7 Year Rash

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

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

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

Hate never felt so Right. 🙂

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

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

It will be YOUR fault.

Agree with me or else!

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

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

THE ZOMBIE HOARD

They are just a zombie hoard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their will be more Candy Crowley moments than ever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mountain

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

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

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

No one really cared.

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

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was sacrificed.

End of Story.

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

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

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

David_Petraeus

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

Hillary is still leading in the Polls!

“Brains…”

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

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

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

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

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

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

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

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

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

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

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

2016: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS!

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

disagree

2016: “Microaggressions” anyone?

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

2016: And the #Never Trumpers and Establishment RINOs.

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

2016: And the #Never Trumpers and Establishment RINOs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016: “White Privilege” anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

HELL NO!

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

HELL NO!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Democrat Party in a nutshell.

FEAR IS HOPE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

truth

Hard Truth

Matt Walsh:

We all know that American universities have become places of intense psychological indoctrination. We also know that kids often go into college malleable, immature, and oversensitive, and come out even more malleable, immature, and oversensitive. We all read the stories about college kids constantly having conniption fits whenever confronted with words, opinions, and ideas that upset them. Indeed, only on a modern American college campus could you find actual adults unironically demanding “safe spaces” and the like.

I still find self-imposed segregation hilarious though.

But I think there’s a deeper reason for the epidemic of wimpiness in our universities and in my generation as a whole. I think it stems from the idea that we as individuals are supreme, and as the supreme beings in the universe, our feelings and thoughts should be the primary concern of everyone else. In this view of things — the progressive view — I am the greatest, most important, most special creature in all of creation, and everyone and everything else is secondary. It stands to reason that, as a god among mortals, my emotions ought to be the top priority in the world.

Homo Superior Liberalis.

I wrote this to help dispel that notion. There are three hard truths — all centered around this faulty belief — that I attempt to very delicately and diplomatically explain here. But the first and most important is that your feelings aren’t nearly as important as you think. Of all the things a young adult should learn, that might be the most crucial lesson of all:

And I would add when your a Senior Citizen and you’ve “earned it” by still being here after decades that your feelings are STILL not the most important thing on Earth.

Some Liberals never grow up.

As Michael Brandon once said in character on the British Tv show (imagine an American on a British Tv show) Dempsey and Makepeace – “Life is hard, and then you die.”

I’m assured that, on occasion, learning still happens on college campuses.

But the Diversity and Inclusion Police are working overtime to make sure this stops as soon as possible.

I have not detected any evidence of this, but I accept it as a matter of faith. People I trust have assured me that universities are not just bastions of cultish indoctrination — there’s a lot of sex and beer pong, too. But sometimes, I’m informed, a rebellious student might endeavor to adsorb an actual fact or piece of knowledge. Again, I cannot independently confirm this shocking claim.

It would be extraordinary. 🙂

These rogue learners aside, it’s obvious that college is often a place where students go to erase from their minds any trace of truth or common sense. Supplanted in its place is a dreamscape of “white privilege” and “systematic racism” and “non-binary gender” and “patriarchy” and “transgenderism” and leprechauns and climate change and other fictional phenomena. Central to this fantasy world is always me. Not me, specifically, but the Great Me, the Mighty Me, the Universal Me.

Not this Me.

The Almighty Me. Where I am the Center of The Universe and the Universe shall bow down before ME and do what I want them to do.

The primary lesson kids learn in college and in our culture is that they, personally, individually, are primary. Their thoughts, ideas, and (especially) feelings are the most important things in existence, and all of existence ought to bend to their whim. If they feel sad, the world must make them happy. If they say something, the world must listen. If they believe something to be true, the world must play along.

That’s the ticket. Narcissism 101.

We could spend all day talking about the lies kids are taught in college and in society at large, but this, the primacy of their own emotions and beliefs, is the most damaging. I thought, then, it might be a good idea to run down a list of three basic, uncomfortable, common sense truths, for the benefit of these college students (and everyone else). One day I hope to put these in a speech and deliver them at a college graduation ceremony, but I haven’t been invited to do that, so for now I’ll just leave them here:

1. Nobody Cares About Your Feelings

Now, there are some exceptions to this rule. Hopefully your mom cares about your feelings. Maybe your grandmother too, and your therapist as long as you’re paying him. But, despite what you’ve been told, the general population of Earth is not overly concerned with your emotional state.

Shutterstock

That’s not to say everyone is cruel and heartless – although many people are, and sometimes they end up as your landlord or your boss — but nobody considers protecting your feelings to be a terribly important project. Nobody wakes up in the morning determined to make sure you feel happy and satisfied. Everyone has a list of priorities in their life, and your feelings are not at the top of anyone’s list. They’re not even at the top of your mother’s list, and if she’s a really good mother she already made that clear to you when you were a child.

Personally, I don’t want you to feel bad and sad and depressed and forlorn, but it is not my job or my priority to prevent you from feeling that way. And if reality, facts, and truth give you a tummy ache, then I will purposefully hurt your feelings, not for the sake of hurting them, but for the sake of forcing the bitter, scary, beautiful, glorious pill of truth down your throat. It will be for your own good. If I could chop the truth up and feed it to you in your applesauce like I do with my kids when they’re sick, I would. But you can’t take a dose of truth that way. When you mix applesauce with truth, you end up with a diluted truth, and a diluted truth is no truth at all.

This is an important point because we live in a society where everyone seems to think their feelings should be the prerogative of everyone they meet. This is especially true on college campuses, where students often insist they be let off the hook from assignments and responsibilities because their academic duties make them feel anxious. College students are not afraid to announce their hurt feelings to the world, as if that fact is somehow relevant to any of us. Of course, your delusion in this regard is understandable, considering how universities have turned hurt feelings into a criminal matter.

It has been proven scientifically that emotions can override reason and logic, so the best way for Liberals to be and to want to make more of themselves is to make you obsessed with your “feelings” and to make everything emotional. It works. Look at the Democrats.

That sort of coddling and pampering leads to stories… where a millennial employee at Yelp posted an open letter to her CEO demanding a raise. She complained about her difficult life as an entry level worker, and said she can’t improve her position because she feels too stressed. This, she was quite sure, should be the concern of her employer. Well, her employer disagreed and fired her instead.

As I learn everyday at work, your boss and their boss, and their boss, etc don’t give a shit what you think. No matter what they say in platitude, they really don’t care. It’s their buisiness and they are going to do it their way, and so are you. Period. End of Discussion.

That’s kind of hilarious to most of us, but terrifying to people who’ve gotten used to getting their way when they cry loudly enough. Children learn this strategy from the moment of birth and many find it successful all the way into their 20s. Eventually, though, the gravy train must come to a halt.

Which is Liberals always sound like whiny 2 year olds. 🙂

These days, we think our feelings entitle us to an infinite smorgasbord of perks and privileges. We think our feelings ought to be the primary driving force of not only our own lives, but the lives of everyone around us. And we think wrong. Indeed, nobody cares about your feelings nearly as much as you do, and you shouldn’t really care about them all that much either. Feelings follow action, so go out and do things, and keep doing them, and over time you’ll discover that your feelings don’t have a stranglehold on your life. Once you figure that out, you’ll stop expecting them to have a stranglehold on everyone else.

But you’ll be a lousy Liberal. 🙂

2. Nobody Has To Take Your Opinions Seriously

Again with the aforementioned exceptions of your mom, your grandmother, and maybe your friends. But probably not all of your friends because most of your friends aren’t actually friends, especially if your friendship has been thus far predicated on a common enthusiasm for not being sober. You may have two or three friends who truly, intimately care about you and your thoughts. Hardly anybody has more real friends than that, and most have fewer or none at all.

As for the rest of us, we don’t care what you think until you give us a reason to care, and even then we don’t care that much. It’s fine if you have opinions, but you can’t expect everyone to stop what they’re doing and take your opinion into account just because you voiced it.

Unless you’re a Democrat or a Liberal,especially one with any power at all. Then you think you’re King Obama or Queen-To-Be Hillary.

Shutterstock

This is a really important point because we’re living in a culture where everyone walks around constantly declaring “I have a right to an opinion.” And you do have a right to an opinion, but the problem with that statement is that it doesn’t mean anything. You could be a peasant living in a North Korean slum and you’d still have the right to an opinion, in the sense that nobody could stop you from formulating one (although they might execute you with an anti-aircraft missile if you say it out loud).

You see, when most people say they have a “right to an opinion” what they really mean, in context, is they have a right to have their opinions listened to and respected. But you have no such right, and the unfortunate reality is that, out of the 60 or 70 trillion opinions voiced in America every day, about 99 percent of them are not remotely worthy of attention, much less respect.

It’s that whole “consensus” thing that Liberal groupthink throws around.

If you want your thoughts to be regarded just because they’re your thoughts, talk to your mom, or get married and talk to your spouse. If you want your thoughts to be regarded by total strangers in the general population, you have to develop a reputation as a thoughtful, intelligent person who possesses insight and wisdom. Nobody considers you insightful and wise just because you graduated college. In fact, they probably assume the opposite.

Nowadays, when you tell someone you went to college, they preemptively roll their eyes because they assume you’re about to say something idiotic that will probably include the term ”cisgender” or “heteronormative” or “cultural appropriation” or whatever. There used to be a certain prestige attached to college. Now people look at you like you just escaped a doomsday commune, which isn’t very far from the truth.

You’re going to have to prove that your thoughts are relevant and valuable. Nobody will give you the benefit of the doubt on that front, I’m afraid.

3. It’s Your Fault If You’re Offended

Think of the phrase: “I take offense.” Take. That’s a verb. An action. You have taken offense. You weren’t given it or subjected to it or forced into it, you took it. You sifted through whatever was said, whatever idea or concept you were exposed to, and took offense from it. You didn’t have to. You chose it.

You could have reached into the comment and taken something else: insight, humor, cookies. Well, probably not cookies, but if you dig deeper you might find something other than a reason to be so indignant and insufferable all the time.

But it make YOU feel so good and so Superior. 🙂

Somewhere along the line we started operating under the assumption that it’s the job of the speaker to control the way in which the hearer receives his words. We decided that if the hearer receives them negatively – even if they were not meant negatively, even if it’s merely the hearer’s opinion that the message is negative or insulting — it’s the fault of the speaker. The speaker must now apologize for how you interpreted or processed what he said.

That would be Political Correctness. The Victim is always right. 🙂

Shutterstock

Think, for example, of the controversy surrounding the Redskins. Everyone knows that nobody currently associated with the Redskins organization actually intends the name to be some kind of racist jab at Indians. It’s just a name. It’s a word that, in modern times, means only “the name of the professional football team in Washington, D.C.” Nobody uses it in any other context. The intent behind the word is entirely harmless and innocent. But a few people have declared that they find it offensive, and that’s supposed to carry weight with the rest of us. The answer for these offended folks — and for anyone else who takes offense at things that aren’t supposed to be offensive — is simply to stop being offended.

It’s like I have a pet peeve about people eating cream cheese bagels around me. It’s the weirdest thing. I just get annoyed about how people eat bagels. I can’t quite explain it. Maybe I suffered some kind of bagel related trauma as a child, I don’t know. The point is, it’s not your problem that I get annoyed when you eat a bagel in my presence.  It’s a perfectly innocent thing to do. I don’t get to make rules about the food you consume in my vicinity just because I’m a disturbed and insane person. So you go on eating your bagels, and I’ll just have to deal with it. In similar fashion, people will go on using words you might not like, and you’ll just have to deal with it. Your linguistic aversions are not their problem.

Now, obviously there are times when a person intends to offend, but still in those cases it is your decision if you allow the person’s words to cause you grief. People say awful things to me all the time but I choose not to be offended, usually. Here and there I do choose to be offended, especially when some sniveling, anonymous troll responds to my opinions by attacking my children or my wife (which happens approximately 87 times a day, because people are awful, which is another lesson you should learn in a hurry), but I can’t really do anything with the offense I’ve taken.

I just stew in it for a while and then I’m forced to move on with my day. Taking offense accomplished nothing. I’m left just standing there holding it with nowhere to put it. I can try to take my offense to a pawn shop and trade it for a pair of rollerblades, or deposit it in the bank so it can accrue interest over time, but I’ll find that my offense is even more worthless to other people that it is to me. My only choice is to drop it and continue living my life.

I think dropping it and living your life is generally a profitable skill, and not one they teach in college. Then again, they don’t really teach any skills, so that’s not surprising.

There are other hard truths, but we don’t have the space to explain them here. A honorable mentions list would include:

4. Nobody will take you seriously if you try to lecture them about their “privilege.”

5. Nobody will take you seriously if you call yourself a feminist.

6. Nobody will take you seriously if you ever unironically use the phrase “safe space.”

7. Nobody will take you seriously if you ever admit in public that you took a class on “gender theory.”

And I could go on, but I don’t want to overwhelm you. Let’s start with the first three and work from there.

Yes, these are hard truths, but the truth is rarely easy. And that’s probably the hardest and most important truth of all.

You are not the Center of The Universe. You are Not the most important being that is a alive or has ever been alive. Your views on life are not the paramount importance of the Universe and God’s Sake if I hear, “But that not what I want…” I will gladly tell you I don’t care.

Suck it up, Buttercup. No one really cares.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/definition/con-20025568

 

Dr. Phil

Image via Screenshot

Psychologist and TV personality Dr. Phil McGraw appeared on The Kelly File Thursday night to discuss the need to “stop rewarding bad behavior in America” for fear of continuing to promote a culture of entitlement and narcissism prevalent in recent generations.

“We do have a generation that, I think, we have raised with a great degree of entitlement where it’s like, the world owes me a living,” said Dr. Phil.

He brought up as an example a man aspiring to be a rock star at the age of 40, using all of his family’s money – even their savings and retirement funds – to buy fame as opposed to actually going out and working for it.

“He’s got the poses. He’s got the haircut, everything. But so entitled, won’t take a job because it’s not a rock star job,” Dr. Phil explained.

“People sometimes ask me what’s wrong with America,” he said. “This is the greatest country in the world with the greatest people in the world. But sometimes, we forget commonsense – the simple things we need to remember. Like, basically, you just don’t reward bad behavior.”

“We’ve got to stop rewarding bad behavior in America,” Dr. Phil went on. “When people don’t work and produce, then they need to be kicked to the curb, get a damn job, carry your own weight. It’s just that simple.”

bernies Fairy Talesd5c6f-democrats6

Small Package Big Liberal

snow is racist

“It’s unfortunate that the entire country is a racist country. So it’s an example of the fact that even though some great people have given some great performances in movies, they weren’t even thought about. We are living in a country that discriminates and has certain racist tendencies. So sometimes it manifests itself in things like this [the Oscar nominations] and it’s illuminated. But just generally speaking, we’re a bunch of racists.”–Danny DeVito.

Even though Hollywood is one of the most left-wing institutions on the planet, and one that enjoys unfettered artistic and political freedom, during an appearance at the Sundance Film Festival this weekend, actor Danny DeVito blamed the second year in a row of all-white Oscar nominations on racist America., on all of us, because we are all “a bunch of racists.”

As National Review’s Jonah Goldberg has pointed out, when Republicans do something wrong, it is a “Republican policy problem.’ When the Left is embroiled in a scandal or failure, it is a failure of America. 

Such moral outrage. Funny, how Politically Correct it is. How “trendy”.

I have said on social media that the whole thing can be fixed fairly easily.

We just implement a tiered system for awarding Oscars that has NOTHING AT ALL to do with merit or performance but everything to do with race. That should make everyone happy, right?

Call it a “Diversity” measure.

Tier 1: Blacks

Tier 2: Minorities of any definition as long as they are not “white”.

Tier 3: Everyone one (aka “Racist White People”)

So you start at the top and work your way down. If you get to Tier 3 at all you simply haven’t done your job correctly and should be fired or there needs to be a recount.

That’ll teach those racist white people!! 🙂

Thomas Sowell: The latest tempest in a teapot controversy is over a lack of black nominees for this year’s Academy Awards in Hollywood.

The assumption seems to be that different groups would be proportionally represented if somebody were not doing somebody else wrong. That assumption carries great weight in far more important things than Academy Awards and in places more important than Hollywood, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

In an earlier era, the groupthink assumption was that groups that did not succeed as often, or as well, were genetically inferior. But is our current groupthink assumption based on any more hard evidence?

Having spent decades researching racial and ethnic groups around the world, I have never yet found a country in which all groups — or even most groups — are even roughly equally represented in most endeavors.

Nor have I been the only one with that experience. The great French historian Fernand Braudel said, “In no society have all regions and all parts of the population developed equally.” A study of military forces around the world failed to find a single one in which in which the ethnic makeup of the military was the same as that of the society.

My own favorite example of unrepresentativeness, however, is right at home. Having watched National Football League games for more than 50 years, I have seen hundreds of black players score touchdowns, but I have never seen one black player kick the extra point.

There have been exactly 5 black place kickers in the history of the NFL.

hat’s right, just 5 black kickers have played since the 1966-67 season. Gene Mingo kicked for the ’67 Dolphins and Redskins plus the Steelers for ’69-’70. Donald Igweibuike kicked for the Buccaneers ’85-’89 and Vikings in ’90. Obed Ariri played one season for both the Bucs ’84 and Redskins ’87. Then there was Cedric Oglesby (Cardinals ’01) and most recently Justin Medlock (Chiefs ’07 and Panthers ’12).

What are we to conclude from this? Do those who believe in genetics think that blacks are just genetically incapable of kicking a football?

Since there have long been black colleges with football teams, have they had to import white players to do the opening kickoff, so that the games could get underway? Or to kick the extra point after touchdowns? Apparently not.

How about racist discrimination? Are racists so inconsistent that they are somehow able to stifle their racism when it comes to letting black players score touchdowns, but absolutely draw the line when it comes to letting blacks kick the extra point?

Would it have been racist if The Cardinals had actually showed up to play the Panthers and won the game and you had two “old” white guys at QB in the Super Bowl?

With all the heated and bitter debates between those who believe in heredity and those who believe in environment as explanations of group differences in outcomes, both seem to ignore the possibility that some groups just do not want to do the same things as other groups.

I doubt whether any of the guys who grew up in my old neighborhood in Harlem ever went on to become ballet dancers. Nor is it likely that this had anything to do with either genetics or racism. The very thought of becoming a ballet dancer never crossed my mind and it probably never occurred to the other guys either.

If people don’t want to do something, chances are they are not going to do it, even if they have all the innate potential in the world, and even if all the doors of opportunity are wide open.

People come from different cultures. They know different things and want different things.

When I arrived in Harlem from the South as a kid, I had no idea what a public library was. An older boy who tried to explain it to me barely succeeded in getting me to get a library card and borrow a couple of books. But it changed the course of my life. Not every kid from a similar background had someone to change the course of his life.

When Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe arrived in New York in the 19th century, they were even poorer than blacks from the South who arrived in Harlem in the 20th century. But the Jews crowded into public libraries because books had been part of their culture for centuries. New York’s elite public high schools and outstanding free colleges were practically tailor-made for them.

Groups differ from other groups all over the world, for all sorts of reasons, ranging from geography to demography, history and culture. There is not much we can do about geography and nothing we can do about the past. But we can stop looking for villains every time we see differences.

That is not likely to happen, however, when grievances can be cashed in for goodies — and polarize a whole society in the process.

Never Let a Crisis (or a “racist” Opportunity) Go to Waste!!

too white

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Faulty Towers

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s reliance on poorly-sited weather stations to calculate surface temperatures is inflating the warming trend of the U.S. and maybe even the rest of the world, according to a landmark study looking at three decades of data.

“The majority of weather stations used by NOAA to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts,” Anthony Watts, a seasoned meteorologist and lead author of the study, said in a statement Thursday.

These “compromised” weather stations run hotter than stations that are well-sited, and are used by NOAA as a benchmark to make upward adjustments for other weather stations that are part of the agency’s official temperature record.

Watts and his fellow researchers found only 410 “unperturbed” weather stations out of the 1,218 stations used by NOAA to determine U.S. climate trends. These “unperturbed” stations don’t need to be adjusted by NOAA because they had not been moved, had any equipment changes, or change in the time temperatures were observed.

 

Watts found well-sited stations show significantly less warming than poorly-sited stations from 1979 to 2008 — the time period was chosen in order to respond to NOAA papers from 2009 and 2010 justifying its weather station adjustments. Now, Watts has years of evidence showing NOAA is relying on shoddy weather stations to make its temperature adjustments.

“This study demonstrates conclusively that this issue affects temperature trend and that NOAA’s methods are not correcting for this problem, resulting in an inflated temperature trend. It suggests that the trend for U.S. temperature will need to be corrected.” Watts said.

Why would they? They have the data THEY WANT, not the data they got.

The Agenda is The Agenda. The Narrative is The Narrative.

Watts NOAA thermometers

What’s more troubling, is that similar siting problems have been observed at weather stations around the world, meaning the global warming present in the surface temperature record may be overblown. Watts’ study comes after NOAA published a June study making further adjustments to temperature data and purported to eliminate the “hiatus” in global warming.

Watts’ new paper casts more doubt on NOAA’s temperature adjustments — which always seem to increase the warming trend. Correcting for these poorly-sited stations could also bring surface warming trends more in line with observations from satellites, which show no statistically significant warming for about two decades.

“We believe the NOAA/NCDC homogenization adjustment causes well sited stations to be adjusted upwards to match the trends of poorly sited stations,” according to Watts’ study. “The data suggests that the divergence between well and poorly sited stations is gradual, not a result of spurious step change due to poor metadata.”

Watts says the warming trend at well-sited stations was “found to be collectively about 2/3 as large as U.S. trends estimated in the classes with greater expected artificial impact.” NOAA data adjustments greatly reduce those differences but produce trends that are more consistent with the stations with greater expected artificial impact.”

NOAA has come under fire in recent months for “homogenizing” the temperature data, a process used by scientists to correct for biases in the data. Scientists go in and either ratchet up or down temperatures from thermometers up or down based on things like changes in the time of day temperatures are observed, the equipment used to take readings, or changes in the actual locations of thermometers. NOAA has defended its data adjustments are necessary to get more accurate data.

But there’s a bigger question: why is NOAA relying on so many poorly-sited thermometers to collect temperature data?

“It’s one of the factors they did not consider,” Dr. John Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and co-author of the study, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“Many of the thermometer sites have been contaminated,” Christy said, adding that poor siting “increases the warming rates.”

Christy and his colleague Dr. Roy Spencer created the first satellite datasets to observe global temperature trends in 1989, and have global data going back to 1979. Christy’s and Spencer’s satellite measurements, which collect temperature data from the lower atmosphere, show no statistically significant warming since 1994 — a period of 21 years.

“We prefer satellite data because it’s a measurement of the bulk atmosphere,” Christy said, adding this is where global warming should be most apparent. Satellites also don’t need to go through the level of adjustments surface thermometers do.

Watts’ study is likely to be challenged by the global warming “establishment” because it challenges data they believe supports the idea that greenhouse gases are pushing the world towards dangerous warming.

“If you want the truth about an issue, would you go to an agency with political appointees?” Christy said. “The government is not the final word on the truth.” (DC)

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

The Lion’s Den

Fascinating Video.

Watch the Leftist indoctrinator/puppet mistress in the Left corner of the screen for extra credit.

FYI: Amherst says it is charging students $60,400 in tuition, fees, room and board. By comparison, it charged $43,300 in 2000-01, in inflation-adjusted dollars. So even after Amherst’s prices have been adjusted for economywide inflation, the cost has jumped 34 percent in only 14 years.

For perspective: Arizona State $21,000 in state, $35,000 out of state.

Now that’s White Privilege. 🙂

Dinesh D’Souza is a brave man and a very good speaker, but did the Leftists learn anything?

Of course not.

That, dear Citizens, would be a Thought Crime. Not to mention they are far to narcissistic for that.

If you enjoyed the viral clip of Dinesh destroying a self-satisfied campus leftist at Amherst earlier this year, check out this full-length video of the entire discussion on America’s role in the world.

Love this guy. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

DoubleThink Ahead

Just when you though the Orwellian BS on the Left couldn’t get more insane…Let’s recap first.

“Safe Spaces” for “Blacks only” is all the rage on College Campuses. Where whites are not allowed and Segregation is NOT “racist”, it’s required.

Jamie Boiue of the Leftist rag The Slate: I tend to think that you have this atmosphere of racial insensitivity, a feeling that the university isn’t really there for you. 

Females also, as a protected class,  like Katherine Hall of Brown University:

“I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs,” Ms. Hall said.

Safe spaces are an expression of the conviction, increasingly prevalent among college students, that their schools should keep them from being “bombarded” by discomfiting or distressing viewpoints. Think of the safe space as the live-action version of the better-known trigger warning, a notice put on top of a syllabus or an assigned reading to alert students to the presence of potentially disturbing material.

But you try it the Politically INcorrect way (in other words REALITY), well, your ass is dog meat. Leave it to the Professional Crybabies… 🙂

EAGNews.org: A lesson on segregation landed an Indiana high school teacher on administrative leave after students posted “whites only” and “blacks only” signs near school bathrooms and drinking as part of social studies class.

Officials did not release the name of the Concord High School social studies teacher who Concord Community Schools Superintendent John Trout said was designed to “demonstrate the feel of government-sanctioned segregation that previously existed in portions of our country.”

whitesonly“Concord Community Schools appreciates its educators attempting to be innovative in their teaching approach,” the statement read, according to The Elkhart Truth. “However, methods and tactics that can be viewed as harassing or discriminatory to students and teachers are not appropriate and are prohibited in our schools.”

Trout said the assignment, given to students in a first hour class last Friday, was not approved by the school or school district. School officials removed the signs as soon as they realized, he said, and talked to students about the incident afterwards.

“Concord High School’s stated mission is to both academically challenge and equip our students. To that end, many of our high school educators include in their instruction current and historical events that may contain controversial subjects and topics,” according to the statement. “Unfortunately, like all of us, sometimes a teacher makes a mistake when attempting to educate young teenagers. On December 4, 2015, one such mistake was made.”

The teacher remains on paid administrative leave as the district continues its investigation.

Parent Martise Evans, a black woman, is really mad about the signs.

“Anybody can get any kind of wrong idea about it,” Evans told ABC 57. “Don’t do that. Especially don’t demonstrate that to other children to make it seem like that’s ok.”

Yeah, leave for College Students and their “Safe Zones”. 🙂

Evans alleges he decided to pull her daughter London out of the district because of racially charged incidents school officials did nothing about.

Once you designate some spaces as safe, you imply that the rest are unsafe. It follows that they should be made safer.

“They were bullying because of her hair, because she’s African American, because she wasn’t up to their par of what they wanted her to be, or their definition of what a human being or person should be,” Evans said, “and they were teasing her to the (point) that she tried to commit suicide.”

Hey, I’m white. That happened to me in the late 1970s do you think she would care? 🙂

Evans told ABC 57 she’s glad to see the teacher was suspended, and thinks the district should “reflect” on the incident.

“People’s feelings were hurt in the process,” she said. “People probably felt like the school doesn’t even want them there now.”

But a safe-space mentality has begun infiltrating classrooms, he said, making both professors and students loath to say anything that might hurt someone’s feelings. “I don’t see how you can have a therapeutic space that’s also an intellectual space,” he said.

But in College it “racist” not to.

Got love the Doublethink. 🙂

Several parents who commented on Facebook clearly disagreed with Evans.

“I support everything that this teacher did, except not getting approval from those above,” Dakarai Breveard wrote. “I think the intended lesson was great.”

They will see it in College, only it will be Politically Correct then. 🙂

“I could see this being a valuable teaching lesson if taught in a constructive manner,” Donny Wolf added. “It sounded to me like that was going to be the case. Unfortunately for this teacher, teachers are not allowed to actually teach anymore. They are told how to teach and what to teach from a manual.”

At Northwestern recently, An organizer of the demonstration said, “we need to be setting aside spaces to talk” about “victim-blaming.”

At Oxford University’s Christ Church college in November, the college censors (a “censor” being more or less the Oxford equivalent of an undergraduate dean) canceled a debate on abortion after campus feminists threatened to disrupt it because both would-be debaters were men. “I’m relieved the censors have made this decision,” said the treasurer of Christ Church’s student union, who had pressed for the cancellation. “It clearly makes the most sense for the safety — both physical and mental — of the students who live and work in Christ Church.”

A year and a half ago, a Hampshire College student group disinvited an Afrofunk band that had been attacked on social media for having too many white musicians; the vitriolic discussion had made students feel “unsafe.”

Last fall, the president of Smith College, Kathleen McCartney, apologized for causing students and faculty to be “hurt” when she failed to object to a racial epithet uttered by a fellow panel member at an alumnae event in New York. The offender was the free-speech advocate Wendy Kaminer, who had been arguing against the use of the euphemism “the n-word” when teaching American history or “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.” In the uproar that followed, the Student Government Association wrote a letter declaring that “if Smith is unsafe for one student, it is unsafe for all students.”

“It’s amazing to me that they can’t distinguish between racist speech and speech about racist speech, between racism and discussions of racism,” Ms. Kaminer said in an email.

The confusion is telling, though. It shows that while keeping college-level discussions “safe” may feel good to the hypersensitive, it’s bad for them and for everyone else. People ought to go to college to sharpen their wits and broaden their field of vision. Shield them from unfamiliar ideas, and they’ll never learn the discipline of seeing the world as other people see it. They’ll be unprepared for the social and intellectual headwinds that will hit them as soon as they step off the campuses whose climates they have so carefully controlled. What will they do when they hear opinions they’ve learned to shrink from? If they want to change the world, how will they learn to persuade people to join them? (NYT)

They’ll crush them with Political Correctness and pass laws against them saying anything they don’t like, that’s how. 🙂

The power of Politics, not the power of persuasion.

They are more sensitive. More in touch with their inner enlightenment than you so it’s only right that they must rule over you Unenlightened barbarians, especially insensitive racist, bigoted, white people.

They must be crushed. For their own good.

So remember kiddies, Leave the Political Correctness to the Professional because otherwise you’re a “racist” and a “bigot”!!

And if you’re White, well, there’s no hope for you anyways. You’re destined for Liberal Hell no matter what.

Happy Happy Joy Joy.

rosa parks

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Dear Everyone

Dear Everyone,

I say this in the most sincere way possible: Get over yourselves.

Not everything is about everything, or everyone. In fact, most things are about the very few people involved in them and no one else.

From the tragic to the political, we saw a wave of people inserting their pet projects and profitmaking grievances into the events of the week like the opportunists those people are. But that’s all they are.

It started with the awful terrorist attack by a monster in South Carolina who murdered nine innocent people because he “wanted to start a race war.” He should be held in a cell used for extension cord storage with exposed pipes on the ceiling. His career of wasting oxygen can’t be ended fast enough.

But the Left needs him for their Agenda. As for “starting” a race war, hasn’t the Left and especially Obama,Holder, Shapton, et al already been doing that for many years?

But too many, unsurprisingly, are using this creature’s disgusting act of evil for their own purposes.

President Obama used it to advance gun control, something the American people routinely and roundly reject. Hillary Clinton did it to advance her relevance and to distract from her own failings. If you believe either of these people—or any of the other politicians and pundits weighing in from afar—give an honest damn about the events in South Carolina beyond how they can use it; you’re fooling yourself.

If they cared, they would show up, without announcing it, without fanfare, without cameras, and pay their respects to the families and community. Instead, the president went fundraising on the west coast and Hillary did whatever it was she was scripted to do beforehand.

Politicians aside, the clown car of media and pundits couldn’t get enough of this story. Hosts were dispatched, race-baiting pundits were released from their hermetically sealed pods and activists booked flights faster than a Kardashian can cash a check.

All had their own agenda; none really cared.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, in a panic to get enough ratings to keep his job, made his cause the Confederate flag. He obsessed over something that is known as the paint job on the roof of the car in the Dukes of Hazzard as a contributing factor in this evil.

That flag had nothing to do with this, and Chris isn’t dumb enough to believe it did. But it’s a cause people who would be inclined to watch his show could get behind, so he went all in with it. No lives were saved, no pain was alleviated. Chris Hayes has no connection to Charleston, had no reason to be there, brought nothing of value in that community’s time of need. But there he was …, yelling about a piece of cloth, feeling important.

Is it important? Of course not. I don’t get the concept of “southern pride” to the point you’d embrace something under which so much evil was perpetrated, nor do I understand why anyone would let a dead symbol have that much power over them. I don’t associate with people who get worked up over inanimate objects or those who would wrap themselves in something so intertwined with this nation’s greatest cruelty.

While the political class was finding new and creative ways to exploit tragedy and dishonor murder victims, including a discussion of the Voting Rights Act and voter ID (see how Michael Moore did it here), Pope Francis called for a “bold cultural revolution” to combat climate change. (Read about it here.)

With all due respect to the Pope, who cares? That the head of one of the richest organizations on the planet wants to push socialism to help the poor and “save the planet” isn’t a surprise. The Catholic Church has a long history of obtuse self-observation. But that left-wingers would rally to his call is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

Hillary Clinton personally sent tweets of praise for the Pope’s encyclical just 2 ½ hours after she had praised an Iowa court decision that favored abortion. (Take a look; it’s beyond irony.)

Clinton could be somewhat forgiven for her ignorance because she’s not Catholic, but Martin O’Malley is. The also-ran Democrat from Maryland penned an op-ed praising the Pope’s call to action even though he is one of the most pro-abortion politicians in the country. The “devout Catholic” O’Malley counts on people not knowing his or the Pope’s stance on the issue or hopes people think Catholicism is a buffet from which you can pick and choose which parts you like.

At least atheist Bernie Sanders is intellectually consistent – government is his God, and his will is his government.

These are but a few examples of the media, political and pundit class who saw opportunities to advance their agendas in the face of tragedy or reality. The country would be better off if we’d let a community come together and its people grieve, rather than try to gain relevancy through the misery of others. It’d also be better off if politicians and the media had a modicum of intellectual consistency; if the “party of science” either left science to scientists or at least answered for its embrace of religious doctrine only when it is convenient.

They won’t because they don’t have to. There is no price to be paid for exploitation or hypocrisy, politically or personally, if you are of the left. The right is little better, but this was the left’s week.

We’d all be better served if those in power, those who’d like to be, and those who think they are would all step back and, for once, put the interests of others before themselves. Imagine if that happened. Imagine if these camera whores actually got over themselves for one full week. Just think of what we could accomplish if they did. (Derek Hunter)

 The mind boogleth at the possibilities but narcissism is the scourge of this age.

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Best Interest

A major pet peeve of mine in the world of politics is the phrase “voting against their own interests.” It’s usually used to indicate a sense of exasperation and disbelief on the part of the speaker that a certain group of voters is favoring a candidate or political party whom the speaker believes does not represent their best interests (see here, here, and here, for examples).

More specifically, it’s often used by Progressives to bemoan the tendency of some female voters and some of lower socioeconomic status to vote for Republicans. The insinuation is that Republicans are the “party of the rich” and they support policies that might jeopardize “women’s health” (i.e., abortion), therefore they should be universally rejected by certain classes of voters. The writers of these pieces struggle to explain this behavior and they usually settle for some combination of religious belief, small-mindedness, fear, and stupidity.

Or in the case of Global Warming willful or ignorant “denial” of their “consensus” of Truth.

One explanation that never seems to cross the minds of those who write these pieces is that they themselves may have misidentified the “best interests” of the people on whose behalf they purport to be speaking. Put another way, it takes a special kind of arrogance to think that you are capable of defining the best interests of anyone other than yourself, much less large swathes of society. In fact, when these individuals attempt to define the “best interests” of others, they often assign those that drive their own behavior and choices.

If you try their tactics on them they scream and yell is usually a good sign of this. Don’t do as they do, Do as they say.

This particular conceit has a long history on the left. Take Karl Marx, who — as an upper-middle-class young man in his late 20′s who had never worked a day in his life — authored a philosophy defining the actions of entire classes of society based solely on what he perceived to be their material/economic interests. This sort of thinking is popular among those who believe in technocratic solutions to societal problems, i.e., that a society run by a small cadre of “engineers and scientists” can accurately identify, diagnose, and solve problems much more effectively than one that relies on the messy, sometimes maddening, processes of a democratically-elected, representative government. The failing of this political philosophy is the same as that of any other totalitarian doctrine, the fact that the likelihood of error, corruption, and outright repression grows exponentially as the number of individuals wielding authority diminishes.

That brings us back to the ‘voting against their own interest’ crowd. I have no doubt that those who are so incensed at the backwardness of others in their choice of candidates sincerely believe that they have the best interests of their “benighted” neighbors in mind. However, I would offer that their failure to conceive of motivations in others beyond those that consume their own thinking is an indication of an underdeveloped intellect and a dangerous level of self-regard. Such people are least qualified to advise, much less govern, their fellow citizens. (Stewart Mills)

But the people who feel most qualified to run your life for you because, after all, they are Wile E. Coyote SUPER GENIUS and you’re not. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

And the Childish Shall Lead

Humanity has wondered throughout its history “what is this world coming to.” And every generation believes that those coming behind it are doomed because of their long hair, loud music and curious conduct.

So far, every end-of-the-world prediction has been wrong. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t some things we need to be concerned about.

Here are five recent developments that make us wonder if America is not only in decline but is reeling sharply toward disorder, where up is down, down is up, and character, honor and decency have become anachronisms:

* Riots are becoming more commonplace and, so far, the worst ones have been based on nothing, touched off by uninformed reaction rather than the facts. We don’t yet know why Freddie Gray died. But even if it were police negligence — or, worse, police malfeasance — rioting is not a civilized response. Yet the riots are being excused.

* Worse, the riots are apparently organized events rather than spontaneous acts. An analysis of social media shows that there are links between the Ferguson, Mo., riots of last year and the Baltimore riots. How long can a peaceful society exist under these circumstances, when professional rioters incite violence and promote unrest at whim?

* Meanwhile, University of the District of Columbia Law School Dean Shelley Broderick has told students they can delay taking one final exam if they help protesters with their legal troubles. It’s a hallmark of our legal system that everyone charged with a crime is entitled to legal representation. But this woman is singling out (suspected) violent protesters as virtuous members of the community deserving of special protections. Would she offer the same deal to help right-of-center groups that need representation because they’ve been targeted by the IRS?

* California Gov. Jerry Brown is threatening fines of $10,000 a day — $10,000! — for those he thinks use too much water as the state withers from drought. Meanwhile, the state of California has dumped millions of foot-acres of fresh water into the Pacific Ocean for irrational environmental reasons while people, livestock, crops and lawns parch.

* Our universities are no longer institutions where free thought and open discourse are welcome and encouraged. Those whose ideas differ from the thinking that is required by campus bullies — a league of students, professors and administrators — are shunned. Dissenting voices are shut down and chased off of campus. A focus on trigger warnings, microaggressions and safe spaces has replaced attention to academics.

Also since the government essentially owns the Student Loan market the Universities can just raise tuition because they want to build a new $2 Million statue and then complain that they are underfunded. The Liberals then up the amount for student loans so more people can get in deeper debt and the University can build their statue AND get more money and since they have no incentive to not continue doing more and more of this the tuition goes higher and higher and more people get loans they can’t pay back and it spirals upward until at some point it will crash and their will be a bailout and the cycle can continue.

None of this means students have become delicate daisies who wilt in the face of anything they find even mildly offensive. They have actually become more aggressive toward those with differing views, and this is the way they are telling them to shut up.

No, the country isn’t going to collapse due to these five issues. But they are examples of troubling behavior, of an unhealthy trend. It seems fewer and fewer adults are in charge while childish and intemperate acts, and twisted thinking are becoming dominant in our culture.

And I would add what I call “unenlightened narcissism”. It where you think the universe not only revolves around you and what you want, but that it MUST do so.

That everything you want you are “entitled” to because you want it or some government bureaucrat/politician told you you were “entitled” to it for their own narcissistic reasons.

But it sounded good. “Free” always sounds great until the real price is paid. But since the world revolves around you and only you you don’t give a damn.

And if all else fails, just call them “racists” or “bigots”. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

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

Intelligence Failure

Well, now we know why. But is it a surprise. After all, it isn’t an AGENDA item so it must really bore him. Let his minions do the lowly stuff.

A new Government Accountability Institute (GAI) report reveals that President Barack Obama has attended only 42.1% of his daily intelligence briefings (known officially as the Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB) in the 2,079 days of his presidency through September 29, 2014.

The GAI report also included a breakdown of Obama’s PDB attendance record between terms; he attended 42.4% of his PDBs in his first term and 41.3% in his second.

The GAI’s alarming findings come on the heels of Obama’s 60 Minutes comments on Sunday, wherein the president laid the blame for the Islamic State’s (ISIS) rapid rise squarely at the feet of his Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.

“I think our head of the intelligence community, Jim Clapper, has acknowledged that I think they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,” said Obama.

Because they were supposed to be doing the Job-That-President-didn’t-wanna-do  🙂 and they failed him, so it must be by default, their fault.

It surely can’t be his fault! Nothing is ever his fault! He’s too smart. He’s too wonderful. To clever to be at fault for anything, especially boring old crap he doesn’t give a shit about that other people where supposed to handle for him in the first place.

He’s King, not Commander-in-Chief, after all! 🙂

According to Daily Beast reporter Eli Lake, members of the Defense establishment were “flabbergasted” by Obama’s attempt to shift blame.

“Either the president doesn’t read the intelligence he’s getting or he’s bullshitting,” a former senior Pentagon official “who worked closely on the threat posed by Sunni jihadists in Syria and Iraq” told the Daily Beast.

Bullshit. If you can’t dazzle them with your Wile E Coyote Suuuuper Genius, you baffle them with bullshit, then get the Media to repeat it often enough people forget it was your bullshit.

On Monday, others in the intelligence community similarly blasted Obama and said he’s shown longstanding disinterest in receiving live, in-person PDBs that allow the Commander-in-Chief the chance for critical followup, feedback, questions, and the challenging of flawed intelligence assumptions.

“It’s pretty well-known that the president hasn’t taken in-person intelligence briefings with any regularity since the early days of 2009,” an Obama national security staffer told the Daily Mail on Monday. “He gets them in writing.”

The Obama security staffer said the president’s PDBs have contained detailed threat warnings about the Islamic State dating back to before the 2012 presidential election.

“Unless someone very senior has been shredding the president’s daily briefings and telling him that the dog ate them, highly accurate predictions about ISIL have been showing up in the Oval Office since before the 2012 election,” the Obama security staffer told the Daily Mail.

This is not the first time questions have been raised about Obama’s lack of engagement and interest in receiving in-person daily intelligence briefings. On September 10, 2012, the GAI released a similar report showing that Obama had attended less than half (43.8%) of his daily intelligence briefings up to that point. When Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen mentioned the GAI’s findings in his column, then-White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dubbed the findings “hilarious.” The very next day, U.S. Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens and three American staff members were murdered in Benghazi. As Breitbart News reported at the time, the White House’s very own presidential calendar revealed Obama had not received his daily intel briefing in the five consecutive days leading up to the Benghazi attacks.

Ultimately, as ABC News reported, the White House did not directly dispute the GAI’s numbers but instead said Obama prefers to read his PDB on his iPad instead of receiving the all-important live, in-person briefings.

Now, with ISIS controlling over 35,000 square miles of territory in its widening caliphate in Iraq and Syria, and with Obama pointing fingers at his own Director of National Intelligence James Clapper for the rise of ISIS, the question remains whether a 42% attendance record on daily intelligence briefings is good enough for most Americans. (Breitbart)

But what do I know, I’m just a “hater”, after all. 🙂

Now ISIS…

I’ll give you $15/hr

For all those narcissistic fast food workers who think emotionally and not logically and have bought the class warfare BS hook, line, and SUCKER…I present YOUR FUTURE…

A company called Momentum Machines has built a robot that could radically change the fast-food industry and have some line cooks looking for new jobs.

The company’s robot can “slice toppings like tomatoes and pickles immediately before it places the slice onto your burger, giving you the freshest burger possible.” The robot is “more consistent, more sanitary, and can produce ~360 hamburgers per hour.” That’s one burger every 10 seconds.

The next generation of the device will offer “custom meat grinds for every single customer. Want a patty with 1/3 pork and 2/3 bison ground to order? No problem.” 

Momentum Machines cofounder Alexandros Vardakostas told Xconomy his “device isn’t meant to make employees more efficient. It’s meant to completely obviate them.” Indeed, marketing copy on the company’s site reads that their automaton “does everything employees can do, except better.”

This directly raises a question that a lot of smart people have contemplated: Will robots steal our jobs? Opinion is divided of course. Here’s what Momentum Machines has to say on the topic:

The issue of machines and job displacement has been around for centuries and economists generally accept that technology like ours actually causes an increase in employment. The three factors that contribute to this are 1. the company that makes the robots must hire new employees, 2. the restaurant that uses our robots can expand their frontiers of production which requires hiring more people, and 3. the general public saves money on the reduced cost of our burgers. This saved money can then be spent on the rest of the economy.

If we are to undertake the lofty ambition of changing the nature of work by way of robots, the fast-food industry seems like a good place to start, considering its inherently repetitive tasks and minimal skill requirements. Any roboticist worth his or her salt jumps at tasks described as repetitive and easy — perfect undertakings for a robot.

Here’s a schematic of what the burger-bot looks like and how it works. It occupies 24 square feet, so it’s much smaller than most assembly-line fast-food operations. It boasts “gourmet cooking methods never before used in a fast food restaurant” and will even deposit your completed burger into a bag. It’s a veritable Gutenberg printing press for hamburgers.

burger robot diagram

If you think your Liberal “mad” cry baby skills are up to it that is…. 🙂

 

The Blessed

I don’t normally have Glenn Beck on the radio, but I was driving to a movie when I heard about this story.

An appreciation for Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and a well-known Bible verse appears to be the main reasons an aspiring professional golfer was abruptly cut off from his main source of income by his sponsor.

After Tea Baggers like Ted Cruz are evil for wanting less government in our lives and a redress of 17+ Trillion dollars of debt!

I am not what people should call a Christian, either. So I don’t make it a regular habit.

That said…

How Neanderthal Am I!! 🙂

The golfer’s name is Jeff Cochran and until a few weeks ago, it appeared that he may have finally gotten the big break that would help him achieve his goal of having a shot to play on golf’s elite PGA tour. Cochran claims he was contracted in January by Virginia-based businessman Brian McMahon to help promote Nebraska Golf Card (NGC), a budding promotional operation that says it’s “designed to give golfers reduced rates and access to private clubs.”

After playing most of the year for Nebraska Golf Card, Cochran alleged his sponsorship was abruptly terminated. The initial reason given seemed quite surprising — his support for Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz; Cruz’s father, Raphael; and Glenn Beck — but faith, and specifically a Bible verse, also played a big part in the termination of the contract.

The verse in question? Philippians 4:13, which reads, ” I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” (shown as a cross and Phil 4:13 on the bag).

Ah, the loving nature of the left wing, known for their coexistence and tolerance for those with a different belief in life.

The compassionate, toleerant and vastly superior Left. 🙂

In late October, Cochran, his agent David Reynolds and NGC’s Brian McMahon both claim they were at a dinner and the conversation turned to Cruz. Cochran says he praised Cruz and his father, Raphael, mentioning that he had seen the elder Cruz on an episode of “The Glenn Beck Program.”

Cochran told TheBlaze that his sponsor was taken aback by this statement and was also troubled by the fact that his business associate was a fan of Beck. Following his pro-Cruz statement, Cochran said McMahon asked him, ”Would you be willing to give up our support to stand with that wackjob (Beck)?” Cochran answered “yes” and said the dinner continued without any additional tension or drama.

But the next morning, Cochran’s agent said, he received an email from NGC announcing that it was pulling all financial and product support from Cochran.

Pro Golfer Jeff Cochran Loses Sponsorship Because He Likes Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and God

The email, a copy of which was provided to TheBlaze, demanded immediate return of all equipment and that Cochran stop using their logo as well. The initial email from McMahon to Cochran’s agent was quite specific as to the reason for the split (emphasis added):

David, I have never had an issue with you or really Jeff for that matter, but this situation is very disturbing. I have been tolerant of his religious views and even supported his off course speaking. However, I just can’t allow my company to be associated with these radical political views. The idea that Jeff would line up with the likes of Glenn Beck or Ted Cruz or any other individual interested in destroying America, just isn’t something I can swallow.

Cochran and Reynolds said they immediately complied with the demand and returned the equipment, they told TheBlaze. That quick response triggered the email thank-you from McMahon shown below, but that note also contained a few parting shots (emphasis added).

“I looked up the verse Jeff put on the bag and had to laugh,” the email said. ”How can someone so smart be so gullible? The idea of trusting or believing that someone has control over your future is the definition of insanity. I will continue to trust people I’ve actually met and trust to help chart my course.”

Pro Golfer Jeff Cochran Loses Sponsorship Because He Likes Glenn Beck, Ted Cruz and God

McMahon’s email continued (emphasis added): “Tell Jeff if he ever decides to relinquish these childish and uneducated views, we might be willing to renew our relationship.” He ended the email, “In me I trust, Brian.”

After all, he’s obviously Homo Superior Liberalis and you’re an ignorant monkey.

But doesn’t he sound like your typical HSL from Huffington Post or elasewhere on the Progressive side of things?

Yep. Very Typical. Childish, bombastic, narcissistic and so full of their “superiority” that you have to be a moron to be anything other than “enlightened” as they are.

It was shortly after the second email was sent that Cochran and his agent reached out to TheBlaze.

McMahon did not mince his words and almost immediately attacked TheBlaze, writing, “I spent a little time on your website this morning and you should be ashamed of what you’ve created.”

He didn’t hold back, mocking Cochran for listening to Beck: “Jeff is the perfect target for someone like Beck. He believes he has been forgiven for past indiscretions by a mystical power who lives in the clouds, so why wouldn’t he be gullible (sic) enough for the Tea Baggers.”

The email closed with a particularly angry and personal attack on Beck (emphasis added): “He is a lousy drunk who should be led to the nearest border, given a big toss and told to never return. And if he hates the government as much as he says, that should be a welcome event for him too.”

In it’s entirety:

From:
Sent:
 Thursday, November 21, 2013 10:36 AM
To:
 Opelka, Mike
Cc:
 agentdavid******@gmail.com
Subject:
 Jeff Cochran

Mr. Opelka, It has been brought to my attention that your website or radio station is considering doing a story on my relationship with Jeff Cochran. I spent a little time on your website this morning and you should all be ashamed of what you’ve created. I don’t listen to Glenn Beck often, unless I need a good laugh, but the idea he has influence over people is a scary thing. Making people believe the “big nasty government” is only looking to ruin their lives is nothing short of brain washing. You prey on the weak and simple minded, who don’t have the ability to think on their own.

I make no apologies for how I handled my relationship with Jeff. I was willing to overlook the continual religous  jargon, but when I learned he was a “follower” of Beck, I couldn’t swallow anymore. Beck’s political party has done   more damage to this country than anything in the last 20 years. Jeff is the perfect target for someone like Beck. He believes he has been forgiven for past indiscretions by a mystical power who lives in the clouds, so why wouldn’t he be gulible enough for the Tea Baggers.

I am more than willing to concede that Jeff is a powerful public speaker and a very talented player. I wanted him on my team because people are drawn to him, but I just can’t tolerate the weak minded. He has worked hard to overcome some massive road blocks and I just wish he knew it was him and not some spirit.

I can only assume you are one of Beck’s minions, so please feel free to forward this to him. He is a lousy drunk who should be led to the nearest border, given a big toss and told to never return. And if he hates the government as much as he says, that should be a welcome event for him too.

B.L. McMahon

You see, unlike Liberals I understand that “hate speech” not matter how vile is protected speech. But can you imagine having a “rational” discussion about logic or facts with such ranting ball of hatred and derision??

Responding to McMahon’s email, we tried to correct some of his misconceptions (Beck doesn’t have or represent a “political party”), learn more about his organization (Nebraska Golf Card), and further understand the reason, or reasons, he terminated Conchran’s sponsorship. He did reply to our email. According to him, Nebraska Golf Card “is run by me alone.” He addressed a question about the ability to terminate someone for religious and political reasons by stating, “Jeff was not an employee but rather a private contractor.”

McMahon ended his email by saying,  ”the only people who will care what happened to Jeff are the same religous (sic) zealots. Finally, my character might not be what you like, but I think for myself.”

EXTERMINATE!

EXTERMINATE!

You will do as I say or else! You will believe what I believe or else!

You might as well try arguing with a Dalek.

Cochran told TheBlaze in a telephone interview that he met McMahon at a “pro-am” tournament about a year ago. The two struck up a friendship that turned into a business relationship. According to Cochran, beginning in 2013 he was contracted by McMahon to play golf under the NGC logo and would be paid an annual salary large enough to support him and his family. Jeff also stated that in January he made a conscious decision to dedicate his life to his Christian faith.

Telling TheBlaze that he had been “less than genuine” in the past, Cochran talked about making a total commitment to God. Asked whether that meant problems with alcohol or drugs, the answer was an emphatic, “no, but I wasn’t a good guy.” Cochran said the only dark spot in his past was an arrest “three or four years ago over an unpaid hotel bill.” That arrest was in 2007 and the issue ended up with Cochran being found guilty of a misdemeanor for skipping out on a hotel bill. He made restitution, but also worries that “anyone can find my mug shot online.”

When asked if McMahon ever told him to stop talking about his faith or not to put “Phil 4:13″ on his golf bag, Cochran said, “no.” And McMahon’s emails seem to back up his initial tolerance for the golfer’s faith. In his initial email to us, he seemed more upset with Jeff’s appreciation of Beck: “I was willing to overlook the continual religous (sic) jargon, but when I learned he was a ‘follower’ of Beck, I couldn’t swallow anymore.”

Cochran’s explanation of the events that led up to his termination from NGC matched the reasons given to TheBlaze by McMahon in emails. The pro golfer appears to have lost his source of income mainly because he is a fan of Beck and Cruz, but his faith wasn’t overlooked.  McMahon’s initial email to TheBlaze also praised Cochran’s speaking abilities as well as his prowess on the golf course, but took a shot at his beliefs, stating, “He has worked hard to overcome some massive road blocks and I just wish he knew it was him and not some spirit.”

TheBlaze requested a telephone interview with McMahon, as we were hoping to learn more about Nebraska Golf Card and asked if there will be a faith or political litmus test for any future pros contracted to represent the company. Brian McMahon declined our offer, stating: “I have no desire to do an interview or draw anymore attention to this issue. Of course EVERYONE will be welcome to participate when we begin the program.”

He also added, ” I have no problem with anyones (sic) views. The problem comes when they try to push them on other people. Jeff makes it a point to share his religous (sic) views at every moment. When he is representing other peolple (sic), those views should be kept private. I don’t have any interest in going back and forth on this. I am free to associate with anyone I choose and Jeff is no longer on that list.”

Curiously, after sending the above comments to TheBlaze, Cochran says he received a call from McMahon. McMahon appeared to be encouraging Cochran to stop this story from being published on TheBlaze or even in local papers. According to Cochran, McMahon told him over the phone, “You do realize that if this goes public, everyone will know everything about you.”

Cochran did go through with it. And seems to be at peace with that.

“I hope this story can be one of redemption and willingness to stand up and say ‘Yes I am flawed, yes I’ve had struggles, but God is still good,’” he said at the end of our conversation.

McMahon?

“You talk as though you are representing Jeff and investigating legal matters,” he ended his last email to TheBlaze. “Should I contact my attorney?”

Author’s note: Golf Card International is not affiliated with Nebraska Golf Card.

But I wouldn’t encourage membership in that Card lest ye be judged. 🙂

The Madness

Minimum wage madness

Political crusades for raising the minimum wage are back again. Advocates of minimum wage laws often give themselves credit for being more “compassionate” towards “the poor.” But they seldom bother to check what are the actual consequences of such laws.

Because they don’t care. They are self-righteous, ego maniacal and have enough narcissism to rival the Gods themselves and anyone who would dare to challenge them must be a very evil Devil.

And since they have the all the “compassion” and it “feels so good” that anything else must be bad.

Like the Truth.

One of the simplest and most fundamental economic principles is that people tend to buy more when the price is lower and less when the price is higher. Yet advocates of minimum wage laws seem to think that the government can raise the price of labor without reducing the amount of labor that will be hired.

Or race the price of labor and not expect the price of the goods to go up because after all that just “Corporate Greed” and “profiteering”. 🙂

When you turn from economic principles to hard facts, the case against minimum wage laws is even stronger. Countries with minimum wage laws almost invariably have higher rates of unemployment than countries without minimum wage laws.

Norway has a 3% unemployment and no minimum wage, by the way.

Most nations today have minimum wage laws, but they have not always had them. Unemployment rates have been very much lower in places and times when there were no minimum wage laws.

Switzerland is one of the few modern nations without a minimum wage law. In 2003, “The Economist” magazine reported: “Switzerland’s unemployment neared a five-year high of 3.9 percent in February.” In February of this year, Switzerland’s unemployment rate was 3.1 percent. A recent issue of “The Economist” showed Switzerland’s unemployment rate as 2.1 percent.

Most Americans today have never seen unemployment rates that low. However, there was a time when there was no federal minimum wage law in the United States.

For a good portion of it there was no welfare either.

The last time was during the Coolidge administration, when the annual unemployment rate got as low as 1.8 percent. When Hong Kong was a British colony, it had no minimum wage law. In 1991 its unemployment rate was under 2 percent.

As for being “compassionate” toward “the poor,” this assumes that there is some enduring class of Americans who are poor in some meaningful sense, and that there is something compassionate about reducing their chances of getting a job.

Well, Liberal doe need dependents and the fearfully ignorant to vote for them. “Vote for Me, the other guys Rich” doesn’t quite work otherwise.

Most Americans living below the government-set poverty line have a washer and/or a dryer, as well as a computer. More than 80 percent have air conditioning. More than 80 percent also have both a landline and a cell phone. Nearly all have television and a refrigerator. Most Americans living below the official poverty line also own a motor vehicle and have more living space than the average European — not Europeans in poverty, the average European.

In a worldwide sense Americans are 1%ers. How evil are we. 🙂

Why then are they called “poor”? Because government bureaucrats create the official definition of poverty, and they do so in ways that provide a political rationale for the welfare state — and, not incidentally, for the bureaucrats’ own jobs.

Most people in the lower income brackets are not an enduring class. Most working people in the bottom 20 percent in income at a given time do not stay there over time. More of them end up in the top 20 percent than remain behind in the bottom 20 percent.

There is nothing mysterious about the fact that most people start off in entry level jobs that pay much less than they will earn after they get some work experience. But, when minimum wage levels are set without regard to their initial productivity, young people are disproportionately unemployed — priced out of jobs.

$15/hr flipping burgers at McDonalds will only make less jobs. And would make that “Value Meal” $5 instead of 1 or 2. 🙂

In European welfare states where minimum wages, and mandated job benefits to be paid for by employers, are more generous than in the United States, unemployment rates for younger workers are often 20 percent or higher, even when there is no recession.

Unemployed young people lose not only the pay they could have earned but, at least equally important, the work experience that would enable them to earn higher rates of pay later on.

Minorities, like young people, can also be priced out of jobs. In the United States, the last year in which the black unemployment rate was lower than the white unemployment rate — 1930 — was also the last year when there was no federal minimum wage law. Inflation in the 1940s raised the pay of even unskilled workers above the minimum wage set in 1938. Economically, it was the same as if there were no minimum wage law by the late 1940s.

Relative to inflation the minimum wage in 1963 is the same as it is now.

In 1948 the unemployment rate of black 16-year-old and 17-year-old males was 9.4 percent. This was a fraction of what it would become in even the most prosperous years from 1958 on, as the minimum wage was raised repeatedly to keep up with inflation.

Some “compassion” for “the poor”!

A survey of American economists found that 90 percent of them regarded minimum wage laws as increasing the rate of unemployment among low-skilled workers. Inexperience is often the problem. Only about 2 percent of Americans over the age of 24 earned the minimum wage.

Advocates of minimum wage laws usually base their support of such laws on their estimate of how much a worker “needs” in order to have “a living wage” — or on some other criterion that pays little or no attention to the worker’s skill level, experience or general productivity. So it is hardly surprising that minimum wage laws set wages that price many a young worker out of a job.

Because it’s all about “feelings” and not reality. Emotion, not logic. And a base of sticking it to “corporate greed” and the liberal genetic necessity, Class Warfare.

What is surprising is that, despite an accumulation of evidence over the years of the devastating effects of minimum wage laws on black teenage unemployment rates, members of the Congressional Black Caucus continue to vote for such laws.

Because it’s about THEM, not the people they are “advocating for” and they stay where they are by “advocating”.

Once, years ago, during a confidential discussion with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, I asked how they could possibly vote for minimum wage laws.

The answer I got was that members of the Black Caucus were part of a political coalition and, as such, they were expected to vote for things that other members of that coalition wanted, such as minimum wage laws, in order that other members of the coalition would vote for things that the Black Caucus wanted.

Quid Pro Quo! 🙂

You grease my skids I’ll grease yours!

When I asked what could the black members of Congress possibly get in return for supporting minimum wage laws that would be worth sacrificing whole generations of young blacks to huge rates of unemployment, the discussion quickly ended. I may have been vehement when I asked that question.

They got POWER.

The same question could be asked of black public officials in general, including Barack Obama, who have taken the side of the teachers’ unions, who oppose vouchers or charter schools that allow black parents (among others) to take their children out of failing public schools.

Minimum wage laws can even affect the level of racial discrimination. In an earlier era, when racial discrimination was both legally and socially accepted, minimum wage laws were often used openly to price minorities out of the job market.

In 1925, a minimum wage law was passed in the Canadian province of British Columbia, with the intent and effect of pricing Japanese immigrants out of jobs in the lumbering industry.

A well regarded Harvard professor of that era referred approvingly to Australia’s minimum wage law as a means to “protect the white Australian’s standard of living from the invidious competition of the colored races, particularly of the Chinese” who were willing to work for less.

In South Africa during the era of apartheid, white labor unions urged that a minimum wage law be applied to all races, to keep black workers from taking jobs away from white unionized workers by working for less than the union pay scale.

Some supporters of the first federal minimum wage law in the United States — the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931 — used exactly the same rationale, citing the fact that Southern construction companies, using non-union black workers, were able to come north and under-bid construction companies using unionized white labor.

These supporters of minimum wage laws understood long ago something that today’s supporters of such laws seem not to have bothered to think through. People whose wages are raised by law do not necessarily benefit, because they are often less likely to be hired at the imposed minimum wage rate.

Labor unions have been supporters of minimum wage laws in countries around the world, since these laws price non-union workers out of jobs, leaving more jobs for union members.

People who are content to advocate policies that sound good, whether for political reasons or just to feel good about themselves, often do not bother to think through the consequences beforehand or to check the results afterwards.

Why would they, it either feels good and gives them a sense of moral superiority or it gives them power. Why bother with worrying about consequences. That’s someone’s fault.

If they thought things through, how could they have imagined that having large numbers of idle teenage boys hanging out on the streets together would be good for any community — especially in places where most of these youngsters were raised by single mothers, another unintended consequence, in this case, of well-meaning welfare policies?

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

Because of Narcissism.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

The Whole Hog

Richard Trumpka, of the AFL-CIO, Mr. Bully Union Thug: During a recent interview, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said employers are “restructuring their workforce to give workers 29 and a half hours so they don’t have to provide them healthcare.”

RICHARD TRUMKA, PRESIDENT AFL-CIO: The Affordable Care Act does need some modifications to it, because as it does right now, what’s happening is, you have employers that the law says if you pay your, if your employees work 30 hours or more a week, you’ve got to give them healthcare. So they’re restructuring their workforce to give workers 29 and a half hours so they don’t have to provide them healthcare. They’re also doing some taxing to nonprofit plans to pay for for-profit plans. (Newsbusters)

Hey, Richard, let me clue you in one something. This is all a part of the plan.

You see, since Liberal worship at the feet of Government and a Quasi-Government solution (aka “compromise”) goes down in flames the only answer, of course, is that we need MORE government…

And Ta Da, Single Payer, Canada/Britain Style is proposed as the solution since the “compromise” didn’t work.

You see, it has to fail the very people it’s suppose to “help” and it has to be a just enough of a  failure to the rest so that the Left can promote their “solution”.

The idea that the whole thing is rotten and should be thrown out isn’t even remotely conceivable to the Left.

They want The Whole Hog!

A Nose to Tail Government Health Care Feast. Which of course, will cause a famine, but like they care. This is about the Agenda, not about reality.

Especially while he’s exempted or politically delayed so much of it for so many of his friends and employers. Gotta get it done before the the Whole Pig roasts them first.

Last week, AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka let it be known that he was “working with the administration on ObamaCare” to find a solution for their oh-so-unexpected plight, ahem, but other leaders are still pretty frustrated with the lack of progress they’re seeing on getting concessions. Why has the administration catered to so many other special interest groups, but not us?, they wonder angrily:

“We are disappointed that the non-profit health plans offered by unions have not been given the same consideration as the Catholic Church, big business and Capitol Hill staffers,” Unite Here President D. Taylor told The Hill. …

“The Democrats have completely given the store away to the for-profit industry,” Taylor said. “Without any question, we have a scenario set up that ObamaCare has turned all the money over to the for-profit plans and the non-profit plans will fade away.”

“With open enrollment set to begin on October 1, time is of the essence, so we are working hard every day to find a solution to protect our members’ healthcare,” said Tim Schlittner, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW). …

“The administration has found resolutions for a whole variety of issues and the fact that their biggest supporters will be put at the mercy of the for-profit insurance industry will leave a very bad, bad taste,” Taylor said. “You can’t blame the Republicans on this one. This is a Democratic bill through and through.”

Ouch. (Hot air)

I guess the kiss ass narcissism train hasn’t stopped there yet and there not happy. Well, that’s the Left for you.

If it’s good enough to do for everyone, it’s good enough to exempt me from it.

IBD: More than 250 employers have cut work hours, jobs or taken other steps to avoid ObamaCare costs, according to a new IBD analysis.

Mind the data have been the refrain from the White House as it downplays anecdotal reports of employers limiting workers to fewer than 30 hours per week.

But the anecdotes are piling high enough that they now constitute a body of data that can help gauge the impact of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate.

IBD is introducing ObamaCare Employer Mandate: A List Of Cuts To Work Hours, Jobs — a compilation of employers who have opted to restrict work hours to limit new liability for employee health coverage.

As of Sept. 3, this list has reached 258 — including more than 200 public-sector employers.

Almost all of those employers have cut the hours of part-time workers to below 30 per week — the point at which ObamaCare’s insurance mandate kicks in.

A few have cut payrolls to steer clear of ObamaCare’s 50 full-time-equivalent-worker definition of a large employer subject to employer fines. A few others have reduced staff while contracting with employment services firms to limit their ObamaCare exposure.

The scorecard reflects an extensive, though less than exhaustive, search. It only includes employers when there is convincing documentation (generally news accounts or public records) that job actions are specifically tied to ObamaCare.

For example, when Forever 21 said it was cutting hours for 192 workers to 29.5 per week or Lowe’s (LOW) said it would hire 9,000 permanent workers — all part-time — the ObamaCare connection wasn’t quite the slam dunk needed to land them on this list.

Because private firms may fear bad publicity or litigation if they admit to cutting hours to avoid ObamaCare’s coverage mandate, it’s not surprising that few would be willing to come right out and say it. It’s only logical to take their denials with a grain of salt.

Public employers, on the other hand, tend to make decisions in a much more transparent way. Even here, limiting hours for part-timers is often an administrative, rather than legislative, action, so documentation may be hard to come by.

All this is to say that the list in no way represents an accounting of ObamaCare’s actual impact on work hours.

Further, because relatively few employers on the list have provided specifics, the scorecard’s total of 19,300 workers facing reduced hours should in no way be used to minimize ObamaCare’s impact.

One useful bit of information that can be gleaned from the list is that 110 of the reports of reduced hours came in May and June alone. This flurry of activity has subsided significantly since the White House announced on July 2 a one-year delay of employer penalties.

The take-away: Many employers were only just beginning to understand and respond to ObamaCare’s regulations that were confusing and late in coming. This suggests another flurry of work-hour reductions can be expected next spring — assuming the mandate is still expected to come into force. That’s because penalties for 2015 will be based on staffing levels starting in the second half of 2014 — at the latest.

The private-sector anecdotal entries help interpret industry workweek data. The list includes sharp hour reductions by several firms that provide social assistance to the elderly. That suggests it is no mere coincidence that the workweek among providers of services to the elderly and disabled has tumbled to a record-low 27.6 hours.

Further, it is evident — and hardly surprising — that the private-sector hour cuts have virtually all come in low-wage industries.

Therefore, to evaluate ObamaCare’s impact on the workweek, focus on low-wage industries. Over the past 18 months, the low-wage workweek has fallen back near the recessionary low-point.

The list of more than 200 public-sector employers cutting work hours is surely the most surprising revelation.

The main take-away is that ObamaCare’s employer mandate is a real problem for the segment of public-sector employers who offer generous coverage (as most all of them do) but don’t cover part-timers who work more than 30 hours.

In at least one case, the list goes beyond mere anecdote to reveal a clear pattern. It includes 34 universities and colleges — or college systems — cutting hours of part-time or adjunct faculty. That may not seem like much, until you consider that those reports cover more than 150 campuses attended by more than 1.4 million students.

Another 67 entries on the list involve school boards cutting hours of part-time instructional aides, cafeteria workers, bus drivers and coaches.

The entire list is available on our website, in a format that can be easily downloaded into a spreadsheet for further analysis. It will continue to be updated as more employer announcements are made.

But if we cause you enough pain you’ll want government to solve the problem.

Entire, The WHOLE HOG!

And it will never want to leave the trough.

 

136493 600 Health Care Gag Rule cartoons

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

The Honor of Battle

Counterterrorism analysts said Monday that the U.S. government’s global response to a threat emanating from Yemen, home to al Qaida’s most active affiliate, was at odds with how dismissive President Barack Obama was in a speech in May, when he said that “not every collection of thugs that labels themselves as al Qaida will pose a credible threat to the United States.”

That was only one of a series of public statements by Obama and his Cabinet members that played down the capabilities of al Qaida-linked groups. For at least the past two years, the administration has sought to reassure Americans that al Qaida is “on the run,” while counterterrorism experts were warning about the semiautonomous affiliates that have wreaked havoc in North Africa, Yemen, Iraq and Syria.

“The actions the administration is taking now are deeply inconsistent with the portrait of al Qaida strength the administration has been painting,” said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a counterterrorism specialist at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington research institute.

Welcome to the Big Brother News service. Do you wonder if Obama even remembers what he said in May or cares? Do you think the Ministry of Truth remembers or cares.

Doubt it.

Being deeply narcissistic means you just do what you have to, and say what you have to, for the moment to get what you want. Consistency or truth or even conviction are complete strangers to this need.

And there is no more narcissistic than Obama.

On the campaign trail last fall, Obama touted the killing of Osama bin Laden during a covert U.S. raid in 2011 as a sign that, while the U.S. would have to maintain vigilance, “the truth, though, is that al Qaida is much weaker than it was when I came into office.” In his State of the Union address last February, the president called al Qaida “a shadow of its former self” and said the threat posed by its affiliates wouldn’t require large-scale U.S. military deployment.

In July 2011, Obama’s then newly appointed defense secretary, Leon Panetta, said he was “convinced in this capacity that we’re within reach of strategically defeating al Qaida.”

“It’s called politics. They know it’s not true,” said Aaron Zelin, who researches militants for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and blogs about them at Jihadology.net. “The movement has grown over the past two years. The ideology is thriving.” (McClatchy)

The politics of narcissism. The politics of The Ministry of Truth.
The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and 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 for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.
And President Hands-Off Drone Strike strikes again in Yemen. War by Remote Control. That way no soldiers, no bad politics of soldiers. That’s the Obama Way.
So is bribing people to do what he wants (or at least make him look good). Even Terrorists!

Buried inside a lengthy unclassified report released last week by the Pentagon is a description of something called the Afghan Peace and Reintegration Program, through which the administration started to pay terrorists to walk off the battlefield.

All Taliban and al-Qaida fighters have to do is sign (a thumb print will suffice for illiterates) an “intent to reintegrate” form vowing to “cease violence (and) live within the laws of Afghanistan,” according to the report, titled “Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan.”

In exchange, they’ll receive monthly payments and even get to keep their weapons if they request them for “personal protection.”

Who vouches for the sincerity of these supposedly reformed terrorists? Local tribal leaders and Islamic clerics, most of whom sympathize with the Taliban and al-Qaida. They sit on a so-called High Peace Council with area warlords, an oxymoronic situation to the hilt.

The administration boasts that “to date, 6,277 fighters have been removed peacefully from the battlefield and enrolled in the program.” But it won’t provide data on how many “reintegrees” have rejoined the jihad against U.S. troops and America. (IBD)

Most I would guess. But that’s a question no one wants the answer to.

So far, Obama’s Taliban amnesty program has cost U.S. taxpayers a whopping $72 million. Total five-year funding for the reintegration program, which includes “community recovery projects,” is $175 million.

Again, the Pentagon has provided no data on the number of enrollees who have returned to the battlefield, so we have no metric to judge the effectiveness of its jihad rehab.

The amount of money the Obama administration is paying the bad guys to stay off the battlefield in its run-up to its announced 2014 retreat is obscene.

This is how Obama plans to declare victory in Afghanistan — through bribery. (IBD)

Why not, he bribes people to vote for him. So why not bribe people to not shoot at us or cause Terror attacks. That’s bound to work just like “Vote for me, The other guys and Asshole” did.
He’s Just that good, right? 🙂
Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

Food For the Sowell XI: The Narcissis

sowell- liberal care

The fundamental problem of the political left seems to be that the real world does not fit its preconceptions. Therefore it sees the real world as what is wrong, and what needs to be changed, since apparently its preconceptions cannot be wrong.

A never-ending source of grievances for the left is the fact that some groups are “over-represented” in desirable occupations, institutions and income brackets, while other groups are “under-represented.”

From all the indignation and outrage about this expressed on the left, you might think that it was impossible that different groups are simply better at different things.

Yet runners from Kenya continue to win a disproportionate share of marathons in the United States, and children whose parents or grandparents came from India have won most of the American spelling bees in the past 15 years.

And has anyone failed to notice that the leading professional basketball players have for years been black, in a country where most of the population is white?

Most of the leading photographic lenses in the world have — for generations — been designed by people who were either Japanese or German. Most of the leading diamond-cutters in the world have been either India’s Jains or Jews from Israel or elsewhere.

Not only people but things have been grossly unequal. More than two-thirds of all the tornadoes in the entire world occur in the middle of the United States. Asia has more than 70 mountain peaks that are higher than 20,000 feet and Africa has none.

And is it news that a disproportionate share of all the oil in the world is in the Middle East?

Whole books could be filled with the unequal behavior or performances of people, or the unequal geographic settings in which whole races, nations and civilizations have developed. Yet the preconceptions of the political left march on undaunted, loudly proclaiming sinister reasons why outcomes are not equal within nations or between nations.

All this moral melodrama has served as a background for the political agenda of the left, which has claimed to be able to lift the poor out of poverty and in general make the world a better place. This claim has been made for centuries, and in countries around the world. And it has failed for centuries in countries around the world.

Some of the most sweeping and spectacular rhetoric of the left occurred in 18th century France, where the very concept of the left originated in the fact that people with certain views sat on the left side of the National Assembly.

The French Revolution was their chance to show what they could do when they got the power they sought. In contrast to what they promised — “liberty, equality, fraternity” — what they actually produced were food shortages, mob violence and dictatorial powers that included arbitrary executions, extending even to their own leaders, such as Robespierre, who died under the guillotine.

In the 20th century, the most sweeping vision of the left — communism — spread over vast regions of the world and encompassed well over a billion human beings. Of these, millions died of starvation in the Soviet Union under Stalin and tens of millions in China under Mao.

Milder versions of socialism, with central planning of national economies, took root in India and in various European democracies.

If the preconceptions of the left were correct, central planning by educated elites with vast amounts of statistical data at their fingertips, expertise readily available, and backed by the power of government, should have been more successful than market economies where millions of individuals pursued their own individual interests willy-nilly.

But, by the end of the 20th century, even socialist and communist governments began abandoning central planning and allowing more market competition.

Yet this quiet capitulation to inescapable realities did not end the noisy claims of the left.

In the United States, those claims and policies reached new heights, epitomized by government takeovers of whole sectors of the economy and unprecedented intrusions into the lives of Americans, of which ObamaCare has been only the most obvious example.

The political left has long claimed the role of protector of “the poor.” It is one of their central moral claims to political power. But how valid is this claim?

Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty.But that raises a fundamental question:

Just who are “the poor”?

If you use a bureaucratic definition of poverty as including all individuals or families below some arbitrary income level set by the government, then it is easy to get the kinds of statistics about “the poor” that are thrown around in the media and in politics. But do those statistics have much relationship to reality?

“Poverty” once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example.

Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean.

And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare-state spending.

Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers’ money.

This kind of “poverty” can easily become a way of life, not only for today’s “poor,” but for their children and grandchildren.

Keep Them Down

Even when they have the potential to become productive members of society, the loss of welfare state benefits if they try to do so is an implicit “tax” on what they would earn that often exceeds the explicit tax on a millionaire.

If increasing your income by $10,000 would cause you to lose $15,000 in government benefits, would you do it?

In short, the political left’s welfare state makes poverty more comfortable, while penalizing attempts to rise out of poverty. Unless we believe that some people are predestined to be poor, the left’s agenda is a disservice to them, as well as to society. The vast amounts of money wasted are by no means the worst of it.

If our goal is for people to get out of poverty, there are plenty of heartening examples of individuals and groups who have done that, in countries around the world.

Millions of “overseas Chinese” emigrated from China destitute and often illiterate in centuries past. Whether they settled in Southeast Asian countries or in the United States, they began at the bottom, taking hard, dirty and sometimes dangerous jobs.Four-Letter Word

Even though the overseas Chinese were usually paid little, they saved out of that little, and many eventually opened tiny businesses. By working long hours and living frugally, they were able to turn tiny businesses into larger and more prosperous businesses. Then they saw to it that their children got the education that they themselves often lacked.

By 1994, the 57 million overseas Chinese created as much wealth as the one billion people living in China.

Variations on this social pattern can be found in the histories of Jewish, Armenian, Lebanese and other emigrants who settled in many countries around the world — initially poor, but rising over the generations to prosperity. Seldom did they rely on government, and they usually avoided politics on their way up.

Such groups concentrated on developing what economists call “human capital” — their skills, talents, knowledge and self-discipline. Their success has usually been based on that one four-letter word that the left seldom uses in polite society: “work.”

There are individuals in virtually every group who follow similar patterns to rise from poverty to prosperity.

But how many such individuals there are in different groups makes a big difference for the prosperity or poverty of the groups as a whole.

The agenda of the left — promoting envy and a sense of grievance, while making loud demands for “rights” to what other people have produced — is a pattern that has been widespread in countries around the world.

This agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty. But it has lifted the left to positions of power and self-aggrandizement, while they promote policies with socially counterproductive results.


When teenage thugs are called “troubled youth” by people on the political left, that tells us more about the mindset of the left than about these young hoodlums.

Seldom is there a speck of evidence that the thugs are troubled, and often there is ample evidence that they are in fact enjoying themselves, as they create trouble and dangers for others.

Why then the built-in excuse, when juvenile hoodlums are called “troubled youth” and mass murderers are just assumed to be “insane”?

At least as far back as the 18th century, the left has struggled to avoid facing the plain fact of evil — that some people simply choose to do things that they know to be wrong when they do them. Every kind of excuse, from poverty to an unhappy childhood, is used by the left to explain and excuse evil.

All the people who have come out of poverty or unhappy childhoods, or both, and become decent and productive human beings, are ignored. So are the evils committed by people raised in wealth and privilege, including kings, conquerors and slave owners.

Why has evil been such a hard concept for many on the left to accept? The basic agenda of the left is to change external conditions. But what if the problem is internal? What if the real problem is the cussedness of human beings?

Rousseau denied this in the 18th century and the left has been denying it ever since. Why? Self preservation.

If the things that the left wants to control — institutions and government policy — are not the most important factors in the world’s problems, then what role is there for the left?

What if it is things like the family, the culture and the traditions that make a more positive difference than the bright new government “solutions” that the left is constantly coming up with? What if seeking “the root causes of crime” is not nearly as effective as locking up criminals?

The hard facts show that the murder rate was going down for decades under the old traditional practices so disdained by the left intelligentsia, before the bright new ideas of the left went into effect in the 1960s — after which crime and violence skyrocketed .

What happened when old-fashioned ideas about sex were replaced in the 1960s by the bright new ideas of the left that were introduced into the schools as “sex education” that was supposed to reduce teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases?

Both teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases had been going down for years. But that trend suddenly reversed in the 1960s and hit new highs.

One of the oldest and most dogmatic of the crusades of the left has been disarmament, both of individuals and of nations. Again, the focus of the left has been on the externals — the weapons in this case.

If weapons were the problem, then gun control laws at home and international disarmament agreements abroad might be the answer.

But if evil people who care no more for laws or treaties than they do for other people’s lives are the problem, then disarmament means making decent, law-abiding people more vulnerable to evil people.

Since belief in disarmament has been a major feature of the left since the 18th century, in countries around the world, you might think that by now there would be lots of evidence to substantiate their beliefs.

But evidence on whether gun control laws actually reduce crime rates in general, or murder rates in particular, is seldom mentioned by gun-control advocates. It is just assumed in passing that of course tighter gun-control laws will reduce murders.

But the hard facts do not back up that assumption. That is why it is the critics of gun control who rely heavily on empirical evidence, as in books like “More Guns, Less Crime” by John Lott and “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm.

National disarmament has an even worse record. Both Britain and America neglected their military forces between the two World Wars, while Germany and Japan armed to the teeth. Many British and American soldiers paid with their lives for their countries’ initially inadequate military equipment in World War II.

But what are mere facts compared to the heady vision of the left?

After all, they can’t possible be wrong. There’s is the superior intelligence. The superior compassion. And just plain old superior to everyone and everything.
There’s a word for that: Narcissism.

At the heart of the left’s vision of the world is the implicit assumption that high-minded third parties like themselves can make better decisions for other people than those people can make for themselves.

That arbitrary and unsubstantiated assumption underlies a wide spectrum of laws and policies over the years, ranging from urban renewal to ObamaCare.

One of the many international crusades by busybodies on the left is the drive to limit the hours of work by people in other countries — especially poorer countries — in businesses operated by multinational corporations. One international monitoring group has taken on the task of making sure that people in China do not work more than the legally prescribed 49 hours per week.

Why international monitoring groups, led by affluent Americans or Europeans, would imagine that they know what is best for people who are far poorer than they are, and with far fewer options, is one of the many mysteries of the busybody elite.

As someone who left home at the age of 17, with no high school diploma, no job experience and no skills, I spent several years learning the hard way what poverty is like. One of the happier times during those years was a brief period when I worked 60 hours a week — 40 hours delivering telegrams during the day and 20 hours working part-time in a machine shop at night.

Why was I happy? Because, before finding these jobs, I had spent weeks desperately looking for any job, while my meager savings dwindled down to literally my last dollar, before finally finding the part-time job at night in a machine shop.

I had to walk several miles from the rooming house where I lived in Harlem to the machine shop located just below the Brooklyn Bridge, in order to save that last dollar to buy bread until I got a payday.

When I then found a full-time job delivering telegrams during the day, the money from the two jobs combined was more than I had ever made before. I could pay the back rent I owed on my room and both eat and ride the subways back and forth to work.

I could even put aside some money for a rainy day. It was the closest thing to nirvana for me.

Thank heaven there were no busybodies to prevent me from working more hours than they thought I should.

There was a minimum wage law, but this was 1949 and the wages set by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 had been rendered meaningless by years of inflation. In the absence of an effective minimum wage law, unemployment among black teenagers in the recession year of 1949 was a fraction of what it would be in even the most prosperous years of the 1960s and beyond.

As the morally anointed busybodies raised the minimum wage rate, beginning in the 1950s, black teenage unemployment skyrocketed. We have now become so used to tragically high rates of unemployment among this group that many people have no idea that things were not always like that, much less that policies of the busybody left had such catastrophic consequences.

I don’t know what I would have done if such busybody policies had been in effect back in 1949, and prevented me from finding a job before my last dollar ran out.

My personal experience is just one small example of what it is like when your options are very limited. The prosperous busybodies of the left are constantly promoting policies which reduce the existing options of poor people even more.

It would never occur to the busybodies that multinational corporations are expanding the options of the poor in third world countries, while busybody policies are contracting their options.

Wages paid by multinational corporations in poor countries are typically much higher than wages paid by local employers. Moreover, the experience that employees get working in modern companies make them more valuable workers and have led in China, for example, to wages rising by double-digit percentages annually.

Nothing is easier for people with degrees to imagine that they know better than the poor and uneducated. But, as someone once said, “A fool can put on his coat better than a wise man can put it on for him.”

But feels they can not only make the coat superior but they can wear it to. And that’s all down to their own sense of their own vast Superiority.

Homo Superior Liberalis. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson


Report Card

Report Card For Barack H. Obama

Unemployment: Jan 2009  7.8%    Jan 2013 7.8%    Grade: F

u6 Unemployment (all categories and underemployed): Jan 2009  14.2%

Jan 2013: 14.4%   Grade: F

Spending: Spent $6.5 Trillion Dollars  added to the Debt.  Grade: F

The amount spent to service the debt is now as much as the cost of Iraq and

Afghanistan War:  Grade F

The “Arab spring”- Rampant Radical Islam. 4 people dead.  Grade: F

Fast & Furious: The only thing “fast” and “furious” was the cover up. Several dead in US and many more in Mexico: Grade F

Campaign promise: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”   Grade F  (payroll tax flim-flam, Obamacare, etc)

Speaking of ObamaCare: “it’s a Tax!”. Yes it is. And it costs 3x the estimates already and is crushing job growth and empowering and burdening the IRS with enforcement of mandatory Insurance.  Grade: F

Gasoline: January 2009: $1.90

U.S. monthly average regular gasoline retail prices increased from an average of $3.53 per gallon in 2011 to average $3.63 per gallon in 2012, driven partly by isolated refinery outages and lower inventory levels on the East and West coasts. U.S. regular gasoline retail prices fell from an average of $3.85 per gallon in September 2012 to an average of $3.31 per gallon in December, which was the lowest average since December 2011. (eia.gov)

I paid 3.01 on Saturday.Grade: F

2nd Amendment: Grade F

Alternative Energy:  Wasted nearly a Trillion Dollars on 15 Solar companies that all went bankrupt quickly and refused to increase our own production of Oil because of pure politics.

The “Obama Car” The Chevy Volt continues to be one of the worst selling cars of all-time.    Grade: F

US Budget Submission Homework: Missed it every year except first one.

Grade : F

Iran:   (he ignoring them)  Grade F

But what’s most troubling is the the student displays a Narcissistic Personality Disorder and his legion of followers blame everything on someone else and are incapable of accepting responsibility for anything but they will take Credit for anything that services either a) their egos or b) their politics or perceived political advantage.

Case in Point:

On Saturday, for instance, the White House declared that “there are only two options to deal with the debt limit: Congress can pay its bills or it can fail to act and put the nation into default.”

Obama returned to the theme at his Monday press conference: “Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending, it simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to.”

In other words, I didn’t load $5 trillion in future taxes on our children and grandchildren. Congress did it.

It’s important to note that when Obama says “Congress,” he’s talking about Republicans — specifically the Republicans who have controlled the House of Representatives for the past two years. The GOP has not held the Senate during any part of Obama’s time in office.

And it did not hold the House in Obama’s key first two years, when spending exploded with his blessing. In other words, most of the responsibility in Congress for the Obama deficits sits with members of his own party.

But you never hear this from Obama and his media allies. The problem is with Speaker John Boehner and, to his right, those Tea Party wackos who want the federal government to stop sending out Social Security checks.

Republicans, for their part, haven’t made their case, even with facts clearly on their side. But we have not given up hope that Americans, summoning up their reserves of common sense, will see through this Obama whopper even if they have let others pass.

Here are some facts for them to chew on:

• It takes two to tango. Congress cannot spend a single greenback unless the president signs a bill to do so. Thus, Obama OK’d every cent of the $5.095 trillion in deficit spending (per White House and Congressional Budget Office) from 2009 through 2012.

• Congress had its real spending binge in 2009, when Democrats were in charge of both houses and Obama asked for — and got — a massive stimulus bill. Total outlays soared from $2.98 trillion in 2008 to $3.53 trillion in 2009 and $3.46 trillion in 2010 (these are fiscal years ending Sept. 30). Spending in 2011 peaked at $3.60 trillion, but pulled back to an estimated $3.54 trillion in 2012.

• Presidents are required to submit budgets. Obama’s budgets called for the deficit spending he now claims wasn’t his fault.

A final thought: If Obama were just now taking office and if John McCain, say, had been president for the past four years, whose name would be on the debt problem? Hint: It wouldn’t be the new guy. (IBD)

Grade: F
But the moron, low-info, I-Dont-Wanna-Know Voter Grade: They don’t care.
Media Grade: F
Republican Grade: D
“Draining the Swamp” (Speaker Pelosi): Zzzzzzzzz
Failure is Success. Fear Is Hope.
Gotta Love America in 2013.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 The GORE Point  🙂Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Iceberg of Truth

From 1954 through 2012, the federal government shelled out a total of almost $72 trillion on all spending, combined. Over the same period, it collected revenues of under $56 trillion from all sources. The $16 trillion difference is today’s federal debt.

But this simple math hides the fact that the dollar in your pocket today doesn’t buy what the dollar in your grandfather’s pocket bought years ago. There is a sleight-of-hand to Washington’s method of dealing with long-term debt. Like every shell game, those who play will lose to those who make the rules.

And make no mistake, we are all playing by Washington’s rules.

See for yourself: Inflation Calculator

$1 in 1954 now cost $8.56.

Just since Obama, it’s $1.07

And that 7% “tax” ,if you will, hits the poor just as much as anyone else. Just don’t try to explain that (as I have) to the low-information, unenlightened narcissistic “general public” who don’t understand even this most basic of concepts.

The Debt in 1954: $271,259,599,108.46

By 2009 it was $10,000,000,000,000

The Debt Now:  $16,442,474,000,000.00

In 1960, the federal government spent $1.6 billion more than it collected in taxes. Given the deficits we run up these days, $1.6 billion seems almost laughable. Today, Washington blows through that much money in the length of time it takes to sit through a screening of “The Hobbit.”

In 1960, though, you could buy six times more stuff for a dollar than you can buy today. That makes 1960’s $1.6 billion deficit equivalent to a $10 billion deficit today.

Which Congress blows through in 2 days!

So why is our money worth so much less, and why does it matter? After all, wages keep pace with inflation over time, so it’s a wash, right? Well … no, it isn’t. A cost of living wage hike protects the money you earn this year from this year’s inflation. It does nothing to protect money you earned last year and saved.

With inflation, the government pays back the number of dollars it borrowed, not the value of the dollars it borrowed. Inflation makes the dollars the government pays back worth less than the dollars it borrowed.

It’s like my borrowing your car for a year. Sure, I give you the car back at the end of the year, but because of mileage and wear-and-tear, the car I give back is less valuable than the car I borrowed. Inflation is to the dollar what mileage and wear-and-tear is to the car.

The Politicians Know

Were it not for inflation, the $16 trillion that the government owes would be more than $22 trillion. Where did the $6 trillion difference go? It came out of people’s pockets. The same inflation that reduces the value of the dollars the government owes also reduces the value of the dollars you own — your savings, the equity in your house, your retirement fund.

Sure, individual prices rise and fall over time, but that is not inflation. Inflation is the devaluing of existing dollars by the printing of more dollars — something politicians euphemistically call, “quantitative easing” and “lowering interest rates.”

And boy does Obama LOVE to do that!

Washington’s debt has gotten so far out of control that there are no politically viable cuts to make, nor enough rich people to tax in order to balance the budget.

The only thing left is for the government to print money to pay its bills. This is why the Federal Reserve has decided to keep long-term interest rates near 0% for the foreseeable future, and why observant people know that, unless Washington gets serious about cutting spending, we’re going to be in for some serious inflation.

Nonexistent interest rates and significant inflation are the only things that will allow the government to continue spending money it does not have. And the more irresponsible the government is with spending, the more inflation will erode away our savings. This is a matter of simple economics.

Unfortunately, Washington’s fiscal problem has grown so large that the answer now goes beyond simple economics. We must return government to its appropriate role as a referee in the marketplace, not a player. If we don’t do this, the laws of mathematics and the forces of economics will do it for us — and they won’t be gentle.

The Truth will hurt and hurt bad one day.

The sad thing is that the politicians all know as much. They just care more about the next election than they care about America’s long-term economic health. (IBD)

The drug addicts aren’t going to cut themselves off and they don’t want the wrath of those they’ve addicted vented on them either.

And the people who elected them are largely clueless narcissists who just want whatever they can take from others to be given to them because that’s “fair” and don’t really care what the consequences are.

Personal responsibility and personal self-reliance are archaic, quaint notions of the past.

So we’re the Titanic and the Iceberg of Truth is out there, it’s just a matter of when not if we hit it unless all the drug addicts do something they don’t want to do.

TRUTH!

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell