Someone should inform these elitist idiots that their “non-discrimination” polices are discriminating against Christians because of their religious beliefs:
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Another university bans Christian group from campus for violating “non-discrimination” policies » The Right Scoop -
Monday, October 29, 2012
Over the past few weeks we have begun to see the ultimate unraveling of support for the president, with women and youth fleeing from his side. But what is even more surprising and perhaps unimaginable to the president and his faithful media cult is that he is now also losing members of his normally deemed “untouchable” base of support—poor, inner-city black Americans.
Results show that an overwhelming majority of voters believe that the cause of the federal debt comes from government spending being too high (79%) rather than taxes being too low (15%). This is near universal agreement that government spending is the bigger cause of the debt, with key groups like Independents (83%), Hispanics (73%), women (78%), and middle class voters (80%) in agreement. In looking at which candidate for president would make the United States more competitive in the global economy over the next four years, a majority (51%) say Mitt Romney, while just 44% say Barack Obama.
The presidential election pits an extremist on abortion against a moderate. President Obama, by any honest accounting, is the extremist.
Obama and his party this fall are waging a political culture war, tagging Mitt Romney and his party as scary radicals on abortion and women's issues. But for more than a decade in public office, Obama has fought a legislative culture war, holding abortion in higher regard than freedom of conscience or even basic respect for human dignity.
Obama's abortion record and views are far outside the American mainstream.
New bombshell report says slain SEAL was ordered to stand down in Benghazi consulate attack — EDITORIAL - NYPOST.com
Myriad are the failures of the Obama administration, but none is more tragic, or more frightening, or more foreboding of catastrophe than the appalling mishandling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi.
Details continue to leak, but it’ll be hard to top the bombshell from Fox News at week’s end reporting that repeated urgent requests for military help during the attack were summarily denied — for hours.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Thus has one general been given his walking papers, a system apparatchik been promoted, and yet another lie been woven into the horrible web of lies concerning Benghazi. This is false doctrine being willingly preached by the Secretary of Defense as an attempt to cover the administration. Make no mistake about it. Is there any level to which they will not stoop?
Rude, insulting language about Romney (“bullsh****r) from the president. Vulgar sexual innuendo, aimed at seducing young women to vote for him. The vice president asking a bereaved parent about the size of his murdered son’s testicles. It’s quite a spectacle. We’re a fractious people, and our politics have always been full of colorful language, but I can’t recall the current depth of vulgarity. The “politics of personal destruction” have gotten uglier. Does it mean anything? Should we try to understand it?
First, it bespeaks a coarsening of public language. No surprise there (Romney’s gentlemanlyness is more surprising, in fact); for a long time our movies and television have abandoned the rules that banned certain words and phrases. Still, until recently, our political leaders have avoided such vulgarities, at least in their public rhetoric. No more, at least at the highest level of the current Democrat Party.
Second, it shows the shrinking vocabulary of our political life. There are plenty of usable and powerful synonyms of “buls*****r,” but a graduate of Harvard Law School didn’t have any of them on the tip of his tongue. Or perhaps he just preferred the vulgarity.
Third, it is yet another step in the erasure of the line that once divided public and private. We always knew that there was (sometimes) a big difference between public image and private behavior. No man (except maybe Sir Winston) is a hero to his valet, etc. etc. But still, there were proprieties, rules for public decorum, and those who fell from grace in public were criticized and excoriated for falling. No more, at least so far as I can see among the Democrat faithful.
To be sure, there’s a difference between the two parties. When male Republican candidates make disgusting and ridiculous statements about rape, the faithful turn on them, properly so IMHO, but neither Obama nor Biden has come in for punishment for their use of obscenities and vulgarities.
So the rules for proper decorum are out the window, and the former arbiters of good taste are on board, ratifying the changes by their silence. It’s a shame, but there you have it.
But the arbiters–the intellectuals, the elite punditocracy et. al.–can’t dictate standards to the rest of us, even though they often delude themselves into believing they can. The politicians who indulge in the new nastiness clearly believe it’s fine with us, because they think their elitist friends dictate standards to the rest of us. I think they’re wrong. When only EIGHT PERCENT of Americans have a positive view of the media, it tells you something, after all. And when I read about the sudden 7 percent drop in Obama’s approval ratings in three days, I suspect it has something to do with bulls*****r and losing-your-virginity-is-like-voting-for-Barack ads, and Biden’s disgusting remarks to a bereaved father.
The implication of this are almost too incredible to take in. Let's try to sum it up:
- The president was aware in real time of an organized military assault on our consulate and the nearby CIA annex in Benghazi.
- As the assault was proceeding, the president rejected the urgent requests of the personnel under attack for military assistance that could have stopped the attack on the annex.
- Then, having refused to take action to stop the military assault, he concealed the very fact that this military assault had even occurred, claiming that it was only a spontaneous mob protest against an obscure anti-Islam video on the Web which had gotten out of hand, and, further, that the problem was not organized jihadist enemies in the country we had "liberated," but Islamophobia in the United States.
- He had his administration repeat this false claim for two weeks, only dropping it when the truth came out and the lie was no longer sustainable.
- A month later, he told the bald-faced lie in the second presidential debate that he had not concealed the nature of the attack, because he had said the day after the attack that it was a "terrorist" attack. The media backed him up in this gross lie, and also continued the administration line that the only reason there is any issue here is that the Republicans are seeking partisan advantage from it.
- The Republican presidential nominee at the third debate dropped the issue, allowing the president to get away with his spectacularly dishonest and arguably treasonous behavior.
- Finally, the zombie-like American people, whose only concern is their personal lives and whose entire grasp of politics is that the Republicans are for the rich and the Democrats are for the little guy, are on the verge of re-electing this spectacularly lying and arguably treasonous president.
Emotional Pat Caddell on the MSM ignoring Benghazi: “These people have no honor!” » The Right Scoop -
In a clearly emotional moment, Pat Caddell says he feels outrage and shame for his country after listening to Tyrone Woods family speak out over the handling of the Benghazi attacks by the Obama administration as the way the media is ignoring it. He says they have no honor and repeats his statement that the MSM has become a fundamental threat to American democracy and the enemies of the American people.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Anyway, to get back to Mann, his insisting that he won the Nobel Peace Prize should be a signal to any sensible person that if he exaggerates about something in a public forum where his claim was easily seen through almost at once, he is likely to have a habit of exaggerating in other areas as well, especially in obscure scientific journals where it may be more difficult to determine if he’s exaggerating or not. Accordingly, his science should not be trusted. Since most of us aren’t scientists, we rely on trust, but with people like Michael Mann exaggerating things, we just can’t trust them.
And that should be the end of the story. It won’t be, but it should be.
Yesterday the following was reported by Fox News.
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command — who also told the CIA operators twice to “stand down” rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to “stand down,” according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to “stand down.”
As I listened to Fox News report these new details of the attack my heart sank. These brave men who died in Benghazi deserved better than this from their nation. They deserved a chance to live and could have possibly had that chance if we would have acted. What kind of America knowingly leaves their citizens who are in harm’s way to die? What kind of America buries this report or doesn’t report it at all? What kind of America finds it acceptable that the day after this terrible event the President made a quick speech in the Rose Garden and then hurried off to Las Vegas for a fundraiser? What kind of America permits their President to dodge the media and not answer the hard questions that demand to be asked? What kind of America is ok with the lies spewed by this administration in regards to the cause of these attacks? What kind of America politicizes this event and uses it as a talking point for their political party instead of doing the right thing? What kind of America can still find a way to support this administration after all this? What kind of America have we become?
Yesterday Glenn Beck conveyed how he feels about this. It really moved me and I urge you to check out the below video.
Click here to view the embedded video.
I find myself in the same place as Mr. Beck. I do not recognize an America that would leave these brave souls to die. That’s not who we are as a people. Folks I don’t care if you are liberal or conservative, we deserve better than this. We deserve to know the truth. I’m tired of the smoke and mirrors of this administration. I’m tired of both political parties and their partisan attacks on each other in regards to this event. Some events go beyond partisanship and this is definitely one. This is not about right or left, red or blue state, Republican or Democrat. This is about America and the nation we have become. Have we become a nation that accepts this terrible behavior by this administration as the new norm or do we become a nation that decides integrity and truth must be restored in the highest levels of government? I pray we are the latter.
We will know in 10 days.
Liberty forever, freedom for all.
Suspicious letters questioning voters' legal status and citizenship began arriving in Florida over the past four days with a postmark from Seattle, Wash., accompanying a $.45 stamp. The local letter is supposedly from the Hillsborough Supervisor of Elections Office of Earl Lennard, and from the appropriate supervisor of elections for other recipients around the state.
If one were to try to define liberalism, phrases such as “government oversight”, “anti-big business”, “environmentalists”, “level playing field”, and “entitlement society” would probably come to mind. The progressive agenda relies heavily upon the belief that the government should and must drive an economy from a macro level; and in some cases, a micro level should the need arise. If government serves as the magistrate over business, or actually manages business practices, then fairness and equality is assured for the labor force according to liberal philosophy. This same mentality drove the original union labor movement in the United States, a movement mostly based upon Marxist theory.
Ironically, a person who attempts to define liberalism doesn’t typically identify specific racial, female, or sexual orientation rights. One probably wouldn’t associate liberalism with an agenda rife with illegal worker “rights”, forcing privatized businesses to include birth control in its insurance coverage, or repealing “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.”
Why is it then that many of those who fall into one or more of the categories above identify themselves as Democrats? The Democratic Party has sought to “buy” its way into prominence for generations, having promised easier paths to entitlement programs like food stamps and other forms of public assistance, pandering to any special interest group with a large following promising things like birth control, gun control, the green movement, gay marriage movement, the Occupy Movement and so on. On the outside, the party appears to be inclusive of anyone with an agenda, but we should take a much deeper look at them to understand what it is that Democrats truly desire.
Large and invasive government oversight of the populace means diminishing key Constitutional rights, including property ownership, thereby forcing and moving the population into cities. Once the American people are moved into large metropolitan areas, they will and can be easily controlled. Eminent Domain, or government takeover of private property, has been instituted in various states over the past decade. Government bailouts of private industry, which puts the government in a position of ownership in the company, and bank bailouts that allow the government to limit the amount of money employees can make are all part of the grand scheme.
Increased printing of currency decreases its value, subsequently creating an economic environment of hyper-inflation. The devaluation of currency makes it much easier for the government to impose even more power over a population. We have seen similar events play out in other regions of the world in both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Having demonstrated the goal of the Democrat’s idea of “liberation,” or “liberalism,” one begins to see the painting revealed on the canvass. Catering to certain minority voting groups, even if they have no desire for larger government intervention, is the worst kind of racism and sexism. Propagating particular ideologies in order to garner votes is similar to pork barrel spending, or tacking on additional spending measures to specific unrelated bills assuring their passing, but on a human level. When an individual or group feels slighted and allies itself with an ever-growing support function, in this case a government party, the group grows in size and power.
African-Americans, at heart, are a very conservative group of people. They believe in traditional marriage, are church-going and largely Christian, and yet align themselves with the Democrats who continue down the avenue of race-baiting and promising rights their group already has thanks to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and desegregation laws passed in the 1960’s.
Laws assuring minority rights, including the same pay for the same job, have been on the books for decades. Why then do feminists throw themselves at the feet of the leaders of socialists and communists? Women currently outnumber men in the workplace and in many cases are making more money than their male counterparts.
The Democratic Party has bought votes from minorities, promising much but delivering little over the previous century. A lack of cohesion with no congruent message from the left side is proof positive they don’t care about their constituents, only their votes and numbers. Making it easier for groups of people to access government entitlements, especially in large urban areas, is deplorable and racist. Keeping population centers poor and under-educated is abhorrent behavior and shameful. When a party involves itself in contraception and “family planning”, it is doing nothing more than labeling itself sexist by purchasing those votes. If a leftist president invokes a form of amnesty just prior to an election, paving the way to citizenship by a group of folks largely ignored for almost four years, it is engaged in wholly racist actions. Supporting a group of people who want to bring about “fairness” by increasing taxes and “spreading the wealth around” plays right into the hands of power-grabbing “liberals.”
The work is largely covert and subliminal by the Democrats but has become more and more emboldened by a largely ignorant voting base. Taking time to educate oneself is essential to freedom; allowing your vote to be purchased based upon a special interest is damning.
It is instructive to notice that it greater part of the rudeness, the incivility, the madness in public discourse comes from the Left.
It does not matter whether they are Christian or agnostic or atheist, the socialists cannot hold a civilized conversation or debate.
This is because, ultimately, after one says “eat the rich!” one has nothing to say.
Rep. Elijah Cummings went on the Ed Show last night and told outright lies about the Tea Party group True the Vote. (Full video here) True the Vote is dedicated to election integrity and reviews voter rolls for problems and trains poll watchers. The poll watcher training, just like training used by the federal government, teaches poll watchers how to record information about what happens in the polls. Yesterday, we learned one reason that some people don’t want them in the polls – because they will deter voter fraud.
Friday, October 26, 2012
While American becomes poorer, Lavish spending on White House dinners soars under Obama » The Right Scoop -
“It just kind of takes your breath away to see the expenditure of money that has occurred since 2009,” the official said.
But my question is: why was she ever fooled by Obama in the first place?
This is the mystery to me: the spell Obama wove over bright people who should have known better. I know, I know: he’s a con man (after all, I wrote a piece on that subject myself, three long years ago). And yet, and yet, I just can’t quite wrap my mind around this sort of thing from Noonan, describing Obama’s first debate with Romney [emphasis mine]:
What [Obama] couldn’t do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn’t afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.What was “utterly new” about this? “Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself”? That’s been Obama from day one, has it not?
But that’s what he did.
And in some utterly new way the president was revealed, exposed. All the people whose job it is to surround and explain him, to act as his buffers and protectors—they weren’t there. It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor.
But Noonan, like so many, just didn’t see it. I haven’t read too many of Noonan’s columns, so I don’t know much about the quality of her critical thinking, but as Reagan’s speechwriter she has some creds with me. Of course, speech writing and thinking for oneself are not necessarily synonymous; they require different skill sets. But one would hope they go together, although they probably don’t.
For Noonan, it may be as simple as admiring Obama’s speeches and mistaking them for the man. Since I never saw anything but empty and grandiose platitudes in his speeches, that puzzles me too. But I’m not a speechwriter, and Noonan may have been listening to Obama in admiration with a speechwriter’s ear. Noonan goes on to say:
He is not by any means a stupid man but he has become a boring one; he drones, he is predictable, it’s never new.Well Peg, I hate to tell you, but that happened quite some time ago, too—in fact, some time around 2008. I still don’t have a clue why you failed to notice.
At any rate, she’s noticing now. And she comes to a remarkable conclusion. Quoting an unnamed US senator, Noonan writes:
People back home, he said, sometimes wonder what happened with the president in the debate. The senator said, I paraphrase: I sort of have to tell them that it wasn’t a miscalculation or a weird moment. I tell them: I know him, and that was him. That guy on the stage, that’s the real Obama.Since this “real Obama” has been in evidence from the start, I’ll try to answer the question of why so many people were able to see it during the first debate who (like Noonan) had never seen the “real Obama” before.
Obama’s previous moments of petulance, etc., were short-lived and interspersed with the loftier rhetoric of speeches. There were an awful lot of petulant, arrogant moments, but people didn’t connect the dots because they saw orator-Obama much more often. Remember, also, this is a president who hardly ever gives press conferences, and whose interviews are puff pieces with softball questions, perfect set-ups to allow Obama to pontificate freely and maintain his nice-guy facade of equanimity. The debate with Romney gave viewers a much fuller dose of non-teleprompter Obama than before, and the sight wasn’t a pretty one.
But wait a minute—the 2008 debates four years ago were also a time when, for Obama (as Noonan writes), “It was him on the stage, alone with a competitor,” for the same amount of uninterrupted non-teleprompter time. So why wasn’t the “real Obama” revealed back then? The reason is that John McCain was an enervated competitor, afraid to hit Obama hard, and whose forte had never been debating anyway. Obama was relaxed and supple. Plus, back then Obama had no record to defend; it was all about words, and he could promise almost anything and still be believed.
So during the first debate of 2012 the difference wasn’t just that it was Obama “on the stage, alone with a competitor.” That had happened before. It was that it was “him on the stage, alone with Mitt Romney”—and Obama’s own record.
The contrast between the two men was extraordinary. It was apparently revelatory to people like Noonan, and even to Chris Matthews and other pundits of the left. It wasn’t just that Romney wasn’t the cold, rapacious, heartless capitalist pig that Obama had painted him. It was that he seemed smarter and warmer and more—yes, there’s that word—presidential than the president himself.
When it comes to explaining how their policies would help the poor and the disadvantaged, conservatives can all too often be likened to a football team that drives all the way to the one-yard line and then just kneels down. Rock-solid principles and policies drive them forward, but they fail to take that last extra little step and explain how these policies would help all Americans—especially those at the bottom who most need a hand up and a way out.
And because of this, the left’s grotesque claims that capitalism allows the 1 percent to fleece the 99 percent or that conservatism is a ploy to justify government of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich are left standing.
How exciting and invigorating, then, to see a prominent conservative clearly explain how conservative policies sustain the American Dream for all Americans. Yesterday in Cleveland, Representative Paul Ryan (R–WI) delivered one of the best speeches in recent memory that articulated the conservative vision of an America where prosperity and opportunity flourish and the “engines of upward mobility” are on full throttle.
It’s a must-read for those who want to learn how to make a compelling case for conservatism.
Despite what politicians may preach, regulation actually does a poor job of promoting health and safety compared with the free market.
How Do You Know Barack Obama Is Getting Desperate? | A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days--Pejman Yousefzadeh
Well, resorting to playground insults is a sure sign. Winning campaigns have no need whatsoever to make themselves appear childish and ill-mannered.
a real page-turner.
Adding another wild-card to the 2012 campaign’s final days, a former aide to Vice President Joe Biden has written a tell-all Washington memoir in which he lacerates the former Delaware senator as an “egomaniacal autocrat” who was “determined to manage his staff through fear.”Well, Obama did admit that he can’t do math above a 7th grade level.
The book is hardly an objective study of the vice president, however. Author Jeff Connaughton, a Biden Senate staffer turned lobbyist, is by his own admission deeply disillusioned with the capital and embittered about his experience with the man who inspired him to enter politics.
Connaughton wrote “The Payoff,” which came out last month, in the fashion of guilt-racked whistle-blower: he was a party to a corrupt system and now wants to blow the lid off the game. …
He is harshly critical of his own party and the Obama administration, arguing that the president is no different than most other Washington Democrats in his willingness to kowtow to Wall Street.
President Obama and Biden, he writes, are “both financially illiterate.”
“The Payoff” is every bit the cri de coeur of a man who, as he writes, is “willing to burn every bridge” in order to indict the transactional Washington lobbying and political culture. (Read More)
Update: Speaking of Biden, he’s going to be in Oshkosh, WI today. Yesterday one of the areas largest employers laid off 450 workers thanks to the upcoming defense cuts.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Are There Enough Adult Votes Among Independents to Defeat Obama?
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Read on for more lovely alleged examples of the DOE’s egregious “business culture” (for lack of a better term), and while these still fall into the category of “alleged,” it shouldn’t come as any shock that — gasp — big-government bureaucracies tend to engender this type of corruption and inefficiency on the regular. Public-sector workers enjoy the benefits of more comfy, protective, and sluggish mechanisms than you often find in the private sector, not to mention the seemingly limitless backing of the faceless taxpayer. These types of episodes become more and more rampant as bureaucracies grow, as the tangled webs of bureaucratic inefficiencies pile one atop another without the pesky intrusion of free-market competition to spur them along — and it’s even less surprising in a department that is as immune from economic reality in practice as it is in principle. Too much of the DOE’s daily business consists of trying to distort free-market signals, and now we find that the department itself may be as faulty as the ends it spends our money trying to achieve. Bravo, guys.
The decisions it produces are only as good as the quality of the average voter -- and now that the voter base is on average very poorly educated the decision-making must suffer in quality. With tens of millions of voters illiterate or barely literate, America is headed in the direction of Brazil
Post the final debate, The Boston Herald endorses Mitt Romney for president:
Four years ago the voters put their faith in a man who offered vague promises of hope and change at a time when any change looked like a good idea and hope was in short supply.
What this nation got in Barack Obama was a president who used an economic crisis to further his redistributionist agenda -- and, not surprisingly, failed miserably at restoring American prosperity. Oh, he brought change all right -- to a government-knows-best philosophy that has given us four years of high unemployment, higher gas prices, a $16 trillion deficit, and a job-killing regulatory environment.
And this nation that was once a shining beacon to those around the globe who love liberty, who knew that these United States could be counted on to defend its friends and keep a watchful eye on its enemies, has been relegated by this president to "leading from behind."
Enough! This isn't the kind of change anyone can believe in. As for hope -- well, it went out the window a long time ago. Don't take our word for it, just ask the more than 4 million people who have given up even looking for work.
The simple fact is that this nation can't afford four more years of Barack Obama, four more years of his divisive class warfare rhetoric, four more years of his Chicago-style eco-cronyism and four more years of an administration that will lie and obfuscate -- even about the death of a U.S. ambassador -- to save its sorry hide.Read the whole thing here.
Monday, October 22, 2012
There’s a certain amount of hypocrisy about this charge. The same Times column that accuses Romney and the Republicans of buying the election observes that last time around, Barack Obama raised $750 million against Senator John McCain’s expenditure of about $84 million. I don’t recall a lot of Democrats the morning after the 2008 election complaining that Barack Obama or his donors had purchased the presidency.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Paradigms and Demographics: Environmentalism's True Driving Force and Ultimate Goal: Mankind’s Demise!
The green movement is irrational, misanthropic . There is no pleasing them; there is no reasoning with them; there is no way we can accept them. Environmentalism has morphed into a secular religion that worships nature and is willing to sacrifice all humanity to their goddess....Earth. There is no difference between the pagan Druids and these neo-pagan greenies. We really do need to get that...and this video makes clear what it is they really want. Can anyone really espouse such views and still be sane?
Friday, October 19, 2012
There is nothing new about crass provocation being passed off as art. What is new, and perilous, is the notion that it has become government’s place to condemn free expression, and based not on community standards of decency but on the political tastes of government officials. Government’s only proper role here is to protect the right to provoke. When government’s coercive power is put in the service of the heckler’s veto, when it becomes the “ad hoc nullification machine” by which corrupt officials smother constitutional protections that inconvenience their cronies, then that government is no longer legitimate.
It is not enough to reject Obama’s lies. It is essential to reject the premise of his lies. In our society, we get to say unkind things about icons, just as we get to speak vigorously in their defense. It is for us, the sovereign people, to weigh the merits of these competing claims without government’s meddling thumb on the scale. That is a big part of what makes Western civilization civilized.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
James Simpson, Capital Research Center, September 25, 2012
Summary: The Southern Poverty Law Center began with an admirable purpose but long ago transformed into a machine for raising money and launching left-wing political attacks. Lately it’s become more of a threat to free speech and civil debate than a defender of the weak or a foe of violent extremism. It has also taken in millions from the Picower Foundation, whose own funds came largely from founder Jeffry Picower’s “investing” in his old friend Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme.
On August 15, 2012, an angry gay rights activist named Floyd Corkins stormed the Family Research Council’s Washington, D.C. headquarters and began shooting. Corkins shot a brave security guard in the arm, but the guard still managed to wrestle him to the ground before he could kill or injure others.
Corkins was carrying 50 bullets and two loaded magazines for his 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol; 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches; and the address of another potential target, the Traditional Values Coalition. Before initiating his shooting spree, Corkins reportedly said, “I don’t like your politics.”
Reacting to the shooting, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins stated: “Corkins was given a license to shoot an unarmed man by organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center that have been reckless in labeling organizations as hate groups because they disagree with them on public policy.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a wealthy, well-connected, organized attack machine of the extreme political Left. It shares strategies, goals, and tactics with other similar organizations and colludes with them in campaigns of defamation, disinformation and legal threats to silence and/or criminalize political opponents.
The SPLC has unjustifiably secured itself a position of influence within our government and society. Its very presence threatens our freedoms and First Amendment rights. It abuses our system of justice, while hiding behind a Constitution for which it has little respect.
[Editor’s Note: The full report is available at the original article link below.]
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
That is the driving force of leftist thought…..mediocrity and consensus and ignorance. Dennis Prager talked about this idea of French children having no homework via government edict on his show yesterday and asked (and I am paraphrasing) what is the real purpose behind this? What is the thing that all leftists desire about all else? Equality! Not an equal opportunity to try….but equal outcomes. Since in some homes parents will put time into helping their children with their homework and others don’t or can’t, some kids will excel over others. And of course every leftist will cry; “that isn’t fair!” So what is the solution according to the left? Impose mediocrity! As for fair; so who wrote the book of fair? No one! But if it existed, who would decide what went in that book; Hollende, the socialist President of France and his mob? There is another component to all of this not mentioned. Ignorance! As long as humanity can be kept ignorant they are far more compliant and gullible.
How do idiots who promote this come into power? When I look at the world I see imbeciles in charge everywhere! How did this happen? Looking back at post WWI Europe we can see how this happens. WWI was devastating to Europe. Economically as well as socially! Nothing was ever the same again and the people of France, England and most of Europe would do anything to avoid another war. Everywhere except Germany. Why?
The economy after the war had a boom and then bust period. The U.S. was going through the Great Depression. The Versailles Treaty was so punitive that it made economic recovery in Germany extremely hard, and when you consider that the world was facing hard economic times it became harder. There was another thing that happened between the signing of the armistice and the Treaty of Versailles. Germany remained blockaded by the allies for that 18 month period. Thousands starved to death as a result. I know the arguments about how they deserved it since they started the war and as a result millions died. But right, wrong or indifferent, this was an underlying emotion among the Germans that the rest of Europe didn’t have. They were being unjustly deprived ! Fertile emotional ground to plant irrational views through demagoguery! It was the economy that brought so many incredibly evil people to power. They wanted their "fair share".
James Carville’s line during Clinton’s run for the Presidency was; “It’s The Economy Stupid!” That is the whole story in four words. The left cannot exist unless it can scare everyone. The left can’t move everyone unless they get them to believe they have been cheated and deprived by the wealthy and powerful, creating a movement of class warfare. The left can’t get control unless they promise utopia; especially an unearned utopia. A utopia others must pay for because it is “your right”! The left can’t do any of this as long as some can excel, which requires imposed mediocrity. The left can’t do any of this unless there is consensus that everyone should be exactly the same. The left can’t do any of this unless people are ignorant.
Over the decades there are two things that should have been noticed. The left is unrelenting in promoting, and imposing their views on the world. The right is content to let people live their lives as they see fit as long as they leave others alone.
The left has a vision. It is a vision that says that if they are in charge they can deliver utopia via central planning. The fact that everywhere in the world where their concepts held sway they delivered dystopia is ignored. Yet they keep making the same accusations, claims and demands as they have always done.
The left dominates the education systems. They have dumbed down humanity, as a result ignorance has made it easier to get a consensus that the wealthy are unworthy and need to pay “their fair share” of their wealth via taxation. In spite of the fact that this doesn’t work to make the rest better off, since it destroys nations. How do they get away with this? Ignorance, consensus and mediocrity!
The right has no vision at all. They feel that people should live their lives as they see fit and there is no need to promote that which should be obvious. Work hard, live right and reap the rewards. That is their disadvantage.
The right merely wants the universities to equip students with the tools necessary for success. The left desires to equip students with a philosophy that says the right is evil, capitalism is evil, white people are all racists, and modern society is destroying the world, and they all owe someone something for their actions, and will tolerate no dissention among educators. Ergo, the left leaves them demanding utopia and punishment for all these supposed wrong doers. All promoted by the axis of evil; leftists (progressives, liberals and socialists, etc.), the media and academia. And they get the pubic to fund it all.
And that is how imbeciles come to power; no homework!
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
The war in Afghanistan was lost because it became a kindergarten with guns, a social welfare agency with heavy artillery that couldn't be used in the proximity of civilians. And it was run by the same type of people who turned domestic urban centers into hellholes by pandering to criminals while making it impossible for law enforcement to do their job.
Don't think of Afghanistan as a distant country. Think of it as New York in the 80s. Think of it as Detroit or Chicago. Think of all the social workers constantly shouting about justice and demanding an end to police brutality. Think of the lawyers helping grinning thugs out of prison. Think of the slimy pols pressing the flesh with neighborhood gang leaders and paying homage to them. That's what happened in Afghanistan.
By Howard Rich — “Buy now, pay never.”
That’s the modus operandi of government at all levels, where a “high time” spending preference continues to flood our nation with a rising tide of red ink. “High time” spending — or the ongoing accumulation of present and future deficits to fund new entitlement promises — has reached epidemic proportions, and both major parties are guilty of fueling this worsening addiction.
What’s the solution? Obviously trusting politicians to implement even modest spending reforms is an exercise in futility. So if the politicians refuse to change, we must change them via mandatory rotation in office — or term limits. Otherwise the cycle will never be broken.
Here’s how “high time” works: To ensure their own reelection, politicians of both parties (and their appointed bureaucrats) will give a majority of voters whatever they want now without any regard whatsoever for the future fiscal consequences of their actions. And once a new program or benefit is established — it is virtually impossible to scale it back or eliminate it.
Education? Retirement? Affordable housing? Prescription drugs? Health care? There’s an entitlement for almost everything these days — an ongoing expansion that’s not only bankrupting future generations of taxpayers but perverting the proper role of government in the process. Thanks to our politicians’ perpetual promise making, the public debt has exploded (from 56.6 percent of GDP in 2011 to more than 105 percent of GDP today) while unfunded liabilities continue to soar (to more than $116 trillion).
This growth is no longer merely unsustainable — it’s downright insane. Yet nothing is being done to address it in Washington, D.C. or in state capitals across the country (see California and Illinois for two case studies of “high time” spending at the state level).
Even more problematic, this unprecedented escalation of unfunded promises is fundamentally eroding the very foundation of our nation – simultaneously incentivizing dependency and stifling productivity. With each new handout (welfare or corporate), government empowers the “takers” in our economy while placing a greater burden on the “makers” — simultaneously digging our hole even deeper while sapping us of the strength we’ll need to climb out of it.
This failure to rein in government growth in the face of an impending societal default has prompted the phrase “kicking the can down the road,” which voters hear ad nauseam on the campaign trail by candidates who (surprise) immediately start kicking the can down the road themselves once they’ve been elected.
Why can’t these “reformers” ever change anything? That’s easy: Because going along with this “high time” mentality has its rewards. With each round of new promises, upwardly mobile politicians receive key subcommittee assignments and chairmanships, and then key committee assignments and chairmanships — and eventually higher offices. Elected officials who don’t play by the “rules?” They get sent home.
This is why term limits is such an essential reform.
“The only way to permanently reform Washington and discourage corruption is to pass a term limits amendment to the Constitution,” says U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). “Our founding fathers warned us about creating a class of career politicians who amass personal power instead of fighting for the people they are supposed to represent.”
Indeed we were warned. Thomas Jefferson was an ardent proponent of term limits, deeming such reform necessary to “prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom” by politicians “continuing too long in office.” Similarly George Mason believed “nothing is so essential to the preservation of a republican government as a periodical rotation,” arguing that “nothing so strongly impels a man to regard the interest of his constituents as the certainty of returning to the general mass of the people, from whence he was taken, where he must participate in their burdens.”
Today, the people’s burden has reached truly startling dimensions — which is why our nation’s political class needs to start experiencing it firsthand as opposed to profiting from its incessant expansion.
According to recent polling data nearly three out of four Americans are in favor of term limits – a level of support that has remained constant for decades. What are our politicians waiting for? Either we heed the vox populi on this long-overdue reform or our “high time” addiction will exceed terminal velocity — if it hasn’t already.
The author is chairman of Americans for Limited Government.
When it comes to power, density is the key. Energy density. The reason that solar power, wind power, and ethanol are so expensive is that they are derived from very diffuse energy sources. It takes a lot of energy collectors such as solar cells, wind turbines, or corn stalks covering many square miles of land to produce the same amount of power that traditional coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants can on just a few acres.
Each of these alternative energy sources is based on mature technology. Agriculture and fermentation have their roots in prehistory, windmills date back at least to 65 B.C., the photovoltaic effect was discovered in 1839. Yet nowhere in the world are these technologies serving as primary energy sources without significant government subsidies.
The market, a collection of buyers and sellers acting on local knowledge and with their own dollars at stake, is many times “smarter” than are outside observers. The burden of proof is on those who, ignoring a long history of government failure, claim that market failure creates great opportunities for social gain via government coercion.
In the case of energy, ‘buyer beware’ applies to the pro-energy transformationists who claim, time and again, decades apart, that harnessing intermittent, dilute energy merits the public dollar.
History shows otherwise. And it all gets back to basic physics.
A new generation of young Frenchmen declare war against the multiculturalist, socialist, pro-Muslim, anti-white French regime
(But couldn't the males have shaved, so that they wouldn't look like your typical discontented messy leftists? And one of the females has metal studs in her lips. Once again we see how even right-wing racial nationalists are wedded to the motifs of the dominant leftist culture against which they are declaring war.)
Here is a transcript of the video, which I've adopted and re-formatted from the transcript at Gates of Vienna:
We are Génération Identitaire.
We are the generation who get killed for glancing at the wrong person, for refusing someone a cigarette, or having an "attitude" that annoys someone.
We are the generation of ethnic fracture, total failure of coexistence, and forced mixing of the races.
We are the generation doubly punished, condemned to pay into a social system so generous with strangers it becomes unsustainable for our own people.
The stunning post-debate reversal in Mitt Romney’s fortunes may not last through the elections. But win or lose, he’ll do the country a big favor if he continues to expose the Independent Payment Advisory Board—the beloved center-piece of Obamacare—for what it is: An effort to give an unelected and unconstitutional board of bureaucrats sweeping powers to determine whether grandma gets her bypass surgery from Medicare, or a boot off the cliff.
Monday, October 15, 2012
The Muslim immigration invasion is surging in Europe, even as multiculturalism has proven to be an abject failure. Mass immigration, instead of assimilation, has resulted in reverse colonization of Europe. Only this time, the colonizers don’t benefit the host country, they suck it dry with welfare parasites and criminals.
Filip Dewinter describes how Muslim immigrants in a few years will become the majority population in several cities, which means more crime, more poverty and more unemployment. The tidal wave of Muslim immigration is costing the citizens of Belgium a lot of money: 1.500 euros per year per family. And it must be stopped!
Instapundit » Blog Archive » THE TEA PARTY WILL WIN IN THE END: It’s official: Frank Rich at New York Magazine admits it. “Th…
“This is a nation that loathes government and always has. Liberals should not be deluded: The Goldwater revolution will ultimately triumph, regardless of what happens in November.” Let’s hope Americans do remember their constitutional roots and why big government is to be feared and loathed. The tea party is alive and well.
If the Auto Bailout Was a Success, I’d Hate to See What a Failure Looks Like « International Liberty
Sometimes it’s no fun to be an economist. Or, to be more specific, it’s rather frustrating to understand Bastiat’s insight about the “seen” and the “unseen” and to always be asking “at what cost?” and “to what effect?” when politicians make inane statements.
The GM bailout is a good example. Politicians want us to believe that it was a success because the company is still in business. Heck, the Vice President’s favorite campaign statement is that “Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive“
But if you’re the type of person who recognizes the importance of tradeoffs and incentives, then it’s easy to see how a political success can be an economic failure. Which is the message of this new video from the Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation.This is music to my ears. I’ve been saying for years that any company can be kept afloat indefinitely with taxpayers subsidies. So if that’s the definition of success, we can party until we hit the fiscal brick wall. But that wall won’t feel good, as we can see from the fiscal chaos in Greece and other European welfare states.
But this issue involves more than just inefficient subsidies. I’m also concerned about the corruption that inevitably exists when cronyism replaces capitalism.
It’s quite likely, after all, that GM is spending lots of money on the Chevy Volt because of pressure from Washington rather than demand from consumers. And when you have a car company executive endorsing higher gas taxes, it’s reasonable to think that he’s currying favor with the political masters in DC rather than looking out for the best interests of drivers.
The GM bailout may be a win-win situation for politicians and lobbyists, but it’s a lose-lose proposition for taxpayers and the economy.
P.S. If you want some auto bailout humor, here’s a spoof on the Chevy Volt, an advertisement for the new GM Obummer, a couple of good political cartoons, and a very funny video on the Pelosi GTxi SS/RT.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Doug Ross @ Journal: BOOM: Gold Standard of Temperature Data Proves Earth Is Cooling In Spite of Dramatic Increases in CO2
In a curious semi-coincidence, the invaluable Anthony Watts relays word that over 2000 new low temperature records were set in October.
In the continental USA, there were 137 high temperature type records versus 857 low temperature type records this past week , a 6-1 difference. Last week there were 1154 low temperature type records putting the two week total for October at 2011. There were also 24 new snowfall records set this week in the upper plains.
Once again, if this had been summer, and the numbers reversed, you’d see Seth Borenstein writing articles for AP telling us this is ‘what global warming looks like’. So far not a peep out of Seth on this cold wave and what it is supposed to mean.
But nothing -- not facts, logic, reason or science -- can dissuade the Eco-Statists from their plans to de-industrialize American. Or the hacks at the Dissociative Press and the rest of antique media from spreading their destructive lies.
Which is why we need to flush the Democrat Party from office in November -- at every level of government.
In the face of the worst drought in decades, record high gasoline and diesel prices, and the fact that biofuels producers have yet to place a single gallon of cellulosic ethanol into U.S. fuel markets, a large number of Governors, members of Congress and stakeholders havecalled for either the repeal of the federal Renewable Fuel Standard or major reforms to the program. Support for an overhaul of the RFS program has come from all corners of the political debate, including Republican legislators (such as U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe, R-OK), Democratic legislators (like U.S. Senator Chris Coons, D-DE), refiners, agricultural stakeholders and even some environmental groups.
However, the fact that these environmental groups are publically calling for reforms to the RFS program does not stem from their concerns about fuel prices or recognition that government programs cannot force the creation or sales of products into markets when they are not ready for commercialization. Unfortunately, some of these groups are attempting to use the debate to replace one costly and inefficient program with one that is even worse – a national Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS).
As discussed in several recent studies on LCFS, rationing traditional fuel supplies to meet the LCFS requirements will more than double gasoline prices and hammer the economy. One study, conducted by Charles Rivers Associates in 2010 found that a federal LCFS, such as the one pushed by the National LCFS Project, would raise gasoline prices by up to 180 percent over 10 years, eliminate up to 4.5 million jobs and reduce household purchasing power by up to $2,400 for the average family.
There is no question that the Renewable Fuel Standard has had many unintended consequences, which helps explain why we are entering into a significant national dialogue on the future of the program. However, replacing it with a Low Carbon Fuel Standard with its many intended consequences is hardly a step in the right direction for American drivers.
California is broke, its system of government is broken, and the infernal alliance of Democrats and public sector unions are the primary culprits.
It's hard to imagine how it gets fixed without a complete collapse and a reboot from scratch.
Public education has been a slowly degenerating disaster throughout the West, and now it seems we're exporting it to the rest.
Finally, buried deep in the report is the most telling number of all: In the last year the number of "first" births dropped to the lowest level ever recorded in America. What does that mean? It means that we're slowly bifurcating into a country where there are two kinds of adults: people who have children, and people who do not. The people who have children are inclined to have seconds and thirds. But for the first time in our nation's history, we're growing a sizable cohort of adults who remain childless their entire lives.
And a sea change like that never happens without consequences.
If you search below the masthead for "Afghanistan," you will find many posts related to my frustration with the conduct of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. Unlike many, I don't have a problem going after anyone connected with the 9/11/01 attack on the U.S. What I do have a problem with is the blatant misuse of the military sent into Afghanistan.Harry D. Tunnell, IV; Col. US Army is a controversial figure. He espouses the same approach to fighting against al Qaeda and the Taliban that I have: strike and destroy. Nothing about nation building. Nothing about avoiding casualties among civilians who harbor and support them. Nothing about respecting their religious beliefs. Strike and destroy... and move on. If they return... strike and destroy and move on again. Become the Satan that they fear and respect and avoid at all costs.
This comes via Wheat and Weeds and presents the case that the U.S. military leadership has pursued a flawed strategy with complete disregard for the lives of American soldiers.
War is not about being a Christian and turning the other cheek. It is about the destruction of those who would destroy us. Those who talk about taking the "moral high ground" are delusional. There is no "moral" once a war has started. There was no "moral" when Japan was bombed into submission. There was no "moral" when Germany was bombed into submission.
Nothing about dying for the illusion of a "moral high ground." Let the politicians agonize between "moral" and war. Soldiers should have to concern themselves only with strike and destroy... or don't send them into the fray.
Col. Tunnell has no patience for fanciful strategies that simply do not work and jeopardize his soldiers. At the same time, he creates fierce loyalty or fierce opposition among is contemporaries.
Too often what are called "educated" people are simply people who have been sheltered from reality for years in ivy-covered buildings. Those whose whole careers have been spent in ivy-covered buildings, insulated by tenure, can remain adolescents on into their golden retirement years.-Thomas Sowell
The very right that laid the foundation for Western civilization is increasingly viewed as a nuisance, if not a threat. Whether speech is deemed imflammatory or hateful or discriminatory or simply false, society is denying speech rights in the name of tolerance, enforcing mutual respect through categorical censorship.
As in a troubled marriage, the West seems to be falling out of love with free speech. Unable to divorce ourselves from this defining right, we take refuge instead in an awkward and forced silence.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Joe Biden showed us just why Washington isn’t working, why politics has become so nasty, why stalemate is the order of the day: The Obama administration have contempt of anyone who respectfully offers ideas that challenge theirs -- or would challenge them if given even the slightest consideration.
That is what is important about what the ever-loyal New York Times describes as Vice President Biden’s “wide grin and aggressive demeanor” -- to be fair, they do mention “smirking” -- and Republicans see as rudeness, which is too mild a word for this occasion. Biden’s demeanor and his treatment of “my friend” Paul Ryan tell us why we are careening towards the fiscal cliff. Politics may not be beanbag -- the all-purpose excuse for television ads that skirt the truth and border on character assassination -- but neither is it supposed to be beanball, in which you behave in a way that prompts retaliation rather than reconciliation of competing views.
Biden showed that Democrats not only disagree with the Romney-Ryan views of the role of government in domestic and foreign affairs: They have utter contempt for such views, cannot even conceive of the possibility that the other side has a credible point of view, one that warrants thoughtful consideration and response rather than derision. That’s one reason President Obama did so poorly in the Denver debate: Certainty of his own virtue and wisdom relieves him of the necessity of considering the merit in the arguments of political opponents, and the structure of the White House shields him from criticism.
Follow the link - read the whole article.
You were right on the mark with your assessment of the GOP's failure to confront the cause behind the Biden Smile:LA replies:
[T]he Republicans lack the wit, the steel, and, most importantly, the non-liberal principles to identify this totalitarian-style manipulation for what it is and put the Democrats on the defensive over it. To challenge it, would be to challenge America's ruler--liberalism--and that is what the Republicans will never do.If you could do so, what would you have advised Ryan to say in reaction to that smarmy and arrogant liberal condescension we conservatives have all encountered when debating liberals?
I would have had him say something like this:
Vice President Biden by his shockingly rude behavior while I am speaking is revealing what Democrats really believe about Republicans. The Democrats pretend to believe in democracy and free speech and civil discourse, but what they really believe is that no position different from their own has any legitimacy or should be allowed in our political system. What they really believe is that Republicans are bigoted, racist, oppressive white men, faith-based crazies, ignorant people who are (as Barack Obama put it in 2008) bitterly clinging to the guns and Bibles out of fear of everyone different from themselves. They believe that nothing Republicans or conservatives say is based in reason and good faith, but rather is a front for racial and sexual bigotry and economic oppression, and therefore all conservatives, all those who dissent from left-liberalism, are illegitimate and should be silenced.
I have written many posts about how to recognize a Leftist in the wild or whom I mean by the word ‘Leftist’, but I will give a brief summation here. Because it is a brief summation, it is sadly inaccurate.
The Left is a coalition rather than an organization, by which I mean, there is no one center, no single guiding principle except their opposition God, to reason, to reality, most particularly to the realities of economics.
No one Leftist believes all parts of the Leftist doctrine because no one can or would. They pick and choose. What they are picking and choosing is which part of reality they want to deny.
Second, they are emotional rather than logical, a rude collection of feelings and moods rather than a coherent philosophy which makes statements against which one can argue. Like a squid, their thought has no shape, and, like a squid, defends itself by belching out ink clouds of obscuration.
Theologically, they are atheist and agnostic, or at least laiacist. They deny God.
In Metaphysics, they are nihilist. They deny the truth that truth exists.
In Epistemology, they are subjectivists and (ironically) empiricists. They will at the same time say that all truth is determined by scientific method and only by that, and that all truth is what you make of it.
In Ontology, they are materialists. They think the mind is an epiphenomenon, and the spirit a fairy tale.
In Logic, they are polylogists. They believe each race and level of evolution has its own logical rules, and that they rules are optional or subjective. “A is A” for you and not for me.
In Aesthetics, they are devoted to destroying the idea and ideal of beauty wheresoever found. They are both subjectivists, saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and vandals, saying that the purpose of art is to shock and disturb and make the world uglier, so that man will have no more taste or eye for beauty.
In Ethics, they are Gnostics. Whatever we call good, they call evil, and whatever we call evil, they call good. A bewildering variety of excuses, none of which they actually can believe, are used to explain or explain away this inversion, including the idea that men have no free will therefore no one can blame or judge another’s actions (when discussing homosex, for example) and including the idea that men are responsible not only for their actions but for symbolic and remote repercussions of their actions (when discussing racism, for example). Freud is particularly useful here, for the guilty can be declared innocent by reason of their inability to control their unconscious mind (when discussing homosex, for example) and the innocent can be declared guilty by reason of the ungood thoughts and motives of which the accused is himself unaware, albeit responsible (when discussing racism, for example).
This principle of inversion reaches every aspect of their moral code: women are most liberated when they are infertile and masculine; men when they are asexual or feminine; animals when they are given human rights; humans when they are treated like animals; children should be treated like adults; adults like children. The traditional notion of freedom as a liberation from whatever prevents you from achieving your own inner nature is overturned. Traditionally, freedom fulfills nature. In its place is the notion that freedom is liberation from your nature. For the Left, freedom destroys nature.
In Politics, they are totalitarian, recognizing no real or defined limits on legitimate government power. Some play greater or lesser lip service to certain civil rights, but these are regarded as granted by and protected by the government, revocable in the name of the greater good when convenient.
In Economics, they are socialist. Even those who are not openly communist, tacitly or actively accept the axioms and basic themes of the Marxist analysis of history as an endless Darwinian struggle between oppressor and oppressed.
In Semantics, they are Politically Correct. Words have no meaning, only utility. For them there is no difference between a right word and a wrong word, a truth or a lie, merely the authenticity (by which they mean emotional impact) of a word or phrase, and how well it serves the party.
In they psychological stance, they are sadists. Their rhetoric and the emotional images used to appeal to their base are all images of retaliation, of inflicting pain, and their argument consists of nothing but ad hominem and character assassination. They do not love ideas, like philosophers, they hate people, like misanthropists. This is all the more ironic since they claim to love people.
Even the most kindhearted Leftist I have ever met has this streak of sadism in her: she speaks of Reagan as a devil, and sneers at Palin, and I have never heard her speak a harsh word about anyone else, ever, ever.
In their psychopathology, they are suicidal. In any conflict, they side with whoever or whatever will inflict harm on their true enemy, which includes any father figure or authority figure placed over them. Where man conflicts with the environment, they side against man, and daydream about a world denuded of mankind. Where civilization confronts barbarism, they side with the barbarians, either Soviet or Jihadist.
This is a side effect of a simple strategy they have for achieving an appearance of moral righteousness without the substance: they merely side with the wrong. Why they think this makes them morally superior rather than morally retarded is a topic for another day. Sufficient for now to say this is a recurring theme.
Emotionally, they are sophomoric and infantile. They hate with a self righteous and condescending hatred anyone opposes them. The idea of chivalry, of an honest admiration for a rival, is alien to them. Everything is a crisis. Everything is a crusade.
They do not disagree. They abhor. They do not argue against. They shriek. When not shrieking, they sneer. Condescension is their central leitmotif.
In sum, the Left has toppled God from His throne and erected Caesar in His place. They are state-worshipers.
Again, not every Leftist believes all these points for no one could. Each accepts several and is at least neutral toward the rest.
However, as she has done in numerous appearance promoting her book, Coulter instead broadly spoke about how she believes liberals have invented and pushed racial inequalities in modern society.
“Real racism was over, but racial demagoguery became huge as liberals started fighting ghosts, because they were AWOL during the real civil rights battle,” Coulter said.
He said that the Justice Department refuses to properly enforce the laws or investigate the irregularities. “This Justice Department is no longer a Justice Department. It is the Ministry of Propaganda,” he said. And he pointed out that the current occupant of the White House used to be a lawyer for ACORN, the community organizing group infamous for its well-documented history of fraudulent voter registration tactics.
"The evidence to date – such as it is – suggests that many, perhaps most, social programs do not make a difference, except to the legions of administrators and social workers who are directly and indirectly employed in delivering them.
This is not a conservative conclusion. It is the conclusion of independent groups such as the Brookings Institution (a non-partisan think tank) and the Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy, which are part of a growing movement to make social spending more accountable."
Doug Ross @ Journal: CHARTERS CRUSH UNION-CONTROLLED SCHOOLS IN CHICAGO: The ludicrous kook Karen Lewis hardest hit
As if you needed more proof -- aside from parents begging to get their kids into charter schools -- that teachers unions are destroying public education, please consider this report from Illinois Policy:
Friday, October 12, 2012
To govern at all, the Democratic party must escape the stranglehold of the public-sector unions, which are among its greatest supporters. This is no small problem, nor is it merely a question of political strategy; it’s at the heart of the crisis in American politics and finance. Emanuel and other Democratic mayors and governors are beginning to realize this, even if their national counterparts are a bit slow on the uptake.
FORTY YEARS OF DRUG-WAR FAILURE IN A SINGLE CHART.
Be afraid. Be very afraid. The America of 2012 is not the America of 2008. If Barack Obama wins this election, the America of 2016 will resemble the beaten and bankrupt countries of Western Europe more than it will the America we grew up in. This isn’t Chicken Little speaking. Take a hard look at the trends, and then drop everything else you had in mind for the next four weeks, and make sure everyone you know votes for Romney-Ryan. We have one last chance to save the republic.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Occupy Wall Street’s emergence last fall was billed as the Left’s answer to the Tea Party’s right-wing populism. Barely a year on, the former is dead and buried, while the latter, nearly two years older, is going strong. It’s doing particularly well in Kansas, where the Financial Times reports that its candidates are poised to push aside moderate Republicans and take over the state house in November’s elections. Along with governor Sam Brownback, these new candidates would give Kansas the most conservative government in the nation.
Conservative groups in the state are already preparing a host of radical changes:
Nine moderate Republicans were ousted from the ballot, replaced by conservative Republicans backed by the governor, Sam Brownback, a former US Senator and presidential candidate. Mr Brownback’s victory fused grassroots energy and the financial mass of David and Charles Koch, the heads of Wichita-based Koch Industries and big donors to rightwing causes.If these elections turn out as observers expect, Kansas will become a laboratory for Tea Party policy. Tax cuts, government restructuring, and new education initiatives are already being discussed in Tea Party circles, and they are likely to be part of the new Kansas program. Other issues important to social conservatives like abortion will also be addressed.
The candidates are expected to clobber any Democratic opposition in November and take their senate seats in January. In contrast to the deposed nine, who contributed to a 22-strong moderate majority in the 40-member senate, the new group is expected to champion Mr Brownback’s proposals to eliminate the state income tax and introduce new restrictions on abortion.
Via Meadia will be watching Kansas after the election to get some idea where the Tea Party would like to take the United States. We will also be looking to see how well these first experimental policy steps really work. And we certainly won’t be the only ones; other states and governors will be paying close attention to what happens in Kansas. If these experiments work, many of these changes may soon go national.