The Next Big Banned Word

You don’t have to be Frank Luntz or George Lakoff to know that linguistic framing matters a great deal in politics. Sometimes, however, nuance is in the eye of the beholder.

House Republicans unveiled their budget this week, an ambitious plan which balances the budget over 10 years and repeals Obamacare.

One word appears throughout the document, one which New Republic writer Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig believes should be “eliminated” because it subtly divides people into “makers and takers.”

The word? “Taxpayer.”

The word she believes should be used instead? “People.”

So Orwellian it hurts!

The New Republic’s Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig considers “taxpayer” an ideologically weighted term. A Conservative term, so it must therefore be evil.

In the 43-page budget, the word “taxpayer” and its permutations appear 24 times, as often as the word “people.”

It’s worthwhile to compare these usages, because the terms are, in a sense, rival ideas. While “people” designates the broadest possible public as the subject of a political project, “taxpayer” advances a considerably narrower vision—and that’s why we should eliminate it from political rhetoric and punditry.

Well, yes, “taxpayer” is a narrower term because not all people are taxpayers. But somehow that distinction is now deemed discriminatory.

…[T]axpayer terminology also seems to subtly promote the idea that a person’s share in our democratic governance should depend upon their contribution in taxes…Our share in democracy arises not from what we can pay into it, but from the fact that we are persons and personhood confers certain obligations and dues.

In both President Obama’s and the GOP’s budget proposals, the terms “taxpayer” and “taxpayer dollars” or variations thereof are used, referencing government’s responsibility to use the funds wisely and efficiently.

But even the fact that taxpayer dollars came from taxpayers and therefore taxpayers should be happy with how they are used is somehow a touchy issue:

If money owed in taxes is imagined, as in the budget plan … to belong to the taxpayer, then programs operating off of public revenue do seem to have some obligation to correspond to their funders’ consent, and serving the interests of others does seem unfair. But these are all obfuscations brought on by the term.

Bruenig ends with characterizing all who use the term “taxpayer” as “carrying political water.”

Orwell at it’s finest.

“It forgets that its financial resources come from hard-working American taxpayers who wake up every day, go to work, actively grow our economy and create real opportunity.” In other words, Americans’ taxes are parallel with taxpayers’ consent, suggesting that expenditures that do not correspond to an individual’s will are some kind of affront. The report goes on to argue that  food stamps, public housing assistance, and development grants are judged not on whether they achieve improved health and economic outcomes for the recipients or build a stronger community, but on the size of their budgets. It is time these programs focus on core functions and responsibilities, not just on financial resources. In so doing this budget respects hard-working taxpayers who want to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely.

…[A]s the Republican authors of this budget know well, the beneficiaries of welfare programs tend to receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, because they are in most cases low-income. The “taxpayers” this passage has in mind, therefore, don’t seem to be the recipients of these welfare programs, but rather those who imagine that they personally fund them. By this logic, the public is divided neatly into makers and takers, to borrow the parlance of last election’s Republicans…

 

…Public revenue is just that: a pool of public money to be used for the good of the public, not 300 million pools of private money each to be used to serve private individuals’ interests. What is in the interest of the public may involve expenditures that can’t be filed in a pay-in-cash-out formula, as the “taxpayer” terminology would suggest.

The she goes on to complain that this “formula” would be bad for kids, roads, utilities, ad nauseum because after all they are a “necessary social function” and “provides for the common good” and if we continue to use the ideologically conservative word “taxpayer” we will in due course steal candy from babies, destroy and neglect our children, old people, roads, bridges,environment etc. Hell will be let loose on earth!

We must ban any hot button conservative-leaning words that remind people where all this “free” money and “necessary social function” comes from.

We just want them to sit back and enjoy the fruits of our Socialist labor and not question where it came from.

Orwell could do no better.

Political Cartoons by Dana Summers
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

The Velvet Glove

Soft Tyranny: What is the purpose of government in America? To protect rights and freedoms? That’s how the nation started. But now government is seen as more of a cross between a nanny and an operations manager.

Not every American adheres to that notion. Enough governments are moving in that direction, however, to make us freedom-lovers more than a little nervous. Consider a trio of recent events moving us from a nation of liberty to a society that is over-governed and over-monitored.

Late last month, the Seattle City Council voted to make it a crime for residents to put too many food scraps into their regular garbage. The law says that regular trash bins can’t be filled with more than 10% of compostable waste, including food and paper products.

On first offense, citizens are punished with a $1 fine. Serial offenders could be fined $50. The whole thing gives new meaning to the dinner-table question: “Are you going to finish that?”

So do they have to eat the extra calories they would have thrown away (thus increase obesity, which the liberal will also get you for) or do you have save it for the poor or leftovers??

Well, don’t save them too long, then you’ll have to throw them out and Mama will be unhappy if it’s “too much”.

Seattle.gov:

In a recent study, Seattle households estimated that about 1/3 of all food scraps they throw out could’ve been avoided. This includes foods that went bad before being eaten and leftovers no one wanted to eat.

That rotten apple isn’t the only thing going into your food and yard waste cart, though. You’re also throwing away all the water, energy and other resources used to grow that apple and get it to your plate. That’s a lot of waste!

You horrible peach of ungrateful shit! How dare you! Mama Government is unhappy with you.

Monthly residential food and yard waste cart rates

Effective April 1, 2014.

Service Level (weekly) Curb or Alley
(per month)
Weight Limit Dimensions
13-gallon (mini-can) $5.15 20 pounds 11″W x 12″D x 27″H
32-gallon $7.75 60 pounds 21″W x 23″D x 40″H
96-gallon $9.90 180 pounds 29″W x 34″D x 46″H
extra yard waste (per bundle) $4.90 60 pounds 4′ x 2′ x 2′

Customers changing their food and yard waste cart size more than once in a twelve month period may incur a $23.80 fee charged to their solid waste account.

Apparently, you get to pay for the privilege of being condescended to by Mama Government. How sweet…

Reuters reports that the law is “one of the toughest mandatory composting efforts in the country” in a city considered “a leader in urban sustainability and recycling efforts.” Which means that the nonsense started there is likely to spread to other urban areas.

Actually, Seattle is the second American city to pass such a law. San Francisco — of course — was the first.

They are also banning plastic bags in California too. It’s a ‘environmentally friendly’ sanctimonious thing to do and it. But we have to start small. You have throw the frog into cold water first, soften him up, before you go for the full boil of Government.

Under SB270, plastic bags will be phased out of checkout counters at large grocery stores and supermarkets such as Wal-Mart and Target starting next summer, and convenience stores and pharmacies in 2016. The law does not apply to bags used for fruits, vegetables or meats, or to shopping bags used at other retailers. It allows grocers to charge a fee of at least 10 cents for using paper bags.

Selective Liberal outrage?

Shoppers leaving a Ralphs supermarket Tuesday in downtown San Diego were divided as they weighed the legislation’s environmental benefits against its costs. San Diego does not ban plastic bags.

“With the amount of waste that we produce, we can try to help out by slightly inconveniencing ourselves,” said Megan Schenfeld, 29, whose arms were full of groceries in plastic bags after leaving reusable bags at home.

Well, she needs to be handcuffed, arrested and fined for her bad behavior don’t you think? 🙂

Robert Troxell, a 69-year-old former newspaper editor, said the fees are more than an inconvenience for retirees living on fixed incomes like him. He shops daily because he has only a small refrigerator in his hotel for low-income seniors.

“It becomes a flat tax on senior citizens,” said Troxell, who lives off social security and other government assistance. “I have not disagreed with Jerry Brown on anything — until this.”(AP)

Environmental jingo-ism or people, which would the liberal choose? 🙂

Several hundred miles south of Puget Sound, drought-weary Californians who are keeping their lawns green or taking too long to wash their cars are being turned in to the authorities by their neighbors.

The Water Police and their little minions of sanctimony, how cute. Can we get some Scarlett Letters made next?

As we noted over the summer, “water officials in Los Angeles will soon offer hangers that residents can ‘slip anonymously around the doorknobs of neighbors whose sprinklers are watering the sidewalk.'” The Golden State has become the land of drought-shaming apps and water cops on the way to becoming the next Great American Dust Bowl.

The drought could have been avoided, as it is entirely man-made. No, we’re not blaming everyday Californians; we blame government policymakers.

We find guilty the “operations managers” at the state and federal levels who have refused to allow water to cost what it would in an open market unobstructed and unsubsidized by government, and who for environmental reasons have cut off water flows to “protect” a 3-inch fish and dumped the water into the ocean.

The Delta Smelt anyone? 🙂

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/of-fish-and-foul/

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

And then there are the nannies in Washington — or more specifically, the nation’s First Nanny, who wants to dictate what every kid eats for lunch at school.

Michelle Obama is afraid that students across the country are consuming too many calories, too much fat and not enough of the right kinds of foods, so she’s been campaigning to be every student’s mom.

The Nation’s Mom! Think Mrs. C, not Mrs G(overnment). There’s no harm in that, after all, it’s for your own good!! 🙂

Instead of packing food that children will actually eat, she’s stuffing lunchboxes with kid-unfriendly green, leafy vegetables and tasteless wheat bread, making sure they don’t consume more than one packet of ketchup per meal.

It’s for your own good dear!

But the National School Lunch Program is both wasteful and, given Seattle’s and San Francisco’s laws, counterproductive.

But that’s what Liberal sanctimony does best.

As Warner Todd Huston observed last month on Breitbart.com, many of the 31 million children who are fed by the program “are throwing away the vegetables, fruits and snacks forced on them by the new federal nutrition standards.”

Better do it the right way or Mama Government will get you for THAT too… 🙂

Sounds like a practice that would run afoul of Seattle’s ordinance. Maybe the operations managers and government nannies need to work a little closer together so there won’t be any conflicts.

No, that’s not a good idea at all. It would be better for everyone if they all stopped trying to engineer society and let us live our lives without interference. (IBD)

But that’s impossible for a Liberal. They are so vastly superior in vision and purpose and they just want you to be like them and be “enlightened” or else they will have put the hammer to your nuts until you do as you are told.

You are a child, they are the adult- at least their minds- and you must be forcefully taught how to behave properly.

They are you “enlightened” Masters, and the sooner you do as you’re told Mama Government will not be cross with you anymore.

Love you, Kiss kiss…now shut up and do as you’re told!

 Are you my mummy? 🙂

154746 600 trick or treat cartoons

Hi Froggie!

According to the Martin-Niemöller-Foundation the text is as follows:[2]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

In the United States, the quotation is more commonly known as:

First they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller was a German pastor and theologian born in Lippstadt, Germany, in 1892. Niemöller was an anti-communist and supported Hitler’s rise to power at first. But when Hitler insisted on the supremacy of the state over religion, Niemöller became disillusioned. He became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler.

He was arrested in 1937 for his crime was “not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement”. He was in a concentration camp until the end of World War II.

First, they came for the smokers.

No one would argue smoking is good for you. But it’s legal; growing tobacco is even subsidized by the government. Yet, when governments started limiting the right of people to smoke in places public and private, non-smokers did nothing. They didn’t like smoke; they’d heard second-hand smoke was dangerous. Why should they allow owners of private establishments to choose whether those establishments allowed people to engage in a legal – in fact, subsidized — activity?

Then, they came to “clean up” the healthcare mess. They would take the sick and poor off our hands. We would no longer have to join together as a community to provide for those who can’t provide for themselves; dear, benevolent government would do this for us. First, with Medicare for the old. Then, with Medicaid for the poor. Then, the definition of poor would expand … and expand … and expand … and nobody would speak up because who wants to come out against the old, the sick and the poor?

And then it wasn’t just the poor. It also was the uninsured. Some were uninsured because they were unemployed. Others because their income level didn’t permit them to buy health insurance. Can’t be for allowing them to just hang there. No convincing evidence they were dying in the streets or were significantly underserved by the healthcare system regardless of their health insurance status. And plenty had the money to buy health insurance and chose not to.

But hey, when you’re a Progressive, and you’ve tried for a half-century to take over health care, who are you to let minor details such as this stand in the way? And when you get your chance – so much disaffection with a spendthrift Republican president that Democrats could grab control of both houses of Congress and both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, you grab that chance and you pass the most sweeping Progressive legislation since the New Deal – Obamacare.

And when the rest of us find we can’t afford our health insurance because of all the new requirements placed on it by our Progressive friends and their enlightened legislation, nobody can do much more than complain. Who defends greedy insurance companies? Who defends faceless corporations when costs finally reach the point where they drop their plans, forcing their employers into the Obamacare system where Progressives have wanted them all along, or even drop their employees?

The secret is the impact is felt gradually. It’s like a boa constrictor. By the time you realize you’re in trouble, it’s too late.

Or the old adage about if you throw a frog in boiling water he’ll jump out immediately. But put him in warm water and turn it up you’ll soon have boiled frog…Yum! 🙂

Hi, Froggie! How’s the Jacuzzi! 🙂

Now, they come for our guns. It’s for our own good. Otherwise, we’ll have more school shootings, such as the terrible incident in Connecticut. Never mind the guns used that day were stolen. We hear about the need Newtown illustrates to limit weapons and ammunition clips that can fire several rounds per minute. We are never reminded the killer at Newtown shot 24 people in 22 minutes. Speed or power of the weapon was not an issue. One person somewhere in that school with a weapon would’ve saved many lives.

But most of us don’t think of those details, and we don’t own guns … particularly the geniuses in Washington who make these decisions. So we don’t complain sufficiently, and the Progressive agenda advances.

They also have come for the rich people. I’m not rich; what do I care if the rich get taxed a little more? Never mind that I might like to be rich one day or that almost certainly a rich person pays my salary. Never mind what it might mean to him paying salaries that his taxes keep going up. He is indefensible. He’s taken more than his fair share. Tax him. And tax him some more. And when that’s not enough, tax the rest of us … but do it in a way we don’t really see it. Not income taxes. Payroll taxes. They’re gone before we even get our checks.

If there’s one thing progressives love it’s a power grab in the name of “doing good,” and the “good” they most often wrap themselves in is “for the children.” When they eventually discover the “good” they sought to accomplish by quashing a little piece of our personal liberty did not come to pass, they never reverse course and retract their government intrusion. Instead, they offer a solution that seizes a little bit more. It’s a never-ending cycle of self-fulfilling prophecies, a Yellow Brick Road that leads to an Emerald Prison of mini-tyrannies populated by a disconnected people who stood by doing nothing because the power government was exerting did not affect them.

But sooner or later government will run out of other people to tax, other things to ban, other choices to regulate and, like a caged tiger, it will turn on the hand that feeds it. It’s its nature.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg doesn’t want his people to be fat. So he tried to ban “sugary beverages larger than 16 ounces” but was rebuffed by a court, at least temporarily. Progressives do not quit, or get deterred, when voters reject their ideas, what chance does a court have?

He’s now going after Styrofoam containers to leave a “better” planet for the children. This will lead to higher costs to restaurants, which will lead to higher prices for customers. Customers will ignore it or blame the restaurants. There’s always another kabuki dance.

What do the non-rich care if taxes were raised on people who were not them? What do those with health insurance care if government enacts a requirement that everyone who doesn’t have it buy health insurance?

Tyranny seldom comes all at once, it comes slowing, incrementally, in small doses cloaked as something else, something good. Each thread appears innocuous and unimportant but is part of a tapestry rarely recognized as what it is until too late.

You may not care about any of the targets progressives are pursuing now or in the near future, but they will run out of things you don’t care about before they run out of will to control. Sooner or later they will come after something you like or do. If you sit by do nothing as the individual liberty of others is continually limited, you’d better hope there are enough people left able and willing to speak up when they get around to you. (Derek Hunter)

Next up your Food. Your Energy (aka “environment”) when will you Boil froggie???

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

Getting Ahead

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Sign found in the toilet, Press here for your money… LOL! 🙂

Straining to find a way to excuse President Obama’s Friday remark that “the private sector is doing fine,” on Monday’s NBC Today, co-host Ann Curry did her best to spin for the White House: “He is right in saying that the private sector is doing better than the public sector, is he not? And so that was his point, that this comment was taken out of context.”

And she is a “journalist”. 🙂

CBS President Les Moonves: “ultimately journalism has changed … partisanship is very much a part of journalism now.” (LA TIMES)

MSNBC Host Hayes on the same panel as Curry: “I also think the word ‘fine’ in that context is like if you fell and gashed your head and you were bleeding and your friend said, ‘Are you okay?’ And you said, ‘I’m fine.’ It means you don’t have to rush me to the emergency room.”

In other words, the economic problems facing the nation are merely a gushing head wound for America. (MRC)

Well, I know I feel better. And We can count on ObamaCare to take care of the gushing head wound right? 🙂

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

Given them an inch and they’ll want MORE!!

MYFOXNY.COM –The board hand-picked by Mayor Michael Bloomberg that must approve his ban of selling large sugar-filled drinks at restaurants might be looking at other targets.The New York City Board of Health showed support for limiting sizes of sugary drinks at a Tuesday meeting in Queens.  They agreed to start the process to formalize the large-drink ban by agreeing to start a six-week public comment period.

At the meeting, some of the members of board said they should be considering other limits on high-calorie foods.

One member, Bruce Vladeck, thinks limiting the sizes for movie theater popcorn should be considered.

“The popcorn isn’t a whole lot better than the soda,” Vladeck said.

Another board member thinks milk drinks should fall under the size limits.

“There are certainly milkshakes and milk-coffee beverages that have monstrous amounts of calories,” said board member Dr. Joel Forman.

Mayor Bloomberg says the drink rules are an attempt to fight obesity in the city.  It would limit food service establishments in the city from serving drinks bigger than 16 ounces but would allow refills.

The New York City Restaurant Association is fighting the proposal and is considering legal action of it goes into effect.

New York City voters oppose 51 – 46 percent Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s proposed ban on the sale of over-sized sugary soft drinks, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday.

Mind you, Popcorn by itself is actually GOOD for you, it’s the butter that isn’t. But don’t tell that to a do-gooder-now-that-the-nose-of-the-800-pound-mafia-gorilla-is-in-the-tent-lets-ban-or control-everything Liberal.
MSNBC’s Donny Deutsch: “We complain politicians don’t take stands, aren’t courageous. God bless this guy. To Nancy’s point, this is no different than tobacco. We solve obesity, we solve the health care problem. We’ve got to do something. So of course, every time you make a revolutionary move, there’s going to be some complaints, ‘Are they overstepping the boundaries?’ I applaud him.”
*********
In the DVD release for HBO’s Game of Thrones, episode 10, show-runners Dave Benioff and D.B. Weiss admit to using the severed head of former president George W. Bush in the scene below. The show-runners statement follows.

“The last head on the left is George Bush. George Bush’s head appears in a couple of beheading scenes. It’s not a choice, it’s not a political statement. We just had to use whatever head we had lying around.” – Dave Benioff & D.B. Weiss

Gee, I wonder if that would work with Obama? But I guess this is what happens after the Liberals assassinated him the last time (The 2006 Movie “Death of a President”) and that didn’t work. 🙂
********

41 percent of liberals don’t like Mormons, up  20 percent form 2007.American National Election Studies (ANES).

The Party of “tolerance” and “fairness” and blamers of “hate”. Got love it.

*****

How can you tell a Liberal is a Hypocrite/Self-Serving/Lying?

Are they still breathing!? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

But anything non-Liberal is evil, racist, misogynistic and bad for you. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Government of The People

When the federal government spends more money than it takes in during a fiscal year, there is a deficit. The deficit turns into the debt when the Treasury Department issues interest-bearing Treasury securities so the government can continue to spend. If the federal government were ever to default on these securities, or not make an interest payment, America’s credit rating would suffer. In this scenario, the economic consequences would be dire for the United States.

In Citizens United Productions’ film Generation Zero, Fox Business analyst Tobin Smith warns, “We wouldn’t be paying down the debt. We would just simply be like the consumer at home who only pays a minimum on their credit card. That’s what we’re talking about, and that begins what I’m calling the financial death spiral.” The start of the financial “death spiral” can be seen in President Obama’s 2012 budget.

According to the president’s budget, interest payments for the national debt will quadruple from $186.9 billion in 2009 to $768.2 billion in 2020. That equals $2,500 for every man, woman, and child to pay off just the interest on our national debt every year. The American taxpayer will be like the Greek King Sisyphus, rolling the (debt) boulder up a mountain only to watch it come tumbling down over and over again. Remember, the $768.2 billion Americans will be paying in 2020 does not bring down our national debt; it just pays off the interest the debt has accrued!

As the Washington Post points out, the interest payments for our national debt will eclipse the spending of all discretionary programs except for defense by 2014. By 2018, interest payments on our national debt will be more expensive than one of the nation’s largest entitlement programs — Medicare. Politically difficult decisions have to be made, but President Obama’s leadership on this important issue is nowhere to be found.

President Obama talked about doing “big things” and making “big changes” during his 2010 State of the Union address, and said, “Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what’s best for the next generation.”

Mr. President, if you believe what you said back in 2010, now is the time to make the tough decisions needed to dig America out of our fiscal black hole. For a leader who was elected on the mantle of change, I find it interesting how content President Obama is with the failing status quo. Unfortunately, it looks like Mr. Obama is more concerned about not angering the big government constituencies that will fund his $1 billion reelection campaign.

America faces a tough and bumpy road ahead. If the Obama administration continues to ignore the problems of irresponsible spending and the soaring interest payments on our $14 trillion national debt, then that road will most certainly lead to a dead end and future generations will be thrown under the bus. To conquer our debt, and the secret entitlement program that pays its interest, we must come together as a country and force our leaders to make the tough decisions. If not, America will become a second-rate power. (DC)

But don’t worry, Washington is taking this seriously. 😦

Especially, the Tax and Spend Liberals.

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

Baby Joseph Update

A Canada court had ruled that under socialized medicine their baby must die in the hospital. Now he’s in the U.S., getting the care his parents, not the bureaucrats, want.

Joseph Maraachli, who’d been set to have his ventilator removed against his parents’ wishes at an Ontario hospital last month, got a tracheotomy Monday morning and is doing well, his family says. The procedure was denied him under a system of medicine that may be coming to a hospital near you courtesy of ObamaCare.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Radycalled it “a sad and difficult case,” according to the London (Ontario) Free Press, and set the time for Joseph’s government-decreed passing “to afford the family adequate time to say their goodbyes.”

The parents won in the end and got to do what THEY wanted to do and not what the state wanted.

But when Obamacare kicks you in the ass where do you go when the State says “No”??

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

And there’s the Obama fund raising trip to Brazil:

While the President refuses to lift the offshore drilling here in the United States, continues to demonize the oil and gas industries, as energy prices continue to rise and as unemployment still hovers around 9 percent, Obama told a group of Brazilian businessmen at a CEO Summit during his trip to South America over the weekend they should begin drilling in their offshore oil reserves so the United States can be a paying customer in the future, adding that the United States would help them do it.

“We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.”

Really?!

Yep, as part of the White House U.S.-Brazil Strategic Energy Dialogue, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and President Obama have developed the Strategic Energy Dialogue, a plan that helps Brazil develop the country’s offshore oil reserves.

The two Presidents also discussed intensified sharing of best practices with respect to the safe and environmentally benign exploitation of offshore oil and gas resources. Brazilian officials will meet with representatives of the U.S. Department of the Interior within two weeks to advance the dialogue on safe offshore oil and gas development. The United States and Brazil will hold workshops on deepwater production technologies and environmental management, the first planned for early October in Rio de Janeiro.

Not only is President Obama going against those in his base who believe offshore drilling is bad for the environment and that the burning of oil contributes to global warming, Obama is blatantly supporting the economic growth of another country while purposely hindering the economic growth of the American economy.

Doc Hastings, Natura Resources Committee Chairman, is not impressed:

“Rather than creating American energy and American jobs, President Obama is in Brazil advocating for deepening the United States’ reliance on foreign energy.”

“The President has clearly learned nothing from recent world events.  He appears to believe the answer is to shift our foreign energy dependence from one part of the world to another.  The real answer is to produce more American energy.  The ‘potential for a new, stable source of energy’ can be found with our own resources here at home.  Resources that the Obama Administration is purposely choosing to keep under lock-and-key.”

Let’s not forget Obama has blocked access to U.S. oil and natural gas production by issuing a moratorium on offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and has revoked onshore leases since taking office. Don’t be fooled when the Administration says they have been working to open up energy resources in the United States as the Administration has only issued three permits allowing for deep water exploration, not drilling.

So much for keeping jobs from going oversees and so much for lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

2009: The U.S. is going to lend billions of dollars to Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, to finance exploration of the huge offshore discovery in Brazil’s Tupi oil field in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro. Brazil’s planning minister confirmed that White House National Security Adviser James Jones met this month with Brazilian officials to talk about the loan. (WSJ)

And guess who has a big interest in a Brazilian Oil Company (Petrobras)….<<drum roll please>>…GEORGE SOROS!!

The Socialist Billionaire who is the money sugar daddy of the Democrats. (That and Public Sector Unions).

He’s good “rich” people.

He also has interest in NPR, Media Matters & The Huffington Post. 🙂

Gee, now that’s not a cynical campaign ploy now is it…. 😦

But don’t worry, we are from the Government and we are here to protect you! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

WE Know Better

Some Liberals are feeling the heat of their spending binge. They have a banned a commercial because they don’t like it.

A new television ad about the U.S. national debt produced by Citizens Against Government Waste has been deemed “too controversial” by major networks including ABC, A&E and The History Channel and will not be shown on those channels. The commercial is a homage to a 1986 ad that was entitled “The Deficit Trials” that was also banned by the major networks. Apparently telling the truth about the national debt is a little too “hot” for the major networks to handle. But perhaps it is time to tell the American people the truth. In 1986, the U.S. national debt was around 2 trillion dollars. Today, it is rapidly approaching 14 trillion dollars. The American Dream is being ripped apart right in front of our eyes, but apparently some of the major networks don’t want the American people to really understand what is going on.

The truth is that the ad does not even have anything in it that should be offensive. The commercial is set in the year 2030, and the main character is a Chinese professor that is seen lecturing his students on the fall of great empires. As images of the United States are shown on a screen behind him, the Chinese professor tells his students the following about the behavior of great empires: “They all make the same mistakes. Turning their backs on the principles that made them great. America tried to spend and tax itself out of a great recession. Enormous so-called “stimulus” spending, massive changes to health care, government takeover of private industries, and crushing debt.”

Perhaps it is what the Chinese Professor says next that is alarming the big television networks: “Of course, we owned most of their debt, so now they work for us”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOpyggmTmeE&feature=player_embedded#!

I think it’s one of the best, most accurate commercials ever. That must be why it threatens liberals.

The Truth always threatens liberals.

 

Super-genius political science professor Charles H. Franklin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison recently gave loud voice to a widely held liberal belief: Ordinary Americans, especially conservative ones, are stupid.

At a conference by the Society of Professional Journalists, alternative newspaper editor Bill Lueders asked Franklin why “the public seemed to vote against its own interests and stated desires, for instance by electing candidates who’ll drive up the deficit with fiscally reckless giveaways to the rich.”

Franklin responded: “I’m not endorsing the American voter. They’re pretty damn stupid.” (Excuse my impertinence, but is there a grammatical glitch in the genius’s formulation?)

First, we should note that Franklin implicitly accepted Lueders’ premise as fact: The voters who claim to be motivated by a passion to end reckless Washington spending had just elected candidates who will be fiscally irresponsible because they support “reckless giveaways to the rich.”

But how smart is it to mischaracterize a policy, misrepresent its likely consequences and ignore other relevant data to arrive at an ideologically preordained conclusion?
Extending Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more would not be a giveaway. We’re not talking about the government’s money, but money earned by individuals. Only leftists believe that all income is the property of the state and that the amount remaining after income taxes is a gift from the government to the individual.

Moreover, the tax rates we’re discussing have been in place since 2003. To extend those rates would not be a cut. To fail to extend them would constitute a tax increase. I suppose “intelligence” doesn’t require the honest use of terminology.

In addition, the premise is overly simplistic because it suggests that extending the Bush rates for the highest income bracket would cost the government revenues dollar for dollar, as if we have a completely static economy. The mentally gifted simply refuse to acknowledge the empirical evidence showing that reductions in marginal income tax rates during the Kennedy years, the Reagan years and the George W. Bush years resulted in increases in revenue. They also fail to factor in the economic truism that tax increases during bad economic times retard growth and thus constitute a drag on tax revenues.

Finally, the premise ignores that voters were rejecting Obama’s big spending across the board and that the extension of the Bush rates would be only one small part of the equation. Those voting out the Democrats were overwhelmingly repudiating Obama’s reckless spending in virtually every other category — save defense. That is, they voted not against their interests, Mr. Lueders and Professor Franklin, but consistent with them.

You might be interested in some other pronouncements by Professor Erudition. One example: In an article in Politico about a year ago, Franklin wrote, “The issue that has dominated the summer and fall, health care reform, will most likely not remain high on voters’ list of the most important problems in 12 months regardless of the outcome of legislation.” Well, exit polls showed that 20 percent of voters believed health care was not only important but the most important issue. Doubtless, a full majority of voters believed it was among the most important problems, even if not the most important.

The liberal intelligentsia’s contempt for the American people is well-established. Franklin’s snarky outburst is little different from then-ABC anchorman Peter Jennings’ statement that American voters had a temper tantrum when they delivered a congressional majority to Republicans in 1994, Obama’s assessment that voters are irrational because they are scared, or the Bush haters bitterly decrying the 2000 and 2004 elections with their observation that red-state voters were “reality-challenged.” And it’s no different from liberals’ perpetual characterization of Republican political figures as stupid, from Reagan to George W. Bush to Sarah Palin.

I’ll tell you what is rather silly; I don’t want to say “stupid.” It’s this repeated assertion that one’s political viewpoint is based on intelligence, when it is far more related to one’s worldview and disposition. For every brilliant, average or unintelligent liberal, I’ll show you a brilliant, average or unintelligent conservative. Ideology is not a function of IQ, and political allegiances and policy preferences are often unrelated to facts.

If you want an example of “stupid” — or at least intellectual negligence — consider the childish willingness on the part of so many intellectuals, on the left and the right, to deify candidate Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Then again, hasn’t it always been axiomatic that “intellectuals” lack common sense? In their minds, Jimmy Carter was going to make the ideal president.

What’s worse, many of them think he did.

Please save us from the intellectuals. (David Limbaugh)

AMEN!

Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez
Happy Black Friday ( until Al Sharpton calls it racist that is). Enjoy the stampede of the greedy. I wonder if any of them are liberals… 🙂

The Infidels

Mark Steyn: Too many people in the free world have internalized Islam’s view of them. A couple of years ago, I visited Guantanamo and subsequently wrote that, if I had to summon up Gitmo in a single image, it would be the brand-new copy of the Koran in each cell: To reassure incoming prisoners that the filthy infidels haven’t touched the sacred book with their unclean hands, the Korans are hung from the walls in pristine, sterilized surgical masks. It’s one thing for Muslims to regard infidels as unclean, but it’s hard to see why it’s in the interests of us infidels to string along with it and thereby validate their bigotry. What does that degree of prostration before their prejudices tell them about us? It’s a problem that Muslims think we’re unclean. It’s a far worse problem that we go along with it.

Take this no-name pastor from an obscure church who was threatening to burn the Koran. He didn’t burn any buildings or women and children. He didn’t even burn a book. He hadn’t actually laid a finger on a Koran, and yet the mere suggestion that he might do so prompted the president of the United States to denounce him, and the secretary of state, and the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, various G7 leaders, and golly, even Angelina Jolie. President Obama has never said a word about honor killings of Muslim women. Secretary Clinton has never said a word about female genital mutilation. General Petraeus has never said a word about the rampant buggery of pre-pubescent boys by Pushtun men in Kandahar. But let an obscure man in Florida so much as raise the possibility that he might disrespect a book – an inanimate object – and the most powerful figures in the Western world feel they have to weigh in.

Aside from all that, this obscure church’s website has been shut down, its insurance policy has been canceled, its mortgage has been called in by its bankers. Why? As Diana West wrote, why was it necessary or even seemly to make this pastor a non-person? Another one of Obama’s famous “teaching moments”? In this case teaching us that Islamic law now applies to all? Only a couple of weeks ago, the president, at his most condescendingly ineffectual, presumed to lecture his moronic subjects about the First Amendment rights of Imam Rauf. Where’s the condescending lecture on Pastor Jones’ First Amendment rights?

When someone destroys a Bible, U.S. government officials don’t line up to attack him. President Obama bowed lower than a fawning maitre d’ before the King of Saudi Arabia, a man whose regime destroys Bibles as a matter of state policy, and a man whose depraved religious police forces schoolgirls fleeing from a burning building back into the flames to die because they’d committed the sin of trying to escape without wearing their head scarves. If you show a representation of Mohammed, European commissioners and foreign ministers line up to denounce you. If you show a representation of Jesus Christ immersed in your own urine, you get a government grant for producing a widely admired work of art. Likewise, if you write a play about Jesus having gay sex with Judas Iscariot.

So just to clarify the ground rules, if you insult Christ, the media report the issue as freedom of expression: A healthy society has to have bold, brave, transgressive artists willing to question and challenge our assumptions, etc. But, if it’s Mohammed, the issue is no longer freedom of expression but the need for “respect” and “sensitivity” toward Islam, and all those bold brave transgressive artists don’t have a thing to say about it.

Maybe Pastor Jones doesn’t have any First Amendment rights. Musing on Koran burning, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer argued:

[Oliver Wendell] Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theater… Why?  Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?

This is a particularly obtuse remark even by the standards of contemporary American jurists. As I’ve said before, the fire-in-a-crowded-theater shtick is the first refuge of the brain-dead. But it’s worth noting the repellent modification Justice Breyer makes to Holmes’ argument: If someone shouts fire in a gaslit Broadway theatre of 1893, people will panic. By definition, panic is an involuntary reaction. If someone threatens to burn a Koran, belligerent Muslims do not panic – they bully, they intimidate, they threaten, they burn and they kill. Those are conscious acts, at least if you take the view that Muslims are as fully human as the rest of us and therefore responsible for their choices. As my colleague Jonah Goldberg points out, Justice Breyer’s remarks seem to assume that Muslims are not fully human.

More importantly, the logic of Breyer’s halfwit intervention is to incentivize violence, and undermine law itself. What he seems to be telling the world is that Americans’ constitutional rights will bend to intimidation. If Koran-burning rates a First Amendment exemption because Muslims are willing to kill over it, maybe Catholics should threaten to kill over the next gay-Jesus play, and Broadway could have its First Amendment rights reined in. Maybe the next time Janeane Garafolo goes on MSNBC and calls Obama’s opponents racists, the Tea Partiers should rampage around town and NBC’s free-speech rights would be withdrawn.
Meanwhile, in smaller ways, Islamic intimidation continues. One reason why I am skeptical that the Internet will prove the great beacon of liberty on our darkening planet is because most of the anonymous entities that make it happen are run by people marinated in jelly-spined political correctness. In Canada, an ISP called Bluehost knocked Marginalized Action Dinosaur off the air in response to a complaint by Asad Raza, a laughably litigious doctor in Brampton, Ontario. Had his name been Gordy McHoser, I doubt even the nancy boys at Bluehost would have given him the time of day. A similar fate briefly befell our old pal the Binksmeister at FreeMarkSteyn.com: In other words, a website set up to protest Islamic legal jihad was shut down by the same phenomenon. In America, The New York Times  has already proposed giving “some government commission” control over Google’s search algorithm; the City of Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence was adopted and the Constitution signed, is now so removed from the spirit of the First Amendment that it’s demanding bloggers pay a $300 “privilege” license for expressing their opinions online. The statists grow ever more comfortable in discussing openly the government management of your computer. But, even if they don’t formally take it over, look at the people who run publishing houses, movie studios, schools and universities, and ask yourself whether you really want to bet the future on the commitment to free speech of those who run ISPs. SteynOnline, for example, is already banned by the Internet gatekeepers from the computers at both Marriott Hotels and Toronto Airport.

But forget about notorious rightwing hatemongers like me. Look at how liberal progressives protect their own. Do you remember a lady called Molly Norris? She’s the dopey Seattle cartoonist who cooked up “Everybody Draws Mohammed” Day, and then, when she realized what she’d stumbled into, tried to back out of it. I regard Miss Norris as (to rewrite Stalin) a useless idiot, and she wrote to Mark’s Mailbox to object. I stand by what I wrote then, especially the bit about her crappy peace-sign T-shirt. Now The Seattle Weekly informs us:

You may have noticed that Molly Norris’ comic is not in the paper this week. That’s because there is no more Molly.

On the advice of the FBI, she’s been forced to go into hiding. If you want to measure the decline in western civilization’s sense of self-preservation, go back to Valentine’s Day 1989, get out the Fleet Street reports on the Salman Rushdie fatwa, and read the outrage of his fellow London literati at what was being done to one of the mainstays of the Hampstead dinner-party circuit. Then compare it with the feeble passivity of Molly Norris’ own colleagues at an American cartoonist being forced to abandon her life: “There is no more Molly”? That’s all the gutless pussies of The Seattle Weekly can say? As James Taranto notes in The Wall Street Journal, even much sought-after Ramadan-banquet constitutional scholar Barack Obama is remarkably silent:

Now Molly Norris, an American citizen, is forced into hiding because she exercised her right to free speech. Will President Obama say a word on her behalf? Does he believe in the First Amendment for anyone other than Muslims?

Unlikely, since he is too busy campaigning to save his ass to care. But what does it say about the backbone of America?

Weak.

Since when can those living in other parts of the world threaten American citizens with impunity?

Now, apparently. And everyone will roll over out of fear.

Who knows? Given his highly selective enthusiasms, you can hardly blame a third of Americans for figuring their president must be Muslim. In a way, that’s the least pathetic explanation: The alternative is that he’s just a craven squish. Which is odd considering he is, supposedly, the most powerful man in the world.

Listen to what President Obama, Justice Breyer, General Petraeus, The Seattle Weekly and Bluehost internet services are telling us about where we’re headed. As I said in America Alone, multiculturalism seems to operate to the same even-handedness as the old Cold War joke in which the American tells the Soviet guy that “in my country everyone is free to criticize the President”, and the Soviet guy replies, “Same here. In my country everyone is free to criticize your President.” Under one-way multiculturalism, the Muslim world is free to revere Islam and belittle the west’s inheritance, and, likewise, the western world is free to revere Islam and belittle the west’s inheritance. If one has to choose, on balance Islam’s loathing of other cultures seems psychologically less damaging than western liberals’ loathing of their own.

It is a basic rule of life that if you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. Every time Muslims either commit violence or threaten it, we reward them by capitulating. Indeed, President Obama, Justice Breyer, General Petraeus, and all the rest are now telling Islam, you don’t have to kill anyone, you don’t even have to threaten to kill anyone. We’ll be your enforcers. We’ll demand that the most footling and insignificant of our own citizens submit to the universal jurisdiction of Islam. So Obama and Breyer are now the “good cop” to the crazies’ “bad cop”. Ooh, no, you can’t say anything about Islam, because my friend here gets a little excitable, and you really don’t want to get him worked up. The same people who tell us “Islam is a religion of peace” then turn around and tell us you have to be quiet, you have to shut up because otherwise these guys will go bananas and kill a bunch of people.

While I was in Denmark, one of the usual Islamobozos lit up prematurely in a Copenhagen hotel. Not mine, I’m happy to say. He wound up burning only himself, but his targets were my comrades at the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. I wouldn’t want to upset Justice Breyer by yelling “Fire!” over a smoldering jihadist, but one day even these idiots will get lucky. I didn’t like the Danish Security Police presence at the Copenhagen conference, and I preferred being footloose and fancy-free when I was prowling the more menacing parts of Rosengard across the water in Malmö the following evening. No one should lose his name, his home, his life, his liberty because ideological thugs are too insecure to take a joke. But Molly Norris is merely the latest squishy liberal to learn that, when the chips are down, your fellow lefties won’t be there for you.

Molly Morris:

At the urging of the FBI, Molly Norris, the Seattle-based illustrator and cartoonist whose satirical drawing marking “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” resulted in death threats, global protests and impassioned debate about religion and censorship, has been forced to change her name and abandon her former life as a result of her controversial cartoon.

The news that Morris had, out of concerns for her safety, decided to go into hiding was first reported in the Seattle Weekly today, a paper where Norris’ cartoons had regularly appeared:

The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, “going ghost”: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program — except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab.

Norris originally posted her tongue-in-cheek cartoon announcing May 20 as “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” on her website, which no longer seems to be operating. It was dedicated to the creators of the Comedy Central animated television series “South Park” after one of their episodes was censored for its portrayal of the Islamic prophet.

As expected, Norris’ creation touched a nerve, and her drawing soon became a viral hit on the Internet, posted to a variety of high-profile websites and forwarded in countless e-mails. Soon her fictitious drawing morphed into an actual event as Facebook groups championing the idea popped up and started attracting fans.

With media outlets covering the phenomenon, word of “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” spread across the globe, and the government of Pakistan announced it was suspending the use of Facebook to residents there.

Norris seemed caught off guard by the whirlwind. She removed the original cartoon from her website, took pains to disassociate herself from an actual “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” and pleaded for tolerance.

“I did NOT ‘declare’ May 20 to be ‘Everybody Draw Mohammed Day,'” she said on her website.

“I never started a Facebook page; I never set up any place for people to send drawings to and I never received any drawings,” she continued, adding, “I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this ‘day’ be called off.”

In June, despite her renunciation of the event spawned by her cartoon, Norris was placed on a hit list by Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, an al-Qaida-linked figure who has been tied to the Fort Hood, Texas, massacre as well as the failed bombing in Times Square, the New York Daily News reported. Shortly thereafter, the FBI contacted Norris.

Seattle Weekly: The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, “going ghost”: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She will no longer be publishing cartoons in our paper or in City Arts magazine, where she has been a regular contributor. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program—except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab. It’s all because of the appalling fatwa issued against her this summer, following her infamous “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” cartoon.
We’re hoping the religious bigots go into full and immediate remission, and we wish her the best.

Don’t count on it. We are all Infidels, after all.

I am curious to see what happens when President Obama invites Molly Norris to the White House for a beer (like he did once before with different incident). Oh, Wait…Molly Norris can’t go to the White House for beer because Molly Norris no longer exists; any trace of her has been wiped clean.

It’s too bad that Norris didn’t pick-on Christians. Imagine if, instead of encouraging her fellow cartoonists to draw Muhammad, Norris had implored them to draw Jesus Christ (Bill Maher would have excoriated her, but he’s nuts). Sure, she would have been the subject of a few fiery Sunday sermons, received some nasty letters, and even been the object of some loud protests, but she would still have her life. In fact, there are even those Christians that would have prayed for her, rejoicing that drawing Christ might be the first step in coming to Christ.

Moreover, she may have even become a star in the artistic community, celebrated as a “provocative, post modernist, commentator on contemporary religious life.” But, alas, she chose to throw a punch at Islam and practitioners of the “religion of peace” threatened to kill her.

And the guardians of free speech—those same good folks that expressed such indignation at protesters of the Ground Zero mosque, that would have hailed her as a hero had she pointed her pencil at born-again Christians—have simply shrugged their shoulders and whispered, “what a shame. I knew Molly when.”

“The saga of Molly Norris has elicited hardly any notice from political leaders, elite journalists, and celebrities. Nor has it stirred to action [among] those who claim to represent America’s Islamic community. Nor have I seen anything from Human Rights Watch. The ACLU is actually defending al-Awlaki. At the UN, Islamic countries are pushing to ban criticism of Islam under international law.”

And you could be next. say is that a knock at my door… 🙂