You Just Might Be A Liberal…

Are you not sure that you’re a liberal? Well, there’s an easy way to find out. You might be a liberal if…

1) ….Your newspaper calls people “bigoted” for being worried about bringing Syrian refugees to America, but you won’t run pictures of Muhammad because you’re afraid Muslims might kill you for it.

2) ….You think every man accused of sexual assault is guilty until proven innocent except Bill Clinton.

3)….You insist that anyone who questions global warming hates science even though you don’t understand any of the science behind it yourself and you say we have to do something about climate change primarily because you want to impress your liberal friends.

4) ….You are terrified that holding terrorists at Guantanamo Bay who are trying to murder Americans might make the other terrorists who are trying to murder Americans mad.

5) ….You believe there’s a “Republican War on Women;” yet you are okay with aborting baby girls for any reason, think any man who says he identifies as a woman should be able to use the women’s bathroom and you want to put Bill Clinton back in the White House.

6) ….You claim to constantly hear Republican “dog whistles” that 99% of the population misses; yet you’d deny you’re racist for insisting that black Americans aren’t competent enough to get an ID to vote.

 

7) …You think there’s a possibility that Obama might be able to have a productive conversation with radical Islamists who want to kill us, but dialogue with the NRA is impossible.

8)….You believe Hillary Clinton is telling the truth. About anything. Ever.

9) ….You simultaneously believe the police are violent trigger-happy racists who shoot people for no good reason and that we should disarm the populace so that only the government has guns.

10) ….You went to a talk given on your campus by a conservative just so you could scream at him for “invading your safe space.”

11) ….You think Chris Kyle was a monster for killing so many enemies of America while Bowe Bergdahl deserves to be treated with respect and compassion after deserting his unit.

12) ….You believe you’re a caring and compassionate person because you advocate giving other people’s money away to people you hope will vote for candidates you like.

13) ….You believe that anyone who dislikes Barack Obama must hate him because he’s a minority, but your hatred of Ted Cruz and Clarence Thomas is perfectly justifiable.

14) ….You think you are a sophisticated person with a deep understanding of complex political issues, but sum up every one with some variation of, “Republicans are evil, racist, and they hate you while liberals like me are nice!”

15) ….You think it’s vitally important to increase the number of Muslim immigrants coming to America so they can inform on all the other Muslims who are planning terrorist attacks.

16) ….You blame the Republicans for the failure of Obamacare even though none of them voted for it.

17) ….Your first response to a terrorist attack committed by radical Islamists who’ve sworn allegiance to ISIS is to try to disarm every law-abiding gun owner in the country.

18) ….You think an unemployed, white factory worker who’s struggling to feed his family has some sort of racial privilege compared to Barack Obama, Melissa Harris Perry or Al Sharpton.

19) ….You say fences don’t work and gun-free zones do, but if Republicans wanted the fence around the White House taken down and demanded that the Secret Service be disarmed, you’d accuse them of trying to get Obama killed.

20) ….You believe Bruce Jenner is a woman, Rachel Dolezal is black and Elizabeth Warren is an Indian.

21)  Food in any way can be a “microagression” based on race, religion, sex, or ethnicity.

22) Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. Guns kill people so getting rid of Guns will kill less people.

23) The Power of Life and Death is “Pro-Choice”.

24) Any immigration is good no matter how it was done and anyone opposed to any immigration of any kind is “racist”.

25) A Religion is a Race, unless they are Christians, then they are just bigots.

26) Utter the word “islamophobia” and mean it.

27) Anything with a (D) after their name is ok and can do anything they want because it’s better than they alternative.

28) Democrats Lie, but it’s your fault not theirs.

29) A Tax is a Penalty, even after it’s ruled a Tax it’s still a Penalty.

30) “What Difference Does it Make?”

31) It was the fault of a You Tube Video.

32) That the Media is not biased and that people like Hillary and Barack are “moderates” and any Republican is “extreme”.

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Econ 101

1

2

3

Just something to think about on this Sunday evening: in exactly one year from today, Americans will be electing a new president.

While it seems as though this election season has already gone on forever–Ted Cruz, the first candidate to declare candidacy, launched his campaign over seven months ago–there’s still a long ways to go until things wrap up. Primary elections and caucuses are only three months away.

Buckle up, folks. It’s only going to get crazier from here.

‘Nuff Said… 🙂

Life or Death: The Liberal Agenda Edition

Life or death was determined by the answer to a single question: are you a Christian?

That was the question asked by an anti-Christian gunman who stormed into a classroom at Oregon’s Umpqua Community College.

Eyewitnesses say the shooter targeted Christians.

Well, at least he was a politically correct nutjob. 🙂 Imagine the outrage from the Liberal Media if he asked them if they “Homosexual or not?” before killing them. Wooo Doggie! It would be on 24/7 for weeks and he would have gotten even more of that fame he craved.

I guess he didn’t quite think his hatred through completely. 🙂

Kortney Moore was inside the classroom. She told the Roseburg News-Review that the shooter ordered students to get on the ground – and then told them to stand up and state their religion.

“And they would stand up and he said, ‘Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,” Stacy Boylan said in a televised report. “And then he shot and killed them.”

Imagine if it were “Allah” and Islam, the “Islamophobia” headlines would be massive.

His 18-year-old daughter was struck in the back by a bullet – that traveled down her spine. She survived. Miss Moore, too, survived.

Davis Jaques, publisher of the Roseburg Beacon News, said he received a text message from a student who said she was inside the classroom.

“The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christians,” the message read. “If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no or didn’t answer, they were shot in the leg.”

Christians were martyred for their faith — on American soil — a fact mostly ignored by most of the Mainstream Media and the White House.

Well, Christians are evil, oppressive religious psychos who just want to rule a theocracy in this country after all. They are politically incorrect and we aren’t supposed to have sympathy for the Politically Incorrect.

The New York Times only mentioned that the gunman inquired about people’s “religions” and one cable television news channel opined that the shooter’s motive was unclear.

The Agenda Narrative dial on their Thought Police filters was dialed up to “High”.

President Obama’s behavior in the aftermath of the massacre was quite frankly unpresidential. Instead of calling for religious tolerance — he delivered an unhinged tirade on gun control.

“Somebody somewhere will comment and say Obama politicized this issue,” the president said. “Well, this is something we should politicize.”

Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste, especially when it’s that Agenda!

faith

Liberals are delighted when there’s a mass shooting because as Rahm Emanuel famously said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Of course, they’d deny they feel that way, but before the blood even cools on the floor after a mass shooting, liberals are always working en masse to take advantage of the situation. After the shooting in Oregon, Barack Obama immediately took to the airwaves to declare that, “This is something that should be politicized.“

…and that’s what it is: pure politics because inevitably, nothing liberals ever seem to suggest would make mass shootings happen less frequently. In all fairness, that’s because what liberals really want is total gun confiscation, but taking that position would cement the Democrat Party out of power for a generation.

So, if you ask Democrats what gun control law would prevent mass shootings, they inevitably lock up the same way they do when they’re asked to name a noteworthy accomplishment of Hillary Clinton that would qualify her to be President.

Of course, there are policies that would help prevent these shootings and save lives, but liberals have no interest in discussing the trade-offs any of them would require because it doesn’t further their agenda. Worse yet, they don’t want to take any measures to prevent mass shootings because fewer deaths would undercut their ultimate goal of total gun confiscation.

Given that most shootings (including the latest one) seem to happen in gun-free zones, getting rid of gun-free zones would seem to be a smart first step in stopping these shootings.

After all, people having guns is evil. Only Government should have guns so that they can point them at you and demand you do as you’re told. How dare you want to defy that!

After the shooting in Charleston, people latched onto the fact that the killer took a picture with a Confederate flag and they speculated that might have had something to do with the shooting.

In this case, maybe we should ask whether the incessant hate rhetoric that liberals aim at Christians influenced the killer.

But I reckon it’s politically incorrect to address the persecution of Christians.

Absolutely. If a Gunman runs into a room and kills everyone and yells “Allah Ackbar” repeatedly, it’s “workplace violence” after all.

If a Lesbian orders a Pizza for wedding and they say “no” it’s hatred personified and that story will run for a month non-stop.

But shooting Christians, because they are Christians, is just “gun control”. Nothing more.

That could explain why the White House has expressed less than passionate outrage over the near-genocide of Christians in the Middle East. And that could also explain why his administration has failed to secure the release of an American pastor being tortured in an Iranian jail.

Christians are evil. And the “compassionate” “sensitive” Liberal only cares about those who are with or on approved list for the THE AGENDA and Christians most certainly are on their “Most Evil” naughty list so deserve nothing but their contempt and scorn.

Good riddance to bad politically incorrect rubbish.

“Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have a separation of church and state.” – Rosie O’Donnell

And all Christians are “radicals” and no Muslim is ever “radical” in their eyes but moral equivalency is one of the Liberal’s favourite talking point hoaries.

In a country where the Boy Scouts are being persecuted out of existence, the Obama administration has gone to court to try to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their beliefs and liberals are sneering at Christians on a regular basis, no one should be surprised that someone responded to all that hate by murdering Christians for their faith.

Except the Leftists themselves. Remember, they are Holier than Thou, even though their sneer on religion, and smarter than you, at least in their own heads.

These days “lambs being led to the slaughter” is not exactly a politically correct narrative.

Unless you’re talking about what Liberals think Conservatives want to do everyone that is.

I cannot even begin to imagine the courage it took for our fellow believers to stand — knowing that to do so — would require the ultimate sacrifice.

Me either.

But their families can take comfort in knowing that after they took their last breath on Earth, they took their first breath in Heaven. (Todd Starnes & John Hawkins)

They deserve more than many.

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Left’s Compassion Problem

It is fascinating to see brilliant people belatedly discover the obvious — and to see an even larger number of brilliant people never discover the obvious.

A recent story in a San Francisco newspaper says that some restaurants and grocery stores in Oakland’s Chinatown have closed after the city’s minimum wage was raised. Other small businesses there are not sure they are going to survive, since many depend on a thin profit margin and a high volume of sales.

At an angry meeting between local small business owners and city officials, the local organization that had campaigned for the higher minimum wage was absent. They were probably some place congratulating themselves on having passed a humane “living wage” law. The group most affected was also absent — inexperienced and unskilled young people, who need a job to get some experience, even more than they need the money.

It is not a breakthrough on the frontiers of knowledge that minimum wage laws reduce employment opportunities for the young and the unskilled of any age. It has been happening around the world, for generation after generation, and in the most diverse countries.

It is not just the young who are affected when minimum wage rates are set according to the fashionable notions of third parties, with little or no regard for whether everyone is productive enough to be worth paying the minimum wage they set. (thomas Sowell)

Seattle’s $15 minimum wage law goes into effect on April 1, 2015. As that date approaches, restaurants across the city are making the financial decision to close shop. The Washington Policy Center writes that “closings have occurred across the city, from Grub in the upscale Queen Anne Hill neighborhood, to Little Uncle in gritty Pioneer Square, to the Boat Street Cafe on Western Avenue near the waterfront.”

Of course, restaurants close for a variety of reasons. But, according to Seattle Magazine, the “impending minimum wage hike to $15 per hour” is playing a “major factor.” That’s not surprising, considering “about 36% of restaurant earnings go to paying labor costs.” ..,

“Washington Restaurant Association’s Anthony Anton puts it this way: “It’s not a political problem; it’s a math problem.”

In reference to that last quote, it’s certainly a math problem for the restaurant owners, but that doesn’t eliminate the fact that it’s a political problem for the social justice warriors who shoved this initiative through. Of course, the problems in question are all too real for the workers who are now “benefiting” from having their wages bumped up by more than 50% in some cases, and it involves some calculating as well. Our friend Bruce McQuain asks the question which puts this whole math issue in focus. What’s $15 times zero again?

Are there alternatives to closing? Sure. But they’re the same ones we’ve talked about for years:

Restaurant owners, expecting to operate on thinner margins, have tried to adapt in several ways including “higher menu prices, cheaper, lower-quality ingredients, reduced opening times, and cutting work hours and firing workers,” according to The Seattle Times and Seattle Eater magazine. As the Washington Policy Center points out, when these strategies are not enough, businesses close, “workers lose their jobs and the neighborhood loses a prized amenity.”

Welcome to the land of $17 dollar cheeseburgers. And, as you can figure out fairly quickly, everything else will be more expensive too … which, of course, erodes the purchasing power of that $15 wage. More importantly, if you work for one of those establishments that is closing, your wage is $15 times zero hours, isn’t it?

Bigger companies who can absorb the financial hit from implementing new technology have already been preparing for these changes. McDonald’s has been experimenting with point of sale automation for taking orders and Applebee’s rolled out smart tablets at tables in multiple locations last year. The latter solution is the most interesting to me because it seems like the easiest for younger consumers to adapt to. Most of the people going out to eat in such places are already familiar with laptops, tablets and smart phones anyway. Having one waiting at the table which takes the place of not only the menu, but the waitress as well, isn’t going to come as much of a shock to the system.

I ran into one of these setups at the Philadelphia airport this winter and they work surprisingly well. If you plan to pay by credit or debit card (which is the only option in some cases) you barely interact with a human at all. You browse the drinks and food on the touch screen, place your order, swipe your card, and a short while later somebody strolls up with your food and beverage, says hello and drops them off. It’s a terribly impersonal service as compared to a bartender or waitress who stops to chat with you, but it gets the job done.

Of course, that last phrase is the big issue here, isn’t it? It gets the job done. That job used to be done by a person. Now it’s essentially a robot. So those workers are no longer on the payroll, but hopefully they’ll catch on someplace else. Unfortunately, as Seattle is finding out, employers who run single outlets and don’t have the backing and buffer range of a major chain often won’t be able to make the shift in technological infrastructure required to cut back on staffing while staying open. Those folks will shut down, and it’s apparently already beginning in Washington state. (hot air)

Back to Mr Sowell:

Low-income minorities are often hardest hit by the unemployment that follows in the wake of minimum wage laws. The last year when the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate was 1930, the last year before there was a federal minimum wage law.

The following year, the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 was passed, requiring minimum wages in the construction industry. This was in response to complaints that construction companies with non-union black construction workers were able to underbid construction companies with unionized white workers (whose unions would not admit blacks).

Looking back over my own life, I realize now how lucky I was when I left home in 1948, at the age of 17, to become self-supporting. The unemployment rate for 16- and 17-year-old blacks at that time was under 10 percent. Inflation had made the minimum wage law, passed ten years earlier, irrelevant.

But it was only a matter of time before liberal compassion led to repeated increases in the minimum wage, to keep up with inflation. The annual unemployment rate for black teenagers has never been less than 20 percent in the past 50 years, and has ranged as high as over 50 percent.

You can check these numbers in a table of official government statistics on page 42 of Professor Walter Williams’ book “Race and Economics.”

Incidentally, the black-white gap in unemployment rates for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds was virtually non-existent back in 1948. But the black teenage unemployment rate has been more than double that for white teenagers for every year since 1971.

This is just one of many policies that allow liberals to go around feeling good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake.

But they “feel” so good about themselves and you’re so “greedy” if you disagree.

sowell- liberal care

History Repeats

My seventh-grade son recently wrote a U.S. History paper extolling the virtues of President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. “It ended the Great Depression,” he wrote with great certainty. He’s only 12 and parroting what the history texts and his teachers told him.

That’s his excuse. What’s Ken Burns’?

Mr. Burns’ docudrama on the Roosevelts—for those who weren’t bored to tears—repeats nearly all the worn-out fairy tales of the FDR presidency, including what I call the most enduring myth of the 20th century, which is that FDR’s avalanche of alphabet-soup government programs ended the Great Depression. Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on such lies?

Not for Liberals. They spent 90 years working up to ObamaCare, after all…

Ask nearly anyone over the age of 80, and they will say that FDR cared about the working man and “gave the country hope,” a point that Mr. Burns emphasizes. Roosevelt exuded empathy, which isn’t a bad thing—remember Bill Clinton’s memorable line “I feel your pain”?—but caring doesn’t create jobs or lift gross domestic product.

Nor does spending government money revive growth, despite the theories put into practice by the then-dean of all economists, John Maynard Keynes. Any objective analysis of these facts can lead to no other conclusion. U.S. unemployment averaged a rate of 18 percent during Roosevelt’s first eight years in office. In the decade of the 1930s, U.S. industrial production and national income fell by about almost one-third. In 1940, after year eight years of the New Deal, unemployment was still averaged a god-awful 14 percent.

Former President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his wife Eleanor with their Scotch terrier Fala on the terrace of his house in Hyde Park, New York. (Photo: Newscom)

Think of it this way. The unemployment rate was more than twice as high eight years into the New Deal than it is today, and American workers now are angry as hornets. Imagine, if jobs were twice as scarce today, the pitchforked revolt that would be going on. This is success?

Almost everything FDR did to jump-start growth retarded it. The rise in the minimum wage kept unemployment intolerably high. (Are you listening, Nancy Pelosi?) Roosevelt’s work programs like the Works Progress Administration, National Recovery Administration and the Agricultural Adjustment Administration were so bureaucratic as to have minimal impact on jobs. Raising tax rates to nearly 80 percent on the rich stalled the economy. Social Security is and always was from the start a Madoff-style Ponzi scheme that will eventually sink into bankruptcy unless reformed.

The cruel irony of the New Deal is that the liberals’ honorable intentions to help the poor and the unemployed caused more human suffering than any other set of ideas in the past century.

The most alarming story of economic ignorance surrounding this New Deal era was the tax increases while the economy was faltering. According to economist Burt Folsom, FDR signed one of the most financially devastating taxes: “On April 27, 1942, he signed an executive order taxing all personal income above $25,000 [rich back then] at 100 percent. Congress balked at that idea and later lowered it to 90 percent at the top level.” The New Dealers completely ignored the lessons of the 1920s tax cuts, which just a decade before had unfurled an age of super-growth.

Then there was the spending and debt barrage. Federal spending catapulted from $4.65 billion in 1933 to nearly $13.7 billion in 1941. This tripling of the federal budget in just eight years came at a time of almost no inflation (just 13.1 percent cumulative during that period). Budget surpluses during the prosperous Coolidge years became ever-larger deficits under FDR’s fiscal reign. During his first term, more than half the federal budget on average came from borrowed money.

The cruel irony of the New Deal is that the liberals’ honorable intentions to help the poor and the unemployed caused more human suffering than any other set of ideas in the past century.

The road to Hell is paved with Liberal Good Intentions. Since they are The Enlightened , and they Care, it worked in their minds– in their reality. So, therefore, it will work again, and again, and again.

They are the good, compassionate, loving, caring, sensitive Angels of the World. Anyone who disagrees must therefore be a Devil and out to do everyone (but especially the poor) harm.

It just stands to reason, in their heads.

What is maddening is that thanks to this historical fabrication of FDR’s presidency, dutifully repeated by Mr. Burns, we have repeated the mistakes again and again. Had the history books been properly written, it’s quite possible we would never had to endure the catastrophic failure of Obamanomics and the “stimulus plans” that only stimulated debt. The entire rationale for the Obama economic plan in 2009 was to re-create new New Deal.

Doubly amazing is that at this very moment, the left is writing another fabricated history — of the years we have just lived through. The history books are already painting Obama policies as the just-in-time emergency policies that prevented a Second Great Depression. I wonder if 80 years from now, the American people will be as gullible as they are today in believing, as my 12-year-old does, that FDR was an economic savior.

Originally appeared in The Washington Times by Stephen Moore

Answer: YES. History is written by the winners, or at least, in this case the Liberal educators. So as long as they control the process, the falsehoods of the Liberal Narrative will become fact.

After all, if you often enough it becomes the truth. No one like this axiom better than a Liberal.

Ask nearly anyone over the age of 80, and they will say that FDR cared about the working man and “gave the country hope,” a point that Mr. Burns emphasizes. Roosevelt exuded empathy, which isn’t a bad thing—remember Bill Clinton’s memorable line “I feel your pain”?—but caring doesn’t create jobs or lift gross domestic product. (Chris Cook)

And then you have now the 24/7 Ministry of Truth to spew “the facts”.

So, yes, Liberals never learn from  REAL history (because they are SO MUCH smarter than the average bear) and we are doomed to repeat them.

Homework: http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=515

Truth in Advertising

Breitbart has a story: “Greed of Denial: Scientists Touting ‘CTE’ Scans Profiting from Brain Testing Company.”  This is Daniel Flynn who has a book called The War on Football: Saving America’s Game.   “The company behind headline-grabbing claims of a CTE diagnoses for living NFL players has publicly proclaimed a major scientific breakthrough, but a TauMark representative refuses to say who owns the mysterious corporation or where it’s located.
Are the doctors touting the CTE test also the businessmen profiting from it? ‘I’m not at liberty to say,’ responded a receptionist to questions about the ownership and founders of the for-profit venture. After repeated queries, the TauMark receptionist indicated she was in Louisiana but refused to divulge the secretive company’s whereabouts. She asked all further questions to be sent to her TauMark email address, which she promised to forward to her bosses. The queries made last Tuesday remain unanswered. Questions about ownership stakes to League of Denial talking heads Julian Bailes and Bennet Omalu, two of the doctors touting the TauMark scans, similarly have been met with silence.”

Folks, this is how a study that nobody has ever seen by a group nobody’s ever heard of becomes settled science.  This is exactly how this lunatic fringe group, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has gotten all of these bans on various foods that they don’t like.  It’s three people when they started out, three emaciated, skeletal looking people with a fax machine and a logo, and they send their stuff out to the Drive-Bys, and the Drive-Bys, because they like controlling people and telling ’em what’s good for ’em and bad for ’em run with it without checking.  The same thing was done here.  ESPN, NBC, every sports network fell for this story, and it turns out it’s probably a hoax. 

“How could so many so thoroughly botch the fraudulent story that Tony Dorsett tested positive for CTE?  The widespread reporting of a fiction as a fact raises issues of the conflict of interest inherent in vested parties determining the validity of their own research, journalists acting as unwitting press agents for entrepreneurs, the prefix ‘Dr.’ transforming reporters’s natural skepticism into naivety, and the ethics of releasing purported scientific discoveries to ESPN’s ‘Outside the Lines’ for vetting rather than peer-reviewed publications better equipped for the task.” 

So basically, to summarize this, this is how we got global warming.  A bunch of people nobody had ever heard of released news that the news media and the American left loved hearing, so they ran with it.  I’ve been talking about this for years.  But now we’ve got this fraudulent story and some of the sports media, in order to protect themselves, are refusing to admit that they’ve fallen for a hoax and are continuing to report that there’s a new discovery that you can discover CTE in living athletes.  You can’t. (Rush)

Without any peer-reviewed data or FDA approval buttressing TauMark’s boast, nearly every major news outlet in the country gullibly reported the shadowy, for-profit venture’s claim about its commercial product’s ability to diagnose CTE in the living.

Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a form of encephalopathy that is a progressive degenerative disease, which can only be definitively diagnosed postmortem, in individuals with a history of multiple concussions and other forms of head injury. 

Proof denies faith. And if a liberal wants it to be true, it must be true. Right?

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/11/17/Scientists-Doctors-Touting-CTE-Scans-Profiting

Then there was…

Apparently, a story started from GameOver.com a website and a business run by former players who released that “the suicide rate amongst NFL players was 6 times the national average” and because the media liked it, they ran with it and incest of “sources” began where the next person cited the previous person and their “study” but never did any journalistic due diligence themselves because they wanted it to be true (or it just made a good story or both).

So now you have “studies” that show how “bad” hitting in football is so now we have to have the hysterical liberal over-reaction.

Just like Global Warming.

Mind you, I’m not a sport person anymore. I gave up on sports back in 1982 when the Baseball millionaires went on strike because they want more money. And all the subsequent strikes since have reinforced that.

Sports is a millionaires game. It’s owned and operated by millionaires. The players are millionaires. So them crying about how much of the pie each of them gets is not appealing to me. I don’t love it enough to overlook it.

But the same liberal scams of poor science leading to power and control issues exists in microcosm here.

I think eventually, the liberals will ban the “violent” sport, or make it so “safe”. Then it will die on its own. But they will have the satisfaction of  “saving lives”.

That’s what liberals do, kill anything and everything with “kindness” and “compassion”.

Just like Health Care and Global Warming.

What could be wrong with that?? 🙂

P.s. Daniel J. Flynn is the author of The War on Football: Saving America’s Game

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Your Federal Family

“mundane matters often get brushed aside by ideological crusaders out to change the world to fit their own vision. When the world fails to conform to their vision, then it seems obvious to the ideologues that it is the world that is wrong, not that their vision is uninformed or unrealistic….To those with the crusading mentality, failure only means that they should try, try again — at other people’s expense, including not only the taxpayers but also those whose lives have been disrupted, or even made miserable and dangerous, by previous bright ideas of third parties who pay no price for being wrong.”

Doesn’t that sum up the Left in a nutshell.

Holder is also taking legal action against the state of Louisiana for having so many charter schools, on grounds that these schools do not mix and match the races the way that public schools are supposed to.

The fact that those charter schools which are successful in educating low-income and minority students that the public schools fail to educate are giving these youngsters a shot at a decent life that they are not likely to get elsewhere does not deter the ideological crusaders.

Nor does it deter the politicians who are serving the interests of the teachers’ unions, who see public schools as places to provide jobs for their members, even if that means a poor education and poor prospects in life for generations of minority students. All this ideological self-indulgence and cynical political activity is washed down with lofty rhetoric about “compassion,” “inclusion” and the like. (Thomas Sowell)

In August, DOJ’s civil rights division — the same bunch that dropped the case of a group of New Black Panthers wearing military garb and carrying billy clubs as they stood outside a Philadelphia polling place in 2008 — filed suit against the state of Texas. In it, the government said it would not allow the Supreme Court’s decision to be interpreted as open season for states to pursue measures that suppress voting rights.

In its suit, DOJ also contends that Texas adopted a voter identification law with the purpose of denying or restricting the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group. Under Texas law, Holder said, “Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them — and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them.”

Holder called such fees “poll taxes,” a mechanism once used by southern states to keep poor minorities from voting.

Holder’s problem is that the Supreme Court has already ruled that requiring photo IDs to vote — as required, for example, at the 2012 Democratic National Convention — does not constitute an undue burden on minorities since the requirement and any fees are applied to all voters equally.

A study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln found that “concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.” Nothing, that is, unless you are an administration willing to play the race card to gain minority votes in the next election.

Just as in Indiana no one could find a single voter disenfranchised by Voter ID, the vote results in Georgia also expose the myth of voter disenfranchisement, according to an Atlanta Journal-Constitution review of statewide voting patterns after the law took effect in 2008.

“Elections data reviewed by the AJC show that participation among black voters rose by 44% from 2006 — before the law was implemented — to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67%. Turnout among whites rose 12%,” the newspaper reported.

“If you look at the numbers, they clearly show that critics of this law were wrong,” said Hans von Spakovsky, former legal counsel to the Justice Department’s civil rights division who now works for the conservative Heritage Foundation. “Their argument has always been it would depress turnout. But it didn’t happen — quite the opposite.” (IBD)

But the reason they are so hopped-up about it is clearly just racial politics. Whitey doesn’t want you to vote for a Democrat, that sort of BS.

The politics of racial division , is “inclusion”.

A news release issued Tuesday by Health and Human Services refers to “our federal family.” How charming of Washington to try to con Americans into thinking that it’s a nurturing institution.

The federal government has in fact become a belligerent force, and for HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to make it sound as if it’s a warm, cuddly family that merely wants to protect its own is an insidious use of language. It’s an obvious effort to cloud reality, to reshape Americans’ thinking. (IBD)

Orwell couldn’t do any better.

H.L. Mencken famously said “the urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” He understood what the “federal family” is really all about.

Do you?

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen