Guilty of Being White

You shoot up an Army post and shout “allah Ackbar” it’s “workplace violence”.

A White cop defends himself against a black suspect. The cops a racist.

But….

Sara Mutschlechner. a twenty year old white female college student was shot in the head and killed New Year’s morning in Denton, Texas. She was driving three friends home from a party. A car with five or six black males pulled up next to her and made undisclosed statements. Then one of them shot Sara in the head. She was a student at the University of North Texas.

Sara-Mutschlechner

The Dallas Morning News downplayed the murder as “road rage.” The most likely chain of events probably involved unwanted sexual catcalling and a negative reaction by the women.

She white, who cares. There were a few local news stories no great national outcry for such a senseless act.

Especially as it was gun who killed her (since the Left believes guns kill people not people).

Unfortunately, the killer was black. So even less coverage mentions that on the news!

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Man-Arrested-Connected-to-Fatal-Shooting-of-UNT-Student-364240761.html

Blacks are only killed by white racists, after all. That’s newsworthy.

NO Hands up! Don’t SHOOT! Here.

No Feminists are mad. No Al Sharpton. No MSNBC. No Melissa Harris-Perry.

Phew, good thing the victim was white and the murders were black or this could have been a hate crime. 🙂

“It was an amicable conversation to begin with, but quickly went downhill and some derogatory statements were made toward the female occupants of that vehicle,” the Denton Police spokesman told reporters.

Kizer described those “very derogatory” remarks as being of a “sexual nature,” adding that a male inside Mutschlechner’s vehicle responded by calling them out as offensive.

“Some comments were made back towards him, even a couple of threats were thrown,” the police spokesman said. “About that time, they were driving through the intersection … when several shots were fired.”

– U.S. Marshals have arrested an active U.S. Marine for the shooting death of a UNT student on New Year’s Eve.

Eric Jamal Johnson, 20, was taken into custody Tuesday morning in Yuma, Arizona. The U.S. Marines confirmed he is an administration specialist who was reporting for work at the Yuma Air Station when he was arrested on Tuesday.

 

The victim, 20-year-old Sara Mutschlechner, was driving friends home from a New Year’s Eve party when passengers in her car exchanged words with five or six young men in an SUV.

Denton Police Department spokesman Shane Kizer described the exchange as friendly at first. But then he said the men in the SUV started making lewd and inappropriate comments directed toward Mutschlechner and her friend.

According to an arrest warrant affidavit, a witness said Johnson displayed a handgun and threated to shoot. Shortly afterward, Johnson opened fire on the car and Mutschlechner was struck in the head, causing her to crash into a utility pole.

Kizer said the witnesses in Mutschlechner car recognized some of the men in the SUV from the party. They were able to provide police with descriptions of the suspects.

Investigators talked to several people who attended the party and were able to use photos and posts on social media to come up with the street names of several people believed to be in the SUV.

Many on social media are critical of the coverage, saying that the murder would have generated national attention if the races were reversed.

No gun control narrative here. 🙂

Hate Crime? Black male stabs white six year old to death

hate-crime-murder-kentucky

Ronald Exantus, 32, of Indianapolis has been charged with stabbing six year old Logan Tipton to death in his own home. The savage murder took place early Monday morning in the small Kentucky town of Versailles.

Exantus is believed to have walked around the house while the family slept. Then he got a butcher knife out of the kitchen, went to the boy’s bedroom, and stabbed in the head for the fun of it.

Exantus is being charged with burglary and murder.

Gunman screams racial slurs and then opens fire on mother and baby

florida-hate-crime-attempted-double-murder

On October 16th, 2015 a black male pulled up alongside Amanda Frey, a white female , in a Bradenton, Florida parking lot. He screamed racial slurs and then fired a gun at her three times. The woman had a one year old baby in the car with her. Bullets tore threw Frey’s car, but none of the occupants were injured.

The perpetrator may have targeted Frey because she has a Confederate flag sticker on her car. For months, major national media outlets and major left-wing organizations have been running a racially charged campaign to demonize all supporters of the Confederate flag.

This attempted double murder took place a month and a half ago and we are just now hearing about it. That is because the story received almost no media coverage at all.

Channel 9, a local station, ran a lone article on it. In their article they censor the race of the shooter, even though the media outlet states that the shooter has been identified. Channel 9 also uses insults the victim by suggesting her Confederate sticker “provoked” the attack.

Meanwhile the national media has made major news stories out of white people simply displaying a Confederate flag in public.

Bend Over, Here Comes ObamaClaus

KING Barack Hussein Obama…

And he’s going to make it with your taxes. So the tax that’s a penalty that actually a tax is now going to raise your taxes to pay for the penalty that is a tax. Got it.

Obamacare is killing the heath insurance industry, but help for health insurers is on the way – and it will be coming out the pockets of American taxpayers via higher insurance rates and a federal bailout.

When the government says, “Explore other sources of funding” and “working with Congress on the necessary funding,” it’s time to hide your wallet and get ready to study a few more pages of tax code.

As MRCTV reported Thursday, United Healthcare lost $425 million on its policies sold via the Obamacare exchanges, and they might back out of the exchanges all together after 2016. And United Healthcare isn’t alone. U.S. insurers had to absorb nearly $2.9 billion in unexpected medical expenses from their customers in Obamacare’s exchanges in 2014, according to new data from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The Milwaukee Sentinel Journal reports that some of the deficit will be made up with higher premiums, much higher premiums.

And Obama and Company will blame it on “corporate greed” not a fatally flawed partial socialized medicine designed to fail.

Many insurers have requested premium increases of 20% to 40% for next year. In August, Blue Cross Blue Shield secured approval in Tennessee for a 36.3% price hike, while Oregon OK’d a 25.6% increase for Moda Health Plan.

Even these premium increases are mild compared with what’s coming when the risk corridor provision and other stopgaps expire.

A recent University of Minnesota study found that after 2016, the cheapest plans would experience some of the most dramatic premium increases. Families who purchased “bronze” plans on the exchanges could see 45% increases. Some unlucky individuals could see their premiums shoot up 96%.

“Our data still indicate that — for at least the next decade — premiums will increase faster than they did in the years before the Affordable Care Act’s implementation,” cautioned one of the study’s authors. “Federal subsidies for ACA plans won’t be able to keep up.”

But, the federal government is going to try make the subsidies keep up. Pres. Obama’s Department of Health and Humans Services (HHS) is promising insurance companies that taxpayers will help them out.

After the United Healthcare announcement on Thursday, HHS issued a letter to insurance companies recognizing the 2014 shortfalls and declaring that the U.S. Government needs to make good:

 In the event of a shortfall for the 2016 program year, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will explore other sources of funding for risk corridors payments, subject to the availability of appropriations. This includes working with Congress on the necessary funding for outstanding risk corridors payments

Risk corridors were created by the Obamacare bill.  The corridors are meant to redistribute money (sound familiar?) from insurance companies who make a bigger profit from exchange plans than expected and give to companies who lost money on the exchange plans.

Yeah, it’s called redistribution. Socialism…

The problem with the risk corridor in 2014 was that too many companies lost money – so, there wasn’t enough money to cover everyone’s losses.  HHS is promising a bailout, or in HHS language, it will work with Congress to get more money for the risk corridors in order to cut insurance companies losses. 

Robert Laszewski, president of consultancy Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Virginia, told CNBC:

“‘The Obamacare business model doesn’t work,’ ‘Obamacare has got to be retooled.’ Laszewski cited the fact that insurers overall still are losing money selling exchange plans in the second year of Obamacare, and that as a result many of them are raising prices, which could in turn lead to current and prospective customers taking a pass on further coverage.” 

According to Nathan Nascimento, Senior Policy Advisor for Freedom Partners:

“We already knew that this Administration has no problem with putting special interests ahead of Americans’ health care – but yet another bailout for insurance companies on the backs of taxpayers only throws more good money after bad. Washington’s flawed one-size-fits-all approach to health care has failed, leading to plan cancelations, skyrocketing premium and out-of-pocket costs, and instability for American families and business. The solution is to get government out of the way – not dig the hole even deeper.”

Supporters of Obamacare are in denial. Much higher heath insurance premiums, insurance company losses needing a federal bailout, and news that almost half of the state-run Obamacare exchanges  have bitten the dust, add up to one inconvenient fact: Obamacare is a failure.  

Was never meant to be anything else.

But the supporters have no choice but to be in denial. They have wanted Socialized Medicine for 100 years and it’s failing so they have hide that from everyone, including themselves.

Sadly, it won’t be the politicians who forced the program down the American people’s throats who will be reaching into their pockets to pay for that failure.  It will be the rest of us, average American families, our children, and our grandchildren paying for this unmitigated disaster. 

Get ready to dig deep for failure. Also, get ready for the spin that will not make it the Liberals fault.

After all, they are always right and always have the best of intentions.

Welcome to the Road to Hell. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

 

Liberal Logic

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Derek Hunter:

They can’t be this dumb, can they? They just can’t be.

Yes. Because reality is not something a Liberal understands. They understand the reality of their ideology and that’s it.

Actual reality is unknown to them, or refused because it doesn’t fit.

Our progressives Democratic friends aren’t that stupid, right? But they are counting on the American people being stupid when it comes to world affairs. And there’s very little to suggest they won’t be successful in that endeavor.

Yeah, because the average american is now been made to be a moron, suckling at the teat of the Liberal Media pig.

Be it the president saying ISIS is “contained” hours before the group unleashed evil on the streets of Paris, or the secretary of state saying the Paris attacks were crazy, unlike the attack on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, where there was “legitimacy” and a “rationale” to them, nothing they say can be taken as serious thought.

The media did show some irritation with the president this week, but he pushed right back. Barack Obama showed an anger and frustration toward the press daring to question his wisdom in Turkey he normally reserves for Republicans. Repeatedly chastising reporters for asking him what he deemed similar questions, the president committed to staying on the same path that brought us to the point where dozens were dead in France and the West is on high alert.

There’s something to be said for commitment, I guess. It’d be better in other aspects of his life, but at least the concept isn’t completely foreign to him.

 

After damning the torpedoes and ordering the engines ahead full steam, the president then set about working on his main concern – climate change. Yes, what computer models that can’t accurately predict the past say will happen in 100 years is the major focus of this government in a time of mass slaughter.

Legacy, it would seem, is every bit as addictive as heroin.

Ideology is reality. Reality is ideology.

But the administration can make that pivot because it can count on the media, no matter how poorly they’re treated, to be the Ginger Rogers to its Fred Astaire – they go where they’re led, happily.

The Ministry of Truth is consistent. Consistently Progressive, regardless.

As Hillary Clinton said in the debate no one watched (seriously, is the next “protect Hillary from anyone seeing her be a crazy leftist” debate on the Friday Star Wars opens? Might as well be), we are at war with “violent extremists.”

Dems have debates no one is SUPPOSED to watch. It messes with message. But they can say they had them and they can feed their core base of radical Progressives some meat.

“violent extremists”= Republicans? 🙂

No one questioned what type of extremists she was talking about because everyone knew it. She’s not talking about violent Black Lives Matters extremists or campus crybaby extremists, she’s talking about Islamic extremists. She just won’t say it. Is there any reason to believe she’d actually fight it?

We’ll never know because she’ll never be asked in any way that will require a serious answer.

While Democrats implode, the media plays guard dog.

And the average moron is none the wiser. And they get to vote in less than a year. Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.

Just one example is the Huffington Post. It’s an ultra-leftwing blog with media credentials, but many people actually believe what they read there.

In a piece by someone they bill as a “reporter,” the Huffington Post declares “The West Is Giving ISIS Exactly What It Wants.” The sub-headlines are equally as journalistic, “Unfortunately, conservatives in the U.S. and Europe seem to want to do all the wrong things.”

Narrative, baby, it’s all about the Narrative.

Again, this is a “news” piece written by a “reporter,” not a column on the opinion pages.

The argument, if you can call it that, is threefold and is described as being embraced by “policymakers,” though each section cites only one liberal of dubious credentials.

First, keeping refugees in the Middle East increases the prospect that they’ll be radicalized. “Josh Hampson argues in The Hill that keeping Syrian refugees in the Middle Eastern countries where they are currently concentrated increases the probability that they will grow susceptible to radicalization.” Hampson, according to his byline, is “a research associate at the Niskanen Center where he focuses on defense reform and foreign policy.” Well, if there’s a greater authority on the issue I’ve never heard of him.

 

Hampson’s theory is that these people are so fragile that proximity to terrorists increases the likelihood they’ll decide to join a death cult. Are those who we really want in this country? People who are essentially a coin flip away from terrorism? They’re not exactly walking into a thriving economy where jobs await them.

Two federal agents operating under the umbrella of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) are claiming that eight Syrian illegal aliens attempted to enter Texas from Mexico in the Laredo Sector.

Second, reacting to terrorism negatively runs the risk of creating more terrorists, particularly American Muslims. Yes, it’s that stupid. “One of the goals of attacks like the one in Paris is to provoke an overreaction that will make some Muslims in the West feel that Islam is inherently irreconcilable with the culture of the countries they live in.” In short, be careful to how you react after being punched in the face because more people will want to punch you in the face.

Is Sharia compatabile with Western Values, esp. The Constitution?

Nope.

Just a simple fact. A little Truth. That’s all

By “overreaction” the implication is clear – take your medicine, pretend it didn’t happen or else it will happen again. It’s battered woman syndrome on a national scale and it’s presented as fact in a “news” story.

ISLAMOPHOBIA!

Third, by refusing refugees, the West is aiding ISIS because they don’t want Muslims to leave the region as it makes them look bad. But ISIS knows who is leaving and from where and could stop some if not most of them if it desired. But they’re not.

If you had a gum ball machine where 10% (or even 1%) of the gumballs in the machine were lethal would you let your kids use it until it was cleared or is that an “overreaction”?

The expert cited in this section, who is irrelevant here, “goes on to cite a dozen statements from Islamic State leaders warning refugees against heading to Europe or other ‘infidel’ lands.” A dozen statements from a terrorist organization not exactly known as a paragon of truth and virtue, that’s “proof.”

Hope a You Tube video. Liberals are good at blaming those…

This “news” piece, which is just one of many, concludes, almost miraculously, exactly how the Democratic Party wants it to – “if Europe and the United States were to shut out Syrian refugees, they would be foregoing an advantage they have over the Islamic State group.”

Weird how that just so happens to dovetail perfectly with what the president is demanding, isn’t it?

DOH!

Other arguments from other “journalists” are just as flimsy, but because they’re reported by news outlets they will find legs with the uninformed.

Stupid People, got no reason… 🙂

What’s difficult to understand is why any of these people care so deeply that they’d make fools of themselves to advance the agenda of a lame-duck president who’s never shown them particular favor or loyalty. They couldn’t possibly believe what they say, could they?

🙂

Do they really believe otherwise well-adjusted people decided to commit their lives to murder because they heard about a small prison on a tropical island? That they were normal people interested in hanging out with their friends until Gitmo was explained to them?

Yes.

Might I suggest that if someone was turned to murder by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed having water poured up his nose they were going to murder no matter what.

No, because that’s islamophobia.

Still, this makes sense to our liberal friends. They have sympathy for the unstable person out there. They’d rather those people bring their instability to this country for reasons that make sense only if you know how Democrats work.

Their “compassion” shall be there undoing because it’s mixed with their unreality and their ideology and thus they are impenetrable to actual reality and you’re the problem for pointing it out to them.

People are their race, their gender, their sexual preference, anything but individuals to Democrats. Not since the defeat of the Axis Powers has the world seen more earnest and insistent propagandists. It’s a family tradition, if you will, on the left.

The real question is why our progressives friends want to bring ethnic and religious minorities to a country with racism in its DNA, were its campuses are overrun with racists keeping minority students oppressed, where the very system is stacked against them because of who they are. Why bring them here?

To be “victims” and vote for Democrats. And to make Democrats “feel good” about themselves and “morally” superior.

The answer is they either hate them or they know everything they stand for and claim as justification for it is a lie. Since they view individuals as disposable, logically it could be both. But there’s nothing logical about liberals. The simplest answer is always the right answer, and the worst, when it comes to our opponents: It’s “Agenda Über Alles.”

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!!!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Pledge

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of Progressive Liberalism, and to the Dictatorship for which it stands, one Nation under Government, divisible, with  liberty and social justice for the faithful only.”

Oh, am I going to get labelled a homophobe and a “hater” again for this one. 🙂
Oh well. They’d do it anyways. Reality doesn’t matter, the Narrative does.
But the Liberal’s favorite cudgel of social and legal enforcement was used again this week when the Federal Government overturned a voter approved State Constitutional Amendment on gay marriage.
The Court of Social Justice & Liberalism has struck again.
I wonder if this applies to all the Illegal Aliens the Feds say we aren’t allowed to catch also? 🙂
Am I against gay marriage? Nope.
Am I against liberals “supremacy” clause and their need to destroy you in court if you cross them, HELL YEAH!
But since the Leftist  Gay Narrative is that they are next great Civil Right struggle and they are the oppressed and their cause is righteous and “moral”, rational thought is not possible. So you’re a “hater” if you disagree with, period.
So will Wedding venues that refuse to hold a Gay Wedding be subjected to the Gay Mafia Hammer?
Businesses already have to watch out for the  Gay Thought Police prowling around to destroy them if they do or say the wrong thing.
That’s my objection.
But I’m evil automatically in Big Gay Brother’s eyes, so don’t bother listening to me. 🙂
A little history, that an irrational gay pride activist will not even comprehend in their haze of righteousness, so here goes.
Back in the early 1980’s when I was a freshmen in college I encountered my first gay people ever and you know what I thought– So what, I don’t care. They were good people and that matters more than their sexual proclivities. 
I truly didn’t care.
Actually, they were more accepting and better people than a lot of heterosexuals were back in the day to be honest.
My college roommates for a time consisted of a Gay Man, a Witch, and a Satanist, all under one roof. All friends. No political agenda AT ALL!
And well before it was “fashionable”.
Hell, it was considered I must be gay because I keep hanging around with gays.
So you see, I am not a “hater”. (I can here the leftist snark “Oh, he had a few gay friends…”)
But to the modern gay rights activist I must be a “hater” because I disagree with their need to FORCE their life style and your acceptance of it at the point of a Law Book and destroy good and decent people for the simple fact that they don’t want to kow-tow to them. Those filthy peasants!
After all, THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!
I think they were winning in general without being so heavy-handed and impatient. Their indoctrination techniques over the last generation or so were having the desired effect. But their secular hatred for the “Christian Right” and their own self-aggrandized Sanctimony gets the better of them.
They’d been working on it for decades, just like Obamacare took 90 years, many were patient.
But the squeaky activist gets the law greased.
So I can accept gay marriage because I always have, BUT the activist, no, sorry, you’re just another bunch of totalitarian social justice liberals who want what they want, when they want it, because they want it, and if you object you must therefore, by default be EVIL.
The oppressed become the oppressor, but because of righteous blindness can’t and won’t see it that way.
They are the triumphant aggrieved sackers of Christian Right “extremism”, after all.
Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer, who has clashed with President Barack Obama over immigration and border security, said in a statement that federal courts have gone against the will of voters and eroded the state’s power. “Simply put, courts should not be in the business of making and changing laws based on their personal agendas,” Brewer said. (AP)
But personal agendas is the only thing The Left understands. They want it, you’re evil, you must be crushed! Period.
The federal court decision bars Arizona officials from enforcing a 1996 state law and a 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage.
The Feds are The Supreme Law of The Land and you peasant will do as you are told or else!
So who’s next on their target list. Who do they want to crush next in their crusade to FORCE you do things their way or else??
Among the couples there were Bailey and Majors (outside the courthouse). Though marriage never seemed possible to them in their youth, they began to get hope in recent years as the nation started to debate the legality of same-sex unions.

Despite all the joy they felt Friday, Bailey said it was still hard to express her feelings about such a sweeping social turn-around that she witnessed in her lifetime.

There was no sweeping “social change”. There was a LEGAL hammer slammed into the State’s nuts and then they were cut off. That is not “social change” that is Legal ENFORCEMENT of one’s agenda regardless of any “social” feelings to the contrary.

It’s a LEGAL victory, not a “social” victory.

As The Doctor in “Doctor Who” last week said:

People with guns to their heads cannot mourn”

Big Gay Brother is watching you citizen, and you better not step out of line or else the Thought Police will come down on you…
Next up, Polyamory!!! 🙂
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Hoist By Their Own Petard

More ObamaCare mess.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a federal regulations that implemented subsidies that are vital to President Barack Obama’s healthcare overhaul, in direct conflict with another ruling on the issue handed down earlier on Tuesday.

A three-judge panel unanimously said the law was ambiguous, and that it would defer to the IRS’s determination that subsidies could go to individuals who purchased health insurance on both federal and state-run exchanges.

The second court was obviously more liberal agenda driven since the Law does state the Feds are excluded from the exchanges. This was a political attempt, that partially failed, to get Republican Governors to cave-in and they didn’t. Now the Agenda has a new problem.

The ACA (ObamaCare) say the subsidies shall be available to persons who purchase health insurance in an exchange “established by the state.” But 34 states have chosen not to establish exchanges.

Nothing a few Agenda-driven judges can’t confuse! 🙂

A separate panel from a federal appeals court in Washington on Tuesday morning said the IRS could not offer premium tax credits to people who purchase insurance through the federal insurance marketplace that serves most of the 8 million consumers who have signed up for private coverage for 2014.

Analysts estimate that as many as 5 million people could be affected if subsidies disappear from the federal marketplace, which serves 36 states through the website HealthCare.gov.

The subsidies are available to people with annual incomes of up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $94,200 for a family of four.

The subsidies were the bribes to get people in the door of ObamaCare in the first place, as well as the cudgel against Republicans.

Did anyone mention cost? 🙂

Democrats in Congress passed a law that explicitly limited Obamacare subsidy eligibility to consumers who purchased plans on state-level exchanges. They did so in order to coerce and bribe states into setting up their own marketplaces under the law. (Another attempt at coercion, mandatory Medicaid expansion, has been struck down 7-2 by the Supreme Court). Given the controversial law’s unpopularity, a majority of states declined to establish exchanges, forcing the federal government to create the infamous federal version — with Healthcare.gov as its centerpiece. Subsequent New York Times reporting indicated that HHS never expected to have to set up any exchange at all, let alone for 36 states. That’s because they were laboring under the belief that the law’s sticks and carrots would compel every state to implement marketplaces on their own. Many did not, and the plain text of the law clearly states that anyone buying coverage through any system other than a state-based exchange would not be eligible to receive generous taxpayer subsidies, which relieve much of the heavy cost burden for many consumers (even with the subsidies, many enrollees say they’re struggling to pay).
Faced with this predicament, the IRS decided that Congress’ true intent was for all exchange consumers to have a shot at subsidies if they were financially eligible, so it simply decreed it to be so in the form of a regulation that effectively rewrote a major provision the law. Today, the Court ruled that the law says what it says, and that the IRS overstepped. This decision, at least for now, plunges Obamacare into chaos — and furious Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. When you ram through a lengthy, hastily slapped-together, unpopular law without reading it, unintended consequences sometimes arise. And this one’s a biggie. Then again, as Will notes in his piece, a strong case can be made that this passage of the law was very much crafted intentionally, even if today’s fallout was ‘never supposed to happen.’ Congress debated how to phrase the subsidy eligibility language, and ended up passing the Senate’s version — a move made necessary by the anti-Obamacare election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts. A previous House version’s verbiage had been much more encompassing. But it didn’t pass. Obamacare did. If it stands, this ruling not only strips subsidy eligibility from many Americans (which could/will touch off a breathtaking adverse selection death spiral), it liberates tens of millions from the unpopular individual mandate tax. Why? (Guy Benson)

Time for King Fiat and His Executive Order Super Glue? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

So Israel should stop being so mean to the Palestinians… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

Means What it Says

Time magazine editor Richard Stengel presented the cover of his new July 4 issue, which features the U.S. Constitution going through a paper shredder and asks if the document still matters. According to Stengel, it does, but not as much anymore.“Yes, of course it still matters but in some ways it matters less than people think,” Stengel said on “Morning Joe.” on MSNBC

Larry Elder: “When the chief justice read me the oath,” President Franklin D. Roosevelt said to a speechwriter, “and came to the words ‘support the Constitution of the United States,’ I felt like saying: ‘Yes, but it’s the Constitution as I understand it, flexible enough to meet any new problem of democracy — not the kind of Constitution your court has raised up as a barrier to progress and democracy.'”

FDR’s statement vividly illustrates the Big Divide between (most) Republicans and Democrats, free marketers and collectivists, Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman. It’s the line separating those who believe in the power of individuals from those who believe in the power of government — so long as they’re the ones in power. It’s the line that separates those who believe in the welfare state from those who not only believe that the federal government recklessly spends more than it takes in, but also spends it on things not permitted by the Constitution — and the country is worse off for having done so.

This is the tea party message (to the consternation of Democrats and squishy Republicans): The Constitution means what it says and says what it means. All this Constitution talk produces the inevitable backlash. Joy Behar, the learned Constitutional scholar, asked, “Do you think this Constitution-loving is getting out of hand?”

A Los Angeles Times columnist and I sat on a panel to analyze President Barack Obama’s last State of the Union speech. What, I asked, gives the President authority to place health care under the command and control of the federal government? She replied, that part of the Constitution that says to provide for the domestic tranquility.

She refers to a part of the preamble to the Constitution: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility … establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Many members of this “living, breathing” Constitution school claim authority for things like ObamaCare resides in the “promote the general welfare” part of the preamble. Using the “domestic tranquility” part was a first.

The Father of the Constitution, James Madison, anticipated the preamble-gives-government-permission-to-do-all-sorts-of-things-for-which-it-lacks-authority argument. In 1794, Congress appropriated money for charitable purposes. An incensed Madison said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Time Magazine’s recent Constitution cover story asks: “Does It Still Matter?” Its answer? Well, yeah, it sort of does, but then again, you know, not so much. After all, the Founding Fathers could neither foresee computers nor Twitter nor predict that Rep. Anthony Weiner would use both to implode his career. So, really, in the modern day, what’s the relevance of the old document crafted by well-to-do, slave-owning white males?

As the federal government got bigger over the next 200 years, and assumed responsibilities the Founding Fathers considered the job of individuals, families and communities — or of the separate states — Madison’s position withered. It’s now fighting for its life.

Soon, the 50 percent of voters who pay little or no taxes will march into the polling booth, many pulling levers, pushing buttons and punching chads to vote themselves a raise — at somebody’s else’s expense. If the Supreme Court permits the ObamaCare mandate, anything goes.

Constitution-shredders point not to our bloated federal government, the entitlement mentality or to the desire of politicians on both sides to promise things that the Founders feared would eventually produce an electorate with little or no financial skin in the game. No, the real villain is the dastardly Bush tax cuts! If only they had not been enacted, they tell us!

Why not blame the tax cuts signed by other presidents? President John Kennedy’s plan reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 91 percent to 70 percent. President Ronald Reagan reduced the top marginal tax rate from 70 to 28 percent. President George W. Bush, by contrast, reduced the top rate from 39.6 to 35 percent, making him Scrooge-like in comparison.

The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” says the two Bush tax cuts, in 2001 and 2003, “cost” $2.8 trillion over 10 years (an average of $280 billion per year). In the last two and a half years alone, Obama has presided over the addition of almost $4 trillion in new debt, and this year’s deficit is an estimated $1.6 trillion.

Besides, liberals like the Bush tax cuts — at least for the lower 98 percent of workers. Since most Democrats want to preserve the Bush-era tax rates for all but the top 2 percent, the objectionable “cost” of the cuts becomes even more inconsequential to dealing with budget, deficit and debt problems.

So now what? We drifted away from the Constitution in fits and starts. It is how we must return to it. Voters must remember who talked the talk and walked the walk. This is a time when we change course, when people rediscover American exceptionalism and the wisdom of the Constitution and say, “Enough.”

If not, Greece awaits.

It’s all Greek to Washington… 😦

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

The Secret Pork

Then Speaker of The House Pelosi: “[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Now that someone is opening this can of compressed worms, the stink bugs are escaping too.

Investigators for the House Energy and Commerce Committee have discovered that a little-known provision in the national health care law has allowed the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion to unions, state public employee systems, and big corporations to subsidize health coverage costs for early retirees.  At the current rate of payment, the $5 billion appropriated for the program could be exhausted well before it is set to expire.

It’s a waiver slush fund BUILT INTO the Law. Gee, now that’s confidence in your legislation.

Unless, of course, the ultimate goal was not “to insure everyone”. 🙂

The discovery came on the eve of an oversight hearing focused on the workings of an obscure agency known as CCIO — the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.  CCIO, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, oversees the implementation of Section 1102 of the Affordable Care Act, which created something called the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program.  The legislation called for the program to spend a total of $5 billion, beginning in June 2010 — shortly after Obamacare was passed — and ending on January 1, 2014, as the system of national health care exchanges was scheduled to go into effect.

The idea was to subsidize unions, states, and companies that had made commitments to provide health insurance for workers who retired early —  between the ages of 55 and 64, before they were eligible for Medicare. According to a new report prepared by the Department of Health and Human Services, “People in the early retiree age group…often face difficulties obtaining insurance in the individual market because of age or chronic conditions that make coverage unaffordable or inaccessible.”  As a result, fewer and fewer organizations have been offering coverage to early retirees; the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program was designed to subsidize such coverage until the creation of Obamacare’s health-care exchanges.

The program began making payouts on June 1, 2010.  Between that date and the end of 2010, it paid out about $535 million dollars.  But according to the new report, the rate of spending has since increased dramatically, to about $1.3 billion just for the first two and a half months of this year. At that rate, it could burn through the entire $5 billion appropriation as early as 2012.

Where is the money going?  According to the new report, the biggest single recipient of an early-retiree bailout is the United Auto Workers, which has so far received $206,798,086.  Other big recipients include AT&T, which received $140,022,949, and Verizon, which received $91,702,538.  General Electric, in the news recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year, received $36,607,818.  General Motors, recipient of a massive government bailout, received $19,002,669.

The program also paid large sums of money to state governments.  The Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio received $70,557,764; the Teacher Retirement System of Texas received $68,074,118; the California Public Employees Retirement System, or CalPERS, received $57,834,267; the Georgia Department of Community Health received $57,936,127; and the state of New York received $47,869,044.  Other states received lesser but still substantial sums.

But payments to individual states were dwarfed by the payout to the auto workers union, which received more than the states of New York, California, and Texas combined.  Other unions also received government funds, including the United Food and Commercial Workers, the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters.

And Unions make the the majority of people getting the over 1,000 waivers from ObamaCare.

The UAW, which ended up with a majority share of Chrysler (and much of GM) stock after it went bankrupt – they were paid before bond and shareholders – made out like bandits but The Democrats felt the need to pork them anyhow.

But don’t worry, there’s nothing corrupt going on, that dead fish smell is just your imagination. 😦

Republican investigators count the early-retiree program among those that would never have become law had Democrats allowed more scrutiny of Obamacare at the time it was pushed through the House and Senate.  Since then, Republicans have kept an eye on the program but were not able to pry any information out of the administration until after the GOP won control of the House last November.  Now, finally, they are learning what’s going on.

It comes back to the question: If this law was so fantastic, why all the waivers, cons,pork, and Machiavellian maneuvers to avoid it for your political apparatchiks??

Hmm…. Maybe they they knew that Obamacare, the epitome of socialism, and the redistribution of wealth, does not and cannot work.  It never has and it never will.  This is why they cheat the system.

But since they already have a sense of “entitlement” to everyone else’s money and craving for power that is insatiable I suppose we should expect nothing less.

Now that’s “Winning the Future”. 🙂

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

Leg Breaking & Truthers

A Must See:  New Ray Stevens Song- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWpOcZVnBrc

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

Mugshot

TIME FOR SOME LEG-BREAKING!

Katherine Sebelius, Health Czar (Health and Human Services Secretary) is going all Chicago Style:

“Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats’ efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections. Aetna Inc., some BlueCross BlueShield plans and other smaller carriers have asked for premium increases of between 1 percent and 9 percent to pay for extra benefits required under the law, according to filings with state regulators,” reported by the Wall Street Journal.
In addition, a Mercer survey of employers found that 79 percent expect they will lose  their “grandfathered” status by 2014, and therefore will become subject to many more of Obamacare’s new mandates – a much higher figure than the administration  had estimated. Employers expect those additional mandates will increase premiums by 2.3 percent, on average, and boost the overall growth of premiums from 3.6 percent to 5.9 percent in 2011.

In response to the health insurers’ claims, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius fired off a letter to the head of the health insurance lobby. The news release on the HHS website makes her purpose plain:

“U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the national association of health insurers, calling on their members to stop using scare tactics and misinformation to falsely blame premium increases for 2011 on the patient protections in the Affordable Care Act. Sebelius noted that the consumer protections and out-of-pocket savings provided for in the Affordable Care Act should result in a minimal impact on premiums for most Americans. Further, she reminded health plans that states have new resources under the Affordable Care Act to crack down on unjustified premium increases.”

In the letter, Mrs. Sebelius cites HHS’ internal analyses and those of Mercer and other groups to support her claim that Obamacare’s effect on premiums “will be minimal” – somewhere in the range of 1 percent to 2.3 percent, on average. Mrs. Sebelius tells insurers that she will show “zero tolerance” for insurers who “falsely” blame premium increases on Obamacare, and promises aggressive action against those who do:

“[We] will require state or federal review of all potentially unreasonable rate increases filed by health insurers. … We will also keep track of insurers with a record of unjustified rate increases: those plans may be excluded from health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Simply stated, we will not stand idly by as insurers blame their premium hikes and increased profits on the requirement that they provide consumers with basic protections.”

There’s word for this: It’s called extortion, folks. 😦

As defined: the crime of obtaining money or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority.

You either do it our way and do as we say and only do it our way and what we want you to do, regardless, or else we’ll boot you out of the market and you’ll go out business.

Which, by the way, was the plan all along. Leaving Big Brother and Mama Government as the sole choice.

But now you have the Chicago-Style Leg breakers threatening companies to play their game or else!

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

Here’s something elseto consider: Mrs. Sebelius threatened insurers for claiming Obamacare will increase premiums by as much as 9 percent. Yet there were no threats issued against the Rand Corporation when itestimated Obamacare will increase premiums for young adults by an average of 17 percent beginning in 2014, or against Milliman Inc. when itlikewise estimated premium increases of 10 percent to 30 percent for young adults. The reasons for the disparate treatment are fairly obvious. Mrs. Sebelius has less power over Rand or Milliman, and bullies always find it easier to pick on the unpopular kid. But an equally important implication is that Mrs. Sebelius knows that Obamacare’s largest premium increases are yet to come. Mrs. Sebelius may be intimidating insurers now to prevent them from blaming those much larger premium increases on Obamacare. (Washington Times)

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

GROUND ZERO MOSQUE IMAM’s CLOSE ASSOCIATE IS A “TRUTHER”

Imam Feisal Abdul Raif has stepped in it again. But don’t expect the Ministry of Truth to tell you. They will vigorous ignore or try to discredit the following from the NY York Post.

A “Truther” by the way is an individual who has the utter irrational view that 19 High-jackers mostly from Saudi Arabia did not murder 3000 people on 9/11/01, the US Government- more specifically the newly elected George W Bush and CIA were behind it or it was Corporate America or some conspiracy of all of them. Name whatever the Left hates, they did it.

Not Islamic Terrorists.

I may be cynical, but not a complete nutjob. 🙂

Still, that didn’t stop Rauf from telling his high-brow audience that he wants to build a coalition of religious moderates, who he said must retake the debate from extremists of all religions.

Presumably, such a coalition would not include Rauf’s longtime associate, Faiz Khan — who touts “the inescapable fact that 9/11 was an inside job.”

By which, he told The Post’s Jennifer Gould Keil, he means he’s “certain” that “the towers of WTC 7 could not have collapsed without controlled demolition placed from the ‘inside.’ “

Now, Khan is not the only crackpot out there who’s convinced that “the quarter known as ‘militant Islam’ ” had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. (He maintains the World Trade Center was actually brought down by “corporate America” and “the heroin trade.”)

But he is the only one, that we’re aware of, who was a founding director of Imam Rauf’s American Society for the Advancement of Muslims — which, along with the Cordoba Institute, is spearheading the Ground Zero mosque.

Khan claims he severed his connection to ASMA in “2002 and 2003” — though he spoke at the group’s 2006 conference in Copenhagen, where he was described as a board member.

All of which raises yet more questions about the so-called moderate imam and the people around him.

If Rauf truly wants “the best possible outcome for all,” there’s only one solution — move the mosque.

But don’t worry, Just like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, where Obama was a parishioner for 20 years and never heard any of the Reverend fiery anti-american, anti-white rants this too will come to pass with the Imam’s friend. Despite him actually preaching at the Burlington Coat Factory mini-mosque that already exists on the site of the Ground Zero Mosque and they were board members together.

He’ll use the Sargent Schultz defense, “I know nothing!” and the liberal media will defend that to your death. 🙂

Media Matters, one of the co-founders of the Hunt down Tea Party Racism site has an exhaustive and vitriolic denial. That right there proves something to me. 🙂

So just get out a high-speed fan as the Liberals and their apparatchiks in the Liberal Media once again try and blow smoke up your ass! 🙂

Secure in the Knowledge

Ecuador?

Really?

Ecuador?

PHOENIX – Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said Thursday she’s angry over comments by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that the Obama administration will sue the state over its new immigration law.

In a June 8 media interview in Ecuador that began circulating Thursday in the U.S., Clinton said President Barack Obama thinks the federal government should determine immigration policy and that the Justice Department “will be bringing a lawsuit against the act.”

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler on Thursday declined to say whether the department would sue and that “the department continues to review the law.”

The department has been looking at the law for weeks for possible civil rights violations, with an eye toward a possible court challenge.

It’s unclear why Clinton made the comment since it’s not her area. She couldn’t be reached Thursday for comment.

State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said Obama and Clinton have both made it clear that the administration opposes the law.

“I will defer to the Justice Department on the legal steps that are available and where they stand on the review of the law,” Crowley said. “The secretary believes that comprehensive immigration reform is a better course of action.”

Brewer, a Republican, said in a statement that “this is no way to treat the people of Arizona.”

“To learn of this lawsuit through an Ecuadorean interview with the secretary of state is just outrageous,” she said. “If our own government intends to sue our state to prevent illegal immigration enforcement, the least it can do is inform us before it informs the citizens of another nation.”

Someone is going to be taken out to the Chicago Woodshed for this one!

Two Weeks ago when Obama was forced to meet with Governor Brewer he said he’d send his people to Arizona to meet with her about the situation and tell her what he planned to do.

No surprise, Nothing happened.

Greta Van Sustern: Joining us by phone is Arizona governor Jan Brewer. Good evening, Governor. And before we get to the question whether or not the president’s kept his word on his two weeks he’ll give you information, tell me, have you heard anything about whether or not the Justice Department has made a decision to sue Arizona over your new statute?

GOV. JAN BREWER, R-ARIZ. (Via telephone): No, we have not! What a disappointment! You know, when you hear from the president of the United States and he gives you a commitment, you would think that they would stand up and stand by their word. It is totally disappointing.

Only if you actually expected something to happen.

I know I didn’t.

Your Government is so good that they have hung signs up in southern Arizona that say for Americans not to tread here because it’s unsafe!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05PjLi7-i9w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6-gUGBssZc

So we are from the Government and we are here to keep you safe! 🙂

And speaking of the government keeping you safe…

Coast Guard Orders Barges to Stop

So why stop now?

“The Coast Guard came and shut them down,” Jindal said. “You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, ‘Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.'”

A Coast Guard representative told ABC News today that it shares the same goal as the governor.

“We are all in this together. The enemy is the oil,” said Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Dan Lauer.

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

Louisiana Governor Couldn’t Overrule Coast Guard

The governor said he didn’t have the authority to overrule the Coast Guard’s decision, though he said he tried to reach the White House to raise his concerns.

“They promised us they were going to get it done as quickly as possible,” he said. But “every time you talk to someone different at the Coast Guard, you get a different answer.”

After Jindal strenuously made his case, the barges finally got the go-ahead today to return to the Gulf and get back to work, after more than 24 hours of sitting idle.(ABC)

He had to wait three weeks while a half dozen bureaucracies go their fingers in pie to study the environmental impact of building berms.

What about the impact of the OIL?!!

Whoops!

And this government is the one you want running Health Care??!!!

God Help us All!

Fifty-nine days into the crisis, it still can be tough to figure out who is in charge in Louisiana, and the problem appears to be the same in other Gulf Coast states.

In Alabama today, Gov. Bob Riley said that he’s had problems with the Coast Guard, too.

Riley, R-Ala., asked the Coast Guard to find ocean booms tall enough to handle strong waves and protect his shoreline.

The Coast Guard went all the way to Bahrain to find it, but when it came time to deploy it?

“It was picked up and moved to Louisiana,” Riley said today.

The governor said the problem is there’s still no single person giving a “yes” or “no.” While the Gulf Coast governors have developed plans with the Coast Guard’s command center in the Gulf, things begin to shift when other agencies start weighing in, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

“It’s like this huge committee down there,” Riley said, “and every decision that we try to implement, any one person on that committee has absolute veto power.”(ABC)

But don’t worry, President Obama is on it!

Obama in his Campaign Speech: ” As the clean up continues, we will offer whatever additional resources and assistance our coastal states may need. Now, a mobilization of this speed and magnitude will never be perfect, and new challenges will always arise. I saw and heard evidence of that during this trip. So if something isn’t working, we want to hear about it. If there are problems in the operation, we will fix them.”

Just like he was open to new ideas from Republicans during the Health Care “debate” 🙂

Just don’t ask The Coast Guard, NOAA, the EPA, because you’ll have to wait until they get their bureaucratic heads out of their collective asses!

But National Health Care will be great and wonderful, just wait and see!

We are from the government and we are here to keep you safe & protected.

Rejoice!

The Battle of The Rages

While, they kind, non-violent, loving Liberals are smearing hateful Nazi symbols all over the Capitol proclaiming their moral superiority and politically correct love for everyone who isn’t a White Male.

But they aren’t the racists…oh no…

They don’t want to divide people by race…oh no…

They aren’t hateful and violent like Tea Partiers….oh no… 😦

Arizona’s new law is a reminder that the states formed the federal government and not the other way around. One of the federal government’s functions was to provide for the security of the new country against foreign enemies and intruders. At this, and particularly under this administration, it has failed miserably.

There are 460,000 illegal aliens in Arizona, a number that increases daily, placing an undue burden on the state’s schools, hospitals and law enforcement. Arizona has a window seat to an illegal invasion and on the escalating and violent drug war in Mexico that has put American lives and society at risk.

On March 27, the consequences of a porous and unprotected border claimed the life of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz after he radioed his brother that he was checking out someone he believed to be an illegal immigrant.

Incredibly, his murderer escaped to a pronghorn antelope area that the Interior Department of Secretary Ken Salazar had placed off-limits to U.S. Border Patrol agents.

So unserious is the administration about protecting the border that it has allowed a bureaucratic turf battle between Interior and Homeland Security to let 4.3 million acres of wilderness area become a haven and highway for illegal aliens, drug smugglers, human traffickers and potential terrorists. (IDB)

But they saved the Antelope!

Awww….isn’t that so warm and fuzzy…

Like the warmness of a drug dealers gun having a shoot out on the highway.

Or the drunk illegal that just killed a family.

Or the drop house with 50-100 illegals stashed in their as effective hostages until someone pay the Coyote.

Human Smuggling is ok with Liberals, BUT DAMN STRAIGHT WE’LL SAVED THE ANTELOPE!

I found this on The Daily Caller by Jedediah Bila:

I had a horrible nightmare last night that America was being run by a far-left ideologue that was spending our money like it grew on trees, cowering before dictators, and promoting government dependency while self-sufficiency and personal responsibility went by the wayside. Oh wait, never mind. 🙂

President Obama has once again championed political correctness in his criticism of Arizona’s new law to crack down on illegal immigration. As reported by Fox News, “The law makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.” Obama responded by calling the law “misguided,” insisting that the failure of the federal government to handle immigration matters responsibly will yield “ . . . irresponsibility by others . . . That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans . . . ”

The federal government has had plenty of time to secure our nation from the threats of illegal immigration. Should Arizona sit back and hush up while a few more gangs invade its borders and endanger its citizens? You know, while the federal government takes care of its real priorities, like enforcing a government overhaul of the health care industry and inventing creative ways to disguise job-crippling energy taxes as some sort of green campaign? Kudos to Arizona for stepping up to the plate and doing a job it shouldn’t have to do. In fact, a recent Rasmussen telephone survey reveals that 70% of likely voters in Arizona approve of the legislation.

The important issue here is political correctness. Of course, everyone who supports the legislation has already been labeled racist. I wish the term terrorist rolled off the tongues of the Left with half as much ease as racial profiling. Somehow the crime of being in this country illegally is of far less concern to them than the act of asking someone to show his or her ID. Does the twenty-three-year-old who looks more like seventeen and is asked to show ID at the corner liquor store face age profiling, too? Let me not give them any ideas.

So, much like every liberty-loving American who doesn’t like Barack Obama’s Alinsky-inspired redistributive agenda, security-seeking Arizonians who support the state’s new legislation regarding illegal immigration fit the liberal definition of racist. The fact that the law prohibits officers from conducting an immigration check on the sole basis of one’s nationality or race is, of course, ignored by the Left.

It is imperative that Americans don’t get bullied into silence as a result of the leftist tactic of calling all forms of dissent racist, as the consequences would be dangerous. Such silence would lead to the destruction of our first amendment rights and a passive acceptance of potentially-disastrous policies. Also, tossing the word racist around with persistent ease would yield apathy among Americans when legitimate acts of racism arise that should be condemned. When writing about feminism, I’ve always said that the greatest disservice you can do to a female politician is to criticize or not criticize her policies due to her gender. The same applies to race.

The federal government hasn’t done its job of protecting Arizona. Legal immigration is something that has always been welcomed in this country, as America embraces the productivity and contributions of those from around the world who seek the opportunity our nation fosters. However, the illegal alternative cannot and should not be tolerated.

The bottom line is that the laws of our country should never be compromised in the name of political correctness or any other convenient term that aims to preserve some distorted ideological doctrine of “fairness.” A far-left friend of mine asked me this yesterday: “So, if a group of white, thirty-year-old women were doing something they shouldn’t be doing in Manhattan, and you got stopped by the cops to show ID because they thought you were acting suspiciously, wouldn’t you be offended?” My answer was a resounding no. If I were innocent, then what’s the big deal in flashing my ID? If anything, I’d be grateful that the cops weren’t taking any chances with anyone. And if I were guilty, the proper term isn’t “unfair.” It’s “caught.”

A crime is a crime. Security is of paramount importance. And if that means someone may get a little offended every now and then, so be it.

You’re just a hateful Nazi if you disagree with the Left.

Now that’s the best way to start a reasoned debate on the issue, don’t you think?? 😦