The Real Enemy

As Obama get’s his Agenda Scout Merit Badge for caving in to the communists in Cuba, the “JV team” ISIS continue to rape, pillage, and creatively kill anyone who isn’t them.

Good thing Global Warming is a bigger threat, don’t you know.

So the following is politically incorrect.

Thursday, The New York Times published a disturbing piece about the Islamic State having enshrined “a theology of rape,” specifically against women and girls who aren’t Muslim. In other words, if the female isn’t Muslim, it’s totally fine to assault her, sell her, and keep as property.

It’s amazing they would publish the piece in the first place. This is Al-Jazeera America, before the channel actually existed.

The opening paragraphs are harrowing, describing the rape of a 12-year-old girl:

In the moments before he raped the 12-year-old girl, the Islamic State fighter took the time to explain that what he was about to do was not a sin. Because the preteen girl practiced a religion other than Islam, the Quran not only gave him the right to rape her — it condoned and encouraged it, he insisted.He bound her hands and gagged her. Then he knelt beside the bed and prostrated himself in prayer before getting on top of her.

When it was over, he knelt to pray again, bookending the rape with acts of religious devotion.

Good thing he didn’t order a Pizza, then the Left might get their panties in a wad.

“I kept telling him it hurts — please stop,” said the girl, whose body is so small an adult could circle her waist with two hands. “He told me that according to Islam he is allowed to rape an unbeliever. He said that by raping me, he is drawing closer to God,” she said in an interview alongside her family in a refugee camp here, to which she escaped after 11 months of captivity.

The systematic rape of women and girls from the Yazidi religious minority has become deeply enmeshed in the organization and the radical theology of the Islamic State in the year since the group announced it was reviving slavery as an institution.

And here I thought the only slavery left was “white privilege”. 🙂

Interviews with 21 women and girls who recently escaped the Islamic State, as well as an examination of the group’s official communications, illuminate how the practice has been enshrined in the group’s core tenets.

The trade in Yazidi women and girls has created a persistent infrastructure, with a network of warehouses where the victims are held, viewing rooms where they are inspected and marketed, and a dedicated fleet of buses used to transport them.

A total of 5,270 Yazidis were abducted last year, and at least 3,144 are still being held, according to community leaders. To handle them, the Islamic State has developed a detailed bureaucracy of sex slavery, including sales contracts notarized by the ISIS-run Islamic courts. And the practice has become an established recruiting tool to lure men from deeply conservative Muslim societies, where casual sex is taboo and dating is forbidden.

Good thing Obama care about “human rights” like Gay Marriage and Abortion, he has his priorities straight. 🙂

The rest of the long form piece is riddled with equally barbaric and appalling details that revolve around the topic of sex slavery.

And you though just being against Planned Parenthood’s harvesting and selling of fetal baby parts was “a war on women”.

In August of 2014, thousands of Yazidis fled the forces of the Islamic State by heading to the Sinjar Mountains. The conditions were abysmal, with little shade, food, water, and other essential supplies. In all, 20-30,000 Yazidis remained trapped on top of the mountain. U.S., British and Iraqi aircraft had been dropping supplies at the time to aid the beleaguered group. The U.S. was considering air evacuations for the refugees. By December of 2014, the Kurds relieved the siege on Sinjar.

Yet, for CNN’s Chris Cuomo, the New York Times piece might promote stereotypes.

“Let’s finish this part of the discussion on a point that you feel often needs to be made,” Cuomo said to Muslim woman’s rights activist Qanta Ahmed. “This feeds the impression that these Muslims are animals, savages and their faith makes them that way.”

“And it feeds an impression of what Islam is,” he continued. “What is your response to that?”

Ahmed didn’t seem overly concerned about the point Cuomo raised, and instead strongly critiqued radical Islam. “This is Islamism at work,” she said. “We’ve talked a lot about this on this show. Islamism is totalitarianism… totalitarianism, that means absolute domination of the self.”

Oh, Obama and The Democrats, just without the violence, rape and murder.  No wonder the Leftist can’t comprehend it, so let’s replay that…

“This feeds the impression that these Muslims are animals, savages and their faith makes them that way,” he said.

Muslim women’s rights activist Qanta Ahmed aptly noted that the end goal for these Islamists is one thing: totalitarianism.

The same as the Democrat Party. How fascinating is that. Maybe that’s why they are for “human rights” only when it suits their agenda but are utterly incapable of getting the littlest bit annoyed about beheadings and rape. Not to mention what Arabs and Persians due to gays and don’t go there about Gay Marriage…

“This is Islamism at work …there Islamists are dominating to extinction girls and women; it’s very calculated,” she said.

So is Obama. He just doesn’t do it with overt violence. 🙂

At the same time, ISIS is raping 12-year-olds and justifying it through religious means. They’re engaging in sex slavery. These aren’t stereotypes or brash over-generalizations; they’re actually happening. Saying that the members of the Islamic State are animals and savages not only fits the bill, one could argue that it’s overly generous given the utter evil they’re partaking in on a daily basis. I mean, is this even up for discussion?

But Obama and Co. can’t even conceptualize the idea of “radical Islam” because of their Thought Police filters that prevents such a thoughtcrime from passing their lips.

You would think that one would come to that conclusion after the various execution videos they’ve released; the beheadings of Americans James Foley and Steve Sotloff; or when they blew up a baby. (Townhall)

But not Obama and The Democrats. Nope. That Thoughtcrime has not been breached yet. They continue to stay strong in the face such pressure.

You can’t paint a religion as “radical” based on just a few nutters, not unless their Christians that is, then it’s not only acceptable, it’s the truth. 🙂

Good thing they didn’t blow up an Abortion Clinic then they’d be “right wing” religious extremists and then you might annoy them!

The Left is blinded by their ideology and will fight to every last drop of your blood to prove just how superior their vision is.

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

$10

 The Leftists want to put their mouth where your money is…

They’re coming for our money. OK, that’s nothing new, but this time, the Obama administration is coming for our $10 bills — the notes graced by the image of Alexander Hamilton. True to the identity politics of the Democratic Party, the Obama Treasury Department has announced that some worthy female will replace Hamilton on the currency.

The sheer arrogance, ignorance and stupidity of this move are difficult to capture in one column.

Let’s start with stupidity. If there’s one figure whose face arguably does not deserve to adorn the currency, it’s the man on the $20 bill, not the $10. That is Andrew Jackson, seventh president of the United States, adamant opponent of paper currency (!), friend of slave power and scourge of Native Americans. Who can forget that when the Cherokee appealed their treatment by the state of Georgia to the Supreme Court and won, Jackson refused to enforce the law? Jackson pushed for and signed the Indian Removal Act, which led directly to the forced deportation of nearly 17,000 Choctaw, Creek, Cherokee and others –known as the Trail of Tears. He was fiercely opposed in this by his predecessor, John Quincy Adams, who took the view (in case you’re tempted to argue that Jackson was only doing what was possible at the time) that Indians should be paid for their land if they wished to sell, and that they should be given the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

There was actually a little boomlet to replace Jackson on the $20 bill. Alas, like so much in our era, it wasn’t so much about consigning the flawed Jackson to much-deserved obscurity as about putting a woman’s face on the bill. The “Women on 20s” campaign ginned up some signatures and apparently attracted the approval of the president. But according to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, the $10 is up for a security redesign, so what the heck. Hamilton who?

Here’s the arrogance: The Treasury Department is downgrading Hamilton, without whom there might not be a United States currency, just because they yearn to check a “diversity” box, and without consulting the American people. Hamilton was a poor kid from the West Indies who immigrated to New York, joined the patriot army at age 17 or 18 and organized an artillery company, became an aide to Gen. George Washington, authored more than half of the Federalist Papers, and served as the first treasury secretary of the United States, where he structured the finances of our infant republic so that we didn’t drown in debt. He was also a fierce opponent of slavery.

Hamilton belongs in the pantheon of American heroes. Though we’re currently in a fad for the founders — countless successful biographies of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson have been published and relished over the past couple of decades — our debt to those extraordinary men is bottomless. Besides, only a tiny fraction of the public buys books. Meanwhile, the AP American history exam is being hijacked by progressives to downgrade the greatness of the founders. Hamilton deserves far more than a place on the $10 bill — and he certainly deserves no less.

Finally, ignorance. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen gushes that putting a female on the $10 will tell “young girls across this country … that they, too, can grow up and do something great for their country.” This is tiresome. Girls and women are doing great in America. Girls graduate from high school at higher rates than boys. They attend and graduate from college at significantly higher rates. U.S. Census Bureau data show that in 2012, 71 percent of female high school graduates went on to college, compared to 61 percent of young men. While men’s wages have stagnated for three decades, women’s have been rising. Women outnumber men in the workforce, even in professional, managerial and technical occupations. (Source: “Wayward Sons” a Third Way report.) So, please, spare us the patronizing “female role model” nonsense.

Here’s the solution: Upgrade the security features on the $10, but keep Hamilton in his spot. Dump Jackson from the $20 and hold an essay competition among American high school seniors for his replacement. It would be a great exercise in the appreciation of excellence. Both sexes may be nominated. There are many American women who could be chosen: Emily Dickinson, Harriet Tubman, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Susan B. Anthony? But by announcing in advance that you’re choosing a woman, you’ve guaranteed that the honor will be downgraded to the “best woman” rather than the best candidate. In short, you’d be echoing the Hillary Clinton campaign. (Townhall)

Or Hillary herself, maybe Rachel Dolezal, Caitlyn Jenner or some other ultra-leftist female “icon” they can use for totem.

They will literally put their ideology in your wallet, then take it away from you because they know how to spend it better than you do. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

The Frog and The Scorpion

Quote of the Day:

Obama in Burma- “As President, I cannot just impose my will on Congress — the Congress of the United States — even though sometimes I wish I could,” he stated. “The legislative branch has its own powers and its own prerogatives, and so they check my power and balance my power.”

Yes, Herr Obama, I’m sure you do. 🙂

“We have to double down in 2014. We’ve got to make sure we recruit more women for office, because It’s not just a slogan that when women run, women win. They do, and when women run, Democrats win,” Wasserman-Schultz said.

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said the Republican Party “got whiter and more male” while the Democratic caucus is “majority minority and female.” (CNS)

So do you think the Democrats are going to seed any “minority” ground to Republicans who are fearful they are too white to win?

F*UCK NO! And anyone who thinks so is an idiot. They have their strategy and it works for them so they are going to ramp up the fear, hatred, division, and envy even more! More of a “good thing” in their eyes.

So you thought the hatred, fear and envy was bad in 2012, just wait….

Speaking of hate and fear, How about the coverage of Israel under attack by Hamas?

Heard anything about Israeli’s being killed by hundreds of rockets a day? Or Hamas using women and children as human shields?

UPI: Israeli air raids have pounded Gaza for a sixth successive day, raising to 96 the number of Palestinians killed.

Nothing about the 200+ rockets a day launched AT Israel BY Hamas.

Not relevant to the Ministry of Truth.

When Seal Team Six killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, no one described it as an “assassination.” Why not? Because Osama wasn’t a civilian political leader; he was a terrorist combatant who had declared war on America, and tried to continue his attacks in any way possible.

Why, then, have the New York Times and other media outlets referred to Israel’s killing of Ahmed Jabaari in Gaza as “an assassination?” He was the military commander of a terrorist organization, Hamas, which remains at war with Israel, and takes pride in aiming deadly rockets at Israeli civilian targets every day. There’s a big difference between assassination–the targeting of civilian leaders for political purposes–and striking armed combatants in self defense in the midst of an ongoing war. (Michael Medved)

Because that doesn’t fit the Meme.

A new CNN poll shows only 40 percent of Democrats support Israel’s response to Hamas launching repeatedly rockets into their country.

“Although most Americans think the Israeli actions are justified, there are key segments of the public who don’t necessarily feel that way,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Only four in ten Democrats think the Israeli actions in Gaza are justified, compared to 74% of Republicans and 59% of independents. Support for Israel’s military action is 13 points higher among men than among women, and 15 points higher among older Americans than among younger Americans.”

Is anybody really surprised? After all, this is the party that booed Israel and God at this year’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. (Katie Pavlich)

My question is, Why are so many Jews hardcore Democrats?

It makes no sense logically. But then again, Democrats almost never make any sense logically. Ideologically, emotionally, yes. Logically, no.

But it is very curious.

In the film “Groundhog Day,” Bill Murray wakes up each morning and relives the previous day.

A similar scenario is playing out in the Middle East between Israel and her enemies. The deadly “movie” always goes like this: Israel is shelled or attacked by terrorists groups, often called “militants” by the media, each one with the same goal: Israel’s elimination. After demonstrating considerable restraint of the kind that would never be tolerated by any other nation, Israel fires back.

Suddenly, the world awakens from its indifference. World leaders, who said little when Israeli civilians were wounded and killed, now urge “restraint” by “both sides,” as if a moral equivalency exists between victim and predator.

In the run-up to confrontation, it has been reported that Hamas placed weaponry among civilians, hoping that when Israeli airstrikes started they could show photos of dead children, bringing condemnation on Israel. What’s more, according to Breitbart.com, “Hamas has a well-established pattern of faking civilian deaths in Gaza, even as it seeks civilian deaths in Israel.” American and foreign TV networks — particularly CNN and BBC — are then brought in to channel the Palestinian line, portraying Israel as the aggressor. (Cal Thomas)

The way in which the New York Times reports good vs. evil is one of the most important stories of our time.

Take the war between Israel and Hamas that is taking place right now.

This war is as morally clear as wars get. Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to annihilating the Jewish state. It runs a theocratic totalitarian state in Gaza, with no individual liberty and no freedom of speech or press. In a nutshell, Hamas is a violent, fascist organization.

Israel, meanwhile, is one the world’s most humane states, not to mention a democracy that is so tolerant that Arab members of its parliament are free to express admiration for Hamas.

Over the past decade, Hamas had launched thousands of rockets into Israel with one aim: to kill and maim as many Israeli citizens as possible — Israelis at work, at play, asleep in their homes, in their cars. Finally, Israel responded by killing Ahmed al-Jabari, the chief organizer of Hamas violence, the Hamas “military commander” as he was known among Palestinians.

The next day, three more Israelis were killed by rockets.

Then Hamas targeted Tel Aviv, Israel’s most densely populated region, and Israel shelled Hamas rocket launching sites.

In other words, an evil entity made war on a peaceful, decent entity, and the latter responded.

How has the New York Times reported this?

On Friday, on its front page, the Times featured two three-column wide photos. The top one was of Gaza Muslim mourners alongside the dead body of al-Jabari. The photo below was of Israeli Jews mourning alongside the dead body of Mira Scharf, a 27-year-old mother of three.

What possible reason could there be for the New York Times to give identical space to these two pictures? One of the dead, after all, was a murderer, and the other was one of his victims.

The most plausible reason is that the Times wanted to depict through pictures a sort of moral equivalence: Look, sophisticated Times readers, virtually identical scenes of death and mourning on both sides of the conflict. How tragic.

If one had no idea what had triggered this war, one would read and see the Times coverage and conclude that two sides killing each other were both equally at fault.

This is the mainstream (i.e., liberal) media’s approach. The Los Angeles Times headline on the same day was: “Israel and Gaza veering down familiar, bitter path,”

Same presentation: two scorpions fighting in a bottle.

I would add the tale of the Frog and the Scorpion:

The Scorpion and the Frog is a fable about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung during the trip, but the scorpion argues that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown. The frog agrees and begins carrying the scorpion, but midway across the river the scorpion does indeed sting the frog, dooming them both. When asked why, the scorpion points out that this is its nature.

(Sounds like the Republicans (Frog) and Democrats (Scorpion) doesn’t it?)

Hamas and Israel. And which is which depends on your Meme. 🙂

Examples are endless. Here is one more:

In 2002, there was widespread Nigerian Muslim opposition to the Miss World pageant scheduled to take place that year in Nigeria. Defending the pageant, a Nigerian female reporter wrote a column in which she said that not only were the contestants not “whores,” as alleged by the Muslim protestors, but they were such fine women that “Muhammad would probably have taken one of the contestants for a wife.”

That one sentence led to Muslim rioting, the beating and killing of Christians, the burning of churches and the razing of her newspaper’s offices.

How did the New York Times report the events?

“Fiery Zealotry Leaves Nigeria in Ashes Again.”

No group is identified as responsible. “Fiery zealotry,” not Muslim violence, was responsible.

The article then begins: “The beauty queens are gone now, chased from Nigeria by the chaos in Kaduna.”

Again, Muslim rioters weren’t responsible for chasing the beauty queens out of Nigeria; it was “chaos.”

The article concludes that what happened in Kaduna was another example of Africa’s “difficulty in reconciling people who worship separately.” In other words, Christians and Muslims were equally guilty.

As the flagship news source of the left, the New York Times reveals the great moral failing inherent to leftism — its combination of moral relativism and the division of the world between strong and weak, Western and non-Western, and rich and poor, rather than between good and evil. (Dennis Prager)

Bernard Lewis, the renowned scholar and expert on the history of Islam, was recently aboard a Post-Election Cruise sponsored by National Review magazine, as was I.

Lewis noted that the Cold War featured “mutual assured destruction” (MAD), which served as a deterrent for both the United States and the Soviet Union from using their nuclear weapons against each other. Lewis said for Islamic nations like Iran (which sponsors Hamas in Gaza), “MAD is not a deterrent, but an inducement.” That’s because, he said, the Iranian regime believes in the apocalyptic end of days in which the 12th Imam — the Islamic “messiah” — will emerge in the midst of a nuclear war with Israel and “save” humanity with Islam the surviving religion. (Cal Thomas)

In God They Trust. In The Ministry we should not.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Truth to Tell

Super-Uber-Liberal (who I have never EVER agreed with on anything she has ever said EVER!) Kirsten Powers writes about the liberal men who have used misogynistic rhetoric without facing the same outrage. Powers notes that “the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC.” 

But don’t worry, the Truth is a merely insignificant distraction to The Agenda of The Left. It’s not like they’ll actually clean up their own house. After all, calling Sarah Palin a dumb Twat and a cunt and many other gross and hateful things is merely “the Truth” in another form to the Left. 🙂

Doublethink: the capacity to believe to completely contradictory things at the same time and believe both are true!

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right…

But good luck getting anyone in the Liberal Media to REALLY push this or get them to act on it.

They can point out their own hypocrisy, it’s a curiosity, but could they ever actually take reform of it for the long term?

NO.

So Ms Powers can speak the actual truth and No one on Left will care.

Because, they won’t change.

It’s just another Leftist telling the truth, but it won’t change anything.

Much like Stephen Chu’s “European” Gas Prices comment. Or Obama comments about wanting to raising gas prices to get people to do what he wants.

Or Raul Emmanuel’s “Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste” it is the truth, but exposing the truth in politics doesn’t necessarily mean anything and especially on the Left it means absolutely NOTHING.

All of Obama’s 2008 pronouncements about his socialist agenda, ignored by the media.

They can tell the real truth and then continue do exactly the same things that they have been doing.

Doublethink is endemic on the Left.

They will just say it and then just move on. They don’t have the capacity for change of behavior. Why would they want to do that? 🙂

The Contraceptive Flap: A FLUKE? Sandra Fluke… 🙂

Although Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke testified to the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee last month that contraception can cost a law student $3,000 over three years and that some of her fellow students could not afford it, a Target store only 3 miles from the law school currently sells a month’s supply of birth control pills for only $9 to people who do not have insurance plans covering contraceptives.

That would make the total cost for birth control pills for a student who decided to use them for all three years of law school just $324.

Also CNS did a report that they could be found within 3 blocks of the Law center for FREE!

So why is the Left so worked up? Because the truth doesn’t matter, what really matters is that they can use her “testimony” and the Limbaugh comments to bash the right’s head in and distract people from the actual truth of the economy and what the Left is REALLY doing.

Distraction is  the Left favorite tactic even for the people on the Left. That’s how you can say the truth and no one on the Left even notices and the people on the Right get all hot, the Left poo-poo’s it as “partisan” and just keeps moving to the Left.

http://www.kfyi.com/pages/jimsharpe.html

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/9-price-months-supply-birth-control-pills-target-3-miles-georgetown-law

And with that in mind:  The Ghost of Andrew Breitbart Strikes

The Vetting, Part I: Barack’s Love Song To Alinsky

Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects–but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us.

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?” Andrew saw himself in that role—as a guardian protecting Americans from the left’s “objective” loyal scribes.

Andrew wanted to do what the mainstream media would not. First and foremost: Andrew pledged to vet President Barack H. Obama.

Andrew did not want to re-litigate the 2008 election. Nor did he want to let Republicans off the hook. Instead, he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party.

From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president–and his rivals.

We begin with a column Andrew wrote last week in preparation for today’s Big relaunch–a story that should swing the first hammer against the glass wall the mainstream media has built around Barack Obama.
In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama claims that he worried after 9/11 that his name, so similar to that of Osama bin Laden, might harm his political career.

But Obama was not always so worried about misspellings and radical resemblances. He may even have cultivated them as he cast himself as Chicago’s radical champion.

In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago’s South Side.

Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play. 

Recently, veteran Chicago journalist Michael Miner mocked emerging conservative curiosity about the play, along with enduring suspicions about the links between Alinsky and Obama. Writing in the Chicago Reader, Miner described the poster:

Let’s look at the Poster:

It’s red—and that right there, like the darkening water that swirls down Janet Leigh’s drain [in Psycho’s famous shower scene], is plenty suggestive. It touts a play called The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, Alinsky being the notorious community organizer from Chicago who wrote books with titles like Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. On it, fists are raised—meaning insurrection is in the air.

And down at the very bottom, crawling across the poster in small print, it mentions the panel discussions that will follow the Sunday performances. The panelists are that era’s usual “progressive” suspects: Leon Despres, Monsignor Jack Egan, Studs Terkel . . .

And State Senator Barack Obama.

But like his 20 years in the pews of Rev. Jeremiah Wright he was there but he wasn’t listening and never hear a word of it. 🙂

He learned all his Christian values in those pews but he never heard any of the Leftist/Alinsky Liberation Theology for those 20 years! 🙂

And here’s the press release:

Press Release
So, what’s in the play? It truly is a love song to Alinsky. In the first few minutes of the play, Alinsky plays Moses – yes, the Biblical Moses – talking to God. The play glorifies Alinsky stealing food from restaurants and organizing others to do the same, explaining, “I saw it as a practical use of social ecology: you had members of the intellectual community, the hope of the future, eating regularly for six months, staying alive till they could make their contributions to society.”

In an introspective moment, Alinsky rips America: “My country … ‘tis of whatthehell / And justice up a tree … How much can you sell / What’s in it for me.” He grins about manipulating the Christian community to back his programs. He talks in glowing terms about engaging in Chicago politics with former Mayor Kelly. He rips the McCarthy committee, mocking, “Everyone was there, when you think back – Cotton Mather, Hester Prynn, Anne Hutchinson, Tom Paine, Tom Jefferson … Brandeis, Holmes … Gene Debs and the socialists … Huey Long … Imperial Wizards of all stripes … Father Coughlin and his money machine … Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd … and a kicking chorus of sterilized reactionaries singing O Come, All Ye Faithful …”

And Alinsky talks about being the first occupier – shutting down the O’Hare Airport by occupying all the toilet stalls, using chewing gum to “tie up the city, stop all traffic, and the shopping, in the Loop, and let everyone at City Hall know attention must be paid, and maybe we should talk about it.” As Alinsky says, “Students of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your juicy fruit.”

The play finishes with Alinsky announcing he’d rather go to Hell than Heaven. Why? “More comfortable there. You see, all my life I’ve been with the Have-Nots: here you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of money, there you’re a Have-Not if you’re short of virtue. I’d be asking more questions, organizing them. They’re my kind of people – Hell would be Heaven for me.”

That’s The Love Song of Saul Alinsky. It’s radical leftist stuff, and it revels in its radical leftism.

And that’s Barack Obama, our president, on the poster.

This is who Barack Obama was. This was before Barack Obama ran for Congress in 2000—challenging former Black Panther Bobby L. Rush from the left in a daring but unsuccessful bid.

This was also the period just before Barack Obama served with Bill Ayers, from 1999 through 2002 on the board of the Woods Foundation. They gave capital to support the Midwest Academy, a leftist training institute steeped in the doctrines of — you guessed it! — Saul Alinsky, and whose alumni now dominate the Obama administration and its top political allies inside and out of Congress.
Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical-in-Chief, described the Midwest Academy as a “crypto-socialist organization.” Yet almost no one has heard of Midwest Academy, because the media does not want you to know that the president is a radical’s radical whose presidency itself is a love song to a socialist “community organizer.”
The reason Newt Gingrich surged in the Republican primary contest in January is that he was attempting to do the press’s job by finding out who the current occupant of the White House actually is. Millions also want to know, but the mainstream media is clearly not planning to vet the President anytime soon. Quite the opposite.

For example, Miner tries to turn Obama’s appearance on the Alinsky panel into a plus for the president:

Obama was on the panel that talked about Alinsky the last Sunday of the play’s run at the Blue Rider Theatre in Pilsen. Neither Pam Dickler, who directed the Terrapin Theatre production, nor Gary Houston, who played Alinsky, can remember a word Obama said. But he impressed them. “You never would have known he was a politician,” says Dickler. “He never said anything at all about himself. He came alone, watched the play, and during the panel discussion was entirely on point and brilliant. That evening I called my father, who’s a political junkie, and told him to watch out for this man, he’s going places.” Houston was just as taken by Obama—though he remembers him arriving in a group.

But is it a good thing to impress the sort of people who show up to laud The Love Song of Saul Alinsky? Here are the other members of the Obama panel:

Leon Despres: Despres knew Saul Alinsky for nearly 50 years, and together they established the modern concept of “community organizing.” Despres worked with secret Communist and Soviet spy Lee Pressman to support strikers at Republic Steel in Chicago in 1937; the strike ended in tragedy when 14 rioting strikers were killed and many wounded in a hail of police bullets.  Despres worked with another Communist Party front, the Chicago Civil Liberties Committee, but eventually left because of the “Stalinism” of its leaders. 

Also in 1937, Despres and his wife delivered a suitcase of “clothing” to Leon Trotsky, then hiding out from Stalin’s assassins in Mexico City. Despres and his wife not only met with the exiled Russian Communist, but Despres’s wife sat for a portrait with Trotsky pal and Marxist muralist Diego Rivera while Leon took Rivera’s wife Frida Kahlo to the movies.

Quentin Young: From 1970 until at least 1992, Quentin Young was active in the Communist Party front organization, the Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights – a group dedicated to outlawing government surveillance of radical organizations.  He was also a member of the Young Communist League. Young, a confidante and physician to Barack Obama, is credited with having heavily influenced the President’s views on healthcare policy.

Timuel Black: An icon of the Chicago left, Black was originally denied officer training because military intelligence claimed he had secretly joined the Communist Party. Black also worked closely with the Socialist Party in the 1950s, becoming president of the local chapter of the Negro American Labor Council, a organization founded by Socialist Party leader A. Phillip Randolph.

In the early ‘60s Black was a leader of the Hyde Park Community Peace Center, where he worked alongside former radical Trotskyist Sydney Lens and the aforementioned Communist Dr. Quentin Young.  Black served as a contributing editor to the Hyde Park/Kenwood Voices, a newspaper run by Communist Party member David S. Canter. By 1970, Timuel Black was serving on the advisory council of the Communist Party controlled Chicago Committee to Defend the Bill of Rights.

Timuel Black says he has been friends with domestic terrorists William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, “going back to 1968, since long before I knew Barack.” In April 2002, Black, Dohrn and Democratic Socialists of America member Richard Rorty spoke together on a panel entitled “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?” The panel was the first of two in a public gathering jointly sponsored by The Center for Public Intellectuals and the University of Illinois, Chicago. Bill Ayers and Barack Obama spoke together on in the second panel at that gathering. Communist academic Harold Rogers chaired Timuel Black’s unsuccessful campaign for Illinois State Representative.

Studs Terkel: A sponsor of the Scientific and Cultural Conference for World Peace in 1949, which was arranged by a Communist Party USA front organization known as the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions.

Roberta Lynch: A leading member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and a leader of the radical Marxist New American Movement (NAM).

Are we expected to believe that “Baraka Obama” was a countervailing voice of reason on a panel of radicals?
 
The reason that Obama’s Alinskyite past, and his many appearances in political photography and video from the 1990s, are conspicuously missing from the national dialogue is that State Senator Barack Obama’s reinvention as a reasonable and moderate Democratic politician could not withstand scrutiny of his political life.  

Because the mainstream media did not explore his roots, the American public remains largely ignorant of the degree to which Obama’s work with ACORN and his love of Alinsky were symbolic of his true political will.

If any of the candidates can resist the media, and parlay Newt’s strategy into a nomination, we’ll have the choice between an imperfect but well-known Republican and the real “Baraka” Obama, not the manufactured one the media. prefers.

But don’t expect anyone on the Left or The Mainstream Media (Ministry of Truth) to notice and even if they do, it’s just the work of extremist partisan Republicans so it is to be dismissed like the social significance of Snookie.

But HERE’s what’s really, really important: Republicans HATE WOMEN!  🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

This Spuds Not For You!

I love Mythbusters, but…. As the mid-term election approaches, as the unemployment rate reaches 10%, and as our nation is mired in federal overspending and poor economic management, our President Barack Obama holds court on television in the MythBusters series. The episode airs in December though.  So I found this editorial.

*********************************************************************

printable version email to a friend join our e-mail list

Cartoon

Now on to the starch of this morning rant. The humble potato is under attack by the Food Police.
Yes, you heard me, the Potato.
Why?
Because of the evils of frying it mostly or slathering it with cheese, etc.
The Nanny State Food Police want to tell you want you can and cannot eat.
Just like they want to control your electricity (Cap & Trade), your Car (EPA), your children (NEA), your job  (Socialism, Regulation and Taxes), your voice (Net Neutrality) and whether you live or die (Health Care).
So the Food Police have found a new target.
The humble, and actually good for you if you don’t bury it or fry it (and even then if you use peanut oil it’s better than other oils), this spud isn’t for you so says Nanny Government and her liberal minions.

Healthy food advocates said they’re not anti-potato, but they think children need a greater variety of fruits, vegetables and whole grains to fight a tripling of child obesity rates in the past 30 years.

“The potato is the most common vegetable,” said Diane Pratt-Heavner, spokeswoman for the School Nutrition Association. “My impression is that the goal is to increase the amounts of fruits, vegetables and whole grains. I don’t believe anyone is specifically attacking the potato.”

With that in mind, the Institute of Medicine, the health arm of the National Academy of Sciences, recommended that the U.S. Department of Agriculture stop participants of the federal Women, Infants and Children program, known as WIC, from buying potatoes with federal dollars. The institute also called for the USDA-backed school lunch program to limit use of potatoes.

Under an interim rule, the USDA agreed to bar WIC participants from buying potatoes with their federal dollars. Potatoes are the only vegetable not allowed. Next year, the agency will roll out a final rule on the WIC program, which last year served 9.3 million children and pregnant and breast-feeding women considered at risk for malnutrition.

The WIC program is a supplemental food program, and the determination was made that consumption of white potatoes was already adequate, said Christine Stencel, spokeswoman for the Institute of Medicine.

“The recommendation was made to encourage consumption of other fruits and vegetables,” she said.

Jean Daniel, spokeswoman for USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service, said the WIC program was updated for the first time in 30 years after a study showed more consumption of leafy greens and other veggies was needed.

The USDA is expected to release changes to the federal school lunch program by the end of the year. The program subsidizes lunch and breakfast for nearly 32 million needy kids in most public schools and many private ones, and those schools must follow guidelines on what they serve.

So Nanny Michelle and Big Brother Barack demand you eat more Veggies OR ELSE! Ve Vill BE VATCHING YOU! (bad german accent optional).

At least if you’re a Child or Poor. I guess if you’re “rich” they haven’t gotten to you yet. 🙂

Leslie Samuelrich, chief of staff for the killjoy think tank Corporate Accountability International (CAI), wonders why more people aren’t crusading against fast food restaurants. To drive the point home, she makes this outlandish comparison:

If the product were a gun, or drugs, or even a poorly designed toy that could injure a child, the corporation responsible for making it and then marketing it to the most vulnerable among us would be on the hook.

So, just remember, The Government knows Best. 🙂
Cartoon

Keep it Simple

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Want to get a sense of how serious the Democrats are about listening to the will of the people and not their own ideological wet-dreams?

“Reelect me, keep Democrats on the field. And when we come back next year, maybe we will get to the public option,” Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said during an appearance on the Tom Joyner Morning Show.

2. While posing as campaign finance champions, the ultimate goal of the Democratic offensive is to intimidate conservative donors, chill political free speech and drain Republican coffers.

Chamber of Commerce official Bruce Josten tried to educate the public. “(W)e know what the purpose here is,” he told ABC News. “It’s to harass and intimidate.” Josten cited protests and threats against chamber members as retribution for ads the organization ran opposing the federal health care takeover. (Michelle Malkin)

Moveon.org anyone? (founded and funded  by Foreign Socialist Billionaire George Soros by the way)

3. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House: When asked if she would debate her opponent in a townhall-type meeting she blew them off saying, “Let me tell you what my priorities are. My priorities are to elect a Democratic Congress. In order to do that, it is essential for me – time is money for me. [Traveling] around this country, to amass the resources to put my candidates on TV. Whether I get a bigger majority or not in my district is not the point.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC4xMOwldSk

Good to have your priorities, straight. But then again, she knows the San Francisco uber-liberals would never vote against her no matter what she does (unless she turned into a non-uber-liberal that is). She’s Super-Lib!

The New York Times, a flea market of liberal activism, is chalking up Obama’s decline to the stupidity of the American people. A recent Times editorial put forth: “Insurgent Republicans don’t need details when they can play on the furious emotions of voters who have been misled into believing that positive changes like the health care law are catastrophic failures.”(Bill O’Reilly)

The fact that a solid majority of Americans have been against this monster since the Summer of 2009 makes to no impact on Liberals because they want what they want when they want it and will throw a giant hissy fit if they don’t get it or someone threatens to take their toys away.

It’s that simple.

By Victor Davis Hanson: We will learn in November just how angry the public is about a lot of things, from higher taxes to massive unemployment.

But the popular uproar pales in comparison to the sense of humiliation that we Americans are quite broke. In 2008, the public was furious at George W. Bush, not because he was too much of a right-wing tightwad, but because he ran up a series of what were then thought to be gargantuan deficits. The result was that under a supposedly conservative administration, and despite six years of an allegedly small-government Republican Congress, the deficit nearly doubled from $3.3 trillion to $6.3 trillion in just eight years.

Barack Obama apparently never figured out that he had been elected in part because that massive Republican borrowing had sickened the American people. So in near-suicidal fashion, he took Bush’s last scheduled budget deficit of more than $500 billion — in a Keynesian attempt to get the country out of the 2008 recession and financial panic — and nearly tripled it by 2010. Obama’s new red ink will add more than $2.5 trillion to the national debt — with near-trillion-dollar yearly deficits scheduled for the next decade. All of that will result in a U.S. debt of more than $20 trillion.

What exactly is it about big deficits and our accumulated debt that is starting to enrage voters?

First, the public is tired of the nonchalant way that smarmy public officials take credit for dishing out someone else’s cash without a thought of paying for it. Each week, President Obama promises another interest group more freshly borrowed billions, now euphemistically called “stimulus.” But the more public money he hands out to states, public employees, the unemployed or the green industry, the more voters wonder where in the world he’s getting the cash. The next time a public official puts his name on yet another earmarked federal project, let him at least confess whether it was floated with borrowed money.

Second, there is a growing sense of despair that even vastly increased income taxes cannot cover the colossal shortfalls. At least the old Clinton tax rates of the 1990s balanced the budget. But should we bring them back, we would still run a deficit of more than $1 trillion in 2011 — given the vast increases in federal spending.

That bleak reality creates hopelessness — and anger — among voters, who feel they are being taken for fools by their elected officials. The public opposes tax hikes not because they don’t wish to pay down the debt, but because they suspect the increased revenue will simply be a green light for even greater deficit spending.

Third, it does no good for Beltway technocrats to explain how deficits are good at “stimulating” the economy, or why they do not really have to be paid back. Voters know that such gibberish does not apply to their own mortgages and credit card bills.

Voters feel relieved when they can pay off debt and become chronically depressed when they cannot. When the government last balanced the budget in 2000 under the Clinton administration and the Republican Congress, the country collectively experienced as much of a psychological high as it is now collectively experiencing humiliation over being ridiculed as a spendthrift borrower.

So national reputation and sense of self also matter. Americans are tired of hearing about inevitable Chinese ascendency and American decline. They know China is still in many ways a repressive developing country facing huge political, environmental and demographic challenges. But Americans also concede that China’s huge budget and trade surpluses result in trillions of dollars in cash reserves — and hence global clout, world respect and a promising future that seems not likewise true of spend now/pay later America.

Fourth, there is real fear that something terrible will soon come from this unsustainable level of spending. Interest rates are at historic lows. But if they should rise, just servicing the current debt would cost even more hundreds of billions in borrowed dollars. Soon, we will face a bleak choice of either slashing national defense or Social Security — or both — just when the nation is graying and the world is becoming more dangerous than ever. Will the Chinese lend us the money to deploy an aircraft carrier off their coast, or finance new American health-care entitlements that they cannot afford for 400 million of their own people?

In this upcoming election, all the old political pluses — years of incumbency, entrenched seniority and pork-barrel earmarks — are proving to be liabilities. Instead, the more public officials admit to being in control when trillions of dollars were run up, the more Americans want them gone.

We are humiliated by what we owe. If we cannot pay it back, we’ll at least want political payback.

It’s that simple this year.

But it’s really hard to blame the Democrats for such childish behavior. After all, would you want to run on their record?

Political Cartoon by Chip Bok