de dos mentiroso enfrentado

Translation: Two Faced Liar. 🙂

The Grand Old Party (Of Establishment Elites) promised amnesty in their Spanish version of the State of the Union response.
And they thought they’d get away with it.

The Grand Old Party promised amnesty in their Spanish version of the State of the Union response.
And they thought they’d get away with it.


And if you think this is a “conspiracy nut” thing or an “extreme” thing. Consider this:

Rachel Maddow points out that for the second year in a row, the Spanish-language version of the Republican response to the State of the Union Address has included mentions of immigration reform that are not in the English-language version. (MSNBC)

Rachael Maddow, MSDNC, The MInistry of Truth, says its there. 🙂

And one of the faithful on the twitter board on that very page:

Thanks, Rachel, for exposing the sneakiness of the GOP. The Hispanic GOP rebuttal is a sneaky attempt to sway gullible Hispanic folks. 

Liberals are so dishonest and so stuck on their partisanship they don’t even see this forest for it’s trees! And I won’t even mention all the intolerant, non-diverse, non-inclusive racist remarks… 🙂
Conservative Treehouse reported:

There is a bigger controversy about to break wide-open that’s potentially far more significant than Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell approving Nikki Haley’s non-subtle attack on GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. That bigger controversy is the Spanish version of the GOP State of the Union rebuttal containing an “amnesty pledge“.

Governor Haley gave the English version, Miami Representative and party-insider Mario Diaz-Barlat delivered it in Spanish. Here’s a (paragraph by paragraph) comparison as translated by the Miami Herald (emphasis mine):

English (Via Haley): No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love our traditions should ever feel unwelcome in this country.

Spanish (Via Diaz-Barlat): No one who is willing to work hard, abide by our laws, and love the United States should ever feel unwelcome in this country. It’s not who we are.

English: At the same time, that does not mean we just flat out open our borders. We can’t do that. We cannot continue to allow immigrants to come here illegally. And in this age of terrorism, we must not let in refugees whose intentions cannot be determined.

Spanish: At the same time, it’s obvious that our immigration system needs to be reformed. The current system puts our national security at risk and is an obstacle for our economy.

Secret Decorder ring:”Comprehensive Immigration Reform”=Amnesty

English: We must fix our broken immigration system. That means stopping illegal immigration. And it means welcoming properly vetted legal immigrants, regardless of their race or religion. Just like we have for centuries.

Spanish: It’s essential that we find a legislative solution to protect our nation, defend our borders, offer a permanent and human solution to those who live in the shadows, respect the rule of law, modernize the visa system and push the economy forward.

Secret Decorder ring:”Comprehensive Immigration Reform”=Amnesty

It is important to remember the backdrop to this current dual narrative (one the GOPe leadership want to say publicly and one they wish to keep hidden).

Back in June 2014 Speaker John Boehner was only two days away from calling up the vote on the Senate “gang-of-eight” amnesty bill, when House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated in the Virginia Primary.

Mario Diaz Balart along with Paul Ryan and Luis V. Gutierrez were in secret negotiations throughout the spring/summer of 2014 planning the pathway for comprehensive immigration reform.    John Boehner asked Kevin McCarthy to “whip the house” and identify if they had votes for passage:

[…]  On Tuesday June 10th Speaker Boehner, Eric Cantor (Majority Leader) and Kevin McCarthy (Majority Whip) had lunch together discussing timing the vote Thursday night or Friday Morning.

However, later that same night the results from the 2014 Virginia primary showed an unknown conservative outsider, Dave Brat, had defeated (primaried) Eric Cantor.   At 7:00pm Tuesday night the first word went out that Cantor had lost.

~ Full Back Story

So this hidden narrative within the 2016 Republican State of the Union Rebuttal should come as no surprise.  Comprehensive Immigration Reform is the GOPe agenda they continue to hide from the electorate.

The RINO Elite is just a Power Elite who aren’t any different realistically than the Democrats.

You should remember that if Trump of Cruz start winning primaries and the RINO set out to sabotage them for their own selfish reasons.

Don’t think the RINOs will sacrifice you to Queen Hillary if it means keeping their power?

Power Corrupts. 🙂





I Spy Pie In the Sky With My Little Eye

First off, Just to let you all know- This blog will be down for a few days because I have something important that has be taken care of.

Now onto it…

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Liberal Meme: But opposition to the mandate also stems from the public’s failure to understand — or, alternatively, the administration’s failure to communicate — basic facts. (How many YEARS has this been the liberal line- after all you “have to pass it to know what’s in it”!!??)

And when you know you’ll jump for joy. And if you don’t you just don’t understand. 🙂

That’s why it’s just as unpopular (or more so) now as it was over 2 years ago when it passed!

“People don’t understand how the mandate works at all, and they don’t understand why it’s there,” Kaiser’s polling director, Mollyann Brodie, told me. Brodie suspects that it’s too late to change minds. “This law as a whole has really become a symbolic issue to people, and they really aren’t open to information,” she said.

Maybe, but the administration must keep trying — not only to sell the law’s goodies but to explain how the mandate makes them possible. Otherwise, they could end up winning the minds of the justices, yet losing the hearts of the people whose votes they need to keep the law in place.

The most compelling sentences in the Obama administration’s brief defending the constitutionality of the health care law come early on. “As a class,” the brief advises on page 7, “the uninsured consumed $116 billion of health care services in 2008.” (Ruth Marcus)

Yeah, and the CBO says it will cost twice as much as it was when it was sold by the Liberals and it hasn’t even “started” yet.

So I am inclined to believe her pie-in-the-sky Government can fix everything Liberalism…NOT!


Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The administration’s new tax-reform proposal indicates a continued stubbornness to pick winners and losers in the marketplace — slashing, among others, broad-based provisions that benefit all industries such as accelerated depreciation, deductions for interest expense, LIFO for inventory accounting along with tax provisions for the oil and gas industry in order to finance tax breaks and permanent credits for expensive renewable energy.

It’s a disturbing plan after so many failed renewable energy gambles including Solyndra. A new report by a White House-appointed commission concluded that the U.S. could lose as much as $2.7 billion as a result of the loans offered to the renewable energy industry.

Meanwhile, consumers are losing. Gas prices aren’t showing any signs of decreasing. The president’s thumbs-down to the Keystone XL pipeline cost the U.S. thousands of new jobs, economic growth and energy price stabilization.

His 2012 budget calls for cutting outlays for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to $3 billion, nearly $2 billion less than in the 2011 budget. This drastic cut will leave many homes in cold weather states suffering and is further evidence of misplaced priorities when it comes to the administration’s energy policies.

But they better vote for him anyways, because he’s going to kiss their government dependent asses… 🙂 Otherwise, they might be “racists” or just “mean”. 🙂

The president’s “promise of clean energy” comes with a high price tag. Data from the Department of Energy’s EIA show that new electric generating capacity using wind and solar power tends to be considerably more expensive than conventional, available and secure natural gas and coal resources.

And in a world of real tradeoffs, every dollar spent producing more expensive renewable energy is money that could be used for producing jobs and spurring economic growth. Indeed, there is a direct linkage between energy use and economic recovery, as in recent years each 1% increase in GDP has been accompanied by a 0.2% increase in energy use.

Simply put, it takes more power to turn on more light switches in more plants that employ more people.

The problem, of course, trickles down to consumers, as well. USA Today recently reported “households paid a record $1,419 on average for electricity in 2010, the fifth consecutive yearly increase above the inflation rate.” This “jump has added about $300 a year to what households pay for electricity. That’s the largest sustained increase since a run-up in electricity prices during the 1970s.”

Meanwhile, subsidizing renewables costs jobs and slows economic growth, burdening taxpayers by grabbing up a massive share of tax code subsidies.

In 2010, an estimated 76% of the $19.1 billion in federal tax incentives went to renewables for energy efficiency, conservation and alternative technology vehicle projects (while only 13% went to fossil fuels), according to the Congressional Research Service. Some renewable electricity enjoys negative tax rates: Solar thermal’s effective tax rate is -245% and wind power’s is -164%.

Yet the federal government continues pouring money on non-traditional energy sources, which is especially troubling since the wind, solar power, biofuel and ethanol industries do not meet the standard criteria used to justify taxpayer-funded subsidies for their deployment across the U.S. economy.

They are not “infant industries” or essential for U.S. economic and job growth, and they are unlikely to provide benefits commensurate with their costs. Addressing the huge U.S. federal budget deficit requires cutbacks in programs whose costs exceed their benefits.

There are much fairer policies available that do not force the government to pick winners and losers. Accelerated depreciation, Section 199, the foreign tax credit deduction and LIFO are examples of tax code provisions that are available to any industry and are not considered “subsidies.”

Perhaps even more frightening than the government’s current tax incentive structure and spending for renewables and alternative fuel vehicles is the potential for a national mandate (called a Clean Energy Standard) requiring electricity retailers to supply a specified share of their sales from clean energy sources.

This would have adverse economic impacts. A recent Department of Energy analysis shows that by 2035 the mandate will raise electricity prices by 20% to 27% and reduce GDP by $124 billion to $214 billion.

For those who support clean energy powering our nation’s economy, all is not lost: The issue is simply about responsibly looking away from the “promise of clean energy” and focusing on the reality of clean energy.

Government funding for basic research and development of renewables and conservation may be a better use of taxpayer dollars than the current suite of tax incentives and direct spending programs, for instance. Clearly, there are more efficient ways to meet our nation’s needs for today and tomorrow. (IBD)

But it won’t make Liberal “feel” good and be the soothing pie-in-the-sky warm fuzzy that they want it to be.

And if you disagree, well, you’re just “mean”.

MADDOW: So, President Obama in 1990 said that he wanted to move — wanted to work toward a world, country, that was less mean-spirited, and more generous. The right says that means he hates America. I think it sounds like I want a kinder and gentler America, which is what George H.W. Bush said.

LEWIS BLACK: That’s then. That language doesn’t apply anymore. That is a different Republican Party because we have moved on, there is a new Republican Party, and they seem to have — that language doesn’t work for them.

It’s a new Republican Party. It’s — there is a — it’s like — I mean, I think of it like if you were in the Communist Party, toe the line, here`s what they think, that`s the deal, screw him, that`s the deal, you can’t — are you going to use those words, or those words don`t work? Whatever words he uses, don’t work for them.

(and that doesn’t sound Like the Liberals wanting to control everything and everyone from birth to death at all!) 🙂

MADDOW: But do you think we’re at the point some were some — I mean, I feel like it’s not that weird. It wouldn’t be that much of a joke for a Republican candidate to come out and say, actually, we need a less gentle, meaner country. (Katie Pavlich)

Apparently wanting to balance the budget and limit burdensome debt for future generations is somehow “mean.”

It sucks being the grown-up in the room instead of the head-in-the-clouds, pie-in-the-sky Liberal whose hubris prevents them from not feeling vastly superior to other living beings doesn’t it? 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

A Matter of Faith

To truly understand the depthless awfulness of the just-posted “interview” that Slate’s Jacob Weisberg conducted with Rachel Maddow, one needs to turn to religion. Simply saying that Weisberg interviewing Maddow is like Tiger Beat interviewing Justin Bieber is just not enough anymore. It misses the bigger picture.

When Whittaker Chambers published “Witness,” his classic 1952 account of his time as a communist, many people, including a few conservatives, wondered why he talked so much about God in the book. To Chambers, communism had gained traction in the West because it offered what too many liberal democracies had lost: faith. Communism pointed to the future. When the world seemed to be collapsing into war and depression, communism provided a coherent, if comic book, version of history, complete with saints, sinners, and heaven.

That idea has never quite been shaken by the left. This is why liberals should never be trusted. Ask yourself this question: Suppose Obama is re-elected and he gets everything he wants. Suppose gay marriage is declared legal in every state, and limits on abortion banned. Suppose they pass universal health care. Suppose people are not allowed to cough without filing an environmental impact form. Suppose all those things happen. Do you really think the left will be satisfied? Or will they want more?

Of course they will want more. This is the evil blackness at the heart of liberalism. At its core, liberalism is utopian and godless, and therefore willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill to fulfill its vision. It’s why liberals are never satisfied with creating a welfare state, but must always take the next step and begin abolishing religion and liquidating people who stand in their way. Admittedly, the left’s utopianism has changed a bit since the days of communism. These days it’s more about avenging personal resentment and public displays of therapy — Occupy Wall Street — than about any overarching certitude in dialectical materialism and the gears of history. But in the end it’s the same result: The people we don’t like, and their ideas, get disposed of. This is the ultimate goal.

When this worldview is fully understood and absorbed, the joke that is the Weisberg-Maddow make-out session can be fully comprehended. Again, go into it thinking of it not as politics, but catechism. The point of liberal “journalism” is not to get to the truth about anything, but to reinforce dogma.

Here is Weisberg’s first question to Maddow: “These Republican ideas that we’ve been living through, an unprecedented number of them. … you don’t hear a real conversation about ideas you, don’t hear a serious debate. What is that conversation about?” Maddow: “The conversation is about which one of them is a good person and a bad person, and who can come up with the snappiest one-liner blaming the Obama administration for anything that’s going on in the world.”

There are two different ways to approach this nonsense. The first is to puzzle over the sheer irrationality of it, the totalistic refusal to engage with facts. To wonder why, no matter how much Maddow and Weisberg dislike the right, they won’t at least concede that, as colorful as the Republican debates have been, they have also been about very big and important ideas. Ideas about, among other things: immigration, the deficit, the wars America is involved in, federalism, education, and the environment. You might think the answers given were dumb, but to simply claim that they were never even discussed is to relegate yourself to a place of impenetrable unreality. It’s to be as uncomprehending, and as sure of oneself, as a suicide bomber.

Conservatives should no longer be surprised by this. When someone on the right tries to reason through a liberal argument, it often leads to a lot of shouting and debate that goes nowhere. And it goes nowhere because conservatives, despite being very well-educated about liberal media bias, have not fully taken the next step. They have not completely understood that, more than a half-century after Whittaker Chambers and “Witness,” liberalism is still very much a faith. Understand that, and the Weisberg-Maddow clench makes tight sense. Remind yourself that liberals view conservatives as demons and believe that the left is on the side of the angels, and your irritation at Weisberg’s “interview” evaporates. Of course. He’s not conducting an interview, he’s genuflecting. These are not two journalists. These are two priests talking about the devil.

When you have fully absorbed that idea, nothing in liberalism will surprise you anymore. Consider another of Weisberg’s questions: How does Maddow challenge the left the way she does the right? There are incoherencies on the right, what about incoherence on the left?

Douglas Adams: I refuse to prove that I exist says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing. Oh, says man, but the Babel Fish is a dead give-away, isn’t it? It proves You exist, and so therefore You don’t. Q.E.D. Oh, I hadn’t thought of that, says God, who promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

And the Left has undying faith in their self-righteousness and their inability to be wrong about anything, anywhere, at any time.

Better to ask a snake handler about incoherencies in Christianity. There’s no need to anticipate with any sense of surprise what Maddow will say; simply ask yourself how such an answer would fit into the liberal Bible. Easy: the problem, as with any other, is the Great Satan of conservatism. Thus, the biggest left-wing inconsistency is, “How do you deal with a John Boehner?” It’s like the Westboro Baptist Church. Everything from gay marriage to nuclear war and cockroaches is the fault of the devil.

It’s all Bush’s Fault and he is the Devil incarnate. Reagan is demon.

What is so sad and awful about this is that liberalism, like other extreme religious movements, tends to eradicate the human conscience. One of my favorite religious stories involves Cardinal Newman, one of the great converts to Catholicism. Cardinal Newman was once asked to offer a toast to the pope. He raised his glass and said, “To conscience first, the pope second.” Most people with an active conscience who are not religious fanatics have moments of self-reflection where they work through their philosophy and try and align it with what “the voice within” is telling them. It’s why I am a conservative who supports amnesty for immigrants. (But I don’t) It’s why Christopher Hitchens was an atheist who opposed abortion. But to True Believers like Maddow and Weisberg, the conscience has no place. From the tragedy of abortion to the $15 trillion deficit, from the arguments against gay marriage to the smaller question of simply presenting the Republican candidates as people with ideas, there is no need to consult what St. Ambrose called “God’s herald and messenger” — the conscience. The Nation says it, I believe it, and that settles it. It’s why there are people in this world who still believe — not think, believe — that Alger Hiss was innocent.

That Gore was cheated out of being President in 2000, and instead we ended up with the Devil himself. (never mind that the most voter fraud is because of liberals-but that’s just the “angels” trying to beat the “devil” after all…ACORN anyone…)

The communist Ignazio Silone once noted that to become a communist was not simply to join a party. “It meant a conversion, a complete dedication. The Party became family, school, church, barracks; the world that lay beyond was to be destroyed and built anew.”

That’s what we’re up against. And it’s why Jacob Weisberg and Rachel Maddow are a joke. A dangerous joke.(DC)

The Slate: Rachel Maddow doesn’t shy away from the liberal label. But she says there’s an important distinction between what she and her MSNBC colleagues do and how their counterparts operate at Fox News. On-air personalities at MSNBC, Maddow says, don’t take direction or follow talking points from the network.

No, they have worse, Religious Orthodoxy.

From one of my older blogs in 2009:

I spent the last 3 years (now 5) on AOL message boards with many of these very “civil-minded” people.

Most of them were “the faithful”, people who’s religion is Liberalism. Thus, challenging them is challenging their faith.

So rational discussion is practically impossible.

And this is where we really are today.

We have the Ministry of Truth, that is made up of the faithful. So they are all for Big Brother. And they are all for divide and conquer. As long as it benefits them.

That’s why liberals hate Talk Radio.

It’s the voice of the opposition.

And Big Brother doesn’t like opposition.

Rachael Maddow (Formerly of the failed Air America) was mocking it on her MSNBC show on 9/10/09. “I guess they just want us all to be fearful, anxious, scared,and depressed all the time just like on 9/12″ (The Tea party Rally that was under-reported by the Ministry because it was a threat to them)

Snide, arrogant, snotty,childish, immature and very definitely irrational. And not the slightest interest in your views at all, after all, they are perfect and you are not.

They are the sainted ones, and you are the filthy, dirty little ignorant peasants!

It’s better that they (Tea Partiers) are “an angry mob” of “republican operatives” and “dupes”.

Rather than actual people who actually have a grievance against their government.

That can’t possible be true!

They have to be duped, ignorant, slobs or political operatives in disguise!

And when THERE political operatives do show up (usually from a Union) they are “concerned citizens” and just look at the praise that was lavished on the Occupiers until those squatters become politically unhelpful.

And this goes for ABC,NBC,CBC, CNN, NPR, The New York Times, and more.

And if object, you’re “a racist”, “stupid”,”a moron”,” a dupe”, “a stooge” etc and it’s not “fair”.

So much for “civility”. 🙂

Be Afraid, Be very Afraid.

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 Political Cartoons by Eric Allie
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel