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