Sowell Decisons

Many people are looking at the recent Supreme Court decisions about ObamaCare and same-sex marriage in terms of whether they think these are good or bad policies. That is certainly a legitimate concern, for both those who favor those policies and those who oppose them.

But there is a deeper and more long-lasting impact of these decisions that raises the question whether we are still living in America, where “we the people” are supposed to decide what kind of society we want, not have our betters impose their notions on us.

The Constitution of the U.S. says that the federal government has only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution — and that all other powers belong either to the states or to the people themselves.

That is the foundation of our freedom, and that is what is being dismantled by both 2012’s and this year’s ObamaCare decisions, as well as by the Supreme Court’s decision imposing a redefinition of marriage.

The 2012 Supreme Court decision declaring ObamaCare constitutional says that the federal government can order individual citizens to buy the kind of insurance the government wants them to buy, regardless of what the citizens themselves prefer.

The Constitution gave the federal government no such power, but the Supreme Court did. It did so by citing the government’s power to tax, even though the ObamaCare law did not claim to be taxing.

This year’s ObamaCare decision likewise ignored the law’s actual words, and decided the decisions of 34 states not to participate in ObamaCare exchanges, even to get federal subsidies, would not prevent those subsidies to be paid anyway to exchanges set up by the federal government itself.

When any branch of government can exercise powers not authorized by either statutes or the Constitution, “we the people” are no longer free citizens but subjects, and our “public servants” are really our public masters. And America is no longer America. The freedom for which whole generations of Americans have fought and died is gradually but increasingly being taken away from us with smooth and slippery words.

This decision makes next year’s choice of the next U.S. president more crucial than ever, because with that office goes the power to nominate justices of the Supreme Court. Democrats have consistently nominated people who shared their social vision and imposed their policy preferences, too often in disregard of the Constitution.

Republicans have complained about it but, when the power of judicial appointment was in the hands of Republican presidents, they have too often appointed justices who participated in the dismantling of the Constitution — and usually for the kinds of social policies preferred by Democrats.

Chief justices appointed by Republicans have made landmark decisions for which there was neither constitutional authority nor either evidence or logic. The first was Earl Warren.

When Chief Justice Warren said that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,” he was within walking distance of an all-black public high school that sent a higher percentage of its graduates on to college than any white public high school in Washington. As far back as 1899, that school’s students scored higher on tests than two of the city’s three white academic public high schools.

Nevertheless, Warren’s unsubstantiated assumption led to years of school busing across the country that was as racially divisive as it was educationally futile.

Chief Justice Warren Burger, also appointed by a Republican president, gave us the “disparate impact” notion that statistical disparities imply discrimination. That notion has created a whole statistical shakedown racket, practiced by government itself and by private race hustlers alike.

And now Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, gives the federal government the power to order us to buy whatever insurance it wants us to buy. With that entering wedge, is there anything they cannot force us to do, regardless of the Constitution?

Can the Republicans — or the country — afford to put another mushy moderate in the White House, who can appoint more mushy moderates to the Supreme Court?

Advertisements

Framing Wars

The left has figured out how to successfully push through its agenda by using one simple tactic: demonizing the right. Even if there is no truth to the cruel labels, the left has figured out they work. Repeat the words “bigot,” “hate,” “sexist” and “intolerant” enough and they will start to stick. It’s known as the “framing war,” and Republicans aren’t very good at it, probably because we’re too nice. We’re the party of Judeo-Christian morality, so calling the opposition names isn’t considered polite. Instead, we naively think we can stick to debating the substance of issues and the truth will win out.

We saw how a very small minority within the left, the gay community – less than three percent of the population – was able to implement same-sex marriage. A small group of radicals labeled anyone who disagreed with their approach as bigots full of hate. They launched a clever ad campaign with glamorous, photoshopped pictures of celebrities in white wearing No H8 stickers on their faces and duct tape over their mouths. The approach worked, and the movement picked up steam. Support for same-sex marriage increased from 27 percent in 1996 to 60 percent this year, culminating in last week’s sweeping Supreme Court decision.

The irony was many of the activists were full of hate for anyone who disagreed with their methods – even libertarians who simply wanted government completely out of marriage. There was no room for compromise or alternative solutions. Christians found themselves on the receiving end of a barrage of profanity. But it didn’t matter, the mantra had already been successfully set, that Christians were full of hate. In the biggest show of irony, the activists brazenly tweeted out profanity using the hashtag #LoveWins toward anyone who disagreed with their methods after the Supreme Court announced its decision.

The left also had some success last week demonizing the right as racist over the Confederate flag controversy. But in reality, the Confederate flag is the legacy of Democrats, right up through recent years, and they should have been held accountable for the racism. Where were conservatives? Too busy apologizing to engage in the framing war.

The latest area the left is attempting to get ahead of the right through demonization is global warming. They’ve tried several sneaky phrases, hoping to get one to stick; the latest is “climate denier.” The right needs to respond aggressively and place an unflattering label on the left where it belongs. Perhaps a phrase like “global warming mythmakers” or “manmade global warming liars,” and use it consistently and often.

For years, when I didn’t feel like engaging in an intellectual debate with someone, I merely responded with a personal attack directed at them, and it virtually always shut them down. Someone accuses me of being racist/sexist/homophobic? Instead of trying to defend myself, I respond back and point out how they are racist/sexist/homophobic. It usually catches them off balance and they end up trying to defend the indefensible, “have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

Part of the problem is the left substantially controls education and the media. Children are constantly bombarded by messages that the right is full of hate and bigots. We have a generation of Millennials who have grown up with this indoctrination. This is why it is even more imperative to counter that message with one equally as effective.

This is no longer the nostalgic era of the late William F. Buckley, Jr., where people only had a few political sources to choose from, such as reading National Review or watching Firing Line. Nowadays, there are thousands if not millions of news sources and people are overwhelmed with information. Have you seen how thin the print version of National Review is today? The right can no longer count on winning the debate with reasoned arguments alone. As we’re preaching to the choir at Tea Party meetings, the left has our children captive in school teaching them we’re haters.

The truth is, the far left does hate the right, so calling the left bigots is no longer a stretch. How many times have you been attacked on Twitter or Facebook with profane language or threats over your right-leaning viewpoints? I’m beginning to lose track of all the people I’ve had to block. The hate is increasing exponentially.

Bill Clinton was considered a genius as president for using the method of “triangulation” to get his agenda implemented. I would argue that Obama is even more of a genius. He successfully brought Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals into the White House, allowing him to accomplish his full left-wing agenda without resorting to the compromise of triangulation with Republicans.

While the right should use the Alinskyite tactic of vilifying your opponent back, they should not engage in Alinsky’s crooked methods, such as lying. A Democrat activist friend of mine told me if he ever went public about all the corruption he’s seen within his party, it would make a huge story. It is another reason we are at a disadvantage.

Yes, Jesus said to turn the other cheek. But he also threw the money changers out of the temple. Conservatives need to stop reacting and start branding the left. Repeat after me: I’m not a progressive because I’m not a hateful, racist, sexist bigot. Why are you? (Townhall)

A Fool and his Freedom are soon Parted

Don’t fall for the ‘marriage equality’ sales pitch. It’s a deception.

Same-sex marriage is a notion that contains within itself the seeds of its own destruction. I doubt many have thought this through, with the ironic exception of the elites who have been pushing the agenda the hardest.

Most people are weary of it all and going along to get along, especially since dissent has become such a socially expensive proposition, almost overnight. That in itself should deeply concern anyone who values freedom of expression.

Sure, true believers scattered across the land really do think the entire project ends with allowing same-sex couples to marry. Most persist in the blind faith that a federal ban on the standard definition of marriage will have no negative effect on family autonomy and privacy. That’s a pipe dream.

The same-sex marriage agenda is more like a magic bullet with a trajectory that will abolish civil marriage for everyone, and in doing so, will embed central planning into American life. And that, my friends, is the whole point of it. Along with Obamacare, net neutrality, and Common Core, genderless marriage is a blueprint for regulating life, particularly family life.

The Rainbow’s Arc

Unintended consequences usually come about when we are ignorant or maybe lazy about a course of action. But we usually crash land after following an arc of logic, which in this case has gone largely undiscerned and unaddressed in the public square.

Americans are in a fog about how marriage equality will lead to more central planning and thought policing. This is partly because the media and Hollywood only provide slogans to regurgitate while academics and judges push politically correct speech codes to obey.

Let’s explore the fallout of that arc of faulty logic. Included below are some 15 of the gaping holes in the “marriage equality” reasoning that Americans have not thought through.

1. The Kids Are Not Alright

In March, six adult children from LGBT households filed amicus briefs opposing genderless marriage: see here, here, and here. You can read testimonials of many such children in a newly released anthology by Robert Oscar Lopez and Rivka Edelman, “Jephthah’s Daughters: Innocent Casualties in the War for Family ‘Equality.’”

Whenever a parent is missing—for whatever reason—a child feels a primal wound. In this respect, parents belong to their children more than children belong to their parents. We ought to recognize that privileges of civil marriage should ultimately exist for children, not for adults. Children have the right to know their origins and not to be treated as commodities. Same-sex parenting—which increasingly involves human trafficking, particularly with artificial reproductive technologies (see number eight)—deliberately deprives a child of a mother and/or a father. The “marriage equality” agenda requires that such children bear that burden alone and repress their primal wound in silence.

2. Love’s Got Nothing to Do with State Interest in Marriage

“Love is love” is an empty slogan when it comes to state interest in marriage. How two people feel about one another is none of the state’s business. The state’s interest is limited to the heterosexual union because that’s the only union that produces the state’s citizenry.

And it still is, whether the union happens traditionally or in a petri dish. Each and every one of us—equally and without exception—only exists through the heterosexual union. In any free and functioning society, there is a state interest in encouraging as much as possible those who sire and bear us to be responsible for raising us.

3. The Infertility Canard

Just as the state has no litmus test for feelings or motives, it has no litmus test for any heterosexual couple who do not produce children because of intent, infertility, or age. Conflating same-sex couples with childless or elderly heterosexual couples seems to be the fallacy of composition: claiming something must be true of the whole because it’s true of some part of the whole.

Sorry, but the heterosexual union, no matter how it takes place, is the only way any citizen exists, including intersex and transgender citizens. So recognizing that union without prejudice remains the only reason for state interest in marriage.

4. Same-Sex Marriage Will Settle Nothing

It’s only the starting point for a glut of philosophically related demands for state recognition and approval of many other types of relationships, including polygamy and incest. This will mark the sudden beginning of an even more sudden end for same-sex marriage, not so much because those other types of relationships prove immoral, but because they serve as exhibits for the argument that all civil marriage—including same-sex marriage—is unsustainable and discriminatory.

5. ‘Marriage Equality’ Opens the Path for ‘Unmarried Equality’

There’s a movement waiting in the wings called “unmarried equality,” which argues that all civil marriage should be abolished because it privileges married people over singles. If same-sex marriage becomes the law of the land, it will set the precedent for abolishing marriage. Far from getting the state out of the marriage business, it will invite the state to regulate all familial relationships, particularly those with children. Once the state doesn’t have to recognize your marriage, it is freer to treat your spouse and children as strangers to you.

6. Transgenderism Is a Big Part of This Package

Americans have not thought through the implications of same-sex marriage and how it is logically a big step to erasing all sex distinctions in law. If we become legally sexless, the implications are vast when it comes to how or whether the state will recognize family relationships such as mother, father, son, or daughter. There’s already a push to eliminate sex identification at birth, which could mean removing sex distinctions on birth certificates. This will seem logical because all gender identity non-discrimination laws already presume that everybody’s sex is something arbitrarily “assigned” to them at birth.

7. It’s an Open Invitation for State Licensing of Parents

If we allow the abolition of sex distinctions and civil marriage—both of which are written into the social DNA of same-sex marriage—we logically allow the state to gain greater control over deciding familial relationships. Civil marriage so far has presumed that a child born into a heterosexual union has the default right to be raised by his biological parents together. How can the presumption of maternity or paternity survive in a legal system that recognizes neither sex distinctions nor a marriage relationship?

The bellwethers are out there. MSNBC anchor Melissa Harris-Perry did a “Forward” spot for the Obama administration in which she stated that all children “belong” to communities, not families. Another friend of the Obama administration, gender legal theorist Martha Fineman, calls for state-subsidized care-giving units to replace marriage and the family.

8. Same-Sex Marriage Commodifies Children

You may think artificial reproductive technologies (ART) are fine as an avenue to obtain children for those unable to conceive. But in the context of genderless marriage, ART ramps up the potential for human trafficking. Check anonymousus.com to read testimonies of grief and loss felt by children who were conceived in this manner. Check the movies “Eggsploitation” and “Breeders” by the Center for Bioethics and Culture to hear stories of the exploitation of women in the industry. There is definitely an element of human bondage in all of this, particularly because human beings are being deliberately separated from their mothers and fathers, in a way that echoes the wounds of slavery’s separations and the search for one’s roots.

9. It Sets a Head-On Collision Course with Freedom of Religion

The handwriting is on the wall. You need only reflect on how a screaming mob managed to conjure up total surrender from Indiana Gov. Mike Pence so he would reject that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Catholic Charities is closing its adoption services where same-sex marriage laws pressure them to reject their church’s teachings about marriage and family. Owners of businesses that serve the wedding industry are being forced to either scrap their consciences or shut their doors. Anti-discrimination lawsuits against churches that don’t perform same-sex marriages will undoubtedly increase.

10. It Sets a Collision Course for Freedom of Speech and Press

Campus speech codes. Social punishment. Firing Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla for discovering his thought crime of privately believing in marriage six years prior. The utter compliance of virtually every big business in America, every media outlet, every pundit who is permitted to have a voice in the public square.

11. It’s Especially On a Collision Course with Freedom of Association

I already mentioned that abolishing civil marriage, along with legal sex distinctions, puts the government in a better position to regulate familial relationships, and probably to license parents. If we think deeply about these things, it’s hard to avoid the fact that freedom of association begins with family autonomy, a place where the state is supposed to leave you alone in your most intimate relationships. It’s hard to see how freedom of association is not affected, especially when PC speech codes have everyone constantly checking their chit chat with neighbors, co-workers, and classmates. At Marquette University, staff were told that any conversation or remarks construed to be against same-sex marriage were to be reported to Human Resources, even if just inadvertently overheard.

12. Same-Sex Kills Privacy by Growing Bureaucracy

With the erosion of family autonomy practically guaranteed by the rainbow arc of same-sex marriage, private life will tend to evaporate, just as it always does in centrally planned societies. Distrust grows because people fear punishment for expressing dissenting views. The emphasis on political correctness in the name of equality, coupled with an ever-growing bureaucracy, is a perfect environment in which to percolate a surveillance society.

13. It’s Meant to Be a Global Agenda

The United States is already punishing countries and threatening to cut off aid if they don’t accept the LGBT agenda. This is especially true of developing countries, in which the whole idea is foreign to over 95 percent of the population. According to a report by Rep. Steve Stockman, corroborated by a Pentagon official, the administration held back critical intelligence from Nigeria which would have aided in locating girls kidnapped by Boko Haram. The new National Security Strategy recently released by the White House makes clear that the LGBT agenda is a global agenda. And it looks a lot like cultural imperialism of the worst kind.

14. It Promises a Monolithic Society of Conformity

In the past year or two, everyone with something to lose by opposing same-sex marriage—with the honorable exception of Eich—seems to have scuttled their principles. Five years ago, the American Psychological Association voted 157-0—that’s right, ZERO—to support genderless marriage. For an excellent assessment of what this sort of conformity means for a free society, read Brendan O’Neill’s article in Spiked, entitled “Gay Marriage: A Case Study in Conformism.” The agenda was imposed by elites, entirely due to a methodical blitzkrieg of programs and enforcement dictated from above. Same-sex marriage simply could not come about without suppressing dissent in all of our institutions.

15. Expect More Severe Punishment for Dissent

If you think the bullying of businesses, churches, and individuals who don’t get with the LGBT program now is bad, it promises to get much worse once codified. Is this really the sort of society you wish to live in? Where expressing an opinion from your heart on faith, family, marriage, relationships, love, or the very nature of reality—is routinely attacked as hate speech? Because that is exactly what you need to expect.

Justice Anthony Kennedy made it very clear in his words of the Windsor decision that any dissent on same-sex marriage was tantamount to animus. It is but a short step from presuming animus to punishing dissent.

So perhaps the biggest question hanging in the air is this: What will the authorities decide to do to dissenters?

Move Forward

Well, now that the Gay Mafia has the Federal Government’s stamp of approval to destroy anyone who gets in their way I think we should turn it up a notch on them.

Polyamory.

Where Multiple Men (or Women) can have multiple wives.

If the definition of marriage that has existed for 10,000 years is on the trash heap of Political Correctness and no longer valid, then is the 1 person and 1 person definition not the next logical step in this ridiculous arms race of hedonism and narcissism?

If marriage is solely the purview of “love” and “commitment” then why is 1 on 1 a limitation? The line we won’t cross.

If 6 guys and 15 women want to be “married” to each other why not allow it?

If a 14 year old wants to marry a 30 year old out of “love and “commitment” is it discrimination to deny them the tenet of marriage?

You broke the tenet of 10,000 years of history so why stop there?

If I want to marry my cat, is it discrimination to prohibit it?

There are no limits, or limitations now.

So I say, we need to start a campaign to legalize Polyamory and Polygamy because anything would be “discrimination”.

Wouldn’t it? 🙂

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it,”  Justice Roberts wrote.

It was about “equality”. So why is polyamory not legal then?

Is “discrimination” ok if it’s not on your ideological agenda?

And there will be no “equality” anyhow. The Leftist control freaks will see to that. But they set the standard that marriage is not strictly defined as it has been for millenia, so who is the number of men and women restricted?

Why can’t I have 15 wives if I and they choose to? Why would I be “discriminated” against? You’re just a “bigot” if you don’t allow it.

Being a single-minded ideologically zealot does have it’s consequences.

Time they paid up.

The game is afoot…

The editorial board of PennLive/The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, Pa. is taking a hardcore stance against those who disagree with the Supreme Court ruling to legalize gay marriage.

“As a result of Friday’s ruling, PennLive/The Patriot-News will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage,” they declared. 

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.

Remember what I said about freedom of speech yesterday…. 🙂

The Supreme Court and the American people at the polls in 2016 need to decide whether this country will respect their First Amendment rights, including their fundamental right to dissent.

Judge Alito shares this anxiety. “Today’s decision … will be used to vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy,” he writes. In particular, he objects to the comparison between bans on same-sex marriage and the bans on interracial marriage that were widespread before the Court overturned them in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. “The implications of this analogy will be exploited by those who are determined to stamp out every vestige of dissent,” he argues.

The Holy Warriors of The Left are far from done with you!

Opposition to their Ideology will not be permitted.

In our age there is no such thing as ‘keeping out of politics.’ All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred and schizophrenia.

 To the past or to the future, to an age when thought is free, from the Age of Big Brother, from the Age of the Thought Police, from a dead man — greetings!- Orwell

Welcome to the Age of Big Brother!

The New Amerika

Welcome, all you sheep to The New America.

New American Flag

To paraphrase Lincoln (but with a modern tweek): “…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall perish from the earth.”

2015 Version: Government of the Government, by the Government, for the Government, shall not perish from this Country.

Welcome, Citizens, to Orwell’s Nightmare.

I pledge allegiance to the New Flag of the Disunited Politically Correct States of Amerika, and to the Socialist Empire for which it stands, one Nation under Government control, indivisible, with no liberty and social justice for only the politically correct.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that Government creates equality, that the people are endowed by their Government with certain human Rights, that among these are Life under Micromanagement, Liberalism and the pursuit of Entitlement.

We the Government of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Disunion, establish Social Justice, insure Political Correctness, provide for all redistribution equally, promote the general Social Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Government to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Empire for the DisUnited States of Amerika. In Political Correctness We Stand.

All Power shall rest with the Government. Period. End of Discussion. All decisions and wishes of Government are final and cannot be challenged under penalty of heresy.

The New Bill of Rights (2015)

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of  religion,and mocking or hindering the free exercise thereof is required and sanctioned until that religion is sanctioned by The Government itself; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; but abridging those who
are not us  is always in the interest of the good of society; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and protest it’s enemies, any assembly otherwise in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” “bigotry” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against ANYONE who
defies us, has exercised “White Privilege”,  and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

2nd Amendment: Repealed.

3rd Since there are no wars (except class & race wars), this is repealed.

4th Repealed, because unless you’re guilty you don’t need any protection and the guilty are not to be protected that’s why they are guilty to begin with.

5th Only the guilty need protection so as long as you are not guilty you don’t need it. And if you are guilty then you aren’t entitled to it anyhow because you’re  a “hater”  or a Thought Criminal and guilty anyhow.

6th In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, Then summary judgement shall rule in favor of the State.

7th Trial by jury shall consist of the State’s mandated jurors and in the cases of “hate” crimes or Thought Crimes the accused is guilty until guilty, especially if they are White.

8th For what the State determines to be a “Hate Crime” or a Thought Crime Excessive bail shall be required, excessive fines imposed,  cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the State at their discretion.

10th  The powers not delegated to the DisUnited States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the US Government only.

The other 16 don’t matter anymore as The Government is the final arbiter of all Elections and Judicial cases anyhow so it doesn’t matter anymore.

“White Privilege” is outlawed.

Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
Class War is Peace.
Fear is Hope.

Big Brother is Watching YOU!

Blackwhite is defined as follows:
“     …this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.     ”—Orwell, 1984

The word is an example of both Newspeak and doublethink. It represents the active process of rewriting the past, control of the past being a vital aspect of the Party’s control over the present.
The ability to blindly believe anything, regardless of its absurdity, can have different causes: respect for authority, fear, indoctrination, even critical laziness or gullibility. Orwell’s blackwhite refers only to that caused by fear, indoctrination, or repression of one’s individual critical thinking (“to know black is white”), rather than caused by laziness or gullibility. A true Party member could automatically, and without thought, expunge any incorrect information and totally replace it with true information from the Party. If properly done, there is no memory or recovery of the Incorrect information that could cause unhappiness to the Party member by committing thoughtcrime. This ability is likened to the total erasure of information only possible in electronic storage.

Welcome, Citizen, to The New Amerika. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Black Market

Can you even use “black market” these days without being a racist? 🙂

Kids Create Salt Black Markets in Cafeterias Due to Michelle Obama’s Lunch Rules

AP

School kids around the country are tweeting rather unfortunate pictures of the meals they’re being served at lunchtime, and thanking first lady and healthy school food advocate Michelle Obama for their bowls of mush and mystery proteins. The tweets, which have carried the not-so-subtle #ThanksMichelleObama hashtag, were being sent out at a rate of 40 per minute (WP  11/2014)

School administrators testify to Congress on ‘unintended consequences’ of the law

BY:  Elizabeth Harrington (current)

Then the Democrats want to run every other aspect of your life, including what you can think.

Thank you Mr and Mrs. Big Brother.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

That Iranian Nuke Deal, The SitCom

Wanna know how that Nuke Deal with Iran is going? How well Obama and Kerry have “handled” it?

Ralph Kramden or Homer Simpson could have done a better job.

It doesn’t seem to matter what they do.
Obama’s going to go ahead with a meaningless treaty, regardless because that is The Agenda and like a bull in  China (or Iranian) shop he doesn’t care what the Iranians are actually doing it’s what HE’S doing that matters.

At least the Iranian lawmakers got to read the bill before they voted on it. How progressive of them!!

With some lawmakers chanting “Death to the America,” Iran’s parliament voted Sunday to ban access to military sites, documents and scientists as part of a future deal with world powers over its contested nuclear program.

The bill, if approved into law, could complicate the ongoing talks in Vienna between Iran and the six-nation group — the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany — as they face a self-imposed June 30 deadline. The talks are focused on reaching a final accord that curbs Iran’s nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions.

Of 213 lawmakers present on Sunday, 199 voted in favor of the bill, which also demands the complete lifting of all sanctions against Iran as part of any final nuclear accord. The bill must be ratified by the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog, to become a law.

The terms stipulated in the bill allow for international inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, but forbid any inspections of military facilities.

Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani read the bill aloud in a session broadcast live on state radio. It states in part, “The International Atomic Energy Agency, within the framework of the safeguard agreement, is allowed to carry out conventional inspections of nuclear sites.”

However it concludes that “access to military, security and sensitive non-nuclear sites, as well as documents and scientists, is forbidden.”

Mind you, this comes from the Israelis so Obama, the Agenda Anti-Semite will ignore it and just carry on because it’s WHAT HE WANTS that matters.

So what if it pointless, useless, and totally ridiculous he got it done when no one else could so that’s a success!!

You get Nukes, I get the Credit for a Deal. It’s a Win-Win!

America, What a Country…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy