The Union Label

Liberal Doublethink alert: UNIONS against Minimum Wage Increase!

Last week, the Los Angeles City Council approved an increase in the legally required minimum wage to result in a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour by 2020. During the months preceding the City Council’s decision, the underlying intellectual position in favor of the increase in the minimum wage was that everyone should receive a living wage. The arguments against raising the minimum wage revolve around the possibility that certain businesses such as restaurants will close based on their inability to pass along such wage increases to their customers. Opponents also argue that jobs will move elsewhere, whether it is another U.S. city or overseas if the minimum wage is increased.

The arguments presented above have not changed very much over the past fifty years. It is axiomatic that most interested individuals would like to see minimum wage discussions disappear because the overall community is more highly educated and lower wage jobs are the province of young individuals who will soon move into the marketplace of skills and ideas. Sadly, such is not the case.

Enter the union leaders of Los Angeles. Now, the Federation of Labor in Los Angeles is asking for exemptions from the minimum wage for companies where the workers are represented by a union. The position is that workers represented by unions should have leeway to negotiate a wage below the amount mandated by law. The underlying theory according to Randy Hicks, a leader of both the county Federation of Labor and the Raise the Wage coalition is ” “With a collective bargaining agreement, a business owner and the employees negotiate an agreement that works for them both. The agreement allows each party to prioritize what is important to them. This provision gives the parties the option, the freedom, to negotiate that agreement. And that is a good thing.”

And now, the Mad Hatter enters stage left. Apparently, only a union worker should be able to work for a wage that is less than a ‘living wage’. And that union worker is apparently able to work for that lower wage and also able to pay union dues to support the crack union negotiating team working to procure or maintain his or her wages that are less than those required by the new minimum wage law.

In this Alice in Wonderland proposal by the unions, two identical restaurants serving the same food, hiring from the same labor force, located on the same street and owned by the same person could be operating under two different sets of laws with respect to the wages paid to their employees. Restaurant A, operating under a union contract, would be able to negotiate wages less than the minimum wage. Restaurant B, operating without a union contract, would be forced to pay a minimum wage higher than the wages paid by Restaurant A. Likely, Restaurant A would charge their customers lower prices than Restaurant B and drive Restaurant B out of business costing the employees of Restaurant B their higher paying jobs.

It does sound like the unions are looking for their own form of crony capitalism in Los Angeles. Who would think that the unions would accept and lobby for lower wages for their members in an effort to compete successfully with entities paying higher wages to their employees? What is the purpose of a union if it is attempting to successfully negotiate lower compensation for its members? Only in Wonderland, also known as Los Angeles. (Townhall)

LA Times:

Landmark plan to boost the Los Angeles minimum wage took another step forward Friday, as a panel of city lawmakers vetted a draft ordinance putting the pay hikes into law.

But a host of complex and divisive questions about the plan will likely remain unanswered even after the law is passed — including whether unionized companies will ultimately be able to opt out of the wage requirements if their workers agree.

“This is an ongoing process,” City Councilman Curren Price, who heads the Economic Development Committee, said Friday. “There’s still a lot of things to be resolved.”

Passing a Law to find out what’s in it is the latest fad trend in “transparency” these days. 🙂

When it takes up the proposed law next Wednesday, the full council is widely expected to pass the ordinance, which would gradually increase the citywide minimum to $15 hourly rate by July 2020. But because the pay hikes do not start until the middle of next year, officials could make changes to the law before the increases begin.

Political and Union maneuvering, just like on ObamaCare, where the unions were the ones that got the vast majority of the exemptions.

And of course, Unions are a Democrat money machine so they always get what they want.

So, yes, you could likely get Liberals voting to exempt Unions from “living wage” but still be Democrats who are fighting for it.

Orwell, is proud of you my sons.

But here’s the secret:

Labor leaders also pressed to include some controversial wording that could exempt unionized companies from the wage requirements if management negotiates a waiver with workers. Business groups have attacked that idea as a gambit to prod more companies to unionize.

Rusty Hicks, who heads the county labor federation, said that would provide union workers the flexibility to trade off pay for other benefits that might be more important to them.

“This isn’t a secretive way to incentivize workers to organize, or about paying union workers less than they deserve,” Hicks told reporters before the hearing. “This is about staying consistent with previous provisions and crafting something that will withstand legal scrutiny.”

Wanna pay less, well then you have to unionize and when you unionize the Union will screw you and your employees for Union Dues that will go the The Democrats!!

But the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and other major business groups criticized the proposed exemption as defying the stated goals of the minimum wage ordinance. They pointed out that labor activists had previously opposed a number of suggested exemptions for other kinds of businesses, saying no one should have a “subminimum wage.”

They were for it, before they vote against it! 🙂

If the exemption is approved, “it will replace the mantra of helping the working poor with hollow rhetoric that enables organizers to sign up more dues-paying members,” Chamber President Gary Toebben wrote in a letter to Price this week.

Ta Da!  More money for The Democrats. More Union control of the means of production.

Crafty, aren’t they.

Many labor activists have raised concerns about how L.A. will ensure that the new wage rules are enforced. City officials pressed forward Friday with a plan to create a new city division to crack down on employers who pay less than the minimum wage.

More Bureaucrats, more control…Gee, that never happens when Liberals attack! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

A Mosque See

While I was at the Phoenix Convention Center where 10’s of thousands of geeks and nerds are gathering to celebrate real diversity and community for Phoenix Comic Con…

The uber-uber-Liberal AZ Republic (know as “The Repulsive” by anyone not on the fringe Left) is stoking the embers of another Draw Mohammed fight that the Left hopes ends in violence.

A self-professed patriot (read: Muslim hater (emphasis mine, it was in the original piece)) is planning a rally tomorrow in front of a northwest Phoenix mosque.

All wrapped up in the American flag and the First Amendment, Jon Ritzheimer says he certainly doesn’t want to incite violence.

So naturally, he’s planning a Mohammed Cartoon Contest at his rally, which takes place tomorrow evening, right around the time of the mosque’s weekly prayer service.

Because he really wants to pick a fight and get people injured or killed. He’s a reckless, politically incorrect arsehole, right? 🙂

After all, to the Leftist there are ONLY two kinds of Speech: Their Approved Politically Correct Speech, and “Hate Speech” which is defined as anything that isn’t Approved Politically Correct Speech.

So you either abide by their rules of speech or you’re a “hater”. End of discussion.

Also, Muslim hate Christians, and Leftists hate Christians, so it’s marriage made of strange bedfellows, since the Islamic Radicals they are so worried about would kill them just as easily as a “hater”.

But the left looks past that and focuses on your “hate” not theirs. After all, they are the saintly ones.

“This will be a PEACEFUL protest in front of the Islamic Community Center …,” Ritzheimer wrote on a Facebook page set up for the event, Freedom of Speech Rally Round II. “People are also encouraged to utilize there (sic) second amendment right at this event just in case our first amendment comes under the much anticipated attack.”

Don’t you mean much hoped for attack, Jon?

Naw, the Left is the one who wants the attack, so they can go “see, we told ya so!” you’re a hater and you incited these Muslims with YOUR hate Speech!

Gee, I guess we need to order a Gay Cake and Pizza for the Leftists to feel better. 🙂

Everyone is encouraged to bring American Flags and any message that you would like to send to the known acquaintances of the 2 gunmen. This Islamic Community Center is a known place that the 2 terrorist frequented,” Ritzheimer wrote.

It’s also a known place where people of faith worship as they choose. We can do that in America, Jon.

Does that kind offer extended to Christians? Because we all know they HATE gays and they preach it from the pulpit so they are all evil!! 🙂

So I’m guessing a serious discussion about religion and freedom thereof is probably off the table during this rally.

The LEFT would actually engage in such a discussion without the usual holier-than-thou condescending emotive-only childish ad hominems and insults they usually hurl at “haters”? Not to mention going into it believing that anyone who disagrees with them is a “hater” and an “idiot” or “stupid” is always the best basis for a reasoned debate.

While it’s considered an insult to draw images of the Islamic prophet, I would certainly defend Ritzheimer’s right to do so if he was really making a stand for free speech. But this isn’t about free speech. It’s about provoking an attack and, of course, promoting Ritzheimer.

There’s a lot that could be said about this guy’s methods. But Usama Shami, speaking to Dana, already said it best, noting that he respects the protesters’ right to free speech.

“Everybody has a right to be a bigot. Everybody has a right to be a racist. Everybody has a right to be an idiot.”

‘Nuff said about “a serious discussion”. The Left is incapable of it.

I’m going back to the Convention Center today to celebrate life, diversity and love. I’m sure the world will not end, but the Left will sure try and make sound like it if you don’t kowtow their every command.

I’ll let the Left go on their quest for more and more bigots to shame into silence in the name of “tolerance” and “diversity”.

Oh, and that little thing called Free Speech. All speech, not just what’s approved by the Left.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Houston, We Have A Problem, Part 2

I have been a professional meteorologist for 36 years. Since my debut on television in 1979, I have been an eyewitness to the many changes in technology, society, and how we communicate. I am one who embraces change, and celebrates the higher quality of life we enjoy now thanks to this progress.

But, at the same time, I realize the instant communication platforms we enjoy now do have some negatives that are troubling. Just a few examples in recent days…

I would say hundreds of people have sent this image to me over the past 24 hours via social media.

 

Comments are attached… like “This is a cloud never seen before in the U.S.”… “can’t you see this is due to government manipulation of the weather from chemtrails”… “no doubt this is a sign of the end of the age”.

Let’s get real. This is a lenticular cloud. They have always been around, and quite frankly aren’t that unusual (although it is an anomaly to see one away from a mountain range). The one thing that is different today is that almost everyone has a camera phone, and almost everyone shares pictures of weather events. You didn’t see these often in earlier decades because technology didn’t allow it. Lenticular clouds are nothing new. But, yes, they are cool to see.

No doubt national news media outlets are out of control when it comes to weather coverage, and their idiotic claims find their way to us on a daily basis.

The Houston flooding is a great example. We are being told this is “unprecedented”… Houston is “under water”… and it is due to manmade global warming.

Yes, the flooding in Houston yesterday was severe, and a serious threat to life and property. A genuine weather disaster that has brought on suffering.

But, no, this was not “unprecedented”. Flooding from Tropical Storm Allison in 2001 was more widespread, and flood waters were deeper. There is no comparison. In fact, many circulated this image in recent days, claiming it is “Houston underwater” from the flooding of May 25–26, 2015. The truth is that this image was captured in June 2001 during flooding from Allison.

 

Flood events in 2009, 2006, 1998, 1994, 1989, 1983, and 1979 brought higher water levels to most of Houston, and there were many very serious flood events before the 1970s.

On the other issue, the entire climate change situation has become politicized, which I hate. Those on the right, and those on the left hang out in “echo chambers”, listening to those with similar world views refusing to believe anything else could be true.

Everyone knows the climate is changing; it always has, and always will. I do not know of a single “climate denier”. I am still waiting to meet one. 🙂

The debate involves the anthropogenic impact, and this is not why I am writing this piece. Let’s just say the Houston flood this week is weather, and not climate, and leave it at that.

I do encourage you to listen to the opposing point of view in the climate debate, but be sure the person you hear admits they can be wrong, and has no financial interest in the issue. Unfortunately, those kind of qualified people are very hard to find these days. It is also hard to find people that discuss climate without using the words “neocon” and “libtard”. I honestly can’t stand politics; it is tearing this nation apart.

Back to my point… many professional meteorologists feel like we are fighting a losing battle when it comes to national media and social media hype and disinformation. They will be sure to let you know that weather events they are reporting on are “unprecedented”, there are “millions and millions in the path”, it is caused by a “monster storm”, and “the worst is yet to come” since these events are becoming more “frequent”.

You will never hear about the low tornado count in recent years, the lack of major hurricane landfalls on U.S. coasts over the past 10 years, or the low number of wildfires this year. It doesn’t fit their story. But, never let facts get in the way of a good story…. there will ALWAYS be a heat wave, flood, wildfire, tornado, tyhpoon, cold wave, and snow storm somewhere. And, trust me, they will find them, and it will probably lead their newscasts. But, users beware…

James Spann, AMS certified meteorologist.

The Age of Weather Politics and Weather NEWS ratings is here.

Tomorrow on the weather, “OMG We’re all going to die!”. News at 11.

Notice how it’s gone from apocalyptic to “super charging” the changes that they claim are already happening, just started this past week. I guess the whole scare them to death isn’t working so we need a new tactic.

We’ve made it stronger, faster, it’s the $6 Trillion Dollar Scam!

Some new ideas for AGW Reality Shows to help the public “understand”:

On the Next Survivor: Earth — Mother Nature Vs a Watermelon…

Next up on The Housewives of Meteorology…

Big Brother MMXV: Climate Deniers vs. a Lion, like back in Roman times!

Yeah, that’s the ticket! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Houston, We have a Problem…

Eleven inches of rain drenched Houston on Memorial Day. The Texas metropolis is among the areas hardest-hit by a storm system that has soaked much of Texas, Oklahoma, and northern Mexico since the weekend, resulting in more than 30 deaths and a dozen missing persons. Naturally, Bill Nye the Science Guy had an explanation:
“Billion$$ in damage in Texas & Oklahoma. Still no weather-caster may utter the phrase Climate Change.”

(remember when it was “Global Cooling, Then Global Warming (and still is) but it’s now “Climate Change” because after all before the Industrial Revolution (those 5 1/2 BILLION years, the Climate was unaffected by Man but now it’s Armageddon and we’ll destroy everyone and everything!) 🙂  OMG The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!!

The severe flooding, following as it does a years-long drought in the Lone Star State, has seemed to many an obvious demonstration of the dangerous consequences of climate change: “A steadily escalating whipsaw between drought and flood is one of the most confident predictions of an atmosphere with enhanced evaporation rates — meaning, global warming,” writes meteorologist Eric Holthaus at Slate. “Texas’s quick transition from drought hellscape to underwater theme park was egged on by both El Niño and climate change.”

“Going from one extreme to another is a hallmark of climate change,” writes Samantha Page at ThinkProgress, who loses no time fingering the culprits: “Texas and Oklahoma both face intensifying drought and flooding, although politicians in both states have denied climate change.”

As with any major weather event, though, two questions arise: 1) Is the event caused by anthropogenic global warming? and 2) If it is, could we do anything about it? “Science does not say that climate change is CAUSING the extreme rain and drought we’re seeing across the U.S. today, and in recent years,”

Katharine Hayhoe, of the Texas Tech University Climate Science Center, told Scientific American. “Just like steroids make a baseball player stronger, climate change EXACERBATES many of our weather extremes, making many of them, on average, worse than they would have been naturally.”

Among such weather extremes is El Niño, which NOAA recently announced has made its return this year, and which may last through the end of 2015. Eric Holthaus is right to point out that El Niño is linked to the Texas storm system — but he is exactly wrong when he writes that El Niño’s “most important feature is its predictability.”

Noteworthy about El Niño, which is caused by abnormally warm water in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, is its unpredictability. “For reasons still not well understood,” writes Jon Erdman at the Weather Channel’s website, “every 2-7 years, this patch of ocean warms for a period of 6-18 months.” In fact, predicting a new El Niño has become something of a meteorological pastime in recent years: In 2012, 2013, and 2014 confident predictions were dashed. “Waiting for El Niño is starting to feel like waiting for Godot,” wrote U.S. Climate Prediction Center scientist Michelle L’Heureux last year.

Part of the reason for scientists’ errant predictions is the complicated interplay of conditions — wind and water — that allows El Niño to take shape. But it is also the case that, as Erdman writes, “no two El Niños are exactly alike.” It is one thing to correctly predict that El Niño will take form; it is another entirely to predict what effects it will have. Consider the link between El Niño and hurricane activity. It is generally agreed that El Niño tends to decrease Atlantic hurricane activity; however, the least active recent hurricane season — 2013 — did not follow an El Niño, and in 2004, when 15 storms and nine hurricanes formed — and Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne all made landfall in the U.S. — a weak El Niño preceded them.

At NOAA’s Climate.gov, meteorologist Tom Di Liberto puts scientists’ confusion bluntly: “In short, if you are someone who wants more or stronger ENSO events in the future, I have great news for you — research supports that. If you are someone who wants fewer or weaker ENSO events in the future, don’t worry — research supports that too.”

Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, it is not clear that El Niños are gaining significantly in frequency or strength. El Niño is part of a large-scale oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere nexus called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). A research team led by Georgia Tech climatologist Kim Cobb studied climate-change indicators in coral to study ENSO activity over the past 7,000 years (N.B.: Much longer than mankind has been using aerosol sprays). “The corals document highly variable ENSO activity, with no evidence for a systematic trend in ENSO variance,” Cobb’s team wrote in Science in January 2013. “Twentieth-century ENSO variance is significantly higher than average fossil coral ENSO variance but is not unprecedented.” Their conclusion: “Our results suggest that forced changes in ENSO, whether natural or anthropogenic, may be difficult to detect against a background of large internal variability.”

From this chronicle of scientific disagreement it should be clear just how insupportable are the easy links being drawn by climate-change alarmists in the media. And, more important, the ignorance of scientists is the reason that sweeping public-policy addressing climate change is wrongheaded. By linking the storms in Houston and climate change, Slate and ThinkProgress and their ilk are implicitly claiming that changes in public policy could spare Americans similar devastation in the future.

But that is nonsense. Science is not yet capable of predicting when El Niño will occur, let alone what consequences it is likely to have on human populations. There is not much reason to think that even the most dramatic public-policy changes would reduce the intensity or frequency of catastrophic weather events — and even if we suppose that public-policy changes could make a difference, it is quite possible that the cost would far outweigh the benefit. Those advocating policy changes should ask themselves: According to their own hypotheses, how many power plants would need to be shut down to turn Houston’s next perilous deluge into a tolerable drizzle? Among the great triumphs of scientific inquiry over the past 300 years is the ability of man to insulate himself against nature’s vicissitudes, and even to channel, to an astonishing degree, the forces of nature to his benefit. Perhaps our understanding of climate will rise to the same heights someday. But that day is not now, and those who believe that they can legislate solutions to problems they do not fully understand are certain to create more troubles than they will prevent. (NRO)

But since they are Wile E. Coyote, Suuuper Genius, and their hearts in the “right place” they can do no wrong by trying to control every aspect of your life. 🙂

And you’re just a silly little “denier” who is beneath their holier-than-thou-gonna-save-the-world-from-evil-exploting-corporations who deserves nothing but their scorn and contempt.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

The Hitler Youth of AGW

Now remember, the Global Warming Goosesteppers always say it’s about “the science” and the “consensus” therein… <wink, wink nudge, nudge…>

If there were any doubt that we’ve entered a witch-hunt era when it comes to global warming, what happened in the state of Washington should remove it. Doug Ericksen, a state senator who represents the people of Ferndale as a duly elected lawmaker, has been the target of a student mob that wanted Western Washington University to revoke his master’s degree from that school because, as Watchdog.org put it, “he’s not radical enough on global warming.”

As chair of his state’s Senate Energy, Environment and Telecommunications Committee, Ericksen “has blocked efforts to force businesses and residents to go green,” though “he supports voluntary compliance.” He does, however, oppose “mandated cap-and-trade programs and low-carbon fuel standards.” All of this was enough for his antagonists to label him a “denier.” The next step is to outfit in him a tunic bearing a scarlet “D.”

The students’ campaign against Ericksen forced a person with a sound mind who has some authority to step in, and one did. Western Washington University President Bruce Shepard said that the school was not going to “penalize a graduate for the positions they express” and found the mob’s objective to be “a disturbing misunderstanding of the intellectual freedoms any university worthy of the name must stand for. And protect.”

“Sen. Doug Ericksen is welcome to have whatever political views he wants, but by misinforming the public on the science of climate change, he is undermining the credibility of our own degrees and reflecting poorly on the caliber of education students receive here,” the students said in a statement to the Herald.

The students acknowledged they weren’t trying to change Ericksen’s mind on the issue.

“We’re framing it in a more radical way,” students said of the effort to revoke Ericksen’s degree. “We’re not just trying to have a conversation with him or hold him accountable. We’re trying to revoke his degree and get people to pay attention.” (Watchdog)

Translation: Fear Us! We want to destroy you if you disagree with us! The typical Leftist tactic on everything, fear & intimidation combined with a desperate need to censor people who disagree with their holier-than-thou views.

“The strength of our democracy is that all citizens, including students and leaders like Sen. Ericksen, have the freedom of expression to take positions with diverse viewpoints,” said Shepard.

This isn’t the first time that Ericksen has been the quarry for those invested in the global warming narrative. Watchdog.org says that billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer has invested “$1 million in the state races, with his primary goal of unseating Ericksen.”

Steyer is free to spend his money however he wants. But we hope that he’ll soon tire of funding environmentalist nonsense and go look for another toy. (IBD)

Let this be yet more evidence how weak the AGW case is that extremists must stoop to this level against those who dare think for themselves and do not march in lock-step with the enviro-nazis. (Midas Milligan, commentor n Watchdog)

Well, it’s about the Leftist control freak politics, they just hide it under “science” but you won’t get them to admit that’s The Agenda, no way. The Narrative has to be what they say it is, and that’s it and censoring and cause fear (and intimidation) are the only thing the weapons they want to use.

They are bullies, not “scientific”, that’s the only real consensus you can reach about them and their need to control you.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

VIVA LA REVOLUCIóN

[T]hink about how even with all the gridlock and polarization in Washington, we have made so much change these past six years:  12 million new jobs.  Sixteen million people who finally have health insurance.  Historic agreements to fight climate change.  Epic increases in college financial aid.  More progress on LGBT rights than any time in our history. And today, it is no longer remarkable to see two beautiful black girls walking their dogs on the South Lawn of the White House lawn.  That’s just the way things are now,” Obama said to applause at the liberal arts college.

“rise above the noise and shape the revolutions of your time.”Michelle Obama

It would takes days to point out all the lies and partisan ideological distortions in that one paragraph, but that’s also the point at which we are in America.

There are millions of slobbering liberals and just plain ignorant Americans who’d believe every word of it and would fight to very last drop of your evil blood to defend “the truth” as they want everyone to see it.

The truth has no meaning anymore. One’s partisan agenda, whether Republican (secret trade deal anyone?) or Democrat doesn’t matter, the truth even less so.

Dishonesty is the only rule left.

Narcissism rules.

It’s time for the looting and sacking of Rome, 406 AD.

Did the Visigoths and The Romans prosper from the sacking of Rome and the Destruction of the Roman Empire?

Well, 1600 years later apparently both the barbarians and the elites have figured it out.

The peasants are the one who are going to get screwed, but we’ll make them happy to do it to themselves.

“So get out there and volunteer on campaigns, and then hold the folks you elect accountable.”

Why? that’s they VERY LAST thing anyone wants to do to a Liberal, especially your husband. That would be “racist”, “bigotry”,”misogyny” or “islamophobia”.

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

So what she saying is to hold accountable only those people with whom you disagree (aka non-liberals), make sure they are destroyed because she and her husband are above it all and are unaccountable for their actions anyhow, as it should be.

Make sure division and destruction are left in your wake. Your Agenda is THE ONLY AGENDA. Your Narrative is the ONLY Narrative. Make sure no one gets in your way and if they do, destroy them!!

Especially if they are white, male, and/or Christian they deserve it!

See, that is how you will rise above the noise and shape the revolutions of your time.

VIVA LA REVOLUCIóN !

http://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Ann-Coulter/dp/1621572676

Ann Coulter is back, more fearless than ever. In Adios, America she touches the third rail in American politics, attacking the immigration issue head-on and flying in the face of La Raza, the Democrats, a media determined to cover up immigrants’ crimes, churches that get paid by the government for their “charity,” and greedy Republican businessmen and campaign consultants—all of whom are profiting handsomely from mass immigration that’s tearing the country apart. Applying her trademark biting humor to the disaster that is U.S. immigration policy, Coulter proves that immigration is the most important issue facing America today.

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen
Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Memorial Day 3pm

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

You’re so focused on unplugging and decompressing over the next few days that an appointment may have slipped your mind.

3pm on Memorial Day, remember?

Sure, Memorial Day weekend is when America pretends that summer has started. And if you’re like 80% of us, that’s where the meaning of the three-day holiday begins and ends.

Which is why, in 2000, Congress passed The National Moment of Remembrance Act, as an added way of honoring America’s fallen heroes. For one minute on Memorial Day, we’re all stopping everything to pay our respects to the men and women who died in service of our country, especially those who died in battle. The time of 3pm was chosen because it’s likely when Americans are most enjoying the freedom made possible by those who died in service of their country.

Memorial Day was originally established as Decoration Day in 1868, as a way to honor the fallen soldiers of the Civil War. Never before had so many American soldiers died in battle, and as a result national cemeteries began to be formed. On the first Decoration Day, 5,000 participants gathered at Arlington National Cemetery to decorate the graves of the 20,000 Union and Confederate soldiers buried there. Southern states refused to acknowledge the day, choosing to honor their dead on separate days until after World War 1, whenMemorial Day changed from honoring those who died during the Civil War to those fallen in any war.

But as the true meaning of Memorial Day has become obscured over time, shrouded in the haze of BBQ smoke, some were moved to institute a moment of silence. Allegedly, the idea for the moment came when children touring Washington D.C. were asked about the meaning of Memorial Day and responded, “That’s the day the pool opens.”

So the National Moment of Remembrance Act calls us to stop and remember. As noted by the Uniformed Services Benefit Association, here’s what will happen at 3pm on Monday in observance of the National Moment of Remembrance: Trains will blow their whistles. Almost 500,000 Major League Baseball fans will pause for a moment of silence. Cars will drive with their headlights on. Americans everywhere will wave flags. “Taps” will play throughout the nation.

It’s also important that we impart the true meaning of this holiday to our children, so that they grow up understanding that Memorial Day is not about our own pleasure but about honoring those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

Rather than what the Liberal Media and Liberal Teachers will teach them.

The Housewife of DC From the Arkansas Shore,Madame President

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Let’s be honest: It is just an unfortunate fact that Hillary Clinton stands a good chance of becoming the next president of the United States.

As unappealing as that prospect is, it’s true. It has nothing to do with policy – aside from being old enough, Hillary lacks any qualifications a nation should desire in a leader. It has everything to do with celebrity, and the Clintons are the political Kardashians.

Aside from making millions upon millions of dollars, what do the Kardashians do? Yes, they have businesses now, but they’re all based on, and sell, the celebrity they have. They didn’t create anything; they didn’t start companies that employed thousands of people and then become famous. They did all of that afterwards to wring every last dollar out of that fame. And God bless them for it.

The Kardashians are true capitalists – they saw an opportunity, seized it, and made hundreds of millions of dollars off it. Sure, it all started with a sex tape that only a decade earlier would have had the entire family hanging their heads in shame, but the moral degradation of society they spearheaded aside, they earned their money.

Granted, they earned it through no real talent, skill, intellect or any other attribute that could be considered beneficial to society, but they played the cards they were dealt and made a fortune. They are the embodiment of the American Dream, at least in concept (execution is a different story).

The Clinton family has done pretty much the same thing.

The Kardashian wealth came from patriarch Robert, who made a fortune as a lawyer and businessman. The fame came from a porn tape of then-unknown Kim with a then-famous rapper time has all but forgotten.

The Clinton wealth comes from Bill Clinton being elected president. It’s safe to say that no one in history has milked more personal wealth from past elected office than he has. Hillary’s fame comes from having married him and not divorced him after numerous affairs. Although there (thankfully) wasn’t a sex tape, Hillary’s parlayed her victim status from the Monica Lewinsky affair into a U.S. Senate seat from a state she’d never lived in.

Hillary had gone to good schools and practiced law, but she was nothing special, just Bill’s wife. Kim had grown up around rich and famous people, but no one cared who she was because she hadn’t done anything.

Media attention elevated both, especially after the sex scandals in which they were involved. Sympathy was drummed up for Hillary; curiosity for Kim. But the result was the same: elevated, unearned status to the point of being culturally important.

Hillary Clinton had accomplished nothing in life that hadn’t been accomplished by 100,000 other female lawyers in the country except for one thing – she married a guy who became president. Deciding to live life as an enabler of a sexual predator has rewarded her with fame, incredible wealth and unimaginable power. But she didn’t really earn any of it; it was, for the sake of brevity, given to her.

In a very real sense, Kim Kardashian has accomplished more than Hillary has. Yes, Hillary was twice elected to the Senate, but that came largely as a result of sympathy and a famously inept opponent. New York Democrats essentially cleared the field for her, the general election (after former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani dropped out because he had been diagnosed with cancer) was a formality. It could not have been easier if she’d been appointed.

Hillary had no real qualifications to represent New York in the Senate, and she had no real accomplishments in the Senate. But she was portrayed as a star because of who she was, much like celebrity magazines put Kim on their covers because she exists.

From the Senate, Hillary ran an awful, aimless campaign for the 2008 Democratic Party nomination for president, losing to a man with even fewer achievements on his resume. She was appointed secretary of state not for her ability, but to prevent her from mounting a primary challenge in 2012.

With zero foreign policy experience, Hillary was a disaster running the State Department. Her ineptitude was so obvious from the start that President Obama did not involve her in the most complex foreign policy area on the planet – the Middle East. Three days into his presidency, President Obama created the position of “United States Special Envoy for Middle East Peace” and appointed former Sen. George Mitchell to fill it.

Kim Kardashian is paid to show up to events and be seen as a way to draw attention to the events. She is not expected to say or do anything important. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was paid to show up to events, draw attention to them and be seen as showing the United States cared about them. But she didn’t do or say anything important. That job was left to Mitchell.

In many ways the Kardashians are better than the Clintons. Sure, they’ve lowered the bar of celebrity and degrade our culture, but people have to voluntarily choose to empower and enrich them. The Clintons have been empowered and enriched at our expense.

If someone sucks up to a Kardashian it costs only that person. If someone sucks up to a Clinton, it costs all of us. The Kardashians can only annoy; the Clintons can grant government contracts, special permissions, taxpayer dollars, etc., etc.

Given the choice, I’d rather see Kim Kardashian in the White House than Hillary Clinton in 2017. We’ve literally seen everything both have to offer, and although what Kim offers is worthless and damaging, at least she doesn’t complete the Clinton trifecta of being corrupt to boot. (Derek Hunter)

We could call the new show on Bravo: MY Clinton Life! 🙂

Hosted by, this guy…

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

I find your lack of faith disturbing….

The brutal business of The Elite Agenda that doesn’t give a shit what the American People want or need. It’s what THEY want.

A Secret Deal, that you have to pass before you get any details…sound familiar??

President Obama won a big victory for his trade agenda Friday with the Senate’s approval of fast-track legislation that could make it easier for him to complete a wide-ranging trade deal that would include 11 Pacific Rim nations.

A coalition of 48 Senate Republicans and 14 Democrats voted for Trade Promotion Authority late Friday, sending the legislation to a difficult fight in the House, where it faces more entrenched opposition from Democrats.

The Senate coalition fought off several attempts by opponents to undermine the legislation, defeating amendments that were politically popular but potentially poisonous to Obama’s bid to secure the trade deal.

“This is an important bill, likely the most important bill we will pass this year. It’s important to President Obama,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and primary author of the bill, said at the close of debate.

Way more important than the Executive Amnesty or the Iran Nuke Bill or ISIS, or even Climate Change (that is the more important, after all, according to our King).

The Barons have spoken! The peasants are revolting…They stink on ice.

Want to know how out of whack this whole thing is?

This is from the Super-Liberal Progressives at The Daily Kos:

Senators are forced to go into a classified viewing room in order to read the full text of the document, but are not allowed to bring in key staff or take notes on what is included in the bill text.  Not only this, but as you would assume for classified documents, elected officials are unable to speak to anyone without proper security clearance about the specific details of the trade negotiations without suffering potential criminal legal ramifications. This becomes a serious issue when dealing with complicated and technical negotiations regarding the largest trade deal in American history.  It also raises serious questions about the legislative process and democracy generally when the public is unable to view the content of a bill introduced in Congress, but foreign government officials and private corporations are.

The Democrats are mad about secrecy from the group that gave us “You have to pass it to find out what’s in it”!!!!

Really?

It’s hilarious that the Progressives who gave us NAFTA and ObamaCare , that continue to hide Hillary Clinton from the truth, are so bend out of shape NOW!

Wow, thanks to “Jar Jar” Boehner and his Dumber Cousin Mitch for their “leadership” in ‘fighting’ the Obama Agenda.

(man my fingers nearly snapped off trying to right that sentence without a complete mental breakdown).

Sith Lords in Disguise? Or they’ve just been in DC so long they are converts to The Dark Side.

The Elite Republicans have now shown that re-electing them is virtually no different than re-electing Progressives, they just dress it up nicer.

Gee, why am I not surprised? 🙂

Politics really is about strange bedfellows.

What is especially significant is that the poll shows this anger is bipartisan. Only 41% of Republicans approve of the performance of the GOP congressional leadership. This is much lower than the 60% approval rating GOP leaders received in 2011 and the 78% approval rating they received from Republicans in 1995, months after the party took control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

Now ask yourself if Boehner & Co actually care what you think?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, are typical establishment Republicans who have been on Capitol Hill too long. They are opposed to the Tea Party and true conservatives and have no interest in real reform or following the wishes of grassroots Republicans.

Just four months after the Republicans took control of the Senate and House, most of the GOP electorate has lost faith in congressional leadership. It is no surprise since nothing has been accomplished except the Keystone Pipeline bill, which President Obama vetoed, and the House-passed bill ending abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. On almost everything else, there has been rhetoric, but no action.

Despite the fact that almost every Republican congressional candidate campaigned against Obamacare and the President’s executive amnesty for five million illegal aliens, Congress voted to fund both programs. The Senate approved the radical nomination of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General and just gave Obama a major victory by approving legislation giving him more power to enact trade deals.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner, are typical establishment Republicans who have been on Capitol Hill too long. They are opposed to the Tea Party and true conservatives and have no interest in real reform or following the wishes of grassroots Republicans.

Just four months after the Republicans took control of the Senate and House, most of the GOP electorate has lost faith in congressional leadership. It is no surprise since nothing has been accomplished except the Keystone Pipeline bill, which President Obama vetoed, and the House-passed bill ending abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy. On almost everything else, there has been rhetoric, but no action.

Despite the fact that almost every Republican congressional candidate campaigned against Obamacare and the President’s executive amnesty for five million illegal aliens, Congress voted to fund both programs. The Senate approved the radical nomination of Loretta Lynch as Attorney General and just gave Obama a major victory by approving legislation giving him more power to enact trade deals. (Townhall.com)

BUT THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA, right? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

How to Underwhelm The People

The new Republican-led Congress is drawing harsh reviews from the public – including most Republicans. Just 23% of Americans say congressional Republicans are keeping the promises they made during last fall’s campaign, while 65% say they are not.

And yet they don’t really care what you think either…

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Nearly four-in-ten (37%) say the new Congress has accomplished less than they expected, while 4% say it has accomplished more than expected. About half (53%) say its accomplishments are in line with what they expected.

Well, The Republicans have caved on basically everything so not much has changed has it?

On both measures, the public’s views are far more negative than they were of the Democratic-led Congress in March 2007, after the Democrats regained control of both chambers following several years of Republican control. Views are also much more negative than they were in April 1995, shortly after the GOP had gained control of the House and Senate for the first time in four decades.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted May 12-18 among 2,002 adults, finds that just 22% approve of the job performance of Republican congressional leaders, little changed since the summer of 2011. Ratings for Democratic congressional leaders are somewhat better (33% approve).

Republicans Are Critical of the New Congress and its LeadersUnlike after some previous partisan turnovers on Capitol Hill, negative assessments of the new Congress now cross party lines. Today, just 41% of Republicans approve of the job their party’s leaders in Congress are doing. By comparison, in April 2011, 60% of Republicans approved of GOP leaders’ job performance and in April 1995, 78% approved of GOP leadership’s policies and proposals.

And just 37% of Republicans say their party’s leaders are keeping their campaign promises, while 53% say they are not. In 2011, after the party won its House majority, 54% said GOP leaders were keeping promises. And in April 1995 — as the Republican-led Congress hit the 100-day milestone — fully 80% of Republicans said this.

Democrats were also relatively upbeat about their party’s leaders at the 100-day mark in 2007, when 60% said Democratic leaders were keeping their campaign promises.

Currently, Republicans (36%) are about as likely as Democrats (38%) or independents (38%) to say Congress is accomplishing less than they expected.

Public evaluations of the congressional leadership of both parties remain negative. Today, just a third (33%) say they approve of the job Democratic leaders are doing, while even fewer (22%) say they approve of GOP Congressional leadership.

Ratings for the Congressional leadership of both parties have been relatively stable over the past few years. Though the job approval ratings of both GOP and Democratic leadership rose slightly earlier this year, current ratings are now on par with attitudes last spring.

While the overall ratings of Republican congressional leaders over the last few months have dropped a modest four points, Republican ratings of their own party’s leadership have moved in a significantly negative direction over the first few months of a GOP-controlled Congress.

Today, more Republicans say they disapprove (55%) than approve (41%) of the Republican congressional leadership’s job performance. In February, Republican evaluations were more positive (50% of Republicans approved of the GOP leadership’s job performance, 44% disapproved). And this shift in opinion is primarily seen among conservative Republicans: 54% approved of GOP congressional leaders’ job performance in February, today just 41% approve. By contrast, Democratic views of their party’s congressional leadership are substantially more positive and are little changed over this time. Currently 60% of Democrats approve of the job performance of Democratic leaders, while 35% disapprove.

Independent views of the two parties largely track those of the overall public: Just 19% approve of GOP leaders’ job performance, while 27% approve of Democratic congressional leadership.

While the overall ratings of Republican congressional leaders over the last few months have dropped a modest four points, Republican ratings of their own party’s leadership have moved in a significantly negative direction over the first few months of a GOP-controlled Congress.

Today, more Republicans say they disapprove (55%) than approve (41%) of the Republican congressional leadership’s job performance. In February, Republican evaluations were more positive (50% of Republicans approved of the GOP leadership’s job performance, 44% disapproved). And this shift in opinion is primarily seen among conservative Republicans: 54% approved of GOP congressional leaders’ job performance in February, today just 41% approve. By contrast, Democratic views of their party’s congressional leadership are substantially more positive and are little changed over this time. Currently 60% of Democrats approve of the job performance of Democratic leaders, while 35% disapprove.

Independent views of the two parties largely track those of the overall public: Just 19% approve of GOP leaders’ job performance, while 27% approve of Democratic congressional leadership.

By contrast, Democrats are more positive about their own party’s performance on these three issues than are Republicans. About six-in-ten Democrats and Democratic leaners (62%) say the Democratic Party is doing a good job representing their views on same-sex marriage, while just 30% say they are not doing a good job. Views are more mixed when it comes to illegal immigration and government spending. Overall, 51% of Democrats say their party is doing a good job on the issue of illegal immigration, compared with 43% who say they are not doing a good job. On the issue of government spending, as many Democrats say their party is doing a good job representing their views on the issue (47%) as say it is not doing a good job (47%). Democratic views have shown little change on these measures since the questions were last asked in September 2014.

And amid debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade proposal, 39% of respondents say they approve of Obama’s handling of international trade, while 44% say they disapprove; 17% do not offer a rating of his performance on trade.

But the Republicans want to pass it anyways!

That’s why “Jar Jar” Boehner and his Dumber Cousin are the Democrats best hope for a complete takeover of Congress and the Monarchy for Queen Hillary.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Real Tragedy

I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.—Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sorry, Dr. King, there’s no money or power in that so forgettaboutit!

Walter Williams: Hustlers and people with little understanding want us to believe that today’s black problems are the continuing result of a legacy of slavery, poverty and racial discrimination. The fact is that most of the social pathology seen in poor black neighborhoods is entirely new in black history. Let’s look at some of it.

Today the overwhelming majority of black children are raised in single female-headed families. As early as the 1880s, three-quarters of black families were two-parent. In 1925 New York City, 85 percent of black families were two-parent. One study of 19th-century slave families found that in up to three-fourths of the families, all the children had the same mother and father.

Today’s black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent is also entirely new. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent. It had risen to 25 percent by 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” and was widely condemned as a racist. By 1980, the black illegitimacy rate had more than doubled, to 56 percent, and it has been growing since. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks.

Much of today’s pathology seen among many blacks is an outgrowth of the welfare state that has made self-destructive behavior less costly for the individual. Having children without the benefit of marriage is less burdensome if the mother receives housing subsidies, welfare payments and food stamps. Plus, the social stigma associated with unwed motherhood has vanished. Female-headed households, whether black or white, are a ticket for dependency and all of its associated problems. Ignored in all discussions is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994.

Black youth unemployment in some cities is over 50 percent. But high black youth unemployment is also new. In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teens was slightly less than that of their white counterparts — 9.4 percent compared with 10.2. During that same period, black youths were either just as active in the labor force or more so than white youths. Since the 1960s, both the labor force participation rate and the employment rate of black youths have fallen to what they are today. Why? Are employers more racially discriminatory today than yesteryear? Were black youths of yesteryear more skilled than whites of yesteryear? The answer to both questions is a big fat no.

The minimum wage law and other labor regulations have cut off the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. Put yourself in the place of an employer, and ask: If I must pay $7.25 an hour — plus mandated fringes, such as Social Security and workers’ compensation — would it pay me to hire a worker who is so unfortunate as to possess skills that enable him to produce only $5 worth of value per hour? Most employers view that as a losing economic proposition. Thus, the minimum wage law discriminates against the employment of low-skilled workers, who are most often youths — particularly black youths.

The little bit of money a teenager can earn through after-school, weekend and summer employment is not nearly so important as the other things he gains from early work experiences. He acquires skills and develops good work habits, such as being prompt, following orders and respecting supervisors. In addition, there are the self-respect and pride that a youngster gains from being financially semi-independent. All of these gains from early work experiences are important for any teen but are even more important for black teens. If black teens are going to learn anything that will make them a more valuable employee in the future, they aren’t going to learn it from their rotten schools, their dysfunctional families or their crime-ridden neighborhoods. They must learn it on the job.

The bulk of today’s problems for many blacks are a result of politicians and civil rights organizations using government in the name of helping blacks when in fact they are serving the purposes of powerful interest groups.

And if you disagree with them,you’re just evil old “racist” anyhow so gives a crap what you ignorant idiots think! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Magna Carta 2015

History Lesson today….

Did you know that June 15th is the 800th Anniversary of the Magna Carta, the first document about the Rule of Law and that the King is not above the Law?

“Foul as it is, hell itself is made fouler by the presence of King John,” wrote Matthew Paris in the 1230s.

Someone should tell King Obama that one.

From the 1215 Magna Carta:

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice. (The British Library)

Just 3 of the points the Rebel Barons (who were self-serving in their own right at the time).

The Magna Carta has survived and even thrived for 800 years because it is the cry on the oppressed upon a government that oppresses them.

Like King George III:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.(The Declaration of Independence)

A most politically incorrect document for the Progressive Left because their solution to everything is to tax the people more and have government control of the people. How Very King-y of them. 🙂

But if you think the Republican Establishment is going to save you, well, just remember the Magna Carta was “forced” on King John by Barons who pissed off at him for taxing them to death and being such a horrible fighter as King- he lost just about everything his ather gained and more (Obama?). He was taking everything from THEM, not the people.

The Republican Establishment is a just a bunch of Rebel Barons, not saviors. Especially with John “Jar Jar” Boehner is in charge.

He taxed the rich and kept it for his ego wars in France. Obama taxes us to death for his own Ego driven agenda.

King John was single-minded, petty, cruel and manipulative and did things for political expediency and thought himself above The Law. Sound familiar?? 🙂

The IDEA of the Magna Carta is what has survived 800 years and it’s the idea of a people free from the absolute rule of their government that needs to be put forth.

That is the trust that needs to be restored.

The people also have to want it, and I’m not sure after a couple of generations of Liberal Progressive “education” and “media” that they are capable of even understanding. But education would still be key.

In an Orwellian way, you can’t miss what you never knew you had in the first place.

Besides, disagreeing with a Liberal is “hate Speech” and you’re a “racist” and a “bigot” if you do.  🙂

King John Died in 1216 (he came to the thrown because he’d locked his chief rival and then in drunken stupor killed him. “Mysterious deaths” were a Medieval euphemism for assassination and murder in reality), most likely of an illness but many, especially his  future history allies he’d never meet  (usually anti-catholics like Foxes’ Book of Martyrs (1563) where King John was a good just man who stood up against the Church had been done wronged and assassinated by an evil Pope) which is funny because one of his allies was Pope Innocent III who was an enemy of King John until he made the Pope Overlord of all England then he got all the power he wanted and nullified the Magna Carta within 2 1/2 months which started a war!).

The “Peace maker” ends up with even more war. Nobel Peace Prize 1215 for King John!! 🙂

Lost war after war, just like Obama Who unlike Jhn doesnt really want to fight them badly, he’s just too single-minded to care).

Does that make Islam our Overlord, unofficially, since they can do wrong in the eyes of Liberals? or are they just incompetent like King John was in battle but instead of swards the Liberals just appease them and get the people killed in  a different way nowadays.

As overlord of the kingdom, and protector of a king who had taken a crusader’s vow, Innocent III had already sent a string of letters to England berating the barons. Now he explained how, ‘by such violence and fear as might affect the most courageous of men’, they had forced John to accept an agreement ‘illegal, unjust, harmful to royal rights and shameful to the English people’. The Pope declared Magna Carta ‘null, and void of all validity for ever’,

Sound like a Liberal to George W. Bush anyone? 🙂

Just goes to show you some politics  and strange bedfellows haven’t changed in 800 years. 😦

See more at:magna-carta–law-liberty-legacy?ns_campaign=magna-carta-exhibition&ns_mchannel=bl_website&ns_source=carousel&ns_linkname=magna-carta-exhibition_title_link&ns_fee=0

and magnacarta800th.com

Check Back Later…

Well our new Female Eric Holder didn’t take very long 🙂 getting up to speed on the Progressive Agenda of stall and delay things that you don’t to talk about.

The State Department is proposing a deadline of January 2016 to complete its review and public release of 55,000 pages of emails former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged on a private server and turned over to her former agency last December.

The proposal came Monday night in a document related to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit Vice News filed in January seeking all of Clinton’s emails

“The Department’s plan … would result in its review being completed by the end of the year. To factor in the holidays, however, the Department would ask the Court to adopt a proposed completion date of January 15, 2016,” State’s acting director of Information Programs and Services John Hackett said in a declaration filed in U.S. District Court in Washington.

The State Department’s proposal, however, could mean a delay of almost 13 months between the time Clinton turned over some of her records and the bulk of those emails being made public.

And they won’t “find anything” anyhow or they’ll conveniently lose them like Mrs. Clinton did already. It’s not like they are a serious investigation. This Dog & Pony aren’t hunting.

State Department officials have reaffirmed in recent weeks that they plan an earlier disclosure of a batch of the emails provided to a House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks. However, the department’s spokespeople have said only that the initial release will come “soon,” declining to be more specific about the timing of that first release.

Asked by POLITICO Friday when that Libya-related batch of records should emerge, State spokesman Jeff Rathke was vague. “I don’t have an update to share. But yes, we’re aware that there’s interest out there, certainly,” he said at a daily briefing for reporters.

Benghazi was over 3 years ago!!!

State Department lawyers have complained in court of a “crushing burden” of FOIA requests as well as at least 79 FOIA lawsuits pending against the department. They have also cited the need to prioritize the Clinton email project as a reason for delays in other FOIA cases.
Could that be because of their political corruptness?

Naw… 🙂

Obama’s 1984

While actions speak louder than words, words often predict future actions. Secular progressives’ words and actions rarely align. This is because the pseudo-utopian, wholly dystopian perch from which they view the world is so detached from reality that, from a cultural and public policy standpoint, they must disguise their intended actions in flowery and euphemistic language, or face near universal rejection.

Don’t do as I do as I say, and I will say it as many Orwellian terms as possible.

When they don’t like the terms, liberals redefine the terms to mean something they do not, never have and never can mean. Consider, for instance, the once meaningful words “marriage” and “equality.”

They only mean for as far as THEIR Agenda goes, not yours.

Other “progressive” doublespeak includes words like “invest” (meaning socialist redistribution of wealth), “tolerance” (meaning embrace immorality or face total ruin), “diversity” (meaning Christians and conservatives need not apply), “hate” (meaning truth) or “The Affordable Care Act” (meaning unaffordable, unsustainable and utterly inferior socialized medicine).

Even so, it’s during those rare moments of candor that our cultural Marxist friends’ rhetoric actually aligns with their intended actions. In other words, every so often, and usually by accident, they tell the truth.

Take this recent declaration by President Obama at Georgetown University. He was discussing his contempt for conservative new media in general and Fox News in particular:

“[W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues,” he said.

How Kim Jong-un of him. In sum: Goal 1) Control thought by, Goal 2) Controlling the media.

The Ministry of Truth!!

This is an idea older than – and as well preserved as – Vladimir Lenin himself. How Dear Leader intends to reconcile his scheme to “change how the media reports on these issues” with the First Amendment’s Free Press Clause, namely, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press,” is abundantly clear.

He doesn’t.

Abridging the press of anyone not on the Agenda, that is. And you only have free speech if you say what the Progressive want you to say. Nothing more.

Our emperor-in-chief will force feed his once-free subjects yet another unconstitutional executive decree – a Net Neutrality sandwich with a side of Fairness Doctrine.

Or take would-be President Hillary Clinton’s comments last month on the “rite” of abortion vs. the right of religious freedom.

“The comment has Hillary Clinton essentially saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views to accommodate abortions.

“‘Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,’ Clinton said, using the euphemism for abortion.

“‘Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,’ Clinton argued. ‘Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.’”

You have to do it our way or else.

That’s a lot of “have tos.” See the pattern here? Whether it’s Obama saying government will “have to change how the media reports,” or Hillary saying “deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed,” such despotic demands should spike the neck hair of every freedom-loving American.

And then there are those left-wing extremists whose designs on despotism require that Christians “must be made” to obey. Homosexual practitioner and New York Times columnist Frank Bruni is one such extremist. In his April 3 column titled, “Bigotry: The Bible and the Lessons of Indiana,” Bruni quotes homosexual militant Mitchell Gold, a prominent anti-Christian activist: “Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list,’” he writes. “His commandment is worthy – and warranted,” he adds.

Of course, if homosexual behavior, something denounced as both “vile affections” and “an abomination” throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is no longer sexual sin, then there can be no sexual sin whatsoever. To coerce, through the power of the police state, faithful Christians to abandon the millennia-old biblical sexual ethic and embrace the sin of Sodom would likewise require that Christians sign-off on fornication, adultery, incest and bestiality. Such is the unnatural nature of government-mandated moral relativism.

“But this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech!” come the mournful cries of the ill-informed and the ill-prepared, desperately afraid to debate the issues on the merits. “Hate speech is excluded from protection,” opines CNN anchor Chris Cuomo in a recent tweet on the topic. “But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment,” replies UCLA law professor Eugene Volohk in a Washington Post op-ed. “Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.”

Of course this matters not to those to whom the First Amendment is meaningless.

Indeed, one man’s “hate speech” is another man’s truth, and as I’ve often said, truth is hate to those who hate truth.

And boy do they hate it.

🙂

And so they mean to muzzle it.

The time of which many of us have long warned is no longer on the horizon. The left’s full-on assault against freedom, most especially religious freedom, is at hand. Oddly, or maybe not so oddly, it’s at once the secular left and orthodox Muslims who lead the charge. These strange bedfellows share a common enemy. He is Truth in the person of Jesus Christ. In order to silence Him, they must silence His faithful followers.

Which brings us to this modern age of American lawlessness. We’re fast moving from a soft tyranny to hard tyranny, and “progressive” leaders like those mentioned above are, chillingly enough, emboldened to the degree that they will openly call for it.

Like our brothers and sisters around the world, American Christians must prepare for suffering.

But, like them, we mustn’t despair.

For there are different kinds of suffering.

Suffering through cancer, for instance, can, and often does, lead to death. Without Christ, who is mankind’s only hope, such suffering is hopeless indeed.

Yet when a young mother suffers through child birth, and while she may experience the same level of pain as the cancer sufferer, her crying out elicits an entirely different response, and her pain serves an entirely different purpose. While one type of suffering leads to death, the other leads to life. While one attends sorrow, the other attends joy.

Similarly, there is a kind of suffering, suffering in sin, which leads to spiritual death, and a kind suffering, suffering in grace, which leads to spiritual life. Anti-Christian persecution, be it efforts to force Christians into disobedience to God, attempts to silence them outright or, worse, the torture, enslavement and even execution of Christ followers – now widespread in both Muslim and Marxist nations across the globe – signifies “the beginning of birth pains” (see Matthew 24:8).

And birth pains lead to new life. (townhall)

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Shhh..It’s A Secret

It has come to the attention of some members of Congress that data and research used to justify Environmental Protection Agency regulations have been hidden, unavailable for review even by congressional committees with oversight of the EPA.

The Agenda’s foot soldiers are the Stasi (secret police) along with The IRS, the Jackboots are a comin’ for YOU! 🙂

The Environmental Protection Agency is for protect the Progressive Agency agenda, not the actual environment. The Political environment is all that matters.

The agency’s refusal to provide this information is simply unacceptable.

But wholly within the SOP of The Obama Administration.

Thousands of pages of new regulations are written each year, imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in costs upon American households.

And those regulations might all be worthwhile. To the extent they are constitutional (a subject for another column) and save lives or prevent illness, improve product or workplace safety, or prevent fraud or disaster, regulations may be perfectly justified.

But to know whether a regulation actually can achieve such lofty goals, we must be able to evaluate whether the research used to justify it is sound.

When researchers announce a breakthrough or a new study comes out, it is only through the sharing of assumptions, data and methodologies that other scientists can test the claims and verify or falsify the results.

Replicability is the hallmark of science. Trust may be key to interpersonal relationships, and faith is critical to religion, but transparency, replicability and verification are central to science. Studies used by regulatory agencies to impose rules costing millions and sometimes billions of dollars are no exception.

If the government is going to use a rule to restrict peoples’ freedom and cost them money, the public has a right to know that the findings are sound and the savings or public health benefits the study claims the rules would produce are likely to materialize.

Regulatory agencies don’t get to say, “Trust us!” and expect legislators or the public to do so.

Secrecy in science is especially offensive when one considers that federal and state governments (that is, the public) pay for most of the research used to justify regulations — directly, through grants, scholarships and awards, or indirectly, by funding university science departments and research endeavors.

The rule should be, if the public pays for it, the public has the right to know the study’s methodologies, assumptions and raw data.

This shouldn’t even be controversial, and for most regulatory agencies it isn’t. They adhere to the rule of transparency, testing and replicability. Increasingly, however, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not do so.

In each of the past few sessions of Congress, the House of Representatives has passed a bill that, in the words of the most recent version, H.R. 4012, would “prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating regulations or assessments based upon science that is not transparent or reproducible.”

But fits The Agenda!

The bill requires the EPA to disclose all the science, research, models and data used to justify regulations, and the results would have to be reproducible by independent researchers.

That’ll never happen. The Liberals want what they want when they want it and you’re just a partisan “denier” if you don’t let them do whatever they want to do.

Plus, Trust them, they know what they are doing! 🙂

Here’s what the legislation’s sponsor, David Schweikert, R-Ariz., chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s subcommittee on the environment, said when introducing the bill:

“The Secret Science Reform Act ends costly EPA rule making from happening behind closed doors and out of public view. Public policy should come from public data.

The Ministry of Truth disagrees.

“For far too long, the EPA has approved regulations that have placed a crippling financial burden on economic growth in this country without public evidence to justify all their actions.”

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the Democrat caucus never allowed a vote on the bill in the Senate. With Republicans now in control, the bill cleared its first hurdle, passing out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on a strict party-line vote of 11 to 9.

No bias there. 🙂

President Obama has threatened to veto the bill. Why would Obama, who promised to run the most transparent presidential administration in history, want to hide from scientific scrutiny and public view the science used to justify his environmental agency’s key programs? These aren’t state secrets or issues of national security.

Well, of course he’d veto it, it’s not on his Agenda. Keeping Secrets and “pas before you know what’s in it” is the hallmark of this “most transparent” President. It’s just what he’s transparent about that is disturbing.

The only ones who benefit from keeping science secret are: researchers whose fraudulent, flawed or otherwise unverifiable results were predetermined by the need to make the Obama administration agencies who fund them happy; and the regulatory agencies that are exercising mission creep, who can’t justify their call for increased authority and larger budgets without ginning up fear of a public health threat.

The Agenda Warriors, who call you “deniers”, “racists” aqnd “bigots” for not bowing to their superiority.

They are holier than thou and they are above your petty need to know what they are up to, right?

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

The Hook

Warming: The U.N.’s climate chief is scheduled to visit Australia, where she’ll be welcomed by an advisor of the prime minister who isn’t mincing words in explaining to his countrymen what their guest is all about.

Mind you they used Orwellian tactics to change it from “Global Warming” to the non-descript “Climate Change” to avoid the embarrassments of things like it snowing on their conferences or Flagstaff,AZ getting hit with snow in early May.

Maurice Newman, chairman of Prime Minister Tony Abbot’s Business Advisory Council, doesn’t seem too thrilled about the visit from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Writing in the Australian, Newman said the “climate catastrophists” are “opposed to capitalism and freedom” and aim to establish a “new world order under the control” of the United Nations.

The British Telegraph reports that Newman’s critics describe him as a “whacko.” But he is correct: The goal of those who want the world to believe that man’s carbon dioxide emissions are dangerously changing the climate is to pull down capitalism. And that’s not us saying it. Figueres herself has admitted this.

“This is the first time” in history, she said earlier this year, that there’s a chance “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

See The Watermelon analysis.

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/just-say-no-to-watermelons/

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…

Newman points this out in his op-ed, warning fellow Australians that “the real agenda is concentrated political authority.” Global warming? It’s merely “the hook.”

He also notes that Figueres “is on record saying democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.”

Newman courts even more criticism when he boldly states that in Figueres’ “authoritarian world there will be no room for debate or disagreement.”

He adds: “Make no mistake, climate change is a must-win battlefield for authoritarians and fellow travelers.”

Such comments will surely get him removed from many cocktail party invitation lists, but the price for being right is often stiff.

Newman also noted that those he describes as “eco-catastrophists”:

• “Won’t let up” and “have captured the U.N. and are extremely well funded.”

• “Will keep mobilizing public opinion using fear and appeals to morality.”

• “Have successfully enlisted compliant academics and an obedient and gullible mainstream media to push the scriptures regardless of evidence.”

Newman could have mentioned, as well, that while many who are aligned with Figueres are motivated, as she is, by a raging desire to quash capitalism, the fight against man-made global warming and climate change has become a religious crusade for more than a few.

Count another U.N. climate chief among them. The freshly resigned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Chairman Rajendra Pachauri said earlier this year that “the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems, is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.” His religion.

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse made a similar remark a year later. “When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science,” she wrote.

The global warming/climate change debate should not be driven by religion or a loathing toward free-market economies. It should be about science.

On that count, the skeptics and doubters have the advantage. As Newman reminds us, “95% of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error.”

Newman did his countrymen a favor by alerting them to Figueres and those who hold similar if not identical beliefs, and push the same false agenda. Now they need to do their part and heed his warning.

James Lovelock, the scientist who brought us the Gaia theory that Earth is a living being.

On MSNBC three years ago, he said that environmentalists have created a “green religion” that “is now taking over from the Christian religion.” He admitted then: “We don’t know what the climate is doing.”

We don’t know what the climate is doing because it doesn’t ask our permission or respond much to our input. To think otherwise is to believe in a fairy tale.
Or a Politically motivated “religion” disguised as “concern” and “science” as most Liberal things are. It’s also the endorsed religion of the Left. This holy writ and holy mantra is Politically Correct and any heretic who strays from the truth must be put down.

Now that’s Science, for you. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Culture Wars

After the mysterious death of suspect Freddie Gray, the Maryland state’s attorney for Baltimore charged all six Baltimore police officers involved with his arrest and transport. The crimes ranging from “second-degree depraved-heart murder” to involuntary manslaughter, assault, misconduct in office and false imprisonment. Locals cheered her decision to charge all six. The charges followed three days of riots triggered by Gray’s funeral and came almost immediately after the medical examiner filed his report calling Gray’s death a “homicide.”

Now for the hard part.

Not only will the charges be difficult to prove but three of those charged are black. The claim of illegal “racial profiling” argues that white racist officers possess an unwarranted fear of young black men. But what happens to that analysis when the accused officers are black? If black cops are just as likely to engage in race-based misconduct, why did Ferguson demonstrators demand a “diverse” police force?

If the Ferguson outrage and riots were about “lack of representation” or “lack of voice,” this cannot be said about Baltimore. The city council is majority black, the police department is approximately 40 percent black, the top two officials running the department are black men, the city has a black mayor, the state’s attorney for Baltimore City — who charged the six officers — is black, the new U.S. attorney general is a black female, and of course the President of the United States is black.

The left has created a culture of anger and entitlement based upon government dependency and the false assertion that racism remains a major problem. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., for example, said that the recent police killings mean “open season on black men in America.” The Baltimore mayor’s shameful embrace of the Rev. Al Sharpton, the race-hustling incendiary who demanded an arrest of Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, did not help matters. Some actually believe this tripe about “institutional racism.” Of those, how many rioted over Freddie Gray’s “murder,” no matter the race of the mayor?

Police shootings over the last several decades are down. Cop shootings of blacks are down more than 75 percent over the last 45 years, while the death-by-cop rate for whites has increased slightly. According to the CDC — which tracks all causes of death, including shootings by law enforcement — over twice as many whites are killed by police as are blacks.

Police “profile” because out of a relatively small percentage of the population come more than 50 percent of homicides and 40 percent of the people behind bars. Blacks are 13 percent of the population, but young blacks — the category that disproportionately commits crime — are 3 percent of the population.

Speaking of “root causes,” Baltimore has not had a Republican mayor since 1967. So why haven’t the Democrats addressed the “root causes”? In 1992, then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton blamed the “Rodney King riots” in Los Angeles on “12 years of denial and neglect” under the Reagan/Bush presidencies. Can we similarly attribute Baltimore’s riots to six years of Obama’s “progressive” policies?

Baltimore, Democrats say, needs a “new Marshall plan.” But, according to the Heritage Foundation, we have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. On education in Baltimore, in 2012 (the latest year available), they spent $15,287 per student. Yet almost half of urban Baltimoreans fail to graduate high school, and of those who do, many cannot read write and compute at grade level. Spend more?

In 1965, 25 percent of black kids were born out of wedlock. Today that number is up to 72 percent. Obama said that a kid without a father is 20 times more likely to go to jail. Blame the welfare state that incentivizes women into marrying the government.

Last year 189 blacks were killed in Baltimore. Where were CNN and President Barack Obama and then-Attorney General Eric Holder and Sharpton? Chicago averages 35 to 40 murders per month, the majority by and against blacks — and most remain unsolved. Where are CNN/Obama/Holder/Sharpton?

Obama has now misfired in at least four “racial” matters: the Cambridge police/Harvard professor incident; Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman; Michael Brown/Darren Wilson; and now Baltimore.

Obama’s claimed the “Cambridge police acted stupidly” in arresting black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., who falsely and belligerently accused a white officer of racial profiling.

In the case of Trayvon Martin, Obama said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” But the jury found Zimmerman not only not guilty, but jurors later said that during their deliberations race never came up.

In the case of Ferguson, the Department of Justice found that Michael Brown very likely did not have his hands up and that the cop acted appropriately when he killed Brown, a charging suspect who posed a risk of death or serious injury.

Who would’ve thought that after the election and reelection of the nation’s first black president, we’d see race riots in our nation’s cities? Baltimore is what happens at the intersection of the grievance culture and the welfare state. (Larry Elder)

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Petulant Child

Wile E. Coyote, Suuuuper Genius Barack Obama unloaded on his own troops because they dared to defy his royal commands. Oh Petulant One had a hissy fit.

He made his ultra-super secret Trade Deal passed without anyone in the public knowing anything about it.

“You have to pass it to find out what’s in it” kinda thing. Funny, that sounds familiar somehow… 🙂

Democrats, including several who favor Obama’s trade agenda, banded together to prevent the Senate from considering legislation that grants the president so-called Trade Promotion Authority, which would bar Congress from amending or filibustering trade agreements negotiated by the administration. Fifty-two senators voted to start debate on the bill, short of the 60 needed to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Forty-five senators voted against the plan.

I am King, am I not?

Article by: Brent Budowsky formerly served as policy aide to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex) and Legislative Director to Rep. Bill Alexander D-Ark.), then Chief Deputy Majority Whip.

President Obama’s performance in pushing for approval of fast track legislation of the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal, in which he’s allied with Republicans and has spent the last week castigating and insulting liberal Democrats, has been one of the most bizarre and ill-advised performances of his presidency.

I spent many years working for senior Democratic Senators such as Lloyd Bentsen and House Democratic leaders beginning with the legendary Speaker Tip O’Neill, and have never seen any president of either party insult so many members of his own party’s base and members of the House and Senate as Mr. Obama has in his weeks of tirades against liberals on trade.

His Agenda is his Agenda and even his allies are targets of his childish wrath if you get in the way of this would-be Emperor’s wants. He wants what he wants when he wants it and because he wants it. That should be good enough for anyone, in his less than  humble opinion.

In Mr. Obama’s speech at Nike last week, his comments to Matt Bai of Yahoo over the weekend, and White House press secretary Josh Earnest’s comments to reporters on Monday, Mr. Obama and his White House staff have repeated a string of personal insults directed against prominent liberal Democrats in Congress, liberal Democrats across the nation, organized labor, and leading public interest and environmental groups who share doubts about the TPP trade deal.
By the time the House and Senate finish their work on trade the headline will probably be either “Obama loses on trade” or “Obama and Republicans win on trade.” Either outcome is undesirable for Obama.

But the spin master supreme will concoct something sick & twisted, stay tuned.   

Mr. Obama’s tirades on trade have included accusations that these liberal Democrats are ignorant about trade policy, insincere when offering their opinions, motivated by politics and not the national interest, and backward looking towards the past. Obama’s repeated attacks against Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), in which he charged that Warren’s concern about the trade bill is motivated not by a reasoned view of what is right for America but by her personal political motivations, is one of the most dishonest and repellant examples of character assassination and contempt by any American president, against any leading member of his own party, in my lifetime.

Of course Ms. Warren, the most nationally respected liberal leader in American politics, is motivated by what she believes is right for the nation. Doubts about the trade bill are not limited to Ms. Warren. They are shared by the leader of Senate Democrats, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the leader of House Democrats, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and a majority of Democrats in the Senate and House as well as a significant number of leading liberal economists.

For the President to suggest that he knows more about trade then all of them do, and that they are all ignorant about the trade bill and trade policy, is staggeringly false and contemptuous of many who have been working on trade policy far longer than he has and know far more about trade, in truth, than he does.

For Obama to question liberals’ knowledge of trade, when he has chosen to keep the terms of the trade talks secret from the American people and most leading trade experts, and classified them as though the terms of trade talks should be equated with nuclear weapons secrecy, is absurd. As Elizabeth Warren and many others charge that the game is fixed, does anybody seriously believe that the highest paid lobbyists for the most wealthy global conglomerates that will reap the greatest profits from the trade pact are not aware of the key details of the trade talks that are being kept secret from most of the nation?

Let’s be clear. The issue is not protectionism versus free trade. Globalization is here to stay; it cannot be wished away. The issues are what should be the fair terms of trade; whether these terms should be decided in secrecy, where the winners get special access to the terms of the deal where the losers and the nation as a whole are kept in the dark; and whether Obama can lead an informed national discussion based on shared knowledge and mutual respect that his tirades about trade have failed to offer.

Obama should be nervous. By the time the House and Senate finish their work on trade the headline will probably be either “Obama loses on trade” or “Obama and Republicans win on trade.” Either outcome is undesirable for Obama.
President Barack Obama speaks to Nike Employees and other Oregonians at Nike Headquarters May 8, 2015 in Beaverton, Oregon. (Photo: Natalie Behring/Getty Images)

President Barack Obama speaks to Nike Employees and other Oregonians at Nike Headquarters May 8, 2015 in Beaverton, Oregon. (Photo: Natalie Behring/Getty Images)

Obama’s inexplicable mistake is that rather than try to persuade liberal Democrats to support the trade bill, and rather than push Republicans to accept amendments that would tie a major jobs bill to the trade bill to mitigate the economic damage that liberals correctly worry about, Obama joins Republicans in castigating liberal Democrats.

To make matters worse, Obama’s insults against liberal Democrats on trade materially harm the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, who needs to solidify trust from the liberals who distrust the trade bill. Does Clinton want to side with Obama and against the overwhelming majority of Democratic liberals on trade, on an issue where Obama’s attacks against liberals have inflamed many of them? Or does she want to side with the liberals, which could lead to defeat of the trade bill and alienate many of her business supporters?

Obama to this day does not fully understand why Republicans walloped him in the 2010 midterm elections, taking control of the House, and walloped him again in the 2014 midterms, taking control of the Senate, leaving his presidency a prisoner of a Congress that is fully controlled by Republicans.

What happened in 2010 and 2014 is that Obama inflamed conservative and Republican voters to vote in large numbers, while he depressed many liberal and Democratic voters who stayed home on Election Day. Obama’s current contempt for liberals on trade reinforces a trend that leads to the worst election results for Democrats.

For Obama to fire insults against liberals at Nike last Friday only adds insult to insult to injury. Nike is one of the companies most associated with exporting American jobs abroad to low-wage nations that often have abusive practices against workers. Is the president who says liberals don’t know what they are talking about on trade intellectually unaware of this, or callously insensitive to this, or so contemptuous of liberals he simply does not care?
    
Obama should be listening to liberals and working with liberals, not insulting liberals who want more high paying jobs under better conditions for American workers and workers around the world.

At this late date there is still a solution that can help Obama escape from the box he has created for himself, and help America avoid the worst aspects of globalization that could further hurt America.

The president should declassify and make public the terms of the trade talks to convince the nation there is no hidden danger lurking in the secret trade deal, to allow the leading economists and policy advisors of the nation to fully debate and clearly propose the best jobs plans to mitigate any damage.

In particular, President Obama should lead the charge to include in a trade bill the long-discussed and never enacted plan (which many business leaders and Republicans support) to create massive numbers of high wage jobs to rebuild America’s roads, ports, bridges, and schools.

No nation can avoid the economic facts that cause and will continue globalization. And no nation can avoid the economic fact that unfair terms of trade become a job destruction machine migrating jobs from higher wage nations to lower wage nations, creating downward pressure for wages in all nations, while computers and robots replace men and women doing the work of the world.

On trade Obama should be listening to liberals and working with liberals, not insulting liberals who want more high paying jobs under better conditions for American workers and workers around the world.

But he wants the credit, for his Acme-inspired plan, for after all, he is Barack Obama, Suuuper Genius!

“Most people don’t realize that we actually fixed a lot of what was wrong with NAFTA in the course of this,” said Sen. Tom Carper (Del.), one of the few Democrats to stick with Obama on the vote. “We need to be negotiating in the present, in the present tense, and not the past.” (HP)

Mind you, that was a trade deal promoted and passed by DEMOCRATS 22 years ago that was supposed to make everything come up rainbows and unicorns, so pardon me if I scoff…

The Case For Hillary

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

1) After being accused of racism every time they disagree with the President, Americans will enjoy the change of pace by being accused of sexism every time they disagree with the President.

At least we’d get rid of “race relations” being the problem. We’d replace it with “gender relations” and White Males would STILL be the ultimate enemy!! 🙂

2) America’s military would be unstoppable because of three little words that Hillary would bring to the White House, “Flying Monkey Legions!”

Vast Right Wing Conspiracies would be true. 🙂

3) It would be terrible for our first black President to be the worst POTUS of all time and Hillary can take care of that problem.

4) Americans LOVE dynasties! Next it’s Jeb Bush’s turn. Then Chelsea Clinton. THEN Michelle Obama. Then Jenna Bush. Then Malia Obama and so on and so on into infinity. If Americans didn’t like being ruled by royal families, then you’d think there would have been some small indication of it in our history by now, right? 😉

5) We Americans take pride in giving good value for the money that’s paid to us and all those foreign governments that paid off Hillary when she was Secretary of State would REALLY hit the jackpot if she became President.

You wouldn’t have to worry about whether the President was corrupt because you’d already know she is BEFORE you elected her so nothing would be a surprise. The media wouldn’t would have to cover it as a “scandal” because that would just be Hillary being Hillary so nothing out of the ordinary there.

6) She’ll be a fantastic role model for young women who’ll learn that as long as you marry the right man and ride his coattails at every opportunity – you, too, can succeed!

7) Well, if she could handle being Secretary of State with no problems, then obviously…oh wait, she didn’t, did she?

8) Eight more years of complete and utter servile capitulation to a President of the United States should be enough to destroy the whole liberal mainstream media’s reputation for good.

9) If Hillary were to win, then all the people who tell America how incompetent she’ll be will be able to enjoy being proven right about her over and over again just as they have been about Barack Obama.

10) It’s long since time that small children were shown The Vagina Monologues before the White House Easter Egg Roll.

11) Everybody THINKS he can be President, but for hundreds of years, Americans have insisted on choosing Presidents based on “merit” and “accomplishments.” If both Obama and Hillary can be President, then that proves any undeserving idiot can do the job as long as he or she checks the right diversity box.

12) Despite the many credible claims that the money she made was part of a shady bribe, obviously parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in highly speculative commodity market trading proves that Hillary Clinton really is…THE SMARTEST WOMAN ON EARTH!

13) Who could possibly be a better role model for young women in America than a politician who has been endorsed by Larry Flynt AND Hookers for Hillary?

14) Replacing Air Force One with a broomstick would mean tens of millions in savings for the taxpayers!

15) Like duh, she’s an incompetent lying socialist who will drive the final nails in America’s coffin after 8 years of Barack Obama and…oh wait, the goal here IS to destroy America, right? Oh, wow…it’s not? Then maybe she’s NOT the right candidate. (John Hawkins)

Naw, she the only one LEFT according to the Media… 🙂

And imagine how how annoyed the Jihadists will be with a Woman in charge! How dare we do something so vulgar and such a heresy! Maybe we can get her to wear a Burka. 🙂

Imagine what Bill could do for fundraiser for her re-election in 2020! The Hookers For Hillary could become his extended family, especially with Bill around to “entertain” them.

Imagine his School Lunch program. Wieners for everyone!

Think of the possibilities! Maybe even get Monica Lewinsky for a Cabinet “position”.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Live Free Speech or Die

The following haqs NOT been approved by the Social Justice Ministry of Truth and as such you should understand that reading it is Thoughtcrime punishable by derision and shame-mongering by the “tolerant” and “diversity” loving Leftists of America.

We’d rather die than “live” on our knees, begging permission to exercise the right God gave us to say whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please, and in the manner we damn well please. And those who want to shut us up better be equally committed if they want to succeed.

After Garland, they went too far. They showed their hand and their goal, a world where they decide who gets to say what. Imagine the same hysterical social justice drama queens who shriek about microaggressions getting to decide what you can and can’t say. Just understand, you fascist bastards, that if you want to be Nazis, you’ll need to do what the Nazis did and find some armed thugs – yeah, I’m using the word “thugs” whether you like it or not – to come stop us. Tell them to wear Kevlar.

Garland and the sorry aftermath of terrorist apologetics that followed were a warning to every freedom-loving American, as well as an illustration of what one freedom-loving American with training and a Glock can do against the forces of totalitarianism. These jihadi savages tried to silence and intimidate all free Americans. They failed.

Progressives mutter without conviction about how they can’t support violence, but … but … but, in fact, they do support violence. It’s not just their chilling with bomb-planting guys around the neighborhood and free passes for the looters in Ferguson and Baltimore. They support whatever it takes to silence us.

When the Democrats in Congress vote to repeal the First Amendment, or when they babble about outlawing what they label “hate speech,” what these leftist elitists seek to do is to empower a government they control to send armed men to stop us from saying what they have determined we may not say. They can’t stand up to the truth we speak; they have to suppress it or scamper away like roaches caught in the light.

No. You see, we aren’t giving up our right of free speech or, for that matter, any other rights you leftist schmucks deem inconvenient.

Those miserable losers in Garland weren’t just a couple of carcasses. Shot down in the street by a free American who was not intimidated, who was not afraid, who absolutely, positively was not going to back down even when outnumbered and outgunned, their dead bodies are a symbol. They are a symbol of our resolve, proof that we will not surrender, we will not submit, and we will not allow our God-given rights to be stolen from us by anyone, not Seventh Century savages, not Gucci-wearing liberal narcissists, and not twisted social justice warriorettes taking out on the rest of humanity their lingering disappointment that no boy wanted to be seen with them at the prom.

To the gutless and cowardly who would gladly submit to dhimmitude, whether imposed by the jihadi creeps or the progressive cadres, we can say only that we pity you. We pity the fact that every day you have to wake up and look in the mirror and see the face of a man, or woman, or whichever of the 567 other gender identities the freakshow left has manufactured, who is more concerned with personal safety than with personal dignity. Pathetic.

Maybe preserving your life is worth living as a slave, but we reject your craven choice. God did not put us on this Earth to be the minions of some oligarchy of malignant punks, obedient and afraid. You want to clasp a figurative collar around our necks? You better hire a whole bunch of dudes who are a whole a lot better at close quarter combat than those clowns in Garland. And you sure won’t find any tactically proficient future stormtroopers in the local university’s Womyns’ Studies Department or sipping cosmos at some Manhattan cocktail party.

You want to turn America into the fascist state of your dreams? Remember Lexington and Concord? No, you don’t, because you were too busy taking courses in Socialist Tap Dance to squeeze in a history course. So let me break it down for you: You’ll need to fight. And you putzes don’t have the skill or the guts to do it.

The jihadis can’t fight, and you leftists won’t. You progressives thought you could just slowly nibble away at our rights, gnawing off a bit here and a bit there, slowly, so we wouldn’t notice. You thought you could shame, bully, and browbeat us into the figurative cattle cars for carriage off to the giant reeducation camp you wanted to make of our culture. Who needed men in black with guns? We were supposed to willingly, even eagerly, submit. But that’s not going to happen.

Oh, you came so close. For so long, we wrongly imagined that your lies about racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and all the rest were just part of some big misunderstanding. Sure, we knew you were wrong, that we were being falsely accused, but we thought you were at least sincere, if misguided. Except now the mask is off.

Racism? You don’t care. Ask Clarence Thomas about your love of minorities who don’t toe your line.

Sexism? You don’t care. Ask any of Bill Clinton’s victims, who you eagerly sacrificed to save your progressive knight.

Homophobia? Poverty? Corporate abuses? Civil rights? You care nothing about any of them. You leftists just want control. You trash gays who get between you and power, and ignore the gays being murdered in the Middle East because that oppression isn’t useful to you. You keep the poor poor and addicted to your paltry handouts so you can maintain a docile voting bloc. Corporate abuses are terrible right up until the big companies start paying off your candidates. And civil rights? Gimme a break. The First Amendment stopped being useful back in January 2009, so now you’re eager to drown it like Mary Jo Kopechne.

We’re done. You fascists, whether Islamo- or liberal, want to shut us up? Then you better be ready to rumble, because submission isn’t one of the options. We will speak free or die. (Kurt Schlichter)

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden