Greatest Hits: How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda:  My thoughts from 2010 on how regressives have to kill hope in order to subjugate the masses. 

The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his campaign.  While we would argue that “hope” has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.

The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.

  • Health care for all?  Not necessarily.  CONTROL of healthcare?  Absolutely!
  • Financial reform?   Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector?  Yup!
  • Dealing with “Climate Change” saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  YES!

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.  If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.

But what of real hope?  Here is the definition.

hope

/ho?p/ Show Spelled [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb,hoped, hop·ing.

–noun

1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.

2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.

How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope?  His policies and actions have made things worse, just as we predicted.  Unemployment has gone up.  Debt has risen to unsustainable levels.  People are losing their health coverage and doctors.  Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him.  Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation.  Corruption has increased.  If anything, actual hope has decreased.  Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.

I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago.  I believe it shows us what is happening.  Excuse my paraphrase.

“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”

Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual is under the control of the state.  Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation,  and even diet, are all dictated by the state.  How can hope exist in that environment?  The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.  I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation.  If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything?  If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

I would submit that this is the general intent of the totalitarian system.   If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control.  This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives.  The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.

We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens.  In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated.  The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements.  Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could.  This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens.  The anti-war protests in the west were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).

The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom.  The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth.  The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom).  When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom.  It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative.  The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations.    Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives.

Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live?  The true answer to that is relatively simple.  If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world.  As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison.  As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it.  Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed.  So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America.  If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet.  Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative.  Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole.  In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.

That’s what the “progressives” want.

Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.

In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)

You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God.  And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one.  People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them.  They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise.  Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return.  The nanny god will have no other God before him.  Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God.  For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.

I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture.  Things do look rather grim.  Of course, that too, is a goal for the left.  Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.

After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed.  After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed.  After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future.  After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military.  And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly.  Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation.  This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe.  They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means.  And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear.  The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.

The rest, as they say, was history.  As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism.  They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation.  With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state.  Then, the states fell.  It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan.  The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.

So where does that leave us now?  While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory.  The real choice is with us.  Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope?  We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now.  We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book.  We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives.  We need to be bold and confident. We are right.  We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom,  a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market.  We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life.  If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens.  Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.

Share

Greatest Hits: Will The Government Steal Your Savings? It’s More Likely Than You Think?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Will The Government Steal Your Savings? It’s More Likely Than You Think? I also ran across the planned thievery of the Spendulous Maximus…

This has been a recurrent theme for several years.  It’s been simmering on the back burner, so to speak, but it continues to get some attention from time to time.  The issue is savings.  Whether it be your 401k, or your IRA, or even a savings account; the democrats has been eying them like a crackhead views their pipe.  Big government has wasted trillions on making more poor people, creating dependency, paying off contributors, punishing enemies, arming those that kill Christians, and trying to prop up their union buddies.  Now, after building up an unsustainable debt, they need another fix, and your savings is becoming mighty attractive to them.  Remember the old cartoons where two characters are starving?  remember how one character would look at another, and see a sandwich?  It’s kinda like that.  Doug Ross has the latest developments…

This didn’t just happen over night. The move to make this reality has been going on for quite some time. The first time it was mentioned publicly in any official capacity was at a 2010 Congressional hearing:

Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more “fairly” distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee heard from hand-picked witnesses advocating the infamous “Guaranteed Retirement Account” (GRA) authored by Theresa Guilarducci.

In a nutshell, under the GRA system government would seize private 401(k) accounts, setting up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax to dole out a “fair” pension to everyone using that confiscated money coupled with the mandated contributions. This would, of course, be a sister government ponzi scheme working in tandem with Social Security, the primary purpose being to give big government politicians additional taxpayer funds to raid to pay for their out-of-control spending.

You’d think that such an idea would be immediately dismissed by the American public, but it has only gained steam since, as evidenced by a 2012 hearing held at the U.S. Labor Department:

The hearing, held in the Labor Department’s main auditorium, was monitored by NSC staff and featured a line up of left-wing activists including one representative of the AFL-CIO who advocated for more government regulation over private retirement accounts and even the establishment of government-sponsored annuities that would take the place of 401k plans.

“This hearing was set up to explore why Americans are not saving as much for their retirement as they could,” explains National Seniors Council National Director Robert Crone, “However, it is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up.

Such “reforms” would effectively end private retirement accounts in America, Crone warns.

A few years ago the government of the United States of America nationalized nearly 1/6th of our economy when they took over the health care system with forced mandates. In the process they essentially took control of $1.6 trillion in yearly industry revenues.

But that’s nothing compared to private savings. The total amount of retirement assets in America, including 401k, IRA and savings accounts is around $21 trillion. With our national debt coincidentally approaching the same, the government sees big money and potentially a way out of our country’s fiscal disaster.

This will start voluntarily with the MyRA and other state-sponsored programs. But when not enough Americans are making it their patriotic duty to turn over their funds to their government, they’ll mandate compliance with the stroke of a pen just as they did with the Patient Affordable Care Act.

This is spot on.  And, by the way, the excerpt is a small part of a much larger post.  I’d advise you to go over there to read the rest.

As you look at the MyRA scam.  Think of these…

1.  The Income Tax was only going to be on the rich, and at a small percentage.  Look at your next pay-stub, and see how true that is.

2.  Social Security funds were going to be kept separate from all other government funds?  Just remember that what you pay in to SS goes right out to fund the government, and interest on the debt.  As for the “lock box?”  It’s full of worthless government IOU’s.

Anything the government offers now will be changed in order to rip you off.  They’ll say some thing to get you to buy in, like, “if you like your plan…”  Then, once they have the power, and your savings, they’ll do whatever they want with it, and you’ll be left will a meaningless IOU.  Then, when you retire, you’ll find that you get nothing, because some democrat constituent group needed your hard earned savings more than you do.

And, then, you’ll regret your votes for democrats.

Share

Greatest Hits: They Said if I Voted for Romney, They’d Come After my 401(k), and They Were Right!

Share

They Said if I Voted for Romney, They’d Come After my 401(k), and They Were Right!:   Don’t be surprised when they come for your savings…

That’s right kids, they government is eyeing your 401(k), IRA, or 403(b) with great envy.  And, as for the title, since Stacey is talking blog shtick, I thought I’d borrow from his well, which is deep with all sorts of goodness.  

But, back to the seriousness.  There has been rumblings about the government taking over all private retirement accounts for some time.  Apparently, the democrats just can’t let a big pool of money sit there in private hands-it must be controlled, and redistributed, bythe kind hands of government.  Bob Belvedere at  TCOTS has more…

The Editors at Investor’s Business Daily published an excellent editorial yesterday [tip of the fedora to Memeorandum] on the coming attempt by the national government to seize control of retirement accounts, like the 401(k).

A highlight:

President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, for instance, proposed lowering the cap on the amount workers could place in their 401(k)s without incurring taxes.

And nearly three years ago, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara wrote on these pages about the Treasury and Labor departments “asking for public comment on ‘the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams.’”

“In plain English,” said Gingrich and Ferrara, “the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.”

More than 60 million American workers have a 401(k) or similar — 403(b) or 457(b) — plan. But taxing these accounts or lowering the amount that can be contributed to them tax-free would do little to close the deficit and cut the debt.

Do take the time to click here and read it all [and weep].

Hmmm, let’s take a look at the following a bit more closely…

“the idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years.”

That sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?  I mean, how does money get taken from me in exchange for payments when I’m retired?  Oh, that’s it, Social Security.  Well, I never expect to see a dime from that government ponzi scheme, which is why I have a 401(k).  However, if they government does to my 401(k) what they are doing to Social Security, should ever expect a single dime of that either?

I’m thinking retirement is going to be very cold and hungry.  Then again, IPAB would probably kill me off buy that time anyway.

Isn’t it great to live in the “fundamentally transformed USSA?”

We’ll be showing more and more posts about this today, as it is a current issue. 

Share

Must See Video: American Police Chief Refuses To Pledge Allegiance To The Flag, Claims Her Muslim Religion Won’t Let Her

Share
Anita Najiy refuses to pledge allegiance to the flag
Muslim Police Chief in Florida Refuses to Pledge Allegiance to the Flag, Claims Religion Won’t Let Her

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.

Maybe she’s a fan of President Obama’s. If you’ll remember he won’t put his heart over his hand to Recite the Pledge of Allegiance or when the National Anthem is playing.

An Assistant Police Chief in Miami, Florida has decided that she cannot put her hand over her heart and pledge allegiance to the flag during official government events because she is a practicing Muslim and her religion prohibits her from doing it.

In a video Asst. Chief Anita Najiy is seen refusing to place her hand over her heart during the pledge…

 

Now some are calling for her to be fired for refusing to observe her respect for Old Glory.

“Since she clearly has no respect for the flag or the United States, on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, I am requesting that Assistant Chief Najiy is removed as the commander of the MPD Honor Guard Detail,” Fraternal Order of Police President Javier Ortiz said in a letter Monday to Police Chief Rodolfo Llanes.

That’s not likely to happen. Though the police department’s code of conduct allows for a reprimand if an officer doesn’t salute the flag, it makes no mention of covering your heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. And not a single member of the command staff standing next to Najiy last week saluted the flag during the ceremony.

What do you think? Should this woman be fired?

.

.

.

Share

Must See Courtroom Video: Kentucky Judge Lets Armed Robbers Off, Calls Three-Year-Old White Victim ‘Racist’

Share

 photo Judge20Olu20Stevens_zpsdfxwgjxc.jpg
Judge Olu Stevens

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston.

A black judge in Kentucky gave a home invader and armed robber a light sentence because he said he feels that the three-year-old white victim was a “racist” because in her victim statement the little girl said she is now afraid of black people after two black men broke into her home and threatened her with a gun.

In an outrageous statement from the bench, Louisville Judge Olu Stevens attacked the tiny white toddler and her parents for their “racism” calling the little girl’s statement “disturbing” while at the same time excusing the actions of the criminals who traumatized her. That’s right, this judge was more upset at a little girl for being scared by armed robbers than he was at the armed robbers.

At the sentencing trial of one of the robbers, a victim’s impact statement written by the little girl’s mother was entered into evidence. The statement read in part, “Whenever we are running errands, if we come across a black male, she holds me tight and begs me to leave. It has affected her friendships at school and our relationships with African-American friends.”

Then the judge outrageously attacked the little girl saying her statement disgusted him…

 

Judge Olu Stevens’ unleashed his wrath on the little girl and her parents who were the victims of the robbery.

“I am offended. … I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men,” Stevens said.

“This little girl certainly has been victimized, and she can’t help the way she feels,” he said. “My exception is more with her parents and their accepting that kind of mentality and fostering those type of stereotypes.”

Judge Stevens then gave the criminal probation because he “deserved” the opportunity to redeem himself.

So, the armed robber who traumatized a tiny girl gets probation because this judge claimed that the little girl was a racist….? And you can get he assumes that the little girl deserved to be robbed at gunpoint because she is white.

Now, think of this. If this “judge” was so willing to excoriate a 3-year-old girl for being a “racist” one has to wonder how many other black criminals he’s let go because he thinks that all whites–even tiny tots–are racists?

This jerk needs to be removed from the bench.

.

.

.

Share

No, George Washington DIDN’T Say America Should Stay Out Of Foreign Affairs

Share

 photo George Washington_zps0svkfnk9.jpg
George Washington, first President of the United States

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.

A great piece on the Father of our Country.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With the talk of how bad Islam is for civilization and the question of just what to do about it, we are seeing those lightly informed about American history claiming that our founders–in particular George Washington–warned us to stay out of “foreign entanglements.” In fact, however, Washington neither said this, nor meant for such a policy to be enacted.

Many on the left and the isolationist right try to use the father of our country to support their ideas against the GOP and to justify their hope that the USA will pull out of the Middle East. Specifically they cite Washington’s farewell address where a retiring president supposedly warned Americans against getting involved with foreign nations and getting caught up in those evil “foreign entanglements.”

On one hand, it is quite amusing to see lefties in love with a founding father or American history and principles for the first time in their lives, certainly, but it isn’t just the left revealing a sudden respect for a founding father with citation of Washington’s address. On the other hand those Ron Paulites and his isolationist wing on the right have for years been bandying about Washington’s farewell address as some sort of “proof” that one of our “first principles” was to stay away from foreign nations.

So, what was Washington really saying? Did he warn us against “foreign entanglements”? Did he think the U.S. should steer clear of all outside political situations and relegate ourselves only to trade with foreigners?

We have to point out, that Washington never used the exact words “foreign entanglements” in his farewell address. That has been a decades-long misconstruction of his last letter to the nation. He did ask why we should “entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition,” but he never used the exact words “foreign entanglements.”

That dispensed with, we move on to the assumed isolationism of George Washington’s address. What did he mean and did he mean it to be a permanent principle from which the U.S. should never stray?

First of all we must realize that the U.S. had been up to its neck in “foreign entanglements” before it had even become a nation. With wars against the French decades earlier, then the rebellion against Britain with help from the French, pleas to the Dutch for loans, not to mention intrigues in Canada and clashes with Spanish holdings in the new world, the progenitors to the United States, with all that our nascent nation was already a key player on the international stage.

Further the United States had envoys in most of the major European nations long before Washington’s farewell address. So, to say that the U.S. was isolated from the rest of the world and that Washington’s entreaty meant for us to stay that way, to say that this was some axiomatic delineation of American foreign policy is a wrong headed claim. The U.S. was already so “entangled” that it couldn’t be untangled.

One of the important goals of Washington’s letter was to shore up his own foreign policy decisions. Washington had angered the Jefferson/Madison wing of the federal government when he decided not to side with France against England after our revolution ended. In fact, while leaning toward being an anglophile, Washington tried to tread a fine line of “neutrality” between France and England. His farewell address was in part meant to justify a policy choice he had made as president. It was less a doctrine for the ages and more an immediate act of politics.

There was also an important bit of reality that caused Washington and Alexander Hamilton to eschew full support of France and lean toward England. We didn’t have the naval power to back up any major involvement in Europe. In fact, if we had decided to jump in with France, there was no way at all we could have escaped major damage from the extensive and powerful British Navy if we sided too directly with France.

Washington’s idea of neutrality was based in part on the complete inability of the U.S. to back up its foreign policy. But even in that case he did not say in his address that we should forever stay away from any foreign involvement.

Here is the key section of his address:

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

To warn Americans against “permanent alliances” really should go without saying. Decades later a fast friend of the United States basically said the same thing when he, Winston Churchill, said there are “no eternal allies” and “no perpetual enemies” for any nation.

Washington went on to say, though, that sometimes we must form alliances. “Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture,” he wrote, “we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Obviously he understood that always staying neutral–as Paulites and liberals maintain–is not possible.

It should also be realized that this was Washington’s (and Hamilton’s) vision. The farewell address was not an explication of standard practice even when it was written, but Washington’s ideals. Many founders disagreed with this vision. So to act as if an isolationist policy was a singular founding principle is a horrible misread of history.

In To the Farewell Address, the seminal book about Washington’s document and the era in which it was given, Felix Gilbert warned us all not to accept these flawed misconstructions we are discussing here as an explanation what was going on with Washington’s farewell address.

In the conclusion to his essay, Gilbert wrote:

Because the Farewell Address comprises various aspects of American political thinking, it reaches beyond any period limited in time and reveals the basic issue of the American attitude toward foreign policy: the tension between Idealism and Realism. Settled by men who looked for gain and by men who sought freedom, born into independence in a century of enlightened thinking and of power politics, America has wavered in her foreign policy between Idealism and Realism, and her great historical moments have occurred when both were combined.

In other words, today’s neo-isolationist view of America’s “real” foreign policy ideals is woefully incorrect. The U.S. was never isolationist as a first principle. Ron Paul and his isolationists are wrong and so are the liberals who have a sudden and uncharacteristic respect for a founding father.

Finally, it must be noted that this article of mine is discussing only one thing and that is the purpose of Washington’s farewell address when it was delivered in 1796 and what it means to American first principles. I have no interest in using this piece to excuse or justify anything that happened after Washington left the scene. This article is not meant to ascertain what amount of foreign policy is optimal, only that isolationism is not an American first principle.

If WWI or WWII were wrong or our Middle East policy is misguided, those are discussions for other articles, not this one.

.

.

.

Share

After Obama Slobbers All Over The Mullahs, Ayatollah Calls On U.S. Youth To Join Jihad

Share

iran's supreme leader

 

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.

So despite all the brown-nosing, sucking up, and general, all around ass kissing President Obama has done to the Ayatollah of Iran, he still urges our own kids to join his jihad.

Way to go, Obama.

On Friday, President Barack Obama slobbered all over himself to come to the aide of the Iranian Mullahs–mostly to spite our Israeli allies. But on the very same day Obama gave the Mullahs his undying love, the Ayatollah urged our own kids to join the world wide movement of violent, Islamist jihad.

On Friday, Obama disgorged a“holiday” statement telling the Mullahs that he was celebrating the Muslim holiday of Nowruz (this one a non-religious holiday). During the statement Obama slobbered all over the wonderfulness of the Mullahs and treated them as America’s true friend.

Yeah, these are the same people who kidnapped the American hostages in 1979, the same people famed for their “death to America” rallies, the same people who have exported terrorism all around the world and helped our enemies killing hundreds of American soldiers in Iraq. These are the people Obama says are his friends.

I say his friends, because these Islamist terrorists are not America’s friends. Obama sure may love them, but they don’t love us. And they never, ever will.

Anyway, even as Obama made such a fool of himself on this wunnerful, wunnerful Nowruz day, the very Ayatollah that Obama said is our fast friend issued a statement of his own. In his statement, the Ayatollah called for our children to join violent jihad and kill all of us.

This is Obama’s great friend.

If you can stomach this creep, here is his video statement:

 

Obama disgorged a series of lies in his Nowruz statement, but no paragraph was more filled with lies than this one:

As I have said many times before, I believe that our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon. Together with the international community, the United States has said that Iran should have access to peaceful nuclear energy, consistent with Iran’s international obligations. So there is a way for Iran–if it is willing to take meaningful, verifiable steps–to assure the world that its nuclear program is, in fact, for peaceful purposes only.

There are several lies, there, of course, but the biggest one is Obama’s claim that the Mullahs issued a “fatwa” against nuclear arms. This is a flat out lie.

No Ayatollah, no Mullah, and no Iranian has ever issued any such fatwa.

As Andrew McCarthy wrote today, the whole claim is a lie.

The invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) has done extensive research into compilations of Khamenei’s published fatwas. (See here and here, and citations therein.) No such fatwa has ever been published.

In a sharia state, particularly the one in Iran that is actually run by the country’s top sharia jurists, fatwas are important statements of governing law, like statutes are in the U.S. Yet despite repeated requests, Iran has never produced the purported anti-nuclear weapons fatwa from Khamenei.

McCarthy even notes that Islam is not incompatible with nuclear arms. After all Pakistan is one of the most strict sharia states in history and it has had nuclear arms for decades.

Regardless, Iran has no fatwa on nuclear weapons despite Obama’s lies.
Finally, Obama delivered a final outrage in his Nowruz statement by saying that Republicans are exactly like the Iran’s worst Islamist terrorists.

About the desire for diplomacy, Obama said this:

The days and weeks ahead will be critical. Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain. And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you–the people of Iran–is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.

So, there are people “in both our countries” don’t want “diplomacy?? Since when do Republicans not want diplomacy? And how are the hardliners in Iran that want to murder all infidels just like the Republicans in our country? If that doesn’t make your blood boil? Obama you are a cretin.

.

.

.

Share

Left Pushing To Replace Andrew Jackson On $20 Bill With Baby Killer And Genocidal Enviro-Statist

Share

stanton-elizabeth-cady

 

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Hell bring the $2 bill back and put someone with female genitalia on that…

There is a new campaign afoot that is tickling the interests of the mainstream media. It is an effort to kick President Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill and replace him with a woman. Sadly at least three of the candidates do not belong on the list. One is a famous hater of men, another can only be termed a mass murderer, and the third was an important supporter of the genocide of African Americans. How is it these three women deserve to be celebrated on the $20 bill is anyone’s guess.

The campaign called Women On The 20, is, the group says on its website, is an effort to “compel historic change by convincing President Obama that NOW is the time to put a woman’s face on our paper currency.”

The group hopes to have the change on the money made by the year 2020, which happens to be the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, the one that gave women the right to vote.

One of the ways that proponents of the new face on the 20 hopes to achieve their goal is to have Americans sign a petition that would “force” Obama to take notice and make a decision on the proposal.

So, Iran is close to getting nukes, ISIS is damn near committing genocide, Putin is building up Russia’s military, as is Red China and these folks think THIS is what our President needs to be focused on??!!

The group has also proffered a list of 15 candidates from which website visitors may chose their top three. The list of candidates, though is in many cases little else but a cavalcade of leftists some of whom celebrated things that should disqualify them as the sort of Americans whom people should respect.

Here is the full list:

  • Alice Paul (1885-1977): Woman’s suffragette
  • Betty Friedan (1921-2006): Radical feminist
  • Shirley Chisholm (1924-2005): Politician
  • Sojourner Truth (1797-1883): Former slave and abolitionist
  • Rachel Carson (1907-1964): Environmentalist
  • Rosa Parks (1913-2005): Civil rights activist
  • Barbara Jordan (1936-1996): Politician
  • Margaret Sanger (1879-1966): Eugenecist
  • Patsy Mink (1927-2002): Politician
  • Clara Barton (1821-1912): Founder of the American Cross
  • Harriet Tubman (1822-1913): Former slave and abolitionist
  • Frances Perkins (1880-1965): FDR’s Labor Secretary
  • Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906): Abolitionist and women’s sufferage leader
  • Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962): First Lady and human rights activist
  • Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815)-1902): Women’s rights leader

Now, most of these candidates are personages worthy of being included in a list of candidates for famous American women. But three of the candidates are not famous, but are infamous and do not belong on this list of worthies.

Namely, Betty Friedan, Margaret Sanger, and Rachel Carson.

Rachel Carson is famed as the author of the thinly researched and now thoroughly debunked envirowacko book Silent Spring. Carson’s faux “work” led to the banning of the insecticide DDT. Carson claimed it was a carcinogen and an environmentally disastrous. The the facts are that DDT helped kill mosquitos and save the lives of billions who otherwise would have died from malaria. Since its banning tens of millions have kept dying, most of them in underdeveloped nations. Rachel Carson is guilty of mass murder for her lies.

Next up is the unworthy Margaret Sanger. She is famed for coining the term “birth control” and is an icon for lovers of infanticide everywhere. But one of the dirty little secrets that the pro-abortion lobby refuses to accept is the fact that she worked in her chose field of eugenics in order to cleanse America of the black race. Sanger was little else but an advocate of the genocide of blacks in America.Sanger wanted to use abortion and sterilization to cull from the population a list of “undesirables” that mirrors the list the Nazis used to purify Germany. She wanted, for instance, to eliminate the mentally retarded and blacks from the gene pool of the country.Sanger was a disgusting, murder-supporting eugenicist that should be reviled.

Lastly is Betty Friedan, one of the founders of the women’s rights movement, wrote the famed book The Feminine Mystiquein 1963, a book that sparked a massive movement for women’s rights. But ultimately Friedan proved to be merely a man hater, some charge a racist, but most certainly a major liar.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Obama Purposefully Set Clinton Up To Get Away With Email Crimes

Share

obama shush

 

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius’ Forum.

So THAT’s why he never filled that job…

President Obama made dead sure that Hillary Clinton would never get caught using illegal private email systems while Secretary of State by refusing to appoint an official internal inspector general for the Dept. of State during Hillary’s tenure, a new report shows.

It is the duty of the president to make sure that every government department has its own appointed Inspector General to serve as an internal watchdog over an agency. But during Hillary’s entire tenure, Obama never bothered to fill the vacant IG office for the State Department.

I mean if there’s not Inspector General then, there’s going to be no inspections!

A new report by the Washington Examiner reveals Obama’s complicity in giving Clinton all the cover she needed to do whatever she wanted as Secretary of State by making sure there was no watchdog to keep her honest during her stint at State.

“The White House is saying that the State Department has responsibility for making sure their officials and staff follow the law, but the White House is responsible for making sure they have the tools to do that and they fell down on that job in making sure they have the No. 1 tool, and that’s an inspector general,” John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, a non-partisan open-government group, told the Washington Examiner.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Grand Old Cavemen

Share

cavemen3_cartoon

 

“I told you guys the Senate GOP would screw us over on DHS funding, but even I had no idea Mitch McConnell would capitulate so easily. I assumed he’d do a major song and dance first, but instead he just went all Ned Beatty in Deliverance the moment Barack Obama looked at him funny.” Eunuch Mitch McConnell Squeals Like a Pig

“This is a total victory for the Obama position,” said a GOP senator unhappy with McConnell’s plan

“Counterfeiters use the reputation of a trademark, which brand manufacturers have built up on the basis of the quality of their products, to fool consumers about the true origin and quality of the goods.” — Wikipedia

Last November, Americans voted out the turkeys. The noxious policies of Obama and theSocialists Democrats were given the old heave-ho, like holiday giblets gone gamy. The Grand Old Party was handed both houses of Congress in the kind of landslide victory seen about as often as Halley’s Comet.  Rejoicing was heard throughout the land — at least, that part of the land which still subscribed to old fashioned notions like the rule of law. Little did we realize that we’d voted in counterfeits, cheap knock-offs that looked good in the display case, but fell apart once they got in the rain.

caveman1Two months in, and the GOP has retreated more often than the Royal Italian Army.  If these are the mutts we’re looking to for salvation, it’s time to head for the shelters.  Republicans under the direction of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner have surrendered to the Democrats on every issue, from immigration to net neutrality.  They’ve rubber-stamped Obama’s new attorney-general nominee, Eric Holder Light.  If we don’t need a new army, we sure as hell need some new generals to run the old one.

After going to the Senate floor and slamming Obama’s executive amnesty in November, McConnell hoisted the white flag of surrender … Obama attacked the time-honored American tradition of separation of powers with his executive amnesty and for that reason alone, House Speaker John Boehner and Mitch McConnell should’ve gone to the mat and done everything necessary in their power to overturn it. However, the GOP leadership and “establishment” don’t really want to change how Washington works. There’s something wrong with a party that can be frightened with just a dirty look into not shutting what is one of the most useless departments of the Federal government and at the same time, claims to be for Constitutional and limited government. This is why the American people and conservatives are angry at them and don’t trust them.(After The Latest Mitch McConnell Surrender, Why Should Conservatives Even Bother Supporting Republicans)

People love to hear themselves talk, particularly if they have nothing to say. In fact, the less they have to say, the more often they tend to say it. This is true of most people, but most especially those incorrigible swindlers that a negligent electorate unaccountably installs into the seats of power.  Anyone announcing a desire to run for office should be immediately disqualified from doing so.  The 114th United States Congress proves the point.

Related stories:

.

.

Share

How Hope can Kill the Progressive Agenda

Share

The POTUS used “Hope” as a slogan during his campaign.  While we would argue that “hope” has nothing to do with Obama’s policies, there is a different context for it.

The progressive agenda has nothing to do with hope; it is a proposal for a control mechanism, nothing more.

  • Health care for all?  Not necessarily.  CONTROL of healthcare?  Absolutely!
  • Financial reform?   Not so much. CONTROL of the financial sector?  Yup!
  • Dealing with “Climate Change” saving the planet?  Not even close.   Massive redistribution program?  YES!

I could go on and on, but I think the point is made.  If there is any hope there at all, it is only the “progressive’s” hope for total control of all human activity.

But what of real hope?  Here is the definition.

hope

/ho?p/ Show Spelled [hohp] Show IPA noun, verb,hoped, hop·ing.

–noun

1. The feeling that what is wanted can be had or that events will turn out for the best: to give up hope.

2. A particular instance of this feeling: the hope of winning.

How can we say that the “hope” that Obama advertised is actual hope?  His policies and actions have made things worse, just as we predicted.  Unemployment has gone up.  Debt has risen to unsustainable levels.  People are losing their health coverage and doctors.  Our standing in the world has decreased, as foreign powers ridicule him.  Businesses refuse to hire over the uncertainty of tax increases and excessive regulation.  Corruption has increased.  If anything, actual hope has decreased.  Frankly, I believe that this is the intent.

I think that this boils down to an old quote that I had heard years ago.  I believe it shows us what is happening.  Excuse my paraphrase.

“A man is useless to the socialist state until he has given up all hope.”

Kindly consider that in any totalitarian system, individuals cannot succeed in as much that the government permits them.  All phases in the life of the individual is under the control of the state.  Housing, education, work, wages, retirement, medical care, transportation,  and even diet, are all dictated by the state.  How can hope exist in that environment?  The state assumes the control of an individual at birth, and doesn’t let go until they die.  I would suggest that hope is derived from the ability to actively engage in efforts to improve one’s situation.  If one had no control or influence over even the most basic aspects of their lives, how can they hope for anything?  If personal effort, ideas, or labor will not change an individual’s situation, why would they try?

I would submit that this is the general intent of the totalitarian system.   If a person has given up all hope, they will completely submit to the state’s control.  This submission would not be due to the superiority of the state’s position or it’s services, it would come after the realization that there are no alternatives.  The end result would be a discouraged citizen that would not only comply, but eventually wouldn’t even think about having hope for anything else. This is the soul crushing lack of personal will that gripped the population of the former Soviet Bloc.

We can also see this in how the former Soviet Bloc nations presented information to their citizens.  In the late 60’s, the Soviets had some difficulty in keeping their client states subjugated.  The Czechs, in particular, wanted freedom, and at least in that nation, Soviet troops were needed to crush freedom movements.  Therefore, throughout the Vietnam War period, the state controlled media behind the iron curtain piped as much information about American “atrocities,” (The Russians now admit to staging ones that never happened) and student protests as they possibly could.  This was, of course, to smear the American cause in Vietnam, but it was also to crush any hope for freedom among their own citizens.  The anti-war protests in the west were portrayed as a successful communist revolution (they were, in many ways, just that).

The overall goal was to discourage the people that sought freedom.  The United States represented the best hope for human freedom on Earth.  The people that were trapped behind the iron curtain looked to the US for hope (of freedom).  When the Soviets and their puppets broadcast the protests, and spun the coverage, it looked as if Americans were losing their freedom.  It was made to appear that there was no longer an alternative.  The Soviets couldn’t destroy America, but they could use their control of information to destroy the IDEA of America, at least among their own populations.    Again, causing the people to give up hope, and submit to the all-powerful state, as there appeared to be no alternatives.

Many people have asked why our “progressives” don’t go to Cuba, or some other Communist nation to live?  The true answer to that is relatively simple.  If America exists as a free nation, and our Constitution remains intact, it will continue to be a beacon of hope to the oppressed nations of the world.  As long as we remain a free state that protects human freedom, economically outperforms the rest of the world, and provides more wealth to more people, socialism will continue to pale by comparison.  As long as there is true hope for human freedom, and the individual opportunity that comes with it, people will continue to desire it.  Therefore, America, and the ideas that are associated with it, must be destroyed.  So, our left stays, and works hard at destroying America.  If they can accomplish that goal, they will not only end human freedom on this continent, but all over the planet.  Socialism will grow in control unimpeded, as there will be no alternative.  Eventually, the idea and reality of the United States would be scrubbed from history, and sent down the memory hole.  In a few generations, most people would never know that there ever was an alternative.

That’s what the “progressives” want.

Such is the extent of control, and the elimination of hope that is required by the left, that they don’t want their subjects thinking that even an after-life can be better.

In 1979, the Three-Self Church reemerged under the control of the Chinese government, which monitors its activities. Certain topics were off limits, including the Second Coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, the gifts of the Holy Spirit and the establishment of the kingdom of God. Teaching from books of prophecy that predict the end times — such as Daniel and Revelation — was prohibited. The church’s influence over teenagers and younger children was severely limited. The government oversees clergy education and retains the right to review sermons to assure compliance with government restrictions. (Emphasis mine)

You see, the nanny state wants to take the place of God.  And, apparently, the god of the nanny state is a rather jealous one.  People cannot look forward to a day when God will save them.  They cannot look forward, with hope, to a day that they will be in paradise.  Even more so, they cannot look forward to the day when their savior might return.  The nanny god will have no other God before him.  Any other faith, and especially the Christian God and Savior, puts the state in a subservient position to God.  For the “progressive,” obedience to the state is first and foremost, so either Christianity must change, or it must go.

I realize that I am not painting a pretty picture.  Things do look rather grim.  Of course, that too, is a goal for the left.  Eventually, our “progressives” want us to give up on freedom, and seek the cold, unloving embrace of big brother.  However, it doesn’t have to be that way.  Let’s take a look at recent history, and see what happened when people found hope.

After a national pattern of high taxation, failure, and appeasement, Ronald Reagan was elected President.  In a single day, our pattern of engagement with the Soviet Union changed.  After a decade of high taxes and stagflation, the American economy boomed.  After the “malaise” of the inept Carter administration, the American people gained more pride in our nation, as well as in it’s future.  After a nearly a decade of neglect, President Reagan modernized and strengthened our military.  And, more importantly, Reagan challenged the Soviet Union directly.  Our diplomacy turned from one of capitulation, to one of confrontation.  This confrontation is perhaps best exemplified by the statement President Reagan made in Berlin…

“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.”

The meaning of this change in diplomacy was not lost on the people of Eastern Europe.  They heard of Reagan, through radio and more clandestine means.  And as Reagan’s military buildup pushed the socialist economies of the Soviet Bloc to the breaking point, the differences between free and socialist states became all the more clear.  The people started seeing through the lies that they were being told, and gained hope for the freedom and prosperity that are available in the US.

The rest, as they say, was history.  As the Socialist nations crumbled, their people simply stopped believing in the false claims of their leaders and socialism.  They had heard of the US, and of Reagan, and of the ideas that formed this nation.  With that hope, they found the bravery to risk the wrath of the state.  Then, the states fell.  It is well known that in many homes in Eastern Europe, hangs a picture of Ronald Reagan.  The left may deny his influence, but the people who lived under tyranny kept score on their own.

So where does that leave us now?  While we are close to losing our Republic, we are also able to achieve victory.  The real choice is with us.  Will we lose hope, and give up to the state, just as our would-be masters would want, or will we realize that we can hold on to our hope?  We have to realize that it’s up to us and it’s right now.  We need to take some pages out of Reagan’s book.  We need to confront the left strongly, and give alternatives.  We need to be bold and confident. We are right.  We have evidence, and we need to spread the hope that springs from individual freedom,  a Constitutional Republic, and a real free market.  We need to spread the hope that comes with the ability to change one’s lot in life.  If we do these, and it will be a long and difficult ride, we can free the minds of millions more our fellow citizens.  Then, our socialist system will collapse under it’s own failure.

Share

The Decline And Fall Of The Arkansas Battleaxe

Share

Madam President

 

“It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power.” – David Brin

“She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” – Jerry Zeifman, Retired General Counsel & Chief of Staff of the House Judiciary Committee

“When in public, Hillary smiles and acts graciously. As soon as the cameras are gone, her angry personality, nastiness, and imperiousness become evident.” – Ronald Kessler

“Hillary, like her husband, has a mouth that would embarrass a sailor.” – Capitol Hill Blue

“F**k off! It’s enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I’m not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut.” –Hillary to her State Trooper body guards after one of them greeted her with “Good Morning”

“The Clinton mode of production, then, is running for office or serving in office. That is the material basis for the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton lifestyle and the whole Clinton institutional structure. In order to keep this mode of production from breaking down, the Clintons–one of them, at any rate–must be at least potentially in the running for a powerful office at all times.” – A Marxist Analysis of Hillary

“The idea of a man-hating, pants-suit-wearing, oyster-gobbling woman sitting in the Ovary Office should make any right-thinking American male’s testicles retreat slightly up into his body.” —  Jim Goad

__________

Hillary Clinton, former Arkansas cattle futures baroness, self-proclaimed co-presidentduring the randy reign of her philandering spouse, carpet-bagging U.S. senator, faux New York Yankees fan, and the Secretary of State who engineered both the infamous Russian “reset” and the deadly blunders of Benghazi, is the likely choice to replace the current Jackass in the White House when said Jackass’s term of office blessedly expires.  But the misguided socialists who believe this overrated battleaxe possesses the makings of a chief executive must have their skulls full of top-shelf ganja. Hillary’s major attributes have always been a vindictive nature, a foul mouth, a ruthless disregard for the U.S. Constitution, and a dearth of testicles. The latter qualifies her only as the standard bearer for America’s disgruntled legions of lesbians and feminists, while the former identifies her as a modern Democrat.  Come to think of it, so does the latter.

As for the persistent rumors regarding Hillary’s own amorous preferences, would it really matter if she were, to put it in the vulgar argot of sailors and longshoremen, a clam-licker? Not as much as one might think … In the sake of fairness and accuracy and discretion, it is first prudent that I review whatever evidence may exist that Clinton has indulged in rank carnality with members of her own gender … compelling is Clinton’s lifelong predilection for wearing pants suits. No heterosexual woman in her right mind would be caught dead wearing those things in public.

The rumor-mongers suggest that Clinton first developed a taste for vagina during her radical younger days at Wellesley College, where she roomed for four solid years with confirmed lesbian Eldie Acheson, a woman whose face is butch enough to saw lumber. And this photo of a young, pre-Clinton-era Hillary Rodham standing alongside college president Ruth Adams is more lesbian than a pile of Ellen Degeneres’s unwashed laundry. (Does it Matter if Hillary Clinton Is a Carpet-Muncher?)

Hillary reset button cartoonSince being given the bum’s rush by Premier Obama, the Arkansas Traveler has occupied her leisure time by fabricating a memoir (most copies of which were remaindered the same week they went on sale), and in obsessively padding an already pudgy bank account by speaking at a number of public universities for around $300 grand a pop.  All in the name of charity, of course — hers:

Clinton has attempted to tamp down the uproar over her greedy cash grab from a number of public universities with the claim that she donated all of her speaking fees to charity — the charity of course being the Clinton Foundation. That likely means she is able to keep the money close and still write it off as a charitable tax deduction.(Hillary Clinton’s $275K Speaking Fee Comes with Diva Demands)

The old termagant has a helluva racket going.

[…] Clinton received $225,000 to speak at the [October 13 UNLV]fundraiser, a discount from her initial $300,000 asking price. But the fee was only the first of Clinton’s many stipulations.  The former Secretary of State insists on staying in the ‘presidential suite’ of a luxury hotel of her staff’s choice, with up to five other rooms reserved for her travel aides and advance staff. Clinton also reportedly requires that the Foundation provide a private plane. However, the jet can not be any private plane; only a $39 million, 16-passenger Gulfstream G450 “or larger” will do the job. (Hillary Clinton requires ‘presidential suite,’ stenographer for speaking engagements, report says)

Despite Hillary’s relentless quest for power (or perhaps because of it), her nomination as the next president is not quite as certain as it was before she began sticking her foot in her foul mouth on college campuses across the country.

Is the market in Hillary Clinton futures collapsing? Quite possibly so. A year ago Clinton seemed likely to become the next president … Things look different now … over the course of 2014, Clinton’s favorability ratings have declined. Her memoir of her Cabinet service had a curiously defensive title — “Hard Choices” — and her book tour was something like the opposite of a ringing success. Sales were slim, and readership probably even slimmer.The prospect of a Clinton presidency may thrill a few aging feminists, but few others seem to find her very interesting. (Latest polls paint Hillary as yesterday’s story)

The derailment of Hillary’s ambition is bound to have consequences, especially for those unfortunate enough to be in her immediate proximity. “It is better to live in a corner of the roof than in a house shared with a contentious woman.” (Proverbs 25:24):

[Hillary] is notorious for her explosive temper. As a child, she punched a classmate when he accidentally bumped his bike into hers. She also punched her friend in the nose for giving away a baby rabbit (from a warren that she told him to guard) … Her explosive temper would continue through her political days. When Bill Clinton was starting on his political career, a staff member told her that she was rumored to be a lesbian, and to deny rumors. She replied “it’s nobody’s God d**n business.” When the staff member persisted that she deny the rumors, she then replied “f**k this s**t!”

After Bill was elected President, Hillary’s temper tantrums continued. Bill and Hillary were said to have referred to each other as “f***ing jerk” and “f***ing b***h” prior to the inauguration. Hillary was said to have thrown objects at Bill and/or Secret Service agents, ranging from lamps to the Bible. At one point she called Bill a “stupid mother f***er”. On another occasion, she burst into a room in the White House and asked a Secret Service agent “where’s the miserable c***sucker?” As a result, she became the most feared woman in the Clinton Administration. And she could turn her wrath on and off in a heartbeat. (Hillary Clinton’s State of Mind)

This is not the person whose finger you want on the nation’s nuclear trigger.  Or, for that matter, on anything else.

Related stories:

.

.

Share

What Hillary Meant To Say Is, “If you like your job, you can keep your job”

Share

 photo hillarybusinessesdontcreatejobs_zpsf2a4268d.jpg
 

Here comes the spin! Last week millionaire Democrat Hillary Clinton teamed up with populist uber-leftist millionaire Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren to deliver a zinger aimed at American businesses:

“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

She’s a Statist. Statists believe only the government can create jobs. (Or Vernon Jordan, if you count creating jobs for Bill’s mistresses.)

We get it, we didn’t build that.

But, after enduring a weekend of ridicule (except on the Big 3 networks of course) The Hilldabeest backtracked, and blamed her “misstatement” on an internet video.

“Trickle down economics has failed. I short-handed this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades,” she said. “Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in America and workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Yeah, I can see how that mouthful could be easily confused, tongue-twisted even, into “Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

Sure thing Hill. Because, at this point, what difference does it make? We know you’re a godless commie. And you know that we know that you’re a godless commie. So really, stop pretending. Tell us the truth, all the time. We can take it.

The real question is, can you?

.

.

.

Share

How You Can Affirm Your Country Is Run By Idiots

Share

Found at the Mb50 blog, who, in turn, found it at The Conservative Citizen, the answer to today’s question is attributed to a Jeff Foxworthy. Here, without comment is Foxworthy’s “priceless” analysis:

– By Jeff Foxworthy –

jeff-foxworthy

If you can  get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for  entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a  nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If  you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take  an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a  nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by  idiots.

If you MUST  show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor,  or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs  the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses  but is run by idiots.

If the  government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun  magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter  jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that  was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the  nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one  24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat —  you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by  idiots.

If an  80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair  can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or  a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might  live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by  idiots.

If your  government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of  debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was  founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a  seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is  “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade  school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was  founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard  work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation  and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks,  Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might  live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by  idiots.

If the  government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives  for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any  requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but  couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by  geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay  your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while  your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma  screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he  defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by  geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being  stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more  “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was  founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What  a  country!

.

.

.

Share

President Obama’s Top Ten Most Divisive and Un-Constitutional Executive Actions

Share

obama rips founding documentsSince he took office in January of 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama has flouted the rule of law which is the bedrock America was founded on. He has visibly encroached upon and exceeded the boundaries set forth in the United States Constitution.

Now Obama hasn’t written more executive orders than his predecessors, in fact, in his first five years he is on par with other one term presidents. But in his case,it isn’t the quantity, it’s the quality of the EOs.
 
The Heritage Foundation has taken the time to compile a list of the top ten most egregious un-Constitutional actions taken by this president.

“Abusive, unlawful, and even potentially unconstitutional unilateral actionhas been a hallmark of the Obama Administration. When Congress refuses to accede to President Obama’s liberal policies, the Administration often ignores the restraints imposed on the executive branch by the Consitution and imposes “laws” by executive fiat. When the Administration disagrees with duly enacted laws or finds it politically expedient not to enforce them, it often ignores them, skirts them, or claims the Executive has prosecutorial discretion not to enforce them rather than fulfilling its constitutional obligation to take care that those laws be faithfully executed.”

Our nation was founded upon Judea-Christian beliefs and that is where our laws originate from. But the president doesn’t see it that way. He believes that, for his own political expediency, he can just use his “phone” and “pen and paper” to change laws to suit his fancy.

In an Obama world (which unfortunately we are now in), he gets to decide what laws he will and won’t enforce. Forget that they’ve been lawfully passed by each house of Congress and signed into law by his predecessors – and in some cases by he, himself. To do this, he claims “prosecutorial discretion.”

Here are the Top Ten Obama Administration’s Worst, Most Un-Constitutional actions:

Top 10 Abusive Executive Actions

  •  Amending Obamacare’s employer mandate, providing an unauthorized subsidy to congressional staff, and encouraging state insurance commissioners not to enforce certain requirements.
  • Inventing labor law “exemptions” in violation of the WARN Act so that workers would not receive notice of impending layoffs days before the 2012 election.
  • Waiving the mandatory work requirement under the 1996 comprehensive welfare reform law, which required able-bodied adults to work, prepare for work, or look for work in order to receive benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
  • Ignoring a statutory deadline and refusing to consider an application related to nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, which activists sought to block for years
  • Circumventing the Senate’s duty to provide advice and consent on appointments and instead making “recess” appointments in violation of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution when the Senate was actually in session
  • Deciding not to defend the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage in court.
  • Implementing Common Core national standards through strings-attached waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act.
  • Intimidating Florida to stop its voter roll cleanup, which included removing ineligible voters such as noncitizens, before the 2012 election.
  • Imposing the DREAM Act by executive fiat under the guise of “prosecutorial discretion.”
  • Refusing to enforce federal drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

Read the full report here.

Share

Amazing Feats of Dexterity: MSNBC Host Chris Hayes Conducts Interview with his foot in his mouth.

Share

Nevada Assembly Woman Michelle Fiore was at the Bundy ranch in Nevada and happened to be interviewed by MSNBC host Chris Hayes. Folks, let me tell you – this was better than any episode of Celebrity Death Match. Fiore was fierce, remained composed and never once took the bait of the left’s talking points. Despite Hayes’ repeated attempts to steer the conversation towards painting rancher Cliven Bundy as a criminal, Fiore stood her ground and gave better than she got.

She stuck to her original premise that not only is the amount allegedly owed in question, and additionally where does the federal government ever send armed agents to collect a debt?

Several times Hayes’ tried unsuccessfully to get Fiore to agree that feds were within their rights, but just got a bit heavy handed. Fiore would  have none of it and asked Hayes, “If you owed the federal government money, Chris do you want them coming to you house, pointing guns at your wife and children? Is that okay with you?” To which Hayes responded, “No.” “Because it’s definitely not okay with me, it’s not okay with Americans across the country.”

At the end, she really hammers Hayes with his own words, it’s a must see.

 

H/T The Right Scoop & Hot Air

 

 

 

Share

States’ Rights Back in the News

Share

The timing of this is spot on, even though it’s been in the works long before the Cliven Bundy standoff in which the Bureau of Land Management tried to use heavy handed tactics and run rough shod over a United States Citizen.  This is just the latest example of states growing weary of the federal government usurping their authority and autonomy.

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen.

Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

The summit was in the works before this month’s tense standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management over cattle grazing, Lockhart said.

“What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Lockhart said.

Several western states held a summit with more than 50 political leaders meeting to  discuss their final goal – taking back control of lands rich in natural resources such as oil, timber and minerals.

“It’s simply time,” said Rep. Ken Ivory, R-West Jordan, who organized the Legislative Summit on the Transfer for Public Lands along with Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. “The urgency is now.”

Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, was flanked by a dozen participants, including her counterparts from Idaho and Montana, during a press conference after the daylong closed-door summit. U.S. Sen.

Mike Lee addressed the group over lunch, Ivory said. New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Wyoming, Oregon and Washington also were represented.

Part of the problem is that the federal government assumes it knows better how to marshal those lands.

Fielder, who described herself as “just a person who lives in the woods,” said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

“Those of us who live in the rural areas know how to take care of lands,” Fielder said, who lives in the northwestern Montana town of Thompson Falls.

“We have to start managing these lands. It’s the right thing to do for our people, for our environment, for our economy and for our freedoms,” Fielder said.

“It’s time the states in the West come of age,” Bedke said. “We’re every bit as capable of managing the lands in our boundaries as the states east of Colorado.”

Ivory said the issue is of interest to urban as well as rural lawmakers, in part because they see oilfields and other resources that could be developed to create jobs and fund education.

Moreover, the federal government’s debt threatens both its management of vast tracts of the West as well as its ability to come through with payments in lieu of taxes to the states, he said. Utah gets 32 percent of its

revenue from the federal government, much of it unrelated to public lands.

“If we don’t stand up and act, seeing that trajectory of what’s coming … those problems are going to get bigger,” Ivory said.

This isn’t anything new, either. Utah is taking legislative action on this long overdue promise by the federal government to turn the lands back over and Utah State Rep, Ken Ivory (R) sponsored a bill to address this.

He (Ivory) was the sponsor two years of ago of legislation, signed by Gov. Gary Herbert, that demands the federal government relinquish title to federal lands in Utah. The lawmakers and governor said they were only

asking the federal government to make good on promises made in the 1894 Enabling Act for Utah to become a state.

The intent was never to take over national parks and wilderness created by an act of Congress Lockhart said. “We are not interested in having control of every acre,” she said. “There are lands that are off the table that

rightly have been designated by the federal government.”

A study is underway at the University of Utah to analyze how Utah could manage the land now in federal control. That was called for in HB142, passed by the 2013 Utah Legislature.

None of the other Western states has gone as far as Utah, demanding Congress turn over federal lands. But five have task forces or other analyses underway to get a handle on the costs and benefits, Fielder said.

“Utah has been way ahead on this,” Fielder said.

So there is a glimmer of hope for states’ rights after all.

Full story here

Share