Cognitive Dissonance: The Key to Defeating the Progressives

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.

Cognitive Dissonance: The Key to Defeating the ProgressivesWhen people experience the fruits of “Obama’s America,” they will likely feel a bit confused and hurt.

”The mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in a person is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: the person rejects, explains away, or avoids the new information, persuades himself that no conflict really exists, reconciles the differences, or resorts to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in his conception of the world and of himself.”

-Encyclopedia Britannica

My post last year about kids defying the ACLU brought me back to a point I have been making for several years.  Socialism collapses in the presence of doubt.  In the examples of the fallen Soviet Bloc dictatorships, we see that once the people no longer “believed in” the state, and that their doubt overcame the fear of the state, the state collapsed.  When rhetoric and propaganda of the state and party were so completely disconnected from what the people could observe, they lost faith in the system.  This is instructive because it shows us the path towards defeating the POTUS and his socialist policies.

By my estimation, socialist states rely on three methods to control their populations.  The first is indoctrination.  In the US, they took over the public schools some time ago.  At each stage, children are exposed to, tested on, and pressured to exhibit, liberal ideology.  As many examples have shown, via lawsuits, students have been ridiculed, threatened with failing grades, and otherwise degraded if they deviate from the liberal mantra. Eventually, the children themselves are turned into a self-monitoring mob that reports, belittles, or attacks dissenters.   Using the peer pressure that makes children so susceptible, the left is very effective in “brainwashing” our youth.   These minions then go to the university, where they are further inculcated into socialism, and are then sent out to convert more minions.  If you wish to explore this further, look into how public school teachers and social workers are educated.  I believe that the idea here is to create an environment of “no resort.”  Either the child/student accepts and regurgitates the liberal mantra at every turn, or punishment will be swift and sure.  Those that have different ideas, or can see through the liberal point of view, are effectively silenced and rendered ineffective.

Additionally, the liberals have sought to expand their educational efforts to children at increasingly younger ages.  Their goal seems to be the indoctrination of children. To illustrate, let’s look at some quotes by prominent educators and others…

“The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.

–Paul Haubner, specialist for the N.E.A.

“Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are…[a] National Department of Education…the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.”

–William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, 1932 National Chairman of the American Communist Party (1933-44, 1945-57)

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

–Joseph Stalin

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the ‘Humanist Manifesto’ and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America’s teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

The effort here is to control, from the earliest possible age, the beliefs and thoughts of the child.  Education is a secondary concern, if it is even a concern at all.  Knowledge and facts are secondary to that of the intended ideology.  If knowledge is indeed the currency of freedom, socialists must therefore carefully control what is taught, and competing opinions should be banished, and their proponents marginalized and punished.  Therefore, in any socialist or fascist state, education was among the first institutions to receive a complete conversion.  Curriculum was changed to reflect the new order, home schooling was banned, and private schools were either co-opted, or closed.  This is meant to achieve a “monopoly of ideology,” nothing more, nothing less.  Control the child and carefully monitor what they see and hear, and the end result (the “progressives” hope) is a complaint and brainwashed minion who will not question the state, as they will know nothing more than what they learned from the state.

To prevent their newly minted minions from hearing anything contrary to state approved messages, the elimination of dissent becomes necessary.  This is the second method to control populations.  Outlets and individuals that discuss “competing ideologies” are to be silenced.  In socialist and fascist states, strong-arm tactics usually accomplished this.  In the current age, regulation, ridicule, and punishment are used.  A bit softer to be sure, but the results are much the same.  One needs to look no further than Hugo Chavez to see this in operation in the 21st century, or, for that matter, the actions of the left in this country.

The fairness doctrine, the effort to implement it and call it something else is a case in point.  As covered here, a board was appointed and given the task of making recommendation for broadcast regulations.  The board is stacked with leftist organizations.  Administration officials have been quoted as stating that the goal is…

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.

It also was reported when a think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama’s transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on conservative talk radio by requiring stations to be operated by female and minority owners, which the report showed were statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

That report found the best strategy for getting equal time for “progressives” on radio lies in mandating “diversity of ownership” without ever needing to mention the former FCC policy of requiring airtime for liberal viewpoints, known as the “Fairness Doctrine,” a plan thrown out in the 1980s.

Knowing that the ‘Fairness Doctrine” is a loaded term, the liberals resort to “slight of hand” by calling it something else.  The desired result, however, is the same.

Going along with banning dissent is the control of the media.   The most convenient way to manage the people is to control the flow of information available to the public.  In totalitarian states, movies, music, print, radio, television, and even the Internet (with varying levels of success) are tightly controlled.  Everything that is read, heard, and seen is carefully presented to not only convey what the government wants the public to believe, but to also ridicule the opposition, and discredit any other ideas.  Information that might “confuse” or “discourage” (ie, the truth) the public is not permitted.

In the more openly totalitarian states, this is accomplished by direct ownership and control.  In the US, it has been achieved ideologically, by the same educational indoctrination scheme I described earlier.  As so many of us have observed, the MSM often ignores gaffes, crimes, inconsistent statements, lies, and failures of the left.  If the story is reported, it will often be minimized or misrepresented.   Many times, a person exposing a story or whistle blowing will be attacked, causing their character or motivations to be called into question.  Other times, individuals on the right will be openly ridiculed.  The entertainment industry is also involved, with TV shows, movies, and music echoing “progressive” political and cultural messages, all with the intent of providing the citizen with their regularly scheduled does of indoctrination.  The idea, of course, is to promote the agenda, as well as to marginalize dissenters, and at the same time, their messages.

A significant effect of banning dissent is to cause the individual to become discouraged, and eventually “give up,” reluctantly joining the “new order.”  The validation that one receives from knowing that they are not alone in their beliefs cannot be underestimated.  A group with shared beliefs is more powerful than an isolated individual.  Fear not friends, I am not talking about collectivism here.  This is simple psychology.   Besides the obvious benefits of “strength in numbers,” groups validate and empower their individual members.  If one knows that others will stand with him, he is more likely to make a stand.

This is, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons for the left’s attempts to silence the right.  If they can stop people from receiving the validation of the larger group, the right can be reduced into smaller groups that are easily ostracized, or into isolated individuals that will be no “threat” to the “progressive” state.  They want you to give up and become silent.   They know that if they can indoctrinate the next generation in the absence of dissenting opinions that have more worth, they will win.  They therefore want us to be silent and discouraged.

The third technique consists of the simple thug tactics used by the left.  As I, and others, have discussed, the left uses intimidation to silence dissent, attack other ideologies, and to punish those that speak out.   People are threatened, their employers are threatened (unless they terminate the target), and “protesters” show up at the schools of the children of those that have “sinned” against the left.  As Alinski put it, the plan is to identify, isolate, freeze and escalate activities towards the target.  Frivolous lawsuits will be filed; false allegations made, private documents will be made public, all in an attempt to punish the target. This is harassment and intimidation, as well as an attempt to ruin the lives and reputations of the targeted individuals.

This intimidation is also meant to send a message to anyone else that might speak out or otherwise resist.  “Unless you want this to happen to you and your family, you best keep your mouth shut!”

So, where does Cognitive Dissonance come into this?  It goes back to my first paragraph.  Many of the people in the middle – those that perhaps pay little attention to the news or current political situation – are about to experience more of the “progressivism” from the POTUS.  They will see more lies and deceit.  They will see more and more if their fellow citizens ridiculed.  If either Cap and Trade or the ObamaCare passes, the economy will be devastated.  Individuals that voted for the POTUS without examining his actual motivations, or people on the left that still have the ability to think (there are some), will experience a great deal of Cognitive Dissonance.  Also, kids and college students that have been spoon-fed the liberal mantra will experience discomfort when the plans that they have supported cascade the economy into failure.  This is the time that we, as Conservatives or Libertarians, will need to capitalize on this “theory colliding headlong into reality.”

How do we do this?

  • Continue blogging, and share your blog with others.
  • Contact friends and family that may have voted for the POTUS.  Show them the evidence.
  • Collect evidence by download to show others.  I recently showed a liberal co-worker the video montage made by Verum Serum on ObamaCare.  I thought the person’s jaw would hit the floor.  Then, I showed her Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsberg quotes.  She became upset.  If this continues, she will eventually question her beliefs.  All it takes is enough evidence.
  • Download and store videos and articles that make our points.  If the POTUS ever does manage to control Internet content, a lot of the evidence against him will disappear.  Unless, that is, we save it!

This is starting to work.  Majorities now stand against ObamaCare.  The amount of people that think the Porkulus is helping is within the margin of error in the poll!  The discussion of ClimateGate is causing more and more people to question the AGW fraud.

It’s working because to promote their agenda, the “progressives” must lie at every turn.  They must create crises.  They have to fudge numbers, bribe officials, and contradict themselves on a regular basis.  To defeat the agenda, we simply must point out observable facts.  They may have the House, Senate, the White House, film, TV, music, the newspapers, the broadcast news, and millions of useful idiots; but we have the truth.  That, my friends, is the nuclear weapon in our arsenal.

I wrote this because I became a Conservative in this fashion.  I came out of grad school with a brain full of liberal ideology.  When I started working, I noticed that much of what I was taught simply didn’t match reality.  As time wore on, I became discouraged.  When some friends started introducing me to Conservatism, I initially resisted.  After all, Conservatives are all fascists, right?  I started to read, and listened to talk radio.  As time wore on, I educated myself.  No coercion, threats, intimidation, or indoctrination were required.  I simply saw that Conservatism matches reality.  If we can help others when Cognitive Dissonance hits, and it WILL, we can help defeat the left.  I find it ironic, and encouraging, that the billions that the left spends on public and college education can be undone by simple truths.

There are many people on the left that will never see reality.  While that is unfortunate, there is nothing that will convince them.  Either that, or they are “higher – ups” in the left that know that the policies are meant to cause a crisis.  I humbly suggest that they be left alone.  Their shrill and increasingly irrational reactions to the truth will serve our purpose well.

I have more on this topic, I’ll post it in a day or two.

Share

Greatest Hits: Who are the Parents, and who are the Children?

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.

Who are the Parents, and who are the Children? I asked this question in 2009, and I think the regressives continue to prove my conclusion every day.

I’m certain that I’m not the only person that has noticed that the liberals tend to act like petulant children when they “don’t get their way.”  One has to look no further than the recent happenings in the Wisconsin State Legislature to see how far we have fallen.

So what’s going on?  Why has does the left descend into tantrums when reality intervenes and ruins their plans?   Why do they deny others the right to speak by shouting them down?  Why do so many adults abandon reason and self-control when life throws a wrench into their works?  What happened to the work ethic?   Why do so many people think, or DEMAND, that the taxpayer provide for them?  Why do they resort to violence when their demands are not met?  These are all questions we have asked.  I would like to offer an explanation.

For those of you that have children, or work with children, have you ever tried to talk to a tantruming child?  Have you ever talked to a teen that thinks they know everything, and facts and reason simply don’t enter into their thinking?  Have you ever tried to debate a liberal?  Are you seeing the connection?  That’s where we are, in my opinion.  We are dealing with people that haven’t grown up yet, or never will.  How else might you explain that liberal protests often end in vandalism, rioting, and abuse of others?  I mean, I’ve never seen Conservatives so angry as there are now, but they have rallies and clean up after themselves, often leaving the area cleaner than how they found it.  They do not engage in violence, or vandalism.  I can’t imagine that happening at a rent-a-mob protest, say, at the G20 or OWS.  What’s the difference?

When a child is told “no” they have a number of options on how to react; they might pitch a fit, they might cooperate and get over it, or they may sulk and become passive aggressive, among others.  If the child pitches a fit, and it succeeds in achieving their goal, they will continue using this response until life intervenes and makes that behavior ineffective or unprofitable for them.  Doesn’t their reactions to losing a vote, or demanding a result, look like temper tantrums?  Also, if organizations, governments, or individuals “cave in” when the liberals whine, threaten, and protest; you might suspect that they’ll do it again.  After all, it worked all those other times!

You can apply this to economics as well.  Think of the teen that badgers their parents for an extra twenty bucks to go to a movie, or the kid that expects that mommy or daddy should pay for their 20,000 text messages.  They haven’t earned anything-they have no concept of the value of the labor that earned that sum.  Doesn’t that sound like a microcosm of liberal fiscal policy?  Daddy’s “magic wallet” becomes the “magic treasury,” where money appears as if from nowhere and is in limitless supply.  “Who cares where it comes from, as long as I get mine!” The more I looked at it, the comparison become clear.

Let’s take a look at the media.  How many times were the Tea Party crowds referred to in an insulting manner?  I don’t mean using simple humor or an occasional joke either.  It was brutal and persistent.  Now, remember back to Junior High.  How did kids treat each other there?  Any similarities?   It wasn’t about making a joke that everyone could appreciate, it was meant to destroy the target.   Then, for Tea Parties round two, the media went back to ignoring or “shunning” the thousands that showed up to protest around the country.  To me, that was kind of like the tween version of …”Let’s ignore that group over there because we don’t like them.”

Social policy ends up being a similar scenario.  Liberals want to “normalize” all sorts of behaviors so they can do what they want.   They are ruled by their passions and wants, not by ideology.  Many times, I think they are little more than walking “Ids,” with no rudder or hindsight-even in the face of negative consequences and failure.  As long as they can do as they please, they are not deterred by negative consequences.  In fact, they demand that we fund or discover a means to negate those consequences.  Forget that the negative consequences could be avoided easily by not engaging in the behavior-that won’t do.  They want to have their cake, and gorge on it too, all at our expense.

And it doesn’t stop at being amoral.  When the liberals lose a vote, or discover that some people disagree with them, they don’t try to figure out what went wrong, or try to get their message out.  They threaten, intimidate, try to get people fired from their jobs, disrupt church services, and so on.  If a majority of the people disagrees with them, they ignore that fact and attack, just like the tantuming child.  In the end, and there are many more examples, much of the liberal social agenda is about removing restraints on behavior.  It isn’t because of freedom or rights, it’s about “this is what I want to do.”

I have a very hard time relating to liberals.  I now realize that there is a reason for that, and it’s not always ideological.  Conservatives are the parents that say “no,” and try to set reasonable limits.  Liberals are the children that throw tantrums when they don’t get what they want.  Having self-restraint is an alien concept to many of them, as a large number of them are ruled by their passions and emotions.  Reason and logic aren’t often apparent to them.  They also can’t delay their gratification, so they want the “fix” from the government.  Sometimes, it’s because they want “revenge” on the people that have self control, and as a consequence, are more successful they they are.  I’ve talked to many liberals that take a lot of pleasure from the fact that the Obama’s policies will “ruin” people.  Others have worked harder than they have, or have simply succeeded to a greater degree.  Instead of looking at this as an opportunity to learn, they seek to punish the more successful person to make themselves feel better.  At any rate, they want what they want, and they want it now, and we’re in the way.  Since so many of them are arrested in their own development, they act accordingly.

This is why we can’t understand them, and they can’t understand us.   To them, we are the other kids that “aren’t popular.”  So, they treat us as if we were other kids, using the same tactics that children use to get what they want.  They name call, bully, “spread rumors,” ostracize…any behavior that a middle school sees on a daily basis.  We attempt to approach them as adults, with facts and information.  This invariably fails.  We aren’t even on the same wavelength.  I would compare it to having conversation with a dozen feral cats…painful, and with no hope of a constructive solution.

In past decades, we could debate-we were peers.  They had other ideas, and they passionately and honestly presented them.  Now, they are not like us.  They lie, deceive, intimidate, threaten, and manipulate.  There can no longer be a debate about ideas, as the other side wants power, and their ideas shift to exploit the current crisis.  They’re for democracy, until they lose.  They’re for “civil discourse” until it is time to threaten or discredit an opponent.  They claim to represent the poor, but their policies keep the poor in poverty.  They claim to be for the little man, but they discard the little man when he gets in their way.  It is a complete lack of fundamental principals that separate us.  We have them; they do not.

I also believe that this is why liberals make such effective useful idiots.  They are promised all sorts of  benefits by their benefactors.  They are promised security, less work, the “freedom” (license) to do what their heart desires, less responsibility, all sorts of benefits, and other nonsense.  They then go out and act as the thugs and goons of the liberal movement.  Little do they know that they are pawns and will be caught up in the tyranny with the rest of us, but then again, most of them aren’t able to look that far into the future.

Perhaps this will help us understand liberals.  It won’t change their behavior, but it might help us deal with them.

Share

Greatest Hits: Why Leftists Deny Reality?

Share

Why Leftists Deny Reality? Facts are the kryptronite to the left. 

Ever try to argue facts and information with a Liberal?  Ever come away from the encounter frustrated?   Well, there’s a reason for that. Here are some excerpts from an interview with Yuri Bezmenov, a defector from the Soviet Union.

I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic…. That’s probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It’s a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first stage being “demoralization“. It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.

The result? The result you can see — most of the people who graduated in the 60?s, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can’t get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern can not change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior. [alluding to Pavlov].

So, It would seem, by the admission of a former KGB official, that their efforts were successful.  If fact, the progress has even exceeded their expectations…

The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already for the last 25 years. Actually, it’s over fulfilled because demoralization now reaches such areas where not even Comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans thanks to lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he will refuse to believe it…. That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.

Mind you, these words were spoken in the 80?s.  I think we all recognize that the situation has deteriorated significantly since then. Think about politicians like Allen Grayson, everyone on MSNBC (and most of the MSM), and the public schools and universities.  It’s all there.  Rights that do not exist are created, and rights that do exist are denied.  Capitalism is decried, and socialism is praised.  Lies, deceit, thuggery, intimidation, propaganda, and media control are all practiced by the left, and are viewed as acceptable practices.  They cling dogmatically to socialism, as it continues to destroy the country.  They deny, emphatically, all evidence to the contrary, irregardless  of it’s bulk and validity.  Then, they turn and attack anyone that presents the truth.

It seems hopeless, but it isn’t.  Since the last term of Bush, and especially since Obama’s election, more and more Conservatives have been speaking out.   While the left has entrenched and are attacking with all of their resources (which are considerable), they are losing the debate, as well as the battle for public opinion.  Our advantage is that they are still, in spite of their best efforts, a small minority.  Our disadvantage is that while the left is statistically small, they are extremely well placed.  Since their “long march through the institutions,”  their impact reaches far beyond their numbers.

As usual, here are some ideas on how to deal with this situation:

1.  Don’t engage a leftist unless you can bury them in facts.  It won’t matter to the leftist, but anyone else that can see, hear, or read might be convinced by reality.

2.  Stay on message.  Leftists, when hit with reality, will change the subject to something that they think they use against you.  The classic, “Where were you when Bush was POTUS?” is easily answered by saying, “where are you now?”  You might be tempted to state that most of us didn’t agree with Bush’s policies, but then you are talking about history, and not what’s happening now.  Also, you are defending yourself rather than dealing with Obama’s policies.  Thread hijacking, ad-hominem attacks, lies, and logical fallacies are all part of the leftist playbook.  Point out that they are not responding to content, and move on with your point.  If they get shrill, let them, because you win!

3.  Don’t allow yourself to be distracted.  The infiltrators, the “anarchists,” and the MSM are all lying and/or threatening the movement.  While these need to be addressed, they don’t have to be a primary focus.  From what I saw, the Tea Parties did a fantastic job of identifying the infiltrators.  That, and the message still got out, and that is the key.  As for the MSM, let them say what they will.  This blog, and many others, expose their lies on a regular basis.  When they lie, and anyone can look it up on-line and see the truth, the more audience they will lose.  Let them fall on their own swords.  Basically, if your adversary is self destructing, get out of the way and let them.

4.  Facts, facts, and non-violence are our weapons of choice.  Stick with those, and we win.  Forget the left, they cannot be convinced of anything.  They will likely not overcome their programming.  We are trying to convince the people that aren’t sure, and might still be able to think a bit.  That too is working.  More people are coming to our cause all the time.

5.  Educate yourselves.  Read, watch, and learn.  A knowledgeable opponent will give the average leftist fits.  Again, when they get shrill, we win.

6. Stay calm.  If you lose your cool, you lose.  The goal of the leftist, beyond taking you off message, is to upset you and make you lash out, rendering you ineffective.

To sum it up, this is the key to our victory.

“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.”
—  Mahatma Gandhi

Share

The REAL War On Women: 92% Of Females Forced To Undergo Genital Mutilation In Egypt

Share
islamic_art_stoning_woman
Islamic art depicting the stoning of a woman

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

But no, Mitt Romney is the REAL bad guy ‘coz he said he had binders full of women applicants…

Modern Liberalism is a mental disorder.


 

Islam Is The REAL War on Women: 92% of Women in Egypt Forced to Undergo Genital Mutilation

As putrid Democrats continue to promulgate their lie-filled “Republican war on women” campaign theme, they sit by ignoring that the real war on women is perpetrated by Islam. Another reminder of where the real hate for women emanates is in a survey showing that fully 92 percent of married women in Egypt are forced to undergo genital mutilation.

If you are unaware of what Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) is, be prepared to be horrified. Euphemistically called “female circumcision” by liberals who want to obviate what it really is, it is in fact the utter destruction of the female pleasure centers in the vagina so that a woman can never gain pleasure or have an orgasm from sexual intercourse.

Many Muslims from Africa to the Middle East think that women are disgusting beasts who should not be allowed to enjoy sex. So, to keep girls pure in the eyes of The “Prophet” Muhammad, in their pre-teen stage, these inhuman Muslims rip out a girls’ clitoris and sew her vagina shut leaving but a small hole for urination.

Then, when the girl is married off, often times at the age of nine or ten, their “husband” gets the joy of jamming a knife into her vagina and slicing open the sewn shut vagina so that he can consummate the “marriage” with sex.

These scumbag Muslims excuse all this as a “cultural” necessity and a paean to Islam.

This is what the Muslim ISIS terror forces in Iraq have ruled must be done to all women last year.

Now we find that the backwards, savage country of Egypt forces most of its women to undergo this barbaric attack on their most private parts.

A new survey finds that a shocking 92 percent of married womenin Egypt has been forced to withstand this horrible, anti-woman procedure.

Where is Hillary Clinton to decry this true war on women? Where is Sandra Fluke to raise the alarm? Where is MSNBC’s manly Rachel Maddow to scream about this outrage?

Well, they are all worried about “Hobby Lobby” and telling their fans lies abut how company owners who don’t want to pay for abortion-inducing drugs are being “just like” Islamic terrorists.

The fact that so-called “feminists” are utterly silent on this issue is proof that they don’t care about “women,” they care only abut liberal politics.

If you are a liberal and prattle on about the “Republican war on women,” you are promulgating a lie. You can be excused for this if yo were misled, but only if you learn the truth and accept it. Otherwise, like every other extreme leftist, you are a dangerous, anti-American liar. There really is just no other way to say it.

Regardless, FGM is how Islam views women. They are dirty, disgusting, unclean, cattle that have no humanity and don’t even deserve to enjoy sexual intercourse. If this isn’t a real war on woman, what is?

.

.

.

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

Telling A 5 Year Old They Are ‘Transgender’ Is Child Abuse

Share

gay_kids_transgender

 

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

Right on the money on this one, Mr. Huston!

Here is his Op-Ed in its entirety:

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

A school in Maine got in hot water last week for feeding 5,6,and 7 year olds a “lesson” on being transgendered. But can a 5-year-old even be a “transgendered” kid? No. And to impress on them to think so is child abuse.

Officials at a grade school in Kittery, Maine instituted a lesson plan for its Kindergartners and its first through third graders meant to train them on the subject of transgendered kids and to push the idea that being transgendered is perfectly normal. Naturally, many parents were furious at the scheme.

The school had begun reading to these tiny tykes from a book titled, “I am Jazz” by Jessica Herthel and Jazz Jennings. The book is about a transgendered boy who struggles with “a boy’s body and a girl’s brain.”

Many parents didn’t learn of the outrageous LGBT indoctrination plan visited upon their children until Fox News’ Sean Hannity highlighted the story.

After the story broke parents started complaining to the school that no notice of the lesson plan was revealed to parents ahead of time.

The school has since apologized and said it broke its own rules about keeping parents informed about what was going on in the classroom. The school promised to be more attentive to that pledge in the future.

Still, one of the school’s teachers is defended the indoctrination effort saying that “experts” insist that a child is never too young to be trained about LGBT issues.

Wrote school guidance counselor Dana Richerich: “Some people may think primary school students are too young to worry about addressing issues surrounding gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) students. Not so, experts say. It’s never too early to begin teaching children about respecting differences.”

But this is nonsense. No kid should be thinking about deviant or non-traditional sexual roles until they are old enough to understand the traditional roles. It is child abuse to begin sexualizing kids in Kindergarten and leaves them open to confusion at least, possible mental aguish as they struggle to grasp it all, and at worse sexual abuse as they seek to put into action the LGBT deviations that are taught them.

K through 3 is way, way too young for this garbage and any teacher or administrator who tries to indoctrinate kids with the LGBT agenda should be charged with child abuse.

.

.

.

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

Those Against Indiana’s Religious Freedom Law Are Either Ignorant Or Liars

Share

 photo freedom_of_religion_zpsxaldsbfq.jpg

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

Another outstanding Op-Ed from Warner Todd Huston, printed in its entirety.

I have to be straight forward right at the outset on this faux controversy over the new Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Those losing their tiny minds about it are either wholly ignorant of what is in the law, or know full well what is in it and are lying about the law in order to push their anti-Christian, gay-supporting agenda. There can be no other choice, here.

Firstly, before we even get to the case in Indiana, to act as if this whole idea is “new” is specious. Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) have been around since President Bill Clinton signed one in the 1990s.

The first such law was signed in 1993 by Bill Clinton and was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives where it was sponsored by no less than New York’s Chuck Schumer, now one of the farthest left Senators in Washington D.C.

Furthermore, 30 other states have RFRA laws just like Indiana’s or other laws that offer RFRA-like protections–including liberal states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Washington state, and Illinois.

In fact, 19 other states have laws almost exactly like the new Indiana law and no one is suddenly boycotting them. So, to act as if Indiana is alone, here, is a lie-based talking point.

Additionally, all the hysterical attacks from halfwitted liberals out there are not addressing a single thing in the bill but instead are making wild-eyed, spittle-specked assumptions that the bill somehow outlaws gays. So, here is the text of the Indiana bill in case you need to see it.

But the fact is, the new Indiana statute does not give anyone the license to discriminate against gays or anyone else for that matter. We already have federal laws that prevent such things and this law doesn’t make any attempts to overturn those protections.

Additionally, this law has nothing at all to do with how citizens interact with other citizens. This law addresses what government does to people with religious convictions. This law covers how government interacts with the people, not how the people interact with each other.

There are plenty of other laws that prevent discrimination and this RFRA law doesn’t do a single thing to upset them.

Yes, when all is said and done, if you are one of those running around vomiting all over yourself because of this law you are either an ignoramus who knows nothing at all about what he is talking about, or you are a liar using lies to push your gay agenda.

.

.

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

ObamaCare Navigator Imprisoned For Terrorism

Share
Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, Convicted Terrorist and ObamaCare Navigator
Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, Convicted Terrorist and ObamaCare Navigator

Hat/Tip to Warner Todd Huston at Publius Forum.

This is the kind of top quality public servants brought to you via our President, Barack Obama.

Obama’s Chicago terrorist has been sentenced to 18 months in prison, authorities in the Windy City announced late last week. No, not his old terrorist, Bill Ayers, his newer terrorist, Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, the woman he hired to work as an ObamaCare “navigator” in Illinois.

Rasmieh Yousef Odeh, a terrorist from Jordan, was convicted in Israel for her part in several bombings including one from way back in 1969 that killed two students in a grocery store.
Despite her murderous past, the Illinois Department of Insurance hired this killer Muslim as an ObamaCare “navigator” to push the President’s odious healthcare take over onto citizens in that state.

So, Obama had a terrorist pushing his ObamaCare law on citizens in his own home state.

Great work if you can get it.

Yup, that’s our President for ya. He cares so much about us that he has convicted terrorists helping choose the authoritarian, top-down, central government, socialistic health care that he shoved down our throats.

When Odeh came to the USA and became a citizen she did not note her past convictions on her paper work. This lie could see her citizenship revoked.

Then, she has been arrested for her lies and faced ten years in prison.

After only two hours a jury convicted Odeh and she was sentenced to an 18-month prison sentence for lying about her role in Muslim terror and not telling US officials of her history.

So, there you have it. Obama’s other Chicago terrorist has been convicted and sentenced in his home town.

.

.

.

 

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

Dana Carvey: Liberals ‘Brutalize’ Conservative Comics

Share
Image: Dana Carvey: Liberals 'Brutalize' Conservative ComicsActor and Comedian Dana Carvey. (Bryan Bedder/Getty Images)

Hat/Tip to John Blosser at Newsmax.

Many of us remember him from his impersonations of Dan Quayle, H. Ross Perot, Jimmy Stewart, Johnny Carson or even Keith Richards. Or as The Church Lady, Hans (from Hans and Franz), or the ever popular Garth from Wayne’s World. So to say that Dana Carvey is mulit-talented comedian would be understating it.

His career post Saturday Night Live seemed to be taking off. Then in the late ’90s he underwent a simple heart-bypass operation. However, the surgeon worked on the wrong artery, and Dana’s health worsened. After corrective surgery, he sued the first surgeon and was awarded 8 million dollars – which he awarded to charities. In our book, that’s called being a class-act.

Via People:

The $7.5 million medical malpractice lawsuit comedian Dana Carvey filed against heart surgeon Dr. Elias Hanna for operating on a wrong artery has been settled. Financial details were not disclosed, but Carvey — who discusses in this week’s PEOPLE cover story how his life went awry after his bungled 1998 double bypass — told the Associated Press that the settlement will be divided among charities, including those involved in heart research. “This lawsuit, from the beginning, was about accountability and doing everything I could to make sure that it wouldn’t happen to someone else,” said Carvey. “Both my wife and I are very satisfied with the outcome and bringing resolution to this case.” A subsequent angioplasty alleviated Carvey’s heart blockage, though in the meantime, he said he was so weak that he was forced to refuse acting jobs.

In a recent interview, he talked about how left Hollywood and the Comedic world are. Making no bones about it, he says that if you’re a comedian and you’re Conservative, you’d better have some body armor.

Carvey, in an interview with Kozlowski for Pasadena Weekly, said that cracking jokes about President Obama still can land comedians in hot water with liberal crowds, but he doesn’t let that stop him.

“Because of the sensitivity of having an African-American president, which is completely understandable, people tend to tread lightly, but policy-wise there was some disconnect because people had complaints.

“It took a while to satirize our president but that’s American. It’s what we do,” Carvey said.

“I come from the old school that says you go where the power is and make fun of it. When it becomes off-limits to say or do certain things without being brutalized or uncensored, that’s a shame, but it’s where the country’s going right now.”

Of course, we all remember, and were fans of his impression of George Herbert Walker Bush, and it seems so was President Bush.

Carvey’s satirical impersonation of President George H.W. Bush was a big hit for him on SNL. However, Bush, who invited him to the White House to do the impression for him, was a good sport about it.

“The first two years, Bush was so popular we were just going with what the rhythm was,” Carvey told Kozlowski.

“Then, when the country’s mood turned and got a little more satirical towards him, it certainly didn’t help him, but he could sense I’m not an ideologue in the traditional sense where ‘someone who opposes me is my enemy.’ I’m an Americanist. I’m a radical moderate. He sensed that and did not take it personally.

And even when it comes to politics, Dana is an equal-opportunity satirist.

“I always want to be funny, number one, and political arguments often end up ugly,” Carvey said, Pasadena reported.

“Politics is the most toxic area a comedian can go into,” Carvey told the Reno Gazette-Journal. “We’re all in metaphorical foxholes right now, as a society. If you say or write one thing accidentally, it can get you in a lot of trouble.”

However, he added, “I don’t shy away from it, either. In fact, now that the elections are past, I’m getting bigger laughs with my Obama satire than any other thing in the act right now.”

As to the belief that only liberal comics are funny, Carvey told Kozlowski, “That’s just crazy leftover ideas from Watergate. I always believed you question authority. Whether it’s Asian-American, a woman president or Native American, you have to hit.

Read the full story here.

.

.

.

Share

Obama, Democrats Take Hard Left Turn, Ignore The Will Of The American People

Share

President Obama

I have long since lost count of the times conservatives have been described as hard, right-wing idealogues that care only for our conservative ideology. The issue doesn’t really matter. The left always accuses us of being unwilling to bend our conservative principles. President Obama has been especially adept at this, along with outgoing Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. They are fond of describing to the world how Republicans are just the party of NO. Incidentally, they want the rest of us to forget that it was President Obama who refused to negotiate with the Republicans during last year’s government shutdown. And Harry Reid has killed how many bipartisan bills? That’s something else I’ve lost count of.

It can not be denied that the Democrats took an historic beating in the mid-term elections. They simply got walloped because the American people are tired of the direction they have taken the country since President Obama was sworn into office. One would think this would be cause for reflection on their part. One would think they would ponder what the American people really want them to do. One would be sadly mistaken. Since the mid-term beating became apparent, something else has became abundantly clear. The Democrats are determined to go their own route and ignore the will of the American people.

It didn’t take the President long to come out with a defiant speech, telling the country he was going to work on his own, since it was clear the Republicans would not work with him after they assumed complete control of Congress in 2015. He was in no way apologetic about his actions. In Congress, elections were held to choose their leaders for the upcoming Congress. Care to guess who the Democrats chose to lead them, yet again? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. That tells me they are not interested in changing the course they are on. And last night, President Obama doubled down on his threat to go it alone on immigration reform. He announced to the world that almost 5 million illegal immigrants no longer had to worry about deportation.

What does the President’s actions tell us? Really, nothing new. Many of us have tried to show, since before he was even elected, that the man was a pure ideologue. He believes in his liberal philosophy so strongly, he can not deviate from it. He showed that in his second inaugural address, when all he cared to talk about was climate change. Unlike William Jefferson Clinton, who cared enough about his legacy to move to the middle and work with the Republicans after 1994, Barack Hussein Obama is determined to get his way. That’s why he is forging ahead on immigration, granting deportation relief to the parents of American citizens. Is this full amnesty? Not in the legal definition, but it is a step in that direction. If Obama is allowed to force this new executive action down the throats of the American people, it is not a great leap of faith to believe he will go even further and grant them complete amnesty.

It is important to note one thing. Many who may agree with the President on his desired result on immigration disagree with his methods. Even they believe he is taking the wrong approach to correct the perceived problems with our immigration system. When some of your own party are raising red flags at your actions, would it not be safe to assume that you might be taking things a bit too far? That does not trouble President Obama, evidently. He has been stymied in his desire to help illegal immigrants for much too long. Therefore, he is acting on his own and in doing so, he is taking a hard left turn.

My hope is that the Republican-led Congress will use every means at their disposal to stop President Obama’s attempts to bypass the Constitution in its tracks. The man has been able to shed criticism because he is a black man. Every accusation of impropriety has been met with charges of racism. He accuses others of not being willing to negotiate, when he refuses to do so himself. He loves the blame game, especially when it comes to things he is guilty of. If we were in a school yard, he would be called a bully. And as far as I know, there is only one way to stop a bully. Slapping them down works wonders and it’s about time the Republicans wielded their power and slapped the man who would be king back to his rightful place of limited authority. It’s what the American people want.

.

.

Share

Dirty Jobs Host Mike Rowe Destroys Liberal Hothead’s Argument: “It Is Impossible To Be A Christian, And Vote Republican!”

Share

 photo Dirty-Jobs-with-Mike-Rowe-dirty-jobs-10607125-640-426_zps437fc707.jpg

Hat/Tip to Onan Coca at Eagle Rising and Michael Cantrell at Young Cons.

 Most Americans, at least most Americans who watch TV know Mike Rowe from his hit television series, Dirty Jobs. And what’s not to like? He’s a very likable guy, who isn’t above poking fun at himself, he honors hard working Americans across the country and has even launched a non-profit foundation to help out of work Americans find jobs – dirty or not.

From his foundation’s website:

The mikeroweWORKS Foundation announced its partnership with Scholarship America to establish the mikeroweWORKS Foundation Education Scholarship Program.  The 2013 fund has been set at $250,000.  The program is set up to award individual scholarships to applicants who want to pursue a career in the skilled trades. All successful applicants meeting the eligibility requirements may be awarded up to $2,500.

Scholarship America, the nation’s largest non-profit, private-sector scholarship and educational support organization, has distributed more than $2.7 billion to 1.8 million students across the country through various programs.

But recently, Mike made a splash for a bit of a different reason. It seems that some unknown (possibly until now) Liberal had been using Mike’s Facebook page to try and sell his books. Mike had not read the books, much less endorsed the author, but none-the-less this person felt empowered to use Mike’s notoriety to hawk his wares.

Now if that were all to the story, you nor I would even be aware of it, but of course, it’s not. This Liberal not only tried to use Mike’s Facebook page, he also insulted Christians, Republicans, and even Mike Rowe, himself.

Here is what transpired, in its entirety:

~ First, the rantings of the Liberal Hothead ~

Jim Green: It is ALARMING when we do the demographic post mortem on this election, because it is probable that it was decided by our RACISTS–voting against President Obama, who wasn’t on the ballot—that gave the Republicans their election wins—OUR GREED AND IGNORANCE, Amazon.com

Jim Green:
Why is the media avoiding that we have a U.S. Senate bought and paid for by the Koch Bros/1%–and what they want for their dollar is to cut THEIR taxes [for pure GREED], and cut regulations to increase the bottom line [for pure GREED]….in short “OUR GREED AND IGNORANCE” [Amazon] ruled the day

Jim Green:
Why on Earth would ANYONE vote Republican? A reptile has more decency than the Republicans in Congress! Only an odious toad would pass Ryan’s budget or gut Food Stamps—and these depraved snakes made them THEIR HIGHEST PRIORITY! If only one child in America goes hungry because of the Republican’s War on Children it explains why—IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A CHRISTIAN, AND VOTE REPUBLICAN, Amazon/Kindle

Jim Green:
A CHALLENGE….will you PLEASE explain to the American people why you vote/are a Republican—because for the life of me I cannot understand WHY WOULD ANYONE VOTE REPUBLICAN! (NO trashing the Prez as a reason—it may make our RACISTS happy—but it is an idiotic explanation/justification.) See: “IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE A CHRISTIAN, AND VOTE REPUBLICAN,” on Amazon/Kindle

~ Next, Mike’s Epic Response ~

Hi there, Jim 


mikeroweGreetings, from somewhere over Colorado. It appears you’re still trying to sell some books on my Facebook page. Personally, I haven’t read them, and based on your marketing strategy, I suspect I’m probably not alone. Since part of your approach seems to involve me, I thought perhaps I might offer you some unsolicited marketing advice. I hope it’s not too presumptuous, but these tips have served me well over the years, and I can’t help but think you and your marketing team might benefit from their immediate implementation.

1. Consider starting off each blurb with a friendly salutation. In my experience, a little cordiality goes a long way, especially when you’re trying to persuade someone to give you money.

2. Think about addressing your audience as something other than “racists,” “reptiles,” and “toads.” I get that you want to be provocative, but if your goal is to sell your book, a number of well-known studies have proven it’s best not to insult your potential customers.

3. Reconsider your commitment to caps and exclamation points. These are excellent choices when warning people about a fire, a volcanic eruption, an ebola outbreak, or a looming tsunami. But I’m afraid their use in the context of a book sale implies a level of urgency that may exist only in your mind. If you really want to persuade thoughtful people that Christians can’t vote for Republicans and remain Christian, you’ll need to appear credible – not hysterical. Lower case should work just fine.

4. Consider limiting each blurb to a single entry. When you post the identical screed four times in a row, it looks very much like a broken record sounds. This will lead people to conclude that you’re either a) inept at posting, or b) deliberately obnoxious. Neither conclusion is likely to lead to a sale. Remember, most people see posts like yours as small piles of vomit that they can quickly step around. But when the same vomitus post appears multiple times, you force my friends here to slosh through a virtual lake of spew. Ironically, this will not only make more people like you even less, it will decrease the odds that someone who might actually share your world view will feel inclined to purchase your book. (I’ve deleted all of your redundant posts from this morning, but left the original. You’re welcome.)

5. Regarding your overall claim, I’m not an authority on Republicans or Christians, but last I checked, America is still populated by plenty of both. Unless you wish to alienate a majority of the country, you might consider something a tad more conciliatory. Something like – “There is no “R” in Jesus – But There’s G-O-P in Gospel!”

Finally, with respect to your “challenge,” I’m not a registered Republican, but from time to time, I have voted like one. If you really want to know why, ask me in a fashion that incorporates the aforementioned steps, and I’ll try to explain it to you.

In the meantime, GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR BOOKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike

PS. As you can see, the captain has given me some plastic wings. So clearly, I know what I’m talking about.Captain Mike Rowe

.

.

.

Share

George Soros: An Uber Liberal Warmonger?

Share

 photo georgesoros001_zpsac4ee84c.jpg
 

George Soros, the multimillionaire who likes to pretend he is the ultimate “liberal”, is in reality a crony corporatist of the first order. There is only one thing you need to understand about George Soros. If he is agitating for some cause or donating money to some cause, it is because he sees ways to make tonnes of money from the causes. There is not a noble corpuscle in his body.

So, I am wondering how the “Koch brothers are bad, Soros is good” hypocrites, otherwise known as America’s liberals, are going to spin the news that their darling benefactor has taken on the persona of a neo-con warmonger and is working overtime to get the European Union and the West to recognize that they are at war with Russia?

In this October 24 article, George is quoted saying: “Wake Up, Europe” Soros said Russia was threatening Europe’s “very existence”. A day earlier, Zero Hedge ran a piece with the following headline:

GEORGE SOROS SLAMS PUTIN, WARNS OF “EXISTENTIAL THREAT” FROM RUSSIA, DEMANDS $20 BILLION FROM IMF IN “RUSSIA WAR EFFORT”

You can be sure it is not Putin or Russia that has the attention of Mr. Soros; but rather those 20 billion IMF dollars.

Here are some quotes from the above article:

Europe is facing a challenge from Russia to its very existence. Neither the European leaders nor their citizens are fully aware of this challenge or know how best to deal with it. I attribute this mainly to the fact that the European Union in general and the eurozone in particular lost their way after the financial crisis of 2008.

[Europe] fails to recognize that the Russian attack on Ukraine is indirectly an attack on the European Union and its principles of governance. It ought to be evident that it is inappropriate for a country, or association of countries, at war to pursue a policy of fiscal austerity as the European Union continues to do.

All available resources ought to be put to work in the war effort even if that involves running up budget deficits

Note that he asserts that the European Union is “at war”.

“Running up budget deficits”_ that’s something liberals will have no problem supporting.

In a more recent Zero Hedge article, we find George continuing to agitate for war with Russia:

Speaking on Tuesday in Düsseldorf at a dinner sponsored by Handelsblatt, Mr. Soros, an 84-year-old Hungarian-American who survived the Holocaust and then fled the Soviets, said thefuture of the European alliance of nations stretching from Ireland to Estonia could hang in the balance.

{…}

“I think the real question is whether the European Union will break up over Russia,” Mr. Soros told 400 people at a dinner held in a Düsseldorf museum by the German financial publishing group.“The E.U. is under threat from Russia… The E.U. is broken, and it is not functioning.”

Clearly, George Soros is joining forces with the US propaganda apparatus to make Russia out to be the aggressor in the Western back coup in Ukraine and the chaos that followed. So, it is timely that Fox News ran this story on what Mikhail Gorbachev had to say on the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall.

The 83-year-old accused the West, particularly the United States, of giving in to “triumphalism” after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the communist bloc a quarter century ago. The result, he said, could partly be seen in the inability of global powers to prevent or resolve conflicts in Yugoslavia, the Middle East and most recently Ukraine.

“The world is on the brink of a new Cold War. Some are even saying that it’s already begun,” Gorbachev said at an event marking the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, close to the city’s iconic Brandenburg Gate.

Gorbachev called for trust to be restored through dialogue with Moscow, and suggested the West should lift sanctions imposed against senior Russian officials over the country’s support for separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine. Failure to achieve security in Europe would make the continent irrelevant in world affairs, he said.

Gorbachev’s comments echoed those of Roland Dumas, France’s foreign minister at the time the Berlin Wall fell.

“Without freedom between nations, without respect of one nation to another, and without strong and brave disarmament policy, everything could start over again tomorrow,” Dumas said. “Even everything we used to know, and what we called the Cold War.”

Obviously, Gorbachev knows all to well who the aggressor has been since the fall of the Berlin wall. He met with the Western leaders and agreed to remove 400,000 Russian troops from Eastern Europe and he agreed to the reunification of Germany, while the West agreed to keep NATO out of Eastern Europe. It was the West that didn’t live up to their side of the bargain. Now, the West wants NATO in the Ukraine and on Russia’s border. It is the West that is intimidating Russia; not the other way around.

But, George Soros and the like see nothing bu dollar signs. Now, with the GOP controlling both houses of congress, american liberals shouldn’t be surprised Uncle George starts funneling money to neo-con candidates in the next election cycles.

Don’t take it personal, my liberal friends. For George, it’s just business as usual.

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

.

.

Share

Political Correctness – The Death Of The America We Know And The Rise Of A Strange New World

Share

 photo political-correctness_zps938fe5e6.jpg
 

This is a post that has been a long time coming. I have pondered some of these things in my mind for several weeks, having arrived at the conclusion that political correctness may very well be the one thing that causes the America so many of us knew and loved to draw her last breath. Political correctness should be the bane of our society. It should be the one thing we draw back from and reject. Instead, it is the issue that so many Americans, who should know better, are embracing. In doing so, they are embracing the death of the country they call home.

Political correctness can be defined in many different ways. One of the best examples I know is how gun owners are treated by those who do not value the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because of the hyper-sensitivity on all things related to guns, children have been expelled from school for benignly shaping a pop tart into a crude shape of a gun. Oh, the horror! Guns are bad, guns are bad! Over and over, we are faced with that mantra.

Another example of this is something I experienced personally. I decided to sell the .50 caliber muzzle loader rifle I had purchased last year. Because I had sold items on Craigslist before, I placed an ad on that website. It was promptly flagged and deleted and after reading their terms of use, I discovered that you can not place an ad for even a BB gun, much less a rifle. Such items are banned. You also run the risk of being banned if you place an ad to sell a dog, for fear of taking advantage of the animal to make a profit. You can, however, place an ad for sex, if you so desire. There is an entire section devoted to sexual activity, but no guns or dogs. Oh, the horror! The owners of Craigslist have the right to run their website as they see fit, but that doesn’t make it any less nonsensical.

Political correctness is based on the theory that we should strive to offend no one. That seems to be the basis of why so many Christians are told to sit down and shut up, lest we offend those of other faiths. Or no faith at all. We can not call a spade a spade, without being faced with ridicule. Such is the case of my State Representative John Bennett. He had the audacity to call Islam a cancer that should be cut out of America and is now facing calls for his resignation. I think he will stick to his guns and I hope and pray that he does. It is time someone told the truth about the lie that is called the religion of peace.

It is strikingly odd that we can not speak the truth about Islam. Liberals refuse to cede that ground, saying we have no right to do so, lest we offend. At the same time, they do not want us to speak out against the perverted activities they are protecting. Homosexuality is never to be slandered. After all, they are just as human as the rest of us. It wouldn’t be proper to speak our minds about how perverted their choice of sexual lifestyle is, as that would be offensive. What is so strikingly odd about the protections being afforded by liberals to both Islam and homosexuals? They seem to forget how Muslims treat homosexuals. In Muslim countries that operate under Sharia Law, homosexuals are not tolerated. They are stoned, hung, and otherwise killed dead.

These new ideas of what is right and wrong, of what should or shouldn’t be said in public, of the contrast of how the liberals protect both homosexuality and Islam under the same mantra, can not be described any better than in the picture to the left. Phil Robertson was even banned from his own show, albeit temporarily, while the leader of Iran, who openly states Israel should be destroyed and that the holocaust never happened, was welcomed with open arms. I would say go figure that one out, but it is just standard operating procedure for liberals. The contradictions contained in their philosophy of political correctness abound.

As Americans who love our country, what are we to do about political correctness? We could strive to be like Texas Fred, who refuses to be political correct, no matter the circumstances. Even though it is not the most pleasant thing in the world to always tell the truth about what we see going on in America, is that not what we really need to straighten this mess out? From the politicians, down to the rest of us, we should all stop being political correct. If we do not like something or someone, we should state said dislike, if asked. If we see a problem that is thriving right under our very noses, such as is the case with John Bennett, we should absolutely speak our minds. Not doing so is part of why America is in the shape she is in right now.

Far too many generations have sat silently by and watched America become more and more politically correct. It has not been good for our country. Many of our children no longer have a sense of what is right and what is wrong. We no longer speak out against evil because we are afraid to offend the people who are perpetrating that evil. If we do speak out, many of us are subjected to retaliation by the liberals and their friends in the media. That’s what is happening with the common folk that strive to be all they can be in America. As for the politicians, most of them are too busy making sure they hold onto the amount of power they have by being if office. That’s why so many of them are so politically correct that they are blinded to what is best for the country and the people who elected them to office.

Am I being overly dramatic about political correctness and what it has done, and continues to do, to America? I think not. The America so many of us grew up loving and cherishing is on her death-bed. Her breath is rattling in her throat. And the America I see rising up in her place is not a pretty sight. This strange new world is something I would rather not see.

Share