7 Year Rash

Today is the 7th Anniversary of this blog. For a long time this year I considered making this one my last because, quite simply, The Stupid Have Inherited the Earth. Intelligence and Common Sense (let alone <gasp> Logic) are Politically Incorrect. Hell, some Leftists have decreed that just saying “politically incorrect” is Politically Incorrect. 😦

So instead I thought I’d revisit one of my favorites from the last 7 years.

This also goes out the #NeverTrump -ers who are so mindlessly obsessed with hating Donald Trump that they are willing Hillary into the White House.

Hate never felt so Right. 🙂

And a special shout out to the Sabotage Republicans (The Establishment ones and their followers) WHO ALSO want Hillary.

The Generations (and possibly permanent) of damage you want to inflict on what’s LEFT of this country is so short-sighted you deserve her.

It will be YOUR fault.

Agree with me or else!

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

So with that in mind, cast your mindless adherence to January 21, 2012  and this Blog and see yourselves currently in it also.

THE ZOMBIE HOARD

They are just a zombie hoard.

Remorseless. Merciless. Incapable of shame, morals or ethics.

They want want what they want when they want it and because they want it and will do anything to get it. Relentlessly.

And what they want is YOU. You to be either converted or cow-towed to their every whim. To do whatever they want when they want it.

Evidence John King, the CNN Liberal Moderator of the South Carolina Debate. He opens the debate with a salicious question to Gingrich about his “open marriage” and Gingrich blows him to bits for it and the crowd goes wild.

He did this to prove his “courage” to stand up to the evil “right wingers” and puff out his chest that he was “journalist” and was going to bravely confront the issue. Meanwhile, anything remotely damaging to President Obama is ignored with great speed and spin.🙂

2016: Just Like they do with Hillary. The Debate will be set up to show that Trump is grumpy, unstable and mean. The fact that Hillary is a congenital, sociopathica Liar has no bearing on the debates whatsover.

Their will be more Candy Crowley moments than ever.

And the Zombie hoard will eat it up like candy. “Brains…”

“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.- George Orwell.

And their has never been more deceit now than ever in American History and more mindless Zombie Hoards out to make sure “What difference does it make, anyways?”

Rush Limbaugh (who I rarely get a chance to listen to because of my work schedule): Now, let me tell you one thing here, folks: You cannot shame the mainstream media. If any of you are thinking that the media learned a lesson — if any of you believe that the media finally had it handed to ’em, if you believe that the media had their eyes opened and they are fully awake now and they understand what they’re dealing with — forget it. John King is proud of what happened last night. John King is a hero in the Main Street media because he didn’t back down, because he continued to illustrate how it is that the media does really control the agenda. That was a demonstration of the power they hold over every public figure’s head, that they choose to hold like a guillotine. John King… There may even be some jealousy and envy within the journalist ranks (well, not journalists; within the Democrat Party ranks) because John King is a guy that got in Newt’s face, stared him down — and the fact that Newt told him off? It’s a badge of honor. If you are thinking that John King was embarrassed and ran away with his tail tucked between his legs and learned his lesson and it’ll never happen again? Ah, ah, ah, ah. You cannot shame the mainstream media. They are proud of this. They delight in their power to destroy candidates that they don’t like.

And they don’t like anyone who doesn’t cow-tow to them.

2016: They made THEIR Choice. Now it’s you’re Zombie duty to vote for it or else.

“At the end of the day the message to every conservative who hasn’t run for office is: “You want a piece of this? You want some of this? You want Brian Ross hounding you and your ex-wife and then you want me asking you about it on national TV the next night? Come on in. We’re ready.” That’s the message from John King and CNN last night, and do not doubt me on this.”

2016: look at the evidence, every time new “evidence” comes out about Hillary they bury it. Every time Trump even raises his voice or say one less than perfect political phrase they are on it like flies on shit and they stick to it like super glue and blow it up.

mountain

So the alternative is to cow-tow. To live in fear of the Liberal wrath.

2016: To acquiesce. Given in, the Ministry of Truth has the system rigged.

Hell, the Democrats got caught rigging the Primary, blatantly.

No one really cared.

The Zombie Hoard just went, “oh” and moved on. The Media covered it up.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was sacrificed.

End of Story.

#2: Hillary is caught re-handed on the Email Scandal. The FBI even says so. But since Comey has connections to Clinton and doesn’t want to have a mysterious “accident” she is not prosecuted.

Future Hillary Supreme Court Nominee Loretta Lynch, Attorney General and Clinton Cronie refuses to prosecute her.

Other people not connected to Clinton aren’t so lucky.

David_Petraeus

And the reaction from the Zombie Hoard, “Yawn”.

Hillary is still leading in the Polls!

“Brains…”

The Food Police. The TSA. The EPA. The Justice Department. Homeland Security. The FCC.

Because if they can’t make you a zombie, they can at least make you a peasant in fear of your Masters who will not challenge them or not have the power to challenge them.

“[…]you don’t have to be Sun freakin Tzu to know that real fighting isn’t about killing or even hurting the other guy, it’s about scaring him enough to call it a day.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

They’ll just turn your children into zombies instead. 12 years of Grade School and 4 years of College is a lot of Zombie Voodoo time after all. And “getting them while they are young” is entirely within the Zombie Liberal playbook. Make them a zombie before they even know what one is and then make them as immune as possible to any anti-virus and get them addicted to their own Kool-Aid. Feed it to them constantly through the Media and the Internet.

2016: They’ll DEMAND Segregation, “Safe Spaces”, “Diversity” and “Inclusion” mindlessly and will trample Free Speech because they don’t want to be “offended”.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

WAR (Class, Gender, Race, Religion) IS PEACE

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Hell, even white people getting a tan will set the little zombie off…

What it does is illustrate that they can be dealt with. But you can’t beat ’em. They’re not gonna be shamed. They’re not going to be shamed into stopping the coverage of conservatives as they do it. It’s going to continue. No matter what kind of shame you think they suffer in a contest like that — no matter how much money they lose, no matter how many of them get fired, no matter how many magazines or TV stations or newspapers get shut down — they are not gonna change. They are hard-core, leftists”

And as I have said over and over again, they are have no morals or ethics because they are governed not by logic and reason but by emotions, mostly the most basic of primitive emotions, Fear, Lust (for power), anger, jealousy, ENVY, etc. –Raw emotions.

2016: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS!

Which is why when you engage them they sound and act like an immature 5 year old. And as we all know from childhood development the child has to develop a sense of shame by have having boundaries and limitations and consequences. And if they don’t, they will grow up with little to no sense of shame.

disagree

2016: “Microaggressions” anyone?

They are usually called sociopaths. I can call them Liberal Zombies.

2016: And the #Never Trumpers and Establishment RINOs.

Liberals have no shame. They want what they want when they want it because they want it.

2016: And the #Never Trumpers and Establishment RINOs.

“…one of the upsides that isn’t gonna happen is the media saying, “Gosh, we’ve been so mean to these people and so unfair. You know, maybe we ought to start being fair.” That’s not going to happen.

Liberals talk about being “fair” which means you’re being unfair to them and should do what they want.

Liberals talk about “compassion” but it’s to make you feel guilty, not them, and to do what they want.

Liberals will talk about “bi-partisanship” but that just means you have to compromise your principles so they can do what they want.

“Diversity” means you’re evil and need to do what they say to repent for your sins.

2016: “Inclusion” Means you include everything THEY say and do it without hesitation.

They are a remorseless hoard. They want what they want when they want it and on their terms only.

Give them everything they want or they’ll cry, scream, bitch, moan, pout and lash out at you.

2016: “White Privilege” anyone?

That is their primitive zombie hoard mentality. And they want YOU.extremists

“Lies are neither bad nor good. Like a fire they can either keep you warm or burn you to death, depending on how they’re used.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Most people don’t believe something can happen until it already has. That’s not stupidity or weakness, that’s just human nature.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“Often, a school is your best bet-perhaps not for education but certainly for protection from an undead attack.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“Remember; no matter how desperate the situation seems, time spent
thinking clearly is never time wasted.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“I think that most people would rather face the light of a real enemy than the darkness of their imagined fears.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“They feel no fear, why should you?”– Max Brooks

“The zombie may be gone, but the threat lives on.”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

Get rid of one zombie, and 10 more will take it’s place. So you have to be ready to do battle constantly.

Look at 2010. The Democrats suffered the worst defeat in 80 years. Does it look like they learned ANYTHING?

No.

As a matter of fact the zombie hoard is even tighter, even more determined than ever. They want it EVEN MORE.

So if we defeat then in 2012 will they go away?

HELL NO!

2016: They weren’t defeated. Even more hoards joined them. So if they are beat in 2016 will they finally be defeated and go away.

HELL NO!

They will just keep coming back like a remorseless zombie hoard until you are overwhelmed.

Which is why you will have to fight them all of your days, your kids days and their kids days until the infection is wiped out.

But like any good zombie plaque it only takes 1 to re-ignite it and spread it all over again.

And these zombies have Media and Internet outlets! (and Europe!)

“Looking back, I still can’t believe how unprofessional the news media was. So much spin, so few hard facts. All those digestible sound bites from an army of ‘experts’ all contradicting one another, all trying to seem more ‘shocking’ and ‘in-depth’ than the last one. It was all so confusing, nobody seemed to know what to do.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“The only rule that ever made sense to me I learned from a history, not an economics, professor at Wharton. “Fear,” he used to say, “fear is the most valuable commodity in the universe.” That blew me away. “Turn on the TV,” he’d say. “What are you seeing? People selling their products? No. People selling the fear of you having to live without their products.” Fuckin’ A, was he right. Fear of aging, fear of loneliness, fear of poverty, fear of failure. Fear is the most basic emotion we have. Fear is primal. Fear sells.
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

The Democrat Party in a nutshell.

FEAR IS HOPE!

My own personal Fourth Orwellian Precept (which includes WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH).

“If you believe you can accomplish everything by “cramming” at the eleventh hour, by all means, don’t lift a finger now. But you may think twice about beginning to build your ark once it has already started raining”
― Max Brooks, The Zombie Survival Guide

“When I believe in my ability to do something, there is no such word as no.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“. . . show the other side, the one that gets people out of bed the next morning, makes them scratch and scrape and fight for their lives because someone is telling them that they’re going to be okay.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“This is the only time for high ideals because those ideals are all that we have. We aren’t just fighting for our physical survival, but for the survival of our civilization. We don’t have the luxury of old-world pillars. We don’t have a common heritage, we don’t have a millennia of history. All we have are the dreams and promises that bind us together. All we have…is what we want to be.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

“…We were a shaken, broken species, driven to the edge of extinction and grateful only for tomorrow with perhaps a little less suffering than today. Was this the legacy we would leave our children, a level of anxiety and self-doubt not seen since our simian ancestors cowered in the tallest trees? What kind of world would they rebuild? Would they rebuild at all? Could they continue to progress, knowing that they would be powerless to reclaim their future? And what if that future saw another rise of the living dead? Would our descendants rise to meet them in battle, or simply crumple in meek surrender and accept what they believe to be their inevitable extinction? For this alone, we had to reclaim our planet. We had to prove to ourselves that we could do it, and leave that proof as this war’s greatest monument. The long, hard road back to humanity, or the regressive ennui of Earth’s once-proud primates. That was the choice, and it had to be made now.”
― Max Brooks, World War Z: An Oral History Of The Zombie War

The Future is yours. So is living through “The Walking Dead” and “1984” for real.

truth

Patience is a Virtue Lost

Derke Hunter: There’s a reason liberals have been so successful in advancing their agenda in the past few decades. It’s not just electoral victories – they’ve played a part, and it’s easier to make things happen if you win elections. But the main factor in their victories is one thing we conservatives are losing sight of: patience. 

ObamaCare took 90 years and they still want more but are patient.

Political Correctness took 2 generations to condition stupid people to be even stupider.

Socialism is good took generations of indoctrination.

Global Warming has been going on for nearly 100 years.

Liberals are very patient for the long game.

In the time of Twitter breaking news, Tinder, microwaves, On Demand, etc., patience is as dead as detectives wearing Fedoras and calling people “Mac.” But it’s key in politics, and conservatives have forgotten that.

Ronald Reagan – the real man, not the myth created with his name – understood the importance of patience. He almost won the GOP nomination in 1976 but lost to President Gerald Ford. 

Although Ford was no conservative, Reagan didn’t turn on him. He supported him. When Ford lost, that opened the door to Reagan’s victory four years later. Had Reagan refused to support Ford, or actively criticized Ford and hurt him in the 1976 election, there’s a chance 1980 would’ve turned out differently. 

Even as president, Reagan understood the importance of patience. His victories in dealing with Congress and the Soviet Union (not much of a difference there, in many respects) didn’t come immediately. Incrementalism was a key weapon – you take what you can get and keep fighting for the rest. What Reagan didn’t do was throw up his hands when he didn’t get all he wanted, leaving small victories on the table because total victory wasn’t, at that moment, obtainable. 

 

Far too many conservatives have forgotten that political victories take time, even if the loss they’re trying to reverse is still fresh. 

Libertarians are famously inpatient. It’s why, outside of a few court victories, they are mostly irrelevant. I take no pleasure in saying this; the country would be much better off if we were significantly more libertarian. But when there’s a political fight to be had, they sit on the sidelines criticizing both sides rather than putting their weight behind the side moving the ball in the direction they want to go.

The purity of libertarians is to be admired, at least in the sense of ideals. The practical implementation of purity as a guide for conducting politics is not. Far too many oppose actions which would move the country in the direction they want because it doesn’t go far enough. They want it all, and they want it now – and anything short of that is a sell-out. 

Many conservatives have adopted this attitude. 

Liberals have been successful because they’ve adopted the opposite stance. For generations, liberals have sought to seize control over health care in the United States. They haven’t yet, but every move they’re made on health care has pushed them closer to that goal. 

Medicare covers the elderly and disabled; Medicaid covers the poor. Liberals have been fighting to lower the age of Medicare eligibility for decades, but they’ve, thankfully, been blocked. They’ve also been fighting to raise the income eligibility for Medicaid for decades, and they’ve been winning. This left a shrinking middle uncovered by government insurance. Obamacare is changing that.

For all the problems with Obamacare, it’s serving its purpose of crowding out private coverage. It was never designed to be the endgame; it’s an increment. It moves the country closer to a government takeover of health care. That was its purpose; that is their plan. And they waited decades for it.

Conservatives, on the other hand, don’t have that kind of patience. With every new electoral victory, they expect some massive shift in the country immediately, if not sooner.

Sadly, much of liberalism is engrained in our laws, our courts and our culture, so it will take time to uncouple it. 

 

Real conservatives are a small percentage of the Republican Party and Republicans in Congress. Yet many conservatives, particularly in media, think each electoral victory immediately should bring about massive conservative change. When that doesn’t happen, they attack with a ferocity they don’t reserve even for liberals. 

No single election is going to turn the tide back toward constitutionally limited government; no one person elected to office will be as pure as the wind-driven snow in their conservatism. It’s going to be a long slog; there are going to be losses. Losing a battle does not constitute losing a war. But quitting does.

There never will be a “silver bullet” election or candidate; that’s impossible. Many times you have to stop getting worse before you start getting better.

In addition to electoral victories, the courts have to change – that will take time. The culture of dependency has to change – that will take time. 

For all their shunning of Christianity, Democrats have the patience of Job when it comes to their agenda. Republicans, on the other hand, are Veruca Salt. They want a Golden Goose and they want it NOW! 

Veruca ended up going down the garbage chute. If conservatives don’t regain some strategic patience, they’ll suffer the same fate. And the country won’t be far behind…

The Future of America: Debate-able

Matt Walsh: It’s comforting to project all our anger onto politicians. Lord knows, they deserve a fair amount of it. However, the difficult reality is this: America’s biggest problem is its citizens, not its politicians. Indeed, its politicians are a symptom, a reflection, of its people. They may manipulate and coerce and propagandize, but when it comes down to it, in a democratic system, if a bunch of lunatics and scoundrels are in power it’s because the people chose to put them there. The sickness originates, then, with the people. And the people’s sickness is rooted in the soul.

Depressing how ignorant and narcissistic they are, many willfully so.

My mind kept going back to this fact last night as I watched the Democrat debate on CNN. To be honest, I’m not totally sure why I watched it. Clearly, a person must have some serious psychological issues if they elect to spend an evening with Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. It’s like choosing to be mentally water boarded for two and a half hours. Only a troubled man would willingly subject himself to such torment. I’ll be making an appointment with a therapist later today.

That’s why I wasn’t watching. I already have high blood pressure and heart problems I didn’t their help to my grave. Plus, it would just soul-crushingly depressing watch the Liberal Media coddle these nutters and the audience applauding them for it.

But whatever my masochistic motivations, I watched, and although I wasn’t terribly surprised by anything that occurred, I was nonetheless deeply disturbed and grieved. This is what’s become of my country, I kept thinking to myself. This is America. These are mainstream, popular, beloved Democrat politicians participating in a presidential election on national TV, yet from what they’re saying, you’d be excused for assuming they were just a handful of fringe crazies campaigning to be the next leader of some hippy commune in upstate Oregon.

corrupt

There wasn’t a single good or feasible or coherent idea offered at any point from anyone not named Jim Webb. Just hard-left hokum and naked socialism, because that’s precisely what millions of American voters demand.

The want the visceral, gutteral, hatred that they’d been raised on. They didn’t want ideas, they wanted EMOTIONS.

I’m old enough to remember when Democrat politicians in national elections had to pretend to be capitalist and at least vaguely Christian and constitutionalist to get elected. Now, it’s a race to see who can play the most convincing godless commie demagogue.

I started out my voting life as a Democrat. I even voted for Jimmy Carter, to my ultimate shame.

But they don’t make Democrats like, say JFK anymore. They were exterminated.

The Far Left is “centrist” to these loons.

With the frazzled Muppet from Vermont leading the way, all of the candidates (except Jim Webb, who apparently stumbled into the wrong debate) spent the first several minutes complaining about “income inequality.”

Because that is the emotional buzzword of The Party. Forget the facts, especially about the income gap GROWING under Obama…Liberals and Democrats don’t do facts.

This was a theme they’d all return to incessantly throughout the evening, because there’s nothing more exhilarating than listening to old rich white people complain about old rich white people.

The “diversity” of it is hilarious. But it would be a thoughtcrime for that to occur to them so their brains just skip that detail none the wiser.

Bernie Sanders lamented again and again that the “middle class is collapsing,” but never expressed any interest in seeing us poor middle class folk move up and out of the middle class.

Socialism doesn’t have a middle class, by the way. Just Very rich and everyone else whose poor. Talk about “inequality”… But again, that’s facts, and facts don’t matter.

For Sanders and the rest of them, the “middle class” should be all we peons aspire to. Success and wealth ought to be solely possessed by the left wing ruling class. Wealth is evil, you see, so that’s why we should let our great and generous protectors carry the burden.

After all, they are so vastly superior!

Middle Class! Inequality! Greed! Middle Class! Inequality! Greed! I can’t really blame them for shouting socialist catchwords all night. This is what their voters desire. They don’t desire capitalism, because capitalism means opportunity and freedom, and opportunity and freedom mean hard work. Economic freedom is so unpopular among liberals that Bernie Sanders openly disavowed it to the sound of roaring applause. Clinton was hesitant (for now) to fully label herself a socialist, so instead she said she’s a sorta-capitalist who thinks “capitalism has to be saved from itself.” This is another way of calling American people children who need to be rescued by benevolent bureaucrats, but that’s OK because Democrat voters fervently wish to be treated like children. They want their own failures and struggles in life to be the fault of “the rich” and they want a president who will magically make it better.

They want their Mommy Government to make the hurt of life go away.

It’s a bit awkward, of course, because they already voted for a guy who promised to do just that, yet the “income inequality” has only gotten worse. This, as Hillary asserted several times, is still the fault of the Republicans. Even when we had a Democrat president and a Democrat Congress, all of our economic woes could be laid at the feet of Republicans and “the rich.” But not every “the rich.” Just “the rich” who aren’t Democrat politicians, or Democrat donors like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase, or union leaders, or Planned Parenthood executives, or Hollywood liberals, or university administrators, or any other group comprised mainly of wealthy left wingers.

Leftist “rich” = Good. Right-wing “rich”= Evil!

Isn’t Doublethink wonderful… 🙂

Anyway, the fact that the most prominent critics of “the rich” are themselves rich is of no concern to the Democrat voter. Consistency, logic, and sincerity are not priorities to this crew. They just want to be coddled and cuddled and soothed.

Don’t actually make them think. Thinking is too hard. Just let them have their primitive base emotions and leave it at that.

That’s why the candidates pivoted back to “inequality” and mythological, phantom issues like the gender wage gap over and over again, but never once, so far as I can remember, even mentioned the word “liberty” or “freedom.” This is where we are, culturally speaking. Five presidential contenders can spend 150 minutes blabbering on about their supposed principles and plans for America, but never once pretend to be even moderately concerned about protecting and preserving liberty.

And the Democrats watching are obliviously happy.

Why? Because Democrat voters don’t want liberty. It’s really that simple. They want easy answers and free stuff. On the free stuff end of the spectrum, all of the candidates received massive applause when they, often entirely out of nowhere and in response to completely unrelated questions, endorsed making college education free or much cheaper for citizens and non-citizens alike. And not only free college, but free health care, and more paid leave, and a doubled minimum wage.

The Narcissism of a 2 year old spoiled brat in adults. That’s a Democrat.

I felt like I was in fifth grade again watching our class president promise us bi-weekly pizza parties. Even then I knew that kind of pledge was unrealistic and disingenuous. Even then I knew the school couldn’t possible pay for 70 pizza parties if we were going on field trips to the freaking post office because they couldn’t afford to take us to the zoo or the aquarium. Even then I knew you need money for things. I was 10. Democrat voters are adults.

But they absolutely don’t know better and more importantly, DON’T WANT TO know better and will actively fight you to NOT know any better.

They want to feel protected, like a child, by their parent Government, for all the evil people of the world. The Not-We.  (Doctor Who reference).

Naturally, nobody ever explained how a country with $18 trillion of debt and over $127 trillion of unfunded liability might manage to suddenly become Santa Claus for 320 million Americans and illegals.

And they don’t care, either.

Indeed, along with “liberty,” the phrase “national debt” was never uttered. And if they weren’t going to explain how the government would start handing out full ride scholarships, paid vacations, “living wages,” and free medical care to every human being who happens to exist within our borders, they certainly wouldn’t attempt to explain why.

And the sheep don’t care. “The Rich” (the evil one version) will pay for it, naturally.

The idea that college in particular should be free is not only absurd and unworkable but incredibly offensive to any self-sufficient adult (a small minority, I admit). I’ve got news for you, my fellow young people, college isn’t a human right. It’s also not a necessity. I pay a mortgage and support a family of four by myself, with no government handouts, and I do it without a college degree. It is possible. If you can’t afford college — and God knows it’s obscenely expensive and not worth the investment for most people — don’t go. Forge your own path. Think for yourself. Do something different with your life.

But that involves potential for failure and the Liberals never prepared them for that. Hard work, is well, HARD.

It’s much easier to sit back with your iPhone, your Starbucks, and let Mama Government just give you presents all day long.

You really want to drive down college costs? That’s how you do it. You can eliminate your own college expenses by simply choosing not to take on any college expenses. Crazy how that works, isn’t it? But that’s not what liberals want to hear. They want to hear about the crusty old socialist genie who will make free stuff appear out of thin air.

Poof! Free Stuff for everyone!

The gun control portion of the debate was the most instructive. All of the candidates (except Webb, it goes without saying) fiercely and passionately competed over who most opposes the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment. Bernie Sanders was accused — accused! — of being not completely against our Constitutional rights to keep and bare arms, and had to take great pains to assure liberal voters that these were unfounded rumors. It was a scene that would have made Thomas Jefferson weep had he been around to witness it: presidential candidates rushing to distance themselves from the Constitution.

That’s Democrats for ya…

Later, the topic turned to foreign policy, and Hillary was only tentatively and briefly asked about her role in the Benghazi fiasco. While attempting to dodge the question, the moderator interrupted and reminded her that “Americans lost their lives.” Clinton curtly shot back, “I’ll get to that,” and proceeded to explain how her policies in Libya worked out splendidly because the Libyan people were able to hold an election.

And no one missed her non-answer I bet. And no “journalist” did either.

The problem, of course, is threefold: 1) She again callously dismissed the deaths of four Americans, because, put simply, she doesn’t care about any human life that isn’t her own.

Human Life must be part of THE AGENDA in order to matter. This is the “compassionate” and “sensitive” Left at its finest.

2) She forgot to mention the “democratic Libyan government” is now in exile, hiding away on a boat in Tobruck while militias run the country.

The consequences of a Liberal’s actions never matter. The intent was good, and that’s all that natters.

3) The real issue is that Clinton and Obama were running guns through Benghazi to Syrian terrorists. This is what got our ambassador killed, and it’s why both Clinton and Obama lied about it. Obviously, this incredible scandal should be enough to disqualify someone from the presidency and land them in prison for the rest of their lives, but here in America they aren’t even asked about it during a presidential debate, much less prosecuted for it.

wanted

Instead, the candidates were told to name the biggest national security threat we face, and two of the candidates said climate change. These, I remind you, are adults running for president of the United States who believe our greatest enemy is the weather. Islamic State is overseas torturing and decapitating women and children but, according to Bernie Sanders, the real problem is that temperatures get a little balmy in the summertime. God help us.

This moment of sheer dementia was eclipsed only by a question posed later on in the debate. The candidates were asked whether “black lives matter or all lives matter,” and those who answered agreed that only black lives matter. The question alone shows you how far the Democrat Party and the culture as a whole has fallen in just the last few years. During Obama’s first run, you would have been flabbergasted by such an inquiry. Do black lives or all lives matter? What? Huh? Really? Talk about a false dichotomy.

But White People are evil. 🙂 (except the white people on the Democrat President Ticket that is). 🙂

Now you barely bat an eye at the full frontal stupidity of the question or the insanity of the answer. You aren’t in the least bit surprised that Democrat politicians cannot simply affirm the value of all human life without upsetting a significant portion of their base. When “do all lives matters?” becomes a difficult gotcha question in politics, you know things have gone severely off the rails.

Perhaps the most unsettling moment came when Clinton was asked about her decision to commit a serious federal crime by conducting classified business on her private email servers. It should be no surprise that a pathological crook who spent decades intimidating and silencing her husband’s rape victims would think this, in comparison, is rather small potatoes. That’s to be expected. It’s the Democrat voter’s cooperation that’s the real outrage here.

Clinton said the whole thing was a right wing conspiracy and then started babbling about free college tuition. Sanders got on his knees and kissed the feet of Her Highness, insisting that Clinton’s rampant criminality is a distraction. The audience of trained seals burst into applause at the sight of two powerful people agreeing that powerful people shouldn’t be required to obey the law. Then the auditorium nearly exploded in a fit of joy and exuberance at this exchange between Lincoln Chafee, who is a person who apparently exists, and Her Highness:

CHAFEE: … There’s an issue of American credibility out there. So any time someone is running to be our leader, and a world leader, which the American president is, credibility is an issue out there with the world. And we have repair work to be done. I think we need someone that has the best in ethical standards as our next president. That’s how I feel.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?

CLINTON: No.

Her Highness refusing to address her illegal activities was, by far, the most popular response, or non-response, of the night. I felt like I was watching some sort of strange reimagining of a George Orwell book. It was creepy, really.

The Democrat Playbook, and instruction manual is “1984”.

Of course, there were a few other big applause lines, like when Hillary defended the baby killers at Planned Parenthood and when Bernie promised to raise taxes (a promise he repeated 16 times or so). Hillary scored points on several occasions by noting that she has a vagina. When asked how her administration won’t be a third Obama term, the only difference she could highlight is her genitalia. Hillary has made it clear that she’ll bust out the “I’m a woman” card anytime her back is against the wall, and it will always work with her supporters because her supporters are profoundly immature.

I did say that was going to be the ploy, did I not? 🙂 Vote for Obama or you’re a racist. Vote for Hillary or you’re a sexist!

There was one genuinely good line, courtesy of the sore thumb Jim Webb. All of the candidates were asked who they’d consider their number one enemy. Chafee said he was proud to make an enemy of poor coal miners. Clinton said her greatest enemies are not Islamic State or the Iranians, but Republicans. Sanders said something about corporatebankersWallStreetyaddayadda. Webb, the Marine veteran, said his number one enemy would be the Viet Cong soldier who threw a grenade at him, but “he’s not around anymore.”

It was a fantastic moment, particularly in contrast to the fools before him who bragged about fighting with coal miners and Republicans. Webb actually fought with his life on the line and defeated his enemy on the battle field. In a Republican debate, his answer would have brought the house down, as well it should. But in a Democrat debate, it was met with awkward silence, just like the silence that followed Webb’s earlier declaration that all human lives matter.

He was NOT WE. Who let him in?

This is the Democrat Party, ladies and gentlemen. Behold it and weep. Just remember to reserve most of your disgust for the people in the audience or at home who cheered as politicians promised us death, tyranny, and free crap. To give you an idea of how enthusiastic some of these people are, consider this: I offered criticisms of the candidates on Twitter last night and one liberal responded by saying she hopes my children kill themselves (she’s since deleted her account). I got an email from a Hillary fan this morning telling me she’ll “pray” I get leukemia. You’d like to think these reactions are isolated, but they aren’t. It’s pretty common.

All too common. And this, of course, is the vaunted and much bally-hooed “Tolerance” that Liberals go on about incessantly. 🙂

The Democrat Party exists in its current state because this country is infested by evil, fear, stupidity, and hatred. Clinton and Sanders are but manifestations of it. And never forget that they are just that: manifestations. Expressions of the spiritual malady that’s eating this nation alive, not the source or cause of it.

The voter and the politician are, in the end, one and the same, both equally to blame.

Speaking of Orwell, I’m reminded of the last line in “Animal Farm”:

The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

TRUE.

And then there’s the RINO’s running the “opposition”  <snicker>… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

The Land of Hypocrites

California is the land of hypocrites.

And elsewhere, considering the rising star of The Democrats is a full on, no apologies, SOCIALIST!

As I pulled into the parking lot adjacent to my radio station in Los Angeles, I noticed a Mercedes R500 sitting next to me. Between the Mercedes symbol and the R500 label sat a big, fat bumper sticker: “BERNIE SANDERS 2016.”

Ah, bumper sticker liberalism…

No wonder the old joke is: California- The Granola State. What’s not fruits and nuts is flakes!  (yes, that would be politically incorrect). 🙂

The Mercedes R500 retailed at $71,000 back in 2006, when the well-off young gentledriver’s parents presumably purchased it. Now, their kid pulls up to the pricey Equinox gym (sticker price: $160 per month) with a bumper sticker touting the virtues of redistribution of wealth.

Redistribution of OTHER people’s wealth, no doubt.

This is the privileged generation of Americans. They’ve been able to benefit from the free markets of their parents; they can afford to purchase Fine water to sip while running on the world’s highest-end ellipticals, then clean off beneath the rain shower head before heading out to brunch at Gracias Madre. Then, that night, they head off to the LA Memorial Sports Arena to listen to a 73-year-old socialist babble on about the evils of the system that granted them their wealth.

Because the education system is overrun by, guess what, Politically Correct Socialist-leaning Liberals.

That’s why banning the American Flag is a good idea (amongst others).

Saving the Delta Smelt and waste the water entirely.

80% of the water usage in California is for agriculture. So lets limit and fine people watering their lawns to save water that’ll fix the problem!

Don’t think outside the Agenda box.

America has become so wealthy that its citizens now ignore the source of that wealth. “It’s not all about the money” is an easy thing for rich people to say. But ask the billions around the globe living in abject poverty whether trashing a system that guarantees tremendous baseline economic opportunity seems like a great idea.

The Roman Empire, anyone?

But this is what happens when no one teaches young Americans the morality behind the system that guarantees economic opportunity: young Americans decide that “higher morality” dictates the death of that system. Young Americans don’t desire an Xbox and a car — they desperately want a feeling of meaning and belonging, none of which capitalism naturally provides.

Socialism, however, does.

It gives you a buzz, it’s a buzzkill, but at least it gives you a “feel good” moment in between all the guilt, fear,anxiety it’s economics actually create.

A momentary drug high. After it, you need another fix.

The outcome: California. It isn’t just the incoherence of bumper stickers and car brands that makes California the center of American hypocrisy. It’s the fact that Californians routinely embrace more regulation and higher taxes in order to feel that quick boost of self-esteem, and then spend effort and time attempting to avoid those rules. Nannies expect to be paid in cash, because all the same people who voted for higher employer taxes refuse to pay those taxes. Young Californians only use free market Uber after endorsing higher minimum wage and more restrictions on transportation. Californians take massive tax deductions, but only after voting to raise their own income taxes.

As I have said about liberals many times, a lot of what they do is on a “For thee, not me” attitude. So YOU need to do it, to make THEM feel good, but like hell THEY are going to do for you. Hell no!

None of this makes California more livable. Instead, Californians live in a fantasy world of their own making: a socialist utopia with a thriving black market, in which the popularly backed economy fails while individuals strive to avoid it. All of which runs fine, until the day that Bernie Sanders actually closes the loopholes and cracks down on the cheating. Then the Mercedes turns into a Yugo, and the bumper sticker finally lands where it belongs: on a product of socialism rather than free markets. (Ben Shapiro)

Bush Lied! People Died!

Hands Up! Don’t Shoot!

It sorta sounds good. It’s certainly more Politically Correct.

Its certainly less of a buzzkill than $18.5 Trillion in Debt, 93 million unemployed, record poverty, and stagnant economy.

Reality is such a bitch. Choose Socialism.

🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
difference

Extortion From Junk Science

Extortion: In the run-up to the Paris climate talks, poorer nations are agitating for greater reparations from developed nations to pay for their climate “damage.” It’s further confirmation the warming scare is just a shakedown.

Evidence that man’s use of fossil fuels is causing the planet to warm is a shaky proposition, and that’s being charitable. In fact, Earth isn’t even warming. Temperatures have not increased in any appreciable way in almost two decades.

Yet, according to media reports, some poor countries say they’re victims of weather disasters, their residents becoming refugees escaping catastrophe. These nations want the U.S. and other wealthy countries to cough up more than the $100 billion a year that’s already been pledged to them to mitigate global warming.

More specifically, they’re asking for “additional compensation for weather-related disasters as well as a ‘displacement coordination facility’ for refugees,” says USA Today. “And they want all this to be legally binding as part of the larger anticipated Paris accord.”

Of course they do. They know a good racket when then see one. These countries refuse to liberalize their economies based on the successful model that America and other prosperous nations have provided, yet they want what capitalist economies have. Rather than create wealth of their own, they, with the help of Westerners working to tear down free-market capitalism, prefer to appropriate that produced by others.

We’ve noted that the global warming scare is driven by a religious fervor — and has in fact become a faith for some — as well as an urge to destroy capitalism.

There are also elements who want to use climate change as a nightstick to punish developed nations for having successful economies. It’s a way to redistribute wealth on an international rather than national basis.

In the late 1980s — almost 30 years ago — a former Canadian environment minister admitted to the Calgary Herald that it doesn’t “matter if the science of global warming is all phony.” What matters is that climate change provides “the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said. (Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change)

“When everything is evidence of the thing you want to believe, it might be time to stop pretending you’re all about science.”–Ann Althouse

The environment? It’s a convenient facade to hide a political agenda. Anyone who gets in the way is tarred as a denier of science and menace to nature.

Consequently, the threat of being bullied creates fear and allows the scam to move ahead with minimal resistance. The climate talks set for December will just let those behind the warming scare pretend not to do exactly what they are doing.

Almost two years ago (2009), Roy Spencer, a climate scientist with unimpeachable credentials who has never taken research dollars from an oil company, noted on his blog that “the main reason the models produce so much warming depends upon uncertain assumptions regarding how clouds will respond to warming.”

The models, according to Spencer, don’t follow the path of nature but instead use the assumptions the researchers plug in.

“One would think that understanding how the real world works would be a primary concern of climate researchers, but it is not,” wrote Spencer.

“Rather than trying to understand how nature works, climate modelers spend most of their time trying to get the models to better mimic average weather patterns on the Earth and how those patterns change with the seasons.”

More recently, a study found that models have been unable to accurately predict past climate.

“In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study, told the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.

“There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models,” said Dickens, a professor of earth science at Rice University.

Like carmakers, the scientists keep rolling out new models. One that has “a more realistic simulation of the way clouds work” has emerged from Japan, says Patrick Michaels, a former president of the American Association of State Climatologists who now is a fellow at George Mason University.

This “more sophisticated climate model,” Michaels wrote recently on the Cato Institute’s @liberty blog, reduces the amount of expected warming by 25% from earlier models.

The old wisdom that feeding junk into a computer will cause it to spit out junk explains why the public has been hectored about a nonexistent global warming threat for almost 20 years.

Researchers need to be more careful about what they load into their models. Until then, we have no choice but to respectfully consider their work and the political activism that goes with it to be junk science. (IBD)

Agree with me or else!socialism

those dame dirty nukes!

It’s Just Business

 

Have you seen the new Jurassic Park movie, “Jurassic World?”

It had the biggest opening of any movie in history. The movie tells how a reckless biotech company releases dinosaurs that kill its customers. Its tale of heroes vs. villains made me think about how America has changed since our independence, the anniversary of which we celebrate this weekend.

We call the men who fought the British “heroes.” But we no longer consider the British “villains.” We don’t even seem to hate monarchs anymore. Disney princesses and royal babies are all the rage.

Hollywood needs heroes and villains, and over time those roles changed. It was once cowboys vs. Indians, then Americans soldiers vs. Nazis and “Japs,” then Russians, then Arabs, then …

Well, now Hollywood is more careful about whom it calls a villain. But one group is always eligible — businessmen. In movies and on TV, evil corporations routinely dispatch heartless goons to rough up whistleblowers, political activists and average citizens. The new anarchist drama series “Mr. Robot” on USA Network even features a company called “Evil Corp.”

Don’t Hollywood writers realize that abusing customers would be a bad business model? No. They refuse to see that it rarely happens, and when it does it’s unsustainable.

In the real world, instead of killing customers or scheming to keep them poor, companies profit by trying really hard to give us what we want, and they prefer that we stay healthy, if only so that we keep buying their stuff and to limit their insurance liability.

I say, entrepreneurs and scientists are the world’s real heroes. They save and extend lives.

The website ScienceHeroes.com estimates how many lives scientists save. Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, whose synthetic fertilizers made food easier to grow, are credited with saving 2.7 billion lives. Blood researchers Karl Landsteiner and Richard Lewisohn saved more than a billion by making blood transfusions possible.

Others in the site’s top 10 include the creators of water chlorination and vaccines, as well as Norman Borlaug, credited with saving at least a quarter-billion lives for creating more abundant wheat strains and sparking the so-called “Green Revolution.”

Then there are the creators of CPR, AIDS drugs, bypass surgery, pacemakers, dialysis and more, each with millions of lives to their credit.

Weirdly, few monuments honor these life-saving scientists. Instead, politicians celebrate politicians. We get the William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building, George Bush High School and Florida’s President Barack Obama Parkway.

But how many lives did those politicians save? Any? Mostly, they presided over a bureaucracy that imposed taxes and regulations that make it harder to innovate and save lives. What’s heroic about that?

In the movies, anti-business activists like Erin Brockovich are depicted as lifesavers. Brockovich, a hustler for personal injury lawyers, used her ample charm and cleavage to recruit clients who sued Pacific Gas and Electric, claiming the power company gave them cancer.

That was highly unlikely, given that the accused chemical, hexavalent chromium, causes cancer only at much higher doses. PG&E workers, despite being exposed to much more of it, live longer than average.

But Brockovich still got PG&E to pay out over $300 million, of which she got $2 million. That makes her a hero?

Part of the problem is the way our brains have evolved to spot friends and foes. A big, faceless corporation isn’t warm and friendly, but activists have smiling faces and say they want to help us.

Who has time to calculate the number of lives they’ve each saved? Our hearts embrace the ones who sound like they have good intentions but are wary of those who are out for profit.

I wish more people thought like statistician Bjorn Lomborg. Unlike many of his fellow environmentalists, he takes the time to rank the lives saved and the money spent on various projects, and he finds that the ones that inspire the most passion, like slowing global warming, aren’t the ones where lives are most at stake.

Many more lives would be saved if we poured resources into cleaning drinking water or preventing malaria, but those crusades don’t celebrate Hollywood’s heroes or punish the “villains” in business. (John Stossel)

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Housewife of DC From the Arkansas Shore,Madame President

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

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

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

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

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

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

The Clinton family has done pretty much the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hosted by, this guy…

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Hook

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

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

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

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

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

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

See The Watermelon analysis.

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

Watermelon Environmentalist: Behind all the acronyms and the jargon, they say, is a conspiracy to promote a nakedly political aim – anti-big business; anti-free market; pro-tax increases. In short, green on the outside but red on the inside…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now that’s Science, for you. 🙂

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

Global Warming Revealed

The alarmists keep telling us their concern about global warming is all about man’s stewardship of the environment. But we know that’s not true. A United Nations official has now confirmed this.

At a news conference last week in Brussels, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

“We shouldn’t have stupid cars that use liquid fossil fuels”

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” she said.

Referring to a new international treaty environmentalists hope will be adopted at the Paris climate change conference later this year, she added: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

“When we went from the horse and buggy to the internal combustion engine, there was no alarm clock. This transformation is larger than anything we’ve ever done, and an alarm clock is ticking in our faces.”

It’s not much different than having children. You can rear them in an antagonistic environment or in a facilitative one with a good combination of love and discipline. It’s about supporting them, and recognizing achievements and contributions, but also saying, “that’s fantastic but it’s not enough, here’s the next thing.” Honestly, what was my best training for this job? Being a mother.

She’s Big Mother! 🙂

The only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.

Figueres is perhaps the perfect person for the job of transforming “the economic development model” because she’s really never seen it work. “If you look at Ms. Figueres’ Wikipedia page,” notes Cato economist Dan Mitchell: Making the world look at their right hand while they choke developed economies with their left.

“I’m hoping to accelerate what I call the push and pull process,” Figueres told the AP in a phone interview Tuesday from her agency’s secretariat in Bonn, Germany.

Governments act as a pull factor by shaping the policies that promote green technology and help renewable energy sources like solar and wind power compete with the fossil fuels that scientists say contribute to global warming through the release of greenhouse gases.

“But the companies, particularly these very, very high-powered companies that … have the ear of many of the decision-makers and the opinion leaders of different countries, they can act as a push factor,” Figueres said.

Now that’s science at it’s finest!

But like the typically arrogant, narcissistic Liberals she believes she’s some kind of Messiah that will save the world from itself and only the amoral would oppose her.

Slate.com asked her: Some say tackling climate change is utopian?

Would you have said “utopian speech” to Martin Luther King? When you have a vision of where you need to go, it sounds utopian. But when you get to the tipping point, your understanding switches. We’re going to get to the point where we ask how the hell we put up with high carbon for so many years. You thank your lucky stars, because you are seeing this transformation in your lifetime. You are going to tell your children and your grandchildren you saw this whole thing in front of your eyes. (IBD, Slate.com)

She is the light in the Darkness, not the Darkness in the light, so you better do as she says or else.

The Science is Settled. The debate is over. Get over it OR ELSE! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 

 

Think Like a Leftist: Holiday Edition

First off, the very mention of Christmas is exclusionary so I can’t say “Christmas Edition” without being politically incorrect to start with. But I’m sure I will finish strong. 🙂

1. Christmas IS exclusionary and discriminatory. Isn’t everything about a Leftist just want to scream “discriminatory” at the drop of any hat (actually you don’t even need a hat). Christmas discriminates against any one who isn’t a Christian, you evil bastards. So like every -ism that a Leftist can come up with this is just another way that right wing Christians have an unfair advantage and we all know that Leftists are all about “fairness”. 🙂

And they hate “intolerance” and “discrimination” of any kind, under any pretense. 🙂

2. Redistribution Fairness. Redistribution of Wealth and making every mediocre poor is a Leftist Utopia  (look at Cuba). Everyone his the same. Everyone is Equal. Everything is Fair. So, when it comes to Christmas it is n’t fair that some kids get presents and some don’t. Screw the fact that there are charities for this kind of thing, they still don’t get the job done for EVERY child so we should mandate that at least 1 present per child should be given to the Government to be redistributed to those in need (and who vote for Democrats or who will vote for Democrats in the future) just to be “fair”. White people should give 2, just as reperations for slavery. It’s social justice, you now.

We can even open a new branch of The Government, The Bureau of Fairness. Yeah, that’s the ticket!!

Or here’s an even better solution…

3. But the quandary for The Leftist is that Christmas, as configured today, is fundamentally a Capitalist Consumer Fest. A virtual gorging of consumerism. And Leftist hate capitalism! It’s Greedy, it’s dirty, it’s unfair. So they have a problem.

Solution: Let the Government run it! That’s the Leftist solution for everything isn’t it?

You will barred from buying your own gifts and the Government will do it based on that grand and glorious Leftist principle:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Peace and Happiness shall reign on Earth! Fairness to All and to All a Good Night!!

Thus Christmas can finally be fair. It’s just that the poor, the illegal, and Democrat will get everything and those dirty, nasty, greedy right wingers will finally be on the perpetual naughty list and we’ll find a more socially acceptable use for coal– they’ll get it for Christmas presents but be barred from using it for energy production!!

4. And we’ll do away with that Old, Fat, White Christian symbol of Christmas, St. Nick, aka Santa Claus. I mean really, we’re celebrating White People! and The Morbidly Obese! Are you kidding me!

The Morbidly Obese are not “jolly”. They are a health hazard to everyone and should not be held up as a symbol of anything good.

Christmas Candy has to be replaced with Broccoli (because George W. Bush hated broccoli, of course!) 🙂

5. And cutting down a perfectly good tree just to stuff it in your Living room for a few nights, then throw it away! Are you kidding me!

Think of the harm to Global Warming. Think of the fire Hazard. It’s unsafe for all mankind and should be banned immediately!

Deforestation is not a joke!

As for artificial trees, well they use up valuable electricity and are also a waste of energy.

Christmas Ornament are exclusionary, I mean a Christmas Star or Angel at the top, I mean really? Think of all the other religions you’re excluding by that act you hateful person.

6.Santa’s Workshop. Some old fat white guy who enslaves elves to manufacture his toys for him so he reap the benefits of the profits and the adulation of the public. How evil is that. At the very least the Elves need a Union to represent them and they need a more diverse work environment. The racial balance is all wrong. The EEOC needs to do a thorough review of the conditions and then we need to get Unions in their to get the elves some fair working conditions.  Are they even getting $15/hr??

7. We need to move Santa’s Workshop because the North Pole is threatened by Global Warming and we have to think about The Polar Bears so this an environmentally sensitive area. Plus, being at the North Pole also affords him to much privacy and he needs much more oversight. Someone call Green Peace.

8. Reindeer. Really? That’s animal cruelty making them pull a sleigh for an old, fat, white guy. What do you think they are Black Slaves! No, we have to get PeTA in there to save the Reindeer.

9. Bah humbug! Scrooge was a nasty old capitalist slave driver anyhow.

Just about every year at this time, “A Christmas Carol’ shows up somewhere on TV, as do headlines about how one Republican or another is the modern equivalent of the tale’s greedy miser, Ebenezer Scrooge.

“The GOP’s sad Scrooge agenda.” “GOP Protecting Ebenezer Scrooge.” “Maher Likens Republicans to Ebenezer Scrooge.” “Republicans play the role of the stingy Scrooge.”

You have to wonder if these folks have actually read “A Christmas Carol” or spent any time pondering what Scrooge actually says and does. Because if you do, you come to realize that Scrooge more closely resembles a modern liberal than a conservative.

A major clue comes early in the story, when two men collecting for charity arrive at Scrooge’s office. After asking Scrooge for a donation to help the poor and needy, Scrooge responds: “Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation? The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigor?”

He goes on to say, “I help to support the establishments I have mentioned — they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”

Modern translation: I pay taxes to support the welfare state, why should I give money to you?

Turns out, that’s a decidedly liberal viewpoint.

Studies have consistently shown that big-government liberals donate far less money to private charities than conservatives. In his book “Who Really Cares,” Arthur Brooks notes that households headed by conservatives give 30% more to charity than households headed by liberals. Another study found that even poor conservatives donate more than rich liberals .

There are other facets to Scrooge’s character that line up better with modern liberals.

During that same conversation, Scrooge says it might be better for the poor who are unwilling to go on welfare to die “and decrease the surplus population.”

Cold and heartless, yes. But which side is always bemoaning overpopulation? From Paul Ehrlich in the late 1960s to environmentalists today, it’s been a fixation of the left, not the right.

Al Gore, for example, once urged making “fertility management ubiquitously available” to fight the scourge of carbon-producing people.

Also like most liberals today, Scrooge was clearly a religious skeptic and not a churchgoer. In fact, Dickens points out that one of the first things Scrooge does on the Christmas morning after his visits by the spirits is get on his knees and pray, and then go to church.

A 2012 study in Social Psychological and Personality Science concluded that “religious individuals tend to be more conservative.” A Gallup survey found that 55% of conservatives, but just 27% of liberals, are “frequent” churchgoers. And a Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey found that religious conservatives outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one.

Scrooge was also unhappy, a mood found more frequently on the left. Pew Research, for example, found that conservative were 68% more likely to say they were “very happy” than liberals, and that this “happiness gap” has existed since 1972.

Want more?

The fact that Scrooge was single and childless puts him on the left side of today’s political spectrum.

Writing in the New York Times, Brooks notes that 53% of conservatives are married, vs. 33% of liberals, “and almost none of the gap is due to the fact that liberals tend to be younger.” Conservatives also have more kids than liberals.

Finally, lest you think Scrooge was intolerant — the one sin the left still abhors — consider how he instructs his nephew on the virtues of tolerance.

“Keep Christmas in your own way,” he tells Fred, “and let me keep it in mine.”

QED. (IBD)

Merry Christmas to all, and to all a Good Night! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell


Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 

 

Uber Capitalism

Uber is a classic disruptive technology. The ride-sharing app has revolutionized the moribund taxi cab business model by providing better service for a lower price. The Uber model is so new that existing taxi regulations by local governments are, in many cases, inoperative.

This upsets bureaucrats greatly. Who does Uber think they are to improve the lives of consumers and providers without getting government approval first? Exhausted at the wait for the city of Portland to rewrite its rulebook to allow the popular service, Uber launched today without the city’s blessing:

“I don’t think we’re going against the city’s wishes,” [Uber’s Brooke Stever] said. “We hope the city embraces this and listens to their constituents, the people of Portland and drivers partnering with us.”

Drivers often supplement their income by moonlighting with Uber, using their own vehicles. But Portland and other cities have regulations that classify Uber in the Town Car category, meaning riders must wait at least an hour after scheduling a ride before the driver shows up and paying a premium price over what cabs can offer.

In a (nominally) free country, why must citizens ask permission from the government before serving their fellow citizens? Uber has decided to ask forgiveness later instead of seeking permission first:

“We feel it’s our duty,” she said. “It’s the holidays, a popular season to go out, there are a lot of DUIs. We really feel like now is the right time, we want to meet the public’s demands and meet safety needs of the city and offer one of the safest and reliable rides around.”

“I love this model, your neighbors driving you around,” said Uber driver Eric Hansen. “That’s what this is, anybody with a few hours a day to make some extra money.”

Good for them. Now it’s up to the Portland bureaucrats to see if they want to kick Eric Hansen out of his holiday job and force their voters into overpriced cabs. (Jon Gabriel)

Now whether its safe or not, that’s a totally different question.

From Uber: If you’re taking a ride requested through UberBLACK, UberSUV, or uberTAXI, your livery or taxi transportation provider carries a commercial insurance policy in at least the minimum amount required by local regulations. If you didn’t get his or her insurance information at the time of the accident, please reach out to us so we can connect you.

If you’re taking a ride requested through uberX, some transportation providers are rideshare drivers providing transportation with their personal vehicles. Rideshare providers carry personal insurance policies. However, there’s a commercial insurance policy for ridesharing with $1 million of coverage per incident. This policy covers drivers’ liability from the time a driver accepts your trip request through the app until the completion of your trip. This policy is expressly primary to the driver’s personal auto policy. An additional insurance policy covers drivers when they are logged into the Uber app but have not yet accepted a trip request.

There is also uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage (UI/UIM) of $1 million per incident for bodily injury, in case another motorist causes an accident and doesn’t carry adequate insurance. So, for example, injuries caused by a hit-and-run accident would be covered by the UI/UIM.

But some personal insurance companies will not cover such activities so you need to beware.

Caveat emptor.

 

Obama Explained

Brilliantly written piece. With, may I say, many ideas and concepts I have said in this blog. 🙂

Wayne Root: Remember when Geraldo opened Al Capone’s vault live on national TV? Well I’m about to solve the mystery of Obama. I’m about to break “the Obama code.” I’m about to tell you everything about the way Obama, and the people around him, really think. I’m about to rip open the true Obama plan to destroy our country. Because I was there when the plan was hatched.

How do I know all this? Because I was Barack Obama’s college classmate at Columbia University, Class of 1983. I was easy to recognize – the lone outspoken conservative in a class of 700 students. I knew I was in trouble when my first political science class at Columbia was “Communism 101″ taught by Professor Trotsky in the Fidel Castro Building, at the corner of Marx Blvd. and Lenin Drive.

I’m only half-kidding. My experiences at Columbia were not far off.

Everyone needs to hear my story because what Obama and I learned at Columbia explains EXACTLY what Obama is doing to America today.

The economy in deep decline; the disappearance of jobs; the annihilation of the middle class; the demonization of business owners; the destruction of small business with onerous regulations and taxes; the overwhelming debt and spending of out-of-control government; the millions of Americans losing their health insurance; and the unimaginable increase in dependency through welfare, food stamps, unemployment, disability, and now free  health care.

It’s all easily explained when you hear what Obama and I learned at Columbia.

America’s decline under Obama isn’t due to mistake, ignorance, or incompetence at the hands of a community organizer. It’s a purposeful, brilliant plan hatched at Columbia University to destroy capitalism, American exceptionalism, Judeo-Christian values, and the American Dream.

I never met Obama at Columbia. We were both Political Science majors, both Pre Law. We graduated on the same day. There were perhaps 100 to 150 of us in the Political Science department. And I thought I knew all of them.

As the token big-mouthed conservative patriot, I know they all knew me. But not Obama. I never met him, saw him, or even heard of him. Not one of my friends at Columbia ever met him either. At our 30th class reunion last May, I could not find a single classmate who had ever met him. Strange story, but I digress.

What matters is what Obama learned and experienced at Columbia. My classmates hated America. They spoke with glee about one day  ”taking the system down.” They blamed America for “unfairness, racism, inequality, and lack of social justice.”

Recognize those words?

My classmates proudly called themselves socialists, communists, and Marxists. Even though almost all of them came from wealthy families (or perhaps because of it), they hated the rich and despised business owners. They talked about how the “white power structure” had to be dismantled, business owners bankrupted, and capitalism destroyed. Everything in their minds was based on “social justice.”

Sound like the policies of anyone you recognize in the White House? Does “We have to spread the wealth around” ring a bell? How about “If you own a business, you didn’t build that.”

How about Obama’s hatred of Republicans and refusal to negotiate with Congress? It’s clear he thinks he’s “morally superior” to conservatives. That attitude was born at Columbia too.

In 1981 when a student burst through the doors to our political science class and screamed  “The President has been shot. They’ve assassinated Reagan”… my classmates yelled, hugged, high-fived, and jumped up and down cheering the death of a Republican. Today most of my classmates are either in government with Obama, or controlling the mainstream media. They talk about “moderation and compromise,” but always remember 30 years ago they cheered for the death of a Republican.

But, there’s more. We were all taught a simple, but brilliant plan. My classmates discussed it 24/7. It was their “American Dream.”

By the time the middle class realizes he’s the killer and they’re the prey, they’ll already be dead.

It was called “Cloward-Piven,” after former Columbia professors Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. To bring down America and our capitalist system, they were taught to overwhelm the system with massive spending, entitlements and debt. That would cause the economy to collapse, wipe out the middle class, and bring Americans to their knees, begging government to save them.

It’s the exact plan Obama has been implementing. The centerpiece is Obamacare.

Obamacare isn’t about health care. It’s about bankrupting the middle class and addicting it to government dependency. It’s about redistributing wealth from the middle class and small business to Obama’s voters (the poor and unions). Its goal is to wipe out the last vestiges of middle class America, creating a two-class society: the super rich and the poor (both beholden to Obama).

Obama learned well, it’s working to perfection.

So that explains the plan. But how do you implement it? We were taught that at Columbia too.

A key component of the plan involved fooling the voters by calling yourself “moderate” and a “uniter,” even though you are a radical Marxist. We were taught to never admit what you really believe in. It involved demonizing your opponents, calling them “evil, greedy, extreme, radical, and terrorist.” Look in the mirror and call your opponents the very things you are.

Obama learned well.

The plan taught us to hide your true intensions (in other words- lie, misrepresent, commit fraud). So Obamacare is about “saving the uninsured,” as opposed to income redistribution.

Government regulations are to “protect us from global warming,” as opposed to wiping out small business.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is about “fairness,” as opposed to creating 12 million new Democratic voters.

High taxes are to “create equality,” as opposed to starving Obama’s political opposition.

Obscene spending is always about “helping widows and orphans,” as opposed to bribing Obama’s voters.

Higher teacher salaries to reward terrible performance are “for the kids,” as opposed to enriching teachers unions so they can funnel hundreds of millions to Democrat politicians.

Bailing out GM was to “save jobs,” as opposed to saving bloated auto union pensions.

It’s always about lying to coverup the Marxist agenda of destroying the middle class, redistributing wealth, and putting big government in control of our every move. Why the lies? We were taught at Columbia that “It’s for the greater good” and “We know what’s best for those people” and ”The ends justify the means.”

Obama learned well.

But the key to it all is to “boil the frog slowly.” We learned at Columbia to set the fire low, so the frog wouldn’t complain. By the time he realized what was happening, he’d be cooked.

That’s why every Obama speech starts and ends with “I’m here to save the middle class,” while his actions are annihilating them. He’s boiling the frog slowly. By the time the middle class realizes he’s the killer, and they’re the prey, they’ll already be dead.

The root (excuse the pun) of every Obama policy, everything Obama does, and everything happening to the U.S. economy, all started at Columbia. The entire Obama agenda to overwhelm the system, wipe out the middle class, bankrupt small business, and destroy capitalism, was hatched at Columbia. Obama may not have attended class, but he learned well.

He should have received the Karl Marx Award for “Student Most Likely to Destroy America.”

And a Nobel Prize for Peace! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

139748 600 Cheap date cartoons

The Blockbusters

A quarter of small-business owners plan to cut hiring to stay under 50 employees so they can avoid one of Obama-Care’s many onerous mandates. In other words, small businesses will be staying small.

And that will surely create more jobs! 🙂

Oh that’s right, anti-capitalist socialist class warfare liberals will just blame it on Corporate Greed…

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which routinely appraises the small-business environment,found in its most recent quarterly survey of 1,300 executives that “the health care law has emerged as the top concern for small businesses.”

Nearly three-fourths (71%) told the Chamber that “the health care law makes it harder to hire.” And “only 30% say they’re prepared for the requirements of the law, including participation in the marketplaces, and one-quarter say they are unaware of what is required.”

Among small businesses that will be impacted by the employer mandate, half say they’ll either cut hours to reduce full-time employees or replace full-time employees with part-timers to avoid the mandate.

Meanwhile, almost a quarter (24%) say they’ll reduce hiring to stay under 50 employees.

Fifty is a key number. Under ObamaCare rules, any business with 50 or more full-time-equivalent workers has to provide them with health insurance coverage.

Noncompliance results in fines of $2,000 per employee, jumping to $3,000 for each employee who receives a health insurance tax credit and buys a plan through the federal insurance exchanges.

Implementation of this employer mandate has been delayed for a year, taking effect in 2015 rather than 2014. The delay is a tacit admission by the White House that the law is severely flawed.

But the employer mandate isn’t ObamaCare’s only glitch. Shortcomings are so plentiful that the new law is worse than the “train wreck” that Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, who helped write the law, said it would be.

In fact, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a cosmic calamity — authoritarian legislation that will force Americans out of their doctor-patient relationships, increase costs, reduce choice, burden businesses and further darken a bleak job outlook.

Nothing about the law promotes protection or produces affordability. Like all left-wing solutions, it’s worse than the problems supporters claim it will solve.

But damn, they feel proud of themselves and are preening and peacocking about great they are and how nasty you are for doubting their superiority.

ObamaCare’s creators and defenders should be ashamed of what they’ve inflicted on the country. But they’re not. In fact, the White House is getting “back on offense in the debate,” according to the Hill.

But that requires humility. The Left has none.

That means Republican efforts to eliminate it should be redoubled. (IBD)

But I bet they are too chicken to do it.

The Summer of Recovery 5.0

“A human group transforms itself into a crowd when it suddenly responds to a suggestion rather than to reasoning, to an image rather than an idea, to an affirmation rather than to proof, to the repetition of a phrase rather than to arguments, to prestige rather than to competence.” (Jean-Francois Revel)

“The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” (J.A. Schumpeter)

And an official White House e-mail by top adviser Dan Pfeiffer talks about how “this one is worth checking out” because “this moment is so important” and you won’t “be disappointed.”

Perhaps the folks at the White House are spending too much time hanging around with their Hollywood pals.

Obama’s speech will, no doubt, take its cues from one of those “tent pole” summer movies — an overwrought sequel with the same tired plot and big name stars.

As before, Obama will try to tell a gripping story about how the suffering middle class need more government money for roads, more money for education, more money for health care, more taxes on the rich, and how they’d have it all if it weren’t for those dastardly Republicans standing in the way.

But does anyone really think Obama’s got a hit on his hands? Well anyone, that is, beside the sycophantic mainstream press? (The New York Times actually ran this headline about the speech: “Obama Plans to Unveil His Agenda for Economy”—as though he’d been keeping it hidden for the past four years.)

According to Pfeiffer’s email, Obama also will trot out another tried trope about how Washington — read the GOP — “has taken its eye off the ball on the most important issue facing the country.”

Really?

It was Obama who decided to abandon his promised focus on jobs immediately after winning re-election and instead spent months pushing gun control.

It was Obama who then decided that immigration was the nation’s No. 1 priority, endlessly touting reform and even dispatching a top adviser to Capitol Hill to help craft the Senate’s “Gang of Eight” bill.

And it was Obama who decided to give a major speech on climate control, saying that it, too, was a can’t-wait priority.

It was only after these all flopped that Obama decided he’d roll his economic picture again.

Keep in mind that the entire time Obama was off on these tangents, the public hadn’t lost its focus.

Polls consistently showed that the economy ranked as a top concern, while gun control, global warming and immigration were at or near the bottom.

That’s not surprising, since economic growth continues to be anemic, and the country is still millions of jobs shy of where it would be in a normal recovery.

As we noted in this space earlier this month, all the new jobs added in June were part-time, driven largely by companies trying to avoid the ObamaCare train wreck.

No wonder the White House is feverishly promoting Obama’s retread speech as though it were some sort of 3D blockbuster. (IBD)

Coming to Town near you…Again!
With Laser Like focus…for 5 minutes, then it’s back to creating and screaming about another Crisis.
“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.” (T.S. Eliot)
“A society that puts equality — in the sense of equality of outcome — ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.” (Milton Friedman)
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Addressing His Ego

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

America is on “a never-ending journey,” President Obama declared, using a metaphor that makes sense for the biggest-spending chief executive in the history of mankind; never-ending journeys never run into a Day of Reckoning.

According to this president, “being true to our founding documents … does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way.” Liberty, we are to believe, is an eye-of-the-beholder proposition.

This is what we are to have in mind as we swallow the “ask not what your country” line of Obama’s address: “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”

In other words, there is no real liberty without big government. Or perhaps we should turn to Orwell’s 1984 to break the code: “Freedom Is Slavery.” (IBD)

Fear is Hope.
Ignorance is Strength.
Reagan once said that Government WAS the problem.
Obama says Government IS the Solution.
Obama: “we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.”Translation: We can have our fiscal cake and eat it too. Forget $16.5 trillion in national debt. Forget trillion-dollar deficits. Forget government hyper-spending’s toll on the private sector.

The executive branch has no intention over the next four years of reforming — or, more correctly, saving from bankruptcy — our wasteful entitlement programs. Indeed, ObamaCare is a huge new entitlement heaved on to the taxpayers’ backs.

Lady Thatcher warned that socialists “always run out of other people’s money.” The president has made it clear he is nowhere near to being finished pursuing collectivism in the name of individual freedom. (IBD)

You know the saying that if you us “But” that negates everything you said prior and tells us what you really thought:
“But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.”
No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future, or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation and one people.

YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT 🙂 And only we, the Government can collectively and only we in the government c an protect you from it.

Ah, now talk about codewords. Collective. Collectivism. Bye-bye individual initiative. Hello, collective action, collective groups, collective farms, collective benefits. Wealth redistribution. Confiscating firearms for the group’s own safety. Whatever your most-feared collective demon, you can read that into Obama’s “collective action.” 

Those two words — “collective action” — did not appear there by accident. These speeches are written over many weeks and re-shaped countless times by way too many cooks.

But before any minutemen reach for their trusty musket, we should all remember Obama’s record on doing what he says he’s going to do. It’s beneath pathetic.

Go through the budget cutting line-by-line. Close Guantanamo. Try terrorists in New York. Lower healthcare costs through ObamaCare. Ban lobbyists from his White House. Run the most open government ever. Hold healthcare hearings in public. Really get down to work this time building new jobs. Protect the middle-class from tax hikes that hit their paychecks this month. Create hundreds of thousands of new jobs in a few months with “shovel-ready” projects. Yada-yada.

Speaking of collective, did anyone else notice that Obama, who usually loves the word “I,” instead used the royal word “We” 85 times?

He mentioned “God” five times, “journey” and “war” six times each and “equal” seven times. “Change,” “values” and “jobs” each got three mentions, “deficit” and “middle class” once apiece. “Gay” got a nod, as in: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law.”

The returned president did not once say the words: “taxes,” “balance,” “budget,” “Afghanistan,” “victory,” “guns,” “violence,” “Hollywood,” “family,” “church” or “big !#%+=&* deal.”

But Obama did indulge himself in the time-dishonored political gimmick of holding out the impossible prospect of guaranteed social safety for all, as if even his bloated, deficit-addicted federal government could produce such an idyllic place free of tragedy.

“Our journey is not complete,” Obama declared, “until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia, to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm.”

Life is fair and equal and safe.

And it’s the Republicans/Rich/Capitalists fault if it’s not.

And the Republicans are too weak to stand up for Reagan and Conservatives.

So, Comrade, enjoy your Collective “fairness”.

But the guy’s got 1,458 days left in office. As he told the Russians last spring, he need never face voters again. But Obama just cannot ever extricate himself from campaign mode.

“For we, the people, understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it. We believe that America’s prosperity must rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class.  (the problem is that his policies are sinking the middle class as we speak but he can’t see the truth through the lofty rhetoric because it sounds better- The road to hell and all that…)We know that America thrives when every person can find independence and pride in their work (but your boss is an evil capitalist pig out to destroy you!); when the wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship (“fairness”!). We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American; she is free (as long as you do what I say), and she is equal (as I define it) , not just in the eyes of God but also in our own. “
“We do not believe that in this country freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.  We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us at any time may face a job loss, or a sudden illness, or a home swept away in a terrible storm. The commitments we make to each other through Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, these things do not sap our initiative, they strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take the risks that make this country great. “
He obvious has no clue how anything works in reality. But in his head it works just fine.

And Only a Big Government bureaucracy can insure all this. Individual grit and determination just can’t. Life must be made “fair” and only government can do that.
A Big Bloated, over spending behemoth that will crush your children after I am gone!
That will be Someone Elses Problem. 🙂
It won’t be his fault because he had the most noble of intentions. It was dirty rotten bastards who opposed him that screw it up.
Meanwhile, the addicts get more addiction not intervention.
We are all one big happy dysfunctional family and you can’t pick your family so we just have to all get along.
OR ELSE BIG BROTHER will settle it for you.
Because that’s what a Big Brother is for…
And Big Sis is also back for another go at it.
So you better behave or Santa Claus will be very cross with you and put you on his Naughty List and you don’t want to be on his Naughty List…
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Forward to The Failed Past

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

IBD:We’re told Friday’s jobs report is evidence of slow and steady progress. But it actually documents the new normal of Obama’s economy — anemic job growth, chronic long-term unemployment and falling wages.

Given how long the economy has been underperforming, even the smallest bit of good news is welcome. But the latest jobs report offers little of even that.

The 155,000 new jobs created in December weren’t enough to make a dent in unemployment. And at this pace, it will take more than two years just to reach the previous jobs peak set back in January 2008.

And while the unemployment rate of 7.8% appears to be the same as when Obama took office, it obscures the fact that millions have given up looking for jobs and so aren’t being counted as unemployed.

If you account for the unprecedented drop in labor participation under Obama, the real unemployment rate is 10.7%.

Meanwhile, the pool of long-term unemployed was a staggering 4.8 million in December, which is 2 million more than when Obama took office. The average length of unemployment was 38 months — almost 20 months longer than four years ago and 15 months longer than when the recession ended in June 2009.

And, despite Obama’s endless talk about growing the economy from the bottom up, the nation’s workers aren’t seeing slow, steady progress when it comes to household income.

In fact, real average weekly earnings have dropped about 1% over the past two years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And median household income is down 7% since January 2009, according to Sentier Research.

In the face of this ongoing calamity, we get various and changing excuses about “head winds,” or the lingering effects of the Bush recession, or the uncertainty caused by the fiscal cliff. Or we’re told we just need to lower our expectations for growth.

And what does Obama do?

He forced a tax hike through Congress that his own favorite economists say will slow growth and cost jobs. He’s continued to push forward on ObamaCare, despite the fact that it’s scaring employers away from adding new jobs out of fear of getting hit with exorbitant new costs. He’s taken the leash off the EPA to wreak havoc on industries with massively expensive, and entirely unnecessary new regulations. He’s offered no real plans to get the nation’s debt under control.

And he claims he can make up for all this economic drag with a new round of federal spending on roads.

We want the economy to grow and America to prosper as much as anyone. But it’s hard to see much of that in the near future given the economic poison Obama keeps prescribing.

Kind of like A caretaker who feeds you arsenic every day and expects you to be an Olympic athlete by Noon and then goes on TV to take credit for the medal you haven’t won yet.

While the U.S. punishes millionaires, Russia and China reward them. In the upside-down era of Barack Obama, the capitalists act like communists and the communists act like capitalists.

Our multimillionaire president frowns on “millionaires and billionaires” and soaks them with higher taxes. But Russia loves them and even offers refugees of high-tax countries asylum.

Last week, the Kremlin, once headquarters of the Evil Empire, granted millionaire French actor Gerard Depardieu Russian citizenship so he can avail himself of Russia’s 13% flat tax and avoid his home country’s proposed new 75% supertax on millionaires.

Depardieu has been looking for a new home after telling France’s newly elected socialist prime minister that he would surrender his passport and French social security card in protest of the tax.

Moscow hopes its lower tax rate will attract a “massive migration of rich Europeans to Russia.” Russia already ranks seventh in millionaires worth more than $30 million. And Deloitte expects the number of Russian millionaires to triple to 1.2 million by 2020. (America, by comparison, has 5.2 million millionaires.)

Take note, Mr. President: Russia’s flat-tax miracle has helped bring its budget back into balance. Its revenues from income taxes have more than doubled since the single, low tax rate was instated.

Communist China, which now runs a socialist market economy, also welcomes millionaires. And it’s been creating record numbers of them since reducing its tax burden. There are now 1.1 million millionaires in China — a national record — and 63,500 multimillionaires and billionaires.

Since abolishing its agriculture tax and slashing its tax on small businesses by 50%, China has enjoyed the world’s biggest gains in the number of rich (though granted, coming off a low base). The vast majority of millionaires in China are business owners, who are taking advantage of the government’s recent market reforms and pro-business tax incentives.

As part of its post-crisis economic stimulus package, Beijing is reforming its VAT tax, which would cut corporate taxes as well. And just two months ago, it launched a new round of tax-cutting measures that will help more than 900,000 companies throughout China.

Meanwhile, back in formerly supercapitalistic America, our leaders have agreed to jack up taxes on small businesses. Obama’s new fiscal-cliff tax hike on individual filers earning $400,000 or more in income will hit more than 750,000 small-business owners. They account for more than 56% of all income from such firms and employ tens of millions of workers, both of which will be hurt by the higher rate.

Yet Obama says “there is still more to do” to make sure “the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share.” He vows to make “our tax code more progressive than it’s been in decades.”

Funny how the Russians and Chinese figured out that class-warfare ideology doesn’t work and is in fact, a recipe for failure. Funny how communists know that lower taxes grow the economy and keep you competitive.

As our president mau-maus the rich to “pay their fair share” to help fund his massive social programs, America, like Europe, risks losing a fair share of its wealth and power to communist superpowers that have rethought and reformed their command-and-control economies.

Obama thinks he’s taking the nation “Forward!” But he’s really taking it back to the failed past.

But ideological adamantium will prevent him from seeing any of this.
This is what the under informed, mal-informed, and the don’t-wanna-be informed voted for.
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Le Pew, It Stinks In Here…

Well, several generations of Socialist thinking and indoctrination in schools and by The Ministry of Truth has lead to this moment…

2011: The reason: based on a Pew survey of America’s youth, or those aged 18-29, more have a positive view response toward Socialism than they do toward Capitalism. We will leave it at that.

Socialism: 49% Positive / 43% Negative:

 

And Capitalism: 46% Positive / 47% Negative:

And keep in mind this is from 2010.

“Socialism” Not So Negative, “Capitalism” Not So Positive

A Political Rhetoric Test

May 4, 2010

“Socialism” is a negative for most Americans, but certainly not all Americans. “Capitalism” is regarded positively by a majority of public, though it is a thin majority. Among certain segments of the public — notably, young people and Democrats — both “isms” are rated about equally. And while most Americans have a negative reaction to the word “militia,” the term is viewed more positively by Republican men than most other groups.

These are among the findings of a national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press that tests reactions to words and phrases frequently used in current political discourse. Overall, 29% say they have a positive reaction to the word “socialism,” while 59% react negatively. The public’s impressions of “capitalism,” though far more positive, are somewhat mixed. Slightly more than half (52%) react positively to the word “capitalism,” compared with 37% who say they have a negative reaction.

A large majority of Republicans (77%) react negatively to “socialism,” while 62% have a positive reaction to “capitalism.” Democrats’ impressions are more divided: In fact, about as many Democrats react positively to “socialism” (44%) as to “capitalism” (47%).

Reaction to “capitalism” is lukewarm among many demographic groups. Fewer than half of young people, women, people with lower incomes and those with less education react positively to “capitalism.”

The survey, conducted April 21-26 among 1,546 adults, measured reactions to nine political words and phrases. The most positive reactions are to “family values” (89% positive) and “civil rights” (87%). About three-quarters see “states’ rights” (77%) and “civil liberties” (76%) positively, while 68% have a positive reaction to the word “progressive.”

Reactions to the word “libertarian” are evenly divided — 38% positive, 37% negative. On balance, Republicans view “libertarian” negatively, Democrats are divided, while independents have a positive impression of the term. “Militia” elicits the most negative reaction of the nine terms tested: Just 21% have a positive reaction compared with 65% who have a negative response.

Partisan Divide over “Socialism”

The most striking partisan differences come in reactions to the word “socialism.” Just 15% of Republicans react positively to “socialism” while 77% react negatively. By more than two-to-one (64% to 26%), independents also have a negative impression of “socialism.” However, Democrats are evenly divided — 44% have a positive reaction to “socialism” while 43% react negatively.

“Capitalism” elicits a less partisan reaction. About six-in-ten Republicans (62%) react positively to “capitalism,” compared with 29% who have a negative reaction. About half of independents (52%) have a positive impression while 39% react negatively. Among Democrats, 47% react positively to “capitalism” while nearly as many (43%) react negatively.

There is a substantial partisan divide in views of the word “progressive.” However, majorities of Democrats (81%), independents (64%) and Republicans (56%) have a positive reaction to “progressive.”

More than four-in-ten independents (44%) react positively to the word “libertarian,” while 32% have a negative reaction. Democrats are nearly evenly divided (39% positive, 37% negative). However, Republicans on balance have a negative impression of this term (44% negative, 31% positive).

Majorities of Democrats (70%), independents (66%) and Republicans (59%) react negatively to the word “militia.” Nearly twice as many Republicans (27%) as Democrats (15%) have a positive view of this term.

Young People Lukewarm Toward “Capitalism”

Young people are more positive about “socialism” — and more negative about “capitalism” — than are older Americans. Among those younger than age 30, identical percentages react positively to “socialism” and “capitalism” (43% each), while about half react negatively to each. Among older age groups, majorities view “socialism” negatively and “capitalism” positively.

People ages 65 and older have a particularly negative reaction to “socialism” — 73% have a negative impression of the term compared with just 14% who are positive. But those 65 and older are no more likely than those ages 30 to 64 to have a positive reaction to “capitalism” (56% vs. 55%).

More than twice as many blacks as whites react positively to “socialism” (53% vs. 24%). Yet there are no racial differences in views of “capitalism” — 50% of African Americans and 53% of whites have a positive reaction.

Those with a high school education or less are evenly divided over “capitalism” (44% positive vs. 42% negative). Among those with some college experience, 49% react positively to “capitalism” as do 68% of college graduates. Those with a high school education or less are more likely to express a positive view of “socialism” than do those with more education.

People with family incomes of $75,000 or more are the only income group in which a clear majority (66%) reacts positively to the word “capitalism.” Views of “socialism” also are much more negative among those in this income category (71% negative) and among those with incomes of $30,000 to $75,000 (64% negative) than among those with incomes of less than $30,000 (46% negative).

Conservative Republicans stand out for their overwhelmingly negative reactions to “socialism” (84% negative) and highly positive reactions to “capitalism” (67% positive). No more than about half in other political groups, including moderate and liberal Republicans (51%), have a positive impression of “capitalism.”

Perhaps surprisingly, opinions about the terms “socialism” and “capitalism” are not correlated with each other. Most of those who have a positive reaction to “socialism” also have a positive reaction to “capitalism”; in fact, views of “capitalism” are about the same among those who react positively to “socialism” as they are among those who react negatively (52% and 56%, respectively, view “capitalism” positively). Conversely, views of “socialism” are just as negative among those who have a positive reaction to “capitalism” (64% negative) as those who react negatively (61% negative).

There are some differences in the relationship between these terms by demographic groups, although the association is not particularly strong among any group. For instance, among college graduates, 71% of those with a positive reaction to “capitalism” have a negative reaction to “socialism.” By contrast, among college graduates who have a negative view of “capitalism” a smaller proportion have a negative view of “socialism” (51%).

Gender Differences in Views of “Militia”

While the word “militia” is viewed negatively, there are gender and partisan differences in reactions to this term. Overall, twice as many men (28%) as women (14%) say they have a positive reaction to the word “militia.” In addition, more Republicans (27%) than independents (20%) or Democrats (15%) have positive impressions.

Republican men have a more positive impression of “militia” (36% positive) than do Democratic men (19%). Moreover, GOP men have a more positive reaction than do Republican women (18% positive).

A sizeable gender gap is also seen in independents’  reactions to “militia.” Among independents, 28% of men have a positive reaction to “militia,” compared with just 10% of women. The gender differences are more modest among Democrats (19% positive among men vs. 12% among women).

What do you think are some of the reasons for the “socialization of America’s youth”?

Here are some of my guesses:

-constant bombardment of anti capitalistic messages from the Main Stream Media & public schools;

-growing up with government programs like social security, pell grants & unemployment insurance;

-growing up In a cashless/credit card (debt based) society where they don’t see the value of things in tangible exchanges;

-child labor laws and regulations that prevent kids from working and running lemonade stands in their formative years and the futility of even trying to work your way through an expensive debt financed 4 year college program;

-growing up with out the threat or recent memory of the harm done to the world by the German Socialst party, the NAZIs and Communist Russia;

-a lack of understanding of history and economics;

-the financial crisis of 2008 ad the anti capitalist responses (Michael Moore’s “capitalism a love story”, occupy wall street
movement) and the massive government response;

-Federal Reserve quantitative easing, stimulus and bailouts that supposedly “saved us”; and

-president obamas frequent socialist remarks-“spread the wealth around”, “free markets don’t work,never have”, “you didn’t build that” “millionaires and billionaires need to pay their ‘fair share'”

Your thoughts? (Daily Paul)

Then there’s this more recently:

Similarly, voters do not have a particularly rosy outlook on national politics going forward. Fully 66% say that relations between Republicans and Democrats will either stay about the same (52%) or get worse (14%) over the next year. And while 56% of voters think Obama will be successful in his coming term, that is down from the 67% who thought his first term would be successful at this point four years ago.

While broad majorities of all voters want Barack Obama (72%) and the Republican leadership (67%) to work with the other side to get things done over the coming year, each party’s political base sends mixed signals. Only about half (46%) of Republicans want GOP leaders to work with Obama to get things done, while about as many (50%) say they should stand up to Obama, even if less gets done. The message to Obama from Democrats is only somewhat more conciliatory: 54% want the president to try to work with Republicans, but 42% do not.

 Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

2016 Part 2

Now that a documentary warning that a re-elected Barack Obama would turn America into a Third World country is a box-office hit, the president’s media surrogates are trying to discredit it.

The film, aptly named “2016,” documents how Obama’s Kenyan father had a greater influence on him than the public has been told. In fact, he shaped the president’s intellectual development and world view.

So what? Barack Hussein Obama Sr., who died in 1982, was an African communist and anti-colonialist who hated the West. He wanted to see powers like Britain and what he viewed as its imperial successor, America, punished for oppressing peoples and exploiting their labor and resources.

Obama Jr. shares his father’s animosity and is doing his bitter bidding, according to “2016,” which is written and narrated by scholar Dinesh D’Souza and based on his book, “Roots of Obama’s Rage.”

The son, D’Souza warns, is on “a campaign of revenge” to bring down America as a “military and economic power.”

While hard to accept, the film answers what the media refuse to even question. That is, why the president of the United States would:

• Hold corporate America, Wall Street and the wealthy in contempt.

• Run against capitalism in a country run by capitalism.

• Deny America’s exceptionalism on the world stage and lead from behind.

• Apologize and bow, literally, to Third World leaders in a bizarre and unprecedented doctrine of mea culpa.

• Throw key Middle East ally Israel under the bus over Jewish settlements.

• Withdraw hastily from Afghanistan while refusing to talk about this key front in the War on Terror in terms of victory.

• Propose slashing the U.S. nuclear arsenal, while mothballing missile defense.

• Fail to guard national security secrets critical to protecting America from foreign threats.

• Curb domestic oil production and block the Keystone Pipeline, while underwriting exploration and drilling in South America.

• Compound America’s debt crisis with even more federal spending, risking more U.S. credit downgrading.

D’Souza notes that the thrust of Obama policy aims to either redistribute wealth at home or U.S. power abroad. He argues it’s strategic, designed to right past wrongs and delegitimize America as the world’s richest superpower.

Predictably, the Associated Press slammed his film as “entirely subjective” and “thin” on evidence. It scoffs that about the only evidence he came up with to support the assertion that Obama’s presidency is an expression of his father’s political beliefs is the title of his 1995 memoir, “Dreams From My Father.”

But this is the very least of the evidence D’Souza presents. AP leaves out key facts in its so-called “fact check.” Or it parrots White House denials that are no longer even operative.

For instance, D’Souza points out that London had gifted a bust of Churchill to the Oval Office only to have Obama, in a slap, return it as soon as he took office. The Brits made it clear Obama could keep the small statue in the Oval Office. Problem is, Churchill happened to be prime minister when Britain ruled Kenya and allegedly mistreated Obama’s grandfather. So Obama shipped it off.

AP claims there’s no truth to the story, even though an Obama aide recently had to retract a statement denying Obama sent the bust back to the Brits.

Obama’s father was so anti-West that British intelligence warned the U.S. not to grant him and a group of Kenyan students visas to study in the U.S. They were flagged in a 1959 diplomatic cable as radicals with an “anti-American and anti-white” political agenda.

When Obama Sr. returned to Kenya with a Harvard economics degree, he joined the newly independent Kenyan government as a Marxian economist. AP never mentions the July 1965 policy paper he wrote advising Nairobi to wring all vestiges of Western “neocolonialism” out of the Kenyan economy and replace them with Soviet-style communism, including industrial nationalization.

In the eight-page tract, he proposed economic tonics strikingly similar to ones now being pushed by his son, including: taxing the “rich” to “redistribute economic gains” and “economic power,” funding public works projects and other government “investments,” and forcing “people to do things they would not do otherwise,” such as joining government-run cooperatives to discourage “individual” choices not in the “public interest.” He railed against “free enterprise,” arguing it creates wealth “disparities” and benefits “only a few individuals.”

Though the Obama campaign has denied Obama Sr. was a communist, it has defended his paper’s proposals by citing a Kenyan professor’s recent opinion that they were “spot on.”

In fact, Obama’s father’s ideas were even more radical than those proposed by Kenyan labor leader Tom Mboya, who wanted to develop a socialist system independent of the USSR. Obama Sr. sided instead with the leader of the pro-Soviet group, Oginga Odinga.

This is key, because in August 2006, then-Sen. Obama traveled to Kenya to campaign for Odinga’s son, Raila Odinga, who was running for prime minister as a Marxist. Odinga, who studied in East Berlin during the Cold War and named his son Fidel, spent several years in jail for leading a bloody coup in 1982 against then-Kenyan President Daniel Arap Moi—a close U.S. ally.

With Obama’s help, Odinga became prime minister in 2008. The two sons of communists took power the same year, fulfilling their fathers’ dreams.

IBD has learned that Obama’s father adopted some of his ideas, namely nationalization of banking and other industries, from a Marxian economist from the University of Chicago. Obama Sr. was a fan of professor Martin Bronfenbrenner, a self-described “socialist,” and closely studied his 1955 paper, “The Appeal of Confiscation in Economic Development,” in which Bronfenbrenner argued for state control of banks.

“Confiscation of capital has not killed the goose that laid the golden eggs in the Soviet Union, in China, or in the other ‘people’s democracies.'” he said. “It seems rather to have been an important device permitting these countries to develop and industrialize rapidly.”

In 1964, a year before Obama’s father wrote his communist tract, Bronfenbrenner publicly complained that Japan was “foolhardy” to lower surtaxes on the rich, arguing that high tax rates and redistribution of income foster rapid economic growth.

The press insists Obama Sr. abandoned his son when he was two years old and remained absent from his life thereafter. In fact, he visited adolescent Obama in Hawaii, one time staying with him for a full month during which he spoke at his school.

It’s plain from Obama’s memoir that he worshipped his father. Obama devotes more than 130 pages, or roughly a third, of “Dreams” to covering his father’s life and his colonized ancestry in Kenya. This is purposeful. Obama sympathizes with the idea that “neocolonial wealth,” held even by Asian business owners in Nairobi, should be “redistributed to the people.” (Neocolonialism is the alleged economic exploitation that remains even after political independence.)

Obama says he realized who he is and what he really cares about when he visited his father’s grave. He describes breaking down and weeping, whereupon he reflects: “The pain that I felt was my father’s pain.”

D’Souza says Obama sought out paternal surrogates who shared his father’s anti-colonial, anti-capitalist beliefs, including:

Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist Party member investigated by the FBI for un-American activities. As a teenager, Obama sat at Davis’ knee in his Waikiki bungalow, where he was brainwashed into hating America while romanticizing Soviet Russia. Interestingly, Davis put Churchill at the center of Anglo-American “imperialism.”

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, moreover, baptized Obama into “liberation theology,” which emerged from the communist movement in Central America. Wright’s church “stood in solidarity” with the Sandinista dictators of Nicaragua while Obama attended there.

Not surprisingly, Obama protested U.S. support for the Contra rebels. Wright also lionized Hamas and called for divestment in Israel, which he accused of having “illegally occupied Palestinian territories” for decades.

Derrick Bell, the late Harvard law professor, taught Obama “critical race theory” and “postcolonial theory,” which argues that Western imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. Obama remained close to Bell until his death last year.

All three of these surrogate fathers of Obama, along with Obama Sr. himself, were heavily influenced by Frantz Fanon, a Marxist revolutionary who didn’t look or sound like one. Rarely seen without a suit and tie, the handsome and cerebral Fanon nonetheless described capitalists as “wretched” and the United States as “a monster.”

He called for “a planned economy, for outlawing profiteers,” and for wringing neocolonialism and capitalism out of every institution of society. In “The Wretched of the Earth,” the late Fanon wrote, “What matters today is the need for a redistribution of wealth,” adding “humanity will have to address this question, no matter how devastating the consequences may be.”

Fanon, who died in the 1960s, viewed Kenya through the same angry lens as Obama Sr., railing against “the British colonial authorities” and “their intimidation tactics” against the Mau-Mau rebels. He scolded America for its indifference to the “200,000 victims of repression in Kenya.” Later, he argued decolonized African governments had been “bought off” by imperialist profits.

Obama also idolized Fanon, devouring his works in college. “I distinctly remember Obama surprising me by bringing up Frantz Fanon and colonialism,” said John C. Drew, a Ph.D. political scientist who was a fellow “angry Marxist” and friend of Obama when he attended Occidental College. “He impressed me with his knowledge of these two topics, topics which were not among my strong points.”

Fanon’s anti-Western diatribes, including those contained in an earlier book, “Black Skin, White Masks,” influenced not only Obama’s intellectual development but his political aspirations.

“Fanon is the man who helped pave (his) transition” from community organizer to politician, D’Souza said. “He is the one who helped Obama to put on his mask,” he added, “the mask that would enable Obama to translate his anti-colonial ideas into the language and imagery of modern American politics.”

Americans might be surprised to know that Obama, like Fanon, believes much of America and its territories were illegally colonized. Obama wrote in 2006 that settling Indian lands and the Southwest, annexing Hawaii, and bringing Puerto Rico, Guam and the Philippines under U.S. control were “racist” conquests and “an exercise in raw power.”

Echoing Wright’s post-9/11 sermon that “America’s chickens have come home to roost,” Obama wrote in the preface to the 2004 edition of “Dreams” that “history returned that day with a vengeance.”

Obama also thinks that “blacks were forced into ghettos” after slavery by a founding capitalist system that favors whites. He sees a kind of apartheid existing in America today, in spite of civil-rights laws and affirmative action programs. “He sees capitalism as a form of neocolonialism,” D’Souza said, and Republicans as the neocolonial party.

Obama revealed in “Dreams” that more needs to be done to free people from “the white man’s empire,” and that this is why he went to law school — “to learn things that would help me bring about real change.”

In 2006, Obama wrote that soaking the rich will “restore some balance to the distribution of the nation’s wealth.” He is less concerned with how such surtaxes solve the budget crisis than how they bring about “economic justice.” For example, he thinks the capital-gains tax rate should be raised expressly “for the purposes of fairness.”

“Obama cannot bring himself to abandon his father’s anti-colonial ideology,” D’Souza explained. “That ideology calls for transfers of wealth from the colonizers to the colonized.”

Obama doesn’t just have a hidden ideological agenda, the filmmaker says. He’s also hiding a personal agenda — and using the power of the presidency to settle old scores.

America in 2008 had no idea it was electing a leader with such baggage. Now thanks to this compelling documentary, it knows better. (Paul Sperry)

Or at least it should. But it’s not like the Ministry of Truth will tell anyone…

Washington Post: One thing can be said for “2016.” It’s anything but crude. The best infomercials rarely are.

And, make no mistake, D’Souza’s documentary profile of President Obama — which is like his earlier writing attempts to portray its subject as not just anti-capitalist but anti-American — is just that: a slick infomercial.

Meanwhile, 2006’s Bush Assassination movie “Death of the President” gets a solidly different view. A movie depicting the assassination of a sitting President is an abomination. But not to the liberal left.

An unsettling and exceptionally skillful exercise in blurring the lines between appearance and reality, this fictional, documentary-style film uses the incendiary premise of the assassination of President George W. Bush in the not-too-distant future as a springboard for thinking about the practical and psychic toll of how America deals with terrorist threats.

Those who would condemn “DOAP” without seeing it should be made aware of one crucial fact: Range does not depict that event with glee or even a smirk. The shooting of Bush is indeed portrayed with solemnity and grief The ballast of “DOAP,” after the horrific event itself unfolds, becomes a true-crime procedural dedicated to the search for the assassin. It’s at this point that Range reveals his true agenda: Although a few suspects come under scrutiny, only one is finally railroaded into a kangaroo conviction, the result of a beefed-up Patriot Act, political expedience and a populace agog with paranoia and fear.

Now imagine a reboot remake of the movie starring Obama and what the Left would say now….

Exactly. 🙂

And that’s what we are up against.

I’m sad to report today a death of a good friend to all of us…..Journalism, the once esteemed 4th estate of our nation and the protector of our freedoms and a watchdog of our rights has passed away after a long struggle with a crippling and debilitating disease of acute dishonesty aggravated by advanced laziness and the loss of brain function.– Gov Huckabee 2009.

NOVEMBER IS COMING!

Torturous Illogic

Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday that his wife, as well as the wife of President Barack Obama, would have had “no chance” in life had it not been for government help. According to vice presidential pool reports:

Vice President Biden met with leaders from 10 colleges this afternoon to kick off a new effort to increase transparency in financial aid packages. …

“I know, literally, Barack and I talk about it. Neither one of us would have had any shot,” Biden said. “The same with our wives. Both wives are smarter than both of us. Literally, these very accomplished women would not have any chance without some help.” (free beacon)

What’s with the war on women, Mr. Vice President?

Plugs hits new levels of desperation when he’s trying to convince people they’ll have no chance of survival if his bloated government sacred cow is ever made to stop churning out Julias on a 24/7 basis. Biden’s like a big-government version of Kathy Bates in Misery reminding the hobbled James Caan, “If I die, you die” — and it’s all packaged under the guise of compassion.

Forget about just having a chance in life — the problem is that without a major course correction, it soon will be impossible to exist without government “help.” At that point Biden will be proven correct, and that’s a scary thought. (Michelle Malkin)

Speaking of Scary…

The new liberal spin (courtesy of Ed Schultz of MSNBC) that “money has entered the race” aka evil corporate money (it was never a factor before this moment-ever (Politifact says Unions gave- $206.7 million in 2008 alone)). The fact that he Unions have been pumping and pimped 100’s of millions of dollars EVERY year for decades into the process is completely missed by the sanctimonious liberals who are unhappy with the results in Wisconsin.

So the Liberal lost because evil corporate money and rich people bought the election. Class Warfare is everywhere because it is the very core of liberalism.

2010 NY Times: At over $5 million, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a labor union, has been the biggest outside group spender on the Democratic side, followed closely by America’s Families First Action Fund, with about $4.8 million.

And gee what labor union was at the forefront in Wisconsin, AFSCME. Gee, no coincidence there! 🙂

They can’t possible have lost for any other reason than evil capitalists bought the election, after all buying elections is a Union job!!

From the White House: “While tonight’s outcome was not what we had hoped for – no one can dispute the strong message sent to Governor Walker. Hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites from all walks of life took a stand against the politics of division and against the flood of secret and corporate money spent on behalf of Scott Walker…”

Love the “New Tone”. The “civility” is very evident.

But the funniest comment comes from our gal-pal DWS, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:

Despite the disappointing outcome, #WIrecall effort sent Scott Walker a message that his brand of divisive politics is offensive & wrong.

(I’ll be right back. I have to bust several guts laughing….) 🙂

My 3 Part Series of Blogs in 2010 on the incestuous relationship: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/incestuous-narcissism-part-1/

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/incestuous-narcissism-part-2/

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/incestuous-narcissism-part-3/

Update: Unions Lose again….In California?

The Granola State? (What isn’t fruits and nuts is flakes).

In San Diego and San Jose, voters overwhelmingly approved ballot initiatives designed to help balance ailing municipal budgets by cutting retirement benefits for city workers.

Around 70 percent of San Jose voters favored the pension measure, while 66 percent of San Diego residents supported a similar measure.

“This is really important to our taxpayers,” Mayor Chuck Reed of San Jose, said Tuesday night. “We’ll get control over these skyrocketing retirement costs and be able to provide the services they are paying for.” (NYT)

The smear & fear is to come as always. Liberals don’t know how to argue any other way.

Speaking of fear…

Protesters who picketed the restaurant last month disagreed. Madeline Bernstein, president of the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said: “People are allowed to eat food, not allowed to torture it first.”

California is going to ban foie gras.

Foie gras (play /fwɑːˈɡrɑː/; French: [fwa ɡʁɑ]); French for “fat liver”) is a food product made of the liver of a duck or goose that has been specially fattened. This fattening is typically achieved through gavage (force-feeding corn), according to French law, though outside of France it is occasionally produced using natural feeding.

Gavage dates back 4600 years.

California’s only foie gras producer is Sonoma Artisan Foie Gras, Owner Guillermo Gonzalez told The Daily Telegraph: “Our farm is being forced to shut down at the end of June, and the most unfortunate fact is that science has not been given a chance to play a role in this debate.

“Ultimately, chefs’ and consumers’ freedom of choice is being taken away. Who knows what food product is next?”

The ban was originally drawn up by John Burton who was State Senate president in 2004 and is now the chairman of the California Democratic Party.

My beef (pun intended) is more with the Food Police than the dish. I have never had it. I am unlikely to have it, not my style of food.

So what’s next on the Vegan “torture” list. Since, “torture” to a liberal generally means anything they disagree with and it’s to be used to inflame the situation and cow-tow you to their way because you don’t want to be a “torturer” now do you. (Or “racist” or a “bigot” or “mean”, “unfair” etc).

So that burger you’re eating is not only unhealthy, but you are supporting “torture”!!

Think I’m kidding?

PeTA Asia-Pacific Website:

Everyone who eats animal products is responsible for the abuse and deaths of beings with lives and personalities of their own—beings who did not choose to be carved up and put on the dinner table.

Because eating meat is torture.

And of course…

Because eating meat just isn’t fair.

Where would a Liberal be without saying that everything they disagree with isn’t “fair”!

The suffering of humans and the suffering of other animals are interconnected. By alleviating the suffering of other animals, we also help alleviate human suffering.

Will Dairy farms be next? Was that Chicken I had for dinner last night “tortured” when it’s head was cut off? Was that Fish “tortured” when it was taken out of the water and effectively drowned in the air gasping until it was dead?

PeTa A-P: And let’s not forget about fish. Whether they’re hooked through the mouth, dragged out of the ocean in nets, or “harvested” from fish farms, fish and other marine animals feel pain and don’t deserve to die.

And of course, eating meat discriminates against the poor and is not Pro-Union:

In addition to exploiting poor people, immigrants, and children and doing little to protect workers from workplace hazards, the farmed-animal industry has also been charged with union busting. When workers try to unionize, the industry uses illegal intimidation and harassment tactics to ensure that pro-union employees are silenced. According to Human Rights Watch, “Many workers who try to form trade unions and bargain collectively are spied on, harassed, pressured, threatened, suspended, fired, deported or otherwise victimized for their exercise of the right to freedom of association.”

You evil little Nazi “torturer” you!!

Give a Liberal a millimeter they’ll take a light year.

More Liberal Love, Tolerance, Compassion and Sensitivity to go with their “New Tone”: (from twitchy-twitter feeds)

KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER! Ole Bitch Ass Pig Ass Nigga!!!!

They gone JFK Scott Walker. Shoot his mfn head off BANG BANG!!! *chief keef voice* 🏃🔫—
ERIN M. (@DONTTouchTheFRO) June 06, 2012

Please somebody kill Scott Walker.—
  (@Prototypeisgame) June 06, 2012

Before I die, I’d like to kick Scott Walker in the balls @theburiedlife

Oh Yeah, Somebody Gone Shoot Scott Walker White Ass.—

NBS I Know What School Scott Walker Son Go To—
Tj Fucked Yo Bitch (@iWusGetnSumHead) June 06, 2012

Can’t you just feel the Love!

It’s only “fair” that they get everything they want when they want and because they want it and you can’t take it away from them…Ever! 🙂

MINE! MINE! MINE!

ME! ME! ME!

It’s only Logical. 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

Access to the Good Life

Today is the deadline to tithe your loyalty and devotion to the Great Entitlers in Washington.

All hail the Great Entitlers! 🙂

Last year, almost 1,800 people renounced their U.S. citizenship or handing in their Green Cards. That’s a record number since the Internal Revenue Service began publishing a list of those who renounced in 1998. It’s also almost eight times more than the number of citizens who renounced in 2008, and more than the total for 2007, 2008 and 2009 combined.

Many say they parted ways with America for tax reasons.

The United States is one of the only countries to tax its citizens on income earned while they’re living abroad. (KFYI)

And the Highest Corporate Taxes in the World also helps greatly.

“I don’t want to pit Red America against Blue America. I want to be President of the United States of America.”-BARACK OBAMA, speech, Nov. 10, 2007

And the latest from the great “uniter”:

“We now have a Republican nominee who said that the Arizona laws are a model for the country, that — and these are laws that potentially would allow someone to be stopped and picked up and asked where their citizenship papers are based on an assumption,” President Obama said in an interview with Univision that aired over the weekend.

The Liberal Meme that is STILL inaccurate on purpose. Gee what a shocker…

“Racial profiling?” Univision reporter Enrique Acevedo asked.

“Very troublesome. And this is something that the Republican nominee has said should be a model for the country,” Obama said.

“So what we need is a change, either of Congress or we need Republicans to change their mind. And I think that this has to be an important debate throughout the country,” he said.

“What I have said to Latinos across the United States is that my compassion for this issue is undiminished. That, for example, when it comes for the DREAM kids, who have been raised as Americans and see themselves as Americans and want to serve their country or are willing to work hard in school, start businesses or working hard in laboratories or businesses, it is shameful that we cannot get that done. And so I am going to keep on pushing as hard as I can. And what I am going to do is encourage the Latino community to continue to ask every member of Congress where they stand on these issues,” Obama said.

“I will do everything that I can to try to get it done, but ultimately I’m going to need Congress to help me” Obama said of the DREAM Act.

Did he say the same thing was a ‘priority’ in 2007-8?? 🙂

After all, anyone who is not Pro-Illegal, Pro-Pandering, must therefore be a racist!

But if you pony up the cash, you can spend time personally with the Man himself though.

Barack Obama, November 3, 2007:

“One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race – and I’ve won. I don’t take a dime of their money, and when I am President, they won’t find a job in my White House.”

But plenty of access. As a matter of fact it seems to be a requirement.

But we also know from experience that Liberals are famously “Don’t Do as I do, Do as I say” hypocrites from the word go. Every second of every day.

An analysis of White House access by the New York Times suggests that hope and change has changed nothing except maybe you don’t get to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom. But in exchange for enriching the president’s campaign coffers, you do get to bend the president’s ear with a frequency greater than heads of state and Cabinet members.

“Among donors who gave $30,000 or less, about 20% visited the White House,” according to the Times analysis written by Mike McIntire and Michael Luo in the paper’s April 15 edition. The analysis matched names in the visitor logs with donor records. “But among those who donated $100,000 or more, the figure rises to 75%,” write McIntire and Luo.

Clearly, President Obama’s much ballyhooed ban on lobbyist contributions has not prevented lobbyists and other representatives of special interests from visiting the White House frequently. Some of those who sought access, and quid for their quo, were quite open about it.

Patrick J. Kennedy, the former representative from Rhode Island, who donated $35,800 to an Obama re-election fund last fall while seeking administration support for a nonprofit venture, said contributions were simply a part of “how this business works.”

“If you want to call it ‘quid pro quo,’ fine,” Kennedy told the Times. “At the end of the day, I want to make sure I do my part.”

One of the more famous White House visitors we already know about is billionaire investor George Kaiser of Solyndra fame. Kaiser himself donated $53,000 to Obama’s 2008 election campaign, divided between Obama for America and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. A world-class bundler, Kaiser also raised between $50,000 and $100,000 from others for the president’s campaign.

According to White House visitor logs, between March 12, 2009, and April 14, 2011, Solyndra officials and visitors made no fewer than 20 trips to the White House.

In the week before the administration awarded Solyndra the first-ever green stimulus loan on March 20, 2009, in spite of numerous warnings of the company’s instability, Kaiser made three visits to the White House on March 12, 2009, and one on March 13.

We have documented how many of the administration’s economy-damaging policies can be traced to a system of crony capitalism. The administration has adopted an industrial policy of picking winners and losers, but too often the only winners are also campaign donors.

In announcing his candidacy in Springfield, Ill., on Feb. 10, 2007, Obama railed against the “cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests who’ve turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”

“They write the checks and you get stuck with the bills, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this government, but we’re here today to take it back. The time for that kind of politics is over.”

Apparently not. Hypocrite, heal thyself.(IBD)

Naw, he needs the money to try and buy this election too.

Politico 2009: “It would be more honest if they admitted they made a mistake and came up with a narrower rule,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Obviously, they can’t live with the rule, which is why they keep waving the magic wand and making exceptions. They’re saying one thing and doing another. It’s why the public is skeptical about politicians.”

Our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter — that at that point we don’t merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
BARACK OBAMA, speech to joint session of Congress, sep. 9, 2009

“I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator. I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never – ever – turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake.“-BARACK OBAMA, speech, May 21, 2009

I added that one for comic irony. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Free

President Obama to Congress on Solyndra:

F*UCK YOU!

President Obama’s attorney sent a letter to Congressional investigators on Friday, saying the White House would not cooperate with a subpoena requesting documents related to its doling out a $535 million loan guarantee to now bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra.

“I can only conclude that your decision to issue a subpoena, authorized by a party-line vote, was driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation,” Obama’s counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, wrote in a letter to the top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee. (Read Ruemmler’s full letter here).

Gee, I wonder what would have happen if they said that about, oh, Valerie Plame?

Oh, that’s right they did and the Democrats just kept right on coming because it’s “don’t do as I do do as I say”… 🙂

Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich, blasted the White House response:

“We have been reasonable every step of the way in this investigation, and it is a shame that the Obama Administration and House Democrats continue to put up partisan roadblocks to hide the truth from taxpayers. Solyndra was a jobs program gone bad, and we must learn the lessons of Solyndra as we work to turn our economy around and put folks back to work. Our judicious and methodical work over the last eight months has garnered tens of thousands of pages of documents from DOE and OMB that have proven we are on the right track. Now, we need to know the White House’s role in the Solyndra debacle in order to learn the full truth about why taxpayers now find themselves a half billion dollars in the hole. The White House could have avoided the need for subpoena authorizations if they had simply chosen to cooperate. That would have been the route we preferred, and frankly, it would have been better for the White House to get the information out now, rather than continue to drag this out. Our request for documents is reasonable – we are not demanding the President’s blackberry messages as we are respectful of Executive Privilege. What is the West Wing trying to hide? We owe it to American taxpayers to find out.”

I can’t wait for the race card on this one… 😦

Massachusetts brought you State Required Health Insurance. Now they can bring you a free car!!

Gov. Deval Patrick’s free wheels for welfare recipients program is revving up despite the stalled economy, as the keys to donated cars loaded with state-funded insurance, repairs and even AAA membership are handed out to get them to work.

But the program – fueled by a funding boost despite the state’s fiscal crash – allows those who end up back on welfare to keep the cars anyway.

“It’s mind-boggling. You’ve got people out there saying, ‘I just lost my job. Hey, can I get a free car, too?’ ” said House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading).

The Patrick administration decided last month to funnel an additional $30,000 to the nearly $400,000 annual car ownership program.

The program, which is provided by the State Department of Transitional Assistance, gives out about 65 cars a year, said DTA Commissioner Julia Kehoe.

The state pays for the car’s insurance, inspection, excise tax, title, registration, repairs and a AAA membership for one year at a total cost of roughly $6,000 per car.

“If you look at the overall picture, this helps make sure people aren’t staying on cash assistance. It’s a relatively short payment for a long-term benefit,” Kehoe said.

But Kehoe admitted about 20 percent of those who received a car ended up back on welfare, and while they lose the insurance and other benefits, they don’t have to return the car.

Mark Steyn

Corporate Collaborators
Standing with “the 99%” means supporting the destruction of civilized society.

Way back in 1968, after the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Mayor Daley declared that his forces were there to “preserve disorder.” I believe that was one of Hizzoner’s famous malapropisms. Forty-three years later Jean Quan, mayor of Oakland, and the Oakland city council have made “preserving disorder” the official municipal policy. On Wednesday, the “Occupy Oakland” occupiers rampaged through the city, shutting down the nation’s fifth-busiest port, forcing stores to close, terrorizing those residents foolish enough to commit the reactionary crime of “shopping,” destroying ATMs, spraying the Christ the Light Cathedral with the insightful observation “F**k,” etc. And how did the Oakland city council react? The following day they considered a resolution to express their support for “Occupy Oakland” and to call on the city administration to “collaborate with protesters.”

That’s “collaborate” in the Nazi-occupied-France sense: The city’s feckless political class are collaborating with anarchists against the taxpayers who maintain them in their sinecures. They’re not the only ones. When the rumor spread that the Whole Foods store, of all unlikely corporate villains, had threatened to fire employees who participated in the protest, the regional president, David Lannon, took to Facebook: “We totally support our Team Members participating in the General Strike today — rumors are false!” But, despite his “total support,” they trashed his store anyway, breaking windows and spraypainting walls. As the Oakland Tribunereported:

A man who witnessed the Whole Foods attack, but asked not to be identified, said he was in the store buying an organic orange when the crowd arrived.

There’s an epitaph for the republic if ever I heard one.

The experience was surreal, the man said. “They were wearing masks. There was this whole mess of people, and no police here. That was weird.”

No, it wasn’t. It was municipal policy. In fairness to the miserable David Lannon, Whole Foods was in damage-control mode. Men’s Wearhouse in Oakland had no such excuse. In solidarity with the masses, they printed up a huge poster declaring “We stand with the 99%” and announcing they’d be closed that day. In return, they got their windows smashed.

I’m a proud member of the 1 percent, and I’d have been tempted to smash ’em myself. A few weeks back, finding myself suddenly without luggage, I shopped at a Men’s Wearhouse, faute de mieux, in Burlington, Vt. Never again. I’m not interested in patronizing craven corporations so decadent and self-indulgent that as a matter of corporate policy they support the destruction of civilized society. Did George Zimmer, founder of Men’s Wearhouse and backer of Howard Dean, marijuana decriminalization, and many other fashionable causes, ever glance at the photos of the OWS occupiers and ponder how many of “the 99%” were ever likely to be in need of his two-for-one deal on suits and neckties? And did he think even these dummies were dumb enough to fall for such a feebly corporatist attempt at appeasing the mob?

I don’t “stand with the 99%,” and certainly not downwind of them. But I’m all for their “occupation” continuing on its merry way. It usefully clarifies the stakes. At first glance, an alliance of anarchists and government might appear to be somewhat paradoxical. But the formal convergence in Oakland makes explicit the movement’s aims: They’re anarchists for statism, wild free-spirited youth demanding more and more total government control of every aspect of life — just so long as it respects the fundamental human right to sloth. What’s happening in Oakland is a logical exercise in class solidarity: The government class enthusiastically backing the breakdown of civil order is making common cause with the leisured varsity class, the thuggish union class, and the criminal class in order to stick it to what’s left of the beleaguered productive class. It’s a grand alliance of all those societal interests that wish to enjoy in perpetuity a lifestyle they are not willing to earn. Only the criminal class is reasonably upfront about this. The rest — the lifetime legislators, the unions defending lavish and unsustainable benefits, the “scholars” whiling away a somnolent half decade at Complacency U — are obliged to dress it up a little with some hooey about “social justice” and whatnot.

But that’s all it takes to get the media and modish if insecure corporate entities to string along. Whole Foods can probably pull it off. So can Ben & Jerry’s, the wholly owned subsidiary of the Anglo-Dutch corporation Unilever that nevertheless successfully passes itself off as some sort of tie-dyed Vermont hippie commune. But a chain of stores that sells shirts, ties, the garb of the corporate lackey has a tougher sell. The class that gets up in the morning, pulls on its lousy Men’s Wearhouse get-up, and trudges off to work has to pay for all the other classes, and the strain is beginning to tell.

Let it be said that the “occupiers” are right on the banks: They shouldn’t have been bailed out. America has one of the most dysfunctional banking systems in the civilized world, and most of its allegedly indispensable institutions should have been allowed to fail. But the Occupy Oakland types have no serious response, other than the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by government-funded inertia.

America is seizing up before our eyes: The decrepit airports, the underwater property market, the education racket, the hyper-regulated business environment. Yet curiously the best example of this sclerosis is the alleged “revolutionary” movement itself. It’s the voice of youth, yet everything about it is cobwebbed. It’s more like an open-mike karaoke night of a revolution than the real thing. I don’t mean just the placards with the same old portable quotes by Lenin et al., but also, say, the photograph in Forbes of Rachel, a 20-year-old “unemployed cosmetologist” with remarkably uncosmetological complexion, dressed in pink hair and nose ring as if it’s London, 1977, and she’s killing time at Camden Lock before the Pistols gig. Except that that’s three and a half decades ago, so it would be like the Sex Pistols dressing like the Andrews Sisters. Are America’s revolting youth so totally pathetically moribund they can’t even invent their own hideous fashion statements? Last weekend, the nonagenarian Commie Pete Seeger was wheeled out at Zuccotti Park to serenade the oppressed masses with “If I Had a Hammer.” As it happens, I do have a hammer. Pace Mr. Seeger, they’re not that difficult to acquire, even in a recession. But, if I took it to Zuccotti Park, I doubt very much anyone would know how to use it, or be able to muster the energy to do so.

At heart, Oakland’s occupiers and worthless political class want more of the same fix that has made America the Brokest Nation in History: They expect to live as beneficiaries of a prosperous Western society without making any contribution to the productivity necessary to sustain it. This is the “idealism” that the media are happy to sentimentalize, and that enough poseurs among the corporate executives are happy to indulge — at least until the window-smashing starts. To “occupy” Oakland or anywhere else, you have to have something to put in there. Yet the most striking feature of OWS is its hollowness. And in a strange way the emptiness of its threats may be a more telling indictment of a fin de civilisation West than a more coherent protest movement could ever have mounted.