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

CPAC Cruz

Constitutional conservative Ted Cruz  was interrupted by numerous standing ovations during a powerful CPAC address on Friday before an energized crowd, a fiery speech delivered without notes or teleprompter.

“So, Donald Trump is skipping CPAC,” Cruz said in his opening sentence, causing a roar of boos directed towards Trump, who announced that he would be skipping out on his scheduled speaking spot on Saturday. “I think somebody told him Megyn Kelly was going to be here. Or even worse, he was told there were conservatives that were going to be here,” he said to raucous applause. “Now, none of you have a degree from Trump University,” Cruz joked, taking a jab at the bloviating billionaire and reality TV actor who is being sued for fraud by 5,000 former students who believe they were scammed.

“The men and women here are a grassroots army,” Cruz told the CPAC audience. “The men and women here love liberty. And let me tell you, as dire as things are, people are waking up all over this country. And help is on the way!” he shouted to loud cheers.

Ted Cruz contended that the election is about three main topics; jobs, liberty and security.

“It’s easy to talk about making America great again,” Cruz said, taking a shot at Trump’s often repeated campaign slogan. “You can even print that on a baseball cap. But the question is, do you understand the principles that made America great in the first place?”

“The heart of the economy is not Washington, D.C.; it is not New York City, the heart of the economy are small businesses all over this country,” Cruz said. “You want to hammer the economy? Crush small businesses like we’ve done the last seven years. And if you want to unchain the economy, lift the boot of the federal government off the backs of the necks of small businesses,” Cruz proclaimed.

Ted Cruz directly addressed the anger and frustration felt by Republican voters who have been let down by politicians who say one thing to get elected, but upon arriving in Washington, immediately begin breaking their promises and not fighting for the issues they told voters they would fight for.

“Now, I understand that a lot of people in this country are angry. I get being angry — I’m angry too. For far too long politicians in both parties have lied to us. They make promises on the trail then they go to Washington and they don’t do what they said.”

Cruz said that there’s no example of this than the hot-button issue of immigration, which he calls a law enforcement, a national security and an economic issue, saying when you allow 12 million illegal aliens in the country, you take jobs away from American citizens and it also has the effect of driving down wages.

“There’s a natural question to ask during the Gang of Eight battle — Where was Donald? Donald was funding the Gang of Eight. He gave over $50,000 to five of the eight members of the Gang of Eight. And last night, Donald’s on stage promised all of us to be ‘flexible’…Flexible is code word in Washington, D.C., for ‘They’re getting ready to stick it to you.” 

(ed: which also included Marco Rubio)

Cruz promised to repeal “every word of Obamacare,” implement a flat tax and abolish the IRS, rein in the federal regulators, stop amnesty, and secure the borders. He asserted that the economy would drastically improve with more and better-paying jobs.

He spent considerable time talking about the importance of replacing Justice Scalia with a principled constitutionalist and warned that America is only one liberal Supreme Court justice away from losing much of the First and Second Amendment.

The riled-up crowd gave Ted Cruz perhaps his loudest applause and longest standing ovation when he announced his attitude toward the nation of Israel, an issue where Donald Trump has said he would be neutral between America’s strongest ally in the Middle East and Palestinian terrorists.

“As president, I have no intention of staying neutral. America will stand unapologetically with the nation of Israel,” Cruz shouted, seemingly at the top of his voice.

After Ted Cruz’s 2016 CPAC speech, he took several questions from FOX News’ Sean Hannity and said that he agreed with Bernie Sanders on one issue, that the relationship between big business and the government is corrupt, but disagrees with the solution.

“If the problem is that government is corrupt, the answer isn’t more government,” Cruz said.

Cruz then explained the differences between how the economy performed under Ronald Reagan vs. Barack Obama.

“Reaganomics: You start a business in your parent’s garage. Obamanomics: You move into your parent’s garage.”

The Difference

mindset

Via John Hawkins at Townhall:

10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren’t going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.

9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it’s ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.

8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn’t be punished for being successful. Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That’s why they don’t respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.
7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they’ll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them — as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.

5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it’s vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn’t like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.

4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That’s why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always….you guessed it, another government program.
3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That’s why we believe in “American exceptionalism” and “America first.” Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That’s why, whether you’re talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays,” liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.

1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they’re pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they’re “nice” and make them feel good. Whether the policies they’re advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
abolished slavery-hate

The Mission is Clear

As long as you say what The Left/PC Crowd want you to say that is…

Students at Gonzaga University say they were told that an upcoming lecture by a conservative speaker will not be open to the public because he is “homophobic” and “anti-immigration.”

“I was told that the reason that his speech is not allowed to be open to the public is because … Dinesh D’Souza’s beliefs are contradictory to Gonzaga’s ‘social justice’ mission and they do not want the public to question why the school brought him in,” Ben DuBois of the Gonzaga chapter of Young Americans for Freedom told YAF on Monday.

Gonzaga’s Mission Statement:

Central to the Jesuit, Catholic, and humanistic mission of Gonzaga University is a deep-seated commitment to issues and practices of social justice and becoming persons for others. A minor in Solidarity and Social Justice gives students the opportunity to enact these values.

The introductory, elective, and capstone courses are purposefully designed to “educate students for lives of leadership and service for the common good” and “foster a mature commitment to dignity of the human person, social justice, diversity, intercultural competence, global engagement, solidarity with the poor and vulnerable, and care for the planet.” 

In addition, these courses teach students to employ key themes of Catholic social teaching in their analysis of justice issues. Among these themes are the fundamental right to life, the right to participate and to work, and the principle of subsidiarity.

The SOSJ curriculum is designed to expose students to various humanistic skills and habits of mind and heart. For example, students engage in ethical reasoning in philosophical/theological elective courses. They evaluate information, perform critical analysis, and solve problems in social science elective courses. SOSJ students integrate ideas across disciplines, explore new perspectives, engage in reflection, and become agents for social change in the capstone class. (Gonzaga.edu)

“For example, he is ‘homophobic’ and ‘anti-immigration’,” DuBois said he was informed by Director of Student Involvement Colleen Vandenboom, adding that she also told him that in the course of researching D’Souza, the administrators had deemed him “a ‘nasty guy’ who is ‘way out there’ and has been ‘caught in many lies in his past.’”

Sound like the childish rationalization of a Leftist you know? Yep…

Consider this:

From Gonzaga.edu – As part of a program sponsored by KSPS Public Television honoring the life and legacy of renowned civil rights leader and Gonzaga Law School alumnus Carl Maxey, Gonzaga Law will host the public forum, “Civil Rights in Washington: The Post-Maxey Era” at 10 a.m., Friday, Feb. 19 in the Barbieri Courtroom.

The panel discussion, which is free and open to the public, will be moderated by Jim Kershner, author of the biography “Carl Maxey: A Fighting Life,” and includes as panelists Emily Chiang, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington State; GU Law Professor Jason Gillmer, associate dean for faculty research and development and the John J. Hemmingson chair in civil liberties; Raymond Reyes, GU chief diversity officer; Dwayne A. Mack, Carter G. Woodson chair in African American history at Berea College and author of “Black Spokane: The Civil Rights Struggle in the Inland Northwest.”

Gonzaga Law is proud to be a partner in helping to tell the story of Maxey, who overcame enormous odds to change attitudes about civil and gender rights in Eastern Washington and a tireless fighter for racial equality and justice at the state and national level. Co-sponsors include ACLU of Washington state, Humanities Washington, KSPS, Loren Miller Bar Association, NAACP Spokane, Spokane County Bar Association-Diversity Section, Washington State Minority and Justice Commission, and the YWCA of Spokane.

DuBois says he asked to speak directly with the administrators behind the decision—the Dean of Students, Director of Campus Security and Public Safety Scott Snider, and Director of Community and Public Relations Mary Joan Hahn—but that the request was denied.

Homo Superior Liberalis doesn’t have to explain anything to you neanderthals.

He also noted that a number of previous events featuring “blatantly liberal subject matter” have been open to the public, including a “Dream Week” in support of illegal immigrant students, lectures on Islamophobia and xenophobia, a pro-Palestinian play, and International Day of Tolerance Celebrations.

The Agenda is The Agenda. Freedom Liberal Speech is paramount. All must hear it.

“It’s pretty clear that only conservatives are closed to the public,” he remarked, adding that when he brought the apparent inconsistency to administrators’ attention, they could only provide one counter-example of a conservative event that was open to the public, and even that took place several years ago.

The Narrative is The Narrative. The Truth is irrelevant.

Gonzaga, however, disputed portions of DuBois’ account in a statement to Campus Reform, confirming that the February 24 event will only be open to students, faculty, and staff, but maintaining that the decision was made in the interest of maintaining decorum on campus, and was fully consistent with past precedent for similar events. The university did not address, either to confirm or deny, any of DuBois’ specific claims regarding the administrators’ personal feelings about D’Souza.

Dinesh D’Souza at Gonzaga University

February 24, 2016 @ 7:00 pm9:00 pm

“The parameters of this event are in line with Gonzaga’s longstanding and common practice of balancing a broad spectrum of viewpoints while providing a supportive learning environment,” the statement claims. “Since September of 2013, GU student organizations and clubs have hosted 3,485 events, with 63 percent of those events open only to members of the Gonzaga community.”

Lies, damned Lies, and statistics, anyone?

“While we are very much a part of the Spokane, Inland Northwest and global communities, our events at their core are intended to advance an exemplary learning community that educates students for lives of leadership and service for the common good,” said Colleen Vandenboom, Ph.D., Assistant Dean of Student Involvement and Leadership. “We strive to invite the public to many student events, but as a practical matter we need to have reasonable limits.”

Yeah, we don’t Conservatives to be seen to be popular now do we. They are the Enemy of The University establishment.

Vandenboom explained that while “we want to promote discussion and learning,” they wish to do so “in a supportive learning environment,” (Aka PC) and that the controversy surrounding D’Souza’s appearance suggested to them that it would be unwise to open the event to the public.

The controversy being that he’s not Politically Correct and he might confuse the tiny minds of Liberals with reality and truth.

“We’ve heard from those who advocate Mr. D’Souza’s visit with the College Republicans be open to everyone, and we’ve heard from those who believe he should not be allowed on campus,” Vandenboom said. “We believe this approach where members of the University community can hear Mr. D’Souza, ask him questions and have an open dialogue in a supportive setting strikes the right balance—particularly for students.”

We want to sound fair in our censorship. When we invite the next radical Leftist and the people who think he “should not be allowed” object we’ll call them racists, homophobes and tell to shut the hell up. 🙂

Campus Reform was unable to reach DuBois for comment on the university’s response.

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

Gonzaga reached out to The Fix with its own statement, reprinted in full below, implying that D’Souza’s closed lecture was a compromise with those who wanted to ban him entirely from campus.

Clarification regarding Dinesh D’Souza address at Gonzaga

Gonzaga is welcoming political commentator Dinesh D’Souza to campus to speak on Feb. 24.  This event is sponsored by the College Republican student organization. The event is open to the Gonzaga community – students, faculty and staff.  It is not open to the general public.

The parameters of this event are in line with Gonzaga’s longstanding and common practice of balancing a broad spectrum of viewpoints while providing a supportive learning environment. Since September of 2013, GU student organizations and clubs have hosted 3,485 events, with 63 percent of those events open only to members of the Gonzaga community.

“While we are very much a part of the Spokane, Inland Northwest and global communities, our events at their core are intended to advance an exemplary learning community that educates students for lives of leadership and service for the common good,” said Colleen Vandenboom, Ph.D., Assistant Dean of Student Involvement and Leadership. “We strive to invite the public to many student events, but as a practical matter we need to have reasonable limits.”

As with all events, the decision to have Mr. D’Souza speak on campus was made after careful consideration and review of Gonzaga’s Events Policy, Vandenboom said.

Congruent with this policy, “Our responsibility is to our students,” Vandenboom said. “We want to promote discussion and learning, and do so in a supportive learning environment.”

“We’ve heard from those who advocate Mr. D’Souza’s visit with the College Republicans be open to everyone, and we’ve heard from those who believe he should not be allowed on campus,” Vandenboom said. “We believe this approach where members of the University community can hear Mr. D’Souza, ask him questions and have an open dialogue in a supportive setting strikes the right balance – particularly for students.”

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…

Why They Do it

Global Warming: The United Nations climate summit was billed as the meeting that would save the world. But that’s not what the conference delegates want — their goal is to fundamentally transform the world.

Obama said in 2008 that he planned to “Fundamentally Transform America.” He has remained true to that promise.

In the days leading up to the 21st session of the Conference of Parties to the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, hardly a living person could avoid hearing the desperate talk about the Paris summit being our last chance to save the world from global warming . It was all a pretense, however, because what the global warming alarmist community says it wants isn’t what it truly hungers for.

Like most things with Liberals, deceit and fear is the only way for them.

The U.N.’s many climate meetings and its interest in climate through the years have nothing to do with warming, climate, weather or the environment.

The goal has always been to wreck capitalism , punish prosperous economies that became rich through free markets, reward poorer nations that are impoverished by policies that starve markets, and reshape the world in the image of left-wing thought.

Don’t believe it? It’s right there in the U.N.’s own documents.

The “Draft conclusions proposed by the Co-Chairs,” distributed on Dec. 5, confirms that the parties of a climate agreement are united in “emphasizing the importance of promoting, protecting and respecting all human rights, the right to development, the right to health, and the rights of indigenous peoples, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable climate situations (and under occupation).”

The draft also underscores the need to promote “gender equality and the empowerment of women, while taking into account the needs of local communities, intergenerational equity concerns, and the integrity of ecosystems and of Mother Earth, when taking action to address climate change.”

Yes, that’s Mother Earth with an upper-case M and upper-case E.

The same document refers as well to “the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities.”

All of these issues being “emphasized” and “taken into account” are goals the political left has pursued for decades, and all require more government intervention into private affairs. This is what the global warming scare is about. It’s not about rescuing cities from encroaching seas, saving populations from drought, preventing “dirty weather ” or protecting polar bears.

Look at those around the world who are advancing the global warming scare. The movement is led, and followed by, figures from the political left who loathe capitalism, are repulsed by the wealth in advanced economies and want to exercise control over their fellow humans. The talk about climate change is a smoke screen to cover their true ambitions.

The Paris climate summit was to end this weekend, with a deal likely struck. The nabobs will claim victory, but that won’t end the hectoring. By the time spring rolls around, they’ll again be claiming the 2016 Morocco summit will be the last chance to save the world. (IBD)

And they did.

Do it our way, give us you life, or else!

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The New Rules

We conservatives have spent far too long playing by the old rules when liberals have completely changed the game. There was a time when laws meant what they said, when individual rights were important, when the government did not make it its business to oppress the executive’s ideological opponents, and when principles mattered. But that time has passed.

There’s a new set of rules, and while we don’t have control in Washington right now, we do have control most everywhere else – and someday a conservative will be president again. So there is no reason not to get going right now playing by the same rules the liberals do!

Of course, first we need to understand the basis of the new rules – it’s about having the moral courage to obtain and keep power. Until now, we conservatives have been guided by “principles” and “values” that only serve to distract us from what’s really important. Under the new rules, we will no longer let arbitrary ideas about how America should work get in the way of maximizing our ability to exercise our authority over others. After all, our supremacy is a moral imperative.

We will step beyond obsolete notions about process and embrace the primacy of results. We will stop treating “means” and “ends” like they are distinct and different – as 1984 (Read it – lots of great tactics, techniques and procedures!) teaches, “Power is not a means; it is an end.” Means and ends will flow together seamlessly, and we will stop getting hung-up on how we do things and focus on the real goal under the new rules – consolidating our power for the greater good.

Take the law. Under the old rules, judges were constrained by the plain meaning of the text, but that is far too restrictive. Words must mean what we need them to mean, no more and no less. We have to appoint judges who won’t prattle on about “judicial restraint” and “not legislating from the bench,” and who will reliably rule exactly how we need them to rule on each and every case. Let’s appoint judges, who understand that their purpose is to rationalize rulings that support our policy priorities, not seek some “legally correct” decision that might not. The law of the land is whatever we want it to be!

We should celebrate Judge Robert’s recent Obamacare decision – it was liberating! He made it clear that when we want a different result, we don’t have to be deterred by the fact that the law means exactly the opposite. He affirmed that judges should interpret statutes – and the Constitution too – based upon a subjective desire for a particular outcome. Think of the possibilities for conservative progress if we aren’t hamstrung by some inconvenient text in a statute or the literal meaning of the words on some ancient parchment!

Where we have control of law enforcement, we have another great opportunity to play by the new rules. There are all sorts of liberal organizations out there shamelessly advocating policies and ideas we disapprove of. As we have learned, we can turn the power of the government upon them to root out this wrongdoing. We do not need to bother with accusing them of any kind of specific crime – why should we restrict our investigations to clear violations of laws? Instead, we can launch fishing expeditions to see what we can dig up – and even if there’s nothing, well, remember that the process is the punishment. Regardless, it’s important to establish that our political opponents will pay a price for presuming to oppose us.

And, naturally, when our allies are accused of breaking the law, we just ignore it. There needs to be two sets of laws – one for us, and one for everyone else. Otherwise, we might be constrained from doing what we please.

And there are other opportunities a huge government can provide us. Beyond audits and blocking vital certifications, the IRS has plenty of juicy information on every American – we can selectively release it to intimidate those who do not support us. And when we get a hold of everyone’s medical records under Obamacare – wow! What an opportunity!

Of course, there will not be any Obamacare. Oh, technically it might be hard to repeal (though getting rid of the filibuster entirely will make it much easier!), but who needs to repeal it when we can just choose not to enforce it? Our next president simply has to instruct the rest of the executive branch that they will not be taking any action with regard to implementing Obamacare, not collecting any of its taxes (they are taxes this week, right?) and not enforcing any of its mandates. Understand that we won’ be refusing to carry out the law – we’ll just be focusing on different executive priorities!

Perhaps the mainstream media will speak up, at least at first. But, you know, the New York Times, NBC and the rest really seem to have way too much power over our national conversation. It just isn’t fair how these big companies drown out the voices of regular people. Heck, these corporate entities are not even people and certainly should not have rights like people do to speak freely and so forth. They are more of a public utility, and frankly, they have not been serving the public good. That’s why we will use the FCC to take charge and oversee the shamefully deregulated mainstream media. We especially need some sort of doctrine to ensure fairness that forces the Washington Post and CNN to give a fair hearing to conservative ideas, religious views, and traditional values.

You know, there’s been a lot of bigotry against conservatives, religious people, and traditional Americans, and it is time the government took action by concentrating its anti-discrimination efforts on those spewing hate against them. We will have to root out policies and practices that result in such prejudice. Step one is focusing on colleges, where hate against normal Americans runs amok. Colleges that refuse to conform will lose their funding and tax exempt status – oh, and we will be taxing excessive endowments too. Schools like liberal Harvard have billions socked away, money that could be better used serving working Americans’ priorities than those of wealthy college administrators.

And speaking of billions, Hollywood and the entertainment industry need our attention. They spew out a tremendous amount of hate against conservatives, religious people, and traditional Americans, and that kind of intolerance simply cannot be tolerated. We’ll need to take action under the discrimination laws to punish the kind of offensive words and portrayals that make normal Americans feel unsafe and marginalized in theaters and their own homes.

Moreover, those in Hollywood and in the high tech world are getting far too rich. They are simply not paying their fair share – remember that their wealth came from the regular Americans who buy movie tickets and iPhones, and it is only right that these rich liberals give something back to working American families.

A 40% surcharge on all Hollywood and Silicon Valley windfall profits would go a long way towards making things fairer – and this has nothing to do with the fact that most Hollywood and Silicon Valley political money goes to our opponents. But don’t worry about our conservative allies in those two fields – if they don’t pay we just won’t prosecute them! But if you’re liberal, watch out!

Of course, it’s entirely possible that we and the Hollywood and high tech moguls can resolve the issues that led to them pouring money into our enemy’s coffers and come to some understanding that keeps us from having to rollback copyright protections on their intellectual property to, say, ten years.

This is only the beginning – the new rules liberate us from the constraints that for so long kept us from truly making conservative progress. All those “principles” and “ideals” about right and wrong and all that only served to take our eyes off of the real prize – our power, which we would only use for the common good.

Sure, we were all sad to see the old rules go, but gone they are. Our liberal friends made sure of that. So let’s make the best of it! (Kurt Schlichter)

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

A Fool and his Freedom are soon Parted

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

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

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

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

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

The Rainbow’s Arc

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

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

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

1. The Kids Are Not Alright

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

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

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

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

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

3. The Infertility Canard

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

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

4. Same-Sex Marriage Will Settle Nothing

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

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

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

6. Transgenderism Is a Big Part of This Package

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

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

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

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

8. Same-Sex Marriage Commodifies Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. Same-Sex Kills Privacy by Growing Bureaucracy

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

13. It’s Meant to Be a Global Agenda

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

14. It Promises a Monolithic Society of Conformity

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

15. Expect More Severe Punishment for Dissent

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

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

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

The Agenda is the Agenda

Anyone who opposes the new Manifesto of homosexuality and gender neutrality/gender identity is at risk.

You will comply, or else!  That’s the American way. 🙂

J Mark Brewer: I was a law student when I first learned of the consequences of not being politically correct concerning homosexuality.  A former Miss America’s contract as the citrus growers’ brand-ambassador was allowed to lapse because she had successfully campaigned for the repeal of a pro-homosexual ordinance in Miami-Dade County. 

She was quoted as saying, “What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable, alternate way of life.”  She was publicly humiliated – “pied” on national television – and her name – Anita Bryant – became synonymous with something called “homophobia” and “hate speech.”

As a new Air Force J.A.G. officer, my first court assignment was to represent the United States in an administrative discharge proceeding concerning a female service member.  She was being kicked out of the service for allegedly engaging in homosexual acts.  Even as an inexperienced young lawyer, I managed to prove that she had committed the requisite two homosexual acts.  She was given a “general” discharge and sent back to the United States.

I don’t remember when thereafter I first noticed that there are only two instances in which “sex” occurs in the “ethics” rules for lawyers.  Both are in the same, “anti-discrimination” provision:  “A lawyer shall not willfully, in connection with an adjudicatory proceeding … manifest, by words or conduct, bias or prejudice based on race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, or sexual orientation towards any person involved in that proceeding in any capacity.” 

There it was – right there with the prohibition racial discrimination; a lawyer could not “manifest” any “bias or prejudice” based on “sexual orientation.”  Hadn’t I done precisely that just a few years earlier?  Hadn’t I done that on behalf of the United States government?  And yet in that case, I hadn’t set out to prove that the female service-member was a homosexual.  My task was limited to proving that she had engaged in homosexual conduct. 

Then, suddenly, the issue of homosexual rights – that is, not the right to be a homosexual – but the right to openly engage in homosexual practices and be insulated from any push back from the rest of society – was everywhere.  Suddenly it had become a daily staple of bar journals and legal news sources.  I don’t remember when I first noticed that.  Was it when California’s voters approved a referendum that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”?  It must have been before then.  It must have been as early as 1993 when I first noticed the enormous consequences of this new so-called right.  That was the year Travis County, Texas legalized “domestic partnerships,” in order to attract business investment to Austin, the state capitol.                     

Not until the spring of 2015, however, did the consequences of this new “right” really begin to sink in for me.  That’s when I knew that people who for years had thought that the emerging collection of special protections for homosexual behavior was, “no big deal,” were flat wrong.  Indiana Gov. Mike Pence had signed a “religious freedom” bill.  The backlash, in the name of homosexual rights, was ferocious with the now infamous threats and boycott of a small-town pizza joint whose owners had the temerity to volunteer that they would decline to cater a homosexual marriage celebration. 

So, now we know that Anita Bryant was right – at least partly so – when she embarked on her doomed campaign nearly 40 years ago.  Ms. Bryant primarily worried about children being confronted with a dangerous alternative way of life.  Today, all opponents of special homosexual rights have cause to be worried about their very survival – legal and economic.  Anyone who opposes the new Manifesto of homosexuality and gender neutrality/gender identity is at risk.

 
 

Using statutes originally and primarily (if not exclusively) designed to protect blacks from discrimination, activist homosexuals have targeted bakers, photographers, and florists, seeking to force all of them to promote a “marriage” that they believe to be immoral.  One day, such laws probably will be deployed against writers of articles like this one. 

In Washington State, a judge ruled that a florist violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws when she referred a longtime customer to another florist for the wedding flowers for his homosexual marriage.  In New York, a husband and wife shut the doors to their business hosting weddings on their family farm, after a court fined them $13,000 for refusing to host gay marriages in their home.  In Colorado, a baker faced jail time and stopped baking wedding cakes entirely, after a court ruled that he discriminated against a gay couple when he refused to bake them a cake for their wedding.  In Oregon, a court found similarly against another baker, and he may be forced to pay a homosexual couple up to $150,000 as penalty.  The New Mexico Supreme Court held that a photographer violated the state’s anti-discrimination statutes by refusing to photograph a gay wedding.  Newspapers likely will be forced to publish homosexual wedding announcements, in violation of their existing editorial control over what they publish.

Even pro-same sex marriage, libertarian, John Stossel has said that the gay marriage movement “has moved from tolerance to totalitarianism.”

To homosexual activists and their political supporters, it matters not one whit that homosexuality is not consistent with Biblical sexual morality. 

In this brave, new, homosexual-friendly world, every licensed professional would be required to embrace the new orthodoxy – to bow down to the idol of “non-discrimination,” or be cast out of his profession.  I was co-counsel on an amicus brief against same-sex marriage in the Obergefell case; the Texas Attorney General also filed an amicus brief on behalf of the State of Texas against same-sex marriage.  Does that put us in violation of the ethics rule previously quoted?

If the U.S. Supreme Court forces same-sex marriage on the states, unless the states resist such a ruling, the legal system will be employed to squash resistance to the new order.  Lawyers who oppose this not-so-brave new world will begin to lose their right to practice law for violation of the new so-called “ethics” of the profession.  An Obama Department of Health and Human Services will push for all physicians who stand up for Christian morality to be stripped of their hospital privileges and medical licenses.

According to the advocates of homosexual marriage in the U.S. Supreme Court, the right to a homosexual way of life is enshrined in the penumbras and emanations of the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of Equal Protection – or is it Due Process – or both.  (Apparently, this even explains why the Civil War itself was fought.)  In fact, this new right is said by these advocates to be so deeply embedded in the Constitution that it trumps the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association.  And it empowers government to run aspects of our lives that it has no business controlling.

The same people who first claimed to only want tolerance of their behavior will allow no toleration for other views.  Will a physician be forced to perform an artificial insemination for a lesbian couple?  Will a lawyer be forced to take a case defending gay marriage?  Lawyers are already losing their “traditional prerogative to exercise absolute discretion in the selection of clients … .”  Provisions designed to advance the homosexual agenda have been incorporated into many state legal ethics codes.  In California, for example, it is unethical to “discriminat[e] on the basis of … sexual orientation [in] employment … or [client] representation … .”  State Bar of California, Rules of Professional Conduct:  Rule 2-400B.  If you doubt this view of the future, read R. Beg, “License to Discriminate Revoked:  How a Dentist Put Teeth In New York’s Anti-Discrimination Disciplinary Rule,” 64 Albany L. Rev. 154 (2000). 

I fear that the legal system has lost its way, and the case now before the U.S. Supreme Court could well lay the groundwork for government to assume the sort of totalitarian powers required to force everyone to yield to what most of us hopefully still believe to be immoral.  But it doesn’t have to be that way.  Instead, right-thinking people can and should not be afraid to assert their God-given rights.  They should not – must not – fail in their duty to teach Biblical sexual morality to their children despite state-sponsored interference.  They should accept the challenge and obey their conscience – even if that means refusing totalitarian orders to bow down at the altar of homosexuality.  We did not seek this war, but if it comes, we must not shirk from it. 

Whoops!

More unintended consequences from Liberal “help”.

SEATTLE, Wash. —

A Seattle-area nonprofit observed some workers recently asking for reduced hours, as they feared that their higher wages now put them at risk of losing housing subsidies.

Nora Gibson is the executive director of Full Life Care, a nonprofit that serves elderly people in various homes and nursing facilities. She is also on the board of the Seattle Housing Authority.

Gibson told KIRO 7 she saw a sudden reaction from workers when Seattle’s phased minimum-wage ordinance took effect in April, bringing minimum wage to $11 an hour. She said anecdotally, some people feared they would lose their subsidized units but still not be able to afford market-rate rents.

For example, she said last week, five employees at one of her organization’s 24-hour care facilities for Alzheimer’s patients asked to reduce their hours in order to remain eligible for subsidies. They now earn at least $13 an hour, after they increased wages at all levels in April, Gibson said.

“This has nothing to do with people’s willingness to work, or how hard people work. It has to do with being caught in a very complex situation where they have to balance everything they can pull together to pull together a stable, successful life,” Gibson said.
Gibson said she fully supports a minimum wage increase but was not surprised when her employees asked for fewer hours.

“The jump from subsidized housing to market rate in Seattle is huge,” she said.

Seattle Housing Authority told KIRO 7: “It’s important that the continuum of affordable housing options in our city and region allows for progression as people’s incomes increase. That needs to be addressed across the housing market so that people don’t feel they are in jeopardy of stable housing as they are able to earn enough to pay more of their housing costs.”

The amount of public assistance one receives depends on the income and size of the family. The scale is determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the qualifications are based on area median income.

Justine Decker, who is a full-time student at Seattle Central College, said she works part-time so she can still get subsidies for rent and child care.

“A one-bedroom can cost upward of $1,200. And so imagine paying that, and paying child care which can be $900 something dollars,” Decker said.

She said she doesn’t want to work full time, or she wouldn’t be able to afford market-rate rents. Decker said she’s in school to become a teacher and hopes to eventually become a principal, to make well over minimum wage levels to be able to pay for everything on her own.

Mohamed Muktar drives an Uber and also receives public assistance for housing. He said he would love to work more hours.

“If you can get more hours, I think you need to work more hours, so you can take care of your bills,” Muktar said.

Seattle Councilmember Nick Licata said he hadn’t heard of purposeful reduction of hours before.

“We need more information, for one thing. This is anecdotal,” Licata said.

Still, he said people need more options, especially after breaking the threshold that pushes them out of public housing.

“We do not want this to be an improvement on one side of the scale, and then decrease in living conditions on another,” Licata said. “We should not be using this as an excuse not to address the overall problem.” (KIRO)

Houston, We have a Problem…

Eleven inches of rain drenched Houston on Memorial Day. The Texas metropolis is among the areas hardest-hit by a storm system that has soaked much of Texas, Oklahoma, and northern Mexico since the weekend, resulting in more than 30 deaths and a dozen missing persons. Naturally, Bill Nye the Science Guy had an explanation:
“Billion$$ in damage in Texas & Oklahoma. Still no weather-caster may utter the phrase Climate Change.”

(remember when it was “Global Cooling, Then Global Warming (and still is) but it’s now “Climate Change” because after all before the Industrial Revolution (those 5 1/2 BILLION years, the Climate was unaffected by Man but now it’s Armageddon and we’ll destroy everyone and everything!) 🙂  OMG The Sky is Falling! The Sky is Falling!!

The severe flooding, following as it does a years-long drought in the Lone Star State, has seemed to many an obvious demonstration of the dangerous consequences of climate change: “A steadily escalating whipsaw between drought and flood is one of the most confident predictions of an atmosphere with enhanced evaporation rates — meaning, global warming,” writes meteorologist Eric Holthaus at Slate. “Texas’s quick transition from drought hellscape to underwater theme park was egged on by both El Niño and climate change.”

“Going from one extreme to another is a hallmark of climate change,” writes Samantha Page at ThinkProgress, who loses no time fingering the culprits: “Texas and Oklahoma both face intensifying drought and flooding, although politicians in both states have denied climate change.”

As with any major weather event, though, two questions arise: 1) Is the event caused by anthropogenic global warming? and 2) If it is, could we do anything about it? “Science does not say that climate change is CAUSING the extreme rain and drought we’re seeing across the U.S. today, and in recent years,”

Katharine Hayhoe, of the Texas Tech University Climate Science Center, told Scientific American. “Just like steroids make a baseball player stronger, climate change EXACERBATES many of our weather extremes, making many of them, on average, worse than they would have been naturally.”

Among such weather extremes is El Niño, which NOAA recently announced has made its return this year, and which may last through the end of 2015. Eric Holthaus is right to point out that El Niño is linked to the Texas storm system — but he is exactly wrong when he writes that El Niño’s “most important feature is its predictability.”

Noteworthy about El Niño, which is caused by abnormally warm water in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean, is its unpredictability. “For reasons still not well understood,” writes Jon Erdman at the Weather Channel’s website, “every 2-7 years, this patch of ocean warms for a period of 6-18 months.” In fact, predicting a new El Niño has become something of a meteorological pastime in recent years: In 2012, 2013, and 2014 confident predictions were dashed. “Waiting for El Niño is starting to feel like waiting for Godot,” wrote U.S. Climate Prediction Center scientist Michelle L’Heureux last year.

Part of the reason for scientists’ errant predictions is the complicated interplay of conditions — wind and water — that allows El Niño to take shape. But it is also the case that, as Erdman writes, “no two El Niños are exactly alike.” It is one thing to correctly predict that El Niño will take form; it is another entirely to predict what effects it will have. Consider the link between El Niño and hurricane activity. It is generally agreed that El Niño tends to decrease Atlantic hurricane activity; however, the least active recent hurricane season — 2013 — did not follow an El Niño, and in 2004, when 15 storms and nine hurricanes formed — and Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne all made landfall in the U.S. — a weak El Niño preceded them.

At NOAA’s Climate.gov, meteorologist Tom Di Liberto puts scientists’ confusion bluntly: “In short, if you are someone who wants more or stronger ENSO events in the future, I have great news for you — research supports that. If you are someone who wants fewer or weaker ENSO events in the future, don’t worry — research supports that too.”

Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, it is not clear that El Niños are gaining significantly in frequency or strength. El Niño is part of a large-scale oscillation in the ocean-atmosphere nexus called the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). A research team led by Georgia Tech climatologist Kim Cobb studied climate-change indicators in coral to study ENSO activity over the past 7,000 years (N.B.: Much longer than mankind has been using aerosol sprays). “The corals document highly variable ENSO activity, with no evidence for a systematic trend in ENSO variance,” Cobb’s team wrote in Science in January 2013. “Twentieth-century ENSO variance is significantly higher than average fossil coral ENSO variance but is not unprecedented.” Their conclusion: “Our results suggest that forced changes in ENSO, whether natural or anthropogenic, may be difficult to detect against a background of large internal variability.”

From this chronicle of scientific disagreement it should be clear just how insupportable are the easy links being drawn by climate-change alarmists in the media. And, more important, the ignorance of scientists is the reason that sweeping public-policy addressing climate change is wrongheaded. By linking the storms in Houston and climate change, Slate and ThinkProgress and their ilk are implicitly claiming that changes in public policy could spare Americans similar devastation in the future.

But that is nonsense. Science is not yet capable of predicting when El Niño will occur, let alone what consequences it is likely to have on human populations. There is not much reason to think that even the most dramatic public-policy changes would reduce the intensity or frequency of catastrophic weather events — and even if we suppose that public-policy changes could make a difference, it is quite possible that the cost would far outweigh the benefit. Those advocating policy changes should ask themselves: According to their own hypotheses, how many power plants would need to be shut down to turn Houston’s next perilous deluge into a tolerable drizzle? Among the great triumphs of scientific inquiry over the past 300 years is the ability of man to insulate himself against nature’s vicissitudes, and even to channel, to an astonishing degree, the forces of nature to his benefit. Perhaps our understanding of climate will rise to the same heights someday. But that day is not now, and those who believe that they can legislate solutions to problems they do not fully understand are certain to create more troubles than they will prevent. (NRO)

But since they are Wile E. Coyote, Suuuper Genius, and their hearts in the “right place” they can do no wrong by trying to control every aspect of your life. 🙂

And you’re just a silly little “denier” who is beneath their holier-than-thou-gonna-save-the-world-from-evil-exploting-corporations who deserves nothing but their scorn and contempt.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Obama’s 1984

While actions speak louder than words, words often predict future actions. Secular progressives’ words and actions rarely align. This is because the pseudo-utopian, wholly dystopian perch from which they view the world is so detached from reality that, from a cultural and public policy standpoint, they must disguise their intended actions in flowery and euphemistic language, or face near universal rejection.

Don’t do as I do as I say, and I will say it as many Orwellian terms as possible.

When they don’t like the terms, liberals redefine the terms to mean something they do not, never have and never can mean. Consider, for instance, the once meaningful words “marriage” and “equality.”

They only mean for as far as THEIR Agenda goes, not yours.

Other “progressive” doublespeak includes words like “invest” (meaning socialist redistribution of wealth), “tolerance” (meaning embrace immorality or face total ruin), “diversity” (meaning Christians and conservatives need not apply), “hate” (meaning truth) or “The Affordable Care Act” (meaning unaffordable, unsustainable and utterly inferior socialized medicine).

Even so, it’s during those rare moments of candor that our cultural Marxist friends’ rhetoric actually aligns with their intended actions. In other words, every so often, and usually by accident, they tell the truth.

Take this recent declaration by President Obama at Georgetown University. He was discussing his contempt for conservative new media in general and Fox News in particular:

“[W]e’re going to have to change how our body politic thinks, which means we’re going to have to change how the media reports on these issues,” he said.

How Kim Jong-un of him. In sum: Goal 1) Control thought by, Goal 2) Controlling the media.

The Ministry of Truth!!

This is an idea older than – and as well preserved as – Vladimir Lenin himself. How Dear Leader intends to reconcile his scheme to “change how the media reports on these issues” with the First Amendment’s Free Press Clause, namely, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press,” is abundantly clear.

He doesn’t.

Abridging the press of anyone not on the Agenda, that is. And you only have free speech if you say what the Progressive want you to say. Nothing more.

Our emperor-in-chief will force feed his once-free subjects yet another unconstitutional executive decree – a Net Neutrality sandwich with a side of Fairness Doctrine.

Or take would-be President Hillary Clinton’s comments last month on the “rite” of abortion vs. the right of religious freedom.

“The comment has Hillary Clinton essentially saying that Christians must be forced to change their religious views to accommodate abortions.

“‘Far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth. All the laws we’ve passed don’t count for much if they’re not enforced,’ Clinton said, using the euphemism for abortion.

“‘Rights have to exist in practice – not just on paper,’ Clinton argued. ‘Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.’”

You have to do it our way or else.

That’s a lot of “have tos.” See the pattern here? Whether it’s Obama saying government will “have to change how the media reports,” or Hillary saying “deep-seated religious beliefs have to be changed,” such despotic demands should spike the neck hair of every freedom-loving American.

And then there are those left-wing extremists whose designs on despotism require that Christians “must be made” to obey. Homosexual practitioner and New York Times columnist Frank Bruni is one such extremist. In his April 3 column titled, “Bigotry: The Bible and the Lessons of Indiana,” Bruni quotes homosexual militant Mitchell Gold, a prominent anti-Christian activist: “Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list,’” he writes. “His commandment is worthy – and warranted,” he adds.

Of course, if homosexual behavior, something denounced as both “vile affections” and “an abomination” throughout both the Old and New Testaments, is no longer sexual sin, then there can be no sexual sin whatsoever. To coerce, through the power of the police state, faithful Christians to abandon the millennia-old biblical sexual ethic and embrace the sin of Sodom would likewise require that Christians sign-off on fornication, adultery, incest and bestiality. Such is the unnatural nature of government-mandated moral relativism.

“But this isn’t free speech, it’s hate speech!” come the mournful cries of the ill-informed and the ill-prepared, desperately afraid to debate the issues on the merits. “Hate speech is excluded from protection,” opines CNN anchor Chris Cuomo in a recent tweet on the topic. “But there is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment,” replies UCLA law professor Eugene Volohk in a Washington Post op-ed. “Hateful ideas (whatever exactly that might mean) are just as protected under the First Amendment as other ideas.”

Of course this matters not to those to whom the First Amendment is meaningless.

Indeed, one man’s “hate speech” is another man’s truth, and as I’ve often said, truth is hate to those who hate truth.

And boy do they hate it.

🙂

And so they mean to muzzle it.

The time of which many of us have long warned is no longer on the horizon. The left’s full-on assault against freedom, most especially religious freedom, is at hand. Oddly, or maybe not so oddly, it’s at once the secular left and orthodox Muslims who lead the charge. These strange bedfellows share a common enemy. He is Truth in the person of Jesus Christ. In order to silence Him, they must silence His faithful followers.

Which brings us to this modern age of American lawlessness. We’re fast moving from a soft tyranny to hard tyranny, and “progressive” leaders like those mentioned above are, chillingly enough, emboldened to the degree that they will openly call for it.

Like our brothers and sisters around the world, American Christians must prepare for suffering.

But, like them, we mustn’t despair.

For there are different kinds of suffering.

Suffering through cancer, for instance, can, and often does, lead to death. Without Christ, who is mankind’s only hope, such suffering is hopeless indeed.

Yet when a young mother suffers through child birth, and while she may experience the same level of pain as the cancer sufferer, her crying out elicits an entirely different response, and her pain serves an entirely different purpose. While one type of suffering leads to death, the other leads to life. While one attends sorrow, the other attends joy.

Similarly, there is a kind of suffering, suffering in sin, which leads to spiritual death, and a kind suffering, suffering in grace, which leads to spiritual life. Anti-Christian persecution, be it efforts to force Christians into disobedience to God, attempts to silence them outright or, worse, the torture, enslavement and even execution of Christ followers – now widespread in both Muslim and Marxist nations across the globe – signifies “the beginning of birth pains” (see Matthew 24:8).

And birth pains lead to new life. (townhall)

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Live Free Speech or Die

The following haqs NOT been approved by the Social Justice Ministry of Truth and as such you should understand that reading it is Thoughtcrime punishable by derision and shame-mongering by the “tolerant” and “diversity” loving Leftists of America.

We’d rather die than “live” on our knees, begging permission to exercise the right God gave us to say whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please, and in the manner we damn well please. And those who want to shut us up better be equally committed if they want to succeed.

After Garland, they went too far. They showed their hand and their goal, a world where they decide who gets to say what. Imagine the same hysterical social justice drama queens who shriek about microaggressions getting to decide what you can and can’t say. Just understand, you fascist bastards, that if you want to be Nazis, you’ll need to do what the Nazis did and find some armed thugs – yeah, I’m using the word “thugs” whether you like it or not – to come stop us. Tell them to wear Kevlar.

Garland and the sorry aftermath of terrorist apologetics that followed were a warning to every freedom-loving American, as well as an illustration of what one freedom-loving American with training and a Glock can do against the forces of totalitarianism. These jihadi savages tried to silence and intimidate all free Americans. They failed.

Progressives mutter without conviction about how they can’t support violence, but … but … but, in fact, they do support violence. It’s not just their chilling with bomb-planting guys around the neighborhood and free passes for the looters in Ferguson and Baltimore. They support whatever it takes to silence us.

When the Democrats in Congress vote to repeal the First Amendment, or when they babble about outlawing what they label “hate speech,” what these leftist elitists seek to do is to empower a government they control to send armed men to stop us from saying what they have determined we may not say. They can’t stand up to the truth we speak; they have to suppress it or scamper away like roaches caught in the light.

No. You see, we aren’t giving up our right of free speech or, for that matter, any other rights you leftist schmucks deem inconvenient.

Those miserable losers in Garland weren’t just a couple of carcasses. Shot down in the street by a free American who was not intimidated, who was not afraid, who absolutely, positively was not going to back down even when outnumbered and outgunned, their dead bodies are a symbol. They are a symbol of our resolve, proof that we will not surrender, we will not submit, and we will not allow our God-given rights to be stolen from us by anyone, not Seventh Century savages, not Gucci-wearing liberal narcissists, and not twisted social justice warriorettes taking out on the rest of humanity their lingering disappointment that no boy wanted to be seen with them at the prom.

To the gutless and cowardly who would gladly submit to dhimmitude, whether imposed by the jihadi creeps or the progressive cadres, we can say only that we pity you. We pity the fact that every day you have to wake up and look in the mirror and see the face of a man, or woman, or whichever of the 567 other gender identities the freakshow left has manufactured, who is more concerned with personal safety than with personal dignity. Pathetic.

Maybe preserving your life is worth living as a slave, but we reject your craven choice. God did not put us on this Earth to be the minions of some oligarchy of malignant punks, obedient and afraid. You want to clasp a figurative collar around our necks? You better hire a whole bunch of dudes who are a whole a lot better at close quarter combat than those clowns in Garland. And you sure won’t find any tactically proficient future stormtroopers in the local university’s Womyns’ Studies Department or sipping cosmos at some Manhattan cocktail party.

You want to turn America into the fascist state of your dreams? Remember Lexington and Concord? No, you don’t, because you were too busy taking courses in Socialist Tap Dance to squeeze in a history course. So let me break it down for you: You’ll need to fight. And you putzes don’t have the skill or the guts to do it.

The jihadis can’t fight, and you leftists won’t. You progressives thought you could just slowly nibble away at our rights, gnawing off a bit here and a bit there, slowly, so we wouldn’t notice. You thought you could shame, bully, and browbeat us into the figurative cattle cars for carriage off to the giant reeducation camp you wanted to make of our culture. Who needed men in black with guns? We were supposed to willingly, even eagerly, submit. But that’s not going to happen.

Oh, you came so close. For so long, we wrongly imagined that your lies about racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and all the rest were just part of some big misunderstanding. Sure, we knew you were wrong, that we were being falsely accused, but we thought you were at least sincere, if misguided. Except now the mask is off.

Racism? You don’t care. Ask Clarence Thomas about your love of minorities who don’t toe your line.

Sexism? You don’t care. Ask any of Bill Clinton’s victims, who you eagerly sacrificed to save your progressive knight.

Homophobia? Poverty? Corporate abuses? Civil rights? You care nothing about any of them. You leftists just want control. You trash gays who get between you and power, and ignore the gays being murdered in the Middle East because that oppression isn’t useful to you. You keep the poor poor and addicted to your paltry handouts so you can maintain a docile voting bloc. Corporate abuses are terrible right up until the big companies start paying off your candidates. And civil rights? Gimme a break. The First Amendment stopped being useful back in January 2009, so now you’re eager to drown it like Mary Jo Kopechne.

We’re done. You fascists, whether Islamo- or liberal, want to shut us up? Then you better be ready to rumble, because submission isn’t one of the options. We will speak free or die. (Kurt Schlichter)

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

Ice, Ice, Baby

 No matter what happens, the alarmists blame man for changing the climate. In their minds, there are no other explanations. In reality, there can be many, with melting in Antarctica as one example.

Indeed, a massive glacier in East Antarctica that holds vast amounts of water is melting. Should it thaw completely, the water it releases could contribute to a rise in sea levels. The question, of course, is why is the Totten Glacier, which is about 75 miles long and roughly 20 miles wide, melting?

And while we ponder that, let’s not forget that a complete meltdown of Totten would likely take centuries, not months or even years. New York and Los Angeles won’t be underwater by the end of the summer.

Research published online Monday in the journal Nature Geoscience concludes that Totten’s retreat might be caused by a valley or trough of warm water flowing beneath the glacier, melting it from the bottom up.

“Researchers at the University of Texas at Austin’s Institute for Geophysics in the Jackson School of Geosciences,” says a March 16 news release from the school, “have discovered two seafloor gateways that could allow warm ocean water to reach the base of Totten Glacier, East Antarctica’s largest and most rapidly thinning glacier.”

Media reports scrupulously avoid saying this is man’s fault, though it’s clear they desperately want to say it is. The alarmist community can’t let the narrative fade. But any honest reading of the school’s summary will lead the reader to strongly infer that the warm water is an entirely natural event not caused by man.

Which is not to say the scary scenarios aren’t there. “The ice flowing through Totten Glacier alone,” the report says, “is sufficient to raise global sea level by at least 11 feet, equivalent to the contribution of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet if it were to completely collapse.”

Meanwhile, a Washington Post handwringer says that the Australian government’s Antarctic Division believes the glacier is losing an amount of ice “equivalent to 100 times the volume of Sydney Harbor every year.”

But again, is this the fault of humans? The researchers can’t say that, but one tried to place guilt by innuendo. He told the media, “The last IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report said that if this kind of thing happens, it’s going to add several tens of centimeters of sea level rise to their estimate of one meter.”

He didn’t distinguish, however, the sizable difference between an IPCC prediction that says man will cause sea levels to rise and a rise of entirely natural causes. The thought he wanted to plant in the public’s mind is that everything is happening the way the IPCC said.

We get the same from a report co-authored by Martin Siegert, co-director of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London. “This is another example of how human-induced climate change could be triggering major changes with knock-on impacts that will be felt globally,” he said.

“Could be” also means “might not be.” Which means that scientists don’t know. Yet quite a few of them and the entire political left want to spend hundreds of billions that would choke Western economies, and authorize governments to regiment ostensibly free societies, because of some “could be” notion.

To rational thinkers, this doesn’t make sense. But to true believers in the global warming faith, to researchers who are deeply invested in the narrative and to anti-capitalists who want to use global warming as justification for forcing everyone into statist systems, it does.

But sincerity in their beliefs can’t turn guesswork into fact. It only muddles the debate and confuses the issue. It’s not too hard to believe that’s their goal.

Ever know a liberal to want to clarity? Confusion & fear are their stock in trade.

Global Warming Science is Political Science, not any other kind of science.

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail
re-election bibi
    •  

 

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

The Liberal Vision

“As Stan Evans says, whatever liberals disapprove of, they want banned … and whatever they approve of, they make mandatory.” — Ann Coulter

 “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.” – George Orwell

Liberalism is an ideology that believes in control, not freedom. That’s why liberals love the federal government so much while they detest states’ rights. It allows them to bend hundreds of millions of people to their will with one imperial edict. It’s also why liberal judges don’t believe in the Constitution like conservative justices do. Sticking to one set of rules means people have freedom to do what they want as long as they adhere to the basic rules our society was formed around. A “living constitution” means you can put the force of law behind the whims of liberal judges. Why is Barack Obama so insistent on listening in on your phone calls via NSA? Because if the government can’t watch you, it can’t tell you what to do…for your own good, of course.

Granted, conservatives aren’t perfect in these areas, but at least we believe in free speech, free markets, and states’ rights. The all-encompassing, all-smothering liberal nanny state has no use for freedom. The only freedom liberals want to give people is the “freedom” to do as they’re told.

Don’t do as I do, do as I say! Don’t question! Do it without hesitation, deviation or resistance of any kind.

1) Liberals want to control you with government regulations: There are 174,545 pages of federal regulations. Let me repeat that: there are 174,545 pages of federal regulations and the numbers are only increasing. As a practical matter, what that means is that we’ve long since passed the point where any one human being could have an understanding of all our regulations and we’ve moved on to the “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it” era. In fact, you probably did five illegal things before breakfast without having a clue about it, which you’ll find out about the moment some liberal decides you have to be put in your place and looks for a way to do it. Liberals control what you eat, what clothes you wear, what TV you watch, what kind of car you drive, what size soda you can drink, and even what toilet or light bulb you can use in your house. Complain about it and you’re accused of wanting to end restaurant inspections and safety standards that prevent cars from exploding. So, what would be wrong with permanently fixing the number of regulations at 1/10 the current number and dropping one every time a new one needs to be added? The only thing wrong with it would be that it wouldn’t allow liberals to micromanage your life.

2) Liberals want to control your major life decisions: Liberals aren’t just picking at the margins; they’re now making some of the central choices in your life. They oppose vouchers and charter schools because they want to make sure your child is exposed to the right kind of liberal propaganda courtesy of the teachersí unions. Creepily, Melissa Harris Perry took it even further when she said, “We have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.” They don’t want to own your children’s education; they want to own your children. They control when you can retire by refusing to let people have even safe, limited investment opportunities in Social Security. Obamacare is an attempt to take over the health care system, which will literally give a liberal death panel the ability to decide whether you live or die. Given that Barack Obama himself once famously suggested, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” that’s not a comforting thought. Shouldn’t you be making those decisions about your life instead of disconnected bureaucrats in D.C. who pay no price for being wrong when they make bad choices that hurt you?

3) They want to control your speech: Why do liberals push speech code designed to kill talk radio like the fairness doctrine and “localism?” Because talk radio is conservative and it gets an alternative viewpoint out. It’s the same reason that they futilely try to discredit Fox News and why conservative speakers on college campuses are often attacked and shouted down. It’s also why liberals embrace speech codes on college campuses and political correctness. Liberals typically don’t even argue an issue in any sort of meaningful fashion so much as they shout “racism,” “sexism,” and “extremism” in an attempt to define all differing opinions as illegitimate by default. Since liberalism works about as well as Communism in practice, the only way it can be implemented is either by force or by preventing the arguments against it from getting a fair hearing.

4) Liberals want to control minorities: If you’re not a straight white male, liberals think they own you like a slave. They’re not allowed to whip you like a slave any more, but if you leave the liberal plantation by thinking for yourself, they will try to destroy you as a human being. Why do liberals hate men like Clarence Thomas and Ben Carson so much? Because they’re successful, intelligent, well-liked black men who don’t see themselves as victims, complain incessantly about racism, or believe that they need liberals to succeed. If you’re a “feminist,” why wouldn’t you be celebrating strong, successful, much-admired women like Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Dana Loesch or Michelle Malkin? Because they don’t hate men, look at themselves as victims, or believe in aborting as many children as possible. Therefore, they must be demeaned, smeared, and hurt in any way possible. What if you’re gay and don’t see yourself as a victim or believe the central focus of your entire life should be gay marriage? They want you destroyed. What if you’re a strong Hispanic man or woman who doesn’t see unlimited illegal immigration as good for the country? They hate you with the passion of a thousand suns. Liberals believe you are free to be anything you want to be, as you long as you stick to the extremely narrow, well-defined roles they’ve created that allow you to say, speak, and think whatever they tell you.

5) Liberals want to control your money: Liberals are happy to hand out food stamps, welfare, and school lunch programs. They love extending unemployment insurance benefits as long as possible. They’re big fans of people quitting their jobs and going on disability. Why? Because once you’re financially dependent on them, you’re like a dog on a leash. You’ll sleep in the doghouse, eat the Alpo, and roll over when your master says so in hopes that he’ll give you another treat. They take tax money from the states and demand those same states jump through hoops to get it back. They take money from productive Americans, use it for programs those people don’t want or need, and then take credit for spending the money while accusing the people who actually paid of being greedy for not wanting to “give” even more. You’re paying the salaries of the IRS workers who audit you for being conservative, the EPA goons who declare your land is a protected wetland when it rains, and the politicians who declare you’re a horrible racist for disagreeing with them. Liberals believe we should have a populace that is controlled by the government, not a government that is controlled by the populace. (John Hawkins)

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne



 

Election Time’s a Comin’

“There’s a certain level of vehemence, it seems to me, that’s directed at me [and] directed at the president,” Holder told ABC last month, per the Hill. “You know, people talking about taking their country back. . . . There’s a certain racial component to this for some people. I don’t think this is the thing that is a main driver, but for some there’s a racial animus.”

And Obama agrees, or seemed to think so in 2011, according to U.S. News and World Report’s Ken Walsh.

“A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to ‘take back’ their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn’t dispute the idea,” Walsh wrote. “He agreed that there was a ‘subterranean agenda’ in the anti-Obama movement — a racially biased one — that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.”

Good thing Crazy Uncle Joe (The VP) is not on board 🙂

Vice President Joe Biden staked his claim to the labor vote by declaring that “it’s time to take back America” in order to ensure that the middle class gets an “equal share” of prosperity in the country.

“If we don’t, America’s in trouble,” Biden said in Detroit Monday. (NRO)

Or maybe, being a white guy he’s just a crazy old racist! 🙂 Isn’t every white person these days?

I mean the election is 2 months away, so time to ratchet up the fear, and the hatred, and Divide & Conquer to hopeful victory!

Hope & Change is back! 🙂

Fear is Hope!

And Control is Change.

Rejoice!
Or what could be the Democrat mantra: Racism for thee but not for me.

Democrats are using the tragic shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri earlier this month to mobilize black voters ahead of the midterm elections. It could impact the races in Georgia, North Carolina, Louisiana, and Arkansas, where black voters represent a significant part of the electorate. African-Americans represent thirty percent of eligible voters in Louisiana and Georgia alone. The New York Times’ Jonathan Martin indicated that African-Americans “played a pivotal role” in 1998 elections. Yet, trying to drive up voter turnout will be tricky since the states that will determine if Democrats keep the Senate are in the south, where Obama is deeply unpopular (NYT)

But we are dealing with the morally and ethically win-at-any-cost end justifies the means Liberals. So why not use a dead man and racism as a  campaign tactic. As long as it works, Liberals don’t care.

Which is why they are Sanctimoniously superior to you mere mortal and should rule everyone and everything with absolute power!. 🙂

They have no shame. Why should they? They are Homo Superior Liberalis, a superior form of life, you’re just too stupid to recognize it, so they have to force you any way they can to accept their superiority.

Now, that’s America, for you. 🙂

 

 

 

 

Vision Problems

Liberals are always going on about how they are more “sensitive” to the concerns of “the poor”…yet…

May 20 marks the 1,245th straight day that the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline costs more than $3 a gallon, according to AAA data. That’s nearly three-and-a-half years above $3 a gallon.

That can’t help the poor. But it does help the Liberal Agenda.

So does ObamaCare, their nearly 100 year old wet dream of Government control of everyone through Health Care.

Mind you, the VA scandal is just an annoying blip they have to find a a way to sweep under the rug…Nothing about Government Health Care to see here…

In the meantime… they are “angry” about it. So “angry” in fact…

As the Veterans Affairs (VA) fiasco rages on, the House passed a piece of legislation that would make it easier to fire VA employees and make the department more accountable.  It was passed with bipartisan support, with the vote being 390 in favor to 33 against.

There was only one problem.  The bill (VA Management Accountability Act, H.R.4031) failed to pass the U.S. Senate.  Senate Democrats decided mark this Memorial Day by blocking this bill.

I’m, sure it was “too partisan” or some such BS. They are proud to wear their Union diapers. So the Democrats will want to pass their own bill, which undoubtedly will be all style and no substance and full of cronyism and super regulations that are ridculous and just look like a band aid, but if you’re against this one you obviously hate veterans! 🙂

And when the Republicans reject THEIR bill (not the bi-partisan one they rejected) they’ll bash them repeatedly in the media right before the election. The “other” bill will not even register in their consciousness.

After all, they “care”. 🙂

They care about “jobs”

The unemployment rate has been higher than ever before ever since The Liberals took over. But it’s around 3% in North Dakota because of the oil boom.

But Liberals hate Oil. They refuse to pass the Keystone Pipeline. They have the EPA Nazis going out and harassing business people and destroying jobs that aren’t politically correct.

They want a $15/hr minimum wage, that will ruin businesses and put EVEN MORE people out of work.

But opposing them is just “greedy” and “insensitive” to the poor. So they send out their shock troops to make an irrational fear-based circus out it.

Because they “care”.

There is the lowest labor participation rate in 35 years.

BUT their narrative feeds their Agenda.  And they “care”. 🙂

So back off.

They talk incessantly about the “War on Women” over abortion and birth Control but are absolutely silent as the grave about Sharia Law and the treatment of women under their hand picked Politically Correct Religion, Islam.

You “misogynist”!

Liberals loudly proclaim they are Pro-Choice.

As long as that choice fits THEIR Agenda that is.

pro-choice butAre you starting to see a pattern?

Oh, and if you happen to protest them expect the IRS to harass you, and then they’ll deny they were ever doing it.

The Holier than thou Liberal media will call you a “racist”, “a Homophobe”,”a radical”,”a Misogynist”,”a partisan”, “A domestic Terrorist” or even the hail mary of them all you “racist!”, or any other schoolyard nasty name in an attempt to shut you the hell up.

But they like the First Amendment, they say. As long as you say something they don’t disagree with that is.

Oh, and they absolutely hate the 2nd Amendment. The idea of you carrying a gun around to defend yourself is utterly mad-hatter time to them. That’s the Government’s job.

After all, the NSA is only “protecting” you. And we wouldn’t want you to go off like a loose cannon when they Stormtroopers come with their drones and take over, now would we?

It’s for for your own good.

The Government is here to Protect & Serve. How can we Help you, today? 🙂

You can keep your Doctor. Your Health Care. And it will cost less.

Trust Us.

We’ll Protect you from yourself.

Feel Better Now? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Well, Mama ain’t happy.

Look out, everyone: The nation’s school lunch lady, Michelle Obama, is mad. With her federal nutrition program under fire across the country and now on Capitol Hill, Mrs. Obama put out a “forceful” call to arms this week to “health activists,” according to The Washington Post.

Read: radical Leftists!

She’s cracking the whip. Her orders are clear: There must be no escape. The East Wing and its sycophants zealously oppose any effort to alter, delay or waive top-down school meal rules. Big Lunch must be guarded at all costs.

We “care” so much that we will not be denied. You will comply! Resistance is Futile. You will be assimilated!

Progressives blame kid-hating Republicans and greedy businesses for the revolt against Mrs. Obama’s failed policies. But the truth is right around the corner in your students’ cafeterias. Districts are losing money. Discarded food is piling high. Kids are going off-campus to fill their tummies or just going hungry.

According to the School Nutrition Association, almost half of school meal programs reported declines in revenue in the 2012-13 school year, and 90 percent said food costs were up. Local nutrition directors are demanding more flexibility and freedom. Look no further than school districts in Los Angeles and Chicago.

As I noted in 2011, the L.A. Unified School District pronounced the first lady’s federally subsidized initiative a “flop” and a “disaster.” Principals reported “massive waste, with unopened milk cartons and uneaten entrees being thrown away.” The problem has only worsened. The Los Angeles Times reported last month that the city’s students throw out “at least $100,000 worth of food a day — and probably far more,” which “amounts to $18 million a year.”

Draconian federal rules dictate calorie counts, whole-grain requirements, the number of items that children must put on their trays, and even the color of the fruits and vegetables they must choose. Asked for a solution, LAUSD Food Service Director David Binkle told the Times bluntly: “We can stop forcing children to take food they don’t like and throw in the garbage.”

Or you can do what Arlington Heights District 214 in Michelle Obama’s home state of Illinois just did: Vote yourselves out of the unsavory one-size-fits-all mandate. Last week, the state’s second largest school district decided to quit the national school lunch program altogether. Officials pointed out that absurd federal guidelines prevented them from offering hard-boiled eggs, hummus, pretzels, some brands of yogurt, and nonfat milk in containers larger than 12 ounces.

The district will deliberately forgo $900,000 in federal aid and instead rely on its own nutritionist to devise healthy choices that students actually want. One local parent summed it up well: “(T)he government can’t control everything.”

As more schools look to withdraw, you can bet on the White House to ramp up the Republican-bashing rhetoric. Mrs. Obama’s advocates have already taken to social media to complain about Big Business special interests.

But let’s remember: Mrs. Obama has been working the food circuit since 2005, when the wife of newly elected Sen. Barack Obama was named to the corporate board of directors of Wal-Mart processed foods supplier TreeHouse Foods Inc. — collecting $45,000 in 2005, $51,200 in 2006, and 7,500 TreeHouse stock options worth more than $72,000 for each year.

Fact: The first lady has been the most insatiable crony at the center of the Fed Foods racket. Her nonprofit Partnership for a Healthier America has reported assets of $4.5 million from secret donors. It’s not just mean conservatives pointing out her Big Business ties. The left-wing documentary “Fed Up” made the same point before being edited under pressure. Hello, Chicago Way.

Mrs. Obama’s allies also have accused opponents of wanting to repeal “science-based” standards. But the first lady herself was caught spreading false claims that her program was responsible for reducing childhood obesity, when the decline began a decade ago.

And as I’ve reported previously, deep-pocketed Big Labor’s push to expand public union payrolls with thousands more food service workers is also driving Mrs. Obama’s agenda.

Waste, failure, lies and special interest ties. If federal food policy were really about the children, the East Wing would be embracing change. But this is not about protecting the kids. It’s about protecting Michelle Obama. Her thin-skinned response to criticism is telling:

Hell hath no fury like a Nanny State control freak scorned. (CNS)

And it’s all YOUR FAULT for resisting the “caring” and “compassion” smothering of the LEFT.

They just care about you too much. And it’s your fault for resisting their superior vision for your life.

Kinda like the mother on “The Goldbergs” don’t you think?… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

But as long as you do as Momma and Pappa Government say and don’t back talk everything will be happy and  perfect.

Kumbuya! Praise the Government!

Your Lord and Master demands it.

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!

🙂

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 

 

 

V.D.

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

The latest available data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows that a record number 23 million households in the United States are now on food stamps.

The most recent Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program (SNAP) statistics of the number of households receiving food stamps shows that 23,087,886 households participated in January 2013 – an increase of 889,154 families from January 2012 when the number of households totaled 22,188,732.

The most recent statistics from the United States Census Bureau– from December 2012– puts the number of households in the United States at 115,310,000. If you divide 115,310,000 by 23,087,866, that equals one out of every five households now receiving food stamps.

As CNSNews.com previously reported, food stamp rolls in America recently surpassed the population of Spain. A record number 47,692,896 Americans are now enrolled in the program and the cost of food stamp fraud has more than doubled in just three years.

But if we just spend more money everything would be fine! 🙂

After all, the economy is improving. 🙂

Sep 24, 2012 One in seven Americans is on food stamps.

We just need to Spend More money!

It’s that those Damn Republican’s Fault!

It’s the Sequester!! 🙂

Let’s just call it what it is: The country has a big, nasty case of V.D. (That’s Virus Democratus).

A particularly invasive, and aggressive strain.

Anywho, as I was saying: The country has a virus similar to the malaise that was going around when Carter was president. Our enemies are treated like friends and our friends are treated like enemies; Gas prices are high, wages are low, and the misery index is on the rise, even if calculated differently today than when Carter was the Worst-President-Ever.

Unemployment that has been 7.8%+ SINCE he took office!

$7 Trillion Dollars in New Debt. But we have to Spend Even More.

Cutting Increases in Spending is Evil, wrong, and “hurts people”. But none of these other factors do?

This is what happens when you put hippies in charge.  Again.

“Free” “love” and “peace” often ends in this type of communicable disease.

Quick: What percentage of people in the Obama administration do you think go to church each week? What percentage of people in the Obama administration smoke weed each week?

Now subtract the one number from the other.  

Any questions?

The lurch to the left that has been institutionalized by our newest Worst-President-Ever – an ideological lurch where appearances don’t matter anymore- is scaring even Democrats.

“And while the president made the big calls, like pushing for a health-care overhaul, he did not always drive the administration’s strategy on getting his agenda achieved. That has now, fully, changed,“ reports BuzzFeed.

Hurray! Obama’s now in charge of EVERYTHING.

“‘You’re talking about somebody who has a tremendous amount of confidence in his own capacities,’” said a top Democrat. “‘On most days it’s hard to tell him he’s wrong about anything.’”

Really? You guys are just figuring this out now?

Ha!

It’s not hard to tell the Democratus apparatus that they deserve exactly what they’ve got coming- while laughing uproariously.

After a decade of letting Obama work on scholarship because of white guilt, demographics and a weak bench of unelectable doofuses- John Edwards, Howard Dean, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton anyone?- now that political results matter to the Democratus Party, some are getting a little shy about the president.  

And can you blame them? These are folks who won’t get the same free pass that Obama gets.  

Imagine when the entire Democrat party is remade in Obama’s image.

Confident.

Capable.

Arrogant.

Irresponsible.

Wrong.

Politico laid out the dilemma facing Democrats even before Obama was sworn in for his second term.

“To the extent that they break with the president, it could be — I don’t want to say it is — a big advantage for them in deep-red states,” a Democrat strategist told Politico in January regarding Democrat Senators up for reelection.

Politico cited particularly the gun issue, where Democrats from more moderate states could be at risk by an aggressively left-wing Obama agenda.

From Politico:

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who could face a tough reelection and has previously opposed reinstating the assault weapons ban, said there needs to be “more emphasis on [mental health issues and counseling families in crisis] as well as enforcing some of the laws that are already on the books.” She added it was important for Washington “not to overreact one way or another.”

[Senator Mark] Begich [D-AK] added: “To start saying we’re going to have more laws and more regulations, I think, would be problematic.”

Udall voiced similar sentiments, though he suggested more of an openness to tightening background checks.

“When you talk about gun rights and the situation in the West, there are very mixed feelings in terms of pushing a nationwide package — a one-size-fits-all package,” [Senator Tom] Udall [D-NM] said, questioning the effectiveness of an assault weapons ban.

From their mouths to Obama’s very large ears, somehow, something in the manner of this warning was lost in translation.

Because Obama’s defeat on the gun issue was both large and stunning.

Or, as Politico pointed out, maybe it was what we could have expected.

Any other president would have been defeated in November based on results. Any other president would have been chastened by the results, not emboldened.

Instead, Obama is acting more like himself, more in charge and exactly in character:

Confident.

Capable.

Arrogant.

Irresponsible.

Wrong.

These are all symptoms of a very bad disease for  the Democrats.

And because it’s communicable, the country is at risk as well.  (John Ransom)

But that’s why they need Amnesty. The 10-12 million new Democrats will give them a voting majority for life and it won’t matter what YOU think or what anyone thinks.

All they have to do is pander to this majority and they are set for life. To a Democrat what could be better than complete and total, uncontested rule over everyone and everything forever!

Heaven on Earth! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Rational Thought?

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

That President Obama lost roughly 40 percent of the vote in Democratic primaries in Arkansas, Kentucky and West Virginia over the last two weeks has drawn massive national headlines.

Those headlines have drawn a collective eyeroll from Democrats and a yawn from the Liberal Media and cries of “racism” yet again…

Former Texas Rep. Charlie Stenholm, a longtime conservative Democrat, acknowledged that “race is definitely a factor for some Texans but not the majority,” adding: “The most significant factor is the perception/reality that the Obama administration has leaned toward the ultra-left viewpoint on almost all issues.”

Martin Frost, another former Texas Democratic Congressman, seconded that notion. “In states like West Virginia and Oklahoma, it’s just that voters are down on national Democrats generally, and I don’t believe it is due to race,” said Frost.

Other theories abound. The average voter in Appalachia and the South is simply more conservative than they believe Obama to be. His Administration’s policies regarding mining have hurt him in coal country. Obama’s academic pedigree — Columbia, Harvard Law School — reek of elitism to many people in the South.

And besides, in the 1960’s when the Southern Democrats opposed Civil Rights Legislation… 🙂

“Race, resentment [and] fear,” explained Donna Brazile, a Louisiana native and Democratic strategist when asked about Obama’s underperformance. “Democrats have not had any messaging in those states for more than a decade. It’s hard to get voters to like you or even know you when all they hear is negative stuff.” (Washington Post)

Gee, just like the Liberal Media and their “Vote for The Democrat because the guy other is a whacko, crazy racist nutbag!! (and a white elitist capitalist pillager to boot!).

But, simply labeling the 42 percent of Kentuckians who supported “uncommitted” over Obama or the 41 percent of Arkansas who backed Tennessee lawyer John Wolfe over the incumbent as “racists” is a major oversimplification.(Washington Post)

But the Liberal media keeps going there anyhow because it really is the only thing they can honestly think of.

That, and their fake issue of “Birthers” (Rachael Maddow went about it for 25 minutes last night on MSNBC) . Since that started with a Democrat after all. But it’s a nice juicy distraction for the irrational mind to use rather than talking about real issues.

It couldn’t possibly be how bad the President has been, how bad the economy still is, how the Democrats refuse to pass a budget and still just want to Tax & Spend like they have for generations.

Nope. It can’t be that. 🙂

They just must be some dumb hillbilly and or racist hicks.

Dennis Prager: You cannot understand the left if you do not understand that Leftism is a religion. It is not God-based (some left-wing Christians’ and Jews’ claims notwithstanding), but otherwise it has every characteristic of a religion.

The most blatant of those characteristics is dogma. People who believe in Leftism have as many dogmas as the most fundamentalist Christian. One of them is material equality as the preeminent moral goal. Another is the villainy of corporations. The bigger the corporation, the greater the villainy.

Thus, instead of the devil, the left has Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, the “military-industrial complex” and the like. Meanwhile, Big Labor, Big Trial Lawyers and, of course, Big Government are left-wing angels. And why is that? Why, to be specific, does the left fear big corporations but not big government?

The answer is dogma — a belief system that transcends reason. No rational person can deny that big governments have caused almost all the great evils of the last century, arguably the bloodiest in history.

Who killed the 20-30 million Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago — big government or big business? Hint: There were no private businesses in the Soviet Union. Who deliberately caused 75 million Chinese to starve to death — big government or big business? Hint: See previous hint. Did Coca Cola kill 5 million Ukrainians? Did Big Oil slaughter a quarter of the Cambodian population? Would there have been a Holocaust without the huge Nazi state?

Whatever bad big corporations have done is dwarfed by the monstrous crimes — the mass enslavement of people, the deprivation of the most basic human rights, not to mention the mass murder and torture and genocide — committed by big governments.

Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), the third-ranking House Democrat, said Romney’s business practices amounted to “raping companies and leaving them in debt” for his own profit.

The Hill reported earlier this year that over the last three cycles, Democrats have accepted far more than the GOP in political donations from executives at Bain Capital.

But don’t expect the Liberal Media to let facts get in the way of their 24/7/365 Two- Minute Hate.

How can anyone who thinks rationally believe that big corporations rather than big governments pose the greatest threat to humanity? The answer is that it takes a mind distorted by leftist dogma. If there is another explanation, I do not know what it is.

Religious Christians and Jews also have some irrational beliefs, but their irrationality is overwhelmingly confined to theological matters. And these theological irrationalities have no deleterious impact on religious Jews’ and Christians’ ability to see the world rationally and morally. Few religious Jews or Christians believe that big corporations are in any way analogous to big government in terms of evil done. And the few who do are leftists.

That the left demonizes “Big Pharma,” for instance, is an example of left-wing thinking. America’s pharmaceutical companies have saved millions of lives, including millions of leftists’ lives. And I do not doubt that in order to increase profits, they have not always played by the rules.

But to demonize big pharmaceutical companies while lionizing big government, big labor unions and big trial law firms, is to stand morality on its head.

There is yet another reason to fear big government far more than big corporations. ExxonMobil has no police force, no IRS, no ability to arrest you, no ability to shut you up, and certainly no ability to kill you. ExxonMobil can’t knock on your door in the middle of the night and legally take you away. Apple Computer cannot take your money away without your consent, and it runs no prisons. The government does all of these things.

Of course, the left will respond that government also does good and that corporations and capitalists are, by their very nature, “greedy.”

To which the rational response is that, of course, government also does good. But so do the vast majority of corporations, private citizens, church groups and myriad voluntary associations. On the other hand, only big government can do anything approaching the monstrous evils of the last century.

As for greed: Between hunger for money and hunger for power, the latter is incomparably more frightening. It is noteworthy that none of the 20th century’s monsters – Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao – were preoccupied with material gain. They loved power much more than money.

And that is why the left is much more frightening than the right. It craves power.

And it craves CONTROL of everyone and everything on a scale that is unmatched by anyone else outside of Communism that is. 🙂

Voters: Yeah, We Really Don’t Care What Romney Did In High School

Guy Benson: This poll was commissioned by the very newspaper that ran the now-infamous 5,500-word ‘bully’ story on its front page a few weeks ago.  Sorry, WaPo — voters aren’t buying what you’re selling.  Hit piece fail:

Most Americans by far dismiss the relevance of accusations that Mitt Romney bullied a high-school classmate, calling it off-point in the election debate – and indicating they’d say the same about Barack Obama’s behavior as a high-school student, as well. Three-quarters in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the account of Romney’s high school behavior is not a serious matter, about as many say it doesn’t provide relevant information on his character, and nearly all – 90 percent – say it’s not a major factor in their vote preference.
The public also bristles at the very approach of the press investigating a candidate’s teenage exploits, an overwhelming distaste that cuts across partisan lines:

Most Americans, in any case, see the general approach as inappropriate: Seventy-five percent in this poll…say it’s unfair to bring up things a political candidate did in high school. Given the context of the bullying story, 89 percent of Republicans say so; that slips to 73 percent of independents and 66 percent of Democrats. Further, 72 percent think the specific bullying incident, first reported by The Washington Post, does not provide useful information about Romney’s character. That, too, engenders partisan divisions: Almost all Republicans (94 percent) think the incident isn’t relevant; 71 percent of independents and 59 percent of Democrats agree.
Incidentally, this data is mined from the same national survey that gave Democrats a ludicrous ten point sample advantage, resulting in The One’s thin lead over Romney.  So the public’s rejection of the Post’s advocacy journalism is probably even more comprehensive than even the 90 percent (!) figure indicates.  With the Obama campaign’s Bain crusade backfiring, the press is going to have to dig harder to help sink Romney.  Their failure to accomplish this task thus far clearly isn’t due to lack of effort.  Come on, guys, the American people demand more hot scoops on Ann Romney’s former horses, the Romney family’s Irish Setter circa 1983, and the actions of rogue Mormon militias in the mid-19th Century.

But you won’t hear it from The Left ,after all,  rational thought is not their strong suit.

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler