7 Year Rash

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

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

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

Hate never felt so Right. 🙂

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

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

It will be YOUR fault.

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

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

THE ZOMBIE HOARD

They are just a zombie hoard.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their will be more Candy Crowley moments than ever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No one really cared.

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

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was sacrificed.

End of Story.

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

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

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

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

Hillary is still leading in the Polls!

“Brains…”

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

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

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

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

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

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

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

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

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

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

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

2016: THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS!

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

2016: “Microaggressions” anyone?

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

2016: And the #Never Trumpers and Establishment RINOs.

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

2016: And the #Never Trumpers and Establishment RINOs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016: “White Privilege” anyone?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

HELL NO!

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

HELL NO!

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Democrat Party in a nutshell.

FEAR IS HOPE!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making Society Better

Allen West: I found a definition of Yin and Yang to be, “In Chinese philosophy, yin and yang (also, yin-yang or yin yang) describes how opposite or contrary forces are actually complementary, interconnected, and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other as they interrelate to one another.” It appears that our 2016 presidential election cycle is early on being defined by that philosophy. The question is, can this media-driven divide be good for the future of our Constitutional Republic?

In 2008 it was all about the “anti-Bush” sentiment in America – heavily fueled by a complicit media. The rallying slogan was “Hope and Change.” Some of us will never forget the statement, “we are the change that we have been waiting for.” Huh?

Pronoun Trouble… 🙂

None of this was challenged, but embraced as a historical moment that truly was the Yang to the existing Yin. Amazingly, there were little to no questions about policy; just the simplistic retort that “I will not be like the current president.” Furthermore, any challenge to the issue of a lack of policy proposals and experience in 2008 was met with the Alinsky tactic of personal demonization by way of being castigated as racist. And so in 2008 America replaced the Yin with the Yang and we had a new Yin – progressive socialism.

In 2012, the new slogan became “Forward,” and that was even as we recognized that so many quantitative assessments evidenced we were not going forward. We were certainly not progressing, and that situation continues to today. There were deceptions of jobs report numbers and we know that the economy was suffering under one of the most anemic recoveries in American history. But what was most telling was that we actually believed that we were safer; that Islamic terrorism was quelled. That was because Osama bin Laden had been double-tapped by U.S. Navy SEALS. However, the reality was far from being such. And so another deception took place when on 9-11-12 four Americans were abandoned to die in Benghazi – a place which had been destabilized by a horrific intervention by the current administration. Yet the new Yin, aided by a dedicated media campaign told us it was just a video.

So in 2012 we kept the current Yin.

Today, the situation is completely reversed. There is a new Yang that has risen due to the failures of the current Yin. The new slogan is “Make America Great Again.” This Yang has tapped into the evident weakness of the current Yin and has garnered a solid support base. Funny, this new Yang is not being embraced by the liberal progressive media, but its incessant assaults have enhanced the popularity of this new Yang in many aspects. And why is this happening? Simple: because the media clearly established and continues to establish itself as the protector of the progressive socialist ideal in 2008 and 2012. They have lost their credibility.

However, I would caution America to carefully assess whether this new Yang presents any viable policy solutions – similar to 2008.

My concern is that we Americans are once again being driven by media news cycles and not focusing on the prevailing issues or the future of America. Instead of basing our decisions about the future leadership of America on individual personalities, we must seek out a vision. Sadly, the social culture in America forces us to pay more attention to personas rather that principles. Now, I will be the first to admit that consideration of policy solutions may seem boring, but a base understanding is essential.

 

We have become more drawn to the person than the ideal. And what is lacking is a representation of the embodiment of that American ideal. Some would say that it does not exist, and God knows there are many who are trying to eradicate it – “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming America.”

What is necessary at this time in the current election cycle is for the American electorate to listen, and not be emotional. How do we restore the free enterprise opportunity society in order to get Americans back to work and productive in their own lanes? How do we develop a strategy to defeat militant Islamic terrorism? What needs to be done to reasonably stem the flow of illegal immigrants into America, secure our sovereign borders, yet also streamline our legal immigration system? How do we repair a healthcare system where individual premiums are rising, the individual mandate tax is increasing, and the level of care is decreasing? How do we advance the idea of parents being in charge of educating their children and being responsible for determining their outcomes – not the government?

The current Yin has done an exceptional job at focusing America on emotional “feeling” oriented issues. The reality is that the American public feels less safe. They know their beloved America, the land of individual economic empowerment, is becoming a breeding ground of collective economic enslavement, wealth transfer to grow the dependency society, a playground for social egalitarianism, and abject weakness.

And so we have the rise of the new Yang, a new slogan, but a lack of defined policy vision. The interconnection of the Yin and Yang of politics in America is that demagoguery has no favorite side. It can appear anywhere and finds a way to feed off the other.

As we close out 2015, enjoy a blessed Hanukkah, have a Merry Christmas, and celebrate a joyous and Happy New Year. May your favorite college football team win its bowl game – unless they are playing mine. But was we enter into a pivotal presidential election season, seek out an American leader, not an American celebrity.

Fascinating

Five of the wealthiest Muslim countries have taken no Syrian refugees in at all, arguing that doing so would open them up to the risk of terrorism. Although the oil rich countries have handed over aid money, Britain has donated more than Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar combined.

Between 10 and 12 million Syrians have been displaced by the bloody civil war raging in their country. Most still remain within Syria’s borders, but around four million have fled over the borders into neighbouring countries, mostly Turkey Jordan and Lebanon, and beyond.

Lebanon, which has 1.1 million Syrian refugees, shut her borders to the Syrians in June of last year. Jordan, host to another 630,000, followed suit in August last year, preventing more Syrians from abandoning their country.

Think about this also: If the “moderates” and The Christians are the ones fleeing, who’s left?

The Radicals.

Is that the plan??

By early August 2015, European states had received nearly 350,000 asylum applications from Syrians, nearly a third of whom applied to Germany for asylum. Another 65,000 have applied Sweden and 50,000 in Serbia. Hungary and Austria have received close to 19,000 applications each although that figure is likely to rise, while the UK is processing 7,030 applications, according to the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR).

Extraordinary failure to act by Arab countries. Everyone should know. Hat-tip — Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) September 5, 2015

Yet amidst cries for Europe to do more, it has transpired that of the five wealthiest countries on the Arabian Peninsula, that is, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, not one has taken in a single refugee from Syria. Instead, they have argued that accepting large numbers of Syrians is a threat to their safety, as terrorists could be hiding within an influx of people. Sherif Elsayid-Ali, Amnesty International’s Head of Refugee and Migrants’ Rights, has slammed their inaction as “shameful”.

He said: “The records of Gulf countries is absolutely appalling, in terms of actually showing compassion and sharing the responsibility of this crisis… It is a disgrace.” None of the Gulf States signed the 1951 Refugee Convention, which legally defines a refugee as “A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality”. However, they have taken refugees in the past.

Twenty-five years ago, hundreds of thousands of Kuwaitis fleeing Saddam Hussein’s invasion were given refuge. According to Arabian expert Sultan Sooud al-Qassemi: “in Abu Dhabi, the government rented out entire apartment blocks and gave them to families for free.”

“Damn it, open the door to #Syria refugees you apathetic bums” Rich Arab countries to European Union  — SaadAbedine (@SaadAbedine) September 1, 2015

Instead the countries, all of which are within the Top 50 list of wealthiest nations by GDP, have opted to donate aid to those affected by the crisis. According to the Daily Mail, the UAE has funded a refugee camp in Jordan giving shelter to tens of thousands of Syrians, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar have donated funds, food, shelter and clothing to Syrians in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan.

Total donations from the Gulf States are believe to total £589 million, less than a quarter of America’s £2.8 billion, and a fraction of the £65 billion they spent on defence in 2012 alone. The UK has handed over £920 million so far, but the Prime Minister yesterday pledged to increase that figure to £1 billion. He also promised to take in thousands more refugees.

Al-Qassemi has argued in the that the standing that the Muslim countries now have in the world confer on them a moral obligation to step in. “The Gulf States have emerged as the nerve centres of Arab diplomacy, culture, media production, commerce and tourism, amassing an unprecedented degree of soft power unrivalled in the region and beyond,” he said.

They also form “the most influential bloc within the 70-year-old Arab League.”

“But with great power comes great responsibility. The Gulf must realise that now is the time to change their policy regarding accepting refugees from the Syria crisis. It is the moral, ethical and responsible step to take.” (Breitbart)

Or not. 🙂

On Thursday, despite veto threats from the Obama White House, the House passed the American Security Against Foreign Enemies (SAFE) Act with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. How overwhelming? It was veto-proof, with 47 Democrats joining Republicans to increase the screening and approval process of Syrian refugees entering the country. Over 2,000 have been admitted so far.

So, what’s so horrific about the SAFE Act (via GovTrack.us):

H.R. 4038 [SAFE ACT] would expand the screening process for those refugees attempting to enter the United States by requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct its own background checks in addition to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS). Any refugee would be prohibited from entry until the FBI certifies that they pose no security threat. Refugees would only be admitted with the unanimous agreement of the FBI, DHS, and Director of National Intelligence.

If you couldn’t find anything controversial about this, you’re normal. And many Democrats viewed this as a reasonable piece of legislation. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough met with House Democrats before the vote, where their presentation on why they shouldn’t support the SAFE Act was pilloried as “too complicated,” or inarticulate at best.

One Democrat, who wished to remain anonymous, went into a caucus briefing opposed to the bill, but left supporting it–adding that the White House “royally f**ked” up their whole strategy in fighting this bill (via Huffington Post):

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has already promised this bill will die in the upper chamber, but that doesn’t mean this issue is going away. Congress needs to pass another spending bill by December 11 to keep the government running. We could be seeing another act of Shutdown Theater, but this time there are no adversaries (via Vox):

Even if Senate Democrats hold the line against a veto override, that won’t permanently solve the problem. It’s looking extremely likely that congressional Republicans will demand changes to Syrian refugee policy as a condition for keeping the government open past December 11. And unlike past shutdown threats, this is one congressional Democrats might actually go along with.For congressional Republicans, this bill is a brilliant strategic move. It’s anodyne enough that it’s attracted broad support from congressional Democrats as well as Republicans. And it’s forced the Obama administration — which has never had good relationships with Democrats on Capitol Hill — to fight an uphill battle.

As reported before numerous times, the FBI has admitted that there is no way they can screen every Syrian refugee. This isn’t an issue to be taken lightly; we should have a serious debate about how to screen these refugees and prevent those who wish to execute a terrorist attack on American soil from entering. Rep. Israel is right regarding the political fallout from this issue. Now is not the time for Democrats to look weak on national security issues, since they’ve been a little light in this area since 1972. The American people are against Obama’s refugee policy, barely 30 percent support it.

The president has mocked Republicans for their position on this crisis that is embraced by voters, along with a substantial amount of members from his own party. Either the president thinks he’s right and we’re all wrong, which isn’t out of the realm of possibility due to his arrogance, or he just doesn’t care. He’s a lame duck. He is, as Allahpundit prolifically says often, a “semi-retired president.”

Then again, we’ll see how this goes. For now, Reid seems confident that there are enough Senate Democrats to prevent cloture. But if Speaker Ryan decides to tie the December 11 spending bill to refugee funding, which he said is on the table, it should be interesting to see how long Reid’s stranglehold grip on his caucus lasts, especially when these issues played a role in defeating Democrats in some of the 2014 races–namely Sen. Kay Hagan in North Carolina. It has the potential of making Virginia more of a battleground state, given that Arlington County has signaled they’re willing to open the floodgates.

We shouldn’t be shocked if this “I don’t care, I do what I want” attitude persists on this issue within the Obama administration, who didn’t really mind that Democrats were being utterly decimated at the state level since 2009. As for Reid, well, he’s on his way out as well, so his “bull in a china closet” antics are expected as well. Moreover, is there any other attitude to be taken when you do royally mess up on an issue like this?

Just wait for the reaction of this bill ever reaches the president’s desk for his signature.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

The Narrative is The Narrative.

🙂

Liberal Logic

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!!!

You Don’t Need to Know

In a call with senior Obama administration officials Tuesday evening, several governors demanded they be given access to information about Syrian refugees about to be resettled by the federal government in their states. Top White House officials refused.

The Agenda is The Agenda. You are not allowed to change that.

It’s not like Obama cares if you disagree with his Agenda.

It’s on a need to know basis, and since you are not of “the body” you don’t need to know.

Over a dozen governors from both parties joined the conference call, which was initiated by the White House after 27 governors vowed not to cooperate with further resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states. The outrage among governors came after European officials revealed that one of the Paris attackers may have entered Europe in October through the refugee process using a fake Syrian passport. (The details of the attacker’s travels are still murky.)

The administration officials on the call included White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, State Department official Simon Henshaw, FBI official John Giacalone, and the deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center John Mulligan.

On the call several Republican governors and two Democrats — New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan and California’s Jerry Brown — repeatedly pressed administration officials to share more information about Syrian refugees entering the United States. The governors wanted notifications whenever refugees were resettled in their states, as well as access to classified information collected when the refugees were vetted.

“There was a real sense of frustration from all the governors that there is just a complete lack of transparency and communication coming from the federal government,” said one GOP state official who was on the call.

The administration officials, led by McDonough, assured the governors that the vetting process was thorough and that the risks of admitting Syrian refugees could be properly managed. He added that the federal government saw no reason to alter the current method of processing refugees.

President Barack Obama lashed out Wednesday at Republicans who insist on barring Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., deeming their words offensive and insisting “it needs to stop.”

“Apparently they’re scared of widows and orphans coming into the United States of America,” Obama said.

Mocking GOP leaders for thinking they’re tough, Obama said overblown rhetoric from Republicans could be a potent recruitment tool for the Islamic State group. He insisted the U.S. process for screening refugees for possible entry into the U.S. is rigorous and said the U.S. doesn’t make good decisions “based on hysteria” or exaggerated risk.

“We are not well served when in response to a terrorist attack we descend into fear and panic,” the president said. (Townhall)

The Agenda is The Agenda. My Reality is the one one. Anything else is just stupid and not worth my time. So shut the f*ck up and do as you’re told!!

Florida governor Rick Scott asked McDonough point blank if states could opt out of accepting refugees from Syria. McDonough said no, the GOP state official said.

In a readout of the call Tuesday night, the White House said that several governors “expressed their appreciation for the opportunity to better understand the process and have their issues addressed.” The White House noted that “others encouraged further communication” from the administration about the resettlement of refugees. 

In other words, they can go fuck themselves. I’m going to do it anyways.

“I understand why Americans have been particularly affected,” he said.

I just don’t care.

Hassan, one of two Democrats to challenge the administration on the call, had already come out in favor of halting the flow of Syrian refugees to the United States. She expressed anger that state officials aren’t notified when Syrian refugees are resettled in their territory.

Brown said he favored continuing to admit Syrian refugees but wanted the federal government to hand over information that would allow states to keep track of them, the GOP state official said.

McDonough responded to Brown that there was currently no process in place to give states such information and the administration saw no reason to change the status quo. The non-governmental organizations that help resettle the refugees would have such information.

Brown countered by noting that state law enforcement agencies have active investigations into suspected radicals and that information about incoming Syrian refugees could help maintain their awareness about potential radicalization. He suggested the U.S. had to adjust the way it operates in light of the Paris attacks.

McDonough reiterated his confidence in the current process. While promising to consider what Brown and other senators had said, he emphasized that the administration had no plans to increase information sharing on refugees with states as of now.

Top GOP senators echoed the concerns of governors Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr joined House Speaker Paul Ryan’s call for a “pause” in the flow of Syrian refugees, which is intended to include 10,000 people by 2016. McConnell said “the ability to vet people coming from that part of the world is really quite limited.”

Democratic senators are split on the issue. Senators Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday there may be a need for a pause in accepting Syrian refugees but they both wanted to hear more from the administration about the issue. Sen. Dick Durbin said that refugees aren’t the primary source of concern. He pointed to the millions of foreign visitors who enter America each year.

“Background checks need to be redoubled in terms of refugees but if we’re talking about threats to the United States, let’s put this in perspective,” he said. “Let us not just single out the refugees as the potential source of danger in the United States.”

The White House is trying hard to engage governors and lawmakers. Top administration officials held several briefings about the issue Tuesday on Capitol Hill. But if they don’t agree to share more with state and local politicians, the opposition to accepting Syrian refugees could quickly gain ground. (Bloomberg)

And your King’s petulance will grow louder.

30 states now refuse to accept #SyrianRefugees after #ParisAttacks but State Dept. says they may have no choice.

Fundamentally, the biggest problem is that no one trusts Obama and his “Vetting process” because it’s entirely politically and ideologically driven and he doesn’t actually care what you think.

 

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. 🙂

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? 🙂

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

 

The Agenda is The Agenda

“Damn The Torpedoes, Full Steam Ahead!”

Despite overwhelming opposition from the American people and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, it is becoming clearer by the day President Obama is planning to close Guantanamo Bay prison with or without the consent of Congress. 

For he is King, and his Agenda is King. So the King gets what the King wants regardless. Who gives a crap about a Constitution when The Agenda is The Agenda.

It’s Good to Be The King!

When asked about the constitutionality of unilaterally closing the prison with an executive order, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted Monday that the legality of such a move isn’t clear, but hinted President Obama will do it anyway. 

So what. Obama himself said 22 times that the Executive Order for Amnesty was unconstitutional, but he did it anyways because the Agenda demanded it.

“The focus of our efforts right now is on Congress and there are members of Congress who share this goal [closing GITMO] and who have indicated at least an openness to working with the administration to achieve this goal.

Democrats and RINOs.

That’s the focus of our efforts right now. I’m not aware of any ongoing effort to devise a strategy using only the President’s executive authority to accomplish this goal, but I certainly wouldn’t take that option off the table,” Earnest told reporters Monday.

Either Congress does it for him, or he’ll do it by Executive Fiat.

“There are a wide range of thorny, legal questions that are raised by this ongoing effort to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. I wouldn’t sort of speculate on those right now. These are obviously, in some cases because of the unique nature of this facility, in some cases we’re in uncharted legal waters here but, the President made clear from his first week in office that closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay is a national security priority.”

The national security of The Middle East, not us. Releasing Terrorists is only good for the Terrorists. But when you’re a Muslim to begin with… 🙂

Over the year the White House has slowly released GITMO prisoners in hopes the numbers will become so low, Congress no longer sees the prison as financially viable. Last summer, President Obama traded five top-Taliban commanders for alleged Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl. 

And that worked out really well. But at least he didn’t trade actual prisoners of war for the Iraq Nuke Deal… 🙂

Later this week, a report detailing how the administration plans to shut down the prison is expected to be released by the Department of Defense. (Townhall)

The Agenda is The Agenda.

The King knows Best. The All-Father of Government has spoken!

Needs to make room for real prisoners , maybe . Conservatives and other such lowlife opposition to The State. 🙂

Never Forget

When I see young kids these days, one of the thoughts I have is, that they don’t have connection to this history and the Politically Correct will water it down to nothing because it’s not Agenda Correct to remind people that every single terrorist was a Muslim.

So, as I do every year on this date. I remind people, “Oh yeah, that happened today”

Because, unlike Hillary, It does matter.

So how many Leftist out there want to call me a racist for singling out Muslims? 🙂

How children are oblivious to this day’s importance because The Ministry of Liberal Education has watered this down to insignificance by now?

How many Liberals have banned this from their collectivist memory and are absolutlely sure it was a plot cooked up President Bush?

On just as a reminder this also happened…

But don’t worry, that was our fault. These Libyan muslims just happened to passing by the Consulate in Benghazi on 9/11 with their Rocket Launchers, Snipers, grenades, and Molotov cocktails and remembered that they saw a You tube video in June and got pissed off at that very moment and wam! 4 people are dead because of it.

That’s the Obama/Hillary story.

But don’t worry, it’s all a partisan witch hunt by right wing extremists now. 🙂

Fact Free Left

The outrage over another multiple murder of American military personnel on American soil by another Islamic extremist has been exacerbated by the fact that these military people had been ordered to be unarmed — and therefore sitting ducks.

Millions of American civilians have also been forbidden to have guns, and are also sitting ducks — for criminals, terrorists or psychos.

You might think that, before having laws or policies forcing fellow human beings to be defenseless targets, those who support such laws and policies would have some factual basis for believing that these gun restrictions save more lives, on net balance, than allowing more legal access to firearms. But you would be wrong.

Facts, Liberals don’t need no stinking facts. They have their Agenda and that’s all that matters because they are Homo Superior Liberalis and they are never wrong.

Most gun control zealots show not the slightest interest in testing empirically their beliefs or assumptions. There have been careful factual studies by various scholars of what happens after gun control laws have been instituted, strengthened or reduced.

But those studies are seldom even mentioned by gun control activists. Somehow they just know that gun restrictions reduce gun crime, no matter how many studies show the opposite. How do they know? Because other like-minded people say so — and say so repeatedly and loudly.

And then they get MSNBC and CNN and the Liberal media to repeat it over and over again.

The end justifies the means, regardless of how you got there. The Agenda is The Agenda.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” –Josef Goebbels

A few gun control advocates may cherry-pick examples of countries with stronger gun control laws than ours that have lower murder rates (such as England) — and omit other countries with stronger gun control laws than ours that have far higher murder rates (such as Mexico, Russia and Brazil).

You don’t test an assumption or belief by cherry-picking examples. Not if you are serious. And if you are not going to be serious about life and death, when are you going to be serious?

On Left, about how righteous they are about their Agenda and how to make you follow it no matter what. That is serious business.

Unfortunately, gun control is just one of many issues on which the political left shows no real interest in testing their assumptions or beliefs. The left glorifies the 1960s as a turning point in American life. But they show no interest in testing whether things turned for the better or for the worse.

Homicide rates had been going down substantially, for decades on end — among both blacks and whites — until the 1960s. Plotted on a graph, there is a big U-shaped curve, showing the turnaround after the bright ideas of the left were applied to criminals in American courts of law in the 1960s.

This was not the only U-shaped curve, with its low, turnaround point in the 1960s. The same was true of the venereal disease gonorrhea, whose rate of infection went down in every year of the 1950s — and then skyrocketed, beginning in the 1960s.

Teenage pregnancies had also been going down for years, until the late 1960s, when “sex education” was introduced in schools across the country. Then pregnancy rates rose nearly 50 percent over the next decade, among girls 15 to 19 years old — exactly the opposite of what had been predicted by the left.

Another program that had the opposite effect from its advocates’ claims was the “war on poverty” program created by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Contrary to what was said during the celebrations of its 50th anniversary last year, the loudly proclaimed purpose of the “war on poverty” was not simply to transfer money or other benefits to the poor. Both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and their supporters in Congress and in the media, all clearly stated that the central purpose of the “war on poverty” was to reduce dependency on government.

Both poverty and dependency on government had already been declining for years before this massive program began. The proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level — without counting government benefits — declined by about one third from 1950 to 1965.

This was yet another beneficial trend that reversed itself after another bright idea of the left was put into practice in the 1960s. After half a century and trillions of dollars, the only response of the left has been to change the criteria, so that now the “war on poverty” could be portrayed as a success because it proved that, if you transferred more resources from X to Y, then Y would now have more resources. Who could have doubted that?

And now there are more poor children than in the Depression itself. Less jobs than in the last 40 years. But you won’t hear THAT from the Left.

Changing the goal after the fact is just one of the ways the left has portrayed its failures as successes.

And they continue to do so. Or, for the sake of The Agenda, they just ignore any “inconvenient” truths 🙂 that get in the way of it and demonize you for daring to defy them.

Just do as you are told. Believe what you are told, without question like they do and Utopia awaits you.

And if it doesn’t happen, it’s someone elses fault, like George W. Bush! 🙂

There is no way to know what is going on in someone else’s mind. But sometimes their behavior tells you more than their words.

The political left’s great claim to authenticity and honor is that what they advocate is for the benefit of the less fortunate. But how could we test that?

T.S. Eliot once said, “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”

This suggests that one way to find out if those who claim to be trying to help the less fortunate are for real is to see if they are satisfied to simply advocate a given policy, and see it through to being imposed — without also testing empirically whether the policy is accomplishing what it set out to do.

The first two steps are enough to let advocates feel important and righteous. Whether you really care about what happens to the supposed beneficiaries of the policy is indicated by whether you bother to check out the empirical evidence afterwards.

Many, if not most, people who are zealous advocates of minimum wage laws, for example, never check to see if these laws do more good by raising some workers’ wages than harm by preventing many young and inexperienced workers from finding jobs.

One of my own pieces of good fortune, when I left home at age 17, was that the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males was in single digits that year — for the last time. The minimum wage law was ten years old, and the wage specified in that law was now so low that it was irrelevant, after years of inflation. It was the same as if there were no minimum wage law.

Liberals, of course, wanted the minimum wage raised, to keep up with inflation. The result was that, ten years later, the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males was 27.5 percent — and it has never been less than 20 percent in all the years since then.

As the minimum wage kept getting raised, so did the unemployment rate for black 17-year-old males. In 1971 it was 33.4 percent — and it has never been under 30 percent since then. It has often been over 40 percent and, occasionally, over 50 percent.

But people who advocate minimum wage laws seldom show any interest in the actual consequences of such laws, which include many idle young males on the streets, which does no good for them or for their communities.

Advocates talk about people who make minimum wages as if they are a permanent class of people. In reality, most are young inexperienced workers, and no one stays young permanently. But they can stay inexperienced for a very long time, damaging their prospects of getting a job and increasing their chances of getting into trouble, hanging out with other idle and immature males.

There is the same liberal zeal for government intervention in housing markets, and the same lack of interest in checking out what the actual consequences are for the people who are supposed to be the beneficiaries of government housing policies, whether as tenants or home buyers.

They have the best of intentions so consequences don’t matter and they are someone elese fault anyways.

Government pressures and threats forced mortgage lenders to lower their lending standards, to allow more low-income and minority applicants to qualify. But, after the housing boom became a bust, the biggest losers were low-income and minority home buyers, who were unable to keep up the payments and lost everything — which was the very reason they were turned down before lending standards were lowered.

Rent control laws have led to housing shortages in cities around the world. More than a thousand apartment buildings have been abandoned by their owners in New York alone — more than enough to house all the homeless in the city.

High tax rates on “the rich” — however defined — are an ever popular crusade on the left. Who cares about the consequences — such as the rich investing their money overseas, where it will create jobs and economic growth in other countries, while American workers are unemployed and American economic growth is anemic?

All these policies allow the political left to persist in their fact-free visions. And those visions in turn allow the left to feel good about themselves, while leaving havoc in their wake.

For they are Homo Superior Liberalis!

Liberals are like Wile E. Coyote.  For example:

• Elaborate and expensive ideas and contraptions that always fail miserably.
• These ideas always come from the same source.  Like Wile E. Coyote using ACME, liberals use John Maynard Keynes, Saul Alinsky, and Karl Marx for their sources every time.
• The goal is more important than the damage attempting to achieve it causes along the way.
• Never focusing on the possible consequences, but only focusing on the goal. Unfortunately, for Wile E. Coyote, a Mac truck, a train, an explosive rocket, etc. bring the reality of the lack of ability to see all possible consequences into the picture.  For liberals, the realities of human nature and economics seem to elude them, as they seem to think that this ACME product will work this time, and that their “super genius” will exert control over what is uncontrollable.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  Anyone watching Wile E. Coyote knows it is just a cartoon intended to make you laugh at the Coyote’s rampant stubbornness and stupidity.  In real life, we would call such behavior insanity.

The Liberals call it The Agenda, and it’s perfection, just like they are. All they have to do is force you to see it. 🙂

But you’re just a “hater” if you disagree.

 

Live Free Speech or Die

The following haqs NOT been approved by the Social Justice Ministry of Truth and as such you should understand that reading it is Thoughtcrime punishable by derision and shame-mongering by the “tolerant” and “diversity” loving Leftists of America.

We’d rather die than “live” on our knees, begging permission to exercise the right God gave us to say whatever we damn well please, whenever we damn well please, and in the manner we damn well please. And those who want to shut us up better be equally committed if they want to succeed.

After Garland, they went too far. They showed their hand and their goal, a world where they decide who gets to say what. Imagine the same hysterical social justice drama queens who shriek about microaggressions getting to decide what you can and can’t say. Just understand, you fascist bastards, that if you want to be Nazis, you’ll need to do what the Nazis did and find some armed thugs – yeah, I’m using the word “thugs” whether you like it or not – to come stop us. Tell them to wear Kevlar.

Garland and the sorry aftermath of terrorist apologetics that followed were a warning to every freedom-loving American, as well as an illustration of what one freedom-loving American with training and a Glock can do against the forces of totalitarianism. These jihadi savages tried to silence and intimidate all free Americans. They failed.

Progressives mutter without conviction about how they can’t support violence, but … but … but, in fact, they do support violence. It’s not just their chilling with bomb-planting guys around the neighborhood and free passes for the looters in Ferguson and Baltimore. They support whatever it takes to silence us.

When the Democrats in Congress vote to repeal the First Amendment, or when they babble about outlawing what they label “hate speech,” what these leftist elitists seek to do is to empower a government they control to send armed men to stop us from saying what they have determined we may not say. They can’t stand up to the truth we speak; they have to suppress it or scamper away like roaches caught in the light.

No. You see, we aren’t giving up our right of free speech or, for that matter, any other rights you leftist schmucks deem inconvenient.

Those miserable losers in Garland weren’t just a couple of carcasses. Shot down in the street by a free American who was not intimidated, who was not afraid, who absolutely, positively was not going to back down even when outnumbered and outgunned, their dead bodies are a symbol. They are a symbol of our resolve, proof that we will not surrender, we will not submit, and we will not allow our God-given rights to be stolen from us by anyone, not Seventh Century savages, not Gucci-wearing liberal narcissists, and not twisted social justice warriorettes taking out on the rest of humanity their lingering disappointment that no boy wanted to be seen with them at the prom.

To the gutless and cowardly who would gladly submit to dhimmitude, whether imposed by the jihadi creeps or the progressive cadres, we can say only that we pity you. We pity the fact that every day you have to wake up and look in the mirror and see the face of a man, or woman, or whichever of the 567 other gender identities the freakshow left has manufactured, who is more concerned with personal safety than with personal dignity. Pathetic.

Maybe preserving your life is worth living as a slave, but we reject your craven choice. God did not put us on this Earth to be the minions of some oligarchy of malignant punks, obedient and afraid. You want to clasp a figurative collar around our necks? You better hire a whole bunch of dudes who are a whole a lot better at close quarter combat than those clowns in Garland. And you sure won’t find any tactically proficient future stormtroopers in the local university’s Womyns’ Studies Department or sipping cosmos at some Manhattan cocktail party.

You want to turn America into the fascist state of your dreams? Remember Lexington and Concord? No, you don’t, because you were too busy taking courses in Socialist Tap Dance to squeeze in a history course. So let me break it down for you: You’ll need to fight. And you putzes don’t have the skill or the guts to do it.

The jihadis can’t fight, and you leftists won’t. You progressives thought you could just slowly nibble away at our rights, gnawing off a bit here and a bit there, slowly, so we wouldn’t notice. You thought you could shame, bully, and browbeat us into the figurative cattle cars for carriage off to the giant reeducation camp you wanted to make of our culture. Who needed men in black with guns? We were supposed to willingly, even eagerly, submit. But that’s not going to happen.

Oh, you came so close. For so long, we wrongly imagined that your lies about racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and all the rest were just part of some big misunderstanding. Sure, we knew you were wrong, that we were being falsely accused, but we thought you were at least sincere, if misguided. Except now the mask is off.

Racism? You don’t care. Ask Clarence Thomas about your love of minorities who don’t toe your line.

Sexism? You don’t care. Ask any of Bill Clinton’s victims, who you eagerly sacrificed to save your progressive knight.

Homophobia? Poverty? Corporate abuses? Civil rights? You care nothing about any of them. You leftists just want control. You trash gays who get between you and power, and ignore the gays being murdered in the Middle East because that oppression isn’t useful to you. You keep the poor poor and addicted to your paltry handouts so you can maintain a docile voting bloc. Corporate abuses are terrible right up until the big companies start paying off your candidates. And civil rights? Gimme a break. The First Amendment stopped being useful back in January 2009, so now you’re eager to drown it like Mary Jo Kopechne.

We’re done. You fascists, whether Islamo- or liberal, want to shut us up? Then you better be ready to rumble, because submission isn’t one of the options. We will speak free or die. (Kurt Schlichter)

 

The Pizza Conundrum

Derek Hunter: Like most people, I like pizza. I also like bacon on my pizza sometimes.

My old neighborhood in Baltimore had five pizza places in fairly close proximity, but one was better than the others, both in price and taste. So, after a night of adult beverages with friends, we’d inevitably end up in one of them, generally the one most convenient to where we were. Sometimes that was the one with the better pizza.

One time we were in there and my friends and I were in a “pizza with bacon” mood, but there was a problem: This place didn’t have bacon as a topping option.

They hadn’t sold out … that wasn’t the issue. The issue was they didn’t offer bacon at all. The place is owned by people who are Muslim, and they don’t offer pork in any form. Their pepperoni is beef, as is their sausage. They didn’t even offer turkey bacon.

We immediately rallied our friends, wrote up protest signs, called the mayor and media, screamed slogans about how my right to the pizza we wanted the way we wanted was being trampled, and filed suit against the place with the help of the ACLU.

Of course we did nothing of the sort. We ordered one with other toppings, and the next time we were out and had a hankering for pizza with bacon, we went to one of the other places.

It’s not a perfect analogy, but it’s close to what should happen when a gay couple walks into a florist, bakery or whatever owned by a devoutly religious person whose beliefs don’t permit them to provide a service for a gay wedding.

Normal people, gay or straight, would hear the objection, probably would be upset, and would leave thinking, “Glad we found that out now because I don’t want to give my money to someone who doesn’t want to serve me.” But we aren’t dealing with normal people here; we’re dealing with activists.

Activists on the progressive left have no decency; they have only an agenda. If they have to trample the rights of others, particularly Christians, all the better.

It would be one thing if there were only one place from which to get a cake or flowers, but there are dozens. That doesn’t matter to activist progressives – that ANY exist that do not conform to their will is too many. So we end up where we are today.

Aside (UPI): WALKERTON, Ind., April 1 (UPI) — The owner of a small-town Indiana pizzeria said Wednesday that he is afraid his business may be finished following remarks to a local TV news reporter in which he said his parlor would not cater a same-sex wedding, due to his personal beliefs. They were also quoted as saying they were fearful they’ve closed the business and may never  re-open because of these activists. They trashed YELP and basically trashed the business in their pavlovian “righteous” rage. Well, I guess they’ll have to go on government assistance or retire. Everyone else is out of a job. Now that’s the left for you!

One of the most aggressive criticisms against the O’Connors was reportedly leveled by an Indiana high school golf coach, who tweeted, “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me?” She was subsequently suspended for the tweet and Walkerton police conducted an investigation into the message.

The coach’s Twitter account has since been deactivated and she may face criminal charges, including harassment and intimidation, police said.

But how many one The Left secretly or not-so secretly cheered for this disgusting act? Quite a lot I bet. “got what they deserved” I bet is the mantra of The Left today in Walkerton. (I know it is, I checked the comments on the article)

Defy the activists and they they will destroy you. That’s the American Way! 🙂

The state of Indiana is under attack from progressives not because of its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, but because the governor is a Republican considering a run for president. If it were the principle, this uninformed army would be protesting in every state with a RFRA and non-stop in Washington demanding the federal version be repealed. They aren’t, and that’s not by accident.

Selective outrage, generally fake and drummed up with the help of ignorant and willing participants in the media, is the hallmark of the left.

You can have binders full of women’s resumes and be mocked as a monster and a misogynist. Or, if you’re part of the progressive tribe, you can drop your pants and demand favors, get those favors from an intern, or rape a woman and it’s all good.

To hell with that!

Rationalizing with the left is like negotiating with terrorists. You can’t do it. They both have the same objective – your destruction. It’s about time conservatives start treating them the way they treat everyone else.

It’s all or nothing with ISIS, Al Qaeda and the progressive left; stray from their orthodoxy and you have to be destroyed. Time to return the favor.

Don’t waste your time arguing with them. You’ll find more logical consistency and honesty in an old shoe than you will an activist progressive. But the mindless minions, those who sign petitions and think they’re saving the world or post the dumb memes on Facebook about evil Republicans … they are getable.

No, you won’t be able to educate them to come around to logic – if 18+ years of life hasn’t instilled them with common sense, it simply isn’t getting into their heads. But they are Pavlovian in their reactions, and that you can use.

Comedy Central announced its choice to replace Jon Stewart on The Daily Show – a guy named Trevor Noah. No one knew who he was when it was announced, but he’s supposedly some sort of comedian. More than that, though, he’s someone with a long track record of posting racist, sexist, anti-Semitic “jokes” online.

This isn’t just Fox News talking. It’s leftists. It’s Slate. It’s The Washington Post. It’s almost every progressive outlet. He’s made “fat chick” jokes. He’s made “racially insensitive” jokes. He’s made a lot of anti-Jewish jokes. Comedians, even unfunny ones like Noah, used to be able to do that, but not anymore.

The progressive hyper-sensitive mass of ignoramuses conditioned to take offense at a shift in the breeze can’t turn it off. Pavlov’s dogs never got past the sound of a bell, and these monsters can’t let perceived slights slide even when their masters want them to. Exploit that. Exploit the hell out of it.

These progressive zombies have protested speakers on college campuses who agree with them because they didn’t agree with them strongly enough or on every single point. They are ready to be outraged at things. Many of them seem to need the outrage.

Find stories about Mr. Noah. Post them on your and your progressive friends’ Facebook pages. Tweet them. Retweet them. Comment on them. Keep that fire burning in them. Call for Noah’s firing.

Noah may be a nice man (you’d think he’d have to have something going for him because “funny” ain’t it), but he’s a progressive, and progressives will eat their own if they aren’t pure enough. And, most importantly, the politics of absolutism and personal destruction for anyone who strays from the thought plantation and breaks from progressive orthodoxy is the left’s monster – turn it on them.

And engage in it yourselves. Demand Comedy Central fire Trevor Noah. I know it’s not our nature, but our nature isn’t winning the war.

These are the liberal progressives’ rules, and they’ve been goose-stepping to them against conservatives unchallenged for too long. Make them live by them too.

Alinsky Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.

Progressive love to impose their will on the American people, but rarely do they live by those rules. Al Gore lectures on the problems with your carbon footprint, then hops on his private jet to fly to his enormous mansion. Noah isn’t Gore, but you have to start somewhere. And start we must if we’re ever going to get the fascism to stop.

“I’m just a little guy who had a little business that I probably don’t have anymore,” Kevin O’Connor told the Times. “It doesn’t change my attitude or stance, but it’s hurtful that I can’t publicly speak out about what I believe in saying.”

The Leftist First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Any religion,and mocking or hindering the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; but abridging those who are not us; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble to worship the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES and protest it’s enemies, any assembly otherwise in opposition must therefore be “terrorism” “bigotry” or “racism”, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances against ANYONE who defies us and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

You only have the right to agree with the Left 100% of the time, anything else will be destroyed with extreme prejudice.

Otherwise, just remain silent and do as you are told. Nothing else.

After all, they are the Righteous and you are not. You should never do anything to offend them or hell hath no furry live a Pavlovian Progressive stirred…

Be Afraid, Be VERY afraid.

Deflect or Dismiss

The reaction to Islamic terrorists killing 17 people in Paris in the name of their radical creed has been greeted with a very strange perceived need to deflect or just dismiss it in liberal political and media circles.

Most journalists tried to downplay or ignore President Obama’s failure to attend the huge Sunday “unity” rally in Paris, where 40 world leaders gathered in a show of support for France. While the New York tabloids mocked Obama, most national newspapers mentioned “World leaders link arms” and barely noticed the leader of the free world had stayed home to watch football games.

Even after the White House spokesman admitted it was an error for top American officials to skip the event, obviously in reaction to national and international outrage, still some newspapers buried it inside their papers like it was no big deal.

There were other distressing signs of liberal deflection. CNN International anchor Christiane Amanpour called the terrorists mere “activists” in her reporting on the shootings at the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo: “On this day, these activists found their targets, and their targets were journalists.”

Amanpour was quoting one of the dead cartoonists, who said, “When activists need a pretext to justify their violence, they always find it.” Words matter, especially to journalists, and this was the wrong word. Activists write letters to the editor, join a community organization or protest, volunteer for a political campaign, man a phone bank.

Men who terrorize by slaughtering innocent men, women and children are terrorists.

The absence of President Obama or a senior U.S. representative in Paris Sunday at history’s largest anti-terrorism march was an instant embarrassment of major international proportions. And a snub to European allies who’ve gone along with the Democrat’s pleas for cooperation against ISIS and other causes.

But what’s emerged in subsequent hours is even more revealing of a serious ongoing problem for Obama that helps explain why in the last quarter of his presidential tenure so many Americans simply do not trust him.

To its credit, the White House almost admitted it made a mistake by not sending an American participant more important than Obama campaign bundler and Amb. Jane Hartley to march arm-in-arm with nearly four dozen world leaders. “I think,” Josh Earnest said Monday, “it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.”

That’s less a sincere statement of contrition and more a strategic admission attempting to take the wind out of the sails of a bad news story.

Press secretary Earnest declined to use the word “mistake.” He refused to say what Obama was doing during the march, just as the White House refused to reveal what Obama was doing during the long deadly night of Benghazi. And he refused publicly to name the responsible staffer.

Earnest suggested security was a concern. But Joe Biden wasn’t busy. Security was already in Paris for Atty. Gen. Eric Holder. And the Secret Service says no one ever asked about a Paris trip.

In a story that fits the familiar White House pattern of protecting the president, Politico fingered Obama’s notoriously sloppy communications staff as missing the march’s importance and failing even to ask Obama if he wanted to go. Yes, the NFL playoffs were all over weekend TV.

But if you believe the president of the United States could be unaware that nearly 50 world leaders, including David Cameron, Angela Merkel and Benjamin Netanyahu from Europe, the Middle East and Africa were gathering in Paris, then we’ve got an Intercontinental Railroad to sell you.

It’s the same “Gee, I didn’t know” cover story that Obama used when the IRS scandal broke. His attorney just four doors from the Oval Office knew agents were caught harassing Obama’s political opponents, but she never thought to tell him? Uh-huh.

And when the roll-out of the president’s namesake ObamaCare blew up, Kathleen Sebelius told CNN the president was unaware of the troubles for days. Because? SportsCenter must not have covered it.

Like Benghazi, such fictions make any passerby wonder, what in the world could Obama have been doing at those times that is so evil and/or embarrassing that the commander-in-chief would rather his countrymen see him as clueless?

Which brings us to this “radical Islam” issue. In his ostentatious oration to the Muslim world from Cairo in June of 2009 Obama described “violent extremists” in “a small but potent minority of Muslims.” But ever since, he and his crowd have gone awkwardly out of their way to avoid labeling radical Islamists as radical Islamists.

Recall the Muslim Fort Hood shooter hailing Allah as he killed 13 fellow soldiers. That was inexplicably labeled “workplace violence.” Same for the Paris killers who are “terrorists,” true as far as it goes. But being al-Qaida alums, killing Jews and hailing Allah as you fire does add another dimension that Obama ignores.

Obama has also displayed serial sympathies for radical Muslims in appointments and snuffed investigations, as this newspaper’s editorial detailed the other day. And Earnest’s tortured circumlocutions to avoid saying “radical Islam” were painful to watch Tuesday.

Obama identifies himself as Christian. But much of his father’s family was Muslim. And Obama spent most of his formative youth in a step-father’s Muslim home in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation. It would be understandable if he felt a special kinship to that faith and its members.

But that requires transparency. In his arrogance and/or insecurity Obama has never felt moved to share those feelings candidly. So even Americans prepared to like the guy are left to wonder at best or suspect at worst that he’s not being honest with them about his sympathies or leanings. Maybe, one theory goes, Obama actually disagreed with the massive Paris anti-terrorism rally altogether, and his feigned ignorance is just a cover for that.

“In order to move forward,” Obama told the Muslim world from Cairo, “we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors.” It would be a really good idea if Obama did the same with his own people.

But he won’t.

The left passionately attempts to inflame the world against such slow-emerging, life-threatening crises as “catastrophic global warming” or fast-food menus without calorie counts. But when it comes to Islamic jihad, they seem oddly incapable of outrage or alarm. They just deflect or dismiss. (IBD)

The Agenda is The Agenda, and “radical islam”/”islamic jihad” is a thoughtcrime and not on the Agenda so it’s not important thus they have to dismiss it as irrelevant to them (and you) as quickly as possible.

Hey, look! FREE STUFF! 🙂

The Slow March

A British author, residing in the United States for the past 30 years, created a small firestorm earlier this week with his candid observations that modern-day Americans have been duped by the government into accepting a European-style march toward socialism because we fail to appreciate the rich legacy of personal liberty that is everyone’s birthright and is expressly articulated in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Os Guinness, the author of more than a dozen books defending traditional Judeo-Christian values and Jeffersonian personal liberty, argued that we should embrace individual liberty and personal dignity and reject the “no givens, no rules, no limits” government we now have. He went on to opine that the government today is not the constitutionally restrained protector of personal freedoms the Framers left us, but rather has become the wealth-distributing protector of collective interests the Founding Fathers never could have imagined.

Yet the problem is a deep one. The Framers believed in the presumption of liberty, which declares that we are free to make personal choices, and the government cannot interfere with our liberties unless we violate the rights of others. Stated differently, the federal government cannot interfere with our personal choices by writing any law it wants; it can only regulate behavior or spend money when the Constitution authorizes it to do so.

But for the past 100 years, the federal government has rejected the Madisonian concept that it is limited to the 16 discrete powers the Constitution delegates to it, and has claimed its powers are unlimited, subject only to the express prohibitions in the Constitution. Even those prohibitions can be gotten around since government lawyers have persuaded federal courts to rule that Congress can spend tax dollars or borrowed money on any projects it wishes, whether authorized by the Constitution or not. The courts even have authorized Congress to use federal tax dollars to bribe the states into enacting laws that Congress is powerless to enact, and Congress has done so.

The Declaration of Independence defines our personal liberties as inalienable aspects of our humanity, and the Constitution prohibits the government from interfering with those liberties — like thought, speech, press, association, worship, self-defense, travel, privacy, due process, use of money and private property, to name a few.

The teaching of these founding documents is that our liberties are natural — their source is not the government — and they are personal, not collective. We don’t need a government permission slip to exercise them; we don’t need to belong to a group to enjoy them; they cannot be taken away by a congressional vote or a presidential signature.

Even though everyone who works for the government takes an oath to uphold the Declaration and the Constitution, very few are consistent with what they have sworn to do. We know that because on the transcendental issues of our day — life, liberty, war and debt — the leadership of both political parties and the behavior of all modern presidents have revealed a steadfast willingness to write any law and regulate any behavior or permit any evil, whether authorized by the Constitution or not.

Take life. Abortion is the most deadly force in America today. Abortions lawfully kill a baby a minute — that’s 1.1 million babies a year and 45,000,000 killed since the Supreme Court issued its Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. A simple one-line statute — “The fetus in the womb is a legal person” — could have been enacted by a simple majority vote in Congress and signed into law by any of our so-called pro-life presidents, thus stopping the slaughter. It never happened.

Take liberty. Both parties support the Patriot Act and the secret FISA apparatus, which together invade privacy, infringe upon free speech, permit federal agents to write their own search warrants and allow domestic spying on all of us all the time. This demonstrates that our political leaders do not believe that our rights are inalienable, but can be interfered with and regulated by them. They have written laws that literally permit federal agents to do the very acts the Constitution was written to prohibit.

Take the lethal combination of war and debt. Both parties support perpetual war and perpetual debt. The leadership of both parties has permitted every modern president to kill whomever he pleases in foreign countries without lawful declarations of war and to do so by going into a $17 trillion hole of debt, with no end in sight. Today, 20 cents of every tax dollar collected goes to interest on pre-existing government debt. Today’s taxpayers are still paying interest on the $30 billion Woodrow Wilson borrowed to finance World War I in 1917.

The British author is correct. Unless we have a radical change in the direction of government — its size, cost, focus, intrusiveness and rejection of first principles — and unless we elect people to the government who truly believe the Declaration and the Constitution mean what they say, we will continue our march toward the federal destruction of the presumption of liberty.

It is a slow march, but a steady one.

The Politically Correct Amnesty Plague

“The clearest path to change is to change [the voter turnout] number,” said Obama “Si se puede, si votamos! Yes, we can, if we vote!”

“And six years ago, I asked you to believe, and tonight, I ask you to keep believing, not just in my ability to bring about change, but in your ability to bring about change. Because in the end, DREAMer is more than just a title, it’s a pretty good description of what it means to be an American.”-Obama

Flood in here illegally, squat, and wait for Amnesty. That’s the “American” Way!

And you scoff at the idea that the Democrats want all these aliens to use as a voting block to do whatever they want, whenever they want, because they want. After all, checking whether they are legal to vote is “RACIST!”. 🙂

Now do you? 🙂

“This is a promise the president will keep,” Earnest said during an appearance on Telemundo’s “Enfoque con Jose Diaz-Balart.” “The president has tasked his team with looking at the law and determining what kind of executive authority he can use to try to address the problems of our broken immigration system. They’ve come up with some good solutions. They will be finalized before the end of the year and the president will announce them before the end of the year.”

Earnest noted that “the president has taken action before that has made a difference in try to addressing some of these problems,” pointing to his deferred action program that allows some who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children to remain without the threat of deportation.

“The president believed that they needed relief. And working with his Homeland Security secretary and other law enforcement officials, was able to bring them relief,” Earnest said. “The president made good on that promise and the president’s gonna make good on this promise too.” (The Hill)

It’s Good to be The King!

That’s Obama’s “America”.

But America is stuck on open-borders stupid.

The Diversity Visa (DV) program, to take just one glaring example of government insanity, is still going.

On October 1, the State Department opened the annual DV random lottery to applicants from around the world. Yes, it’s completely random like a Powerball drawing. Up to 55,000 lucky winners will snag permanent residency visas (green cards), which put them on the path to American citizenship ahead of millions of other foreigners patiently waiting to come to this country.

The green card lotto winners’ spouses and unmarried children under 21 all get golden tickets into the country, too, no matter where they were born.

Illegal aliens are eligible if a legal family member wins the jackpot. Applicants don’t even need a high school education. No outstanding abilities, training or job skills are necessary. A handful of countries are excluded if they no longer qualify as “underrepresented.” But if you come from a terror-sponsoring or terror-friendly nation — such as Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea and more than a dozen officially designated terror enablers on the State Department’s list — no worries. Thousands from these breeding grounds for jihad will walk through our front doors.

This is what happens when bipartisan panderers in Washington get their way. The visa lottery was championed by left-wing social engineer Sen. Ted Kennedy and signed into law by President George H. W. Bush in 1990 to admit more “underrepresented” immigrant minorities into the U.S. Although originally intended to give a leg up to Irish illegal aliens who had overstayed their visas, most of the winners now hail from non-Western terror hot spots and hostile territories.

ISIS anyone? anyone… 🙂

You know who else will get in? Untold numbers of “diversity” petitioners from Liberia, Sierra Leone and other West African countries where the Ebola virus is epidemic. If you think the feds will ensure that foreign visa-seekers with communicable diseases stay out, think again. The State Department now allows applicants with HIV to apply and enter. Those who suffer from tuberculosis, leprosy or other afflictions “of public health significance” can apply for waivers.

Because we don’t want to “discriminate” or be “racist” now do we… 🙂

Reports indicate that before his departure from Liberia to Texas last week, Ebola carrier Thomas Duncan lied at the airport about being in contact with someone exposed to the disease. So far, the White House refuses to impose any travel restrictions from West Africa. It’s also not clear whether the U.S. has re-screened West Africans who won last year’s DV game and are flying into the country now.

As I’ve reported for the past 12 years, enforcement and screening procedures are shoddy. The General Accounting Office deemed the DV program a national security risk in 2008, while State Department and Homeland Security officials blamed each other for reckless incompetence.

“Consular officers at six of the posts reviewed — Accra (Ghana), Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Kathmandu (Nepal), Lagos (Nigeria) and Warsaw (Poland) — reported that the availability of fake documents, or genuine documents with false information, such as birth certificates, marriage certificates, and passports, presented significant challenges when verifying DV applicants’ identities and the relationship between the principle DV applicants and their spouse and dependents,” the GAO reported.

The Diversity Visa lottery program is a public health hazard and a national security risk that leaves our safety to random chance. But pleas to curtail or end the program since the 9/11 attacks have fallen on deaf ears.

In the wake of the Ebola scare (not to mention renewed jihadi threats from abroad), worried Americans are heading to the drugstore to stock up on facemasks, hand sanitizer and gloves. New vaccines are in the works for emerging global contagions.

Unfortunately, there is no antidote for our government’s blind and deadly diversity worship. Political correctness is a plague on us all. (Michelle Malkin)

 

13 Hours

http://www.amazon.com/13-Hours-Account-Happened-Benghazi/dp/1455582271/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1410520989&sr=1-1&keywords=13+hours+in+benghazi

On September 11 and 12, 2012, in an attack by Islamist militants on the U.S. Diplomatic Compound (unofficially sometimes called a consulate) in Benghazi, Libya, Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed — the first death of an American ambassador by a violent act since 1979. Chris Stevens had earned the admiration and respect of many local Benghazans by making improved relations between Libyans and Americans his calling — one that he was willing to take great risks to accomplish. Also killed that fateful night was the affable State Department computer specialist Sean Smith, known ironically to his friends in the online gaming world as “Vile Rat.”

Far more people would have died had it not been for the efforts of the Annex Security Team, a group of private security contractors, each of whom had served in the United States Marines, Army, or Navy, working for an organization called the Global Response Staff (“GRS”), who risked their lives and defied orders by leaving the nearby CIA Annex in order to save the State Department staff at the Diplomatic Compound.

But the terrorists weren’t finished. A few hours after the “consulate” burned, killing Stevens and Smith by smoke inhalation in what was supposed to be a safe haven within the primary residence on the walled property, they massed in force and attacked the CIA Annex to which the Team and the evacuated State Department staff had fallen back.

In that series of firefights, two more men, Glen “Bub” Doherty — who had arrived from Tripoli as part of a group of reinforcements — and Tyrone “Rone” Woods — a Team member and former Navy SEAL who also had paramedic training — lost their lives. Another member of the team, Mark “Oz” Geist, suffered devastating injuries to his arm (requiring 15 surgeries so far), while a Diplomatic Security agent, Dave Ubben, was also badly hurt.

The deaths of Bub and Rone, and the injuries to Oz and Ubben, occurred in the last major violent episode of the battle: a series of mortar attacks that were too precise to have been just “good luck” for the terrorists and belie the Obama administration’s early claims of a disorganized protest that simply turned violent.

The story of the attacks on both Compounds, the bravery of the Annex Security Team and others — as well as the apparent cowardice of some, including the CIA station chief on location — is told in a riveting new book entitled 13 Hours: The Inside Account of What Really Happened In Benghazi.

The book, written by New York Times bestselling author Mitchell Zuckoff in collaboration with the remaining members of the Team, is a riveting account of heroism and tragedy, something that you might expect to find (and equally not be able to put down) in a Tom Clancy novel and from which there will no doubt be a most adrenaline-pumping movie.

After all, how could a director improve on Oz, his body pounded and his left arm shredded by a mortar blast, about to be carried on a stretcher to the evacuation airplane, standing up and saying “Hell no! I walked into this country and I’m going to f***ing walk out of this town”?

Of the five surviving Team members, three use their real names in the book: Mark “Oz” Geist (Marines), Kris “Tanto” Paronto (Army), and John “Tig” Tiegen (Marines). Two others use pseudonyms, going by Jack Silva (Navy) and Dave “D.B.” Benton (Marines). Each of them, including Rone, is a father, making even more remarkable the risks they took for their countrymen and more scandalous the reasonable conclusion that but for poor decision-making by high-ranking State Department and others the deaths in Benghazi, and perhaps the attack itself, might never have happened.

The book begins with Jack’s arrival in Benghazi, being wary of surveillance as soon as arriving at baggage claim, and being shown to the CIA Annex by Rone, who “told Jack that the summer in Benghazi would be his last job for the GRS… he wanted to spend more time with his wife and to help raise their infant son.”

After descriptions of the other team members — in which you really feel as if you know them at least a little bit — and an introduction to Ambassador Stevens, whose “optimism was tested from the start by instability and violence,” 13 Hours moves quickly into the violent events of the night of September 11 and the morning of September 12, 2012, beginning with the State Department Compound’s Libyan gate security fleeing — though they were unarmed in any case — allowing in “armed invaders ([who]… roamed freely through the dimly lit Compound, firing their weapons and chanting as they approached the buildings in packs, some stealing what they could carry, all trying to find the Americans.”

Your next enthralling hour or two of reading is of battles and tactics and bravery and confusion which for civilians is only imaginable as a 21^st century Alamo — under attack by al Qaeda instead of Santa Ana’s army: “As Tig moved to join in, a [friendly] 17 February militiaman on the west side of Gunfighter Road fired two rocket-propelled grenades toward the men outside the Compound gate. The grenade-firing militiaman was positioned about twenty yards behind Tig, who heard the alarming sound of shells whizzing over his head. The grenades didn’t faze the attackers, who kept firing.”

And while I’ve offered an example involving John “Tig” Tiegen, every member of the team demonstrated almost inconceivable — again, at least to civilians — courage and determination. They would (and do) say that it’s simply what they were trained to do. Which does not lessen my admiration for them by even the smallest measure.

Yet despite everything, and this is the intention of the surviving members of the Team, if one person comes through the book as most memorable and, although I hesitate to suggest degrees of heroism, a man whom the other heroes themselves see as a hero, it is Tyrone “Rone” Woods, whom everyone on the team liked, trusted, and respected, and who lost his life in a terrorist mortar attack on a roof in Benghazi:

The former SEAL with the King Leonidas beard, who’d extended his stay in Benghazi to help protect Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who intended to retire from GRS operator trips to work with his wife, who was eager to raise his infant son and see his two older boys grow into men, who instinctively and compulsively watched over his fellow operators, who led the rescue charge into the Compound, who searched through a burning building for two missing men, and who answered the first two explosions by rising with a machine gun and returning fire, had absorbed the deadly concussive force of the explosion.

13 Hours recognizes but deliberately avoids partisan politics. Regarding some of the most common questions about what happened in Benghazi, such as “During the attack, was the U.S. military response appropriate, and if not, why not?”

Most answers have fallen on one side or the other of a partisan divide… Media reports have run the gamut on who, if anyone, in Washington deserves blame and punishment, and whether the attacks should be considered a tragedy, a scandal, or both. However, by early 2014 one conclusion had gained considerable traction across partisan lines: The attacks could have been prevented. That is, if only the State Department had taken appropriate steps to improve security at the Compound in response to the numerous warnings and incidents during the months prior.

Yes, the brave men of Benghazi are simply telling their story, but the words of Pericles ring as true as ever: “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you.” Simply as a matter of “the buck stops here” management responsibility, one can’t avoid the feeling that 13 Hours means that Hillary Clinton has more ’splainin’ to do if she seeks to be the next president of the United States.

As you look beyond the incredible story, the events in Benghazi offer as many questions as answers. Again, one cannot help but ask questions that might have political implications despite the authors’ explicit declarations that they are not trying to make political statements but simply to get the truth of that night’s events into the public sphere.

On Monday, in an exclusive interview for The American Spectator, I asked a few of these and other questions of Mark “Oz” Geist and John “Tig” Tiegen — three men who after enduring Benghazi have been willing to risk their own now-civilian privacy in order to tell their story:

Ross Kaminsky: Many aspects of that night seem like they might have been preventable. Let’s start with the initial situation on the ground. What did you make of it at the time and what do you make of it in retrospect?

Mark Geist: It was about like every other Third World country I’d been in… kind of a piece of crap. It was a lawless city. After the fall of Gaddafi, it was controlled by several different militias and they were all vying for control of various entities within the city, like the airport, the port, commerce, things like that, so they can make money.

RK: Did you think that the State Dept. security people, the State Department more broadly, even the CIA, had taken their own security seriously enough and done enough to be prepared for what could happen in a lawless city, much less in a lawless city on September 11^th?

John Tiegen: Our side, we took measures, from the get-go, when we first got into Benghazi. For the State Dept. guys I’d say no. Even the very first trip that I did down in Benghazi, they were shorthanded. There’d be only like two Americans on that Compound, no principal officer, just two RSOs [Regional Security Officers] sitting there, not doing anything. Or they’d go on a move and only leave one American on the Compound. They were always understaffed and basically no security. I mean, the guys at the gate, they had no weapons; I don’t even think they had batons. There was a total lack of security over there.

RK: Did you think at the time that there was an unsafe reliance on Libyans for the security at the Compounds?

MG: My personal opinion is because of the relationship that people felt they had with the Libyans — most of the Libyans who lived there were supportive of us — it gave a false sense of security to some people. You have a town that’s controlled by militias. The militias weren’t friendly. At best, they were neutral to us. Some of them I guess were quasi-friendly but not somebody you’d want to trust your life to.

RK: One thing that I don’t really know even after reading the book: What was your team’s explicit responsibility, if any, for the State Department Compound?

JT: We had no requirement to go rescue them or do anything with them. We were augmenting our time to even escort the ambassador to the different events he was attending, just so they’d have extra security.

RK: During the attacks, you told the Team Leader that you wanted aerial military support as well as surveillance. What happened and didn’t happen when you made that request?

JT: It was Tanto who made that request. He made it pretty quick. He requested the IR and a Spectre gunship within 10 or 15 minutes. They just kinda said “Roger that. We’ll look into it.” All we ever got was the IR (drone surveillance), obviously.

RK: Did you ever figure out why?

JT: No.

RK: What do you make of the fact that you never figured out why?

MG: I think somebody was either afraid to make the decision or they felt that the situation wasn’t as grave as it was, which could lead you to the conclusion that maybe that’s [also] why they had us stand down and hold off for 30 minutes. Because they thought it could be handled in an easier manner, or they didn’t want the exposure or something.

RK: It’s not as if you guys are the type of people to call and say you need help except in the absolute worst possible situations. I just can’t imagine who would hear a call from any one of you and say “Well, maybe it’s not that serious.” I suppose that’s more of a comment than a question…

MG and JT: I would agree. I would agree with that.

RK: You talk in the book about the CIA station chief in Benghazi, whom you call “Bob,” and who refused to be interviewed for the book, as I gather from the book’s notes. Bob made some decisions which you’ve made clear you believe cost American lives. What did Bob do or not do, and what were the impacts of his actions or inactions, and perhaps you can include any thoughts on why he did what he did.

JT: Initially it would be to coordinate with [supposedly friendly militia] 17^th Feb[ruary] guys so they knew we were coming. But it doesn’t — it shouldn’t — take 30 minutes to coordinate. That’s just “Hey, we have guys coming over. Don’t shoot at them…” kind of thing.

RK: In the book, you go a little further… it really seems that you guys think that Bob was a bit of a coward.

JT: Well, there were quite a few incidents in Benghazi before this where somebody would get tied up at a checkpoint, even at gunpoint, and he wouldn’t let the QRF team leave, not even just to get to the area. We don’t just rush in and start shooting people just because something happened. We go in, assess the situation, and then we adapt to it. And he just never would — I don’t know, maybe he just didn’t know what our capabilities really were. He just blatantly didn’t want us to ever do anything.

[Note: The Daily Beast reported in May 2013 that “Bob” received “one of the [CIA’s] highest intelligence medals.”]

RK: Tell us what that time was like from the moment when you guys got into the vehicles to get ready to go [from the CIA Annex to the State Department Compound which was under attack], waiting for Bob to give you the “go,” and what happened over the next 30 to 40 minutes.

JT: A lot of anger. A lot of us were getting extremely pissed off.

RK: What did Bob say to you?

JT: He told me directly, he just looked right at me when I got out of the car, “Hey, you need to stand down. You need to wait.” And that was it. It wasn’t, “You need to wait for this.” It was just, “You need to wait.” And from previous experiences, his “stand down” or even just “wait” meant “you ain’t gonna leave this compound.”

RK: Did he use the actual words “stand down” or did he just say “wait”?

JT: He used the words “stand down.”

RK: So do you believe that the delay caused by the CIA station chief probably cost the lives of Sean Smith and Chris Stevens?

JT: I strongly believe that if we had left immediately, they’d still be alive. They didn’t die of gunshot wounds or knife stabbing. They died of smoke inhalation. And that takes time. It’s not something that just happens in a split second. Their house was on fire. Every second counts. Firefighters know every second counts. So, yeah, it directly impacted their deaths.

MG: I wasn’t there at the time that the stand down order was given, but in any emergency situation, every second is critical. And how you use that time is critical. And to save those five people there and the 20-plus people at the Annex, the time had to be used in a very efficient manner. With the delay, I think we’re lucky that they all didn’t die.

RK: So Bob was a CIA guy. One thing I’m still trying to understand is why was there a relatively significant CIA presence in Benghazi at that time?

JT: They’re trying to gather information on terrorists. [Islamic radicals] were all over [the port city of] Derna [about 150 miles northeast of Benghazi]. Derna was pretty much overrun by [terrorists] months before Benghazi. So they’re out there collecting intel.Initially, they were out there trying to find the yellow cake [uranium] that Gaddafi had.

RK: Some people wonder whether the CIA was trying to send arms to Syria through Libya. Do you have any opinion about that?

JT: I’ve been there three trips and I never once even heard them talk about running AKs or anything. Yeah, they would try to find the shoulder-fired missiles, but they did that in just about every country, so [terrorists] couldn’t shoot down airliners. But for running AKs and stuff, I even went to the port with them and that never came up, and I was in a meeting there and they were just discussing the situation at the port. That’s all it was.

[Note: Another new book on Benghazi continues to assert that the State Department and Ambassador Stevens were involved in highly secret arms transfers, both within Libya (to keep large quantities of weapons out of the hands of the most radical militias) and from Libya to Turkey and then on to Syria.]

RK: Did this experience change how you think about government and bureaucracy?

MG: I was in the Marine Corps for 12 years. We don’t do the job that we do because of government or higher-ups in the chain of command. We do it because there’s a need to serve people and protect people. To me, it’s a calling. It’s just something I do. Like a firefighter who runs to the fire instead of away from it. We’re the same way.

RK: Does the government understand national security?

JT: This administration, I’d say no.

RK: I know what you’re going to say but I’m going to ask you anyway: What goes through your mind when someone calls you a hero?

JT: I’m no hero. I mean, this is something we’ve been trained to do. We all joined the military and we like doing it. We like protecting people, obviously.

MG: It seems to me that everybody should just be this way, be there to help people who can’t help themselves. If doing that… that’s just helping other people. That ain’t being a hero.

RK: How are you guys doing now? Are you happy? Do you miss that aspect of your life? Do you feel like that was just a chapter of your life and now you’re on to a new one, or do you feel as if you’re missing something fundamental?

JT: We’re always going to miss it. I mean, you’re working around people who think the same. The camaraderie that was there. I mean, God, I miss it every day. It was fun. I enjoyed it.

RK: So did you give it up mainly because you have kids?

JT: I’d probably say yes. That’s one of the main reasons. I mean, I went back. I did two trips. My twins are only two and a half. They weren’t even six months old when Benghazi happened. The first trip was kinda hard. The second trip was even harder. I just said, “That’s it.”

MG: I can’t work doing that anymore, at least not in that capacity, due to my injuries. It’s hard to say why… but I’d go back in a heartbeat. But I also am glad that I’m able to be home now because out of — I started contracting in 2004, so since 2004 I’ve probably been gone for two thirds of that time. So my two older kids, one who’s 18 and one who’s 13, I’ve missed a lot of their growing up. So it’s really nice to be home but there’s always that — like we said — camaraderie, being around people who think like you and can understand why you think the way you do and why you look at things the way you do. You, having grown up on a military base, probably understand that a little more than most. But the civilian population doesn’t think like we do.

JT: Plus it’s a job where you get to take out terrorists. I mean, you’re taking out the bad guy. It’s not as if you’re sitting around not accomplishing anything. It’s a very rewarding job even though the public doesn’t get to know about it.

RK: Last question for you: What question should you be asked that people are missing and not asking you?

MG: The thing that should be asked is, “Why did we write the book?” And the answer to that is because it’s the story that hasn’t been told. The media has talked about the beginning and what should have been done and they’ve talked about all the things that happened since and why people did what they did. But nobody’s asked the question of what happened during those 13 hours. Not because we care about some political thing — but because we want people to know what happened on the ground. And to honor Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and the sacrifices they made to try to save Ambassador Stevens and Sean Smith. And to honor them, too. Because they were serving their country, in a different way than we did, but they were serving their country and they died doing it. You know, no one has honored them the way they should be honored, all four of them who died.

Published today, 13 Hours may indeed set the record straight on what really happened during a night which has itself become a political RPG and could threaten the presidential aspirations of the next would-be President Clinton, whose infamous “what difference at this point does it make?” should be disqualifying, even if her failure to protect Ambassador Stevens were somehow overlooked.

More importantly, 13 Hours is also an incredible, harrowing, engrossing story of American warriors demonstrating heroism and bravery at a level that most of us can barely imagine — fighting against a much larger, well-armed radical militia force and saving the lives of many despite cowardice, cynicism, and incompetence all around them. (American Spectator)

If you see something that is not within the ideology, say nothing or lie, that’s the Democrat way.

Fore Score

Maureen Dowd: FORE! Score? And seven trillion rounds ago, our forecaddies brought forth on this continent a new playground, conceived by Robert Trent Jones, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal when it comes to spending as much time on the links as possible — even when it seems totally inappropriate, like moments after making a solemn statement condemning the grisly murder of a 40-year-old American journalist beheaded by ISIL.

I know reporters didn’t get a chance to ask questions, but I had to bounce. I had a 1 p.m. tee time at Vineyard Golf Club with Alonzo Mourning and a part-owner of the Boston Celtics. Hillary and I agreed when we partied with Vernon Jordan up here, hanging out with celebrities and rich folks is fun.

Now we are engaged in a great civil divide in Ferguson, which does not even have a golf course, and that’s why I had a “logistical” issue with going there. We are testing whether that community, or any community so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure when the nation’s leader wants nothing more than to sink a birdie putt.

We are met on a great field of that battle, not Augusta, not Pebble Beach, not Bethpage Black, not Burning Tree, but Farm Neck Golf Club in Martha’s Vineyard, which we can’t get enough of — me, Alonzo, Ray Allen and Marvin Nicholson, my trip director and favorite golfing partner who has played 134 rounds and counting with me.

We have to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for my presidency, if I keep swinging from behind.

Yet it is altogether fitting and proper that I should get to play as much golf as I want, despite all the lame jokes about how golf is turning into “a real handicap” for my presidency and how I have to “stay the course” with ISIL. I’ve heard all the carping that I should be in the Situation Room droning and plinking the bad folks. I know some people think I should go to Ferguson. Don’t they understand that I’ve delegated the Martin Luther King Jr. thing to Eric Holder? Plus, Valerie Jarrett and Al Sharpton have it under control.

I know it doesn’t look good to have pictures of me grinning in a golf cart juxtaposed with ones of James Foley’s parents crying, and a distraught David Cameron rushing back from his vacation after only one day, and the Pentagon news conference with Chuck Hagel and General Dempsey on the failed mission to rescue the hostages in Syria.

We’re stuck in the rough, going to war all over again in Iraq and maybe striking Syria, too. Every time Chuck says ISIL is “beyond anything we’ve ever seen,” I sprout seven more gray hairs. But my cool golf caps cover them. If only I could just play through the rest of my presidency.

ISIL brutally killing hostages because we won’t pay ransoms, rumbles of coups with our puppets in Iraq and Afghanistan, the racial caldron in Ferguson, the Ebola outbreak, the Putin freakout — there’s enough awful stuff going on to give anyone the yips.

So how can you blame me for wanting to unwind on the course or for five hours at dinner with my former assistant chef? He’s a great organic cook, and he’s got a gluten-free backyard putting green.

But, in a larger sense, we can dedicate, we can consecrate, we can hallow this ground where I can get away from my wife, my mother-in-law, Uncle Joe, Congress and all the other hazards in my life.

The brave foursomes, living and dead, who struggled here in the sand, in the trees, in the water, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or subtract a few strokes to improve our score. Bill Clinton was Mr. Mulligan, and he is twice at popular as I am.

The world will little note, nor long remember, what we shot here, or why I haven’t invited a bunch of tiresome congressmen to tee it up. I’m trying to relax, guys. So I’d much rather stay in the bunker with my usual bros.

Why don’t you play 18 with Mitch McConnell? And John Boehner is a lot better than me, so I don’t want to play with him.

It is for us, the duffers, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who played here have thus far so nobly advanced to get young folks to stop spurning a game they find slow and boring.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us of getting rid of our slice on the public’s dime — that from this honored green we take increased devotion to that cause for which Bobby Jones, Jack Nicklaus, Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy gave their last full measure of devotion — and divots.

We here highly resolve that these golfing greats shall not have competed in vain, especially poor Tiger, and that this nation, under par, shall have a new birth of freedom to play the game that I have become unnaturally obsessed with, and that golf of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

So help me Golf.

 

Politics is Hell

Our Commander-in-Chief is belatedly learning a lesson that every infantryman knows his first year. You don’t “end” wars; you win them or you lose them.

Thanks to our valiant armed forces and the Petraeus/Bush surge, we defeated the militants in Iraq and were ready for a gradual, organized hand-off to the newly elected civilian government.

But President Obama, through political calculation or diplomatic ineptness, failed to secure a simple Status of Forces Agreement with Prime Minister Maliki. This led to an abrupt removal of American troops and American influence on the fledgling state. As expected, the Iraq security vacuum was filled soon enough.

Radicals on every side began to assert themselves and ultimately tore apart coalitions the allies painfully built up over years. Obama’s haphazard policy choices have left us with an infighting, Iran-backed political class in Baghdad, an embattled Kurdish minority in the north, and the Islamic State rolling over both.

Last night, Obama decided to drop provisions to starving Yazidis atop Mount Sinjar and appears to be bombing IS positions here and there. Anything to get the image of children dying of thirst off television and social media.

The Obama Doctrine is to ignore problems until they metastasize into vast international crises, then react with an ineffective spasm of concern. In this, the President has been consistent, be it Libya, Egypt, Boko Haram or Ukraine. The truly serious situations get a Twitter hashtag.

And after Israel is a smoking hole in the ground and Hamas is dancing in celebration on their grave, THEN he might get it. But don’t hold your breath.

And besides, this is “media” driven bombing, not actual military strategy.

It is good that Obama finally has been spurred to action, but most expect his Iraq efforts to be far too little, far too late. A year ago, he backed into a proposal to bomb Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, indirectly assisting the nascent IS army. Yesterday, he backed into a proposal to bomb IS, indirectly assisting Assad and Iran. Note that the Islamic State is the same group Obama mocked months ago as being nothing but a J.V. version of Al Qaeda and unworthy of his attention. A reactionary foreign policy is a rudderless one.

To date, the only American casualty in this new Iraq War is Obama’s naive view of foreign affairs. After eight years of dishonest rhetoric about Bush’s greedy war for oil and empire, Obama now must explain why his air strikes are of a superior morality. And if Obama does achieve military success in Iraq, will progressive Democrats ever forgive him? (John Gabriel)

“We don’t understand real evil, organized evil, very well. This is evil incarnate. People like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” the ISIS leader, “have been in a fight for a decade. They are messianic in their vision, and they are not going to stop.” Former Ambassador Crocker

Messianic? where have I heard that before (BO)??? 🙂

Hope no civilians get hurt in War… 🙂

Politics is Hell.

 

Civility

Obama, Tucson Jan 2012: “As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let’s use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopes and dreams are bound together.”

“But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.”

You may laugh cynically now…

We’ve taken away the child’s toy, now the temper tantrums go nuclear.

Democrats, who have long posed as the party of peaceniks and doves, have been anything but during the great rhetorical war of 2013. In fact, the party of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter has been mad as hell as of late, leading an offensive of bombastic insults and rhetorical bullying that has dominated the government shutdown. It’s a perfect storm, with Democrats leading the pace.

President Obama called Republicans “reckless and irresponsible,” casting the Grand Old Party in the role of villain. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, referred to Republicans as “anarchists,” and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, deemed Republicans “legislative arsonists.”

Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs compared Texas Sen. Ted Cruz to the child beauty pageant contestant who stars in a show on TLC.

The Republican senator “is the Honey Boo Boo of Washington,” Gibbs said Thursday on Morning Joe.

“Public attacks make it personal. The response, the entire conversation, goes to the attack, not the problem at hand. The moment there’s an audience, posturing takes over,” said Peter Post, director of the Emily Post Institute and author of five etiquette books.

Insults have hidden risks because people don’t always equate aggressive behavior with authority. Roger L. Simon, founder of Pajamas Media, has suggested that Republicans counter Democratic acrimony with a Ronald Reagan-style “charm offensive” to win over disaffected voters.

Be the Adult in the room. The Democrats surely won’t. 🙂

“The president reiterated one more time tonight that he will not negotiate,” House Speaker John Boehner said after congressional leaders met with President Obama at the White House Wednesday.

“The United States of America of will always honor the full faith and credit of our country and no president should be held hostage to that for social or political agenda,” Pelosi said.

Like ObamaCare. 🙂

Now the best laugher:

President Obama admits: When it comes to Republicans and the government shutdown,  he’s “exasperated.”

“During the course of my presidency I have bent over backwards to work with the Republican Party and have purposely kept my rhetoric down . I think I’m pretty well known for being a calm guy. But sometimes people think I’m too calm. But am I exasperated, absolutely I’m exasperated.because this is entirely unnecessary,” he told CNBC’s John Harwood.

If you didn’t get a cynical chuckle out of that, you must be a Democrat. 🙂

The Pew Research Center revealed that 77 percent of the public is either angry or frustrated with the government while Gallup found that almost half of Americans said the budget debate was an attempt by both sides to gain political advantage.

“Democrats have hurled every insult imaginable, such as ‘terrorist,’ ‘arsonist’ and ‘murderers’ against Americans who differ with President Obama. Despite their threats and childish behavior, the speaker has been steadfast in his vision to reduce the size and scope of government and treat everyone fairly,” Rep. Stockman said.

None of this is a shock to Mark Gerzon, a conflict resolution mediator who co-designed and facilitated the Bipartisan Congressional Retreats in 1997 and 1999, dubbed “civility retreats” by the press of the day.

“As someone who has spent 20 years in the crossfire between the armies of left and right, the government shutdown does not surprise me. What surprises me is how long it took for the long-defective partisan machine to actually break down,” Mr. Gerzon said.

“The blame game can be a winning strategy at election time. Election time now never ends. It used to be that politicians played by slash-and-burn election rules for a few months before November every other year. Now they play by those rules all the time. There is almost no ‘governing’ anymore. It is all electioneering.”

And we have the 24/7/365 Campaigner-In-Chief in the White House. He’s even campaigning for a law that was passed 3 years ago!

The 24/7 media, of course, are there to chronicle every moment.

“Incivility, dishonesty and character attacks that once were a bad habit during campaign season have become a way of life,” Mr. Gerzon said.

VOTE FOR ME, THE OTHER GUY’S AN ASSHOLE!!!!!

He thinks a civility retreat would work again as long as the American people make it clear that they want the political system fixed and that the event has “political muscle.” Implementation of recommended changes and enforcement of agreements “must not be left to party leaders to act upon because they will not follow through.”

He recommends a bipartisan team of lawmakers who are “transparent and public” in their deliberations. There is a place for very private discussion, too.

Some say the hubbub is appropriate, particularly when it comes from Republican tea party senators.

“Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, all of these guys were all elected running against Obamacare, promising constituents they would do everything they could to end it. What would you do, break that promise to your constituents? They want them to act like this. I see it all day on Twitter. ‘Thank you, Ted Cruz, for standing up for us,’” said CNN analyst S.E. Cupp.

But former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said nothing can be accomplished when lawmakers talk past one another.

“Sniping is part of the political process, but unless both parties sit down at the table and begin speaking to one another, nothing happens,” said Mr. Huntsman, who founded NoLabels, a bipartisan grass-roots group bearing the motto “Start fighting, start fixing,” when running for the Republican presidential nomination three years ago.

Mr. Post, the great-grandson of the original manners maven Emily Post, advises the combatants to put down their verbal spears and huddle.

“As long as the media encourages this behavior by covering it, the politicians will keep doing it. And that is a problem.” Mr. Post said.” The public sighs and says, ‘Oh, here’s one more person saying idiotic things to the camera.’ It’s like a broken record.”

And the Liberal Media is very partisan in of itself so they are a part of the problem. And they have 24/7/365 microphones too.

But if “Washington is broken,” as the saying goes, it’s because Boehner and the Tea Party broke it. (MSNBC)

Things could be worse. Historical accounts reveal multiple incidents of confrontations between lawmakers and other officials that resulted in fisticuffs, or assaults with pistols, canes and fireplace tongs.

“Let’s remember that the Founding Fathers foresaw this problem. As they formulated the Constitution, they said that every generation — which Jefferson then considered to be every 19 years — would have to rewrite the rules of governance. It’s time for all of us to step forward and fulfill that promise,” mediator Mr. Gerzon advised.

But that would be the adult thing thing to do. Where are the Adults??

 

And it costs 10 times as much and gives you even less and crashes more than it works…

Where We Are

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer used three vivid analogies to attack House Republicans’ laundry list of demands for raising the debt ceiling, comparing Republicans to arsonists, hostage-takers and suicide bombers.

Gee, the Democrats have never done that before… 🙂

“What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest,” Pfeiffer said in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper Thursday afternoon. “We’re not going to do that.”

“Republicans are not asking for a negotiation,” he told CNN’s Tapper. “It’s a negotiation if I’m trying to sell you my house, and we are debating the price of it. It’s not a negotiation if I show up at your house and say, ‘Give me everything inside or I’m going to burn it down.’

“Republicans have provided a laundry list of essentially ransom demands of things that were essentially the Romney agenda that voters rejected.”

But it’s the Republicans who are “obstructionists”. Do it our way or else! 🙂

If ObamaCare is so great why did Congress whine about it and then Obama Exempt them and offer to have the Taxpayers subsidize them. They make $174,000 a year. They can afford it. 🙂

Why does he need to campaign with “Secretary of Explaining Stuff” Bubba Clinton if it’s so good.

Why doesn’t he show up at a Union meeting instead of a Community College to tell people how great it is?

Because that was never the point of it and he only wants to be in front of morons and the ignorant. The ones to stupid to understand they are being screwed.

“Send us a clean CR, clean debt ceiling. That’s the path forward. There’s no need for conversations. We’ve spoken loudly and clearly, and we have the support of the president of the United States, and that’s pretty good,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Thursday.

Notice he didn’t say anything about support of the American People because he knows he doesn’t have it, and he doesn’t care.

So do it our way or the highway. And it’s your fault for not doing it our way 100%.

But they aren’t “obstructing”….

No amount of White House spin will change the reality of the huge rate spikes millions of Americans will find in the ObamaCare exchanges. But as bad as this rate shock is, it’s just the beginning.

Days before ObamaCare goes into effect, the administration released information on premiums people can expect next year. Just $328 a month! And lower than expected!

The mainstream press largely went along with this spin. But you don’t have to look very hard to see that it’s totally misleading.

A table in that White House report, for example, shows the lowest-cost Bronze plan for a 27-year-old will average $163 a month in the 36 states with federally run exchanges. Among those making $25,000, the cost will be $93 a month, after subsidies.

Is that a bargain? Not when you compare it with the plans they can buy today. The average premium for the lowest-cost plan in these same states is $54 a month, according to data in a recent Government Accountability Report.

In other words, even with the taxpayer subsidies, ObamaCare will be more expensive than what’s available in the market today.

Other analyses came to the same conclusion.

The House Ways and Means Committee found the average Bronze plan for 27-year-old men will be 50% higher, and 12% higher for women. The Manhattan Institute found ObamaCare’s average premiums will be 99% higher for men and 62% higher for women.

Bad as this is, the rate shock will only get worse in ObamaCare’s second year.

First, the administration delayed the law’s caps on out-of-pocket costs. These were supposed to be $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families, starting in 2014. Now they won’t go into effect until 2015.

Obama officials claimed insurance companies needed more time to handle the new rule. Likelier, it was because they knew the caps would jack up rates even more this year.

Whatever the excuse, the fact is that when these out-of-pocket caps go into effect in 2015, they will boost premiums even further.

Second, there’s little hope the administration will convince enough young people to sign up for ObamaCare this year. Those under age 34 are already the least likely to have insurance, even though they are the likeliest to have access to cheap plans. Why would they be more inclined to pay ObamaCare’s inflated rates?

The problem is that if only sicker and older people sign up for coverage, the ObamaCare premiums that insurance companies are charging won’t be enough. So they’ll have to push for much higher rates next year.

Don’t expect any of this to change liberals’ minds about the law. If anything, they’ll use those skyrocketing premiums to call for still more government meddling in the market. (IBD)

After all, the solution to a problem created by Government is MORE government! 🙂

And that the way it is…

The more you eat, the more you toot. The more you toot, the better you feel. So we have beans at every meal! 🙂

 

The Honor of Battle

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

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

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

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

Doubt it.

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

And there is no more narcissistic than Obama.

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

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

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

The politics of narcissism. The politics of The Ministry of Truth.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

And President Hands-Off Drone Strike strikes again in Yemen. War by Remote Control. That way no soldiers, no bad politics of soldiers. That’s the Obama Way.

So is bribing people to do what he wants (or at least make him look good). Even Terrorists!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why not, he bribes people to vote for him. So why not bribe people to not shoot at us or cause Terror attacks. That’s bound to work just like “Vote for me, The other guys and Asshole” did.

He’s Just that good, right? 🙂