Happy Anniversary, Al

 Chicken Little was wrong again. Darn it… 🙂
Actor and activist Larry David was quoted as saying, “You know, Al is a funny guy, but he’s also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.”
 

Watch out world, and we are sorry if you had not realised before reading this, the world is ending today. That’s because today is the day that climate change entrepreneur, and former US Vice President, Al Gore warned us would be the beginning of a global emergency.

And it looks like civilization still is here. A lot worse for wear because of Liberals, but it’s still here. But Iran has nuked us all out of existence or Hillary hasn’t been Coronated yet so Stay Tuned…

Mr Gore told his supporters a decade ago that the world had until 27th January 2016 to end its addiction to fossil fuels or the it would come to an end. Gore did not specify what householders might expect to happen today, but he was clear that this would be the end.

The claim was part of the marketing campaign for his hit documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, which he maintains was not a cheap attempt to make money off the green frenzy. Although, by sheer coincidence, it did make him a pile of cash.

Shortly before the film’s release Gore warned today would see “a true planetary emergency.” Once again, he offered few details of the problems you might face on your weekly visit to Walmart.

He went on to tell the press: “If you accept the truth of that, then nothing else really matters that much… We have to organize quickly to come up with a coherent and really strong response, and that’s what I’m devoting myself to.”

Townhall would always warn readers in advance of any impending emergency but on this occasion we feel confident you need not stock up on canned beans. Gore has been making the same claim every week for the past ten years… Which has led us to believe his grim predictions might well be unfounded.

We think you should have a drive in your SUV today to celebrate how great life in America really is. Then crack open a cold beer to offend the health lobby too!

Oh, break out the Incandescent Light bulbs, your gun and that tub of Lard you have in the pantry and have a party…

Marc Fitch, author of “Shmexperts: How Ideology and Power Politics Are Disguised As Science,” says even the collapse of these kinds of doomsday predictions won’t do anything to discredit radical environmentalism among the faithful believers of global warming any time soon.

“The unfortunate truth of the matter is that environmentalists will only lose credibility with those who are already skeptical of the global warming movement,” Fitch told WND. “I think time will ultimately make the difference. The global warming movement in general seems to be grasping at any and everything these days to make their case, but the more they try to tie everything (ISIS, immigration, disease, war) to global warming, the more it just falls on deaf ears.”

Average temperature has remained steady for 15 years and some climate scientists suggest the Earth is on the verge of another ice age. Yet Fitch observed environmentalists keep deploying hysterical rhetoric to win over Americans to their cause.

“One of the problems with the environmental movement is that no good news is ever good news,” said Fitch. “The fact that the polar ice caps haven’t melted is seen as a reason to fight harder for their cause rather than give pause for consideration. One would figure that their dire predictions not materializing would be seen as a ray of hope, but instead activists see it as just further reason to preach doom and gloom.”

The bad-news-is-great-for-the-agenda strategy doesn’t seem to be working. A recent poll suggested Americans are relatively unconcerned about climate change, compared to the rest of the developed world.

Part of the problem for radical environmentalists, Fitch suggested, is their grim predictions don’t match up with the facts on the ground.

“There is always an explanation for why their models haven’t been correct or their dire predictions haven’t materialized,” he said. “In fact, there are usually many explanations. We’ve seen coal usage simultaneously cited as the cause of global warming and the reason that the Earth hasn’t warmed enough. With such a massively complex system like the climate, nearly any explanation can be made; it’s like playing connect the dots with the stars in the sky, there are probably millions of different lines of reasoning that can be drawn to make whatever picture you like.”

“They’re having to make excuses for the heat that never happened by claiming the ocean ate it,” he laughed. “Oh, yeah, the ocean ate the heat. It’s way down there at 700 feet below the surface. Well, 700 meters. So that would be almost a half a mile down there. That’s where all the heat is, and it’s gonna come bubbling up there. It’s gonna heat the saltwater, and the heat that the oceans ate is gonna heat up the saltwater, the saltwater is gonna flood and that’s how we’re gonna get the rising sea. This was in all of the pro-global warming, climate change analysis of last week.”

Unfortunately, Fitch said the global warming hysteria will continue for the foreseeable future, regardless of the facts, and skeptics may not live to see themselves vindicated.

“The public may grow even less concerned than they are now and politicians may eventually start to shy away from the global warming panic, but global warming activists do have time on their side,” he said.

“We know that the climate changes because it has done so in the past. We also know that it changes slowly but it does, sooner or later, shift. When that happens – whether we go into another ice age or become like the surface of Venus – some small cadre of activists will still be standing there with a sign saying that it is because of Big Oil.

“It’s like the sidewalk preacher who constantly warns, ‘The end is near.’ He doesn’t have to be right tomorrow, just right eventually. That’s the biggest asset that the activists have; they are warning about things 200 years in the future. Whether they are right or wrong doesn’t matter here and now and so they never have to admit to being wrong, just being a bit early in their predictions.” (townhall and WND)

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy
Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

ISIS: The Jobs Solution

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

“We can not win this war by killing them. We can not kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium and longer term to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it is lack of opportunity for jobs-” Maria Harf, State Dept. Spokesman on the “root causes” of ISIS.

ON MSDNC is front of Chris “Tingle up my leg” Matthews!

It’s not religious jihad, it’s “economic inequality” and “lack of jobs” that have ISIS beheading, killing and burning people alive!

Wow! that’s a new level of ideological willful blindness not seen by mankind before.

Mr. Matthews then cut her off and said: “We’re not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or 50 lifetimes. There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor Muslims, and as long as there are poor Muslims, the trumpet’s blowing and they’ll join. We can’t stop that, can we?”

Ms. Harf dug in and insisted improving the economic opportunities for the terrorist group is the key to turning back their terror, The Right Scoop reported.

“We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance,” she said. “We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people.”

The move prompted a day of widespread ridicule on social media, with #JobsForISIS becoming one of the top 10 trending topics on U.S. Twitter for much of the morning and afternoon.

Ridicule is too nice for this leave of idiocy.

For her part, Ms. Harf used Twitter to double down on her claims Tuesday, noting in a series of tweets that Republican lawmakers and military officials had made what she called similar statements.

(here come the out-of-context whacko bit as justification for the insane, “well, Georgey did it too… But he didn’t really)

“Military ldrs have long said [counterterrorism] takes more than military action. Adm Mullen in 08: ‘We can’t kill our way to victory.’ And let’s not forget George W Bush’s comments on [Countering Violent Extremism]: ‘We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror.’ GWB: We will challenge the poverty & hopelessness & lack of education & failed govts that too often allow conditions terrorists can seize,” she wrote over several tweets.

You know a liberal is desperate when there DEFENSE is using GW Bush, the Great Satan!

“1 more (of countless others): Colin Powell on fighting terrorism not just w/military means but by combatting poverty. Point is that pols across spectrum, military cmdrs, & CT experts all agree strategy needs to address conditions that allow extremism to grow,” she concluded.

Wow, that’s not just bathing in the Kool-Aid, that a complete transfusion! It’s almost Alzheimer’s like it it’s complete lack of understanding of reality.

Why, if Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Britain, etc., has just created jobs for Nazi Germany, Hitler wouldn’t have invaded, would he?

And who would have expected Napoleon to romp around Europe if Austria, Prussia, the small German and Italian states, Russia, Egypt, etc., had only given him foreign aid and minimum wage jobs?

Poor Tojo, just trying to lower unemployment around Asia with his Japanese Army job expansion program. And his fleets? Just looking for work around Pearl Harbor, Wake Island, Midway, etc. Couldn’t we have shown just a little more compassion on 8 December 1941?

The Crusades (that the Liberals have been using lately) wouldn’t have happened if there had just been a jobs program and an addressing of “income inequality” with King Richard.

SHEAR GENIUS! 🙂

Harf’s a genius — no Crusades, Napoleonic Wars, no WW II, and now, no ISIS — if we can get them some good jobs, and job training. Wow, let’s throw in free health care for ISIS while we are at it!

Everything will come up Unicorns and kittens and the Liberals can get back to micromanagement control every aspect of your life from before birth to after death in their most “compassionate” and “sensitive” way. 🙂

Yeah, that’s the ticket!

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

Why it is…

This guy Christopher Cook from Western Free Press nails it. It’s a great summation of what I have said over and over again in this blog for the last 5 years.

“Conservatives see liberals as misguided; liberals see conservatives as evil.”
—Original source unknown

Are you a conservative, a libertarian, or a Republican? Have you ever been verbally assaulted by someone on the political left with a ferocity you didn’t quite understand? Have you seen it happen to friends and colleagues, or watched in horror as the media establishment does it to a public figure?

Of course you have. At some point or other, nearly everyone on the political right has witnessed or been the victim of an attack designed not to elucidate facts, but rather to paint him or her as a villain.

My attention was recently drawn to a typical such calumny from a Facebook exchange:

Republicans hate anything that isn’t white, wealthy, and christian at least in appearance. They hate the poor, women, and minorities. They hate science and don’t believe that the global warming we clearly are experiencing is man made. They hate any government programs that help the poor and minorities, and the particularly despise immigrants, particularly the illegal kind. They love programs that line the pockets of oil companies, mining companies, and are willing to export jobs with wild abandon.

They hate public education, and they despise public schools and the public school teachers and public university professors. And since the do not respect the market place of ideas, they hate tenure (that gives teachers academic freedom) because it prevents them from firing teachers who are Democrats and who might infect some student with their liberal ideas. They want insurance companies to make a maximum of profit, and are perfectly willing for the health insurance companies to kill people by refusing service to anyone that might cost them a buck more than the median expense. They don’t care about clean food because it might cost the food corporation a little money, and they don’t care about clean water because cleaning up the waste will cost their precious corporate persons a little money.

This is not a recitation of facts; it is a series of smears. It is the construction of a giant cartoonish super-villain, made of straw and woven together with calumny. The giant straw villain is then publicly burned, in a narcissistic orgy of self-adulation. Of course, the torches of the “best” people burn the brightest.

Or one of my favourites: “you should stop watching Faux News” end of discussion.

Another way of looking at it is this: It is the modern-day version of a witch trial. The charges are utterly farcical and cartoonish. “I saw her dancing with demons in the pale moonlight.” “She looked at me and I sneezed, and the next day, I had a terrible cold.” “She turned me into a newt.” But they are stated with great conviction and repeated incessantly, and they establish the unassailable collective will of which the accused has run afoul. The witch is made into the auslander, and the good people of the community show how “good” they are by shouting their accusations the loudest.

Either way, whether the wicker man or the witch, the effigy goes up in flames and the community is purged—for the moment—of its evil. Moral annulment now achieved, the villagers walk away feeling good about themselves. Feeling superior.

Facts are also unimportant in this perverse passion play. Like the slavering, semi-psychotic Facebook rant above, most such assaults aren’t a series of accusations backed up by facts, they are a series of character assassinations, most of which are contradicted by the facts.

The most salient example today is the charge that people of the right (conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, tea partiers) oppose Obama out of pure racism—simply because he is black. Though this charge is easily refuted—by common sense, widespread evidence, and actual studies—it is repeated incessantly by the media, the left’s foot-soldiers . . . even the president himself.

Anything short of full Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants is therefore, racist. Anything less than full compliance with Global Warming fearmongering is “denial” and also Racist (according to the EPA Director).

Face it, disagree with a Leftist on basically anything, eventually you’ll be  a racist. Period. End of Discussion. 🙂

When actual studies are done (as opposed to just restating what the leftist imagines to be so as if it were actual fact), we learn that real racism is distributed fairly evenly among the population without regard to political affiliation.  In 2008, a survey was done that showed similar numbers of Republicans (5.7) and Democrats (6.8) would not vote for a black presidential candidate. Such a question gives us one of the clearest possible tests of raw racism. A loaded question like, “Do you feel blacks receive too much welfare?” might confuse attitudes about race with attitudes about government welfare programs. But this gives us apples to apples: All things being equal, would you refuse to vote for someone solely because of race?

In the 2008 survey, Democrats were slightly (1.1%) more likely to show racist thinking than Republicans, though this is well within the margin of error. A similar study on senatorial candidates was far more damning to Democrats. Bottom line: there is little evidence that Republicans oppose Obama or any candidate on the basis of race to any greater degree than Democrats.

But this should be obvious based on other facts and indicators as well. Take Mia Love. If you are on the political left, you may not have heard of her, but she is a rising star on the right. She quotes Bastiat, she believes in core principles such as subsidiarity—she is dynamic, successful, and hits all the right notes. She is a black woman, and I have not met or heard of a single conservative, Republican, or tea partier who wouldn’t be delighted to support her. (Deep down, many of the left know this, which is why they have been so vicious to her.) I have worked alongside or come in contact with hundreds of activists and partisans on the political right over the last 15 years, and I cannot think of a single one who would not exult at a Mia Love victory. If she were elected president, I myself would do the happy dance on top of the tallest mountain in my area every November!

The reason is obvious: we agree ideologically. Race is unimportant. Barack Obama is, it can be fairly argued, further to the political left than any previous president. And people on the right oppose him so virulently for that very reason—not because of his race, but because of the huge ideological gulf that lies between. Imagine that.

The other painfully incessant canard is the notion that people on the right “hate the poor.” In fact, the evidence shows the opposite. Conservatives are more charitable than liberals by fairly significant margins, even when you adjust for a variety of factors. Rich, middle-class, and poor conservatives are all more charitable than their liberal counterparts.  It’s not that conservatives are wealthier overall, either—liberal households are 6% wealthier on average. (I bet you never heard that little fact on MSNBC.) It is also not that conservatives are more religious: new data indicate that secular conservatives give more than secular liberals. These conservatives are voluntarily helping the poor with their own money, in greater numbers than their liberal counterparts in every cohort. Conservatism is a greater predictor of charity.

Leftists (they hardly deserve the term “liberal”), by contrast, are more “charitable” with other people’s money. Leftist A votes for Politician B to take money (by force) from Taxpayer C to give it to Recipient D. A and D give more support and power to B, who continues to take more and more from C, in a perverse and ever-increasing form of economic bondage. Then, A, B, and D get together and say that C hates the poor. Lather, rinse, repeat.

But we are getting dragged into the weeds here. We could go on and on refuting fact after fact, but the facts are unimportant. The leftist is creating a narrative. As a marketing guru will tell you, Facts tell, but stories sell. It’s a lesson the leftist has learned well.

Even more disturbing, in recent years, this method of “argumentation” has increasingly become the first tool pulled out of the toolbox. No longer does the leftist feel as compelled to make real arguments. All he needs to do now is shout “Racist!” or “War on Women!” and his job is done. He walks away feeling smugly satisfied of his own politically correct superiority, and the untrained observer is left addled at best, and possibly even swayed by the narrative.

So why they are so vicious?  Why do people who self-describe as “compassionate” direct such vitriolic hate and assaults at their ideological opponents? How they can justify painting you as such a monster?

Simple: To them, you are a monster. You must be.

Reason #1: Utopianism
You’re in their way

Strip everything away, and the fundamental trait of all leftists is this: The believe that through the state, they can build paradise on earth. They believe that with enough tinkering, coercion, and rule by “experts,” they can eliminate all hard choices and competing goods, perfect human nature, and bring all good things to all people.

To someone of the political right—defined by our belief in human freedom, private solutions, and individual sovereignty—this is just the modern re-telling of the age-old story: that some men should rule over other men. Ancient despotism, monarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, modern progressivism—they’re all just different flavors, and different degrees of application, of the same basic philosophy. But the person on the left does not see it that way. He wants perfection. He believes it is possible. And by gum, he’s going to get it.

This utopian thinking quickly leads to an unavoidable conclusion, echoed from the French Revolution to Lenin and Stalin to Mao to the Progressives of the modern era: “On ne fait pas d’omelet sans casser des oeufs.” (You can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.) To the utopian statist, “process costs” are entirely acceptable. They are building paradise, after all.

That’s why you see so much more toleration by the left’s rank and file of corruption and bad behavior by their leaders. What’s a little lying here, a little corruption there? They are building paradise. What’s a little cheating in the face of all they intend to accomplish?

That is also why you see such a prevalence of cult-of-personality adulation for strong leaders. Strong leaders resolve contradictions and sweep away the opposition. Strong leaders have the will to get the job done. Strong leaders get the trains running on time. Next stop, paradise.

But most importantly . . . these utopians—both the leaders and the rank and file—are so convinced of the nobility of their intentions that they believe that anyone who stands in their way must, by definition, have evil intentions. After all, who but a monster would stand in the way of paradise? And what consideration do monsters deserve? Why none at all, of course—they’re monsters.

That is why they do not simply disagree with you. That is why they calumniate you and attribute the worst motives to you. That is why they hate you.

Reason #2: Utopianism
The WORLD is in their way

The world refuses to conform to their utopian vision. The world isn’t the neat and tidy place they want it to be. They still hold onto the childlike belief that there can be goods with no tradeoffs, and this world of endless tradeoffs proves them wrong every day, mocking their childishness in the process. That makes them very angry.

Someone once said, “Conservatives believe what they see; liberals see what they believe.” Leftists hate you for the fact that you see the world as it is, rather than as it should be. You accept the facts of reality as they truly are, and you try to make the best of it. They believe that they can make reality conform to their vision of it. (That this effort always requires massive application of force against other human beings doesn’t bother them. It’s just another process cost.)

Your acceptance of reality as it is is pedestrian and troglodytic. Their vision of how reality should be makes them noble and romantic. They hate you for not living in the same fantasy land that they do. They hate you for recognizing that life is filled with tradeoffs. They don’t see the tradeoffs, so when you point them out, it’s as if you are the one that is making the tradeoff exist. La-La-La . . . I can’t hear you! Stop making bad things happen.

Your acceptance of reality makes them so angry, in fact, that they have convinced themselves that you must be suffering from some sort of psychological malady. Over the last century, dozens of self-reinforcing  junk-science books and studies have been published labeling “conservatism” (once called “classical liberalism”) as a mental disorder. Like the mental patient permanently lost in a psychotic world of his own creation . . . he’s normal, it’s the rest of you who are nuts.

Reason #3: Preening Narcissism
They are beautiful, so you must be ugly

The ideas of the political left produce failure at best and misery, oppression, and democide at worst. In spite of this, I had long clung to the belief that at least people on the political left “mean well.”

But do they? Or do they simply want to feel as though they mean well?

Author Robert Bidinotto asks (and answers) the same question:

Have decades upon decades of liberal policy failures deterred liberals from being liberals? Have the trillions of dollars blown on welfare-state programs since the “New Deal” and the “War on Poverty” made a damned bit of difference in curing poverty? And has that failure convinced “progressives” that there is something fundamentally wrong in their worldview and approach? Have the horrendous historical consequences of appeasement policies stopped today’s politicians from appeasing international thugs and terrorists? No?

Then why does anyone assume that liberals gauge the value of their worldview by the standard of its PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES?

Practical consequences are ALWAYS trumped by the advancement and protection of one’s core Narrative: the fairy tale that gives one’s life meaning, coherence, and moral justification. [ . . . ]

Doing that makes them feel good about themselves. And they would far rather feel good about themselves than actually achieve any of their stated practical objectives. It’s not about the objectives at all. It’s about THEM.

John Hawkins is just as unequivocal:

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

If this is true, then for many, utopianism isn’t about what they think they can achieve, it’s about their own self-image.

So is it true?

The persistence of this vision in the face of centuries of evidence would seem to indicate that it may be. We know that maximizing human freedom is more moral and produces better results—the last two centuries have made that clear. And on the flip side, we know that maximizing government at the expense of the individual produces a parade of horribles. And yet, again and again, we are told that it simply wasn’t done correctly before, or by the right people.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest of them all?
Why you are, my dear—you are so compassionate and fair and noble in every way.

The leftist looks at herself in the mirror and sees that she is one of those “right people,” because that is how she wants to see herself.

And if she is so beautiful and noble and fair . . . then how ugly you must be for standing in her way.

 

The leftist—the utopian, the statist—sees himself as on noble quest. He is the embodiment of everything good, simply because that is how he sees himself. How he wants to see himself. In order to maintain this self-image, he must make you the embodiment of everything horrible. He must make you ugly.

To statists, you are just another process cost. Their willingness to accept process costs on the road to their utopia is limited only by national context. In the United States, an exceptional nation where we still have some rule of law, they will certainly calumniate you, and they may decide to harm your finances, career, or reputation. In less exceptional countries where there is less rule of law, the harm is often to people’s freedom or even their very lives, as more than 100 million poor souls discovered in the 20th century.

The typical leftist in America, ignorant of his own philosophical pedigree, will protest this characterization. Do not let their protestations sway you. The degree to which they will treat you—the monster standing in the way of their utopia—as a disposable process cost is limited only by the degree of power they have. For your own safety, do not let them get more.

You are in the way of the utopia they are trying to create. You are in the way of the power they need to do it.

You. Are. In. Their. Way.

utopia

“The conservative “thinks of political policies as intended to preserve order, justice, and freedom. The ideologue, on the contrary, thinks of politics as a revolutionary instrument for transforming society and even transforming human nature. In his march toward Utopia, the liberal ideologue is merciless.”― Russell Kirk

the Ministry of Truth It is an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete rising 300 metres into the air, containing over 3000 rooms above ground. On the outside wall are the three slogans of the Party: “WAR IS PEACE,” “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY,” “IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” There is also a large part underground, probably containing huge incinerators where documents are destroyed after they are put down memory holes. (Hard Drives crashing anyone?)

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history to change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel, Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” – George Washington

154418 600 Obamas Piece Prize   Reposted cartoons

ISIS and a Ideological Hard Place

Militants for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria have traveled to Mexico and are just miles from the United States. They plan to cross over the porous border and will “imminently” launch car bomb attacks. And the threat is so real that federal law enforcement officers have been placed at a heightened state of alert, and an American military base near the border has increased its security.

But isn’t that racist? After all “securing the border” is a Liberal buzz phrase signalling that the speaker is a massive, hate-filled, vile,racist? 🙂

If I were ISIS this is where I would attack because it IS the weakest point. And whats even better is that Mr. I-wanna-look-tough can’t do anything about it without completely pissing off the millions of new Democrats he’s recruited and his left wing base.

He’s stuck between and ISIS and a Ideological Hard Place.

And guess who’s going to get killed for it?

We are.

Happy?  Hope and Change everybody…

“There is no credible intelligence to suggest that there is an active plot by ISIL to attempt to cross the southern border,” Homeland Security officials said in a written statement, using an alternative acronym for the group.

Democrats say opponents of President Obama are simply playing on concerns about terrorism as part of their attempt to portray Mr. Obama as having failed to secure the border against illegal immigration.

“There’s a longstanding history in this country of projecting whatever fears we have onto the border,” said Representative Beto O’Rourke, Democrat of Texas, who represents El Paso and other areas near the border. “In the absence of understanding the border, they insert their fears. Before it was Iran and Al Qaeda. Now it’s ISIS. They just reach the conclusion that invasion is imminent, and it never is.”

And the Democrats blame someone else AFTERWARDS anyhow, or will it just be another You Tube Video?

Even after the car bomb, or worse, goes off the Left will be Ideologically hog-tied into trying to discount it as “terrorism” until hell freezes over because they are they committed to their own arrogance and pride. They can’t be wrong. They can’t be “weak”. They must be right at all costs.

So how many attacks will it take for them to admit they were wrong?

Too Many.

But since they haven’t haven’t happened YET (much like 9/11) then it’s all fear.

Just like Pelosi’s “It would be very important for the Democrats to retain control of the Senate,” Pelosi told Maher. “Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if the Republicans win the Senate.”  is NOT fear-mongering BECAUSE THEY said it. Even if it is.

It’s Orwell personified, and many could be killed catastrophically and needlessly. To the Democrats THAT’s fear-mongering.

The Vandals and The Goths are Coming…

Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, said the Obama administration had a history of looking the other way on national security threats, particularly ones involving the border.

“President Obama or his administration should acknowledge this dire threat on the border, whatever its political ramifications are for the debate on immigration,” Mr. Fitton said.

“High-level federal law enforcement, intelligence and other sources have confirmed to Judicial Watch that a warning bulletin for an imminent terrorist attack on the border has been issued,” the report said. “Agents across a number of Homeland Security, Justice and Defense agencies have all been placed on alert and instructed to aggressively work all possible leads and sources concerning this imminent terrorist threat.” (NYT)

But it’s the threat to The Democrat Senate and all those new Amnesty-starved New Democrats that worry the President and his party.

You are not important enough to violate the sanctity of THE AGENDA!

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!

But what do i know, I’m just a fear-mongering racist, after all… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Homecoming

I’m Back!

And you know what I learned after 10 days in the UK?

There politicians are just as scummy and narcissistic as ours.

I didn’t get a chance to watch BBC News because I was too busy with other things but you still had a guy who was the head of a bank who got busted for doing cocaine and was largely unqualified but had the job because of connections. (“FORMER Co-op Bank chairman Paul Flowers has been arrested in connection with a drugs supply investigation, police said“)

You have the Deputy Prime Minister who is Labour Party (Liberal) running against his own brother for Party Leader supreme.

And so on…

I come home and Obama strikes a deal with Iran to get HIM out of that Foreign policy hole, for now. You are incompetent or naive to believe anything Iran’s leaders say. So he was just trying to fix HIS OWN problem. Not actually do anything.

And then he told the biggest lie he’s ever told, which for him is saying something: “I’m not a particularly ideological person,” Obama said.

BWAH hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

He’s NOTHING BUT IDEOLOGICAL.

Obama added Sunday that while he’s still passionate about giving people a fair shake, about the environment, and working for peace and national security, he’s also “pretty pragmatic about how we get there.”

You are either a no-conscious liar or delusional , which is Mr. President??

And what does it say about anyone who’d believe him??

Take DWS, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, the DNC Mouthpiece Extradonaire:

“At the end of the day, Americans were not only, not meyezled by the president….”

Say what? “….not meyezled by the president”? Imagine msnbc viewers running to look up that word.

Like a good liberal, the chairwoman was simply not thinking. And she misread “misled.” (IBD)

How Ironic. 🙂

Meyezled is a perfectly good yiddish word meaning in effect “we are all screwed”.

IBD: In another naked attempt to protect Democrats from ObamaCare, the administration plans to delay next year’s exchange enrollment until after the elections, so they can hide another round of rate shocks from voters.

Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that next year’s open enrollment period won’t start until Nov. 15, which conveniently puts it after the midterm elections. An administration official said the delay “will give issuers the benefit of more time to evaluate their experiences during the 2014 plan year.”

Please. This is nothing more than a political move designed to minimize ObamaCare’s damage to Democrats.

By delaying open enrollment until Nov. 15, the administration can keep consumers in the dark about the prices they’ll have to pay in the ObamaCare exchanges before they go to the polls. That, in turn, could spare Democrats another round of rate shock stories in the run-up to the elections.

This is hardly the first time Obama has tried to mask the dark side of ObamaCare for political reasons.

Just before the 2012 elections, for example, the HHS announced an $8.3 billion “demonstration project” for the privately run Medicare Advantage plans. It paid just about every one of them “quality improvement bonuses.”

When the Government Accountability Office looked into it, auditors couldn’t find any reasonable justification for the payments.

But this phony demonstration project did manage to paper over steep cuts to the Medicare Advantage program that ObamaCare is imposing. And by doing that, Obama prevented any backlash from seniors.

Since then, Obama has delayed the employer mandate, verification rules and out-of-pocket caps, all to keep the ultimate costs of ObamaCare hidden from view.

The very law itself was designed to hide the pain — and the costs — from taxpayers as long as possible.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Moving Forwards Backwards

Meet the Roberts electric car. Built in 1896, it gets a solid 40 miles to the charge — exactly the mileage Chevrolet advertises for the Volt, the highly touted $31,645 electric car General Motors CEO Dan Akerson called “not a step forward, but a leap forward.”

As the New York Times reported September 5, “For General Motors and the Obama administration, the new Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid represents the automotive future, the culmination of decades of high-tech research financed partly with federal dollars.”

Way to Go Greenies. Next thing you know, we’ll get a Steam Powered Car!!

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

According to the British Sunday Times, sources have said President Obama asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities until after the November 2012 election.According to the British Sunday Times, sources have said President Obama asked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to hold off on bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities until after the November 2012 election.

Well, at least he knows what’s really important… HIM! 🙂

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

“You’ve got to hand it to Democratic strategists. Who would have thought six months ago that in the lead up to perhaps the most important presidential election of our time, the hottest political topic in the country would not be the weak economy, high unemployment, the huge national debt, record gas prices, or turmoil in the Middle East. Instead it’s Women’s Rights, or at least that’s what the Democratic party is calling it while miraculously managing to keep a straight face.

“A term that was once used in conjunction with women’s suffrage and the right to vote is suddenly synonymous in the modern day with free contraceptives at the expense of others. Gone are the likes of true icons like Susan B. Anthony. Now we have Sandra Fluke and her heroic crusade to mandate that her sexual lifestyle choices be subsidized. How proud the Democratic party must feel right now to have successfully revitalized the civil rights movement in the 21st century by equating it with luxury entitlement. The media must feel pretty good too. They’ve actually been able to substantiate this ridiculous narrative to the American public… or at least a targeted voting block within the American public.

“The Republicans’ War on Women – that’s the poll-tested talking point coming out of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC these days. Despite the absurdity and insulting nature of the claim, the mantra sure is getting a lot of attention. It’s also proving to be an effective weapon – one of several weapons from a year-long arsenal of distractions designed to keep the Republican party off step, off topic, and constantly on the defensive at a time when President Obama is wrapping up what is surely the most dismal presidential term of my lifetime.” (allapundit)

Mark Steyn: All of us are born with the unalienable right to life, liberty, and a lifetime supply of premium ribbed silky-smooth ultrasensitive spermicidal lubricant condoms. No taxation without rubberization, as the Minutemen said. The shot heard round the world, and all that. 🙂

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

The U.S. economy added 227,000 jobs in February vs. expectations for 206,000, continuing a recent trend of decent hiring activity. The unemployment rate held at 8.3%.

And it has been OVER 8% since February 2009!

But America remains mired in the longest jobs recession since the Great Depression. It’s been 49 months since the U.S. hit peak employment in January 2008. And with nonfarm payrolls still 5.33 million below their old high, the jobs slump will continue for several more years.

The previous jobs recession record — 47 months — came during and after the comparatively mild 2001 recession, which saw unemployment climb to only 6.3%. The average job recovery time since 1980 is 29 months, not including the current slump.

The labor market won’t truly return to health until some 10 million positions are created to rehire all those who lost their jobs and to absorb new workers.

The longest jobs recession in decades coincides, not coincidentally, with the longest stretch of anemic economic performance on record.

U.S. gross domestic profit hasn’t risen 4% or more in any quarter since the first quarter of 2006. That’s by far the longest such stretch on record going back to 1950. The only other sizable sub-par stretch was a three-year span from late 2000 to mid-2003 during the prior recession and sluggish recovery.

The current expansion, which began in mid-2009, is particularly disappointing, given the deep recession that preceded it. The best growth was a three-quarter run of 3.8%-3.9% gains.

After the severe 1981-82 recession, the U.S. economy enjoyed a five-quarter stretch of 7% or more — following a 5.1% annualized gain.

The U.S. economy is up just 6.2% above the level at the end of the recession vs. 14.9% in the 10 quarters after the 1981-82 slump.

President Obama may take hope that the U.S. economy has picked up from near-stall speed to a modest pace in recent months. But after the mild 1990-1991 downturn, the U.S. economy rose tepidly for a few quarters before growing more than 4% in every quarter of 1992. That still wasn’t enough to keep the first President Bush from losing to Bill Clinton.

And nobody is predicting 4% growth in 2012. (IBD)

Bernard Goldberg: For years, journalists have bristled at allegations of liberal bias in the news. “If you think we have a bias,” some of them would say, “that only proves one thing: that you’re the one with the bias.”

When my book “Bias” came out at the end of 2001 — despite a surprisingly good review in the New York Times — so-called mainstream reporters generally denounced it. “Liberal bias?” they asked incredulously. “What liberal bias?”

A few even called me a “traitor” for supposedly turning on my colleagues, which is kind of funny since these are people who won’t call a real traitor … a traitor.

Well, now we have Chuck Todd, political director and chief White House correspondent at NBC News, breaking ranks (sort of) with his fellow journalists.

In an interview with Politico, Todd says, “To me, the ideological bias in the media really hasn’t been there in a long time. But what is there that people mistake for ideological bias is geographic bias. It’s seeing everything through the lens of New York and Washington.”

Not really, but it’s good that Chuck Todd at least seems to be acknowledging that there was, once upon a time, an ideological bias in the mainstream media. To say it “hasn’t been there in a long time,” acknowledges that it was there, once. This is something a lot of journalists would never admit.

To Todd, bias in the news simply stems from too many elite journalists living in too few places — Manhattan and D.C. But what he doesn’t quite seem to understand is that geography influences culture and culture influences ideology.

Inside The Bubble

People on the Upper West Side of Manhattan don’t see ObamaCare, for example, the same way people in Alabama see it. That’s not because of geography. It’s because of ideology. Or to put it another way, there are a lot more liberals on the Upper West Side than there are in Montgomery.

Todd is hard on political journalists, but only up to a point, and makes sure we understand that they’re not slanting the news in favor of liberals because they themselves are liberals. The reason, he says, has a lot more to do with zip codes than party affiliations.

“I think sometimes there are too many people who cover politics that don’t understand the grass roots of the Republican Party,” he correctly tells Politico.

And why don’t they understand? Because they cover America from a safe distance, embedded in the nation’s media capitals — Washington and New York.

“Part of what animates them (political journalists) is if (Middle Americans are) pushing it, I’m against it. But also that we don’t understand their day-to-day lives. That we don’t respect the fact that they go to church twice a week. That when we look down our noses upon Wal-Mart, they see it as the only place to shop.”

Let’s see if I have this right: The sophisticates in Manhattan and Georgetown don’t like anything that the hayseeds who live in Middle America like. If the unwashed in Flyover Country are for it, the elites in New York and D.C. are against it.

That, Chuck, is not geographical bias. It’s the same old bias conservatives have complained about for years. It’s a bias based on the reporter’s ideology, the journalist’s liberal ideology.

By blaming it all on geography, Chuck Todd, intentionally or not, tries to take the edge off the problem. If it’s only geographical, it speaks only to a blind spot. It says, “Hey, we live in a bubble, that’s why we’re biased. And it has nothing to do with our politics.”

Yes, they do live in a bubble, but make no mistake: Inside that bubble, journalists don’t simply share the same geography — they share the same ideology. They’re almost all liberals inside the bubble who share the same values and believe those values are moderate, mainstream and reasonable while conservative values are extreme and dangerous.

In Love With Obama

“Too many people mistake ideological bias for what really is a matter of geography,” is how he ends his interview with Politico.

Sorry, Chuck, but you’re the one who is making a mistake. If almost all the media elites live in Washington and New York and are liberal, is the problem that they live in Washington and New York or that they’re liberal? If there were more conservatives in the ranks of elite journalists — editors, producers, anchors — it wouldn’t matter if they all lived on the same block.

But let’s give Chuck Todd some credit for even bringing up the subject of bias in the news. Halley’s comet flashing across the sky over the USA is a more commonplace event than a mainstream reporter admitting any kind of bias.

Still, it’s too bad, since he’s in charge of political coverage at NBC News, that Todd forgot to tell Politico about how supposedly objective journalists fell madly in love with Barack Obama four years ago and decided they would not settle for being eyewitnesses to history. The election was too important.

This time, they felt, they had to they help shape history. So they put on their short skirts to go along with their pompoms and shamelessly became cheerleaders for Mr. Obama — and will probably do it again once the Republicans pick their nominee. That kind of journalistic bias has very little to do with geography and whole bunch to do with ideology.

So, one cheer for Chuck.

A Bronx one, if you please 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Greece-ing the Skids Too

“We all have a set of mutual obligations towards each other — we are our brother’s keeper, we are our sister’s keeper — and that those mutual obligations have to express themselves through government policies,” – US Senate Candidate Barack Obama in 2004

Although many hope members of the super committee will reach an 11th hour deal on spending cuts before the November 23 deadline, New York Times columnist David Brooks doubts that any deal will ever be reached, now or in the future. Brooks suspects that the United States is headed toward a fiscal crisis much like that of Greece.

On Friday night’s broadcast of PBS’s “NewsHour,” Brooks said that despite the best possible groundwork being laid to reach a deal, a deal still couldn’t be made.

“Yes, I mean, I’m hearing the exact same thing,” Brooks said. “I think the tragedy of it is, if it was ever going to work, it was going to work under these circumstances. The rules were rigged to make a deal as possible as possible as possible, which is to say there was going to be a clean vote on the House. They were going to meet in private. They had this sword of Damocles hanging over them. And they still couldn’t reach a deal.”

According to Brooks, with this missed opportunity and other missed opportunities over the years – it doesn’t bode well for any deal in the future. And that he says means the United States will eventually face a Greek-like situation.

“And still – and so it’s a history of really 10 or 15 years of potential moments where we could have – somebody could have made a deal with doing some spending cuts, some tax increases, jam it all together in whatever form you want to do,” he continued. “And every think tank has their own version. But the two sides are just too far apart. And as Mark [Shields] says, there is no center. And so, you know, they hope the election will solve it. That is what everybody is saying on the Hill. I’m a little dubious the election – why should this election solve it, when all the other elections haven’t solved hit. So the short answer is, welcome, Greece. We’re going to be Greece.”

And we all know the punchline here: “It’s the Republican’s Fault!!”

Not both of them. Entrenched in their ideological warfare. Democrats unable to cut spending and wanting to raise taxes on “the rich”. The Republicans not wanting to raise taxes and wanting to cut spending (but not nearly enough).

So we have fire and water and all we get is a lot of heated steam.

Neither will give an inch because of the 2012 campaign. Compromise is what the other guy does to let you do whatever YOU WANT to do.

Rock Meet Hard Place.

It’s not like it wasn’t predictable.

From a blog I wrote May 10, 2010: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/05/10/greece-ing-the-skids/

In Greece:

They are angry because for years they have been encouraged to live beyond their means, taking advantage of the cheap credit on offer since Greece joined the euro in 2001. Now, the rug is being pulled from under their feet. People who have taken out mortgages to buy homes, loans to purchase cars and credit cards to pay for overpriced basic goods are being asked to meet all these commitments with a much lower income than they had budgeted for.

Fannie and Freddie anyone??

UK Guardian: Saddled with burgeoning public sectors (which help sustain muscular trade unions)– SEIU, UAW, NEA anyone?

This is not what angers Greeks most, though. What you will hear time after time, both at the protests and at workplaces and cafes, is that this crisis confirms the failure of the country’s political system. In other words, that for years politicians have been bleeding the country dry, looking after themselves and their friends and failing to build a robust economy and a country equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century.

:)

There is anger at the pervasive, high-level corruption for which no politician is ever punished. People are also furious that no government has ever tackled influence-peddling in the public sector. The Greek branch of Transparency International estimated that Greeks paid almost euro800 million ($1 billion) in bribes last year. This is another drain on household budgets but more importantly it creates a sense of injustice, a sense that to get anything done you have to play by the system’s warped rules.

Sound familiar??

This feeling of unfairness is compounded when tax evasion also goes unpunished.

“Turbo Tax” Geithner anyone? Barney Frank? Charlie Rangel?? Jeffrey Imhelt?

Salaried professionals and civil servants have their wages taxed at source but many Greeks do not. And, what they declare often bears no resemblance to what they actually earn. The government believes that tax evasion could be worth up to euro30 billion ($38 billion) a year, or 12 percent of the country’s GDP. Allowing one part of the population to consistently get away without paying while Greece’s public finances are propped up by the same people all the time creates incredible resentment. That’s why you hear many Greeks say they will put up with the austerity measures if the government ensures that everybody pays their fair share. If people believe that the usual suspects, who in many cases are wealthy businessmen, doctors and lawyers, are allowed to get away with it, then the level of anger will go up several notches.

47% of all Americans pay NO TAXES whatsover!

Union workers and civil servant can make more in retirement than on the job.

But we aren’t going down that road…oh no…the Nazi, Racist, Violent Tea Baggers are just wrong. :(

Some of the measures imposed on Greece by the EU in order to bail them out (BBC):

The plans hope to achieve budget cuts of 30bn euros over three years – with the goal of cutting Greece’s public deficit to less than 3% of GDP by 2014. It currently stands at 13.6%. (in 2010)

PAY CUTS

The government is planning a freeze pay for all public sector workers.

Some pay cuts will also be implemented, and public sector contract workers are set to lose their jobs.

This follows several years of continuous increases in pay, with salaries rising by an average of 30% since 2006.

Annual bonus payments – paid as 13th and 14th month salaries – will also be scrapped for high earners and capped for lower earners.

Other bonuses will be scrapped.

In the private sector, the legal maximum number of people companies can lay off each month will be doubled from 2% of personnel to 4%.

PENSIONS

The reforms seek to prevent early retirement. Currently the average age of retirement in Greece is 61, though it is not uncommon for public sector workers to retire in their 50s.

Under the planned changes, the retirement age, which is currently 65 years for men and 60 years for women, will be linked to average life expectancy.

In addition, the minimum number of years someone will have had to have worked to qualify for a full pension will rise to 40 years from 37.

Pensions will also be reduced so that they reflect a worker’s average working pay rather than their final salary.
TAX REFORM

VAT will be increased to 23% from 21% – just the latest in a series of recent increases.

Indirect taxes – including those on alcohol, fuel and cigarettes – will see a 10% rise.

There will also be a clamp-down on tax evasion – widely regarded as a big problem in Greece – and on untaxed illegal construction.

Tax-evasion alone is estimated to cost the Greek government at least 20bn euros a year.
PRIVATISATION

In the longer-term, the government will look to reduce the reliance of the Greek economy on the public sector, reducing the number of people on the public payroll.

This will require growth in the private sector, and possible privatisation of some industries.

Getting eerily uncomfortable I hope.

See our future if  Obama and The Democrats (and Republicans too) are not stopped.

According to a December report from the BLS, state and local government employers spent an average of $39.83 per hour worked ($26.24 for wages and $13.60 for benefits) for total employee compensation in September 2009. Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $27.49 per hour ($19.45 for wages and $8.05 for benefits), see chart above. In other words, government employees make 45% more on average than private sector employees.

According to an analysis by USAToday (thanks to Michael Jahr for the pointer), “The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to an analysis of federal salary data.” For example, the number of federal employees making $100,000 or more has increased by 120,595, from 262,163 employees in December 2007 to 382,758 in June 2009, for a 46% increase. The number of federal workers making $150,000 or more has more than doubled since the recession started, from about 30,000 to more than 66,000 (see chart above).

The fire rate for government employees is .0055%. Their unemployment rate is 3%.

And do the Democrats look concerned?

Do the Republicans?

Do they?

Now: And if want a perfect Greece model look at California sometime. It’s Greece, trust me.

Josh Barro writes for the Manhattan Institute about the “Two Americas” and the “sharp difference between two classes of employees: those who work in the private sector and those who work for the government. Workers in the public sector have experienced a very different recession from those in the private sector.”

So is this Greece-ing the skids for what the government knows is coming if things don’t change?

I think so.

“I firmly believe that. I think, in 10 years – I don’t know when it will happen, but I’m very pessimistic that we will actually have the sort of deal we need,” Brooks said. “And at some point, what is happening in the Europe will happen here.”(DC)

It’s Party Politics over the good of the country. On BOTH SIDES.

“It’s less than a week until the deadline, and no language has been made public, and the American people should be able to make their voice heard before the committee votes. Because the truth is, once that vote happens, there’ll be no opportunity to change their product,” <Senator> Sessions said.

“People will make many promises about what this deal will be about if it passes … hopefully they’ll reach an agreement that’s one that can be honestly defended and that we’ll all be happy to vote for,” he added.

“But what we’ve seen so far indicates that secret deals, while they remain secret, are promoted to be far better than they are when you begin to see what’s really in them. The devil will always be in the details,” Sessions said.

He pointed, for instance, to the budget plan proposed by President Barack Obama, which was advertised as not adding to the national debt, but, he said, would in fact double the debt over the next decase.

He picked out several gimmicks in particular for which congressmen should be on the look out.

For instance, he said, the super committee could set a cap on war spending that was less than the baseline set by the Congressional Budget Office, and in that way claim they were making spending cuts. But since it would be less than the CBO baseline, that money would never have been spent in the first place.

Another possible gimmick by which the super committee could claim money was saved, he said, would be a proposal of tax increases now, to be balanced by spending cuts in future years.

“The pattern around here is, that once a tax increase is passed, it’s there,” Sessions said. “But a promise of a spending cut in the future very often does not become a reality.”

He warned that the super committee could direct standing committees to make cuts in future years, for instance, reduce entitlement spending or find a way to raise revenue.

“These committees have not followed through on that in the past,” Sessions warned, “and the super committee’s directions to them, we have to know, are not likely to occur based on history around here.”

At times, Sessions cautioned, cuts to programs have been proposed that are “unrealistic” because they do not come along with the reform necessary to actually cut costs for that program. For instance, cuts to health care providers’ reimbursements are supposed to made each year, but that fact is consistently ignored, Sessions said.

Another possible gimmick would be to claim spending cuts based on assumptions that the CBO baseline will change in a way that is “unrealistic,” for instance, by being “overly optimistic” about future economic growth.

“More and more, we’re hearing that coming out of this recession is going to be a long, tough, slow slog,” Sessions said. To claim cuts based on an alternative vision, Sessions said, would be “phony accounting.”

Lastly, he warned of calling savings on interest, as a result of a debt lessened by tax increases, a spending cut, as no money would actually be saved — money would still be paid out, just less than the year before. (DC)

As if 1.5 Trillion over 10 years wasn’t a gimmick to begin with… Because it was.

Be Prepared to be GREECE-d.
But be comforted in the knowledge that when you are paying $400 hyper-inflated dollars for that loaf of bread and you can’t afford to drive your car, heat your home or watch “America’s Got Talent” because you can’t afford it…. it was  the other guy’s fault! :)