Victims of a Bullied Justice

The IRS Can NOW Enter Through The Rear

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

What do you know it’s a TAX!

2009: “That may be, but it’s still a tax increase,” said Stephanopoulos.

“No,” said the president. “That’s not true, George.  The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. 

Stephanopoulos cited Merriam Webster’s Dictionary definition. “Tax — ‘a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'”

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” said the president. “Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition….I absolutely reject that notion” that it’s a tax increase. (ABC News)

Yeah, But Chief Justice Roberts just ruled that it was a TAX. That’s why Obamacare is “Constitutional”, because it’s TAX in the view of the “majority” opinion.

Like he did when Obamacare was being debated, Obama will try to hide from Americans the fact that Obamacare is a tax increase when he is on the stump. But in 2012, he won’t be able to take credit for Obamacare without admitting that it is a tax increase because the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in upholding his law, called him out on it. (Breitbart)

But at least 1700+ companies, mostly unions are exempt because of the waivers passed out like candy to his apparatchiks. Oh happy Days.

Why Roberts did it

By Charles Krauthammer, Thursday, June 28, 1:11 PM

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative colleagues by the administration’s central argument that Obamacare’s individual mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.

That makes congressional power effectively unlimited. Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr. Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating commerce. If government can do that under the commerce clause, what can it not do?

“The Framers . . . gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,” writes Roberts. Otherwise you “undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.”

That’s Roberts, philosophical conservative. But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts, custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary’s arrogation of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held. Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “deferred stable settlement of the issue” by the normal electoral/legislative process.

More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a president.

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

National health care has been a liberal dream for a hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation in decades. Roberts’s concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, regulatory and intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.

Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

So he gave into pressure to be “liked” and to not appear to be a “right wing judicial activist”. Image Politics at it’s finest and darkest.

So like the Republicans in the Debt Ceiling vote they caved into the pressure from the intolerant and partisan media and we all get to be victims of the Bully Pulpit.

Democrats carry out their strategy of trashing the Court as a “corporate dominated arm of the Republican party.” The truth may, in fact be that the Court is dominated easily–not by corporate interests, but by Obama’s imperial presidency and an intolerant mainstream media. 

If Chief Justice Roberts thought he was preserving public trust in the Supreme Court today, he will quickly learn he has done the opposite–not least because Democrats define bipartisanship as complete capitulation. Liberals–still smarting over Bush v. Gore–and conservatives now both have reason to distrust the court and its motives. If that “bipartisanship” is the legacy of the Chief Justice’s apparent switch, it is a bitter bequest. (Breitbart)

Also worth reading: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/chief-justice-roberts-its-not-tax-it-tax-its-law-its-not-unlawful-break-it

He was for it After he was against it. The tortured logic of a bully’s victim.

He’s got Stockholm Syndrome.

And we all get hit with the shrapnel. I wonder if Post Traumatic Roberts Syndrome will be covered by ObamaCare?

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc-ra-cy)- a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected  by the least capable of producing,and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or  succeed,are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of
a diminishing number of producers.

One last thing:  As soon as the law was ruled Constitutional, some members of the DNC showed their class.  A tweet was sent out that read, “It’s Constitutional, bitches!”  That’s class for ya. It’s must be that new “civility” they were talking about.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Truth to Tell

Super-Uber-Liberal (who I have never EVER agreed with on anything she has ever said EVER!) Kirsten Powers writes about the liberal men who have used misogynistic rhetoric without facing the same outrage. Powers notes that “the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC.” 

But don’t worry, the Truth is a merely insignificant distraction to The Agenda of The Left. It’s not like they’ll actually clean up their own house. After all, calling Sarah Palin a dumb Twat and a cunt and many other gross and hateful things is merely “the Truth” in another form to the Left. 🙂

Doublethink: the capacity to believe to completely contradictory things at the same time and believe both are true!

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right…

But good luck getting anyone in the Liberal Media to REALLY push this or get them to act on it.

They can point out their own hypocrisy, it’s a curiosity, but could they ever actually take reform of it for the long term?

NO.

So Ms Powers can speak the actual truth and No one on Left will care.

Because, they won’t change.

It’s just another Leftist telling the truth, but it won’t change anything.

Much like Stephen Chu’s “European” Gas Prices comment. Or Obama comments about wanting to raising gas prices to get people to do what he wants.

Or Raul Emmanuel’s “Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste” it is the truth, but exposing the truth in politics doesn’t necessarily mean anything and especially on the Left it means absolutely NOTHING.

All of Obama’s 2008 pronouncements about his socialist agenda, ignored by the media.

They can tell the real truth and then continue do exactly the same things that they have been doing.

Doublethink is endemic on the Left.

They will just say it and then just move on. They don’t have the capacity for change of behavior. Why would they want to do that? 🙂

The Contraceptive Flap: A FLUKE? Sandra Fluke… 🙂

Although Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee last month that contraception can cost a law student $3,000 over three years and that some of her fellow students could not afford it, a Target store only 3 miles from the law school currently sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for only $9 to people who do not have insurance plans covering contraceptives.

That would make the total cost for birth control pills for a student who decided to use them for all three years of law school just $324.

Also CNS did a report that they could be found within 3 blocks of the Law center for FREE!

So why is the Left so worked up? Because the truth doesn’t matter, what really matters is that they can use her “testimony” and the Limbaugh comments to bash the right’s head in and distract people from the actual truth of the economy and what the Left is REALLY doing.

Distraction is  the Left favorite tactic even for the people on the Left. That’s how you can say the truth and no one on the Left even notices and the people on the Right get all hot, the Left poo-poo’s it as “partisan” and just keeps moving to the Left.

http://www.kfyi.com/pages/jimsharpe.html

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-price-months-supply-birth-control-pills-target-3-miles-georgetown-law

And with that in mind:  The Ghost of Andrew Breitbart Strikes

The Vetting, Part I: Barack’s Love Song To Alinsky

Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects–but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us.

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?” Andrew saw himself in that role—as a guardian protecting Americans from the left’s “objective” loyal scribes.

Andrew wanted to do what the mainstream media would not. First and foremost: Andrew pledged to vet President Barack H. Obama.

Andrew did not want to re-litigate the 2008 election. Nor did he want to let Republicans off the hook. Instead, he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party.

From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president–and his rivals.

We begin with a column Andrew wrote last week in preparation for today’s Big relaunch–a story that should swing the first hammer against the glass wall the mainstream media has built around Barack Obama.
In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama claims that he worried after 9/11 that his name, so similar to that of Osama bin Laden, might harm his political career.

But Obama was not always so worried about misspellings and radical resemblances. He may even have cultivated them as he cast himself as Chicago’s radical champion.

In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago’s South Side.

Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play. 

Recently, veteran Chicago journalist Michael Miner mocked emerging conservative curiosity about the play, along with enduring suspicions about the links between Alinsky and Obama. Writing in the Chicago Reader, Miner described the poster:

Let’s look at the Poster:

It’s red—and that right there, like the darkening water that swirls down Janet Leigh’s drain [in Psycho’s famous shower scene], is plenty suggestive. It touts a play called The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, Alinsky being the notorious community organizer from Chicago who wrote books with titles like Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. On it, fists are raised—meaning insurrection is in the air.

And down at the very bottom, crawling across the poster in small print, it mentions the panel discussions that will follow the Sunday performances. The panelists are that era’s usual “progressive” suspects: Leon Despres, Monsignor Jack Egan, Studs Terkel . . .

And State Senator Barack Obama.

But like his 20 years in the pews of Rev. Jeremiah Wright he was there but he wasn’t listening and never hear a word of it. 🙂

He learned all his Christian values in those pews but he never heard any of the Leftist/Alinsky Liberation Theology for those 20 years! 🙂

And here’s the press release:

Press Release
So, what’s in the play? It truly is a love song to Alinsky. In the first few minutes of the play, Alinsky plays Moses – yes, the Biblical Moses – talking to God. The play glorifies Alinsky stealing food from restaurants and organizing others to do the same, explaining, “I saw it as a practical use of social ecology: you had members of the intellectual community, the hope of the future, eating regularly for six months, staying alive till they could make their contributions to society.”

In an introspective moment, Alinsky rips America: “My country … ‘tis of whatthehell / And justice up a tree … How much can you sell / What’s in it for me.” He grins about manipulating the Christian community to back his programs. He talks in glowing terms about engaging in Chicago politics with former Mayor Kelly. He rips the McCarthy committee, mocking, “Everyone was there, when you think back – Cotton Mather, Hester Prynn, Anne Hutchinson, Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson … Brandeis, Holmes … Gene Debs and the socialists … Huey Long … Imperial Wizards of all stripes … Father Coughlin and his money machine … Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd … and a kicking chorus of sterilized reactionaries singing O Come, All Ye Faithful …”

And Alinsky talks about being the first occupier – shutting down the O’Hare Airport by occupying all the toilet stalls, using chewing gum to “tie up the city, stop all traffic, and the shopping, in the Loop, and let everyone at City Hall know attention must be paid, and maybe we should talk about it.” As Alinsky says, “Students of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your juicy fruit.”

The play finishes with Alinsky announcing he’d rather go to Hell than Heaven. Why? “More comfortable there. You see, all my life I’ve been with the Have-Nots: here you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of money, there you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of virtue. I’d be asking more questions, organizing them. They’re my kind of people – Hell would be Heaven for me.”

That’s The Love Song of Saul Alinsky. It’s radical leftist stuff, and it revels in its radical leftism.

And that’s Barack Obama, our president, on the poster.

This is who Barack Obama was. This was before Barack Obama ran for Congress in 2000—challenging former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush from the left in a daring but unsuccessful bid.

This was also the period just before Barack Obama served with Bill Ayers, from 1999 through 2002 on the board of the Woods Foundation. They gave capital to support the Midwest Academy, a leftist training institute steeped in the doctrines of — you guessed it! — Saul Alinsky, and whose alumni now dominate the Obama administration and its top political allies inside and out of Congress.
Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, described the Midwest Academy as a “crypto-socialist organization.” Yet almost no one has heard of Midwest Academy, because the media does not want you to know that the president is a radical’s radical whose presidency itself is a love song to a socialist “community organizer.”
The reason Newt Gingrich surged in the Republican primary contest in January is that he was attempting to do the press’s job by finding out who the current occupant of the White House actually is. Millions also want to know, but the mainstream media is clearly not planning to vet the President anytime soon. Quite the opposite.

For example, Miner tries to turn Obama’s appearance on the Alinsky panel into a plus for the president:

Obama was on the panel that talked about Alinsky the last Sunday of the play’s run at the Blue Rider Theatre in Pilsen. Neither Pam Dickler, who directed the Terrapin Theatre production, nor Gary Houston, who played Alinsky, can remember a word Obama said. But he impressed them. “You never would have known he was a politician,” says Dickler. “He never said anything at all about himself. He came alone, watched the play, and during the panel discussion was entirely on point and brilliant. That evening I called my father, who’s a political junkie, and told him to watch out for this man, he’s going places.” Houston was just as taken by Obama—though he remembers him arriving in a group.

But is it a good thing to impress the sort of people who show up to laud The Love Song of Saul Alinsky? Here are the other members of the Obama panel:

Leon Despres: Despres knew Saul Alinsky for nearly 50 years, and together they established the modern concept of “community organizing.” Despres worked with secret Communist and Soviet spy Lee Pressman to support strikers at Republic Steel in Chicago in 1937; the strike ended in tragedy when 14 rioting strikers were killed and many wounded in a hail of police bullets.  Despres worked with another Communist Party front, the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, but eventually left because of the “Stalinism” of its leaders. 

Also in 1937, Despres and his wife delivered a suitcase of “clothing” to Leon Trotsky, then hiding out from Stalin’s assassins in Mexico City. Despres and his wife not only met with the exiled Russian Communist, but Despres’s wife sat for a portrait with Trotsky pal and Marxist muralist Diego Rivera while Leon took Rivera’s wife Frida Kahlo to the movies.

Quentin Young: From 1970 until at least 1992, Quentin Young was active in the Communist Party front organization, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights – a group dedicated to outlawing government surveillance of radical organizations.  He was also a member of the Young Communist League. Young, a confidante and physician to Barack Obama, is credited with having heavily influenced the President’s views on healthcare policy.

Timuel Black: An icon of the Chicago left, Black was originally denied officer training because military intelligence claimed he had secretly joined the Communist Party. Black also worked closely with the Socialist Party in the 1950s, becoming president of the local chapter of the Negro American Labor Council, a organization founded by Socialist Party leader A. Phillip Randolph.

In the early ‘60s Black was a leader of the Hyde Park Community Peace Center, where he worked alongside former radical Trotskyist Sydney Lens and the aforementioned Communist Dr. Quentin Young.  Black served as a contributing editor to the Hyde Park/Kenwood Voices, a newspaper run by Communist Party member David S. Canter. By 1970, Timuel Black was serving on the advisory council of the Communist Party controlled Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights.

Timuel Black says he has been friends with domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, “going back to 1968, since long before I knew Barack.” In April 2002, Black, Dohrn and Democratic Socialists of America member Richard Rorty spoke together on a panel entitled “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?” The panel was the first of two in a public gathering jointly sponsored by The Center for Public Intellectuals and the University of Illinois, Chicago. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama spoke together on in the second panel at that gathering. Communist academic Harold Rogers chaired Timuel Black’s unsuccessful campaign for Illinois State Representative.

Studs Terkel: A sponsor of the Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace in 1949, which was arranged by a Communist Party USA front organization known as the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions.

Roberta Lynch: A leading member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and a leader of the radical Marxist New American Movement (NAM).

Are we expected to believe that “Baraka Obama” was a countervailing voice of reason on a panel of radicals?
 
The reason that Obama’s Alinskyite past, and his many appearances in political photography and video from the 1990s, are conspicuously missing from the national dialogue is that State Senator Barack Obama’s reinvention as a reasonable and moderate Democratic politician could not withstand scrutiny of his political life.  

Because the mainstream media did not explore his roots, the American public remains largely ignorant of the degree to which Obama’s work with ACORN and his love of Alinsky were symbolic of his true political will.

If any of the candidates can resist the media, and parlay Newt’s strategy into a nomination, we’ll have the choice between an imperfect but well-known Republican and the real “Baraka” Obama, not the manufactured one the media. prefers.

But don’t expect anyone on the Left or The Mainstream Media (Ministry of Truth) to notice and even if they do, it’s just the work of extremist partisan Republicans so it is to be dismissed like the social significance of Snookie.

But HERE’s what’s really, really important: Republicans HATE WOMEN!  🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Washington Shrugged

What’s your political affiliation?

Republican? Democrat?

Or are you an independent?

Most said ” independent” when we asked people outside my office.

In their new book, “Declaration of Independents,” Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch from Reason say that independents with libertarian politics are on the rise, and they can fix what’s wrong with America. Why? Because everything in our culture is being democratized, and the parts of America free from government control are getting better.

“Citizen journalists” like Andrew Breitbart break stories the major networks would miss or ignore.

Fewer people are jammed into narrow categories of race, sexual preference, or style…we’re becoming a culture of “mutants,” say Gillespie and Welch.

iPhones…Facebook…YouTube…all of these new innovations are designed to give individuals more choices and ways to express themselves.

And people expressing themselves is a great way to be independent. Music and pop culture liberates people all over the world … and constantly pushes forward tolerance and freedom of speech. Former MTV personalities Kurt Loder and Kennedy say a freer culture means freer people.

Government impedes progress. What government controls — education, health care, entitlements — government messes up. What do they all have in common? Too little choice, and too much regulation. (John Stossel)

Video: 41 mins

youtube=http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/0/fvu8XkV7ho0

In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand wrote: “There’s no way to rule innocent men… When there aren’t enough criminals, one declares so many things to be a crime… that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws”

In just one year, Washington’s regulators added 80,000 pages of regulations. Additionally, there are state and county regulations. Even worse, the regulations are ambiguous and subject to change. This is why big business is determined to get in bed with big government: it’s a protection racket, akin to the Mafia demanding a “protection fee” from the shop down the corner. They don’t want to pay that fee, so they make their way into government. After getting in bed with government, once big business gets enough power to use government to its advantage at the expense of the people it will do so. People complain about the symptoms of crony capitalism but always overlook the cause: big government.

 Consider this also: IF you raised taxes on only the “rich” (aka <$200,000 a year) to erase the debt each one of them would have to pay approximately $3.4 million dollars EACH.
And that doesn’t even begin to address the real problem in Washington.
They have a SPENDING PROBLEM, Not a Revenue problem.
Oh, and that Stimulus that cost $787,000,000,000 and was alleged to save 2.3 million jobs…That $393,000 per job “saved or created”. And they were primarily from the democrat apparatchik class of Unions (like the UAW and Teachers) to state and bank workers.
But don’t worry, they know what they are doing…. 😦

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

I’m Laughing at Your Superior Intellect

The NAACP partnered with Media Matters (socialist Billionaire George Soros and others), Think Progress and New Left Media (where two guys pose as “journalism students”) to launch  a website that will specifically publish and monitor “racism and other forms of extremism within the Tea Party movement.”

Media Matters and Think Progress representatives said their content and reporting haven’t changed and that the NAACP approached their organizations seeking only to republish select content they’ve produced. The NAACP’s new website  is aimed specifically at highlighting “racism” in the Tea Party.

But don’t worry, if they can’t find it, they’ll invent it. They have to, it’s their core belief and they can’t possibly be wrong. After all, they are way smarter, more moral, and more sensitive than you can ever dream of being! 🙂

So they can’t possibly be wrong!

One “extremist” button they photographed, “I stand with Arizona”.

EVIL!  PURE EVIL! 🙂

So it’s going to work like this. Tea Partiers are “extremists”. All Tea partiers are Republicans. So all Republicans are “extremists”.

See, doesn’t that just make total sense. 🙂

“It’s called projection,” Media Resource Center’s Andrew Breitbart said. “The alliance of the left, the Think Progress, the Media Matters and the NAACP are projecting onto the Tea Party. The accusations are a projection of who the coordinated, well-funded left is. They are manufacturing the racism. They are the ones who are fomenting the violence, the ones who are the only perpetrators of violence over the last year.”
True. But it’s not like the Media or these nuts care about that.
AP’s Liz Sidoti writes about the extent to which the tea is becoming the “new Grand Old Party.”

Obviously, this is a meme that Democrats hope to exploit to their advantage; take the fringiest elements of the tea party (and yes, as with all movements, there are some) and attempt to portray them as the face of the party as a whole.


Remember yesterday’s scribe about over-generalization to paint your opponents “nuts”  as out of the  mainstream  and your “nuts” as mainstream?
And remember, the AP is supposed to be a news organization, not a propaganda factory. 🙂
Supposed to be.
Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy found 81 percent of registered voters approved of requiring people to produce documents that show they’re in the country legally.

It found that 74 percent believe police should be allowed to detain anyone who’s unable to verify their legal immigration status, and 68 percent say police should be allowed to question anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.

“A nation without borders is not a nation.” -Ronald Reagan

Oh No! More extremists! Someone call the NAACP!! 🙂
Now for a more “mainstream” view 🙂  MSDNC’s Rachael “Mad Cow” Maddow on the ‘end’ of the Iraq War and Obama’s Not-Victory speech…
“I think we shouldn’t get past how remarkable it is, how much the proponents of the Iraq war are getting off easy here.”
“To have in this speech, as combat operations are ending, to have…the President not only not addressing the circumstances in which we went to war, but these kind words for President Bush, describing his “commitment to our security” despite the recklessness with which President Bush discarded that national security  in favor of this war of choice, which only diminished our security, and is responsible, probably, for the Afghanistan war still going on today, for the deaths of people who have died in Afghanistan after the time after which that war would have ended had we not gone to Iraq — not to mention all of the people who died in Iraq.
After finally taking a breath, she continued:
To talk about him having a demonstrated “commitment to our security,” having started this war on the terms on which he started it, I mean, it’s beyond restraint from President Obama and anybody in the pro-Iraq war, pro-Bush camp who doesn’t feel like they’ve been given the greatest political present they never deserved, was not listening to this speech.” (MRC)
But don’t  think they aren’t the extremists. The Tea party and conservatives and anyone who disagrees with them are the radical extremists!
And the Media will be happy to go along with it, because they believe it too.
Happy. Happy. Joy. Joy!
From the Liberal Left  who brought you “Is America Islamophobic?” (TIME Aug 30, 2010)  Here’s the sequel:

These are the smarter than you, better than you, more moral and sensitive, more “mainstream” than you, Liberal Leftists.
Don’t you just feel stupid right now at how bigoted and ignorant you are? 🙂
And the Leftist Huffington Post asks of this cover, “So, the question is, how much more is this desperate-to-stay-in-business “news” publication going to pander to the haters and the far-right crazies as we hurtle through the mid-term sprint?”
Mind you the article is written by a Progressive Liberal. But this cover is supposed to “pander” to the “haters”.
Get it! 🙂
If one is asked to name five defining issues the Republican Party stands for, it would be easy: Lower taxes (for the rich), Pro-business (corporate welfare), Discrimination (gays, blacks, Muslims immigrants, etc.), Family Values (undermining separation of church & State) and a strong defense (dumb wars we can’t afford). I know it can be difficult to dumb down the rhetoric. But, it is better than feeling stupid on Election Day, watching Republicans trick the American people into voting against their own interests.(Wayne Besen, Huffington Post)
Gee, don’t you just feel stupid and ignorant! 🙂
These are the smarter than you, better than you, more moral and sensitive, more “mainstream” than you, Liberal Leftists.
They are your intellectual superiors and you should bow down to their vastly over-your-head superiority. 🙂
Michael Ramirez Cartoon

When Did You Stop Being a Racist!

The Logic Fallacy of ‘The Loaded Question’: A question with a false, disputed, or question-begging presupposition.

A “loaded question”, like a loaded gun, is a dangerous thing. A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is “loaded” with that presumption. The question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.

So, you put the twist on it, Have you stopped being a racist?

NAACP, the civil rights group’s president insists the {tea} party needs to “expel racists from the ranks.”

So when did you become a racist?

I became one simply because I disagree with “the first BLACK PRESIDENT”.

He is not just the President, he’s Black!

And you can’t disagree with him, if you’re white you’re a “Racist”. if your black, you’re an “Uncle Tom” and if your non-white but not black, well, you’re a traitor.

Now if this sounds like Pre-Civil Rights America, you wouldn’t be wrong.

“For more than a year we’ve watched as Tea Party members have called congressmen the N-word, have called congressmen the F-word. We see them carry racist signs and whenever it happens, the membership tries to shirk responsibility,” NAACP President Ben Jealous said in an interview with ABC News. “If the Tea Party wants to be respected and wants to be part of the mainstream in this country, they have to take responsibility.”

You have to stop beating your wife!

“ultra-nationalist and racist factions within the organization.”

“They need to be unequivocal and they need to be responsible and get the bigots out of their organization. It’s that simple,” Jealous added.

None of these accusations have ever been proven, even on tape. But that is not going to stop the logical fallacy of all logic fallacies (though the logic fallacy of  ad hominems usually follows it with the Left).

Benjamin Jealous, President and CEO of NAACP at the organization’s conference in Kansas City describes the Tea Party movement as a direct descendant of the racist White Citizens’ Council. (Southern opponents of racial integration organized white citizens councils to obstruct the implementation of the 1954 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to end school desegregation, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.)

So when are going to be the new Klu Klux Klan? 😦

NAACP Washington D.C. Director Claims Tea Parties are ‘Communists and Nazis’.

But it doesn’t stop there, mind you. Oh no….This from ABC News:

President Obama disparaged al Qaeda and affiliated groups’ willingness to kill Africans in a manner that White House aides say was an argument that the terrorist groups are racist.

Speaking about the Uganda bombings, the president said, “What you’ve seen in some of the statements that have been made by these terrorist organizations is that they do not regard African life as valuable in and of itself.  They see it as a potential place where you can carry out ideological battles that kill innocents without regard to long-term consequences for their short-term tactical gains.”

So Now Al Qaeda is racist. So how long before we get guilt by racist association again?

Remember, during the Health care “debate” Tea Partiers were called “domestic terrorists”.

And this was terrorist attack by the a group of Islamic radicals that the President himself can’t even call terrorist when speaking about the War on Terrorism mind you.

So what about American Life, Mr. President?

As long as you’re a minority and willing to vote for him, you’re in like Flint.

Otherwise, you’re a racist or a traitor to your race. 🙂

Now that’s the way to have a “post-racial” “unified” America!!!

The St. Louis Tea Party reacted by passing its own formal resolution, which reads in part: “We settle our disputes civilly and avoid the gutter tactic of attempting to silence opponents by inflammatory name-calling. . . . The very term ‘racist’ has diminished meaning due to its overuse by political partisans including members of the NAACP.”

This clip of  Civil rights activist, Mike Myers (who is black)  on Hannity is priceless:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzTjjzTMHtU&feature=player_embedded#!

And if you’re Filipino and Female, and a conservative, aka Michelle Malkin…(and this was tamest one I found):

from George Dunn
to writemalkin@gmail.com
date Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:06 PM
subject How Does a Dishonest CUNT Like You Exist?
hide details 7:06 PM (3 hours ago)

You are a true pathetic human being. Sad actually.

George Dunn, P.E.

Update: George Dunn has asked me to take his company name down (which I did), requested that I take down his e-mail (which I will not), and then sent me an “apology” with this laughable comment: “Still, I stand by my statement that the rhetoric being used on both sides of the aisle has ruined the chance to have an honest political debate in this country.”

Yep, the nutball who called me a “c**t” from his work e-mail is moaning about the lost opportunity to “have an honest political debate in this country.”

Ouch. Ow. Stomach hurting from laughing so hard. Ow.

If you want to see the the rest on her blog (be warned) : http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/08/youve-got-hate-mail-liberal-racism-gone-wild/

The Missouri NAACP holds a press conference to get the St Louis Prosecutor to drop charges against two men, one white and one black, who are accused of attacking a black man outside a tea party townhall in August 2009. In this video, the host of the press conference says Kenneth Gladney, the African American victim, is a poster child for Uncle Toms because he works against his race, and was photographed being kissed on the head by a European.

On The Video: “Back in the day, we used to call someone like that, and I want to remind you, uh, when this incident occurred, I was really struck by a front page picture of this guy, which we called, a Negro, I mean that we call him a Negro in the fact that he works for not for our people but against our people. In the old days, we call him an Uncle Tom. I just gotta say that. Here it is, the day after a young brother, a young man, I didn’t mean to call him a brother, but on the front page of the Post Dispatch, ironically, he’s sitting in a wheelchair, being kissed on the forehead, by a European. Now just imagine that as a poster child picture, not working for our people.”

So when did you stop being a Racist? 🙂

Thankfully, the Tea Party movement is not racist or motivated by racism. It is motivated by love of country and all that is good and honest about our proud and diverse nation.

Like President Reagan, Tea Party Americans believe that “the glory of this land has been its capacity for transcending the moral evils of our past.” Isn’t it time we put aside the divisive politics of the past once and for all and celebrate the fact that neither race nor gender is any longer a barrier to achieving success in America – even in achieving the highest office in the land? (Breitbart)

It would be if the left didn’t consider the Nuclear Race Card as the only card in their deck.

But sadly, it is the only card in their deck.

I believe that the NAACP is making a grave mistake in stereotyping a diverse group of Americans who care deeply about their country and who contribute their time, energy and resources to make a difference.

But what do I know, I’m a racist, after all… 🙂