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

The Chicken Little Hypocrisy Rebuke

Ragnarok will come someday, tomorrow, come someday,tomorrow,come someday. Ragnarok will come someday and we’ll all be killed.

Unless you give all your rights, freedoms, and your money and do exactly as we say when we say it because we say it!

DO as we Say, not as we Do and Do It Yesterday!

“This year, in Paris, has to be the year that the world finally reaches an agreement to protect the one planet that we’ve got while we still can,” said U.S. President Barack Obama on his recent trip to Alaska. Miguel Cañete, the EU’s chief negotiator, has warned there is “no Plan B — nothing to follow. This is not just ongoing UN discussions. Paris is final.”

The Apocalypse is here. Never Let a Crisis, even one you make up, go to waste.

The world is doomed if you don’t submit!

Conventional wisdom holds that negotiators are hashing out a fair allocation of the deep emissions cuts all countries would need to make to limit warming. That image bears little resemblance to reality.

In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.

Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima, Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it must achieve.

Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as the final September 30 cut-off approached.

After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond “shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.

So it’s just The Agenda is The Agenda, and my don’t we look wonderful for “doing something” when in fact it’s all just a gigantic redistribution con.

But MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change calculates the improvement by century’s end to be only 0.2 degrees Celsius. Comparing projected emissions to the baseline established by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000 shows no improvement at all.

And therein lies the sticking point on which negotiations actually center: “climate finance.” Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy initiatives.

The issue will dominate the Paris talks. The INDCs covering actual emissions reductions are subjective, discretionary, and thus essentially unnegotiable. Not so the cash. Developing countries are expecting more than $100 billion in annual funds from this agreement or they will walk away. (For scale, that’s roughly equivalent to the entire OECD budget for foreign development assistance.)

Somehow, the international process for addressing climate change has become one where addressing climate change is optional and apparently beside the point. Rich countries are bidding against themselves to purchase the developing world’s signature on an agreement so they can declare victory — even though the agreement itself will be the only progress achieved. (Politico.eu)

The climate change summit in Paris that aims to tackle global warming will itself pump an estimated 300,000 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it was claimed today.

Around 50,000 people including world leaders, businesses and activists are expected to travel from across the globe for the two-week conference in Paris which started today.

Most will arrive by plane from as far afield as New Zealand, Sydney and Bermuda, while others will arrive by train and car.

According to calculations by Wired and Steven Stoft of climateParis.org, the average round trip per attendee will be around 9,000 miles.

Taking the fuel consumption of a Boeing 747 – around 16.5 miles per gallon – which the website describes as a ‘happy medium between private jets and bullet trains’, it is estimated around 27 million gallons of fuel will be used by travellers attending the conference. 

This figure was arrived at by multiplying the number of attendees by the average round-trip mileage to get 450million miles then multiplying that by 16.5miles per gallon.

With each gallon of fuel producing around 21 pounds of carbon dioxide, the total released by planes flying to and from Paris is thought to be about 575million pounds (290,000 tons), according to rough calculations.

But given that some planes will very likely carry more than one attendee, this figure is likely to be at the very highest end. 

The total still pales in comparison with the annual global output of 80 quadrillion pounds, meaning the Paris conference equates to around 22 seconds of the world’s production. 

In an opening speech at the summit, Prince Charles warned world leaders that ‘we are becoming the architects of our own destruction’ as he called for immediate action to halt global warming.

The heads of 151 nations have kicked off 12 days of talks in Paris in search of an elusive pact that would wean the world off fossil fuels, making it the largest gathering of global leaders in history.

The Prince of Wales urged them to ‘think of your grandchildren, as I think of mine’ as well as the billions of people without a voice and the youngest generation as they try to secure a new global deal. 

He said: ‘If the planet were a patient, we would have treated her long ago. 

‘You, ladies and gentlemen, have the power to put her on life support and you must surely start the emergency procedures without further procrastination.

‘Humanity faces many threats but none is greater than climate change. In damaging our climate we are becoming the architects of our own destruction. 

‘We have the knowledge, the tools and the money (to solve the crisis).’

Over the next fortnight negotiators from 195 countries will attempt to hammer out a deal that will put the world on a path to prevent temperatures rising by more than 2C above pre-industrial levels and avoid dangerous climate change. 

French President Francois Hollande later echoed his statement by telling leaders that ‘the hope of all of humanity’ rested on their shoulders.

And anyone who stands in their way is evil and wants to destroy mankind, naturally. 🙂 No hyperbole there.

In an opening speech at the conference centre in Paris, the French President said: ‘Never have the stakes of an international meeting been so high because it concerns the future of the planet, the future of life. The hope of all of humanity rests on all of your shoulders.’  

Barack Obama also painted a dire picture of the future without aggressive action to curb carbon emissions, describing submerged countries, abandoned cities and fields that won’t grow.

In a speech, he said: ‘As the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second largest (greenhouse gas) emitter… the United States of America not only recognises our role in creating this problem, we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.’

The U.S. President also called the climate talks an ‘act of defiance’ by the world community following the Islamic State-linked attacks two weeks ago. 

The Islamic Radicals who want to kill you don’t care about your green defiance. Not one bit. As a matter of fact they are making an estimated $5 million dollars a day off of the profits from the oil fields you refuse to bomb because of your environmentalist radicalism. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Chinese President Xi Jinping said an eventual global climate deal must include aid for poor countries and acknowledge differences between developing and established economies. 

Xi, speaking at U.N.-led climate talks near Paris on Monday, said an agreement should also include transfer of climate technology to developing countries.

He said a deal should accommodate national interests, adding: ‘It’s imperative to respect differences’ among countries, especially developing ones.

‘Addressing climate change should not deny the legitimate needs of developing countries to reduce poverty and improve living standards,’ he said.

World leaders had earlier held a moment of silence in honor of people killed in recent attacks in Paris, Beirut, Baghdad, Tunisia and Mali.

The U.N. climate conference in Paris is most likely humanity’s last chance to thwart global environmental disaster, Pope Francis said on Monday, warning the world was “at the limits of suicide”.

The pope, who wrote a major document on the environment last June, made the comment in an hour-long news conference aboard the plane returning him to Rome at the end of a six-day trip to Africa.

The freewheeling conversations have become a trademark of his papacy and the few times he takes direct questions from journalists.

Francis, who visited Kenya, Uganda and the Central African Republic, also said the continent was “a martyr of exploitation” by wealthy countries who lust after its natural resources and try to impose Western values instead of concentrating on development.

The pope was asked if the U.N. climate summit in Paris would mark a turnaround in the fight against global warming.

“I am not sure, but I can say to you ‘now or never’,” he said. “Every year the problems are getting worse. We are at the limits. If I may use a strong word I would say that we are at the limits of suicide.”

He spoke of retreating glaciers in Greenland and low-lying countries at risk from rising sea levels.

“I am sure that the (Paris delegates) have goodwill to do something. I hope it turns out this way and I am praying that it will,” he said. (Daily Mail)

An echo chamber of activist groups and media outlets stands ready to rubber-stamp the final agreement as “historic,” validating the vast reservoirs of political capital spent on the exercise.

It’s a redistribution shell game to make Leftists and Socialists “feel good” about “doing something” thus validating their superiority.

And you get to pay for the privilege of being a serf under their rule.
Worry, they are happy. Don’t worry, they don’t care if you suffer.
It’s all about their power over you and their superiority in their own minds.
They are, after all, Homo Superior Liberalis, and you’re not, SERF.
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Dana Summers
Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Liberal Logic

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Derek Hunter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Ideology is reality. Reality is ideology.

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

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

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

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

“violent extremists”= Republicans? 🙂

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

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

While Democrats implode, the media plays guard dog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Nope.

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

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

ISLAMOPHOBIA!

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOH!

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

Stupid People, got no reason… 🙂

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

🙂

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

Yes.

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

No, because that’s islamophobia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!!!

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

But I am Your King!

Now, 25 Republican governors – and one Democrat too – have said they don’t want Syrian refugees in their states, as President Obama recommitted the U.S. to take a portion of this population fleeing from ISIS.

Military age males…unable to vet properly (according to FBI and Intelligence agencies) from the country is the #1 sponsor and producer of terrorists in the world and one of the Paris Terrorists was a “refugee”. I don’t understand the reason for them to be cautious. 🙂

‘It is very important,’ Obama said. ‘That we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism.’ 

Yeah, don’t equate my Agenda with fighting terrorism. 🙂

my little trojan pony

Oh, and the Leftist yesterday were also going all “Supremacy Clause” on me so you know it’s about the Agenda and The Narrative and not about national security. It’s pure partisan politics.

You will do as your King commands or else!

The problem for Jindal, Abbott and the other governors opposed to admitting refugees, however, is that there is no lawful means that permits a state government to dictate immigration policy to the president in this way. As the Supreme Court explained in Hines v. Davidowitz, “the supremacy of the national power in the general field of foreign affairs, including power over immigration, naturalization and deportation, is made clear by the Constitution.” States do not get to overrule the federal government on matters such as this one.

This power to admit refugees fits within the scheme of “broad discretion exercised by immigration officials” that the Supreme Court recognized in its most recent major immigration case, Arizona v. United States. (Think Progress)

So you KNOW it’s just partisan politics. You might remember this one. It;s where the State of Arizona decided that since the Feds were not enforcing Federal Law, that they would and Obama and Holder slap them down basically saying if the they want to ignore the border they can.

Mind you, the Left also says the refugees and illegal immigration are two different issues, but they combine them anyways when it’s about their politics and their Agenda.

So you know it’s all politics.

‘If there were a group of radical Christians pledging to murder anyone who had a different religious view than they, we would have a different national security situation,’ Cruz said, who criticized the Obama administration for ‘pretend[ing] as if there is no religious aspect to this.’

Could be because he’s partial to Muslims over Christians. 🙂

But i’m just being “Islamophobic”, “heartless” and “aprtisan” right? It’s because Barack is black right? 🙂

Above, states where governors have voiced opposition to Syrian refugees are in dark red, with states voicing support for the resettlement in pink. Gray states have not made a statement, suggested a review of the policy or have said that they do not expect and refugees would be sent to them. Kentucky's outgoing Democratic governor has indicated that he will follow the federal government's lead on the issue, though the governor-elect, a Republican, has said that he would not
And you know the Left is in full manipulation mode when they start quoting The Devil Himself, The Great Satan, George W. Bush…

The Democratic president said he had a lot of disagreement with Bush on policy. 

‘But I was very proud after 9/11 when he was adamant and clear about the fact that this is not a war on Islam,’ Obama said. ‘And the notion that some of those who’ve taken on leadership in his party would ignore all of that – that’s not who we are.’ 

The president called on Americans to follow Bush’s example.  (UK guardian)

So you know it’s an Agenda policy item and nothing else.
You are being manipulated.

European parliamentarians were warned of the “real and genuine threat” of the Islamic State putting 500,000 Islamic extremists in April this year. The British politician, Nigel Farage MEP, warned the EU its immigration policy placed a “direct threat to our civilisation”.

Mr Farage told a meeting of the European Parliament in French city of Strasbourg: “There is a real and genuine threat. When Isis say they want to flood our continent with half a million Islamic extremists, they mean it.

“There is nothing in this document that will stop those people from coming. Indeed I fear we face a direct threat to our civilisation if we allow large numbers of people from that war-torn region into Europe.

“It is ironic that nine days before a British General Mr Cameron and Mr Miliband are not engaged in this debate, and in fact the UK can do nothing. We are impotent, we have surrendered our ability to get involved (with stopping the immigrants).”

Despite Farage’s warning the EU continued to push ahead with its plan to force each EU country to take a percentage of the refugees. This left countries unable to secure their borders, and the Schengen Agreement meant most EU countries have dropped their passport controls. Only the UK and Ireland have a permanent exception from Schengen and are therefore allowed to keep passport controls.

Following news the French would treble their military presence against the Islamic State the UK admitted it had foiled seven major attacks recently. Islamic affairs expert, Alan Mendoza, said: “It is essential that Western nations now rethink their military strategy towards Islamic State. We have fought ?a phoney war to date and it has led to real casualties on European soil.

“We now need to redouble our efforts to expunge this scourge from the territory it holds. In Britain’s case, this will mean committing to military action in Syria, or risk becoming an international also-ran in terms of our influence.”

At tonight’s Mansion House speech in the City of London the Prime Minister, David Cameron, once again justified the British approach to dealing with the Jihadis. He said: “The more we learn about what happened in Paris the more it justifies the approach that we are taking in Britain.

“When you are dealing with radicalized European Muslims, linked to ISIL in Syria and inspired by a poisonous narrative of extremism, you need an approach that covers the full spectrum – military power, counter-terrorism expertise and defeating the poisonous narrative that is the root cause of this evil.”

His speech did not make any pledge to protect the UK from mass immigration, despite the public anger about it. However he had already pledged a ‘shoot to kill’ policy for terrorists in Britain, something that was immediately condemned by the leader of the UK Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn.

A petition demanding to shut the UK border to Syrian refugees has now reached 410,000. It is unlikely to be acted upon. (Townhall)

So do you want to be next? Is the risk of being “islamophobic” higher than the risk of MORE terrorists getting into the country?

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA

THE NARRATIVE IS THE NARRATIVE

YOUR KING HAS SPOKEN

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 

Practical Politics

World savers are anything but. They always have an unspoken motive. H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said the “whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste! And never let a Crisis go away either!

The most persistent hobgoblin of the last quarter-century has been global warming, now called climate change but eventually to be known as extreme weather, or some such other fright-inducing name. The climate activists are constantly bombarding us with warnings, hectoring, hysteria, pleading and threats. Apocalyptic books have been written and shrill movies made, all in an effort to slow man’s combustion of fossil fuels.

Included among these is a new documentary “inspired” by Naomi Klein’s book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.” If the title isn’t enough to give away Klein’s motives for attacking the climate “crisis,” then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should.

“So here’s the big question,” says Klein. “What if global warming isn’t only a crisis? What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”

Then comes the threat:

“Change, or be changed.”

Klein says she “spent six years wandering through the wreckage caused by the carbon in the air and the economic system that put it there.” Clearly, it is her goal to shatter the free-market system. The climate? It’s just a vehicle, a pretext for uprooting the only economic system in history that has brought prosperity and good health.

Klein’s statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists’ goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution,” Figueres said in Brussels last winter.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Klein also calls up the specter of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who, as Obama chief of staff, said in 2009 that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

People who are always looking for a crisis to solve are much like those who seek elective office because they want to “serve.” Their spoken motives are always a cover for the real agenda, which is so maligned that it is mentioned only by accident. (IBD)

And they are the ones who “care” unlike you rabble who piss on them for it. 🙂

And the next great “crisis”?

Red Meat.

EVIL!

Red meat After thoroughly reviewing the accumulated scientific literature,a Working Group of 22 experts from 10 countries convened by the IARC Monographs Programme classified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect.

This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer , but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) (aka Cigarettes) , based onsufficient evidence inb humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.

Meat is the Cigarette! Big Meat wants to kill you like like Big Tabacco! 🙂

”T hese findings further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat ,” says Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC.

“At the same time, red meat has nutritional value. Therefore, these results are important in enabling governments and international regulatory agencies to conduct risk assessments,in order to balance the risks and benefits of eatingred meat and processed meat and to provide the best possible dietary recommendations.” (IARC)

The self-righteous Leftists and Militant Politically Correct Vegans would never carry this too far, now would they? 🙂

The first shot in the Vegan War on Meat has been fired. Just watch and see…It’s for your own good, after all. 🙂

World savers are anything but. They always have an unspoken motive. H.L. Mencken saw the self-appointed saviors for what they were almost a century ago, when he said the “whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste!

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

So Sayeth The King

In response to the latest mass shooting during his presidency, President Obama is seriously considering circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.

Which means he has already done so, he’s just waiting for the idle crisis tailwind to spring on you.

HE IS KING AFTER ALL IS HE NOT!

Under the proposed rule change, dealers who exceed a certain number of sales each year would be required to obtain a license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and perform background checks on potential buyers.

As the president heads to Roseburg, Ore., on Friday to comfort the survivors and families of those killed in last week’s mass shooting at Umpqua Community College, the political calculus around his most vexing domestic policy issue is shifting once again.

After the Dec. 14, 2012, shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., claimed the lives of 20 students and six staff members, Obama asked Vice President Biden to devise a list of policy proposals in response, and on Jan. 26, 2013, the president announced 23 executive actions ranging from restarting federal research into the causes of gun violence to providing parity for mental health coverage under private insurance plans. He pushed for legislation mandating universal background checks on gun sales, an effort that failed in the Senate in April 2013. In August that year, Obama closed two gun-sale loopholes through executive authority, subjecting gun purchases by corporations and trusts to background checks and banning almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities.

In the wake of last week’s tragedy, Obama said he had asked his team “to scrub what kinds of authorities do we have to enforce the laws that we have in place more effectively to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.”

“We are hopeful we can find a way to do this,” said one senior administration official, who noted that lawyers were still working through details to ensure that the rule could pass legal muster. “It’s a lot more clear today than it was a year ago how to work this out.”

NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE

Nine days before a shooter opened fire on the Umpqua Community College campus, former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband, Mark Kelly, were at the White House to reiterate a long-standing request that those private dealers who sell a sizable number of guns conduct background checks on buyers. The proposed rule change would clarify what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling firearms.

In a meeting with Obama’s senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, Giffords and Kelly, who became gun-control activists after Giffords was seriously wounded in a mass shooting in 2011, were pushing for a regulatory change that administration officials considered — but then shelved — nearly two years ago.

The proposed executive action aims to impose background checks on individuals who buy from dealers who sell a significant number of guns each year. The current federal statute dictates that those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms need to obtain a federal license — and, therefore, conduct background checks — but exempts anyone “who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

White House officials drafted the proposal in late 2013 to apply to those dealers who sell at least 50 guns annually, after Congress had rejected legislation that would have expanded background checks more broadly to private sellers. While the White House Office of Legal Counsel and then-Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. initially concluded the regulation was legally defensible, according to several individuals involved in the discussions, some federal lawyers remained concerned that setting an arbitrary numerical threshold could leave the rule vulnerable to a challenge.

ATF officials, moreover, objected that it would be hard to enforce and that it was unclear how many sellers would be affected by the change. “Everyone realized it would be hugely politically controversial,” said one individual, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions.

On Monday, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton listed the idea of changing the definition of who qualifies as a gun dealer as one of her top proposals to address gun violence.

The aides to Biden who worked most intently on the background-checks proposal in 2013 have since left the administration, but it has resurfaced periodically: Obama discussed the idea with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch during a July 9 Oval Office meeting, aides said, three weeks after nine African American parishioners were gunned down in Charleston, S.C. Now, according to administration officials, a group of West Wing staffers are working in concert on this and other possible executive actions.

Pia Carusone, a senior adviser at Americans for Responsible Solutions, the group Giffords and Kelly founded, declined to discuss details surrounding private White House meetings.

“Over the last few years, Gabby, Mark and ARS staff have met with various administration officials to discuss how we can work together to address America’s gun violence problem,” Carusone said by e-mail. “Many potential solutions have been discussed in conversations that have included the president, vice president and their teams.”

Arkadi Gerney, senior vice president at the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, said tightening the definition of who is “engaged in the business” of selling guns “is a meaningful but modest step towards the goal of ensuring that all gun sales involve a background check.”

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Jennifer Baker, by contrast, said any change was unnecessary and could “ensnare” people not intended to be covered by the law, such as a widow selling off her late husband’s gun collection. “People who repeatedly sell large volumes of firearms are already covered in the current statute because they are already defined as ‘engaged in the business,’ ” she said.

Some activists, including those from the faith and community organizing group Metro Industrial Areas Foundation say Obama could be much bolder with his executive authority. On Thursday, the group, which is pushing the president to leverage the federal government’s purchasing power with gun manufacturers, held a rally in Lafayette Square to demand Obama call in industry leaders and insist that they develop safer technology and crack down on the stores that sell a disproportionate number of guns used in crimes.

“We have traveled here from across the nation to challenge you to stop whining about the power you don’t have, and start acting with the power you do have,” said Bishop Douglas Miles, who is on the group’s leadership team and serves as pastor of Koinonia Baptist Church in Baltimore.

Last week, Obama said that “this is something we should politicize” and that every American had “to for a while, be a single-issue voter” when it came to tightening the nation’s gun laws.

Gun-control activists have made significant political headway on the state level since the Newtown shooting. In the past year, they prevailed on background check fights in Washington state and Oregon; laws to carry concealed weapons without a permit were enacted in three states but defeated in 15. According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 55 percent of gun laws enacted so far this year loosened restrictions rather than tightened them, and many were quite minor. In 2012, by contrast, 72 percent of all enacted gun laws loosened restrictions.

“The gun lobby has done a very good job of tying up Washington, D.C.,” said John Feinblatt, president of the advocacy group Everytown. “It can’t tie up the people, and cannot, in fact, tie up state legislatures.”

While polling shows between 85 and 92 percent of Americans support expanding background checks, the broader issue of gun rights remains fraught. In Roseburg, where many have chafed at the administration’s gun policies, opinion remains sharply divided over whether Obama should even come to offer his condolences to victims’ families.

“Half the people in Roseburg say it’s wonderful, the other half say he shouldn’t show up,” said Earl Skonberg, a local gun owner who engages in sport shooting. (WP)

Politics Of Personal Agenda

President Obama: “Well this is something we should politicize. This is a political choice that we make. To allow this to happen every few months in America.”

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

David Jacques, the publisher of the local paper in Roseburg, Oregon, where the mass shooting took place, said President Obama would not be welcome in their town.

He doesn’t care. This is Agenda Politics. The Agenda is the Agenda. Period. He could care less about the victims and the families. This about the Gun Control/Confiscation Agenda.

And when he comes to town he won’t be a “gun Free Zone” now will he? 🙂

NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE, to push your Agenda.

And so he said, in that speech, that ‘people are going to accuse me of politicizing this event and frankly, it needs politicizing.’ So I think, he admitted it himself. So his visit here isn’t a re-election campaign stop, but it is a campaign stop nonetheless for an agenda that he and his associates believe is important. And that is to take away Americans’ right to own firearms.

I think that’s very inappropriate and I think it’s disrespectful to the families. The fact is, the president has no connection with this community. He has no connection with any of the families. And he made it abundantly clear, Lee, in his opening press statement just – we haven’t even identified bodies. We’ve still got Incident Command trying to contain the scene and he’s holding a press conference 3,000 miles from here telling us that he, almost implying that he single-handedly could have prevented this if the Congress would have listened to him.

And it shows, not only a total disdain and disregard for our Constitution, but our very citizens. And especially those of us right here in Douglas Country. We believe in the Second Amendment. We believe in the whole Constitution.

After spending zero time on gun control during his reelection bid, President Obama made it a top priority of his second term.

But a year after, a Pew Research Center survey found that attitudes were little changed from before the Newton killings. Obama’s plans had fizzled.

And now, a long-term Roper survey finds that public support for gun control laws is lower than it was in 1989, when 65% backed stricter laws. In fact, more now oppose stricter laws than support them.

Writing in the New York Times this week, University of Tennessee law professor and Instapundit blogger Glenn Reynolds tried to explain what, to gun control advocates, appears to be an irrational and illogical response to gun violence.

“I believe the reason is that people don’t trust the government to protect them anymore, and, in fact, that they don’t trust the government in general,” he writes. Nor does the public trust politicians who say they only want to keep guns out of the hands of “criminals and crazies,” not confiscate them from law-abiding citizens.

“If you want more gun control,” he concludes, “you need more trust. And if you want more trust, police and politicians must be more trustworthy. Good luck with that!” (IBD)

Especially, since Ferguson the Left has been hammering Cops as untrustworthy and just a bunch of racists.

After all, the Government in control of all the guns can’t be a bad thing, right? 🙂

PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Dunkin’ Donuts is apologizing after one of its employees reportedly wrote #blacklivesmatter on a police officer’s coffee cup.

The incident happened Friday afternoon at a Providence, Rhode Island location. According to a Providence police union, the officer was buying a coffee and the employee serving him seemed “somewhat rude and appeared as though they did not want to serve the officer.”

The cop later discovered that the employee wrote “#blacklivesmatter” on the cup.

The store’s manager said his employee was just joking when she reportedly said, “He didn’t get the message. We don’t serve cops here,” in front of other customers.

The incident comes after employees at Arby’s and Whataburger refused service to police officers in separate episodes in September.

blacklivesmatter.jpg

But when someone WITH A GUN, comes in to their Progressive little sanctuary to rob of kill them who they going to call, Al Sharpton!??

As usual, the Left is two-faced and more interested in the Control Freak/Totalitarian Agendas than actual facts or people.

“The negativity displayed by the #Blacklivesmatter organization towards police across this nation is creating a hostile environment that is not resolving any problems or issues, but making it worse for our communities,” The Executive Board of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #3 said in a statement. “They are doing this by increasing tensions amongst police and the people they serve.”

But they are Agenda Holy Warriors, you Racists! 🙂

And the President only furthering his Agenda. Nothing else to see here.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Life or Death: The Liberal Agenda Edition

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

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

Eyewitnesses say the shooter targeted Christians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good riddance to bad politically incorrect rubbish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me either.

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

They deserve more than many.

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Never Let a Crisis Go To Waste

The immortal words of the former Obama Chief of Staff rang in my ears as yet another school shooting happened in Oregon and immediately, almost before the bodies hit the ground Obama was out there pushing The Agenda, Gun Control.

Don’t make it about politics, the Left says, then makes it about THEIR politics almost before the bodies are cold.

Sickening.

Some people jumped on “muslims” early on. So the Leftist media jumped on THEM.

We are advised to not judge all Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge all gun owners by the actions of lunatics.

“The shooter was lining people up and asking if they were Christian. If they said yes, then they were shot in the head. If they said no, or didn’t answer, they were shot in the legs.” it was said to be.

Gee, no hard “war on Christians” there. The Left and their Muslim brothers are safe. 🙂

The more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight“.– The shooter

The Left WILL make him famous, for the sake of their Agenda.

liberal gun violence

Instead of focusing on what your agenda can gain, how about talking a long hard look at yourselves and the shooter first!

Naw, THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!!!  It’s the only thing that matters.

Less than six hours after the mass shooting today in Roseburg, Ore., President Obama called a press conference to demand new gun laws, a move he predicted would spur critics to accuse him of politicizing the issue. If they don’t accuse him of that, they might accuse him of making the tragedy about himself. 

During today’s 12-minute address, President Obama referred to himself 28 times. (For those counting at home, that’s almost three times per minute.)

Note that in arriving at this calculation, we included mentions of “we” when he was clearly including himself as part of the plural pronoun; the many uses of “we” in referring to America at large were not included. (Grabien)

So, as usual, it’s all about him and his agenda. He wants to own the limelight, how ironic. 🙂

Harper-Mercer wrote in a post this August about how much he admired Vester Flanagan, the Roanoke shooter who killed a cameraman and newscaster at the television station where he had been employed after getting fired. 

On that same profile it also showed that just three days ago Harper-Mercer uploaded This World Surviving Sandy Hook BBC Documentary 2015 for people to watch on the file sharing site.

The Shooter posted: ‘On an interesting note, I have noticed that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one, is now known by everyone,’ wrote Harper-Mercer of Flanagan. 

‘His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.’

He closed by saying; ‘Also, if anyone gets the chance, go on youtube and see the footage of him shooting those people. It’s a short video but good nonetheless. Will post more later.’ 

So he’s learned his lessons will, the dead Padawan did.

On a Dating site he listed himself as a mixed race Republican. Well, the Leftist will have slobbering Partisan chops fun with this one.

It will be all about the politics, destroying your ‘enemy’ (Republicans) and the Agenda.

The message that is screaming at you will be missed because it doesn’t serve The Agenda.

Gallery: On the killer's MySpace page he has several posts and pictures where he appears to praise the IRA and their terrorist activites

‘And they would stand up and he said, “Good, because you’re a Christian, you’re going to see God in just about one second,”‘ said Stacy  (one of the survivors).

‘And then he shot and killed them.’

Umpqua College was a gun free zone.
No guns allowed…

Unless you’re a crazed lunatic, that is…

Chris Harper-Mercer – a 26-year-old who idolized serial killers and who isn’t even remotely interesting to the Left, except for what he can do for their Agenda.

I often think the only reason Leftists are for Gun Control is that when they come to you with one of their Agenda items to destroy your life (The metaphorical “gun to your head”) and you want to resist so THEY want to be the only ones with any guns, metaphorical or otherwise. That way, you have no choice but to do what they want, when they want, because they want.

A Military style junta dictatorship. That suits the Left’s ambitions for control, does it not?

The Left should focus on the people first. It is after, the sensitive and compassionate thing to do.

Nope, Agenda first!

Let’s ban the guns!  Not treat the people.

It’s the Gun’s fault!

If we prevent you from having a gun this won’t happen, the Left’s Agenda thinks.

Guns don’t kill people, people with guns kill people. Treat the cause not the symptom, Doctor Leftist.

Sorry, not covered by the Agenda Medical plan.

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!!

Gun control is “is something we should politicize.”–Obama.

“This is a political choice that we make. To allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction.”–Obama

It’s YOUR Fault!

Did this happen “every few months until a few years ago, my dear?

Sorry, The Agenda is The Agenda!

Obama admitted that this issue would require a change of politics, and that Americans who think gun violence is an epidemic should be thinking how to change the politics in Washington on this issue.

Aka elect Liberals, they do such a fine job of it.

Chicago, run by Raul “dead fish” Emmanuel who made the quote in the title of this blog infamous runs Chicago, and it has had even MORE gun violence since he and his liberal gun control buddies took over.

Guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people.

Just like most blacks are killed by blacks, not whites, or white cops.

BUT

THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA.

The truth doesn’t matter.

guns

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Just Ban Everything!

dear haters pc

Well, one is about National Socialists (NAZIs) and the other is about Southerners (of which the Confederacy was DEMOCRATS)  but one is Politically correct, one is not.

That’s all that matters to the Left.

The Agenda is the Agenda. And never let a crisis go to waste, especially when you can brand anyone who disagrees with you as either a bigot or a racist.

Kevin Sorbo:

“Hey PC crowd! You guys are nuts! Insane! Crazy!” the “God’s Not Dead” actor wrote. “Banning The Dukes of Hazard? Really? The Confederate Flag on the car? When does this stop? Then get rid of Hogan’s Hero’s, The Jeffersons, All in the Family, etc. (And I love all of them). The list goes on. Chocolate is racist then. So are marshmallow’s. I am offended by everything should be the Lefts slogan.”

It already is. They are even offended that you disagree with them. That simply can’t be allowed. And if they haven’t come after you or what you love, give them time (unless you ARE them that is).

“By the way, we should ban the American Flag,” Mr. Sorbo continued. “It represents the pillage of Native Americans. Also Washington, DC??? What. George Washington owned slaves! So we need to change the name there, too. ‪#‎racism‬ ‪#‎tvland‬ ‪#‎stupid‬ ‪#‎ridiculous‬ ‪#‎flags‬ ‪#‎government‬.”

Some on the Left want to do just that because its a sign of “oppression” and “imperialism”.

TV Land’s decision also drew the ire of former “Dukes” star Jon “Bo Duke” Schneider.

“I am saddened that one angry and misguided individual can cause one of the most beloved television shows in the history of the medium to suddenly be seen in this light,” he told The Hollywood Reporter. “Are people who grew up watching the show now suddenly racists? Will they have to go through a detox and a 12-step program to kick their Dukes habit? ‘Hi … My name is John. I’m a Dukesoholic.’ “ (WT)

The Washington Post:

Did you know that this newspaper is named for a slaveholder? It’s right there on our masthead, the name of a man who for 56 years held other human beings in bondage on his Virginia plantation — a man, according to the official Mount Vernon Web site, who “frequently utilized harsh punishment against the enslaved population, including whippings.” This dreaded symbol of oppression is delivered to the doorsteps and inboxes of hundreds of thousands of people each morning.

Sure, George Washington also emancipated his slaves in his will, won our independence and became the father of our country — but no matter. It is an outrage that this paper continues to bear the name of such a man.

It is time to rename The Washington Post!

Think that’s stupid? You’re right. But there’s a lot of stupid going around today. The latest example: The TV Land network has pulled the plug on reruns of one of America’s most beloved shows, “The Dukes of Hazzard,” because the car in the show, the General Lee, bears a Confederate flag. There is nothing racist about “The Dukes of Hazzard.” It is a show about moonshine, short shorts and fast cars. What is accomplished by banning “The Dukes of Hazzard”? Nothing.

Our country is in a miasma of political correctness. So where does it end? Are we going to rename our nation’s capital (and Washington state for that matter)? Should we close the Jefferson Memorial (named for a man who never freed his slaves)? How about renaming Arlington (which is named after Robert E. Lee’s estate) . . . or Washington and Lee University (names for not one, but two slave owners) . . . or Fort Hood (named for Confederate Gen. John Bell Hood) and Fort Bragg (named for Braxton Bragg, military adviser to Confederate President Jefferson Davis).

This impulse to wipe away history is Stalinist. Just like Joseph Stalin once erased people from photographs, we’re now erasing people from our collective history.

These historical purges are not only wrong, they are also completely unnecessary. If you want to see where race relations are in the South, just look at how the people of Charleston, S.C., reacted to the shootings at Emanuel AME Church. There were no race riots. The city didn’t burn. People came together — black and white — to mourn and heal together. The white mayor of Charleston joined hands with the state’s black senator and its Indian American governor to pray. Thousands of people of all races, creeds and colors formed a “unity chain ” that stretched two miles across the Ravenel Bridge to honor those who died.

What a testament that is to how far the South has come since the days of segregation. The alleged Charleston shooter, Dylann Roof, wanted to set off a race war. Instead he set off an amazing display of unity and love. It was a beautiful sight to behold.

Now come all these self-righteous liberals from cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Washington, doing what the Charleston shooter failed to do — sowing division and discord where none exist.

Let’s be clear: The recent criticism of the Confederate flag is really not about a flag — it is about the people of the South. It is driven by the notion that most Southerners are a bunch of racists who agree with the Charleston shooter’s murderous actions. As we saw after the shooting, nothing could be further from the truth.

And the fact that most Southerners of that era and even upto the 1960’s Civil Rights deniers were DEMOCRATS is a historical irony that is lost on the PC mafia frenzy.

According to the FBI’s Hate Crimes database, in 2013 — the most recent year for which there are statistics — there were just five homicides in the United States that were classified as “hate crimes” and only one found to be anti-black. By contrast, that same year there were 2,491 recorded homicides of African Americans, of which 2,245 (or 90 percent) were committed by other African Americans. Meanwhile, of the 3,005 white people killed that year, 2,509 (or 84 percent) were killed by other whites. So most whites are killed by other whites, and most blacks are killed by other blacks — and almost none are killed in hate crimes.

In other words, there is no race war in the United States today.

Moreover, none of this political correctness is helping African Americans at all. Getting rid of the Confederate flag or banning “The Dukes of Hazzard” won’t save a single black life. It won’t do a thing to help the nearly one quarter of young African American men who are unemployed — or to lift up black kids trapped in failing schools. Instead of sowing division with historical purges, let’s celebrate how far our nation has come — and focus our energies on actually helping those who have been left behind.

And when it comes to symbols of the past, perhaps we should take our example from Abraham Lincoln. After the South surrendered, Lincoln addressed a crowd gathered on the White House lawn and asked that the band play “Dixie,” which he said had always been one of his favorite songs.

Bo Knows Dukes

Amen. The focus should be on the people murdered by a crazy SOB. But the Left never passes up a chance to push their Agenda, after all, the ends justify the means in their tiny control freak little minds.

And the spineless reactionary fear of these Agenda Nazis is no better.

And the fact that these Confederates, wer in FACT, Southern DEMOCRATS!  The irony is lost on The Left, The Leftist media, the mindless and the spineless. Which is most everyone it seems.

So what will the Thought Police go after next, and when will they come after you!

In a 2001 documentary about the making of “The Dukes of Hazzard,” show creator Gy Waldron said the Confederate flag that appears on a car featured on the show — like the Good Ol’ Boys themselves — was never meanin’ no harm.

“Painting the Confederate flag on the roof of the car was done very innocently,” Waldron said, “because in the ’50s and ’60s it was very common to find Confederate flags painted on cars. There was never a political statement to be made by it. It was just part of the tradition. And once we had put it in there I saw no reason to bow to any pressure groups. We’re not making any statement regarding slavery or post-slavery or integration or anything like that.”

John Schneider — that’s Bo Duke to those who follow the Good Ol’ Boys — agreed that the General Lee, as the car is known, was far from a symbol of hate.

“It amazes me that anyone could take offense to the General Lee,” Schneider said in the documentary. “… If there was ever a non-racist family, it was the Dukes of Hazzard.” (WP)

Hollywood Reporter: The Duke boys are being put on the bench.

TV Land has pulled reruns of Dukes of Hazzard in light of the recent uproar over the Confederate flag, which is emblazoned on the roof of the show’s iconic General Lee 1969 Dodge Charger, The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed.

The show has faced criticism over the depiction of the controversial flag in the wake of the June 17 shooting in Charleston, S.C., that left nine dead, and what many viewed as South Carolina’s delayed decision to take the flag down.

Confederate merchandise has since been dropped by Walmart, Target, Amazon and other businesses after the shooting, which took place at a historic black church.

Shortly after the attack, photos surfaced showing alleged shooter Dylann Roof burning one American flag and stepping on another, while waving and posing provocatively with Confederate banners.

Warner Bros.’ consumer division announced on June 24 that it will stop licensing toy cars and models featuring the General Lee with the flag.

In a recent interview with THR, Dukes of Hazzard star John Schneider defended the series’ use of the flag. “Labeling anyone who has the flag a ‘racist’ seems unfair to those who are clearly ‘never meanin’ no harm,'” he said. His co-star Ben Jones has also come out in defense of the flag, saying it represents the “indomitable spirit of independence.”

The Parents Television Council weighed in TV Land’s decision Wednesday. Although the organization said they did not oppose the reasoning behind TV Land’s actions, the council blasted the network and its parent company, Viacom, for “blatant hypocrisy” they say the media company demonstrated.

“When media companies are criticized for marketing programs that glamorize drug and alcohol use, or for sexualizing minors in television programs and movies, or for selling violent entertainment to children – despite overwhelming evidence of harm – or for trivializing rape, child sex abuse and pedophilia, all in the name of ‘entertainment,’ they are quick to wrap themselves in the banner of Free Speech,” wrote PTC president Tim Winter.

“Restraint and responsibility do not infringe on the First Amendment and do not encroach on Free Speech rights. If TV Land is willing to pull The Dukes of Hazzard, out of concern for its harmful impact on our society (and it is good that Viacom is publicly acknowledging its programming can have a harmful impact on our society), they cannot then hide behind the First Amendment to refute the compelling evidence of harm from the violent and sexualized media content they continue to produce and air with impunity.”

Dukes of Hazzard ran on CBS from 1979 to 1985.

It’s all about “tolerance”, remember. 🙂

“Fundamentally transform America” — Barack Obama.

The Thought Police are Watching you!

A Means to an End

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The question is extremely simple: If Congress agrees to meet the president’s demands and hike the debt ceiling without any preconditions, what dollar figure and/or time frame would the president like to see in the legislation?  Increasing the debt ceiling isn’t a hypothetical or symbolic action.  It involves extending the government’s ability to borrow a finite amount of money — you know, actual dollars and cents.  Carney doesn’t even try to answer the reporter’s basic and reasonable question; instead, he reverts back to mindless repetitions of Obama’s exhortations for Congressional action.  Yeah, we got all that, Jay.  Your boss prattled endlessly about it on Monday.  So what’s going on here?  I see two possibilities:

(1) Carney was caught off-guard by the simplest of questions and honestly didn’t know the answer, so he tossed himself up a meaningless word salad and made a mental note to get that information for tomorrow.

(2) The White House has made a calculated political decision that high-ranking administration officials should avoid saying the dollar amount on camera.  Explicitly talking about trillions in new borrowing authority may not necessarily be the soundbyte they want floating around as as they try to downplay the severity of the nation’s debt crisis.  The president seemed to adopt this approach when he David Letterman asked about the specific size of our national debt prior to the election.

If Carney can’t or won’t answer this strikingly basic question in the coming days, we’ll have our answer. (Townhall)

I vote for #2.

Median household income (adjusted for inflation) is lower than it was in 2009. And more Americans live below the poverty level than they did four years ago.

U3 Unemployment is the same as it was 4 years ago. U6 has gone up.

The federal public debt has increased from $10.6 trillion in Jan. 2009 to $16.4 trillion now.

But if we actually don’t raise the limit the President says we’ll default and look like losers who can’t pay their bills (and he threw in the obligatory scare tactic of “not paying Social Security”).

Yeah, when you not only max out your credit card but you go way over it the best thing to do is up your limit and just keep on going with what you were doing!

So, there’s that. Six trillion dollars, and we have the exact same unemployment rate (with the bonus of a much smaller workforce), no more people with health insurance even though Obama has put the nation and the health care system through the wringer implementing his foolproof, expensive plan to get us all insured, and more people in poverty and on food stamps.

And that’s why the people re-elected him. He was better than an evil rich white guy! 🙂

Ben Shapiro: But that’s all the left’s got on issues ranging from gun control to the debt ceiling: appeals to emotion and to the supposed moral shortcomings of their opposition….It’s President Obama, who held a press conference on gun control flanked by small children who had written him letters about violence using guns, then trotted out the grief-stricken parents of one of the children who murdered at Sandy Hook. “[M]ost of all,” Obama intoned, ” I think about how when it comes to protecting the most vulnerable among us, we must act now, for Grace, for the 25 other innocent children and devoted educators who had so much left to give; for the men and women in big cities and small towns who fall victims to senseless violence each and every day; for all the Americans who are counting on us to keep them safe from harm.”

Obama’s implication is clear: disagree with him, and you are fine with what happened in Sandy Hook.

That’s a vile, despicable Maury Povich tactic. It’s daytime talk show material, not honest political discussion about how to solve the problem of murder by guns in the United States.

But here’s the dirty little secret: this isn’t about preventing another Sandy Hook for the left. It is about political posturing. If the left really wanted to be true to its own philosophy, it would simply attempt to repeal the Second Amendment and go for a total British-style gun ban. The vast majority of murders committed with guns in the United States are committed with handguns. Yet the left insists that it wants to leave private handgun ownership in place, while targeting so-called “assault rifles.” That’s not an attempt at a solution, even from the left. It’s just preening for the cameras while pointing to the bodies of shooting victims.

But that’s all they want out of it. More Power. More agenda-driven satisfaction. And making their political opponents look bad.

What else would they want. NEVER LET A CRISIS GO TO WASTE.

It’s not about solving the crisis, it’s about what THEY can get out of it Politically.

That’s all that really matters.

Live or Dead, children are just a means to an end.

But the left doesn’t want to have that discussion. They just want the warm glow of moral righteousness in their breasts, even as they invade the rights of law-abiding citizens while making children less safe than they otherwise would be.

They want “school resource officers” aka Mental health enforcers of the Liberal agenda not actual cops or trained armed personnel.

They want to stop deviant thinking, not deviants.

ALL HAIL BIG BROTHER!

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson
 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

The Obama Cabinet Awaits You! 🙂

 

Welcome to the Dawn of 2013- Lies & SEP

Have you ever asked yourself why the people who want to actually cut spending (not just “cut” the rate of growth and call it a “cut”) and want to actually cut the size and scope of government intervention in our lives are portrayed as violent, ignorant, and/or extremists??

I do. Every day.

And I still think it comes down to drug addiction. But it goes deeper.

The people are addicted to the “free” stuff that isn’t free. And politicians are addicted to themselves and their own power. The Politicians are the dealers. The people are the enablers and the addicts buying from the dealers. And the Dealers are addicts to selling the drugs.

So they are incestuously addicted to each other.

The politicians keep giving the people “free” drugs – entitlements, class warfare, etc. and the people keep electing people who will give it to them.

And the sane ones who say that we have to stop this behavior are hated by everyone. The responsible one in the room is the last person anyone wants to listen to.

The Republicans aren’t happy with the Tea Party. Happy they got elected in 2010. But not happy that they keep getting reminded why they were elected which goes against this grain. And they aren’t prepared to fight the fight that is required to stop or wean off the addiction because they are in fact, addicts themselves.

And the Democrats and the Media that portray anyone who isn’t on board with them as “extremists” , “obstructionists”, “unfair”, “racists”, none more than the “domestic terrorists” known as The Tea Party.

Not loved by anyone.

Funny that.

Because in the end we will be forced to grow up. The longer we wait the harder and more painful it will be for us and for the future.

The Truth will come. That’s inevitable. It WILL come regardless. It is the real wolf at the door.

But like a petulant child, we refuse.

We want our candy and presents. We want Santa Claus/Obama Claus to come along and bring all of us more toys and tell us it was mean old Scrooge’s fault and that the Tea Party is the Grinch who wants to steal their Christmas.

The People of Whoville don’t want to know the truth.

There is is no joy in Whoville when it comes to the Truth about The Debt, The Deficit, Entitlements, Taxes, and Foreign Policy Threats like Al-Qaeda.

The People of Whoville want to be told sweet little lies because the Truth is too much too bear. And they are at fault and they can’t face it.

The Political Class just see an opportunity to use this to gain more power for themselves. But it’s a trap too.

Now they are addicted to lying. They can’t tell the truth anymore. And anyone who tries will be summarily crushed.

Divide and Conquer has no softer side. Authoritarians have non softer side.

And they are addicted to the power to control everyone and everything. The authoritarian modern liberal more so than the weak Republicans.

So the politicians are addicted to the power money brings them and the people are addicted to the money the government brings them.

What  a viciously incestuous cycle.

And the sane ones who want this to stop are the bad guys.

Well, a drug intervention is never anything but messy.

But 315 million addicts is a lot of messy.

The addict’s judgment is clouded due to their substance of abuse making it tough for them to see or think clearly.

And the Ministry of Truth is there to feed them sweet lies and to calm their fears. 🙂

That’s the Comfort Zone.

(with apologies to Fleetwood Mac)

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies
(Tell me lies, tell me, tell me lies)
Oh, no, no you can disguise
(We want you to disguise, you can disguise)
Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

Although I’m not making plans
I hope that you understand
There’s a reason why
Close your, close your, close your eyes…

But I couldn’t find a way
So I’ll settle for one day
To believe in you
Tell me, tell me, tell me lies

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies

It’s someone elses’ fault other than our own and we don’t want to take the medicine to get it better.

Somebody Else’s Problem (also known as Someone Else’s Problem or SEP) is a condition where individuals/populations of individuals choose to decentralize themselves from an issue that may be in critical need of recognition. Such issues may be of large concern to the population as a whole but can easily be a choice of ignorance at an individualistic level. Author Douglas Adams‘ description of the condition, which he ascribes to a physical “SEP field,” has helped make it a generally recognized phenomenon.

Where multiple individuals simultaneously experience the same stimulus, diffusion of responsibility and/or the bystander effect may release individuals from the need to act, and if no-one from the group is seen to act, each individual may be further inhibited by conformity.

“Somebody Else’s Problem”, an effectively-magical field that obscures things you think aren’t relevant to you, such that even though you see them (or hear them or read them) you don’t actually *notice*, and quickly forget.

More generally, the phenomenon that causes people to ignore issues that they know about but think of as either not something they can do anything about, or not personally relevant to them right now. This can result in something that’s very important to a group of people being ignored by every individual member of that group.

Popularized by Douglas Adams in the “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy” series, in which Ford Prefect describes it as:

“An SEP is something we can’t see, or don’t see, or our brain doesn’t let us see, because we think that it’s somebody else’s problem…. The brain just edits it out, it’s like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won’t see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.”

When individuals are exposed to a multitude of messages about pressing matters of concern- information overload (now also known as Information Fatigue Syndrome) may be a result.

In Joseph Ruff’s article “Information Overload: Causes, Symptoms and Solutions” Ruff states, “Once capacity is surpassed additional information becomes noise and results in a decrease in information processing and decision quality”.

The 24/7/365 News cycle anyone? 🙂

The virulent “I don’t wanna know” reaction , mixed with deeply cynical fear and racist power politics equals the 2012 election anyone?

Vote for Me, the Other Guy’s asshole!!! It’s HIS Fault!!

And the Politicians and The Ministry of Truth can herd these willfully ignorant sheep to use to satisfy their own addictions.

Thus the cycle continues.

There may also be a tendency to argue that since a proposed solution does not fit a problem entirely then the entire solution should be discarded. This is an example of a perfect solution fallacy. “This fallacy is often employed by those who believe no action should be taken on a particular issue and use the fallacy to argue against any proposed action”.

The nirvana fallacy is the informal fallacy of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem. A closely related concept is the perfect solution fallacy.

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic possibility and another which is merely better.

The perfect solution fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist after it were implemented.

It’s Not “fair”!  🙂

It is common for arguments which commit this fallacy to omit any specifics about exactly how, or how badly, a proposed solution is claimed to fall short of acceptability, expressing the rejection in vague terms only. Alternatively, it may be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when a specific example of a solution’s failure is described in emotionally powerful detail but base rates are ignored.

Misleading vividness is a term that can be applied to anecdotal evidence[1] describing an occurrence, even if it is an exceptional occurrence, with sufficient detail to permit hasty generalizations about the occurrence (e.g., to convince someone that the occurrence is a widespread problem). Although misleading vividness does little to support an argument logically, it can have a very strong psychological effect because of a cognitive heuristic called the availability heuristic.

The availability heuristic is a mental shortcut that occurs when people make judgments about the probability of events by the ease with which examples come to mind. The availability heuristic operates on the notion that, “if you can think of it, it must be important.” The availability of consequences associated with an action is positively related to perceptions of the magnitude of the consequences of that action. In other words, the easier it is to recall the consequences of something, the greater we perceive these consequences to be.

Short circuit logic with emotion and keep it simplistic. Sound like Obama and the Democrats?

Never let a Crisis Go to Waste! 

Create new ones daily. Crisis Mode prevents a lot of actual critical thinking.

And the anti-nirvana heuristic solution  is to do something substantive and real. Hence, The Tea Party is against nirvana, utopia, mom and apple pie so they are the ultimate evil and must be destroyed. 🙂

The ones who truly want people to face the truth and fix the problem are seen as the problem. 😮

Welcome to the dawn of 2013 where doing the responsible thing makes you the Grinch, the enemy, the bad guy…

Well, Isn’t that Special? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 

Over the Cliff

More from “Jar Jar Binks” Boehner:

Under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio), the 112th House of Representatives has thus far approved legislation that has increased the debt of the federal government by approximately $18,944 for per American household.

The 112th House of Representatives has achieved this in a little more than 20 months time—and it may not be done yet enacting laws to approve new federal borrowing and spending.

On March 1, 2011, Boehner and President Barack Obama cut their first short-term federal spending deal. That deal took effect on March 4, 2011. Since then all new borrowing and spending by the federal government has been approved in laws enacted by Boehner’s House consistent with its constitutional power to control the borrowing and spending by the federal government. (KFYI)

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

AP
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): There’s a lot of talk right now about an impending fiscal cliff. But we already went over a cliff economically in this country a long time ago.The current debate over tax hikes is an empty one built upon a false premise. The debate is whether raising tax rates will address our current crisis. The premise is that it is a lack of taxation that has led to the crisis. Both are hopelessly wrong.President Obama’s proposed tax increases on the top 2% of earners would fund the federal government for about eight days. Even if we taxed Americans earning over $1 million on 100% of their income, we would raise only about $600 billion in revenue.

Taxing citizens at this level is a tyranny even Europe hasn’t reached, and still it would only address about one-third of our deficit.

If one actually does the math, “taxing the rich” turns out to be no real solution at all, only fantasyland rhetoric.

Every dollar the government takes is another dollar used unproductively. Every dollar removed from the private sector and wasted in the hands of bureaucrats is a dollar that will not be used to purchase goods, to pay for services or to meet a payroll.

Every dollar the government ever takes — today, tomorrow and forever — is an attack on jobs and the economy.

Instead of sitting around trying to think of new ways to vote away someone else’s money, Washington leaders should finally begin to address the real crisis that has threatened us long before the current handwringing: spending.

With a $16 trillion national debt and well over $1 trillion annually in deficits, we barreled over the edge of fiscal insolvency long before this month.

Why do we lurch from deadline to deadline with no apparent action on our nation’s problems until the next deadline approaches? I presented Social Security and Medicare reform to the Senate over a year ago. I directly spoke to the president and vice president about my plan. And their response? Absolutely nothing!

Is it any wonder people are fed up with their government? The president announces we have no time for spending reforms, but when the deadline passes I predict not one committee will step into the breach to begin the process of reform.

Why? Because Democratic leadership still insists that Social Security and Medicare are just fine. Meanwhile, Social Security actuaries tell us that Social Security this year will spend $165 billion more than it receives. Medicare will spend $3 for every $1 it collects. Yet, the president says he doesn’t have time for entitlement reform.

The “fiscal cliff” scenario has come and gone. The only question now is: How do we recover?

The only solution is to cut spending. It’s no secret to anyone, except perhaps Washington leaders, that our current levels of spending are not only unsustainable, but the main culprit in our fiscal crisis.

Opponents of spending reductions — whether Democrats who insist on maintaining and expanding current domestic spending, or Republicans who insist on maintaining and expanding current Pentagon spending — make the case that any cuts to their preferred parts of government would be “Draconian” or “devastating.”

Like tax hikes, this too is a false narrative. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nominal spending in 2008 was $2.5 trillion. The outlays for the 2013 budget are an estimated $3.5 trillion.

This means the federal government plans on spending $1 trillion more next year than it did four years ago. By any measure, this is a significant and dramatic growth in spending.

Estimated revenue for 2013 is $2.9 trillion if the Bush tax cuts expire. Our 2012 revenues were $2.4 trillion, which included the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts would only make a difference of $500 billion this year — about one third of our entire deficit — but would also further harm our economy due to the job market decline that always accompanies any rise in taxes. History has proved this point time and again.

But if we spent only at 2008 levels combined with the revenues of 2012, next year we would have a deficit as small as $89 billion. An $89 billion deficit would represent less than 1% of GDP. The 2012 deficit was as high as 7.3% of GDP.

Did anyone think the size of government we had in 2008 was somehow not enough government? This is how drastically spending has increased in just the last four years.

Those who argue we can’t cut spending are basically saying that our federal government was far too small when Barack Obama entered the White House and that now we can survive only if government continues to spend at its current level. I know few if any Americans who honestly believe this, Republican or Democrat.

It’s also hard to imagine reasonable people actually believing that our government spending this obscene amount of money is somehow what makes our economy tick.

A real plan would extend the tax rates we’ve had for 12 years, reform entitlements and examine any and every way to significantly cut spending. Right now, House GOP leadership seems to want Republicans to be the party that raises taxes just a little less than the Democrats. This will not do.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited government and low taxes. These are our most core and basic principles. I don’t think it’s time to change who we are or what we stand for. It will not help our economy. It will also defeat the purpose of even having a Republican Party.

And that’s what Sith Lord Obama wants, By the way… “Those are not the Spending Cuts you are looking for…”:)
Sith Apprentice Harry Reid: “Now is the time to show leadership, not kick the can down the road,” Reid said. “Speaker Boehner should focus his energy on forging a large-scale deficit reduction agreement. It would be a shame if Republicans abandoned productive negotiations due to pressure from the tea party, as they have time and again.” (NBC)
But nothing the Democrats propose actually cuts spending or the deficit in anyway that is actually meaningful. But that’s the trick.
Make the stupid people think that it is meaningful and the Republicans are getting in the way so they take the fall for it when it fails miserably.
It’s tactical. not practical.
Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have.
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
So Boehner Proposes and Obama and Reid Dispose, even if it’s a plan that essentially mimics on their own it still is “protecting the rich” and is not “good enough”.
Simple. 🙂

“He (President Barack Obama) is not willing to accept a deal that doesn’t ask enough of the very wealthiest in taxes and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “The president is hopeful that both sides can work out remaining differences and reach a solution so we don’t miss the opportunity in front of us today.”

Boehner’s spokesman said: “The White House’s position defies common sense.”

“After spending months saying we must ask for more from millionaires and billionaires, how can they reject a plan that does exactly that?” spokesman Brendan Buck said. “By once again moving the goal posts, the president is threatening every American family with higher taxes.”

Because that isn’t the goal, Jar Jar. This is Chess not Poker. Simple, really. 🙂
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

The Spin Cycle

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Another brilliant comment from Mr. Salt & Soda Ban, New York’s NutJob Mayor: “I don’t understand why the police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike,” Bloomberg told the “Piers Morgan Tonight” host. “We’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.”

Gun Control (aka none at all). Something that the Founding Fathers were unalterably opposed to. But that’s Knee Jerk Do-Gooder Morally Superior Liberalism for you!

If you took his guns away, would you still not have a pathologically disturbed person?

Would he be “safer” without a gun??

Not really. He’d just find another way to kill people. Bombs, like the ones in his apartment perhaps. Then what would the reactionary liberals want to ban then??

To Quote Captain James Tiberius Kirk: You’ve managed to kill everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target!

The problem is the person, not the weapon.

The problem is the liberal preaching moral relativism- the philosophical theory that morality varies between individuals and cultures and so there is no objective right and wrong.

And if there is no absolute right and wrong then  you do what feels good. And the Aurora Killer this obviously felt good, as sick as it was.

But the minute you start talking to a liberal about right and wrong all you’ll get is that they are right and you’re wrong. That’s it.

Otherwise, you’d be some right wing christian nutcase, even if your not a Christian. Muslim excluded.

Then The next day Bloomberg realized he said something nearly as stupid as what Obama said about businesses.  Which Obama is trying to diffuse also: “Those ads taking my words about small business out of context — they’re flat-out wrong,” Obama says in the commercial. “Of course Americans build their own businesses. Every day, hardworking people sacrifice to meet a payroll, create jobs and make our economy run. And what I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has.” (The Hill)

They were both quoted accurately. They just said what they really think and that was the problem. 🙂

New York State law prohibits strikes by public employees and Bloomberg clarified his remarks when speaking to reporters on Tuesday.

“I don’t mean literally go on strike,” he said. “Keep in mind, it is police officers who run into danger when the rest of us run out. Police officers have families. They want to come home to their families safely.”

Ugh. yeah, and people who own guns (which I do not) don’t??

And he didn’t actually mean it. He meant the first statement, it just looked bad politically. “They should call their congressman, call their senators and say ‘My family wants me to come home. What are you doing to protect me?’” Bloomberg said.

NJ Governor Chris Christie: “Can we at least get through the initial grief and tragedy for these families before we start making them political pawns?” Christie said. 🙂

Not on the Left. 🙂 Never let a Crisis Go to Waste!!

Now for the greatest circular argument of the week award that goes to David Axelrod, the architect of “Hope and Change” in 2008 : Now that Romney and his allies have hit back with ads correcting the record and pointing out the death of ‘hope and change,” Axelrod is blaming them for the public perception that Obama’s gone mega negative.  Talk about a circular argument.  It’s also an ironic one.  Think about it: When asked why his campaign is so negative, Axelrod blames the other side.  Argument confirmed.(townhall)

So you’re negative campaigning against us is you’re fault! So the Obama campaign wants to fight their nuke-em-at-all costs strategy by being “nice”.

Barf Bag bag overload!

“I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message because I believe we’re all in this together,” he says.

Tobe Berkovitz, a professor of communications at Boston University who specializes in political communication, suggested the approach is a response to the frustration the Obama campaign thinks voters are feeling with the negative campaign. 

“After pummeling Romney like a tin drum for the last two months, now they’re trying to change the focus, talking directly to voters in an effort to appeal to swing voters,” Berkovitz said.

The ads, Berkovitz surmised, were just a “temporary detour down Mr. Niceness-world.”(The Hill)

But like the nature of the Left, the surrogates will be out there doing their nuke-em all to hell and saying very silly things that will be “mischaracterized” as always.

Allahpundit: Am I right in thinking that O never felt obliged to do a spot like this, clarifying his own comments, back in 2008? He gave his speech on race to try to defuse the Rev. Wright uproar, but he never did an ad directly answering an attack that I can recall, not even after his immortal “bitter-clinger” comments at that lefty fundraiser. Typically the playbook when a pol says something damaging is to let it lie and not extend its media shelf life with a new commercial that dredges it up again in the course of rebutting it. He must be awfully nervous about how “you didn’t build that” is playing with that middle class he claims to care so much about if he feels obliged to do this…O says here that his point in the original “you didn’t build that” comments was that America needs to “stand behind” its small business owners. Is that right? Go re-read what he said in Roanoke. Sure sounded at the time like he was telling them that they owe us, not that we owe them.

But if you quote a Liberal’s words back to them it just pisses them off.

We need more of that. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

 

Tragedy Strikes


Jessica Ghawi (Redfield)

I was reminded that we don’t know when or where our time on Earth will
end. When or where we will breathe our last breath. … I say all the
time that every moment we have to live our life is a blessing. So
often I have found myself taking it for granted.– Jessica Ghwai (aka Jessica Redfield) who blogged after missing a shooting in Toronto by minutes but was killed early Friday by the Aurora Killer at the Movie Theater.

And we really don’t know when the second will come. That split second that means you are here and now you’re not.

So we do need to appreciate what we have for as long as we have it.

http://michellemalkin.com/2012/07/21/commemorating-the-victims-not-the-aurora-movie-theater-shooter/

BUT… Not on the Liberal Left. And for the record I don’t bring this up to politicize it. I bring it up so we can properly understand that many on the Left have no feelings about this other than false sympathy and political opportunism. And that’s sickening. And it needs to change. And the only way it changes is to shine a bright light on it so the snakes crawl back under there rocks never to be seen again. Now that is “Hope and Change” I would want to believe in.

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”- Rahm Emmanuel, former Chief od Staff for President Obama and now Mayor of Chicago.

And unfortunately, in recent times like this Liberals go all “unity” and “civility” on us, but they don’t really mean it ultimately. They are too political about everything and anything for it to be honest for very long.

There are already those on the Left talking about how to use this tragedy to promote their Gun Control agenda. And that’s sickening. But True.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, there isn’t anything wrong with showing sympathy, but there has to be more. “You have to question how genuine that sympathy is if it’s not accompanied by talk about solutions to the problem.”

But, Gross said, the “now is not the time” argument would only be genuine “if history showed that there ever is a time to discuss the role of gun policy in preventing these tragedies.”

I question their capacity if if not even 24 hrs later you are jumping on the political bandwagon.

Mayor Bloomberg of New York went on local radio just hours afterwards and was politicizing it. The man with the Soda and Salt bans.

What about the illegal guns sold to known Mexican Drug Cartel Gang members that have killed people?

Nothing.

Where is there outrage there? It’s a bit selective.

And the Left is all about “unity” and “civility” and “common sense” right now. But give them a very short time and they’ll be back to policies of hate, division, envy et al.

They talk one thing and do another.

And this really is the time to pull to together. But it won’t last.

One ABC report yesterday was already blaming The Tea Party. And another report (not ABC) blames Occupy Wall Street.

So it has already started.

On ABC’s Good Morning America, anchor George Stephanolpoulos took a “report” from ABC’s Chief Investigator Brian Ross who was supposedly investigating the crime. Here is what Ross said,

There’s a Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado, page on the Colorado Tea party site as well, talking about him joining the Tea Party last year. Now, we don’t know if this is the same Jim Holmes. But it’s Jim Holmes of Aurora, Colorado.

First of all the name James Holmes is not a very exotic name. Many, many James Holmes live in the Aurora area. A quick search of the White Pages online finds at least five James Holmeses in Aurora and at least a half dozen in Denver and over thirty in the state.

Yet, Brian Ross immediately stampedes to a Colorado Tea Party webpage in hopes of finding the name James Holmes, then, finding one, he runs to the camera to blame the Tea party without taking even a second to ascertain if the James Holmes on the Tea Party website is, or even could be the Colorado theater murderer.

You go out, you lie about your enemies allowing the narrative to take hold in order to hurt your political opposites, then, when it inevitably turns out that your supposition is wrong, you put a “correction” somewhere in the back of a newspaper where no one will ever see it. Your lies are now out there and believed by many apparently to spite the truth. That is how Democrats and the left work.

A Tragedy is just another opportunity that shouldn’t be wasted. And the days when “journalist” checked their facts before blurting them out are long gone.

The Aurora Shooting: Sometimes There’s Nothing Wrong with Politicizing a Tragedy By Michael Grunwald (TIME)

(ARTICLE NOT INCLUDED)
As it happens, the James Holmes of the Colorado Tea Party site is a man in his fifties and the police released information that their suspect is a 24-year-old.
Using his airtime for a political attack when so many families were grieving the loss of their loved ones in this monstrous crime is not merely unseemly, it is a hateful act that should end his career.But Brian Ross will not find his career ended with this hateful lie. In fact, all his little journalist pals will slap him on the back and congratulate him for pushing the lie that the Tea Party supports mass murder.
They did it after Jared Loughner in Tucson, and that was false too.

So then came the corporate face-saving “apology” that has all the heart of dead neutron star.

An earlier ABC News broadcast report suggested that a Jim Holmes of a Colorado Tea Party organization might be the suspect, but that report was incorrect. ABC News and Brian Ross apologize for the mistake, and for disseminating that information before it was properly vetted.

But they did it in Tucson. The very same thing. They learned nothing. Taking the cheap shot and trying to score ideological points in a tragedy is more important to the Left.

Also, The Time Square bomber: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wondered if the attempted bomber was “a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something.”

It turned out to be radicalized Pakistani-American. But did you hear anything from the media about that, really. Barely. There was much more hope for an ideologically satisfying end.

A writer at the liberal Nation magazine wrote that “it seems far more likely to me that the perpetrator of the bungled Times Square bomb plot was either a lone nut job or a member of some squirrely branch of the Tea Party, anti-government far right.” (DC)

During the Health Care debate reports of “violence” at Tea Party rallies were rampant in the Liberal media. They were totally false, and proven so. But did that stop the Liberal Media from repeating it over and over again. They live in hope.

“What kind of idiot makes that kind of statement?” <52 yr old Tea Party Member Jim>Holmes told TheDC. “Really, seriously, how do we take a journalist seriously when it’s pretty clear they really haven’t done any sort of check on their facts?”

They are liberals. They don’t need facts to always be right in their own heads. And besides they live in hope. Give them enough time and everyone will agree they are always right. 🙂

Then there’s Opportunity.

In an early afternoon posting to its SignOn.org website, a site where like-minded activists can join MoveOn’s campaigns and sign Internet petitions, MoveOn urged supporters to “stand with the Aurora, Colorado shooting victims and their families.”

The site features a petition that MoveOn activists can sign. Names and emails are required which in turn go into the MoveOn database so that fundraising emails can then be sent to the mourners of the Colorado victims.

Once again, MoveOn sees a crime as a way to raise money for its activism. Pretty cold blooded, really. (Chicago Now)

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste.

The definition of a “nano-second,” says Mark Steyn subbing for Rush Limbaugh, “is the time between a mass shooting and some guy from the left blaming it on talk radio, or Sarah Palin, or Fox News.”

Or the Tea Party.

The problem is, ABC never had plans to vet the name, they were looking for the Tea Party “connection” since the words “massive shooting” came across the news wires. ABC didn’t bother to call the Colorado Tea Party Patriots, verify the man’s name, call James Holmes or engage in any other form of verification. Like squeezing toothpaste out of a tube, the entire goal was to plant a “the Tea Party is violent” seed back in the minds of viewers.

Tell a lie often enough and it become the truth.

And so how long before we get groped by the TSA at the Mutiplex?

And if accounts of the gunman’s activities are correct (and I stress IF)

He went out an emergency exit, it was held open so he could come back in 30 minutes later.

Why didn’t the alarms go off, it is an “emergency” exit is it not? And why did no one know  about this door being open??

That’s my question.

The question “Why did he do it?” is unknowable now and maybe unknowable forever. But there are plenty of other questions.

Many of them are about exploiting a deranged loonie’s act of sociopathic violence for your political agenda.

The Left will be silent about those questions and the “honest” debate will not appear because Liberals can’t be honest about anything.

 NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

 Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Cartoons by Dana Summers

No They Can’t! And More

http://www.scribd.com/doc/85637905/No-They-Can-t-by-John-Stossel

Politicians say “Yes, we can!” and claim they solve our problems.

When the mortgage market crashed, the President said their new law, Dodd-Frank, would create a “new financial system” so such things would never happen again.

After 9/11, Senator Tom Daschle declared “you can’t professionalize if you don’t federalize!” The Senate voted 100-0 to create the TSA to run airport security.

Politicians’ promises are endless. They say they’ll: create jobs, “make college affordable for all,” protect the disabled, give disadvantaged kids a head start, and invest in “cutting edge innovation.”

But they can’t achieve what they promise.

•Billionaire Mark Cuban and other job-creators explain why government’s rules now prevent the job creation that was once America’s hallmark.

•Dodd-Frank, instead of stopping fraud, added layers to already incomprehensible banking laws. Stossel shows how simple rules in the Cayman Islands not only stop fraud, but they also create prosperity.

•While the TSA creates long lines, misses actual terrorists, and angers passengers, screeners working for a private company at one big airport work faster, more cheerfully, and find more contraband. We show how the private company does it.

Namely, San Francisco’s Airport (the mecca of Liberalism) has Private Security and it works vastly better than the TSA.

I know the most scrutiny I got from my last Trip to Wales was actually from my stop over in Amsterdam.

Did you know that the U of Missouri is proud to have a “leisure resort” on campus? Naomi Riley, author of The Faculty Lounges: And Other Reasons Why You Won’t Get the College Education You Pay For, explains how government aid led to massive tuition hikes.

•Since the Americans with Disabilities Act took effect, fewer disabled people have been able to work.

•Lisa Snell from the Reason Foundation explains how the government’s own research found that Head Start did not help poor kids. Government’s response? Spend even more.

Government grows, despite its repeated failure.

Politicians are wrong when they say “Yes, we can”, but the fact that government can’t doesn’t mean that we can’t. Free people accomplish wonderful things. While government wastes billions on boondoggles like Solyndra, X-prize founder Peter Diamandis explains how private investors have created cars that get 100mpg, space ships, and much faster ways to clean up oil spills, all without charging taxpayers a penny.

Without big government, life can be great.

AN EXAMPLE

Everyone loves the Head Start program. Politicians across the ideological spectrum-from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to President George W. Bush-have praised the program and called it a success.

They should read the government’s own research.

The ‘Head Start Impact Study‘ was a report conducted by the federal government. It followed and compared underprivileged kids who went to Head Start, and underprivileged kids who didn’t. The study found no difference between the two groups.

Zero.

The kids who went to Head Start did better while they were in Head Start, but one year later the benefits were all gone. Not by 5th grade. Not by 3rd grade. By 1st grade, the benefits were “largely absent”.

Since President Obama has pledged over and over to “eliminate programs that don’t work”, it seems like Head Start would be a natural to get cut.

Nope.

That’s not how big government works. Even after the report came out, the Obama administration has continued to massively increase spending on Head Start by more than a billion dollars.

In my Fox News special “No They Can’t”, I talk to Congressman Keith Ellison, co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, who in spite of the evidence insists Head Start works. When I confront him on the data, he falls back on a familiar argument: we need to spend more.

Give me a break. We’ve spent 180 billion dollars already, with nothing to show for it.

The government just can’t do it.

EXAMPLE 2

That’s how much you’ll need to buy the Energy Department’s prize-winning light bulb. (You know because Thomas Edison’s Incandescent Light Bulb was deemed politically correct by the Whacko Environmentalist Left).

Last year the government announced a $10 million prize “designed to spur lighting manufacturers to develop high-quality, high-efficiency solid-state lighting products to replace the common light bulb.” The winner? A light bulb that costs $50 each.

Only in the government would they think it was “progress” worth celebrating to replace something you can buy on Amazon.com for a little more than $1 with something that costs $50.

“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,”Home Depot worker Brad Paulsen told the Washington Post. (Fox Business)

EXAMPLE 3 FOOD POLICE:

Public health: The toxic truth about sugar

This was headline in a Nature Magazine article that basically said sugar was bad a tobacco and alcohol and need to be sold behind the counter . Anti-obesity Meme Roth says yes, to protect the interests of kids.

Ah, it’s “for the children” so you can’t possibly object now can you?

Coke is the New Cocaine. Wait, in the 19th Century it was made with cocaine…)

🙂

And It’s Government to the Rescue!!!

WANT MORE

Kids who open lemonade stands are now shutdown by police. I tried to open a lemonade stand legally in NYC. That was quite an adventure. It takes 65 days to get permission from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

With government adding 80,000 pages of rules and regulations every year, it’s no surprise that regular people break laws without even trying.

A family in Idaho can’t build a home on their land because the EPA says it’s a wetland-but it only resembles a wetland because a government drain malfunctioned and flooded it.

Ever hear of a real wetland in Idaho??

Want to start a taxi business? Too bad – it’s illegal. Illegal, that is, unless you buy a government-issued “taxi medallion” that can cost as much as a million dollars. One city has a free market for cabs – Washington, DC – but lobbyists there are pushing to regulate.
Sen. Dick Durbin reacts to the tornadoes in Dallas, Texas earlier this week. Durbin calls for more laws regulating carbon output while he sends a dire warning that we must convert to hybrid cars or lose our life. Durbin says we must spend money now to fix the problem.

“It’s your money or your life,” he said a press conference. “We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we’re going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it.” (RCP)

NEVER LET A TRAGEDY GO BY WITHOUT PUSHING THE GLOBAL WARMING AGENDA!
Now that’s “compassion” at it’s finest.
But some good news: A San Francisco judge has dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit that sought to stop McDonald’s Corp. from using toys to market its meals to children in the Golden State. The suit had been filed in late 2010 by Monet Parham, a California mother of two, and The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.
After all, McDonald’s was and is just a Capitalist Predator out to ensnare your children in crack-addicted life of junk food and obesity!!!
<<Maniacal Laugh>>
And Finally, the ever reliable whacko, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz:
“You know, what Mitt Romney and the Republicans have been doing to themselves every single day is showing women in this country day after day that they are callously indifferent to women’s health, to the priorities of women,” DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz told MSNBC on Thursday night. Really as evidenced by their obsession with cultural issues, their obsession with making sure that women can’t have affordable access to birth control, the dismissive way that the Chairman of the Republican National Committee today chalked up women being concerned about making sure that we could have affordable access to preventive screenings like mammograms as fictional as a war on caterpillars. You know, if they’re still wondering why there’s an 18-point gender gap and President Obama is ahead of Mitt Romney by that many points, then they really — they really must believe these things that they’re saying.

“Shocking,” Wasserman Schultz added.

Wasserman Schultz also says Mitt Romney is trying to “out-right-wing” his fellow Republicans. Here’s what she had to say at

“I think Mitt Romney has been so focused on trying to out-right-wing and embrace extremism that he is really beholden and has tied himself to his support for personhood amendments, his belief that Roe versus Wade was one of the worst decisions handed down by the Supreme Court, his support for the Blunt-Rubio amendment which says that bosses get to decide for their female employees what kind of access to health care they can have. And so every day there’s another example of how out of touch the Republicans are,” Wasserman Schultz said later in the interview conducted by MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell.  (Who also ripped Romney for being…<dramatic shock sting> A MORMON! Lord have Mercy we can’t elect a nutcase from a fringe religion now would you!!!) Except an Alinsky cultist called Barack Hussein Obama that is.

“Mitt Romney wants to be President of the United States, yet he fails to recognize what’s important to women. We just want to make sure that the guy in the White House is focused on creating jobs, getting the economy turned around, and making sure that as members of the middle class and working families that we have an opportunity to be successful to not just focusing on people who already are,” she said.

So when is Obama going to do that? He’s been there since 2009… 🙂
“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we’ve been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.” –President Ronald Reagan.
And God know these Liberals Never Let A Crisis Go to Waste! 🙂
Political Cartoons by Brian Farrington

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Relations

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Race Hussling Capitalism?

President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign announced and subsequently canceled a sale of collegiate hooded sweatshirts after eliciting the ire of many conservatives, including radio commentator Rush Limbaugh, reports Yahoo News.

On Tuesday, Limbaugh said he believes the 2012 re-election campaign was looking to exploit the death of shooting victim Trayvon Martin.

“The Barack Obama reelection effort is exploiting the death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida, in order to secure votes from African-Americans,” Limbaugh said on his talk-radio show.

“That’s just tasteless.”

The Obama campaign announced via Twitter on Monday that the sweatshirts would be discounted to $40 from its regular $50 listing. As of Tuesday evening, the sale had been cancelled.

Gee, I thought Socialists hated Capitalist exploitation… 🙂

And now for more “creepy”:

Peggy Noonan: Something’s happening to President Obama’s relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, “Nothing new there,” but actually I think there is. I’m referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.

It’s not due to the election, and it’s not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn’t happening.

What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who’s not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it’s his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it’s a big fault.

The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide birth-control services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? “You’re kidding me. That’s not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it’s not even constitutional!” Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church’s religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.

Divide and Conquer! Tell a Lie often enough and want it to be considered the Truth.

What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who’d been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.

Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for “space” and said he will have “more flexibility” in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he’d been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.

Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president’s response were, “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon.” At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: “Hey buddy, we don’t need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it’s not about you.”

But everything is about him. It’s all about Him. The greatness of Him. (at least to Him).

Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn’t notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?

He didn’t care. Liberals didn’t care. They just wanted it passed by hook or by crook regardless. By any means necessary, the end justifies the means.

Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history’s time. He wasted time that was precious—the debt clock is still ticking!—by following an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole.

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste! 🙂

The high court’s hearings gave off an overall air not of political misfeasance but malfeasance.

Like they care. Like he cares. The End justifies the means.

All these things have hardened lines of opposition, and left opponents with an aversion that will not go away.

I am not saying that the president has a terrible relationship with the American people. I’m only saying he’s made his relationship with those who oppose him worse.

Like he cares….As long as the base, the stupid, the gullible, the dead, the fraudulent and the Illegal vote for him he figures he can win so screw everyone else!

And if he does when with them, he’ll be “more flexible” to want to unless the Full Obama on you, Comrade.

In terms of the broad electorate, I’m not sure he really has a relationship. A president only gets a year or two to forge real bonds with the American people. In that time a crucial thing he must establish is that what is on his mind is what is on their mind. This is especially true during a crisis.

Never Let a Crisis go to Waste. And if you have to invent on, so much the better.

From the day Mr. Obama was sworn in, what was on the mind of the American people was financial calamity—unemployment, declining home values, foreclosures. These issues came within a context of some overarching questions: Can America survive its spending, its taxing, its regulating, is America over, can we turn it around?

That’s what the American people were thinking about.

He wasn’t. He was thinking about Socialism with it’s centerpiece, Government controlled Single Payer Health Care. The Government (his government) gets to decided who lives and who dies. What more could you ask for?

Keynesian Economics! This time it’ll work! 🙂

But the new president wasn’t thinking about that. All the books written about the creation of economic policy within his administration make clear the president and his aides didn’t know it was so bad, didn’t understand the depth of the crisis, didn’t have a sense of how long it would last. They didn’t have their mind on what the American people had their mind on.

They The Disunited Socialist States of The America on their minds. And Never waste a Crisis…

The president had his mind on health care. And, to be fair-minded, health care was part of the economic story. But only a part! And not the most urgent part. Not the most frightening, distressing, immediate part. Not the “Is America over?” part.

I had to be “over” for Obama to succeed. The American Dream was a socialist’s nightmare. You can’t do anything without the Government’s blessing, encouragement or help! How dare you!

And so the relationship the president wanted never really knitted together. Health care was like the birth-control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America. They know Chicago, the machine, the ethnic realities. They know Democratic Party politics. They know the books they’ve read, largely written by people like them—bright, credentialed, intellectually cloistered. But there always seems a lack of lived experience among them, which is why they were so surprised by the town hall uprisings of August 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections.

If you jumped into a time machine to the day after the election, in November, 2012, and saw a headline saying “Obama Loses,” do you imagine that would be followed by widespread sadness, pain and a rending of garments? You do not. Even his own supporters will not be that sad. It’s hard to imagine people running around in 2014 saying, “If only Obama were president!” Including Mr. Obama, who is said by all who know him to be deeply competitive, but who doesn’t seem to like his job that much. As a former president he’d be quiet, detached, aloof. He’d make speeches and write a memoir laced with a certain high-toned bitterness. It was the Republicans’ fault. They didn’t want to work with him.

I’d like to see that book. Very soon! 🙂

He will likely not see even then that an American president has to make the other side work with him. You think Tip O’Neill liked Ronald Reagan? You think he wanted to give him the gift of compromise? He was a mean, tough partisan who went to work every day to defeat Ronald Reagan. But forced by facts and numbers to deal, he dealt. So did Reagan.

An American president has to make cooperation happen.

But this President is incapable of making anyone who isn’t already a “yes” man do anything that he wants them to do for any other perceptive that pure force.

He is a poor Emperor Palpatine.

But we’ve strayed from the point. Mr. Obama has a largely nonexistent relationship with many, and a worsening relationship with some.

Really, he cannot win the coming election. But the Republicans, still, can lose it. At this point in the column we usually sigh.

I agree. The Republicans are desperate to lose.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/30/mark-steyn-observes-a-very-unattractive-descent-into-tribalism-with-trayvon-martin-case/

OBAMACARE: ANOTHER $17 TRILLION 🙂

Senate Republican staffers continue to look though the 2010 health care reform law to see what’s in it, and their latest discovery is a massive $17 trillion funding gap.

“The more we learn about the bill, the more we learn it is even more unaffordable than was suspected,” said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Republicans’ budget chief in the Senate.

“The bill has to be removed from the books because we don’t have the money,” he said.

The hidden shortfall between new spending and new taxes was revealed just after Supreme Court justices grilled the law’s supporters about its compliance with the Constitution’s limits on government activity. If the court doesn’t strike down the law, it will force taxpayers to find another $17 trillion to pay for the increased spending.

The $17 trillion in extra promises was revealed by an analysis of the law’s long-term requirements. The additional obligations, when combined with existing Medicare and Medicaid funding shortfalls, leave taxpayers on the hook for an extra $82 trillion in health care obligations over the next 75 years.

The federal government has an additional $17 trillion unfunded gap in other obligations, including Social Security, bringing the total shortfall to $99 trillion.

That shortfall is different from existing debt. The federal government already owes $15 trillion in debt, including $5 trillion in funds borrowed during Obama’s term in office so far.

That $99 trillion in unfunded future expenses is more more than five years of wealth generated by the United States, which now produces just over $15 trillion of value per year.

The $99 trillion funding gap is equal to almost 30 years of the the current federal budget, which was $3.36 trillion for 2011.

Currently, the Social Security system is $7 trillion in debt over the next 75 years, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Also, Medicare will eat up $38 trillion in future taxes, and Medicaid will consume another $2o trillion of the taxpayer’s wealth, according to estimates prepared by the actuarial office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The short-term cost of the Obamacare law is $2.6 trillion, almost triple the $900 billion cost promised by Obama and his Democratic allies, said Sessions.

The extra $17 trillion gap was discovered by applying standard federal estimates and models to the law’s spending obligations, Sessions said.

For example, Session’s examination of the health care law’s “premium support” program shows a funding gap $12 billion wider that predicted.

The same review also showed the law added another $5 trillion in unfunded obligations for the Medicaid program.

“President Obama told the American people that his health law would cost $900 billion over ten years and that it would not add ‘one dime’ to the debt… this health law adds an entirely new obligation—one we cannot pay for—and puts the entire financing of the United States government in jeopardy,” Sessions said in a floor speech.

“We don’t have the money… We have to reduce the [obligations] that we have.” (DC)

But it “feels” good. You don’t want to “mean”, “heartless”, “racist” and discriminate against the poor now do you? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Truth to Tell

Super-Uber-Liberal (who I have never EVER agreed with on anything she has ever said EVER!) Kirsten Powers writes about the liberal men who have used misogynistic rhetoric without facing the same outrage. Powers notes that “the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC.” 

But don’t worry, the Truth is a merely insignificant distraction to The Agenda of The Left. It’s not like they’ll actually clean up their own house. After all, calling Sarah Palin a dumb Twat and a cunt and many other gross and hateful things is merely “the Truth” in another form to the Left. 🙂

Doublethink: the capacity to believe to completely contradictory things at the same time and believe both are true!

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right…

But good luck getting anyone in the Liberal Media to REALLY push this or get them to act on it.

They can point out their own hypocrisy, it’s a curiosity, but could they ever actually take reform of it for the long term?

NO.

So Ms Powers can speak the actual truth and No one on Left will care.

Because, they won’t change.

It’s just another Leftist telling the truth, but it won’t change anything.

Much like Stephen Chu’s “European” Gas Prices comment. Or Obama comments about wanting to raising gas prices to get people to do what he wants.

Or Raul Emmanuel’s “Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste” it is the truth, but exposing the truth in politics doesn’t necessarily mean anything and especially on the Left it means absolutely NOTHING.

All of Obama’s 2008 pronouncements about his socialist agenda, ignored by the media.

They can tell the real truth and then continue do exactly the same things that they have been doing.

Doublethink is endemic on the Left.

They will just say it and then just move on. They don’t have the capacity for change of behavior. Why would they want to do that? 🙂

The Contraceptive Flap: A FLUKE? Sandra Fluke… 🙂

Although Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee last month that contraception can cost a law student $3,000 over three years and that some of her fellow students could not afford it, a Target store only 3 miles from the law school currently sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for only $9 to people who do not have insurance plans covering contraceptives.

That would make the total cost for birth control pills for a student who decided to use them for all three years of law school just $324.

Also CNS did a report that they could be found within 3 blocks of the Law center for FREE!

So why is the Left so worked up? Because the truth doesn’t matter, what really matters is that they can use her “testimony” and the Limbaugh comments to bash the right’s head in and distract people from the actual truth of the economy and what the Left is REALLY doing.

Distraction is  the Left favorite tactic even for the people on the Left. That’s how you can say the truth and no one on the Left even notices and the people on the Right get all hot, the Left poo-poo’s it as “partisan” and just keeps moving to the Left.

http://www.kfyi.com/pages/jimsharpe.html

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-price-months-supply-birth-control-pills-target-3-miles-georgetown-law

And with that in mind:  The Ghost of Andrew Breitbart Strikes

The Vetting, Part I: Barack’s Love Song To Alinsky

Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects–but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us.

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?” Andrew saw himself in that role—as a guardian protecting Americans from the left’s “objective” loyal scribes.

Andrew wanted to do what the mainstream media would not. First and foremost: Andrew pledged to vet President Barack H. Obama.

Andrew did not want to re-litigate the 2008 election. Nor did he want to let Republicans off the hook. Instead, he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party.

From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president–and his rivals.

We begin with a column Andrew wrote last week in preparation for today’s Big relaunch–a story that should swing the first hammer against the glass wall the mainstream media has built around Barack Obama.
In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama claims that he worried after 9/11 that his name, so similar to that of Osama bin Laden, might harm his political career.

But Obama was not always so worried about misspellings and radical resemblances. He may even have cultivated them as he cast himself as Chicago’s radical champion.

In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago’s South Side.

Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play. 

Recently, veteran Chicago journalist Michael Miner mocked emerging conservative curiosity about the play, along with enduring suspicions about the links between Alinsky and Obama. Writing in the Chicago Reader, Miner described the poster:

Let’s look at the Poster:

It’s red—and that right there, like the darkening water that swirls down Janet Leigh’s drain [in Psycho’s famous shower scene], is plenty suggestive. It touts a play called The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, Alinsky being the notorious community organizer from Chicago who wrote books with titles like Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. On it, fists are raised—meaning insurrection is in the air.

And down at the very bottom, crawling across the poster in small print, it mentions the panel discussions that will follow the Sunday performances. The panelists are that era’s usual “progressive” suspects: Leon Despres, Monsignor Jack Egan, Studs Terkel . . .

And State Senator Barack Obama.

But like his 20 years in the pews of Rev. Jeremiah Wright he was there but he wasn’t listening and never hear a word of it. 🙂

He learned all his Christian values in those pews but he never heard any of the Leftist/Alinsky Liberation Theology for those 20 years! 🙂

And here’s the press release:

Press Release
So, what’s in the play? It truly is a love song to Alinsky. In the first few minutes of the play, Alinsky plays Moses – yes, the Biblical Moses – talking to God. The play glorifies Alinsky stealing food from restaurants and organizing others to do the same, explaining, “I saw it as a practical use of social ecology: you had members of the intellectual community, the hope of the future, eating regularly for six months, staying alive till they could make their contributions to society.”

In an introspective moment, Alinsky rips America: “My country … ‘tis of whatthehell / And justice up a tree … How much can you sell / What’s in it for me.” He grins about manipulating the Christian community to back his programs. He talks in glowing terms about engaging in Chicago politics with former Mayor Kelly. He rips the McCarthy committee, mocking, “Everyone was there, when you think back – Cotton Mather, Hester Prynn, Anne Hutchinson, Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson … Brandeis, Holmes … Gene Debs and the socialists … Huey Long … Imperial Wizards of all stripes … Father Coughlin and his money machine … Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd … and a kicking chorus of sterilized reactionaries singing O Come, All Ye Faithful …”

And Alinsky talks about being the first occupier – shutting down the O’Hare Airport by occupying all the toilet stalls, using chewing gum to “tie up the city, stop all traffic, and the shopping, in the Loop, and let everyone at City Hall know attention must be paid, and maybe we should talk about it.” As Alinsky says, “Students of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your juicy fruit.”

The play finishes with Alinsky announcing he’d rather go to Hell than Heaven. Why? “More comfortable there. You see, all my life I’ve been with the Have-Nots: here you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of money, there you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of virtue. I’d be asking more questions, organizing them. They’re my kind of people – Hell would be Heaven for me.”

That’s The Love Song of Saul Alinsky. It’s radical leftist stuff, and it revels in its radical leftism.

And that’s Barack Obama, our president, on the poster.

This is who Barack Obama was. This was before Barack Obama ran for Congress in 2000—challenging former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush from the left in a daring but unsuccessful bid.

This was also the period just before Barack Obama served with Bill Ayers, from 1999 through 2002 on the board of the Woods Foundation. They gave capital to support the Midwest Academy, a leftist training institute steeped in the doctrines of — you guessed it! — Saul Alinsky, and whose alumni now dominate the Obama administration and its top political allies inside and out of Congress.
Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, described the Midwest Academy as a “crypto-socialist organization.” Yet almost no one has heard of Midwest Academy, because the media does not want you to know that the president is a radical’s radical whose presidency itself is a love song to a socialist “community organizer.”
The reason Newt Gingrich surged in the Republican primary contest in January is that he was attempting to do the press’s job by finding out who the current occupant of the White House actually is. Millions also want to know, but the mainstream media is clearly not planning to vet the President anytime soon. Quite the opposite.

For example, Miner tries to turn Obama’s appearance on the Alinsky panel into a plus for the president:

Obama was on the panel that talked about Alinsky the last Sunday of the play’s run at the Blue Rider Theatre in Pilsen. Neither Pam Dickler, who directed the Terrapin Theatre production, nor Gary Houston, who played Alinsky, can remember a word Obama said. But he impressed them. “You never would have known he was a politician,” says Dickler. “He never said anything at all about himself. He came alone, watched the play, and during the panel discussion was entirely on point and brilliant. That evening I called my father, who’s a political junkie, and told him to watch out for this man, he’s going places.” Houston was just as taken by Obama—though he remembers him arriving in a group.

But is it a good thing to impress the sort of people who show up to laud The Love Song of Saul Alinsky? Here are the other members of the Obama panel:

Leon Despres: Despres knew Saul Alinsky for nearly 50 years, and together they established the modern concept of “community organizing.” Despres worked with secret Communist and Soviet spy Lee Pressman to support strikers at Republic Steel in Chicago in 1937; the strike ended in tragedy when 14 rioting strikers were killed and many wounded in a hail of police bullets.  Despres worked with another Communist Party front, the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, but eventually left because of the “Stalinism” of its leaders. 

Also in 1937, Despres and his wife delivered a suitcase of “clothing” to Leon Trotsky, then hiding out from Stalin’s assassins in Mexico City. Despres and his wife not only met with the exiled Russian Communist, but Despres’s wife sat for a portrait with Trotsky pal and Marxist muralist Diego Rivera while Leon took Rivera’s wife Frida Kahlo to the movies.

Quentin Young: From 1970 until at least 1992, Quentin Young was active in the Communist Party front organization, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights – a group dedicated to outlawing government surveillance of radical organizations.  He was also a member of the Young Communist League. Young, a confidante and physician to Barack Obama, is credited with having heavily influenced the President’s views on healthcare policy.

Timuel Black: An icon of the Chicago left, Black was originally denied officer training because military intelligence claimed he had secretly joined the Communist Party. Black also worked closely with the Socialist Party in the 1950s, becoming president of the local chapter of the Negro American Labor Council, a organization founded by Socialist Party leader A. Phillip Randolph.

In the early ‘60s Black was a leader of the Hyde Park Community Peace Center, where he worked alongside former radical Trotskyist Sydney Lens and the aforementioned Communist Dr. Quentin Young.  Black served as a contributing editor to the Hyde Park/Kenwood Voices, a newspaper run by Communist Party member David S. Canter. By 1970, Timuel Black was serving on the advisory council of the Communist Party controlled Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights.

Timuel Black says he has been friends with domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, “going back to 1968, since long before I knew Barack.” In April 2002, Black, Dohrn and Democratic Socialists of America member Richard Rorty spoke together on a panel entitled “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?” The panel was the first of two in a public gathering jointly sponsored by The Center for Public Intellectuals and the University of Illinois, Chicago. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama spoke together on in the second panel at that gathering. Communist academic Harold Rogers chaired Timuel Black’s unsuccessful campaign for Illinois State Representative.

Studs Terkel: A sponsor of the Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace in 1949, which was arranged by a Communist Party USA front organization known as the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions.

Roberta Lynch: A leading member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and a leader of the radical Marxist New American Movement (NAM).

Are we expected to believe that “Baraka Obama” was a countervailing voice of reason on a panel of radicals?
 
The reason that Obama’s Alinskyite past, and his many appearances in political photography and video from the 1990s, are conspicuously missing from the national dialogue is that State Senator Barack Obama’s reinvention as a reasonable and moderate Democratic politician could not withstand scrutiny of his political life.  

Because the mainstream media did not explore his roots, the American public remains largely ignorant of the degree to which Obama’s work with ACORN and his love of Alinsky were symbolic of his true political will.

If any of the candidates can resist the media, and parlay Newt’s strategy into a nomination, we’ll have the choice between an imperfect but well-known Republican and the real “Baraka” Obama, not the manufactured one the media. prefers.

But don’t expect anyone on the Left or The Mainstream Media (Ministry of Truth) to notice and even if they do, it’s just the work of extremist partisan Republicans so it is to be dismissed like the social significance of Snookie.

But HERE’s what’s really, really important: Republicans HATE WOMEN!  🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Surprises

Gee, This is a Surprise!  NOT!

The politically aggressive Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has quietly created a national network of at least eight community-organizing groups, some of which function alongside the Occupy Wall Street movement, a Daily Caller investigation shows.

Incorporated by the SEIU as local non-profits, the groups are waging concerted local political campaigns to publicly attack conservative political figures, banks, energy companies and other corporations.

Each local group has portrayed itself as an independent community organization not tied to any special interest. But they were founded, incorporated, and led by SEIU personnel.

The individual activist groups use benign-sounding names including This Is Our DC; Good Jobs, Great Houston; Good Jobs, Better Baltimore; Good Jobs Now in Detroit; Fight for Philly; One Pittsburgh; Good Jobs LA; and Minnesotans for a Fair Economy.

In reality, they are creations of the wealthy and influential labor union, amounting to a secret network of new SEIU front groups.

Union Liberals behind the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Gee, I’m shocked! 🙂

If you think the Occupy Movement is just a bunch of smelly hippies playing drums in the park, you’re wrong. The Occupy Movement is an organized group of union leaders, academics and anarchists with one common goal: to destroy capitalism. Don’t believe it?

http://www.breitbart.com/breitbart-tv/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/03/05/occupy_seui_and_academics_working_together_to_destroy_capitalism

GAS PRICES

Now DNC Chair Wasserman-Schultz- Under Bush: She blamed Bush and his cronies in the Oil Industry for the high gas prices (going to $3.22 a gallon by the way).

May 2007: “We are now paying more than double than when President Bush took office”

Now comes the Weasel 4 days ago:“What I was referring to in that speech, as I have for many years, is that focusing on fossil fuels and continuing the ‘drill baby drill’ strategy that President Obama rightly referred to the other day in south Florida as ‘a bumper sticker, not an energy policy,’

Ohhh! Am I surprised with the about face- no!

“We are not going to address gas prices over the long-term because there is — there is no President in the short-term that can really change policy and impact gas prices in a significant way. But what we do need to do is over the short-term and long-term make sure that we are using the ‘all of the above’ strategy that President Obama has employed: more domestic energy production than we’ve had in eight years (Thanks to Bush as she says, it takes time so Obama benefits from THAT time), making sure that we invest for the future in alternative energy like wind and solar and hydroelectric power, so that we can really start to impact our need to depend on…” (Go Algaeman! Solyndra Abroad Solar, etc)

“But A lot of Americans are wondering what’s going to happen now and a lot of those things take time,” Carlson shot back.

“Affecting gas prices takes time,” Schultz acknowledged. “You’re absolutely right,”

Unless it’s Republican President then that is.

President Obama’s election-year prescription to accelerate steeply higher energy prices is to add billions of dollars to the oil companies’ tax bills. Expensive gasoline fits the Obama political template.

‘Every time you fill up the gas tank, they’re making money.” That applause line, delivered Thursday by the president from Nashua, N.H., speaks volumes about the thinking that lies at the root of this presidency.

Resentment against the successful is what Barack Obama wants to cultivate among Americans, dividing the dependents of the government, who pay no income taxes to fund it, against the nation’s private-sector producers, who finance the state’s dependency machine by paying the vast bulk of the income taxes.

Fed up with prices at your local gas station going up, up and away, past the $4 level toward $5 and even higher? The president says you should take out your frustration by telling Congress to end the perfectly reasonable oil-and-gas industry tax deductions on drilling costs and other technical aspects of production.

House Speaker John Boehner was quick to respond that “a freshman-year economics student could tell you that increasing taxes on energy production would make gas prices go up, not down.” But Obama’s crass appeal to baser instincts has nothing to do with economics — or solving problems — and everything to do with politics.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu let the cat out of the bag years ago. “Somehow,” he said in 2008, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

Why would anyone want the government to try to make oil prices skyrocket? Answer: So they can get the public to stop resisting the radical environmentalist agenda, have people accept their fate that they have to drive cars that are little better than golf carts, and ultimately convince them to keep their driving to a bare minimum. Mass transit anyone? Ever try carpooling? (IBD)

Surprise! Class Warfare…who saw that coming…. 🙂

OBAMACARE

Our friend Matt Lewis of The Daily Caller has an amusing and still quite relevant piece this weekend regarding the Supreme Court’s upcoming review of Obamacare in general and the individual mandate in particular. In it, he describes a meeting he had with Karen Harned of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) who are knee deep in the battle. She turns out to be relatively optimistic about the challenge to the law.

It’s crowded at the Caribou Coffee on 17th and L streets in Washington, but over the din of lobbyists and caffeine fiends, I ask her to sketch out the NFIB’s arguments. “What we’ve seen in all the cases,” she explains — “the one question they cannot answer is: ‘Where does it end?’”

Hers is a slippery slope argument, but that doesn’t mean questioning the government’s ability to regulate economic “inactivity” isn’t legitimate. “You could say, ‘Well it’s good for everybody to exercise — so let’s mandate everybody to join the gym.”

I stir my coffee nervously. As if the thought of being forced to (gulp!) exercise isn’t horrifying enough already, Harned continued: “It’s good for everybody to take vitamins … It’s good for people to eat five fruits and vegetables a day! — Why don’t we make all grocers give those foods away for free — and [require] more people buy broccoli?”

At first, the broccoli reference threw me, but it’s actually pertinent. During a previous trial — when appeals court Justice Laurence Silberman asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Beth Brinkmann if requiring Americans to buy broccoli would be unconstitutional — she answered: “No. It depends.”

This may sound trite at first blush, but in the end it does seem to be the pertinent question which the justices will have to consider. I agree that “slippery slope” argument are frequent, easy targets for critics, and many are little more than straw men. But there are still some cases where they would apply, and this seems to be one of them.

Handing the federal government the power to regulate a lack of economic activity – as opposed to their recognized power to regulate some actual activity for the public good – opens up a door to a hallway which would seem to stretch to infinity. Can the President, in fact, force us to eat our peas as opposed to saying it in a rhetorical fashion?

The government’s argument would seem to be that such a mandate could be construed as being “for the common good” of society, and would save money in the long run. And while that may prove to be true, is it their place to make that determination? This smells suspiciously like the court’s decision in Kelo vs. New London when the phrase “public use” was not very subtly morphed to include “for the public benefit.” And as soon as you let Washington have the final say as to what is in your personal best interest, all bets are off.

Broccoli? I happen to like it.. sometimes. But I don’t want Washington, DC telling me to buy it. Do you? (Hot air)

The other government argument the NFIB intends to eviscerate is the free rider argument — the notion that health care mandates are vital because otherwise people will just “game” the system by refusing to pay for health care coverage while simultaneously using health services.

This, of course, is a conundrum. But the government’s “solution” would also open up a can of constitutional worms.

The government hopes to argue that the health market is unique — that the slope isn’t slippery at all. But cost shifting occurs all the time, everywhere. “We all pay in fees to our credit cards for the people who don’t pay their credit card bills,” Harned says. “We all pay in our mortgage interest for the people who default on their mortgage”…

It all comes back to this: If the government can mandate the purchase of health care insurance, what can’t they mandate?

“They could create a crisis a day if they want to,” Harned warns.

And we all know about “Never Let a Crisis go to Waste ” 🙂

Surprise! 🙂

Pro-ILLEGALS

Lawyers representing Latinos who accuse Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office of racial profiling are asking a federal judge to block Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees from being called to testify by the sheriff’s lawyers at a trial.

Motions filed late Friday in the suit say ICE gave the sheriff’s lawyers permission to depose five ICE employees, but the depositions were never conducted.

Lawyers for the five Latinos who sued say they were therefore unable to counter with their own questions for the ICE workers. They say Arpaio’s lawyers should be barred from calling the employees to the stand.

The plaintiff’s attorneys also wrote that two other ICE agents who did give depositions have no relevant testimony and also should not be called. (AZStarnet)

This is bunk. But the Liberals and Pro-Illegals just want their side and only their side to come out and forget about the other side.
But is it a Surprise? NO!