The Fallacy of Socialism

To have a self-acclaimed socialist in the Senate of a nation that spent two generations fighting against it is a surprise, but to have one running to be the leader of the free world is a real wake up call as to how far removed this last generation has drifted from the truth of the abject failure of socialism and what an unworkable system it really is.

Socialism is a philosophy, a utopian ideal that has only ever worked in small groups of like-minded people, religious groups, communes or such, that have made the decision to devote themselves, their affluence and their talents, to a common cause, basically putting it all into one pot and everybody taking out what is needed for their survival.

Now, that sounds humane and charitable in theory, but in practice it is counterproductive. And in actuality, in a society where a handful of the people do all the work and the others decide that it makes no difference how hard they work, they’ll never get any farther than they are. So, why work?

In the early days of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the easing of relations between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, Western companies began their push to establish a foothold in former Iron Curtain countries.

McDonald’s was among the first to move in. Upon opening a store, they were besieged with job applications from the local folks seeking a job paying Western wages.

Despite the early enthusiasm, the people hired were slackers who would work for a while and sit down and read a newspaper or just hang around, not getting the work done, causing something like a 300 percent employment turnover.

To these people who had been born and bred under the communist, socialist system, this was what a job was, just showing up, doing as little as possible and collecting a paycheck for their efforts. This was their work ethic.

Such are the fruits of socialism, and when adopted by a government as doctrine, it always ends up with disastrous results – killing ambition, destroying the work ethic and, regardless of what the socialist doctrine preaches, “from each according to his abilities and to each according to his need,” it always creates an elite ruling class who vote themselves special privileges. This, in turn, places them in a class all by themselves, a status they will never willingly give up, up to and including the creation of a totalitarian government, which would grow ever bigger and more oppressive as the paranoid ruling class desperately hangs on to their pampered existence.

The whole concept, as being presented by Bernie Sanders and his ilk, and to a somewhat less radical but similar degree by Hillary Clinton, is that you have a right to something that somebody else has acquired, something that by their wit, their willingness to work and tenacity, they have earned.

It basically fosters the feeling that somebody who has more than you do has gone about getting it in a way that has deprived you of being able to get your piece of the pie, and therefore, due to the unfairness of their actions, you are entitled to a piece of their ill-gotten gain.

The truth of the matter is that with the exception of inheritance, or crime related endeavors, the wealth of this nation is in the hands of the people who have worked for it, sacrificed for it, gone the extra mile, burned the midnight oil and, with sweat and tenacity, came up with a product or a service that translated into profit.

I have received comments from people who seem to think that one day I picked up a fiddle and a guitar, sat down, dashed off a song and became successful overnight, having done nothing except being at the right place at the right time.

They never take into account the endless hours of practice, the chances you take when you uproot your family and move to another town with no guaranteed source of income, the ceaseless process of writing a song, pulling words and melodies out of thin air, honing, polishing arranging and recording it and hoping that it can compete with the fierce competition that never lets up.

They never take into account the long periods of time spent away from your family, the missed birthdays, anniversaries, junior high football games and grammar school plays, the times you have to explain to a five-year-old why Daddy is gone so much.

There is a price to be paid, and if you’re not willing to pay it yourself, you shouldn’t resent those who are because without them there would be no innovation, no advancement and no chance for those who are willing to get their hands dirty to make something out of their lives.

Socialism, as a form of government, is nothing more than a guise, a deception, a promised Shangri-La existence that is always just around the next bend. One more tax hike, one more tightening of regulations, one more personal freedom taken away, one more election – it’s a Robin Hood fallacy that never acknowledges the iron bound fact that nothing is free, that somebody has to pay, and that finally gets around to including everybody.

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Missouri Misery

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

What is going on at the University of Missouri?  Their president, Tom Wolfe resigned after protest erupted because he didn’t respond decisively enough to various racist incidents on campus.  (In a dramatic flourish, the school’s football team even went on a hunger strike.)

Or at least this is what the news is reporting.  David French, on National Review, takes umbrage at this explanation, because it “collapses under the slightest scrutiny.”

He writes:

The idea that Wolfe presided over a racially insensitive educational empire is a sad joke. A timeline of racial outrages in Columbia is sparse indeed, showing two allegations of racial name-calling (on a campus with 35,000 students) and one disturbing incident in which a swastika was drawn on a dorm wall with human waste. No rational, sentient human being believes system presidents can be responsible for what lunatics do with their own feces, or that they can prevent any given student from shouting racial slurs. Not even the worst communist dictatorships could control the speech of all their subjects. Wolfe couldn’t stop drunk undergraduates from hurling insensitive insults even if he established his own gulag and deployed commissars across campus.”

Oh but they are:

The Missouri University Police Department (MUPD) sent an email to students Tuesday morning urging them to call them and report any hurtful speech they encounter on the campus.

In an email that was flagged by several Missouri-based journalists, the MUPD asked “individuals who witness incidents of hateful and/or hurtful speech or actions” to call the department’s general phone line “to continue to ensure that the University of Missouri campus remains safe.” They suggest that students provide a detailed description of the offender, their location or license plate number, and even to take a picture if possible.

In the email, MUPD readily admits that hurtful or hateful speech is not against the law. But, they write, “if the individuals identified are students, MU’s Office of Student Conduct can take disciplinary action.”

In a statement to Mediaite, the MUPD confirmed that the email was real. When asked about the potential First Amendment implications, a spokesman responded simply, “We are simply asking them to report what they feel is hurtful and/or hateful speech.”

Aka, not politically correct and not what the little cherubs of easily offended social justice didn’t want to hear.

He added that the police did not consider the hateful speech “a criminal matter.” However, “We also work for the University and uphold the Universities Rules and Regulations.”

Fortunately for the radicals, our universities are populated by the craven and the cowardly. Push a professor, even slightly, and it’s likely he’ll fold. Demand faculty support for your protest, and dozens will rush to join, self-righteously advancing their own false oppression narratives even as they enjoy lives billions of others would covet. There is nothing brave about these people. They are not “elite.” They don’t deserve a single dime of taxpayer money or one cent of student tuition. They dishonor their schools and their country.

A Mizzou professor almost resigned his position at the school after he said a scheduled exam would take place, despite his class raising security concerns due to the growing tension on campus. They felt “unsafe.”

Campus Reform reported that Dr. Dale Brigham received the ire of the news media for “shaming” minority students for being worried about death threats, one man was arrested for posting such threats earlier this morning. Yet, MU police have increased security, they’re confident that the campus remains safe, and the administration has not placed the school on lockdown or sent anybody home. This situation is being overblown (shocker), though it wouldn’t be a social justice warrior sideshow without things being egregiously exaggerated. The fact that a professor almost checked out for doing his job is ridiculous, especially since he wasn’t the personification of evil.

In the end, the school did not accept Brigham’s resignation.

The University of Missouri has become a subject of debate, given that both the university’s president and chancellor resigned after the student body felt they failed to address alleged instances of racism on campus. Yet, that story seems to be evaporating in the ether. The story is now about the protestors’ horrific violation and disrespect for First Amendment rights; a textbook example of petulance from a group of kids absorbed by political correctness.

According to a social media message being circulated among social justice student groups at the University of Missouri, better known as Mizzou, students are being encouraged to carry pepper spray and tasers to protect their “safe spaces” and blacks.

The University of Missouri’s student body vice president did not mince words when she used an appearance on MSNBC Wednesday to say journalists who claim to be exercising their First Amendment rights while reporting on the Mizzou protests are actually creating a “hostile” and “unsafe” environment.

When asked about complaints from professors that universities are becoming “places of censor and prohibition,” Smith-Lezama said people are using the First Amendment to create a “hostile and unsafe learning environment.”

“I personally am tired of hearing that First Amendment rights protect students when they are creating a hostile and unsafe learning environment for myself and for other students here,” Smith-Lezama said. “I think that it’s important for us to create that distinction and create a space where we can all learn from one another and start to create a place of healing rather than a place where we are experiencing a lot of hate like we have in the past.”

“Sensitive and confidential info: We’re (black students and our closest allies) gonna occupy the bcc from 9am until. We don’t want them to feel in control. So we’ll hold study hall in our safe place all day and escort ppl wherever they need to be. But don’t put this info on any public platform. Let ppl know thru TEXT & DMs only please. Have pepper spray, taser, whatever non-lethal weapon if possible. Help protect our safe space and spread the word so blacks can be protected,” the message reads.

In other words, everyday events that are bearable for anyone with a scintilla of rational thought are considered apocalyptic to these students.

Social Justice Warriors Unite! Don’t Let them “offend” you. Crush them! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Correctness Gone Wild's photo.
Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Coalition of The Unwilling

The semantically unsound rubbish concept of “Islamophobia” disorients well-meaning people and incites them to spout illogicalities with a preacher’s righteousness.

“Islamophobia” contributes to the generalized befuddlement on the left about the faith in question and whether negative talk about it constitutes some sort of racism, or proxy for it.

It shouldn’t but it does.

204 authors to sign a letter dissociating themselves from PEN’s granting the Toni and James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award to the brave, talented surviving artists of Charlie Hebdo.

The authors objecting did so out of concern, according to their statement, for “the section of the French population” – its Muslims – “that is already marginalized, embattled, and victimized, a population that is shaped by the legacy of France’s various colonial enterprises.”  A “large percentage” of these Muslims are “devout,” contend the writers, and should thus be spared the “humiliation and suffering” Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons allegedly caused them.

Bill Maher (who’s politics couldn’t be farther from mine) called Pamela Geller a “loon” but said, “This is America, do we not have the right to draw whatever we want?”

Maher brought up Charlie Hebdo and said he’s a little disturbed by the whole “soft bigotry of low expectations” when it comes to that magazine’s critics assuming that “Muslims aren’t able to control themselves.”

So since they got off on any provocation THEY perceive  we must their walk on micro eggshells and temper everything we do and say about them like they are a volatile  chemical ready to exploded at any second?

That’s crazy talk!

Islamic radicals kill people and it’s the people’s fault for victimizing their sensibilities!!!

The Nazis kill Jews and Homosexuals in the millions in WWI and it’s the  dead victims of the gas chambers and mass murders fault!!!

That’s how messed up the Left and The Leftist media’s brains are now.

So, why is there such a difference between the coverage of Christianity and Islam bashing? Why so much criticism against Geller for merely hosting this event? One shouldn’t have to question their right to speak, assemble, or carry a firearm. I don’t find questioning the why someone chooses to exercise laws codified in our Bill of Rights to be a discussion. In some cases, it’s a progressive exercise to put the Constitution of a graduated scale to put some amendments, likes the Second one, in the crosshairs for marginalization and elimination. These are rights that should be maximized in civil society. So, why do some members of the media have this appalling attitude? Maybe it’s because they know Islam has a problem, and it’s one that’s been present for a very, very long time (via NRO):

…The fury against Pamela Geller is motivated mostly by fear — by the understanding that there are indeed many, many Muslims who believe that blasphemy should be punished with death, and who put that belief into practice. It’s motivated by the fear that our alliances with even “friendly” Muslim states and “allied” Muslim militias are so fragile that something so insignificant as a cartoon would drive them either to neutrality or straight into the arms of ISIS.…

That’s why even the military brass will do something so unusual as call a fringe pastor of a tiny little church to beg him not to post a YouTube video. That’s why the president of the United States — ostensibly the most powerful man in the world — will personally appeal to that same pastor not to burn a Koran. They know that hundreds of millions of Muslims are not “moderate” by any reasonable definition of that word, and they will,in fact, allow themselves to be provoked by even the most insignificant and small-scale act of religious satire or defiance. After all, there are Muslim communities that will gladly burn Christians alive to punish even rumored blasphemy.

Our nation’s “elite” knows of the 88 percent support in Egypt for the death penalty for apostasy, and the 62 percent support in Pakistan. They know of the majority support for it in Malaysia, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. They know that even when there’s not majority support for the death penalty for exercising one of the most basic of human rights — religious freedom — that large minorities still exercise considerable, and often violent, influence on their nations. The elite also knows this bloodthirstiness extends to supporting terrorists. The following Pew Research Center numbers should sober anyone who believes in the “few extremists” model of Muslim culture

Further, our elites also know that while ISIS’s brutality certainly repels many Muslims, it attracts many others — that there are Muslim young people who are so captivated by images of beheadings and burnings that they’ll defy the law and their own nations to make their way to the jihadist battlefronts of Iraq and Syria.

Unable or unwilling to formulate a strategy to comprehensively defeat jihad or even to adequately defend our nation, our elites adopt a strategy of cultural appeasement that only strengthens our enemy. Millions in the Muslim world are drawn to the “strong horse” (to use Osama bin Laden’s phrase), and when jihadists intimidate the West into silence and conformity, the jihadists show themselves strong.

Now, what happened in Garland shouldn’t drive us all to participate in a national campaign of “do your part, offend a Muslim, but some in the media–and in politics–need to quit with the political correctness sound bites and parsing of the First Amendment. There is no such thing as responsibility with free speech; that’s liberal code for don’t say things we don’t like. Exercise your speech with pride–and if it offends someone; politely remind him or her they have every right to voice why they think you’re wrong.  They can also express their views in a cartoon-format. (Matt Vespa and others) 🙂

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

You are a….

Ed Driscoll:

sexism_everywhere_9-6-14

“Look, liberalism has a kind of Tourette’s Syndrome these days,” George Will told Chris Wallace on Fox New Sunday back in April. “It’s just constantly saying the word racism and racist. It’s an old saying in the law; if you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither, pound the table. This is pounding the table:”

There’s a kind of intellectual poverty now. Liberalism hasn’t had a new idea since the 1960s except ObamaCare and the country doesn’t like it. Foreign policy is a shambles from Russia to Iran to Syria to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the recovery is unprecedentedly bad. So what do you do? You say anyone criticizes us is a racist. It’s become a joke among young people. You go to a campus where this kind of political correctness reigns and some young person will say looks like it’s going to rain. The person looks and says, you’re a racist. I mean it’s so inappropriate. The constant implication of this is that I think it is becoming a national mirth.

However, the left (there’s nothing “liberal” or “Progressive” about 21st century Democrats) have recently begun to hyper-obsess over a new word and, if you’ll pardon the imagery, are inserting it everywhere:

  • Comic book characters? Sexist.
  • Videogames? Sexist.
  • Silicon Valley? Sexist.
  • Home-cooked meals? Sexist.
  • Men on college campuses? Sexist.
  • Skateboard parks? Sexist.

To borrow from the popular Internet meme featuring Buzz and Woody from Toy Story (which has to be sexist as well, right? Of course it is!) Sexism…Sexism Everywhere!

Back in May, in a post titled “Why Democrats Call Americans Racist,” I wrote:

As in the 2010 midterms, expect the madness from the left to ramp up exponentially between now and November. They’re just getting started.

(And then presumably some time between mid-November and the start of the new year, the left will begin declaring half of America sexist. Unexpectedly.)

The protests in Ferguson, ginned up with the help of outside marchers from across the country, and Al Sharpton, direct from the NBC-Comcast boardroom inside Rockefeller Plaza certainly fit in with the first half of that equation all-too-perfectly.

And with that bonfire having fizzled out, it can mean only one thing:

Democrats really are “Ready for Hillary.”

Assuming she wins, is the rest of America ready to be trapped in a 1972-era Mobius Loop in which everything bad in the world will be dubbed sexist for the next four to eight years?

(Which doesn’t mean that the left will cease dubbing everything racist as well, as well, of course.)

Defenders of any traditional way of life are always at a disadvantage in debate with radical intellectuals who, having built or borrowed some theoretical argument for revolution, scornfully dismiss the defense of tradition as mere sentimental prejudice in favor of the status quo. Hurling accusations of bigotry and ignorance at their antagonists, radicals insist that progress beckons us toward an enlightened future, if only we can overcome the irrational opposition of The Forces of Darkness who wish to keep society enslaved to the benighted past. You understand how radicalism appeals to certain personality types. Understanding these things, the defender of tradition realizes that what actually requires explantation is not how “the system” works in theory, but rather why certain people are so implacably hostile to a system that works in practice. If the system does not work perfectly, we can consider how best to improve it, but mild reform projects are not what radicals have in mind, and feminism has always been inherently radical.

Feminism’s war on human nature requires that young people, especially girls and young women, be bombarded with this kind of anti-male/anti-heterosexual propaganda, lest they grow up to live what normal people would consider happy, successful lives. Women’s Studies professors are not normal people, and if your children grow up to be miserable failures, well, so what? Professor Glenn Reynolds remarks:

I’m beginning to think that most lefty movements are just about broken people trying to manipulate the rest of us so they can feel good about their broken selves. (The Other McCain)

At least that way, we are all “equal” and everything is “fair”. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

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

Playing and Being Played

What I find fascinating is the way each side is playing and being played.

The Republicans have bashed Democrats for “appeasing” Dictators and terrorists (which they do) but they themselves are appeasers to the Democrats and the Ministry of Truth.

The Democrats have complete contempt for Republicans, but have no idea that the radical Arabs  and Dictators they trying to be nice to have complete contempt for them.

You can bet Putin, Ahmadinejad, Morsi, Assad, The Muslim Brotherhood, all have contempt for what they see as Obama’s weakness. The same weakness that the Democrats since in the Republicans.

Fascinating…

So what the Republicans really need to do is grows some balls. Pass their own legislation and not give a F*ck what the Democrats do and let the Democrats just blow in the wind.

But I don’t think they have the balls for it. The Republican are too busy trying to be liked and playing by The Marquest of Queensbury rules of Gentile and Gentlemenly behavior with a bunch of amoral Hyper-partisoned Ideological Leftists.

The Rules as the term means as used is to refer to a sense of sportsmanship and fair play.

The Democrats have NONE of that. And the Republicans have yet to figure this out.

And Neither do Dictators and Terrorists. But the Democrats haven’t figured that out yet either. Summits, UN Speeches, and White House Dinner are laughable at best but It make the Democrats feel important.

The psychological blind spots are fascinating…

And speaking being played…A Obama Energy Update….

You won’t hear much about it elsewhere today. But from some downtown Chicago law offices will come the distinct sound of one more nail being driven into the coffin of Barack Obama’s green energy giveaway loans.

A123 Systems will be auctioned off. It’s a Michigan lithium ion battery maker which declared bankruptcy back in October, the same day it cashed another $1 million check from the crack Obama investment team.

A123 is one of those notorious bad bets like Solyndra that the Obama administration poured billions of taxpayer dollars into, allegedly with the hope it would launch a vibrant clean energy industrial sector. As Gov. Romney pointed out during the presidential debates that same month, many of the recipients of those federal loan guarantees just happened to belong to campaign finance bundlers for the same Barack Obama.

A123, an 11-year-old firm founded to manufacture batteries for electric cars and utilities, had received $133 million of its promised $250.1 million loan grants before the bankruptcy, mainly to build a new facility in Michigan.

Just more wasted taxpayer money, right? Another reason for Obama’s coveted tax hikes come next year.

But wait! There’s more! A leading suitor for A123’s remaining assets is Wanxiang Group Corp., a $13 billion firm that’s China’s largest automotive components maker.

So, let’s get this straight: Obama bashes Romney for being a successful (and, whispering, wealthy) venture capitalist so successfully picking so many corporate winners. But Obama gives away money to an American company to develop American battery technology and manufacturing on American soil for American workers. A123 flops financially, as have almost three dozen other hand-picked Obama greenies receiving financial food-stamps from that wheeling-dealing Chicago crowd.

And a private Chinese company comes along to buy up the pieces.

Here’s Obama’s yada-yada in a phone call with company officers two years ago for the plant opening:

“This is about the birth of an entire new industry in America, an industry that’s going to be central to the next generation of cars. And it’s going to allow us to start exporting those cars, making them comfortable, convenient and affordable.”

Well, so far that’s working out great.

Oh, did we mention? A123 like other failed green energy firms under Obama, has secret contracts with the Pentagon. Russians previously bought Ener1 and Think out of bankruptcy, two other business recipients of Obama welfare. 

In their first debate Romney noted Obama was often whining about $2 billion in subsidies to large oil companies but Obama had doled out 45 times as much, $90 billion, to green energy companies, much of it wasted. Romney added, “You don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers.”

Good thing we reelected Obama to a second term so he can finish his demolition work.

Sens. Chuck Grassley and John Thune along with a coalition of former military officers have expressed serious concerns about the possible acquisition by Chinese interests.

“Aside from the national security risk, American taxpayers should not pay for development of a technology that is freely transferred to a non-allied nation,” they said in a letter last month. Wanxiang has promised to divest the military contracts if it wins.

One other suitor for A123 is Johnson Controls Inc. of Milwaukee. So far, Johnson is one of the survivors of Obama’s federal largesse, having received $299 million in help from the Democrat’s feckless Energy Department.

A Wanxiang America spokesman said the company has about 3,000 U.S. employees and had no plans to export jobs back home to China.

Obama, who has 54 decorated trees inside the White House this year, has only one public appearance today. He will venture outdoors to officially light one more, the national Christmas holiday tree. With electricity, not batteries. (IBD)

So the Players are playing and being played while they are playing. And who gets screwed in the end…

You guessed it…

YOU DO! 🙂

Congrats.

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Black Face and Black Deals

Arizona State Fans Black Out Wearing Black Face

Arizona, a state that is regularly accused of having a serious issue with people of color, received another stain to its reputation. Last week, four white female students at Arizona State University showed up to a football game wearing Black face. The school asked students to wear all-Black attire to celebrate the new uniforms in their game against the Missouri Tigers. This is when a few students took it too far.
At least four Arizona State fans attended Saturday’s college football game against the University of Missouri in Blackface.
The broadcast, which aired on ESPN, showed four young white women with their faces, necks and arms painted all Black.
    Arizona State would win 37-30, thus validating the practice of white (and other) folks painting their faces Black as part of an audience gimmick.
So, on a scale of 1-10 how racist is this? And how ignorant? I’m going to give these girls just a four out of 10 for racism, but a solid 7.5 for ignorance. (Ology and other goofy websites)

Problem (amongst many): Other than creating “racism where it doesn’t exist. If you look closely enough you will notice that one of these girls is actually Black For real!!
Whoops!
But don’t expect the “outraged” liberals to care about that. No sir, not one bit.

I wonder if they are offended by  burnt toast (it’s black you know) or “blackened” fish?
or “black” coffee. or “colored pencils”??
Or “blackened” fish?
or “blackouts” or “Black Friday” sales?
or Black Light?
Pretty White Clouds become menacing dark black clouds, so is Mother Nature Racist??
Or are you just hunting for racism where it doesn’t exist to just satisfy your craving for hatred?
Are you going to address the Southern Democrats, Like Al Gore Sr, who voted against the Civil Rights Acts?
Nope.
It’s just hate for hate sake. And it’s a knee jerk reaction that obvious made their brains fall out.
I would give the liberal article writers an 11 for racism and Infinity for ignorance.

***********

Green Jobs Boondoggle

The Solyndra case.  Here’s the cliffsnotes version: A solar panel manufacturing company that received over half-a-billion taxpayer dollars in federal “stimulus” loan guarantees from the Obama administration in 2009 has filed for bankruptcy and laid off all of its employees.  One of the principal investors in Solyndra was a major Obama donor.  He and various Solyndra officials visited the White House repeatedly before and after the controversial loan was approved.  The president toured the company’s California headquarters in 2010, using the setting to tout his green energy agenda and the Recovery Act.  Then, seemingly out of nowhere, Solyndra imploded last month.  Last week, the FBI raided Solyndra’s offices, seeking undisclosed information.  We also learned that Obama Energy Department representatives sat in on numerous Solyndra board meetings in the months leading up to the company’s failure.  They knew it was coming.  Oh well, the White House argues, there are always risks in these sorts of things — and besides, the Solyndra loan process began during the Bush administration.  That house of cards is now collapsing.  Yesterday, ABC News dropped the bombshell that Bush era Energy auditors actually nixed the loan as unsound, and that Obama OMB staffers raised similar concerns upon their own evaluation.  The White House’s political team seemed to disagree, putting the deal on a “fast track.” Just days later, the massive government loan to the unstable “green” poster-child — backed by major Obama donor cash — was fortuitously approved.

So you, the tax payers are on the hook for $535 MILLION dollars in payola to a company that even with that much cash went bankrupt in just over a year!

Now that’s betting on the horse from the glue factory. But since it was “green” the left won’t care and the media will try to bury it.

The results of the Congressional probe shared Tuesday with ABC News show that less than two weeks before President Bush left office, on January 9, 2009, the Energy Department’s credit committee had voted against offering a loan commitment to Solyndra.  Even after Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, analysts in the Energy Department and in the Office of Management and Budget were repeatedly questioning the wisdom of the loan. In one exchange, an Energy official wrote of “a major outstanding issue” — namely, that Solyndra’s numbers showed it would run out of cash in September 2011.  There was also concern about the high-risk nature of the project. Internally, the Office of Management and Budget wrote that “the risk rating for the project sponsor [Solyndra] … seems high.” Outside analysts had warned for months that the company might not be a sound investment.

So, again, Solyndra’s Bush-era application was denied because of concerns over the company’s balance sheets and business model.  Obama’s own OMB staffers were waving bright red flags, essentially shouting “no!”  One even presciently predicted that Solyndra could run out of money….right about now.  Funny, that.  And yet, the irresponsible loan was fast-tracked for approval, apparently at the behest of Obama’s “West Wing” (ie, political) aides.  Remember, these aides were regularly conferring with one of the company’s primary investors, George Kaiser, — who just happened to be a top Obama campaign fundraising “bundler” during the last campaign.  After misleading the public about the Bush administration’s role in this mess, the Obama White House now tells us all of those meetings with Kaiser had nothing to do with the risky loan in question.  Does anyone believe that?  Anyone?  This is far from over. (townhall)

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
Political Cartoons by Henry Payne