Greatest Hits: Some Thoughts on Human History, and 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.

Some Thoughts on Human History, and Progressives

Many of you might have noticed that I often put quotations around the word, “progressive.”  Over the last couple of years, I’ve probably wasted a thousand keystrokes doing that, so I might as well explain why.

For the vast majority of human history, mankind has lived in a state of tyranny.  This probably started not long after cave man Ugh realized that his neighbor, Argh was weaker than him, and carried a smaller club.  After Argh’s untimely demise (with the exception of some tribal societies), the course of mankind was set.

As mankind developed from hunter gatherers to simple agrarian societies, to city states, and then empires, a variety of chieftains, kings, dictators, warlords, priests, priestesses, and self declared “gods,” have ruled mankind.  During those  countless ages, the average person lived, or died, at the whim of his or her self-appointed leader.  Economies were controlled, taxes were high, incomes were close to nil, and the average person often died as penniless as they were at birth.  Economies centered on the wealth of the leaders, not on the people, so  pestilence and starvation killed many when it did not need to happen.  There was little to no income distribution.  There was the top class; the leaders and their enforcers, and there were the peasants.  There was not even a hint of equality or justice, just oppressive rule.  (I know that Rome was, for a time, a republic, and some Greeks practiced democracy, but even then, they were a drop in the bucket when compared to the total history of man)

These tyrannical leaders did not tolerate dissent, or even the chance of dissent.  people were tortured, maimed, and executed to insure the power of the ruler(s).  People were killed for treason, heresy, or for simply knowing someone who might have done something.  There was no, “taking to the streets.”  Such events would have been met with lethal force.  Not only that, the entire town in which such a thing occurred might be razed in retaliation.

The leaders during those dark times were said to be wiser, stronger, more suited to rule, and it had been ordained by God that they should have power.  And all the while, excesses and corruption were the order of the day.

However, as the centuries passed, progress-REAL progress, was made.  The Magna Carta established that people have some rights, though it is not as codified as are the rights in our Constitution.   Also, John Locke, among others, formulated the ideas of natural rights and the social contract.

Our Founding Fathers were the next in line for real progress.  They created, in the Unites States Constitution, the greatest charter for human freedom ever devised. They embraced the idea of Natural Rights, in the human freedoms are from God, and that government exists to protect those rights-and cannot take them away.  Humans were protected in their right to free speech, their freedom of religion, their right to defend themselves, their right to property and all the others that we tend to take for granted today.  In our Republic, man rules himself, and government exists only to do those functions that man cannot do for himself, such as national defense, enforcing contracts, establishing courts, coining money, and so forth.  Or at least, that’s is how it’s supposed to be.

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.

However, the forces of tyranny did not rest or concede when true human freedom started to emerge.  The next stages of tyranny were  Communism, followed by the original “progressive movement,” and then Fascism.  All of these are related in terms of the fact that they center power in an elite, that then control all aspects of human behavior.  Their only differences are in process and scope.

The results were horrific.  Over a hundred million people were killed in the name of Communism.  Fascism might have  equaled  that, had they not been stopped by WW II.  The “progressives,” operating in Western Democracies, had to move slowly.  Incrementalism has been their primary operating procedure.  However, they inspired the Nazi’s with their love for eugenics, and were “fellow travelers” with the other two movements.

Over the decades, “progressives,” operating under a variety of labels , have moved through our institutions.  They have used a variety of justifications to give the Federal government more power.  They have taken control of education.  They are in control of the MSM.  They have crafted  regulations  that destroy business and industry.  They created social programs that have encouraged dependency, and then have created economic crisis to fill those programs to unprecedented levels.  They have legalized sexual assault in the name of “security.”  They have also used the created and false crisis of global cooling, global warming, climate change in order to justify the reduction of our lifestyles.  All of this, of course, will be monitored and controlled by the authorities.

Their desire for control extends to all aspects of human life.  Government wants to tell us what kind of food can we eat- even if we can grow our own.  We are told how much water our toilets can use.  The kinds of car we can own-and eventually, even if we can own one is to be determined by unelected  bureaucrats.    What kind of house we can build, the healthcare we can recieve, and a host of others, are all in the crosshairs of the “progressives.”  They even seek to control mass media and the internet to control the free flow of information.  In the end, are we free if the government dictates so many of our basic human functions?

We also see how the “progressives” treat those that disagree with them. Conservative and Libertarian students are threatened and punished on   campuses, where free speech is curtailed, and labeled as “hate.”  Union members and other “progressives” engage in violence and intimidation to silence those that dissent.  The Constitution itself has been declared “outdated,” or “irrelevant.”  The Founders themselves are attacked and discounted.  After all, if we are to be controlled by an all powerful government, the very ideas of freedom have to be attacked, silenced and discredited.

As you can see, “progressives” are not progressive. They are REgressive.  They seek to return us to a state in which we are controlled and dominated by a small elite.  And just as the monarchs of old, they seek the “divine right of kings,” in order to gain and maintain control over us.  Of course, they tell us that it’s for our own good, but they proceed from the faulty premise that they know better than us, and that we cannot self govern.

We were born into a state of freedom.  In terms of human history, this is a rare and precious gift.  Only the tiniest fraction of all humans that have ever lived have enjoyed these freedoms.  If we allow the Regressives to take them away, it might be centuries before they re-emerge, and hundreds of millions will die in the process.

Are we going those freedoms, and the future of mankind, over to a small elite that “knows what’s best?”

Share

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…

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: I’m a democrat; You Owe Me

Share

I’m a Democrat; You Owe Me:  Snarky Basterd took a shot at democrats, and did not miss.

I’m a democrat. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I have my own pile of money, but I want yours, too, including the four pennies you have rattling around in the bottom of that peanut butter jar you frugal idiots like to use as a change holder. Give it up! You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I just say I like the public school system. My kids go to private schools so that your kids can go to public schools and learn how to be good little democrats like me. When my kids grow up and become better members of a collectivist society, and your kids grow up confused, my kids will get government jobs and take more money and freedom from your kids. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I have a job with health insurance, but I think it’s everyone else’s fault when I get sick and have to cut back on my lifestyle so I can pay for health care that should be free, along with cars and houses and big screen TVs. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. There is no god. You can go ahead and get down on your knees and pray to the ceiling for forgiveness and strength and peace, but I’ll be standing right behind you with a tire iron, bashing your skull and stealing your wallet. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I hate people. I would rather sleep with my dog or a cucumber or a tree than with another person…unless I can just dump them on the curb after we’re through. You just have sex to make more people so you can continue to earn more money while you rape the planet. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I love taxes. It’s patriotic…for you…to pay them. I don’t pay any, anyway. And if I have to, I’ve figured out loop holes or have offshore accounts to shelter my money, so the government never really gets too much from me anyway. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. It’s not only my right but also my duty to take freedom and representative republicanism from you, little by little, and replace it with government bureaucracy. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. I’m needy. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I have a $20 million vacation playground on Martha’s Vineyard and a guarded compound in South Chicago and belong to the richest majority in Washington’s history. But I hate rich people who aren’t democrats and want your property too so I can save endangered swamp rats and build turtle tunnels and fix toilets. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. There are more of you than there are of me. You breathe too much. I’ve told the world outlandish lies that you’re causing global warming, using faulty correlations to get everyone so worried they’re about to let me tax thin air. And you’ll breathe a lot less. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I’m an elitist. I’m perfect. I’m not like all of you stupid wingnuts out there working your greedy little fingers to the bone trying to make a little money and feed your family and have something to call successful when you retire. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I live in the city so I can get stupid drunk and piss on the streets when I want and kick your parked car when it gets in my way. It’s too bad that you have all those guns in your humble suburban and country homes. If you didn’t, I’d come and toss you out on your naked ass and make you live in the fetid cities that my government policies screwed up. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I think you hate homosexuals. I have no idea that you just want to be left alone and live your life the way you see fit and not have your children taught with government money that they should seek alternative lifestyles for the fun of it. I just want you to do what I think you should do with your life. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I’m so tolerant I can’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t think the way I do. In fact, I hate white people. I hate all people. I hate myself. I hate myself so much that I hate you even more when you are happy. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I don’t know how to do anything for myself. I need to be told what to do. I don’t think human beings are capable of taking care of themselves. That’s what government is for. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I don’t think any people should have rights. I think fish and frogs and grass should, however, and I want to represent them in court…and you to pay for it. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I’m a child. I act like a child and I think like a child and I live like a child and I throw up my hands and have little fits when I don’t get my way. There should be no consequences for anything I do. But there should be consequences for you, even if you’re blameless in what I accuse you of. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I’m racist but I get others to think that you are racist just because I call you one. It’s a riot to watch you squirm because I know you have a conscience. I do not. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I was born poor or middle class or rich, but it doesn’t matter. I was born black or white or Asian or Latina, but it still doesn’t matter. In fact, it’s Bush’s fault that I was even allowed to be born at all. You owe me.

I’m a democrat. I want health care at your expense, while I’m young and virulent and child-like. But then I want you to kill me when I start to get old and weak and feeble, so that all of my young and virulent and child-like democrat friends can have health care at your expense.

Then I want to come back to life as a rock, so lots of birds can shit on me. They owe me, too, for being a loony moonbat.

Previously posted at Feed Your ADHD.

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

Disaster Area — Any Place Governed By A Democrat

Share

disastrous-dems

 

 

“I think we as a country have to do some soul-searching.” — Barack Obama

“Barack Obama is right – America does indeed have some soul-searching to do, namely regarding the terrible mistake in allowing Mr. Obama to be its president.” — D.W. Ulsterman

But bad as is the current pretender to the throne, it’s not only the man; it’s his Party.  From Vietnam to the Iran hostage crisis to the rise of ISIS; from Watts to Ferguson to Baltimore; from “what the meaning of is, is…” to “you didn’t build that,”  the tax-and-spend, cut-and-run resumes  of Democrats from Lyndon Johnson to Barack Obama chronicle incompetence, malfeasance, and unmitigated disaster enough to make any reasonably sane observer wonder why anyone would continue to vote for such incorrigible jackasses.

jackasses
obama-responds

.

.

.

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

Beer Warfare: Our Progressive Tax System In ‘Beer Summit’ Terms

Share

President Obama has been waging his class warfare ever since he took office in 2008. Of course, he ramped it up just before the 2012 Presidential Election, in anticipation of campaigning against his preferred candidate, Mitt Romney. And with the 2016 elections just around the corner, I thought that it would be a good time to revisit and explain our progressive tax structure in beer summit terms.

beer warfare 001Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers,’ he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beers by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.’

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before and the first four continued to drink for free, but once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got TEN times more than I!”

“That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

beer warfare 003

beer warfare 002

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something very important….they didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.

The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

bucket-beers

Now I don’t know who the original author of this little parable is. It has been floating around the internet for quite some time, in fact I think I have gotten it in various forms in my emails several times.

No matter who first penned it, this piece is quite accurate and it strikes at the heart of progressivism and our very progressive income tax system.

Remember, one of the 10 Planks of Communism as described in Marx’s Communist Manifesto is a “heavy progressive” income tax.

.

.

.

Share

Anti-Semitism Alert: Vienna Crowd Chants ‘Kill, Kill the Jews’

Share

It seems that when you leave regressives alone long enough, the unmask themselves and state their true intentions.  We’ve been saying, for some time, that so much of the current anti-Israel/pro-palestinian is thinly veiled anti-Semitism.  Clearly, the people supported by the regressives have the openly stated purpose of exterminating the Jews.    The unmasking continued in Vienna, when a crowd of tolerance tolerantly called for the tolerant extermination of intolerant Jews.  Legal Insurrection has more…

We saw it throughout Europe in the summer of 2014, as well as in multiple U.S. cities. And we have seen anti-Zionism easily morph into blatant anti-Semitism on many campuses. It’s why in Europe Walking While Jewish is so dangerous.

And it just happened again in Vienna, Austria. The Times of Israel reports:

Bosnian soccer fans joined a pro-Palestinian demonstration in Vienna on Friday and shouted anti-Semitic epithets in one of the city’s central plazas, Austrian newspaper Der Standard reported

A video posted to YouTube shows several dozen pro-Palestinian demonstrators waving Palestinian flags in Stephansplatz and calling “free, free Palestine!”

The Bosnian fans dressed in blue, yellow and white are seen standing among the protesters and joining them in their cries, before setting out on a chant of their own: “Ubij, ubij Židove!” or “Kill, kill the Jews!”

…. A wave of anti-Israeli and often anti-Semitic rallies hit European capitals in the summer of 2014 during the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. The frequent protests, ostensibly calling for an end to Israel’s actions against Palestinians, often devolved into racist demonstrations in which the mob called out anti-Semitic slogans.

But, of course, there will be no mainstream discussion of this.  It doesn’t match the narrative.

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

As American As … Apple Pie??

Share

flashback

 

Setting aside the legal criteria required to hold the office of the President, it doesn’t much matter whether a man was born in Oahu or Lower Slobbovia.  The essence of being American means subscribing to a set of principles on governorship as codified in the U.S. Constitution.  By that measure — which is the only one that really counts — Barack Obama (and by extension, the modern Democratic Party)  is as anti-American as it gets.

.

.

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

Snakes In The White House

Share

obama gets israelCompared to Barack Obama, Benedict Arnold was a rank amateur…

“President Obama has strengthened Israel’s defense in concrete and unprecedented ways …”— White House blog

“They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” — Zbigniew Brzezinski, Former national security advisor to Jimmy Carter

The Bethlehem-based news agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US PresidentBarack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran. Following Obama’s threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran attack. According to Al-Jarida, the Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back. The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran. (Report: Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike)

Related stories:

.

.

 

Share

Rudy And The Red

Share

rudi and the red

 

“Ex-NYC mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s statement that Barack Obama was influenced by communists in his youth and doesn’t love his country isn’t nearly as fascinating as the reaction to it.” Selwyn Duke

“In Obama [the media] see themselves. What he wants to carry out is what they want and they are going to do what they can to make sure these last two years he gets to do just that, the consequences be damned.  So whether it is going after Rudy Giuliani or going after a Congressional staffer for a slight against the Obama daughters, the media is going to be out to defend Obama at all costs. That’s what the palace guard does … ‘They fight for his successes. He cannot fail.’”Jay Caruso

“Was it that what Giuliani said was demonstrably false? Was it that Barack Obama is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty? Anyone who simply looks at the factual evidence as to whether Obama loves America, or does not, will find remarkably little to suggest love and a large amount of evidence, over a long period of years, showing his constant close association with people fiercely hostile to this country.” Thomas Sowell

Does Barack Obama love his country?  I suppose the answer to that depends on which country is actually his.  One thing’s for sure: our national media will never bother to find out.  These ersatz scriveners of ours are as malodorous as an outdoor privy in July.  Instead of determining the veracity of Giuliani’s charges, our domestic dung beetles rush to attack his character, his motives, his very sanity.  This is what passes for mainstream journalism in 21st century America. If you’re looking for investigative reporting (unless you’re investigating a conservative), you’d better look online — and you’d better do it fast.  Because Obama and the Democrats are about to shut down their critics.

Critics of President Obama’s “net neutrality” plan call it ObamaCare for the Internet. That’s unfair to ObamaCare. Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken.(From Internet to Obamanet)

The real problem isn’t with what Giuliani said; it’s that he didn’t say enough.

Related stories:

.

.

Share

Traitor Or Idiot: You Decide

Share

traitor-or-idiot

 

.

.

Share