The New Amerika

Welcome, all you sheep to The New America.

New American Flag

To paraphrase Lincoln (but with a modern tweek): “…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall perish from the earth.”

2015 Version: Government of the Government, by the Government, for the Government, shall not perish from this Country.

Welcome, Citizens, to Orwell’s Nightmare.

I pledge allegiance to the New Flag of the Disunited Politically Correct States of Amerika, and to the Socialist Empire for which it stands, one Nation under Government control, indivisible, with no liberty and social justice for only the politically correct.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that Government creates equality, that the people are endowed by their Government with certain human Rights, that among these are Life under Micromanagement, Liberalism and the pursuit of Entitlement.

We the Government of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Disunion, establish Social Justice, insure Political Correctness, provide for all redistribution equally, promote the general Social Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Government to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Empire for the DisUnited States of Amerika. In Political Correctness We Stand.

All Power shall rest with the Government. Period. End of Discussion. All decisions and wishes of Government are final and cannot be challenged under penalty of heresy.

The New Bill of Rights (2015)

1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of  religion,and mocking or hindering the free exercise thereof is required and sanctioned until that religion is sanctioned by The Government itself; or abridging the freedom of LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE speech, or of the LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE press; but abridging those who
are not us  is always in the interest of the good of society; 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, has exercised “White Privilege”,  and to seek “social justice” at all costs.

2nd Amendment: Repealed.

3rd Since there are no wars (except class & race wars), this is repealed.

4th Repealed, because unless you’re guilty you don’t need any protection and the guilty are not to be protected that’s why they are guilty to begin with.

5th Only the guilty need protection so as long as you are not guilty you don’t need it. And if you are guilty then you aren’t entitled to it anyhow because you’re  a “hater”  or a Thought Criminal and guilty anyhow.

6th In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, Then summary judgement shall rule in favor of the State.

7th Trial by jury shall consist of the State’s mandated jurors and in the cases of “hate” crimes or Thought Crimes the accused is guilty until guilty, especially if they are White.

8th For what the State determines to be a “Hate Crime” or a Thought Crime Excessive bail shall be required, excessive fines imposed,  cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9th The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the State at their discretion.

10th  The powers not delegated to the DisUnited States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the US Government only.

The other 16 don’t matter anymore as The Government is the final arbiter of all Elections and Judicial cases anyhow so it doesn’t matter anymore.

“White Privilege” is outlawed.

Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
Class War is Peace.
Fear is Hope.

Big Brother is Watching YOU!

Blackwhite is defined as follows:
“     …this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.     ”—Orwell, 1984

The word is an example of both Newspeak and doublethink. It represents the active process of rewriting the past, control of the past being a vital aspect of the Party’s control over the present.
The ability to blindly believe anything, regardless of its absurdity, can have different causes: respect for authority, fear, indoctrination, even critical laziness or gullibility. Orwell’s blackwhite refers only to that caused by fear, indoctrination, or repression of one’s individual critical thinking (“to know black is white”), rather than caused by laziness or gullibility. A true Party member could automatically, and without thought, expunge any incorrect information and totally replace it with true information from the Party. If properly done, there is no memory or recovery of the Incorrect information that could cause unhappiness to the Party member by committing thoughtcrime. This ability is likened to the total erasure of information only possible in electronic storage.

Welcome, Citizen, to The New Amerika. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

The Lose-Lose Scenario

mlk-content-character

The City of Baltimore is in a Lose Lose Scenario thanks to their incompetent “it’s only property” ‘give them room to destroy’ Liberal Mayor and 40+ years of liberalism that has made people “victims” who chant “No Justice No Peace” but really they mean “No Vengeance No Peace”.

A Far, far, cry from the ideals of Martin Luther King, Jr.

The lose-lose scenario goes like this:
If the report exonerates or doesn’t convict the cops the Narrative driven thugs will riot and there will be much gnashing of political teeth.

If the report convicts the cops the Narrative driven thugs will riot and there will be much gnashing of political teeth.

Either way, more looting, more violence and absolute no “healing” or resolution. But that doesn’t matter.

The evidence won’t matter. The Narrative matters.

It will be more like a volcano that has had it’s magma chamber filled to bursting so it erupts to release the pressure but the volcano is still active an will re-erupt at another time. The next Freddie Gray, Travyon Martin, etc.

This is world Liberalism has created. A rocky, volcanic landscape that will erupt at any moment  with the right human sacrifice to trigger the Wrath of The Liberal Gods. And you’re supposed to supplicate your yourself to them in appeasement.

The fact that they are the one’s creating the magma, stoking the magma, and then complaining when the volcano erupts that it’s YOUR Fault! is something you’re not supposed to talk about you racist pig-dog!

That is the post MLK world where you ARE judged on the color of your skin and content of your character only matters if you’re not a Liberal. Then, they are to exploited and you are guilty of racism, homophobia,islamophobia & greed for “oppressing them” until proven Liberal enough to repent for your sins. If you’re a Christian, well, you’ve all ready gone to Liberal Hell and can’t be redeemed.

This Week on the New Black Panther Party’s “Black Power Radio,” national chairman Hashim Nzinga said since America has “declared war on us,” evidenced by “military police in the black neighborhood” protecting the rich, the New Black Panthers should be looked upon as Founding Fathers who declare war and are “willing to die or kill to save our babies and to save a black nation that is dying before our eyes.”

Nzinga said, “America is about protecting the rich and the powerful.”

He added, “We pay taxes. They have declared war on us and it’s nothing but state racism.”

“So if we say we are at war, we should be applauded like George Washington,” Nzinga continued. “We should be applauded like Thomas Jefferson. We should be applauded like the Founding Fathers of the country.”

“This is not the hate hour, this is the love hour,”he added. “We have to love ourselves enough to be willing to die or kill to save our babies and to save a black nation that is dying before our eyes.” (Breitbart)

The only winners are the Narrative set up to be advantageous to Liberal Politicians and “activists” and disadvantageous to everyone else.

Anything else would be racist, after all. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoons by Larry Wright

Ego Can’t Cash This Check

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Obama’s half-hearted decision to take on ISIS has confused everyone. Even as the President sends the U.S. military into harm’s way, he hasn’t articulated a clear strategy, nor even defined the action. Some days it’s called a counter-terrorism effort, other days a war, while its purpose meanders between degrading ISIS, destroying ISIS, or following ISIS to the gates of hell.

Whatever works for that moment, politically.

As Islamists continue to taunt America, ersatz allies are understandably slow to side with a dithering leader. Despite our excellent armed forces, observers wonder if any military action can be successful with a leader so reticent to lead.

A Coalition of the willing to take the heat for him while he golfs and plans his next Domestic Executive Fiat.

Let’s be honest: No effort can be successful if the Commander-in-Chief is unwilling to even define victory. This semantic murkiness is intentional, since it provides maximum political cover for the poll-watching president. Obama can declare that we “degraded” the terrorist threat with a single air strike or a thousand.

But if he keeps it up until after the election and The media hype it enough he just might hold onto the Senate, and that’s much more important than any old terrorist threat.

The only reason that Obama acted at all is politics. Polls showed that midterm voters demanded a military response to ISIS’ beheading of American journalists and repeated threats to our homeland. Drones, air strikes and military advisors are merely a PR campaign to assuage moderates that their Democratic president is “doing something.”

If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS!

153716 600 Clocking on in the Middle East cartoons

Obama does not want to win his new Iraq war. He can’t afford to. If the projection of American military power successfully solved the problem of Islamic terrorism, it would shatter Obama’s entire worldview.

Nor can the economy truly recover, because then he has less dependents.

A pragmatist would welcome victory regardless of its origins. Sadly, America is stuck with the most rigid ideologue ever to occupy the White House.

The Agenda is The Agenda.

Obama adheres to a transnational progressive morality that has replaced “Good versus Evil” with “Weak versus Strong.” As the strongest nation on the planet, America is viewed not as its “last best hope,” but the chief among oppressors. He has been steeped in this intellectual environment from birth.

But Paradoxically the Democrats have to show nothing but Strength, no weakness, and can never be wrong ABOUT ANYTHING.

U.S. military power is an inherently bad thing, causing untold suffering to the peoples of Mexico, Japan, the Koreas, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and beyond. It is an extension of European colonialism, which is to blame for the broader power imbalances ravaging the Third World.

American force isn’t the solution to terrorism, but the cause. Poor, powerless Middle Easterners are merely rising up against their oppressors with the few weapons they have. This is blowback and America is the root cause. The chickens have come home to roost.

The only way to end terrorism is for America to apologize to those we have oppressed. To make ourselves weaker, and thus, more moral. To surrender our material advantages, making our world more fair.

Obama might employ military solutions here and there to buy a couple more years for his great liberal project. But his ego cannot afford a sweeping military victory against third-world enemies. (Ricochet)

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Chicago Logic

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

In a briefing with the press, deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes said that any military strike on Syria would be a response to chemical weapons–and would “not [intend] to resolve the underlying political crisis within Syria.” Instead, “the underlying political crisis within Syria” would be dealt with diplomatically, he said.

Rhodes said:

As for the President, he once again underscored the very high confidence that we have that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on August 21st. He reinforced the importance of upholding international norms to which all of the nations here are party to through the Chemical Weapons Convention. He noted the importance of continuing to work through the U.N., but also the paralysis that has existed in the Security Council on the issue of Syria, and therefore, underscored the importance of ensuring that there is enforcement of a norm that is so fundamental to global peace and security.

Beyond that, there was also discussion on the importance of a broader political resolution to the challenge in Syria through the Geneva II process. As we’ve said repeatedly, our military action is limited and focused on the issue of chemical weapons; it is not intended to resolve the underlying political crisis within Syria. That is an issue that we seek to address through the Geneva II track. And so the President was able to reinforce that message again last night.

 

The Obama administration is considering a plan to use U.S. military trainers to help increase the capabilities of the Syrian rebels, in a move that would greatly expand the current CIA training being done quietly in Jordan, U.S. officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Any training would take place outside Syria, and one possible location would be Jordan.

Since there are reports that the Rebels might be Al-Qaeda and may in fact be behind the sarin gas attack, I wonder if this will turn out better than the “rebels” in Egypt where everyone (not on the left) was screaming about the Muslim Brotherhood.

But, of course, Obama is GOD to the Left so they have to march to his parade like the lemmings they are.

Sept. 2, 2012, YORK, Pa. (AP) — Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that Republican rival Mitt Romney is “ready to go to war in Syria and Iran” while hurting the middle class…

You probably could have anticipated this. When President Obama gets in trouble, he either has no idea about the wrongdoing (think IRS, FBI). Or it was someone else’s fault. (You-know-who from Texas.)

Now, we know that the red line statement Obama made as president 381 days ago about how any Syrian use of chemical weapons “would change my calculus” wasn’t really Obama’s fault.

According to Obama, although it looked just like the American president standing at the little podium with no teleprompter in the White House Briefing Room, that modest man was actually speaking on behalf of the entire world.

“I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line,” Obama claims.

So the World that refuses to back the suddenly hawkish Obama drew the line, Syria crossed, and only Obama is going to “unilaterally” take up the fight. But that’s not his fault. How noble….Right….Cut back on the Viagra Mr. President I think you’re overdosing.

The last straw for our self-important elected representatives may have been Obama in Scandinavia talking to Congress, which last we checked meets in Washington.

Standing with the Swedish prime minister, the president on Wednesday lectured U.S. lawmakers that “my credibility is not on the line . .. America and Congress’ credibility is on the line.”

He also claimed, “the international community’s credibility is on the line.” Everyone’s credibility is in question, it seems, except the leader of the free world, who placed us where we are as regards Syria. He’s not passing the buck; he’s shoving it down everyone’s throat.

“We have to act,” he says, “because if we don’t … somebody who is not shamed by resolutions can continue to act with impunity … and other despots and authoritarian regimes can start looking and saying, ‘That’s something we can get away with.'”

Also, you should know that just because the president of the United States threatened some vague response on Syria’s President Bashar Assad should he use chemical weapons does not now put Obama’s credibility on the line should nothing adverse, in fact, happen to Assad’s regime.

But that will be the case even if Congress approves Obama’s “acting” against Syria, because it’s clear such action will be essentially cosmetic. After his for-show attack, Bashar Assad “can continue to act with impunity.”

Because we don’t “regime change” after all, that was a BUSH Doctrine. 🙂

The rest of the world’s bad guys, meanwhile, will note that Secretary of State John Kerry just told Congress he was for boots on the ground in Syria before he was against them. Then they will remind themselves that Obama’s withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan have drained all the political will for real war out of America.

How many different ways are there for a White House to deliver a truckload of fertilizer onto the U.S. Capitol’s steps? When Kerry first says, “I don’t want to take off the table an option” to deploy troops in Syria — then says he will “work out language that will satisfy the Congress and the American people that there’s no door open here” — legislators can smell the stink.

It’s “on the table” but “there’s no open door”?

Reuters, meanwhile, on Thursday deflated Kerry’s claims of “moderate” Syrian rebels strengthening, as “at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.”

Joshua Foust, ex-U.S. intelligence analyst on Afghanistan and Yemen, told Reuters, “Basically, the jihadists are setting up governance and community councils” within Syria “while the moderates exhaust themselves doing the heavy fighting.”

Asking Congress to stick its neck out and support a non-strategy that neither Obama nor Kerry could make the case for was always a stretch. But they’ve committed two serious Washington taboos: blame lawmakers for your own mistakes, then lie to them.

So I guess you have to pass it to find out will happen next. Sounds very ObamaCare…

This, henceforth, shall be known as Chicago Logic. Through Obama’s hindsight, what’s on the line now is the credibility of the world, which has thrice decided through the United Nations to do nothing about Assad’s chemical use. Like the Arab League. And Britain’s Parliament, which voted to join the “No’s” last week.

Also what’s also on the line, Obama declared at a Wednesday Stockholm news conference, is the credibility of the United States Congress, which until a couple of days ago had no clue it had any role in Obama’s red line drawing almost 13 months ago.

Or any role in Obama’s ill-defined, cockamamie plan to do something military sometime soon, after Syria had time to scatter its valuable military targets among the civilian populace.

As he did two years ago when launching his war to oust Libya’s dictator, the Nobel Peace Prize winner had dismissed as unnecessary and irrelevant to any military attack on Assad those elected representatives on Capitol Hill with the constitutional responsibility for declaring war. A technicality.

Finally, according to Obama’s newly-revealed doctrine, another group whose credibility is now directly on the line big-time is the American people.

Yes, you.

You may not have realized your integral role in Obama’s off-the-cuff, red-line bluff because the elected leader of the United States has never once bothered to address the citizens of this country on the subject.

Nor actually has he done any consulting, say, through their elected representatives — until this very week when the one-time opponent of war fully realized how stark naked alone he was wanting to start another war in the Middle East. (IBD)

His last escapade turned out so well, after all…

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

 

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

 Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

 

 

Obama’s Secret Wars

Jumping right in, our first headline is from November of last year, from CNS News:

null

Fast forwarding to yesterday morning we find this headline from Business Insider:

null

Al Qaeda is on the run so much that they’re apparently a real threat again just from running around so much, not that the threat ever actually diminished. (Drudge)

There were more drone strikes in Pakistan last month than any month since January. Three missile strikes were carried out in Yemen in the last week alone.

You don’t frighten us, English pig dogs. Go and boil your bottoms, you sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you….You don’t frighten us with your silly knees-bent running around advancing behavior! 🙂

Pop quiz. With whom is the U.S. presently at war?

At any other time in our nation’s history most Americans could have readily answered that question. Great Britain. Mexico. Spain. Germany. North Korea. North Vietnam. Iraq. Even college students who couldn’t name the vice president or their state’s governor would know who their non-college-material buddies were being sent overseas to kill or be killed by. These days the world is a bit more complicated.

There are the easy answers: the Taliban. Al Qaeda. Then the waters get a bit murky. One might justifiably ask if America is at war with Syria, or at least the Syrian government. Despite the fact that a majority of Americans oppose meddling in the Syrian civil war, Congress recently approved arming “vetted elements” of the Syrian opposition. Which vetted elements the Obama Administration intends to arm is anybody’s guess, as is how we intend to keep those arms out of the hands of non-vetted elements.

Are we at war with Iran? A cold war, certainly. What is America’s involvement in Syria’s civil war if not John McCain and Lindsey Graham’s attempt to poke a stick in the eye of Syria’s foremost ally?

What of America’s covert wars? Most experts agree that the U.S. is involved in at least three drone wars against Islamist “elements” in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia.

If you ask President Obama who the U.S. is at war with he will usually say “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.” So who are these associated forces? And just how broad is this war we are fighting?

It is not just the American people who are in the dark. Even the U.S. Congress is unsure who America is at war with, Pro Publica’s Cora Currier revealed last week. A clueless Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) recently asked Obama’s Defense Department to provide him with a list of those associated forces. Levin, at length, received the Authorization for Use of Military Force list, but then refused to share it with the press and the American people. Apparently who we are at war with is a state secret.

A Pentagon spokesman later said that the government didn’t want to give those associated forces credibility by naming them. “We cannot afford to inflate these organizations that rely on violent extremist ideology to strengthen their ranks,” a spokesman said. That assumes the Islamists who might be expected to join these “associated forces” haven’t heard of these groups either. Or did not find them credible until they made the DOD’s enemies’ list. Jack Goldsmith of the Hoover Institution’s Task Force on National Security and Law recently wondered why the U.S. government can acknowledge some enemy groups (al Qaeda and AQAP and elements of al Shabaab) without unduly inflating them, and not others. 

IS IT POSSIBLE that the Obama Administration doesn’t even know all the groups America is at war with? Last May, Michael Sheehan, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, told the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee that he was “not sure there is a list per se,” notes Currier, and added that it is best to leave who the associated forces are to the experts.

All this secrecy comes at a time when it has been learned — thanks to Edward Snowden — that the NSA has been secretly compiling calling records from cell phone users. The records include who called who, where they were, how long the call lasted — for millions of people, both Americans and foreigners. According to the Atlantic, “this ‘metadata’ allows the government to track the movements of everyone during that period, and [to] build a detailed picture of who talks to whom. It’s exactly the same data the Justice Department collected about AP journalists.”

Americans have accepted the obsolescence of fighting an old fashioned war on a traditional battlefield against uniformed armies. Now we are asked to go to war without even knowing who the enemy is. (Kinda like that gun-running Benghazi story– was that the Syrians or someone else?) One would think it hard to support (or object to) a war against unknown enemies. But then perhaps that is the point. “The secrecy … deflects painful scrutiny that [the Department of Defense] would rather avoid,” writes Goldsmith. Perhaps the real question we should be asking is, if Americans are not permitted to know who we are at war with, what else aren’t we allowed to know? (Spectator)

 

135346 600 Obamacare Data Hub cartoons

 

Progress

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

The Fruits of Obama’s “better relations” and “destruction” of Al-Qaeda:

Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri has urged Egyptians to restart their revolution to press for Islamic law and called on Muslims to kidnap Westerners, the SITE Intelligence Group said Friday.

In a video released on jihadist forums and translated by the US monitoring service, Zawahiri also lashed out at President Barack Obama, calling him a liar and demanding he admit defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan and North Africa.

Criticizing the new Egyptian government — led by a president drawn from the Muslim Brotherhood — as corrupt, he said a battle is being waged in Egypt between a secular minority and Muslims seeking implementation of Shariah law. (france24)

Despite real-time video, emails to the White House and desperate cries for help, our defense secretary says we didn’t send rescue forces to our Benghazi consulate because we didn’t know what was going on.

In a statement bordering on the Kafkaesque, Leon Panetta told a news conference Thursday that four Americans, including our Libyan ambassador Chris Stevens, were left to die without a rescue attempt by nearby U.S. military forces because there’s “a basic principle here, and the basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on, without having some real-time information about what’s taking place.”

That would seem to sum up the Obama administration’s assessment of and story line about the Middle East — it has no real-time clue about what’s going on. Osama bin Laden is dead, but Islamofascism is very much alive, and to send an ambassador and his diplomatic mission into harm’s way without so much as a Marine security detachment with bayonets is unconscionable.

Excuse us, Mr. Secretary, but your administration had a drone over the consulate on Sept. 11, and you and President Obama had a meeting that included Vice President Joe “Nobody Told Us” Biden in the Oval Office at 5 p.m. Washington time, a little more than an hour after the onset of the attack. There were at least 50 minutes of real-time video of the attack as the battle was sent streaming directly to the Situation Room in the White House.

Real-time emails were also pouring into the Situation Room detailing that 20 armed terrorists were attacking our Benghazi consulate, that Ambassador Stevens was crouched in a safe room waiting for help as the al-Qaida terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia was taking credit for the attack. Most claims of responsibility for a terrorist attack come days after the event. This was, as they say, in “real-time.”

If indeed you had insufficient knowledge concerning the attack itself, you certainly had knowledge of the threat. Ambassador Stevens had been begging for even the most basic security, and all his requests for additional security were denied. And how about this little factoid: the Benghazi consulate was and is sovereign U.S. territory that you and President Obama had a responsibility and duty to defend. (IBD)

But the only thing they want to defend is Barack’s political ass.

A Famous  Quote from our Dear Leader:

“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

An Even Better one for all of us:

“The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.” — Plato

So If you want better, VOTE. If you want Obama out, VOTE. If you want Democrats defeated, VOTE.

It’s that simple. If you don’t vote, don’t Bitch.

I vote. I really bitch! 🙂

His ALL-IN (the shit) Energy Policy:

It’s not that Obama necessarily hates profits. What he’s really concerned about is where they end up.

“Greater profits,” he said in February 2011, “have to be shared by American workers.” So rather than letting profits accrue to those who earned them, the president wants them to be “shared” in a way that he approves.

Profit-loathing isn’t limited to the White House. It’s partywide. Democrats from top to bottom are agitated when corporations profit, especially oil companies.

This couldn’t have been more clear than when earlier this year, six House Democrats — Reps. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.) — proposed a Reasonable Profits Board that would levy a 50% to 100% tax on oil company earnings that exceeded a “reasonable profit” limit.

Former House speaker and current Democratic Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was not among those who put together the totalitarian-sounding Reasonable Profits Board. But she’s been known to spit out phrases such as “record profits,” “profiteering,” “highly profitable,” when describing oil companies’ earnings.

On the other side of the Capitol, Sen. Harry Reid, who still runs the Senate for the Democrats, has similar ill feelings toward health insurance companies.

In Reid’s mind, the “profit motive” of insurers has “almost destroyed our economy.” He’s complained — incorrectly — “they make more money than any other business in America today,” implying that there is something wrong with making more than everyone else and forgetting that some industry has to come out on top.

Unless, of course, we live in a nation in which the government uses its force to even all outcomes. Could it be that’s what the Democrats are really trying to achieve?

The Democrats’ war on profits is just as shameful at the grass-roots level. Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro Pacific Capital, discovered just how intense the animosity is when he spoke to Democrats at their convention this year in Charlotte, N.C. He was told that Washington should mandate “corporate losses,” ban corporate profits, “limit” corporate profits and put a “cap” on them.

Predictable. And so, unfortunately, was the response of a woman who initially said she didn’t know enough about banning corporate profits to offer an opinion, only to later say she would favor a ban if Obama approved of one. Why? Because, she gushed, “I will support anything my president wants to do.”

There is an ugly jealousy and spitefulness that runs deep and wide through today’s Democratic Party.

It shows in the desperation of the Obama re-election campaign. It’s supposed to be the party of peace and unity. But it’s become a party of division and disunity. (IBD)

I would add Disrespect, distraction, disgust, and Disharmony.

Bad Advice

Michael Ramirez Cartoon 

White House senior adviser David Plouffe said on Sunday Republicans want “huge tax cuts for the wealthy, more war, more debt.” 

“They want to return us back to the same policies that caused the recession — huge tax cuts for the wealthy, more war, more debt. And independent economists last week just said the Romney congressional agenda would cause us harm in the short term economically and slow down the recovery. So that’s the wrong direction,” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

And it’s own mid-june. Imagine what the hype ,the lies, distortions,and rhetoric is going to be in 4 months! 🙂

Video from 1994 has surfaced of David Axelrod, President Obama’s chief campaign strategist, calling former President George H.W. Bush “out of touch” for “tastelessly” playing golf while trying to convince voters that the economy is improving.

“Bush tastelessly did it, often from the ninth hole, and from the cigar boat and other places,” Axelrod said.

Added the adviser: “The impression you got was that he was out of touch.”

President Obama rolled out of his Kenwood, Chicago home Sunday morning and headed to out to play his 100th round of golf since becoming president.
Obama has already played golf eight times this year. He actually is a little off his normal pace – perhaps campaigning is intruding on golf. The president golfed 28 times in 2009, 30 times in 2010, and an incredible 34 times in 2011.
But he’s the “First Black President” so I must be a racist for pointing out that Bush never played this many rounds and actually quit playing because of the criticism. 🙂
After all, he wants what he wants when he wants it.

This was 1987 folks. Gee, I guess only Liberals want to yell at Presidents  but you’re never supposed to do it to them.

Gee, that trend of Don’t Do as I do, Do as I say and I can do it but you can’t isn’t the accepted norm with Liberals.

Well, time to stop drinking that Big Gulp  and “Let’s Move” and do a “little weed” just like the President did when he was younger and now all the 60’s hippies want to you to do it now too.

Cigarettes Vs. Marijuana

The Partnership Attitude Tracking Study, sponsored by MetLife Foundation, found that 9 percent of teens (nearly 1.5 million) smoked marijuana heavily (at least 20 times) in the past month. Overall, past-month heavy marijuana use is up 80 percent among U.S. teens since 2008.

Past-month use is up 42 percent (up from 19 percent in 2008 to 27 percent in 2011, which translates to about 4 million teens).

Past-year use is up 26 percent (up from 31 percent in 2008 to 39 percent in 2011, which translates to about 6 million teens).

Lifetime use is up 21 percent (up from 39 percent in 2008 to 47 percent in 2011, which translates to nearly 8 million teens). (MarketWatch)

And many can drive! Doesn’t that just make you feel better about Big Gulps! 🙂

Smoking rates have declined with 22 percent of teens reporting smoking cigarettes in the past month — down 19 percent from 27 percent last year.

Could that be because the dangers of smoking have been hammered for 2 decades?

So education on the dangers of smoking have worked. And so has the education on the harmlessness of pot has too. And that’s the fault of the War on Drugs.

Ah, doublethink…

Although the U.S. arrests 750,000 people every year for nothing more than possessing a small amount of marijuana, teens consistently report that marijuana is easier to obtain than alcohol. (Huffington Post)

So stop smoking cigarettes because they are bad for you, toke some weed instead! 🙂

Like for for sure, dude!

Stoners Rights!

And gee, what is one of the major things smuggled by the drug runner across the US’s “more secure than ever” Southern Border…marijuana. 🙂

So in order to solve the problem we don’t less people using it, we just need more government control of it! Sigh…

UNION GRAFT

In speech after speech, President Obama credits himself for saving the Detroit auto industry. Turns out that what Obama really did was spend $23 billion in taxpayer money to pay off his union friends.

Even if you think the bailout was needed, the ultimate taxpayer cost was far higher than it should have been, according to a new report by Zywicki and James Sherk, published by the Heritage Foundation.

Worse, the entire $23 billion price tag — an estimate from Obama’s own Treasury Dept. — went to subsidize the Democrat-friendly UAW, the authors found.

Among the union giveaways:

• $21 billion more for the UAW retiree benefit trust fund than it would have received had it been treated like other unsecured creditors.

• Another $1 billion to restore pensions for UAW retirees at GM’s defunct Delphi subsidiary.

• And the UAW didn’t have to make wage concessions that a normal bankruptcy proceeding would have required. Cost to taxpayers: $4 billion.

“Had the administration required the UAW to accept standard bankruptcy concessions,” they concluded, “the government could have executed the bailout at no net cost to taxpayers.”

Obama’s former car czar, Ron Bloom, wasn’t kidding when he said of the bailout: “I did this all for the unions.” (IBD)

ILLEGALS

In his most brazen act of pandering to date, President Obama has dangled de facto amnesty to 800,000 illegal immigrants in a shameless bid to win Latino votes. This is pure banana-republic electoral politics.

After all, with no Voter ID required (because Holder and Company will shut you done if you do) but you have amnesty and a “work permit” why not vote for Obama and the Democrats. 🙂

There’s zero doubt Obama’s Friday order to hand work permits to hundreds of thousands of illegals who claim they were brought here as children is merely an embattled and unpopular president’s bid to gain an electoral edge.

Politics trump all other factors that a responsible president would consider, such as the wisdom of dumping nearly a million new job seekers onto the market to compete for jobs with America’s 26 million unemployed at a time of sky-high unemployment.

First, Democratic strategists have stated repeatedly that Obama, whose popularity is below 50% in polls, must win the Latino vote at all costs, particularly in swing states. Obama’s move panders to them.

Second, it closely follows the Dream Act prescription, favored by the open-borders lobby, the one group he must please to secure the votes. The Act stalled in Congress for lack of votes amid high public opposition.

It also comes as a flip-flop. Obama has told his supporters in the past that he couldn’t take such a brazen step, knowing that its legality and clear usurpation of congressional authority would be questioned.

And it was — by GOP Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Marco Rubio of Florida. Apparently, now that Obama’s re-election is on the line, anything goes.

But it’s the time frame that really gives the game away: The relief from deportation orders will be meted out in two-year increments, timed precisely with each election cycle. That way, Democrats can tell the Latino lobby to either mobilize the vote for them — or the amnesty goodies end.

This is no different from banana-republic politicos buying votes for bags of beans. Obama’s gambit is in fact straight from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who, facing a tight recall referendum in 2004, handed citizenship to 2 million illegal immigrants in Venezuela to secure votes, and with Jimmy Carter’s help, won.

It’s also been done in that other banana-republic, California, where in 2003, Democratic Gov. Gray Davis offered drivers licenses to millions of illegals to secure Latino votes for his own recall referendum. It maddened California’s voters and Davis was booted.

Obama is betting that America’s voters will behave more like Venezuelans than Californians, but the tragic thing is that he’s harming the interests of the country.

Illegals with criminal pasts that can be punished with less than a year in the slammer will be fully eligible.

What’s more, our system of law will be corrupted, as officials assure the work permits are handed out on a “case-by-case basis,” an ideal setup for bribes and kickbacks. Rubio warns the move will encourage more illegal immigration — and discourage legal migrants.

The losers here are the American people, who have a leader who seems more interested in short-term political gain than actual governance — and who seems oblivious to the disruption this new amnesty policy will cause as the rule of law is undermined.

November can’t come soon enough. (IBD)

Especially, with advice like this.

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino