper.

That it is fiction that you have less because someone else has more is but one basic concept people should have learned in school. Thanks to the Democratic Party’s indentured servitude to teachers unions, such basic concepts have been replaced with sensitivity conditioning and diversity training.

And how you’re entitled to other people’s money, especially if you’re not white.

The idea that Mark Zuckerberg being worth $34 billion means you were denied your slice of that pie is absurd (unless your last name is Winklevoss or Saverin). That a political party, or any decent human being, would perpetuate that lie is worse.

It’s not often I’ll quote an actor to make a political point, at least the actual actor and not the character he played. But I recently heard something I think captures the American spirit, or what it used to be, so perfectly that it is worth repeating.

The actor is Terry Crews, star of “Brooklyn 99,” and while talking on Adam Carolla’s “Take A Knee” podcast, Crews talked about how he became the successful man he is today. Crews told Carolla, “Everybody says they’re trying to get their piece of the pie. They don’t understand that the world is a kitchen. You can make your own pie.”

That is true, to one degree or another, in most corners of the world. But it is truer in the United States than anywhere else. Yet one political party, aided by the media, is committed to convincing millions of their fellow Americans that they can’t get ahead, that “the deck is stacked against them,” or “the game is rigged.” Nothing could be more un-American.

But more Democrat.

Democrats and the media obsess on “income inequality,” but outcome inequality is the real plague of America’s poor.

Everyone has access to an education – Equality.

Wealthy Democrats deny Americans the ability to choose which school their kids attend, but they can and do afford excellent private schools for their kids – Inequality.

The greatest barrier to economic mobility is education malpractice, and those screaming “inequality” are the ones building and reinforcing that barrier.

No one should want income equality, or anything close to it. The only societies where income was anything close to equal were the most despotic in history. The Soviet Union, communist China, Cuba, etc., all enforced the concept of “equality” down to the income level. It quashed the human spirit and the entrepreneurial spirit – and the only people who achieved upward mobility, the only people who got rich, were those who imposed the income equality.

Everyone is equal…under a boot.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

The fact is the “rich” today won’t necessarily be the rich tomorrow, and the same goes for the poor. The discussion is always framed as the rich vs. the poor, but it’s never mentioned that neither group is stagnant. Whether someone moves up or down that scale is up to them. The chances they take, the effort they exert, the work they do are all bigger factors in someone’s economic future than anything a politician can implement. Unless, of course, that politician implements a program designed to alleviate “income inequality.”

North Korea has the lowest income inequality on the planet – one man has everything, millions of others have nothing. In this country, similarly situated individuals are making the case we should be more like North Korea. OK, them first. If these millionaire progressives are really interested in “spreading the wealth around,” then write me a check. If the check clears, we can discuss the concept further.

The Coming Politically Correct Apocolypse

Orwell warned us all about the manipulation of language affecting thought. Orwell said that language makes humans easy to control—control their language and you control the people. But this one is mind-blowingly out of this world.

(yes, I know because I’m not connected at the jugular to social media  and drown in it’s minutiae this is several days old and has probably already flamed out)

University Apologizes to Illegal Aliens for Mexican Food at Sci-Fi Event

Here, we have another glaring example of self-victimization by, shockingly (sarcasm), college students. During a sci-fi themed event at Stevenson College, a residential college of the University of California, Santa Cruz (UCSC), students chose to be offended by (wait for it) the food provided.

The event staff deemed the theme to be “intergalactic” and decorated the room with spaceships and aliens. Focus on the “aliens.” The staff, wittingly or unwittingly, chose to cater the event with a Mexican food buffet, which students then linked the Mexican food with the theme of aliens.

Get it? They made a connection of goofy space aliens and illegal immigrants, specifically the term “illegal aliens.”

Good thing it wasn’t Blackened Chicken with Watermelon!!! 🙂

Wait, it gets better (or worse depending on how you receive this). Stevenson is APOLOGIZING for the “cultural insensitivity” of the event. Dr. Carolyn Golz, Student Life overseer, wrote a letter to students, particularly to undocumented students, apologizing for the connection students made.

“We would never want to make a connection between individuals of Latino heritage or undocumented students and “aliens” and I am so sorry that our College Night appeared to do exactly that.”

Dr. Golz will even require her staff to go through “cultural competence training” to make them more culture sensitive and inclusive.

“As a result of this incident, I will require cultural competence training for Programs staff, in addition to implementing mechanisms for future program planning that will ensure college programs are culturally sensitive and inclusive.”

“I am working closing with Donnae Smith, Coordinator for Diversity and Inclusion for Colleges, Housing and Educational Services (CHES) to continue to increase the cultural intelligence (CQ) of our staff,” she continues.

Once again reaching an olive branch to the undocumented (politically correct way of saying illegal immigrant) students, saying:

“As an ally for students of color and, in particular, undocumented students, I am committed to ensuring that student life staff receive the training necessary to make sure that this type of incident does not happen again at Stevenson.”

She even gave them a website where they could report any perceived hate or bias (http://reporthate.ucsc.edu/about/index.html). (Just don’t report any Liberals 🙂 ) So if you, or anyone you know, attend UCSC be sure you quiet your dissent against the ideas of open borders and your support for legal immigration policy.

Dr. Golz cares “about the individuals in our community and I want everyone to feel respected, included, and affirmed.”

Unless you’re a freedom-loving, law-abiding American citizen (natural-born or naturalized) who expects others to do the same.

Time for the next great Liberal crusade, banning “aliens” from any movie, book, or TV show because it’s “insensitive” and “racist”.

Just watch and see, Nothing. Because you won’t be allowed to think it in the first place.

According to Orwell, what will happen to any democratic society if clarity in language collapses? He predicts that the society itself will collapse. Bad use of language makes it easy for us to have foolish and absolutely incorrect ideas. Distorted language can distort us, corrupt us and make us so stupid we won’t know lies when we hear them. We won’t question our leaders. We won’t have the language tools to enable us to speak the truth. Turn on the major media TV news and listen to the politicians twisting truth into something unrecognizable—their words depending solely on a great vacancy between our ears—and you will (perhaps) have a Joycean epiphany, a moment of illumination that Orwell was right to warn us and that we as a people ignore him at our peril.

So Klingon to reality before it gets transported away from you forever.

Live Long Long and Forget!

Now time to offend the Swedish, The Canadians and French food…

It’s A Trap!

John Hawkins: When liberals look at the poor, first and foremost, they see people who will vote for them in exchange for goodies. This gives liberals a perverse incentive to keep as many Americans mired in poverty as humanly possible.

This is why liberals are always willing to make a government handout a little bigger, easier to qualify for, or to make sure as many people as possible are using it. They want poor people to remain poor – and no wonder. Show me a ghetto in America and I will show you an area that votes heavily Democrat despite the fact that its condition never seems to improve.

Incidentally, that’s just how liberals like it. If you’re poor today, they’d like you to remain poor next year, the next ten years or even for the rest of your life. Then, not only do liberals get your vote, they get to feel better about themselves because they’re “helping” a “pitiful, helpless failure” like you. It’s the best of all worlds for liberals: they get to feel “generous,” it helps keep them in power, and other people pick up the bill.

Of course, it’s certainly not the best of all worlds for the poor.

Having been poor, I can tell you that it’s no picnic. Nobody likes living in a dangerous neighborhood, struggling to pay the rent or not knowing where the money will come from if his car breaks down. This is where liberals try get the fishhook in your jaw. They offer “free” money, “free food,” “free” housing. When you’re struggling, that looks pretty good.

While I have also been desperately poor in my life I have never taken government assistance while I was poor. I was nearly homeless for several years while working 129 hours a day 5 days a week because of debts accumulated. It never occurred to me to seek assistance from the government. It just wasn’t my mind set. It was my problem, It had to be my solution, not expecting other people to “fix” it for me.

But, what many poor people eventually realize is that all the “free” things liberals want to give them are part of a trap. Sure, government benefits make life a little easier, but they also help keep you poor long term. Being on the dole undercuts your motivation to change your situation. It encourages you to treat receiving handouts from the government as a primary source of income. In fact, many people start to worry that if they do TOO WELL, they’ll lose their “free” benefits.

On the other hand, conservatives don’t believe anyone is destined to remain poor.

We believe if you make good decisions, work hard and are willing to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, you can at least join the middle class. Unlike the Democrats, Republicans get most of their votes from the middle class; so unlike them, we’re incentivized to help poor Americans improve their situation financially. The same poor person who won’t vote Republican today may vote for the GOP tomorrow if he is off the dole, has a better job and is living in a better neighborhood.

And that doesn’t involve being a career burger flipper and expecting my employer to pay me $15/hr to do it. IMHO.

So conservatives do believe in a social safety net, but we believe it should be temporary.

It’s not a hammock on the beach where they serve you mai tai’s until dawn. It’s a net, not a bed.

We don’t want anyone to become dependent on the government or to take advantage of the system. In other words, we don’t want the safety net to become a hammock.

🙂
That’s why we want people to work for welfare, think drug addicts should be ineligible and believe there should be limits to how long someone can stay on a program.

We agree with Ronald Reagan who once said, “I believe the best social program is a job.”

Want to know why conservatives oppose high corporate taxes and want to keep taxes low in general? Why we don’t like the minimum wage? Why we try to cut regulations as much as possible?

It’s mostly about jobs. If the economy is growing, thriving and creating lots of jobs, it helps everybody, including the poor. Increasing the minimum wage to $15 may help a few people live more comfortably in poverty, but it will also lead to the loss of starter jobs for millions of poor people who desperately need the experience so they can improve their situations.

The government will NEVER lift you out of poverty, but a good job can. That’s where we believe we should be focusing our efforts. That’s why conservatives have long touted enterprise zones that allow businesses to have tax breaks in poor neighborhoods. The more businesses that move into low-income areas, the more poor Americans can get jobs.

Conservatives also believe in being tough on crime and protecting the Second Amendment rights of Americans. Nobody benefits more from that than the poor who are often trapped in crime-ridden neighborhoods that Democrats haven’t bothered to clean up, despite being in charge for decades.

They just get you to blame white rich people who obviously “hate” you. Vote for me, here’s a handout to show “I care”. 🙂

Conservatives don’t believe there’s anything shameful about being poor, but we also believe the best thing we can do to help poor Americans is to make it possible for them leave poverty behind for good. A liberal “success story” is someone who gets lots of government benefits while he lives in poverty for decades. A conservative “success story” is a poor American who no longer needs government benefits because he got a good job and moved into the middle class.

That’s why liberalism is for poor people who are content to remain poor and conservatism is for poor people who want to make a better life for themselves.

Amen.

Just remember, to a Liberal that means you’re mean, you hate poor people, woman and children, you kick the dog and steal candy from babies and push grandma out of her house and over a cliff because your Snidley Whiplash and you are greedy, heartless, and maniacal. 🙂

Taxpayer Money

Jack Dunphy: On Thursday, the Los Angeles Times told of a report from the City Administrative Officer titled “Homelessness and the City of Los Angeles.” Among the revelations in the report is that 15 different city agencies and departments spend more than $100 million each year on providing services to the homeless. “In July 2014,” the report says, “the Mayor pledged to end veteran homelessness by December 2015 and chronic homelessness in Los Angeles by December 2016.” As with any report from any government bureaucracy, this one says these goals will be achieved through the spending of even more money to be extracted from the taxpayer.

The report also contained recommendations, including this: “Treatment of the homeless with dignity, and clarity on their rights.”

Dignity and rights, they say. Well, sure, who isn’t for dignity and rights? But reading the report put me in mind of interactions I’ve had with some of the city’s homeless people, about whom “dignified” is not among the first thousand adjectives one would use to describe them. Here is a story about one of them:

Los Angeles is a popular destination for the homeless, not least for the great stacks of money spent on them, but also for the city’s pleasant climate. If you’re going to sleep outdoors, it might as well be in L.A. But that climate can at times turn inhospitable to those on the streets, and it is in those times that cops and firefighters see an upsurge in calls from homeless people claiming to have this or that malady, one that requires a trip to a hospital, a clean bed, and a meal. We call these people “frequent flyers.”

When I answered the radio call one day, the temperature in L.A. was nudging 100 degrees. The woman who had called 911 claimed to be suicidal, necessitating the response of multiple police units. “I’m going to kill myself,” she said. “You have to take me to the hospital.”

I recognized at once that this was a case of a frequent flyer, and by inquiring at the nearby homeless shelter, I learned that the woman had just that day been expelled from it for unruly behavior. She was too much of a bum, I was told, even for the other bums.

I explained to the woman that I was sorry she was feeling so blue, but she would not be getting the ride to the hospital she had hoped for.

“But you have to take me,” she said, “or I’ll kill myself. That will be on you.” That would be unfortunate, I told her, but I was sure I would get over it quickly enough. She went on at some length and with great vigor to condemn my callousness, and she threatened to haunt me from the grave. Call me heartless, but my decision was final.

To her credit, she was resourceful. She had a Plan B, which was to march right over to the same pay phone she had used earlier and call 911 again, this time asking for the Fire Department. She was connected to an LAFD dispatcher, to whom she reported symptoms of an affliction of some kind, and in due course there appeared noisily at the scene an ambulance and a fire engine, thus bringing the number of city employees in the little drama to about 10.

To these firefighters she again reported her “symptoms.” (She had now abandoned all suicide talk – that would have made her a police problem, and she knew she was getting nowhere with us.) The Fire Department protocols, based on her claimed symptoms, demanded that she be taken to a hospital, so with great resignation the firefighters loaded her onto a gurney and collected her “belongings” – a whole shopping cart full of trash, from what I could make of it – into plastic bags to be carted along with her.

And she was then delivered to some hospital in or around downtown L.A., there to waste the time of doctors, nurses, and other staff while she enjoyed the air conditioning, the clean sheets, and a free meal, and perhaps passed the time chatting it up with some other homeless person who had put a different group of cops and firefighters through a similar charade. All of it was paid for by the taxpayers of Los Angeles, and I’ll bet she does it every time she finds the weather not to her liking.

GOMER: Medical slang for a patient who “has lost–often through age–what goes into being a human being” (quote from Samuel Shem’s “The House Of God”). Typically an old demented non-communicative patient . Stands for “Get Out Of My Emergency Room”.

The term has been used several times on the television shows Scrubs and ER.

I highly recommend if you can fins a copy of this movie or the book to get it.

“To do nothing for the gomers was to do something, and the more conscientiously I did nothing the better they got.”
― Samuel Shem, The House of God

“Gomers are human beings who have lost what goes into being human beings. They want to die, and we will not let them.”
― Samuel Shem, The House of God

To turf (verb: to find any excuse to refer a patient to a different department or team)

Or is that “they want to be entitled and we let them” 🙂

Based on this report from the Administrative Officer and the mayor’s pledge to “end homelessness,” the city will no doubt commit even more money to the problem. (Perhaps they can fund it by running a unicorn farm.) And in two, five, or ten years there will be another report expressing wonderment and frustration as to why, after spending all that money, there are still so many homeless people in Los Angeles.

I’m grateful I don’t live there anymore.

I’m glad I never lived there. But isn’t this just how liberals work. How every problem’s solution is more and more of YOUR money. And since it never works, they have to keep doing the same insane thing over and over again expecting different results.

And if you don’t let them do it you’re a “racist”, a “bigot”, “heartless”, “hate women and children” “hate poor people and love rich people” or “a denier”. And because you don’t want to be that you turf their Gomers and the Gomers turf themselves in a very co-dependent relationship with YOUR money.

And remember, The Stimulus that didn’t work by Obama was because it wasn’t BIG enough.

Who turned out be Democrat operatives.

The Tolerance Game

 This may not be as flashy as Hillary or Obama, but it still about Freedom and the intolerance of The Left that will come for you some day if you don’t do something about it. (anyone else find the banners ironic?) 🙂

Nothing says tolerance than being called the C-word for supporting religious freedom, or having a student-led petition started to have your banner removed at your respective school. That’s exactly what happened to Lindsey Kolb, a senior student at Missouri State University in Springfield, after she voiced her opinions in support of religious freedom a few weeks ago. At the time, the city was debating whether to add sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) to its nondiscrimination statutes.  Some, like Lindsey, felt the religious exemption wasn’t specific enough.

Yet, before we get into the liberal intolerance that was thrown at Kolb, let’s discuss a little more about the law’s aspects.

As the Springfield News-Leader reported, anyone found guilty of violating the ordinance would be served with a 180-day jail sentence and a $1,000 fine, though the city’s attorney said virtually all of these infractions would only result in a financial penalty. As for existing law, local columnists have come to the same scenario in question: bathrooms:

One thing that does change is that a business owner would not be able to preemptively kick someone out because the owner believes that person is a threat. As it stands now, if a business owner believes a person is in the “wrong” bathroom, the owner would have the right to tell the person to leave the business. With sexual orientation and gender identity protections in place, the person who is asked to leave would have the recourse to file a complaint with the Mayor’s Commission on Human Rights.

As for the religious exemption [emphasis mine]:

One ordinance suggested by the Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Task Force included a broad religious exemption. Basically, any business owner could deny service if he or she did so on religious terms. However, the version of the ordinance the city adopted only exempts strictly religious organizations.For example, a church can deny employment to whomever it chooses, for any reason. A religious person, who owns a call center, shoe store, or any other such business, cannot.

And therein lies the controversy; a private business owner who is deeply religious would be forced to go against his own faith and beliefs. It’s the baker and the gay wedding cake scenario.

Kolb wrote an op-ed in the Standard on March 31, one week before the scheduled vote on the bill–in response to a satire piece that mocked Christians. Yet, it’s her final paragraph that struck at heart of the battles now raging over religious freedom laws:

My last point is to call for the entire community to engage in civil discourse regarding this topic. I ask you to consider both sides, read the bill, talk to your friends, talk to your family, do some research and come up with your own decision concerning your vote. Last week in The Standard, the attempt at making an argument for one side attempted to cease the conversation by using name-calling, making light of valuable political conversation and attacking one community with hopes that it will relieve tension on another community. This is not only unprofessional, unproductive and immature, but it is not held to the standards that our university has poured into our lives. Missouri State University is dedicated both to public affairs and creating educated persons. Let’s start having conversations now about important issues rather than turning to insulting tactics.

Trying to talk rational sense to The radical Left, now that’s just crazy!

On April 7, the ordinance failed by a narrow margin.* Nevertheless, the “Get Kolb” campaign was up and running.

They needed to lynch someone for losing. It couldn’t be them. Someone’s scalp had to pay for this injustice!!

Kolb said that the vitriol aimed at her included people telling her that she should commit suicide, along with other attacks laced with profanity and misogynist language (don’t be a cunt).

Kolb is former president of MSU’s College Republicans chapter and the State Chairwoman for the Missouri Federation of College Republicans, as well as a university ambassador, which explains one petition urging the school to remove her banner hanging on Carrington Hall–the main administrative building on campus.

From the petition’s description on Change.org, it says it doesn’t aim to make Kolb a “scapegoat,” (more like sacrificial goat to the God of  Progressive Liberalism) though it also says its impetus was grounded in “the things Lindsey has said in the past.” It’s an ideological mess [emphasis mine]:

My goal here is not to make Lindsey a scapegoat for the way the vote turned out yesterday [April 7] or attack her religious rights or right to free speech. The goal is to create dialogue that induces change here on campus and in our city. Yes, last night’s vote was disappointing, but the petition was not made because of the way things turned out, it was made because of the things Lindsey has said in the past that include the comments she made last night. I respect Lindsey’s right to say what she believes just as much as I ask anyone to respect my right to voice my opinion, however when one is the representative for something larger than themselves, it is important that their opinions and values align with those of the entity they represent. <Ours only> Missouri State claims to value its Public Affairs mission pillars of Ethical Leadership, Cultural Competence, and Community Engagement and each year chooses one pillar to highlight. This year, the chosen pillar is Ethical Leadership. In GEP classes, students are assigned projects to define and identify ethical leaders in our world. At SOAR, new students do group activities that represent our Public Affairs mission and one that I specifically remember is the one in regards to Ethical Leadership. My SOAR [Student Orientation, Advisement and Registration] group found that an ethical leader is one who has their own set of values but can recognize when the greater good requires them to set those values aside.…

Whenever Lindsey was approached in 2013 to be on the banner on Missouri State’s most recognizable building, she agreed. Through that agreement she also vowed to live our Public Affairs mission and be culturally competent, engage in her community, and be an ethical leader. For Missouri State to continue to endorse her discriminatory views is effectively showing that they do not in fact value ethical leadership. The goal of the petition is not to attack free speech or victimize Lindsey. The goal is to show that there are consequences to one’s speech whenever it is inflammatory and supports discrimination against those who the speaker represents.

…

Lindsey is not to blame for the loss for the LGBT+ community last night, but signing the petition can help change our campus and our city for the better. (which means we are going to sacrifice HER anyways for our political needs)

This classic American progressivism; we support free speech, just our version of free speech. At least they note that Kolb isn’t to blame for the failure of the ordinance since she has zero skin in the political game in Springfield.

“Personally, I don’t vote in Springfield. I vote in my home district. I advocated for the repeal because I believe in religious freedom. I believe that churches, businesses, and organizations, and people with religious convictions should be able to decide whom they serve,” she said.

Well, she’s in the majority. Overall, while Americans generally support gay marriage rights, a AP/GFK poll found that 57 percent think that a wedding-related business should be allowed to refuse service to a gay couple if it violates their religious beliefs.

In a poll conducted by Wilson Perkins Allen Opinion Research on behalf of the Family Research Council, they found 81 percent of Americans believed government “should leave people free to follow their beliefs about marriage as they live their daily lives at work and in the way they run their businesses.”

The Left and their false sense of Sanctimony and “outrage” would never TOLERATE such a thing. 🙂

Ironic is it not?

Dr Strange-O-Bama

Chuck Norris

While Iranians hit the streets cheering, honking horns and waving flags, Iran President Hassan Rouhani praised the U.S.-led nuclear program framework agreement reached last Thursday, calling it a “day that will remain in the historical memory of the Iranian nation.”

Despite a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that revealed 70 percent of Americans doubt any deal can stop Iran from producing a bomb, President Obama called it, “a good deal that meets our core objectives” and will cut off Tehran’s path to a bomb.

But Middle East leaders couldn’t disagree more.

Recently re-elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hit the nail on the head: “Such a deal doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

Saudi officials conveyed to the White House that they hoped an agreement would enhance security in the region, but they are also already countering Iran’s bolstering of nuclear power by seeking the sources to build a bomb themselves and protect their country in the future from a nuclear-wielding Tehran.

The only real winner in this nuclear agreement is Iran. As President Rouhani said, it not only protects Iran’s nuclear rights but also provides relief from international sanctions.

And what does the U.S. get from the deal? Empty Iranian promises to allow international inspection teams to examine its nuclear facilities. But when Iran refuses snap inspections as a part of the nuclear agreement, do we really believe it won’t delay inspectors to play the nuclear shell game?

Quite frankly, I think the U.S. is absolutely foolish to have any negotiations with a country that harbors, equips and finances terrorists. We are only aiding and abetting our enemies by doing so. Moreover, we are gullible for believing Iran will not one day break its promises and produce nuclear bombs. And we are definitely not worthy of the title “friend and ally of Israel,” when we endorse her greatest neighboring enemy’s nuclear power.

But do you want to know what is worse than approving a U.S.-Iran nuclear power agreement? Not using it as leverage to force Iran to release three innocent U.S. citizens being held in its prisons.

Before the U.S. even talks about lifting sanctions – let alone sitting down with Iran to talk nuclear power – the White House should demand the release of the American citizens imprisoned in Iran. Secretary of State John Kerry can say he repeatedly calls on Iran to release the Americans, but it is quite another thing to require or demand it.

I would bet most Americans don’t even know that U.S. citizens are being unjustly imprisoned in Iran based upon faulty grounds and charges. And to boot, one is a pastor, one is a journalist and the other a U.S. Marine!

Talk-show host and Marine veteran Montel Williams has recently fanned the flames for the release of Amir Hekmati, an Iranian-American former Marine jailed in Tehran.

Montel explained to Greta Van Susteren: “He had to get a passport to fly in Iran to see his dying grandmother. Two months after on the ground, they arrest him and charge him. He is not an Iranian. He is a United States citizen. But the Iranian government is treating him as if he is Iranian just because he has Iranian blood. So he had to go through this process of denouncing and renouncing his Iranian citizenship to see if he can get another government like Pakistan or somebody to step in to see if they can help him, which I think is really ridiculous.”

I would ante-up Montel’s mission also to include the release of pastor Saeed Abedini, who, in 2013, was sentenced to eight years in prison by an Iranian court for starting house churches in the 2000s, an era in which they weren’t even regarded as a threat to Iran’s security.Abedini’s wife explained her frustrations before Congress in 2013 when the White House first sat down with Iranian diplomats: “My husband is suffering because he is a Christian. He’s suffering because he’s an American. … Yet his own government did not fight for him when his captors were across the table.”

In addition, Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian, a dual national of the U.S. and Iran, “was detained in July 2014 after security forces raided his home in Tehran and arrested him [and] his wife,” according to the Guardian. Iran refuses to detail the charges against Rezaian except to accuse him of “participating in activities outside the scope of journalism.”

And let’s not forget about Robert Levinson, a retired FBI agent, who vanished in 2007 after traveling to the Iranian island of Kish. He is one of the longest-held U.S. citizens in history. The Iranian government denies its holding him but, if it’s not, it can certainly cooperate in the investigation to find him.

It is inconceivable that our president’s administration would sit down for a friendly chat with Iranian officials to negotiate nuclear power without ever demanding the three Americans’ release. It’s bad enough that Iran doesn’t offer the release of the three Americans as goodwill gestures. It’s unforgivable that the White House doesn’t insist on their release when sitting right across the table.

But it is not too late. In his White House speech Thursday, even Obama stressed there is much to be finalized over the next three months and that “nothing is agreed to until everything is agreed.”

With a final nuclear agreement to be completed by June 30, one point of action should be clearly made before then. Obama should state categorically to Iranian leaders: Release our U.S. citizens immediately, or kiss any negotiations goodbye.

The 1st Clinton Amendment

Free Speech: How is Hillary Clinton appealing to an ever-more-radical Democratic base? By talking up changing the First Amendment. What better way, after all, to end the political power of anti-Big Government forces?

My version of their First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion,and mocking or hindering the free exercise thereof is required and sanctioned; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; but abridging those who are not us  is always in the interest of the good of society; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and protest it’s enemies, any assembly otherwise in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” “bigotry” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against ANYONE who defies us and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

‘We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment,” Clinton said Tuesday at an Iowa community college.

Look up “unaccountable money” in the encyclopedia — it says “see Clinton Foundation.”

Beyond that, it’s chilling that the Party of Jefferson’s establishment candidate had to appeal to its envelope stuffers not just by featuring a lesbian couple in her TV ad — but also by calling for restricting the Bill of Rights.

As IBD’s indispensable Andrew Malcolm pointed out on Wednesday, there is little chance of getting three-quarters of the states to agree to amend the First Amendment. Still, one could imagine such a class warfare-based movement being launched, if just to raise money.

Consider the Supreme Court’s 2009 Citizens United ruling, abrogating the McCain-Feingold campaign finance “reform” — a decision that centered on a film critical of Clinton, “Hillary: The Movie.”

In that case, the court declared, “The government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity.” For-profit companies, unions, charities seeking no profit — it doesn’t matter.

And, of course, curtailing corporate political speech means that the political power of liberal-dominated “television networks and major newspapers owned by media corporations,” as the Supreme Court described them, becomes impossible to thwart.

Citizens United also noted, “When word concerning the plot of the movie ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington’ reached the circles of government, some officials sought, by persuasion, to discourage its distribution.” So even Jimmy Stewart’s 1939 love letter to the U.S. Senate wasn’t sufficiently worshipful for some politicians.

And you wanna see full on Zombie Mode where their eyes turn red and they go all mad bull on you, just mention Citizens United, to the radical Left.

But who needs amendments when you can take over the courts and rewrite the Constitution through activist judges? That is the real danger of a President Hillary Clinton: a permanent stacking of our courts with Elena Kagan-Sonia Sotomayor clones who will dismantle everything in the Constitution that holds back the ongoing expansion of government power.

“Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.” — Saul Alinsky

“A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage — the political paradise of communism.”  p.10 Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinksy

“An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent… He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises….
“The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an ‘agitator’ they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict.” p.117 Rules for Radicals

“All my grandparents, you know, came over here [to America],” Hillary Clinton claimed, reinforcing her immigration reform bona fides.  Except, it’s not true. Three of her four grandparents were born in the United States.

Remember the last time she ran:

“I don’t feel no ways tired. … I don’t believe He brought me this far,” drawled presidential aspirant Hillary Clinton, mimicking black speech…

The Clinton campaign says Senator Hillary Clinton may have “misspoke” recently when she said she had to evade sniper fire when she was visiting Bosnia in 1996 as first lady.

She has been using the episode as an example of her foreign policy bona fides.

“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia,” she said last week. “There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady.

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.” (NYT)

You and Brian Williams… 🙂

Say anything, Do anything to win. The end justifies the means and the truth is irrelevant.

That’s why you should coronate Queen Hillary you misogynistic, evil pigs! 🙂

Freedom Day 2

Tens of millions of Americans are once again writing checks to the federal government for their taxes. Even those who get refunds likely spent time and money filling out their returns. You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone, on either side of the aisle, who enjoys the way our tax system works.

So here’s something that will make you even more frustrated. Forget about April 15 entirely. Instead, try calculating how long it takes you to earn enough money to pay your total tax bill for the year.

The experts at the Tax Foundation did just that. They found that Americans don’t earn enough money to pay the nation’s tax burden until April 24 — 114 days into the year.

This date has been dubbed “Tax Freedom Day,” but there’s nothing to celebrate. It is just a reminder that it takes Americans roughly a third of the year to earn the total $4.85 trillion that we owe to the tax man. Even when you combine the cost of food, clothing and housing, Americans still haven’t spent as much as we’re giving to the government.

Taxpayers in some states have it better than others. While the national “Tax Freedom Day” is held on April 24, Louisiana celebrates it on April 2. South Dakota’s version is on April 8. Fourteen states actually pass this milestone before April 15 even rolls around.

Others aren’t so lucky. At the other end of the spectrum, 15 states fall after the national average of April 24. The high-tax states of Massachusetts, California, New York and New Jersey round off the list. Taxpayers in last-place Connecticut aren’t free until May 13.

No matter where you live, Americans are working longer to pay for the cost of government. Tax Freedom Day 2015 is three days later than it was in 2014 — and that was three days later than it was in 2013.

Every year, we have less money to spend in our local communities. Every year, we can’t save as much for a down payment on a house, our kids’ college education or our retirement. And every year, it’s harder to invest wisely and plan for the future.

So where is this money going? Of the $4.85 trillion that Americans are expected to pay in taxes this year, one-third — $1.5 trillion — will find its way to local government or state capitals. The rest — $3.3 trillion — winds up in Washington, D.C.

That’s no small amount. It’s actually the biggest tax haul the IRS has ever pulled in. It’s more money than the entire economy of Germany — the fourth biggest economy in the world. But it’s still not enough to pay for all of the government’s planned spending for the year.

In fiscal year 2015, the federal government is expected to run a $486 billion budget shortfall. This will increase the national debt from $18.1 trillion to over $18.5 trillion.

No wonder Tax Freedom Day keeps getting pushed back — we have to pay for years of politicians’ broken promises. Thanks to both parties, the national debt has more than doubled, from nearly $8 trillion to $18.1 trillion today, in just the past 10 years. Taxes are going to keep getting higher as long as Washington continues overspending our hard-earned money.

Now it’s up to you and me to stop politicians from making this situation worse. Congress is currently debating the fiscal year 2016 budget. By September, legislators have to decide whether to stick to the Budget Control Act, a bipartisan bill that became law in 2011. It set the levels for discretionary spending — the third of the budget that isn’t spent on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — until 2021.

Those levels are keeping parts of the budget from growing even faster. But some members of both parties now want to abandon the Budget Control Act. They’re essentially arguing that Washington should add even more to the national debt, which you and I will have to pay eventually.

Remember that this week. Whether you’re getting a refund or writing a check to the IRS, we should all tell our representatives in Washington to stick to the modest bipartisan spending levels established in the Budget Control Act. If we don’t limit Washington’s overspending, Tax Freedom Day is only going to get later every year. (IBD)

FEED ME!!!

FYI:This year, National Tax Freedom Day falls on April 24, or 114 days into the year.

So you still have 9 days more (on average) to pay off Uncle Sam for THIS year. 🙂

3 Years ago it was April 13th. 🙂

But it varies by state.

Arizona is April 11th.

It takes you more than 100 days this year before the money you earn is truly yours. That’s roughly a third of your income every year that never makes it into your pocket. In fact, you’re likely spending more on taxes than you will on food, clothing, and housing — combined.

The earliest Tax Freedom Day is in Louisiana, where taxpayers are liberated after April 2. Connecticut residents aren’t done working to pay their taxes until May 13.

Americans are expected to pay a total of $4.85 trillion in taxes in 2015 — $350 billion more than last year. About $1.5 trillion is divvied up among local governments and the 50 states. Washington gets the other $3.3 trillion — the most ever collected by the IRS.

But yet they managed to spend it all, and more.

So don’t worry, when in Debt, SPEND EVEN MORE!

Clinton Top 10 List

Hillary Clinton has been involved in scandals before. Here are some notable ones you may have forgotten.

Chinagate – The Clinton-Gore campaign in 1996 allegedly took bribes from Chinese banks and their government to help their dwindling poll numbers. The Chinese embassy in D.C. helped siphon funds into the DNC. Secretary of Commerce Ron Brown (who was killed in a plane crash), at Hillary’s instruction reportedly sold seats on department trade missions to China. Joint congressional hearings were canceled after Democrats threatened to bring up Republican campaign issues and then Monica Lewinsky actually saved this scandal from media attention. 

Travelgate Scandal – Catherine Cornelius, a 25-year-old cousin of Bill’s was allegedly promised the position of director of the travel office. Hillary Clinton then (indirectly) fired seven employees from the United States travel office and replaced them with associates from Arkansas. Records were either nowhere to be found or incorrectly filed. And, there’s a reported attempt to give a White House airline contract to friend. Hillary had the FBI investigate Billy Dale, the head of the travel office, ruining his career who was found to do nothing wrong, but was then audited by the IRS for three years after.

“Billy Dale and his family went through hell thanks to the Clintons, Attorney General Janet Reno, the FBI and the IRS,” Irvine wrote. “Hillary’s greatest crime was not perjury, it was trying to send an innocent man to prison to justify having fired him and his staff without cause.”

“A memorandum by a former Presidential aide depicts Hillary Rodham Clinton as the central figure in the 1993 travel office dismissals, a politically damaging episode that the aide said had resulted from a climate of fear in which officials did not dare question Mrs. Clinton’s wishes,” wrote the NYT in 1996.

Whitewater Scandal – Hillary and her husband were partners in a shady real estate development firm called Whitewater Development Corp in Arkansas. Accusations of impropriety against the Clintons and others soon surfaced, regarding improper campaign contributions, political and financial favors, and tax benefits. Clinton’s friends and majority owners,  James and Susan McDougal were jailed for fraud, Clinton’s successor, Governor Jim Tucker, was jailed for fraud along with municipal judges David Hale and Eugene Fitzhugh who worked with James McDougal. The Clintons walked away unscathed, having apparently done nothing wrong.

See Whitewater Timeline.

Vince Foster Jr. Mystery – Questions cloud the suicide of Vince Foster, former colleague, friend, and White House aid  of Hillary’s who had connections to Travelgate, and the Whitewater scandals. Read the link above entitled “The Man Who Knew too Much. . .” 

Filegate Scandal – Craig Livingstone, director of the White House’s Office of Personnel Security “improperly” accessed FBI files on several hundred individuals.

Mrs. Clinton called it a, “completely honest bureaucratic snafu.”

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 🙂

Many of these files were on people from previous Republican administrations. Hillary Clinton hired Livingston and is alleged to have looked at the files and requested this move. She was accused by Republicans of  violating privacy rights of individuals she viewed as political adversaries.

Cattle-Futures Miracle – Hillary’s first commodity trade was in cattle futures where she ordered 10 futures contracts which normally cost $12,000 dollars with only $1,000 dollars in her account. This turned into $6,300 dollars by the next morning and after 10 months totaled $100,000, with trading help from James B. Blair.

“Blair, who at the time was outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas’ largest employer, says he was advising Clinton out of friendship, not to seek political gain. . .”  reports The WashingtonPost. 

Robert L. “Red” Bone ran the Springdale, AK financial services company REFCO allowed the trades and later, after investigation, had to pay the largest fine at the time in the exchanges history and was suspended for three years. Hillary Clinton said she was able to make the successful trading because she read the Wall Street Journal for research.

Lootergate – Bill and especially Hillary started to ship White House furniture to their personal home in Chappaqua, N.Y.. The Clintons claimed they were donated, but at only some were proven to be donated and meant to stay in the White House after contacting the manufacturers. The Clintons returned some of the furniture after pressure was put on them to do so.

“GOP lawmakers and others criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton in particular for accepting many presents just before she joined the Senate and became covered by strict ethics rules that prohibit accepting gifts worth more than $50.”

Drug Dealer Donor Scandal – Convicted drug trafficker Jorge Cabrera apparently made such a big donation to the Clinton’s campaign that he was invited to the White house without Secret Service present.

Ponzi Scheme and Political Favor Scandal – Norman Yung Yuen Hsu was a convicted pyramid investment promoter, and major Democratic donor. He contributed an undisclosed amount to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign. 

“He was sentenced to more than 24 years in prison in 2009 by a judge who accused him of funding his fraud by manipulating the political process in a way that ‘strikes at the very core of our democracy.”

Benghazi –

You know the one where radical Muslims got enraged 3 months AFTER supposedly seeing a little known video on You Tube and on 9/11/12 JUST HAPPENED by the Embassy in Benghazi with sniper rifles, Molotov cocktails, and Rocket Launchers in a “spontaneous” protest.

Now if you can buy that line of BS, you can buy anything!

Here is an article posted in the New York Times in 1996 entitled “Blizzard of Lies” about Hillary Clinton.

The mega Clinton Foundation is also rife with cronyism and political favors.

For a larger list of scandals associated with the Clintons, check out The Clinton Crime Library. 

oh, and:

Sandy Berger the former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor, said he made a “mistake” and was just “sloppy” when an FBI investigation revealed that he had stolen Top Secret memos and documents from the National Archives relating to the events surrounding al-Qaida attacks on America during the 1990s and in the year 2000. Archive security notified the FBI when they discovered documents missing, and saw Berger stuffing papers into his pants, socks, and a leather briefcase.

Upon investigation, Berger admitted that he had “made a mistake,” and took them. Unfortunately, Berger says he “lost” some of the documents, but that he returned some of them after his the FBI searched his home. Amazingly, he even returned some documents that the Archive hadn’t yet noted were missing! He apologized and said he had just been “sloppy.” This, from the former “National Security” advisor to the previous President of the United States, and security advisor to the current Democratic candidate for president.

And last but not least, just most recent:

OOPS! My Private Email Server (that I wasn’t supposed to have in the first place because it’s unlawful to begin with) has crashed and oh look, we wiped the hard drives, sorry about that!

Some splainin’ to do

Democrat John Edwards campaigned in 2008 on the theme of his 2004 Democratic National Convention speech about there being “Two Americas.” The American people rejected Edwards and his class warfare both times, but he had a point: There are two Americas. Not the two Americas in which John Edwards had two families, though those were real too, but one America for Democrats and another one for everyone else.

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president this week and ran smack dab into the wall separating both Americas, via satellite on the “Today Show.”

While being interrogated by TV host Savannah Guthrie, whose second husband is Democratic political operative Michael Feldman, Paul objected to a leading question that could have been written by the Democratic National Committee. Although it was interrupted by Paul pointing out how it was more of a declarative statement than a question, Guthrie’s question was this:

You once said Iran was not a threat; now you say it is. You once proposed ending foreign aid to Israel; you now support it, at least for the time being, and you once offered to drastically cut defense spending and now you want to increase it 16 percent. So I just wonder if you’ve mellowed out?

A serious candidate for the nomination for a major political party for president gets asked, after listing an elementary school-level view of complex issues, if he’s mellowed out.

The journalism awards undoubtedly will flow to Guthrie for that interview, but a candidate gets only one shot to launch a campaign. To his great credit, Paul did not play the media’s game. He replied, “Before we go through a litany of things you say I’ve changed on, why don’t you ask me a question: Have I changed my opinion?”

That’s the smart way to ask a question, especially if you’d like to be taken seriously as a journalist. It’s how it used to be one and one day might be again if journalists can be cloned in future generations from the real ones of the past who are now frozen in amber. But today what we have are activists with scripts and press credentials.

Paul did what any candidate being spun should do, but Guthrie’s credentialed fellow travelers then did what they had to do.

Chuck Todd, host of the flailing “Meet the Press,” lept to his NBC News colleague’s defense. “He’s got to be careful here,” Todd said. “This is turning into a habit, particularly over — this is now two prominent women interviewers…Kelly Evans of CNBC, Savannah now.”

Two events. Months apart. One remembered only by the media because it involved someone known only to the media. And that’s “turning into a habit.”

The narrative is now set: Rand Paul has a temper, especially with female reporters.

It’s not true, of course, but few media narratives are. The truth has nothing to do with what the media reports, particularly when it comes to politics.

Others piled on, as they always do, and the snowball, well, snowballed.

In an interview with the left-wing UK outfit “The Guardian,” the media got exactly what they wanted – more fuel for the narrative.

Some guy named Paul Lewis interviewed Paul in Iowa “live on the Internet.” As with any candidate, Rand had another interview lined up with CNN after the Guardian hit. In the world of politics, real TV is still more important than streaming Internet.

As the CNN interview time approached, Lewis did what anyone would do – tried to get more time with a candidate than the candidate had. He got it.

Under the guise of “one last question,” Lewis asked his question and Paul answered it. But Lewis wanted to ask a follow up. Paul didn’t have the time. CNN was waiting. So Paul left, as would anyone.

Lewis and the media had their story; the narrative would be fed.

“Rand Paul ends Q&A when pressed on GOP voters’ views on race and policing,” the Guardian’s headline read.

Lewis wrote, “The senator’s decision to walk off camera shortly after that question was asked, refusing to engage with a follow-up and declining to wait for the interview to be wrapped up, caused some controversy on Twitter.”

The “controversy” was started by Lewis and his cohorts at the Guardian, not by the end of the interview. If Lewis thought he had such an important question to ask Paul, why wait till he knew Paul had to leave to ask it? Precisely because Paul had to leave – if he engages in the debate Lewis wanted he gets more interview time; if he doesn’t, he’s “dodging” and feeding the narrative that Rand Paul has a “problem” with the press.

Paul chose to remain on schedule and keep his commitment … to the press. The narrative was fed.

No Republican should give any time to any left-wing rag in the first place. No one who reads them will be voting in a GOP primary, nor will they be voting for a GOP candidate in the general election. Consumers of left-wing media aren’t blue collar Reagan Democrats; they’re the fringe. Ignore them.

Paul didn’t, and the media sprang into action.

Hadas Gold, blogger for the left-wing “Politico,” wrote a piece entitled “Rand Paul walks out of Guardian interview.” Stupid, but technically true because he, like everyone at the end of an interview, walked away. But Gold didn’t report the story just because it was a non-story without the narrative.

Editorializing, Gold wrote, “The incident is the latest in a string of testy interviews Paul has had with the media.” She then writes about the Guthrie interview and about how, in her opinion, Paul is known to have “a particularly prickly demeanor” with the press.

I asked Gold why she used the word “testy” when Paul made it clear he had time for only one more question. She responded with “paul (sic) has called himself that.” When I asked how that word, which Paul has used to describe himself, applied to the interview with Lewis … wasn’t that her projecting, not reporting? Never heard back from her.

The narrative had been fed; to hell with reality.

Rand Paul is being branded a “mansplaining” misogynist with a hot temper. His “sins” were trying to be prompt and treating a female interviewer like he (or anyone) would treat someone being dishonest.

Promptness is a novelty in the Obama years considering he’s on time only for golf. And you’d think feminists and leftists would appreciate a person treating one person as he would treat another, but that’s not how the left-wing media works.

The people who hear “food stamps” and think “black people,” even though there are more white people on them than any other group, see no contradiction in “championing” equality of the sexes while decrying its practice when done by someone on the other side of the political fence. Just as it’s racist when leftists equate welfare with “black people,” it’s sexist when they equate verbal sparring differently because it happens to be with a woman.

Intellectual consistency never has been a strong suit of the left – the richest people decrying the wealth gap and calling for redistribution; private jet-living elitists demanding everyone else decrease the “carbon footprint,” etc. – but they’re safe from being called out for their hypocrisy because of their stranglehold on the media.

That stranglehold creates the two Americas – one for the left, the other for everyone else. Today, Hillary Clinton, the largest beneficiary of those separate and unequal standards, is expected to tweet out a video (and, ironically, send out an email to supporters) announcing she will be seeking the Democratic Party’s nomination for president. The narrative will be how “historic” her candidacy is, how “smart” she is, how her “record” makes her “uniquely qualified” for the task. None of which, except the historic claim, will be remotely true, nor will they be remotely discussed in the media.

But then, the narrative trumps all in both Americas, which is about the only thing both Americas have in common. (Derek Hunter)

And don’t forget, you’re a misogynist old white male if you aren’t for “the first female president of the United States”. That, in the media’s mind, is the only narrative and qualification that matters. Everything is irrelevant, just ugly partisanship, or sexist.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

The Narrative is The Narrative.

And The Coronation of Queen Hillary The First can continue.

Wuss

Doug Giles: I’ve been reading Steven Pressfield’s musings on warriors and warfare and this quote struck me like Ike Turner punching Tina when she fell flat while singing, “Rolling On The River”. Check it out.

“The Spartans do not ask how many are the enemy but where are they.” – Plutarch, Sayings Of The Spartans

And that, my friend, is one of the big differences between a warrior and a wuss.

A wuss, you see, looks for an excuse to run (I/we don’t have “enough”), but a warrior looks for the opportunity to throttle the enemy.

Just look at the Media and Memories Pizza. They set up the pins, bowled the ball down the “bigot” lane and got a strike and made everyone else look like a turkey.

After all, you don’t want to be a “bigot” do you? 🙂

Are you now or have you ever been a “bigot” or a “racist”. 🙂

The strange thing is that, nowadays, in our aggravated state of wussification, one would call the inquirer of how many foes are arrayed against them “a wise calculator of the risks involved” and whether or not they are able to contend with what they have at hand or if they should retreat. When, in reality, such questions, often times, are nothing but cowardice masked in some shrewd sounding horse-crap that doesn’t make one sound like a scared quail.

That mindset afflicted an old friend of mine from Cali who was way smarter than I when it came to books and business, but who would always talk himself out of start-ups and personal goals because he always viewed how “insurmountable the obstacles were” rather than how he could possibly tackle his mountains. This attitude equated this brilliant, book-smart buddy’s being a stay-at-home dad versus an alpha-male butt-kicker.

How sad.

Politically speaking, I wish those who “represent us on the Right” would take this warrior mindset to heart versus rolling up in the fetal position and wetting their massive Republican diaper once they’re faced with the teeth of the liberal beast. The Left zealously sports this “die or be killed” attitude as they approach our culture wars, whereas those on the Right are mostly/merely butt-smoochin’ wind-testers, more vexed about whether or not they can keep their condo in D.C., their smidgen of faux power and their mistress, versus upholding our constitutional principles which have made us, heretofore, the most stonkin’ nation known to mankind.

Hey, Jar Jar, that’s you buddy! Mr. man CAVE.

From an ecclesiastical standpoint, don’t even get me started on how this lame spirit has taken possession of the brethren’s craven soul. To say that the church has become a toothless lion to cultural corruption would be akin to saying Hillary Clinton sort of lies. Fortuitous, we are not. Unlike Jesus, most pastors would rather fly than fight; and I hold them primarily responsible for the coarsening of our culture because I believe the state of our nation is due largely, in part, to the “holy nation” within unwilling to make principled stands when holy writ and common sense demand a throw down.

But you don’t want to be a “bigot” and a “racist” do you?

What the Republicans should say:

I don’t give a shit! I have been called this so many times over the years that if I had a dollar for every Liberal who said it to me I could pay off the national debt.

Go ahead, bring out the nukes. When I’m still standing and you’re out of ammo because you used your entire repertoire on the first salvo, like some Coyote and Roadrunner cartoon then maybe we can have a discussion, but I doubt it it will just be more and more nukes.

But they won’t. They’ll want to nominate a “moderate” wussy kiss ass like Jeb Bush to run against Hillary (“The First Female President”) and lose.

They refuse to fight the enemy on their own turf.

The Left is unified in it’s bullying, the Republicans are still the nerd who gets the wedgie in the playground FROM the bully and says “thank you, sir, may I have another”.

Pat Colling: the left is mostly about trumpeting loudly their own awesomeness on issues they know polite people will give them a pass on…Their intent has little to do with improving society but rather self-adulation and self-promotion. Narcissists at heart.

And emotionally underdeveloped to boot.

But the Republican can’t break out of “nerd” mode. Revenge of The Nerds, they are not.

“Not electable” because they won’t fight to begin with.

It’s not like the Liberal Media is suddenly going to like you. Hell, would freeze over before that happened. Except, if you’re so bad and so incompetent or spew their rhetoric then you’re a useful idiot (John McCain’s Daughter anyone?).

Here’s the bottom line, folks: if anything is worth doing it will be fraught with sick hurdles. That’s life, Dinky. The sooner we take on the warrior mentality, the quicker we’ll be talking about great victories. So, from now on, talk yourself into the battle instead of how you can get out of the battle.

As James Dempsey, fictional New York Cop from Dempsey & Makepeace once said, “Life’s a bitch, then you die.”

The Baker, The Florist, the T-Shirt Maker…

Hysteria over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) has drowned out one critical question: Who are the florist and baker that ABC’s George Stephanopoulos hounded Gov. Mike Pence about? When Americans learn what that florist and baker are threatened with, we face an emerging trend that will destroy companies and jobs, and the chilling specter of what sort of a nation we are becoming.

The florist is 70-year-old grandmother Baronelle Stutzman of Washington State. A longtime gay customer—with whom she had a warm relationship—wanted her to do flower arrangements for his gay wedding. Mrs. Stutzman, a Southern Baptist, explained her Christian belief that marriage is between a man and woman, and thus could not participate in a gay wedding. Washington’s attorney general prosecuted her, pursuing not only her business, Arlene Flowers, but also Mrs. Stutzman personally. A state judge has ruled against her, and she faces the loss of her life’s savings and even her home.

The baker is Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. When he declined two gay men’s order to bake a cake celebrating gay marriage (though the men were welcome to buy any of the premade cakes off the shelf), they officially complained that Mr. Phillips violated Colorado’s civil-rights law. A court ruled against him, ordering him and his employees to undergo government-approved “tolerance training,” and also ordering him to bake cakes celebrating gay marriage for anyone who asks. If he refuses, he can go to jail—put behind bars—for contempt of court.

There are others. First was a New Mexico photographer who did not want to do the wedding shoot for a gay-commitment ceremony—not a wedding, because New Mexico had neither gay marriage nor civil unions at the time. A Kentucky T-shirt maker is being sued for not making shirts celebrating a gay-rights event. An Idaho pastor couple was pursued for not actually performing a gay wedding, until their town changed course. The list goes on, and grows monthly.

Secularists on the political left have vehemently opposed all RFRA’s since at least the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobbycase in 2014. The justices held that Hobby Lobby—a corporation owned by a devout Christian family—could assert religious-liberty rights as an extension of its Christian owners, and that Obamacare’s regulation requiring Hobby Lobby to provide abortion-related healthcare violated the federal RFRA, because the regulation substantially burdened the family’s religious beliefs and was not the least restrictive means to achieve any compelling public interest. In 1993, the federal RFRA unanimously passed the U.S. House, passed the Senate 97-3, and was signed by President Bill Clinton, a vocal supporter of both abortion and the gay-rights agenda.

Millions of Americans are employed by businesses owned by people of faith—Christian or otherwise. Without RFRA protections, employees of Hobby Lobby, Arlene Flowers, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and religious non-church entities, such as the University of Notre Dame, would lose their jobs. Therefore protecting religious liberty also protects jobs. Republicans must reject the false choice that this issue is business versus the Christian Right; those framing the issue as such seek to drive a wedge in the GOP to defeat Republicans in 2016.

These recent lawsuits are why Indiana’s RFRA specified that businesses like Hobby Lobby can assert RFRA in court. And lawsuits initiated by the plaintiffs in Washington and Colorado are why the law specified that RFRA can apply between private parties.

It’s baffling why Indiana legislators were unprepared to explain these things to the nation. Nor can we understand why they chose to sign a “fix” creating unprecedented ways for opponents to sue people of faith in Indiana for declining to participate in gay marriages and abortions. Christians in Indiana might have been better off had Indiana legislators instead repealed RFRA, reverting Indiana’s laws to their previous condition.

If anything, Republican leaders could have demanded a replacement bill identical to the federal RFRA. “If it was good enough for Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to sponsor and for Bill Clinton to sign, then it’s good enough for Hoosiers today.” Opponents would have condemned it, but in doing so confirmed that the modern secular Left condemns all religious freedoms that impede their agenda, and that RFRA truly has nothing to do with hate or discrimination.

It is astounding that a nation settled by people who crossed an ocean to live in a wilderness so they could live according to their religious beliefs and conscience, is now poised to oppress millions who desire simply to live by those same beliefs. Everyone has the right to run a business consistent with their beliefs, employing other Americans in the process. Republicans must take up that theme as a pro-business stance.

RFRA supporters are like the brave Americans in the Deep South decades ago who stood for black civil rights against intense political pressure. The fanatical authoritarianism of the political left is plunging this country headlong into a very dark place, from which many nations never return. (Townhall.com)