Monday, August 31, 2009


No wonder the MSM didn't cover these inconsequential stories.

Glancing at Right Klik, there was a list of links to things that apparently do not matter:

"It is the most dangerous time in my life for freedom and liberty in this country."

Obama's FCC 'Diversity' Czar: "It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration."

Either he hates America or…

Michelle Malkin: "...this guy would make a perfect candidate for Obama’s civilian defense corps."

Flashback: A President should be willing to die to defend our Constitution. Obama is dying to destroy it.

Flashback: Negative Liberties & America's Oppresive Individualism


Saw this pic on Hot Air and that phrase instantly popped into my haid. WTH?

Look at them. I mean, just LOOK at them.

Good Lord.

The other phrase that came to mind was what Reid said to the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

“I hope you go out of business.” in other words,

"Yeah, I hope you DIE....bwa ha ha ha ha!"

He sure exemplifies the dignity of his position.

By the Obamunist, of course.

Are you a union member trying to find out information of the criminal actions and shady financial dealings of your union? Well don't expect Obama and his toady in the Labor Secretary's office, Hilda Solis, to help you uncover any illegalities perpetrated by your union bosses.

Solis' department has just announced that it is suspending the stringent reporting requirements that labor unions must by law satisfy to assure that their financial dealings are legal and above-board. That's right, unions have just been given a free pass for criminal actions by this president. (Right Wing News)

Because, as he said, he is all about transparency. Well, unless it has to do with Him or His minions. Czars have none. Acorn has none. And now unions, notorious for organized crime ties and campaigns of violence, have none. You can't have a decent Marxist revolution with people watching what you do! C'mon!

Go ahead and beat up some evil capitalist pigs, comrade!

Everyone should know by now that there is nary a shred of attempted objective journalism left at the once great NYTimes, it's having devolved into a near-bankrupt media tool of the far left, reduced to selling Obamunist memorialbilia to pay the bills.

But just as a reminder, William Teach at Right Wing News looks at a recent article:

If the NY Times keeps up these kinds of stories about Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), they will turn him into a star in the Republican Party: Fighting Health Care Overhaul, and Proud of It
Senator Jim DeMint, the South Carolina Republican who predicted that President Obama's effort to overhaul the health care system would become his "Waterloo," is doing his best to make that happen.

Taking questions from a friendly crowd of 500 people here the other day, Mr. DeMint did little to correct their misimpressions about health care legislation but rather reinforced their worst fears.
But, the NY Times spends absolutely no time attempting to tell us what those misimpressions are, nor rebutting them. I wonder why?
When one man said the major House bill would give the government electronic access to bank accounts, Mr. DeMint told him the bill was never about health care. "This is about more government control," he declared. "If it was about health care, we could get it done in a couple of weeks."
Can anyone argue he is wrong? If Obama and the Dems were actually interested, they would not be stuck on the public option and destroying private companies. They would not be demonizing the medical insurance industry, nor saying that doctors are cutting off limbs and performing tonsilectomies for extra profit. They would not be freaking out and calling for boycotts of Whole Foods when their CEO comes out with a rational alternative for health care reform. Instead, they would be looking at those alternatives, and others, and soliciting the opinions of the professionals.
Mr. DeMint, 57, is a first-term senator, a back-bencher with little influence in Washington's corridors of power. But at home he is stoking anger over the health care issue as he advances his free-market philosophy, gains national attention and, perhaps, helps derail Mr. Obama's agenda.
See? He means squat, but, he is a big meany. The NY Times has Spoken. All Hail The Manhattan Cocktail Circuit Crowd! But, he means so little that this was a Internet front page story, and appears on A12 in todays print version.

Because the left is about peace, love and caaaaaring! From Gateway Pundit:

The Tucson area Tea Party Coalition held a meeting at Rincon High School in Tucson this weekend. Over 1,000 people showed up at the event... including one violent counter-protester.

The pro-Obama thug disrupted the meeting screaming-- marched to the front of the room holding a sign------
And, then SLAMMED AN ATTENDEE IN THE FACE with his elbow!


He said he was pressured to raise the terrorist threat level just before the last election Bush won.

The left erupted in glee.

But now:

Now, Ridge says he did not mean to suggest he was pressured to raise the threat level, and he is not accusing anyone of trying to boost Bush in the polls. "I was never pressured," Ridge said. (USAToday)

Oh. I see. You meant to sell books, that's all. Well, giving more power to the Marxist takeover of America is an even trade, I guess. As long as you make more money. Screw the country!


Now you are a mass-murdering terrorist if you oppose his plans.


Its from his freakin' WEBSITE:


Check it out at Gateway Pundit, with a screen capture in case it gets scrubbed.


I'm sure this will increase Our Glorious Leader's desperation to complete the destruction of our nation before he gets booted:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11 (link)

Because when they see how compassionate and trusting we are they will renounce mass murder.

Look how well this is working:

The suicide truck bomber who targeted Iraq's Foreign Ministry in one of the most deadly attacks this year had recently been freed from U.S. custody, an Iraqi investigator said Sunday, raising fresh concerns that former detainees will return to violence.

The suicide bomber

devastated the foreign and finance ministries and killed about 100 people (AP)

But this isn't what's important. What's important is that we demonize and prosecute the CIA officers that helped keep us safe for 8 years. The bastards.

Sunday, August 30, 2009


How very interesting:

From where does the passion to conquer come? Moorthy Muthuswamy:

A recent groundbreaking statistical examination of Islamic doctrines appears to overwhelmingly identify the roots of the motivation to conquer with the doctrines themselves. About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. While there might be some subjectivity to this analysis, the overwhelming thrust of the inferences should be taken note of. This new analysis sheds light on not only understanding the roots of terror, but also on how to address Islamic radicalism.


What is now commonly known as Sharia or Islamic law deals with many aspects of day-to-day life. This “divine” law was formulated over a thousand years ago and reflects the customs and traditions of Arab tribes of a bygone era. Just about all communities in Muslim-majority nations find themselves under different degrees of the Sharia — and, as a result, are hard-pressed to embrace a modern way of life, including modern education. This is the likely reason that, despite oil wealth, in the Human Development Index (HDI) published each year by the United Nations — a comparative measure of life expectancy, literacy, education, and standards of living — of the 32 countries rated “high” in 2006, not one was a Muslim-majority country. However, of the 30 countries rated “low,” 16 were Muslim countries.

In other words, Sharia makes the process of wealth creation — the basis of building modern civilizations — difficult for Muslim communities to achieve and indirectly helps channel Muslim energies toward the outlet of the adventure of conquest through jihad. Besides the theological grounds, the cover for waging a multi-front jihad is derived by associating unbelievers with certain “injustices” perpetrated on Muslims. The perception of the so-called injustices created and sustained relentlessly can be viewed as the primary mode of building up anger and hatred in the minds of Muslims.

He goes on
to suggest strategies for dealing with the threat. That is strategies we could us when and if we get a new president.

The One already has his strategies: Showing weakness, begging, releasing terrorists, giving them the rights of US citizens, destroying our intelligence capability and prosecuting those who've kept us safe.

Oh, and in case you are worried about being an "Islamophobe," here's a handy list that will help you decide if you need re-education.



Protester: "This used to be America."

Cop: "It ain't no more, ok?"

Refreshing candor.


It doesn't matter if that makes sense. We do not need "sense" now that we have "change."

James Hudnall on The Color of Change's boycott of Beck because he dared suggest the president harbor racist sentiment (as was amply demonstrated by his vilifying a white cop for arresting a black man after admitting he didn't "have all the facts"):

The irony here is that a “race based pressure group” is attacking someone who said he is against what he suspects is racism in Obama’s agenda. In other words, a race based group is attacking someone speaking out against racism. Who’s the racist here?

The left accuses anyone who critiques Obama of being a racist, regardless of their actual motives or the content of their argument. But if someone does that against Obama, well, they must be banned!

The public sees through this farce.

What’s even more hilarious is Beck is a rabid non-partisan who complains about Republicans as much as he bashes Democrats. The focus of his shows is to stop the rampant Statism we’re seeing and the partisan politics of radicals. He wants to see American return to a common sense kind of middle ground where most people can agree to disagree. Beck, like many Americans, is disturbed by the radicalization of the public discourse and the fact that the mainstream press has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for an increasingly totalitarian state.

For daring to say he wants politicians to listen to the voters, for the insolence of questioning the motives of those in power (a very liberal thing to do), for exposing the mendacity and chicanery of the ruling class, the minions of the powers that be, the mindless bloggers and YouTube trolls are going ballistic trying to make him out to be a crazed fool.


As if the evidence wasn't overwhelming.

The left does back-flips to say otherwise but it's not true that we have never been a nation without God. Jeremy D. Boreing:

We [Americans] see America, from the Pilgrims who signed the Mayflower Compact to the Biblical scholars… who birthed the nation, to the spirit of sacrifice and charity that thrives to this very day, not as a nation of Christians (for that freedom is at the deepest core of our common philosophy) but as a Christian nation.

It seems that there is a growing belief that because our Founders were stalwart advocates for religious liberty, and because some of them had very nuanced and sometimes cynical views about organized religion, the United States was somehow conceived to be a secular nation. This belief is not only untrue, but detrimental to an adequate understanding of the underlying political philosophy of the founding, not least of all because it envisions the government as the nation instead of merely the organization through which the nation conducts its civil affairs, and more importantly because it betrays the singular belief that undergirds the entire American experiment: That the rights of man come not from government but from God.

The birth of the nation occurred in 1776 when the second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. It was this document that “dissolved the political bands” which connected the people of America to the people of Great Britain and assumed for them “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” entitled them. It was also in this document that the Founders outlined the uniquely American philosophy of the legitimate rights of the governed. “Self-evident” truths, they called them: that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (not afforded by their government) with certain un-alienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Governments, says the Declaration, are formed to help man secure these rights and derive their power only from the consent of the people themselves. If government should exceed the people’s authority, or encroach upon the rights man received from his Creator (also called, in official documents by the same congress, “Providence,” “Almighty God,” “the Common Father,” “Nature’s God,” “God,” “Supreme Being,” “Holy Ghost,” and, wait for it, “Jesus Christ”), it was “the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.” The Founders then go on to cite, as the moral authority from which their philosophy is derived (rectitude as they called it), the “Supreme Judge” of the world, and call upon “Divine Providence” for their protection in carrying out their God-given rights.

It was hardly a secular origin then for these United States. Instead, a founding document that proposes a theory, really a theology of government, never enacted before. The people of this country are entitled by God to independent statehood. They were created by God with rights that no government can legitimately take away. Their philosophy was deemed morally correct because it has been judged so by God, and God will protect them in the execution of war against those that would subjugated them in violation of that philosophy. This is how the Founders viewed rightful governance, and this is the sort of government that they sought to give life when, a decade later, they drafted the Constitution of the United States.

They are not government given rights.

Big difference. And what happens when people turn away from religion? Why they turn towards a mad-made substitute, the religion of government. This is why it makes perfect sense that Obama is worshiped as a savior, "The One," the "Lightworker," and all the other creepy religious titles he has been given.

To the left, the government is religion and Obama IS the messiah. Not only that, but much like the fundamentalist Islamofascists, they demand that you join and worship.

Well worth reading the whole thing.

James Lewis catalogues the huge number of similarities and goes through them one by one, including:

Cult of Personality
Revolution comes from above
Scapegoating the rich and all "enemies" of the regime
Exploiting ethnic hatreds
Controlling the media
Demonizing the opposition
Claiming absolute power -- even if you don't have it
Never admit you're wrong

Chilling, but unsurprising given his long alliances with Marxist revolutionaries.


Leigh Scott at Big Hollywood has figured it out:

What struck me from a few hours of watching leftist television and reading leftist gobbledygook is how far detached from reality these people are. It’s not a simple case of them having a few points wrong, or looking at things from a bizarrely biased perspective; they truly make statements and cling to ideas that have no basis in reality. As conservatives struggle to find apt metaphors to explain their opponent’s mindsets and delusions, I think I may have figured it out.

The left in our country is high. Completely stoned out of their minds....

You’d be hard pressed to find any other rational explanation for a large group of people who discard decades of historical evidence, common sense, and basic moral decency other than massive amounts of reefer.

He continues to go through the similarities one by one.

Friday, August 28, 2009


From Maggies Farm (hat tip to The Virginian):
Let me get this straight...

We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it (and who smokes) with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What possibly could go wrong?


Thomas Sowell explains why so much of what self-congradulatory, caring liberals do becomes epic FAIL. It is an insistence that explanations for problems always and only come from things external to who they believe they are helping.

For instance:

No small part of the current confusion between "health care" and medical care comes from failing to recognize that Americans can have the best medical care in the world without having the best health or longevity because so many people choose to live in ways that shorten their lives.

There can be grave practical consequences of a dogmatic insistence on external explanations that allow individuals to escape personal responsibility. Americans can end up ruining the best medical care in the world in the vain hope that a government takeover will give us better health.

It is not just the "non-judgmental" ideology of the intelligentsia but also the self-interest of politicians that leads to so much downplaying of personal responsibility in favor of external explanations and external programs to "solve" the "problem."

Personal responsibility or dysfunctional sub-cultures never come into play with liberals. People are only passive victims, unable to effect anything themselves.

An excellent article that explains a lot.

John Hawkins

As a general rule, liberals in the mainstream media and blogosphere will, without the slightest hesitation, pass on stories about conservatives that they know are full of untruths.

However, the Left has now gone a step beyond their habitual dishonesty of the last few years. They're now faking hate crimes and lying about their identity in an effort to openly deceive the American public.

He's got a list.

They feel good about all this, in part, because having no morals, they have avoided the dreaded "hypocrite" label that they give to those that do have them, but who yet remain human and sometimes fall short.

Their lying makes them pure.

Welcome to the logic of the left. I remember when I thought that way, just like all of my friends.


We have written often about Mark Lloyd, who has since his July 29 appointment been reveling in the position created just for him, "Chief Diversity Officer" at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

As we have repeatedly stated, Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation.

(It will come as no surprise to those who follow the work of the Media Research Center to learn that Lloyd was also at one time, prior to attending law school, an Emmy Award-winning journalist and producer for among other outlets NBC and CNN.)

Lloyd is in fact a Saul Alinsky disciple. In his 2006 book entitled Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America, he calls for an all-out "confrontational movement" against private media. He wants leftist activists - through incessant political pressure - and the government - through the creation of a totally untenable operating environment of fees, fines and regulations - to work together to force the commercial broadcasters out, to be replaced by public broadcasters.

And in his tome, Lloyd had this to say about the First Amendment:

"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.

"[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."

Nice, eh? Note how Lloyd views the freedoms of speech and the press as just two of a number of "communications policies." Ones that he appears to view as less than equal - and in fact impediments to - the others he seeks to see implemented in the interest of promoting "democratic governance."

There's more at the link.

Better use your free speech ( that "distraction" from implementing a Marxist State ) while we still have it because we may not have it for long.

Beck on why they need him and what he'll be doing:

"The stimulus plan - Glenn, look at what they're doing to the U.S. economy," Limbaugh said. "Anybody with a sense of economic literacy would know that this is not how you create jobs. You do not rebuild the private sector. This is being done on purpose. All of these disasters are exactly what Obama wants - the more crises, the better, the more opportunity for government to say let us in and fix the problem. And, with his number one opposition is on radio and Fox News. His number one opposition is on radio. They can't go Fairness Doctrine because it's too obvious. So, they're trying to do this backdoor route with diversity and ownership, a 100-percent tax on operating in order to pay public radio because they're supposedly fair."


And oh, BTW, Castro was GREAT!

Well, The One does look kinda girly but I fail to see the connection.

Wouldn't have anything to do with his being an anti-american Marxist like you and Castro, would it?

I'm just guessin' here.

Islamic Rage Boy is a misunderstood freedom fighter being persecuted by evil CIA agents that dare to defend their Nation. Rage!


Can you blame anyone who might speculate that the Obama Politburo wants us to be attacked again to provide the emergency they need to seize total control? Either you have to believe the president is insane or you have to believe he wants us hit.

Dr. Sanity quotes
a great observation from Andy McCarthy, who starts by quoting a WSJ editorial:
The most revealing portion of the IG report documents the program's results. The CIA's "detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world." That included the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed, who planned to detonate a dirty bomb, and the arrest of previously unknown members of an al Qaeda cell in Karachi, Pakistan, designated to pilot an aircraft attack in the U.S. The information also made the CIA aware of plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow, loosen track spikes to derail a U.S. train, blow up U.S. gas stations, fly an airplane into a California building, and cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York.
Then says:
Though the Journal does not get into it, Binyam Mohammed was released outright by the Obama administration in February. He is now living freely in England. That's our new counterterrorism approach: Release the terrorist who planned mass-murder attacks against U.S. cities but investigate the CIA agents who prevented mass-murder attacks against U.S. cities.
Dr. Zero, goes into it too with his usual excellent style:

I don’t have much patience or understanding for people who play games with national security for political benefit, so let me dismiss the political strategy of this outrage by saying it once again demonstrates the danger of believing your own political spin, and taking the lovestruck panting of a sycophantic media seriously. Real Americans are not anxious to punish the people who shut down al-Qaeda’s domestic operations. While liberals wave the Justice Department’s report on CIA interrogation techniques at the rest of the world and tearfully beg them for forgiveness, the rest of us are wondering why we don’t reduce the deficit by selling the rights to these interrogations on pay-per-view. The contestants on your average Japanese game show go through more intense ordeals.

Obama should understand that he was elected in spite of his childish posturing as a messiah and redeemer, not because of them. A weary public allowed itself to be badgered into electing the first black president, after they ran out of patience waiting for John McCain to explain why they shouldn’t. Normal people don’t define their relationship with the government by taking pleasure in the humiliation of political figures they dislike. We’re six months past the point where American voters can be kept quiet by suffocating them with the pillow of Bush hatred. We’re about a month past the point where anyone capable of independent thought believes Obama is a better president than Bush was.

Political strategy aside, America needs to resolve its argument about the morality of self-defense, and quickly. It’s my contention that a peaceful democracy has a moral imperative to demonstrate ferocity in defense.

Because we are not an aggressive, conquering nation, we don’t seek to subjugate the world and eliminate opposition. This means we will always be playing defense. One of the most dangerous delusions of the Left is the idea that we might be able to create a civilization that has no enemies. Civilization always has its enemies. Liberals should understand that, since they draw their own political strength from the unhappy remnant that always feels cheated by free-market capitalism, no matter how prosperous it might become. Even the most peaceful and compassionate nation will always be at risk from savages who wish to drown it in blood.

Anyone who has studied any form of self-defense knows the danger of hesitation. Effective defense requires swift and decisive action. When a fist is flying at your face, you don’t have time to flip through your mental catalog of Jet Li movies and pick a cool counter-move. Hesitation can defeat even superior strength and technical skill. The most powerful weapon in the world is useless as long as it remains in its holster… and it provides no deterrence value if your assailant knows it will remain there.

To suggest that enduring six months of Obama has made the CIA more hesitant to conduct effective intelligence operations is an understatement. Democrat political double-dealing is a crime that strikes at the heart of our venerated belief in civilian command of the military. We respect this arrangement, in part, because we believe it is proper for the civilian government to exhaust all peaceful, diplomatic avenues before we commit to war. You don’t send Marine recon units to conduct subtle diplomacy. The Bush Administration did its duty in this regard - for all the liberal caterwauling about “Bush’s rush to war,” it took a hell of a lot longer than Barack Obama’s rush to nationalize the health insurance industry and triple the deficit.

The other side of this arrangement must also be honored: we must allow the military to act with decisive speed, working within clearly defined rules of engagement. The military requires, and deserves, the assurance that they will not be used as political pawns by the civilian authorities. This is the duty a peaceful nation owes to the men and women who risk their lives, and make countless personal sacrifices, to ensure our safety. It is also logical, because the safety of American civilians, along with the hope for minimal collateral damage to foreign populations, depends on giving our defenders the confidence to take swift and decisive action. We know from experience that modern America does not have the political and cultural endurance to fight protracted wars - and, frankly, protracted wars stink. If war is forced upon us, it’s better for everyone involved if we make quick work of the enemy.

Read the rest here.


(ok, well, that last one was black and the media edited the frame and said he was white... but still...)

I cannot BELIEVE those violent, redneck, republican....oh....wait....

This guy is a Democrat in favor of Socialism.

Josh, who explained he would only give his first name because of the type of work he does, said he was a Democrat among a sea of non-Democrats, touting health care reform, but not reforms over his right to bear arms.

"Part of my passion as a Democrat is the right to bear arms," Josh said.

A veteran, and from a long family history of veterans, the man who was very much alone in the small crowd of protesters said he believed in fighting for the less fortunate.

"I am a firm supporter of health care for every American," he said. (Confederate Yankee)

My bad. He's for Obamacare and is a Democrat because of their exemplary record of supporting the second amendment. M'kay.


Convert or pay the consequences!

From The People's Cube (more icons for your worship needs at the link):

Finally American progressives can have a G.O.D. they can believe in. Banking on a wildly successful media coverage of its efforts to transform the backward, individualistic America into a nation of enlightened state-worshippers ruled by unelected czars, the administrative branch is preparing for a next radical reform that will further streamline the system and dispel the accusations of oligarchic rule by concentrating all the powers enumerated, extrapolated, and imagined under the constitution in the hands of only one man.

Said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, "We must urgently streamline the decision-making process because the time for talk is over. The outdated 19th century idea of reading and debating bills must end. Face it, not only does debate delay immediate action, so does voting."

The new legislation proposes the President of the United States appointing himself to the new position of Governmental Overall Director, or G.O.D. for short. "We believe in an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful G.O.D. to create order out of the chaos that is the unfortunate result of too many people making too many decisions for themselves. Hope and change require unity. Unity requires oneness of purpose. As you may know, Obama is The One."

Under the proposal the G.O.D. will give the people new freedoms, replacing the old freedoms which have atrophied to tired clichés. The G.O.D. is expected to replace individual free will with collective will of the communities represented by community organizers. Free enterprise will be replaced with free lunch, and free speech with free internet access. The inalienable rights of life, liberty and property will be supplanted by the rights of bodily functions, controlled unanimity, and regulated sharing.

Read the rest.

Now get on your knees.

(via The LCA Broadside...that was ON this in a nano second!)


Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency. (Cnet)

The left has long invented "emergencies" to force their Marxist vision on the country.

And as Rahm Emmanuel has said, emergencies are there to be used to "get things done we couldn't do otherwise."

Does Beck sound so crazy now?

RACE-HUSTER, TAX-CHEAT RANGEL "FORGETS" TO REPORT between $500,000 and $1 million.


But don't question him, as an elected official, because that's none of your business.


Part of The State media, ABC and NBC are refusing this paid ad questioning The One's health care decree

ABC said it won't because they never have and never will run anything "partisan." This, after they did an Obamacare infomercial earlier in the year, directly from the White House, with no dissenting voices.

But they aren't partisan.

Well, we aren't stupid.

That line comes from the uber-popular liberal blog, Huffington Post in regards to the death of Mary Jo Koepechne.

After a drunken Ted Kennedy crashed his car into water, he split the scene, did not call authorities till hours later (after calling his attorney) and left her to die.

Huffpo speculates that he was such a saint in years since that maybe she thinks it was worth dying so such a fine man could have such a fine career.

Ted Kennedy cared about people, as long as it didn't personally effect him. But if caring interfered with his plans, they could just drop dead. He knew that he was destined for great things, and if someone had to die so that his destiny was not interfered with, so be it.

Its the same mentality that Obama's friend an ally's organization, The Weather Underground, had when they said that perhaps 25 million Americans who could not be re-educated when they came to power would have to die.

Its the same mentality that Lenin, Pol Pot and Hitler had.

They all were destined for great things and just wanted to truly help people.

That made the death of other ok.

More at Gateway Pundit.

Oh, and BTW, he thought the whole thing was a regular laugh riot:
One of Kennedy’s close friends, former editor of Newsweek and New York Times Magazine Ed Klein, tells the Diane Rehm Show that Chappaquiddick jokes were high up on the list (audio here, at 30:10):

I don’t know if you know this or not, but one of his favorite topics of humor was indeed Chappaquiddick itself. And he would ask people, “have you heard any new jokes about Chappaquiddick?” That is just the most amazing thing. It’s not that he didn’t feel remorse about the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, but that he still always saw the other side of everything and the ridiculous side of things, too. (Hot Air)


The One decreed:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Glenn Beck asks:

Mr. President: Why do we need a civilian national security force that is "just as strong, just as powerful" as the military?

Here's why I ask this question: Who are we fighting? Who internally is threatening our security?

It's clearly not because we feel there is a threat from illegal aliens crossing the border, because anyone who would say that has been deemed a racist. A civilian national security force on the border is called The Minuteman and the attitude from this administration — as well as the Bush administration — is that they were "vigilantes." So it's not for the border.

It can't be a civilian national security force against Islamic extremists, because according to this administration we aren't even at war against Islamic extremists anymore. Is this administration really going to ask the American people to profile and call-in tips on Muslim Americans who act suspiciously?

So, who's left? Is it possible we are seeing the beginnings of another enemy?

Mr. President, is your civilian national security force to protect us from things the Missouri State Police, your own Homeland Security and the liberal Southern Law Poverty Center have come out and said were a threat: militia groups; tea party goers; folks with "Don't Tread on Me" flags; me; Sarah Palin?

If anyone can think of any other reason, I'd sure like to hear it.


As our president has said, we are "citizens of the world" first, and should obey. To do otherwise means that you are a backwards redneck who puts his own country first.

The United Nations is recommending that children as young as five receive mandatory sexual education that would teach even pre-kindergarteners about masturbation and topics like gender violence.
The U.N.'s Economic, Social and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) released a 98-page report in June offering a universal lesson plan for kids ranging in age from 5-18, an "informed approach to effective sex, relationships" and HIV education that they say is essential for "all young people." (Fox)
And remember. They aren't your kids. They belong to the government. "It takes a village!" and by village we mean The State.

Pesky interference by such things like an intact family having some control and religious instruction have not been entirely stamped out yet, but they've only been working on it since the 60's.

Amazing. And after they were told to boycott the show!

Though a little scandal might alienate advertisers, it’s pure ratings gold. Last night Glenn Beck had over 3 million viewers at 5pm, second only to O’Reilly for the night. But, Beck had more 25-54 viewers than O’Reilly (888K to 876K). I don’t watch or really even care about the cable news wars, but still…wow. Even though Beck airs before primetime, when there are fewer people watching TV, he had the most 25-54 viewers in the cable news world for the night. (TV By the Numbers)

Oh, and about that boycott by Color of Change?
While the Color of Change is bragging about their success I would sort of take that with a grain of salt. The companies have not pulled their advertising from Fox, rather Fox has simply moved those commercials to different times, so they continue to reap the benefits of those advertising dollars. The second part is without all of those commercials Glenn now has more time to conduct interviews and have his say, so in essence these idjits have given Glenn more air time to take this administration to task and ask those disturbing questions about Barry O's "friend", who are now political appointees. (Jammie Wearing Fool)


This must very much displease Our Glorious Leader. He'll have to amp up his efforts at stamping out free speech!

Thursday, August 27, 2009


Here’s a question for you: Why is Rodney King famous and Kenneth Gladney unknown?

Here’s a better question: If Kenneth Gladney — a black American who was beaten when he went to protest ObamaCare — had been there instead to support President Obama and had been beaten up and called a nigger by Anti-Obama town hall protesters…

…Well, does anyone doubt he would have been as famous as Rodney King? Why is Kenneth Gladney ignored? And why did a black patriot who showed up in opposition to ObamaCare with an AR-15 have his face and hands edited out of the video that MSNBC used to create the belief that wild white mobs, enraged at the very idea of a black man in the White House, were waiting outside to lynch the “President of Color?” (Bill Whittle)

ANSWER: They are creating their own reality!

Now that there is some good art!


Germany had Goebbels, I guess The Obamunist has the National Endowment for the Arts (that you pay for and that just got a boat-load of porkulus money).

At Big Hollywood, an artist invited to an NEA conference call reports:

On Thursday August 6th, I was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to attend a conference call scheduled for Monday August 10th hosted by the NEA, the White House Office of Public Engagement, and United We Serve. The call would include “a group of artists, producers, promoters, organizers, influencers, marketers, taste-makers, leaders or just plain cool people to join together and work together to promote a more civically engaged America and celebrate how the arts can be used for a positive change!” ...

Backed by the full weight of President Barack Obama’s call to service and the institutional weight of the NEA, the conference call was billed as an opportunity for those in the art community to inspire service in four key categories, and at the top of the list were “health care” and “energy and environment.” The service was to be attached to the President’s United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans...

We were encouraged to bring the same sense of enthusiasm to these “focus areas” as we had brought to Obama’s presidential campaign, and we were encouraged to create art and art initiatives that brought awareness to these issues. Throughout the conversation, we were reminded of our ability as artists and art professionals to “shape the lives” of those around us...

I leave you with a few statements made by the NEA to the art community participants on the conference call. “This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government. What that looks like legally?…bare with us as we learn the language so that we can speak to each other safely… “
Did you get that? The NEA's mission is to communicate The One's directives on "healthcare, energy and the environment." As part of an "initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans."

All the pieces are falling into place. Like Beck says (like him or not), stand back and look at the big picture. It's all coming together.


And in Lubbock, no less.

... to the post-modern intellectual. The "truth" is only what you say it is and is always in quotes!

Shortly after the 2004 Republican convention, Mary Mapes produced a segment for 60 Minutes II that alleged that George W. Bush had manipulated his enlistment in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid serving in combat in Vietnam....

Recall that the heart of Mapes’ story was that Bush was a coward who didn’t want to face combat. In the context of the 2004 election, the importance of this attack cannot be underestimated....

Well look what's come out, now that it's only so much paper:

Mary Mapes knew before she put the story on the air that George W. Bush, the alleged slacker, had in fact volunteered to go to Vietnam.
You have no right to impose your truth on her! I mean, it's there in the Constitution...right under the right to persue your own truth part...or sumpin'.....

Garsh. People are so picky!

All your money r belong to us.

Hot Air:
Californians must have thought they’d sent a loud and clear message to Sacramento in May when they rejected a series of referendums that would have approved tax hikes to solve their budget crisis.

They were wrong. You see, they mistakenly thought that the government worked for them, when in our new reality, they in fact work for the government.

Stupid people....thinkin' they were free n' to laugh!
R.I.P. Mary Jo Kopeckne

(via It Don't Make Sense)


Of all people, Henry Rollins tells the Vanity Fair. What...what? Yeah. Henry Rollins.


But the evidence keeps piling up.

Yes I think The One most likely is purposely trying to destroy the economy. Suffering people will beg to be helped/controlled, will gladly hand over any and all remaining power and the way will be wide open for him to make the kind of nation that his buddies like Chavez and Castro have made.

He's packed his new personal executive government (the zillion czars) with self-avowed Marxists. He's not stupid, and yet a friggin' water-head could see he's pushing us off an economic cliff.

Just because something is too horrible to think about, is not a reason not to face it if reason points it out to you.

We all gotta grow some.

'Cruel and neglectful' care of one million NHS patients exposed.

That's the headline from a horrific story in the the UK's Telegraph. Some bits:

...a horrifying catalogue of elderly people left in pain, in soiled bed clothes, denied adequate food and drink, and suffering from repeatedly cancelled operations, missed diagnoses and dismissive staff....

...the Patients Association has been receiving calls on our helpline from people wanting to talk about the dreadful, neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel treatment their elderly relatives had experienced at the hands of NHS nurses...

Now really. What the hell can you expect when a face-less government bureaucrat that has been told to cut costs for a program that can't be paid for makes decisions about YOUR BODY instead of a doctor?

You aren't a human any longer, comrade, you're a number.

It isn't about your health. It's about their control.
(image via freerepublic, with lotsa pics of the eeeevil cops Ayers and pals murdered)


From the NYTimes, no less, by the author of a book on "The Weather Underground, the Red Army Faction, and Revolutionary Violence in the Sixties and Seventies":

“The bombings that year were an expression, an act of, if not foolhardy, optimism. They were desperadoes. They had the belief that they could bomb old ideologies out of existence.”

Professor Varon said that the movements out of which groups like Mr. Melville’s emerged will always have a degree of romantic resonance with young activists.

“It’s the nature of young people,” he said. “They will always be inspired by people of intense principles. The bombers represent the extreme edge of the commitment. They will for a long time be regarded for their generational mobilization. It’s impressive to most people.”

Jonah Goldberg responds:

Um, no, no it's really not "impressive to most people." And the "romantic resonance" is overwhelmingly with young left-wing and liberal activists, despite the fact I keep hearing how mainstream liberals and Democrats don't have any affinity whatsoever with the Weather Underground and similar groups. When conservatives say (as I did in my book) that liberals, broadly speaking, have a romantic attachment to this stuff it's an outrageous slander. But when the New York Times essentially reports it as fact, it's interesting social commentary.

Oh and on that point, bonus prize for anyone who can guess whose name does not appear in the article. I'll give you a hint, he worked with the man who's currently the president of the United States.

Meanwhile, let's get back to talking about how protestors at town-hall meetings are "political terrorists."

Those beautiful, bomb-throwing, murderous flower-children! Why, they were sorta like the founding fathers of our new Totalitarian Marxist state, weren't they!? Garsh, I can't wait till there's a monument to Bill Ayers to replace the one to that evil, capitolist pig Jefferson!

Some background on our NEW CHOPE-Y founding fathers, from Hannity:



They were valuable when the had not yet become full-tilt post-modern Marxist indoctrination centers, but now....

...the American Council of Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) has done a study of what students are learning and sadly, the results are not surprising:

ACTA conducted research to see whether 100 major institutions require seven key subjects: English composition, literature, foreign language, U.S. government or history, economics, mathematics and science. What ACTA found was found was alarming, reporting that "Even as our students need broad-based skills and knowledge to succeed in the global marketplace, our colleges and universities are failing to deliver. Topics like U.S. government or history, literature, mathematics, and economics have become mere options on far too many campuses. Not surprisingly, students are graduating with great gaps in their knowledge -- and employers are noticing."

The National Center for Education Statistics reports that only 31 percent of college graduates can read and understand a complex book. Employers complain that graduates of colleges lack the writing and analytical skills necessary to succeed in the workplace. (Walter E. Williams)

This is a godsend to Statists. A population that does not know our history, our founding or our defining documents is a population that will make good slaves. No wonder so many voted for slavery.

Only on the left. Kennedy's death has quickly become something to be used for political gain.
From Legal Insurrection:
" it’s time to come back after Labor Day with a single coherent Senator Edward M. Kennedy Health Care Reform Bill, and to twist whatever arms, ears, or other parts are necessary to get a good strong comprehensive bill passed and signed, NOW. We owe the memory of a great man no less."This theme of naming a bill after Kennedy is sure to pick up steam, as Democrats are desperate to do anything to overcome public opposition on the merits. Witness this San Francisco Chronicle column today:
There would be no more fitting tribute to the passing of Ted Kennedy, than to pass a health-care reform bill by early fall.

Yes, it would glorify him to name what is perhaps the last nail in America's coffin after him. Even More than Chappaquiddic. But what's funny is,
when Rush Limbaugh used the phrase "Kennedy Memorial Health Bill," [in predicting how Democrats would use Kennedy's death] he was harshly criticized.

Monday, August 24, 2009


Ever wonder why so many kids are are getting so violent? Music full of hate, mysogyny, and murder gets blamed sometimes, but maybe thats just a symptom of this destructive theory foisted on children in the name of liberal nice-ness:

From Cracked's list of 6 BS Facts about Psychology:

This seems to be one of those deals where they've confused correlation and causation. Rather than thinking, "Maybe kids with high self-esteem feel good about themselves because they get good grades in school and have lots of friends," they decided that it's the other way around, that they succeed because they have self-esteem. So they tried to teach people to feel good about themselves for no other reason than pure entitlement, figuring the actual reasons for feeling good about themselves would follow at some later date.

This results in some kids having too much self-esteem, a breed of human that scientists classify as "douchebag."

We're not kidding. Research shows kids who have an inflated sense of self-worth become aggressive when their sense of superiority is called into question, leading to a more damaging fall for little Billy when he realizes what a loser he is (whereas fat Ralph already knew himself to be a loser and is therefore immune to disappointment).

We're certainly not experts, but it would, you know, seem like the solution would be to teach the stuff that leads to success (like social and communication skills, better strategies at dealing with stress, etc.) and just let that lead naturally to success and thus self-esteem, rather than just bypassing all that and going right for the self-esteem part.

Mr. Miyagi didn't teach the Karate Kid to believe in himself. He taught him how to kick people in the **** head.


Wow. Jimmie Bise at Right Wing News:
this very good post by Bruce at GayPatriot.
Here are my real fears about the United States heading into a civil war:

1. There is a clear distinction between those who want a more authoritarian/socialist nation versus those who want to preserve the capitalist/democratic America we live in.
2. There is a clear distinction between those who understand the principles and guidance and importance of the representative legislative process versus those who hide behind the Constitution as an excuse to create laws from the bench.
3. There is a clear distinction between those who favor strong national security vs. those who want a borderless, global government.
4. There is a clear distinction between those who hold US Constitutional principles dear (1st, 2nd, 10th Amendments in particular) and those who are ignorant or want to subvert those principles.
5. There is a clear distinction between those who want to maintain a sensible fiscal policy versus those statists in Washington who spend our tax money with reckless abandon.
6. There is a clear distinction between those who see themselves as Americans first versus those who want to segregate themselves into communities and ignore the national identity.
7. Despite his promises, surveys show that Americans have elected one of the most divisive Presidents since Richard Nixon.

These are serious issues that fundamentally challenge the formation of the Republic itself. Don't buy into the childish arguments that every criticism of the Federal Government is based in racism. That is ignorant and simple-minded talk.
I do believe there is a civil war coming in this country, but I doubt very much that it will be fought with guns nor do I believe that the overwhelming majority (and by that I mean 90 percent or better) of people angry with the President for his various schemes over the past eight months want a shooting war either.

However, there is a tension that the Democrats have brought to very near the breaking point and I don't see how it will be resolved without some sort of large revolutionary action. The Republican Party has exacerbated the problem as well, though, and whatever happens can be laid on their heads to some extent also.

Here's why I say that. In our democratic system, if people are displeased with what one party is doing, they generally have had another party running in the opposite direction to which they can turn. The hallmark of the two-party system is that each was different enough from the other to provide real alternatives. If the parties aren't all that different, or the voters don't see the parties as all that different, then the voters get stuck looking for another option. That state of being stuck builds tension until, at some point, it finds a release.

That release can show itself in a lot of different ways that don't involve what most of us think when we picture a civil war, but the lack of guns doesn't necessarily represent the lack of discontent or even anger....

The GOP hasn't presented much of an option to the big-spending, big-regulation, more government control essential planks of the Democratic platform recently at exactly the time when people are desperately looking for that very thing.

No kidding. And the part of the GOP "not presenting much of an option" is the part that so reviles Sarah Palin. To me, this underscores all the more her importance to revitalizing the party and bringing it back to bedrock, American values that the majority in the country, amazingly after years of liberal brainwashing in the schools and media, still ascribe to. He continues,

I don't think a genuine civil war is inevitable, no matter how hard the President pushes for New New Deal totalitarianism. I do think that, lacking a real release for the frustrations voters are feeling, the pressure will continue to build until it releases in 2010 and 2012. Those elections ought to be plenty interesting.