Ad

Stupid Liberals

Mar 302015
 

By Ted Belman — March 29, 2015

President Obama is insisting on the creation of Palestine with a border separating it from Israel based on the ’67 lines plus swaps.

Obama continues to push for a two-state solution that would result in the destruction of Israel

Obama continues to push for a two-state solution that would result in the destruction of Israel

In doing so he is ignoring United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, which grants Israel the right to secure and recognized borders and does not demand a full retreat to the ’67 lines. He is also threatening to allow the UNSC to impose such borders on Israel, thereby circumventing his oft-stated insistence that all matters are to be negotiated between the parties.

Ben-Dror Yemini, writing in YNET, which is left of center and Netanyahu’s arch enemy, makes the case, “Given the upheaval in the Arab world, Obama needs to ask himself why he thinks a Palestinian state is viable right now; meanwhile, Israel’s right needs to understand that its actions are leading to a bi-national state.”

“According to Hamas’ official television station, ‘Christians, Communists and Jews must be eliminated down to the very last man.’ Hamas has the support of 61 percent of the Palestinians. Even if we assume that support for Hamas will fall, Hamas will take a violent stand against its opponents. Some of the Hamas leaders are talking about ‘the conquest of Rome and Andalusia.’

Obama with Mahmoud Abbas the head of the Palestinian Authority (terrorist organization Hamas).

Obama with Mahmoud Abbas the head of the Palestinian Authority (terrorist organization Hamas).

“Is Obama listening? Does Obama know that Hamas won the last election? Is it hard for Obama to understand that a Palestinian state would mean, in all likelihood, another Jihad state and more bloodshed? What gives him the illusion that a Palestinian state will become a model of stability? Where is there stability under one of the Jihad movements?

“Will Qassem Soleimani sit by quietly and allow peace to flourish? And what kind of agreement could be achieved anyway? Is there a Palestinian leader – even just one – who is willing to accept the peace proposals submitted by Obama, J Street or Meretz? After all, over the past decade or two, the Palestinians have rejected every offer of a two-state solution. So what agreement is Obama talking about?

“What is needed, therefore, is a reevaluation. We don’t need another failure. And this reassessment must take place both in Washington and in Jerusalem. A sober look at the situation will lead to the obvious conclusion – that under the current geopolitical circumstances, talk of a Palestinian state, which is likely to turn into a Hamas state, is delusional and evidence of a detachment from reality.”

Sounds a lot like the case that Netanyahu always makes. But contrary to Netanyahu, Yemini avers that “A peace settlement is a necessity.”

Ben-Dror Yemini

Ben-Dror Yemini

Yes, given Israel’s increasing defamation and de-legitimation, a peace settlement is needed but it is not available even on Obama’s terms. Furthermore any “peace settlement” would not be bankable or dependable. As Bibi never tires of repeating, although in another context, no deal is better than a bad deal. And that’s why he prefers to manage the conflict, rather than to solve it.

Yemini continues:

“The Palestinians need to be given a political horizon and hope – by means of an agreement that will be implemented gradually and cautiously, in keeping with changing circumstances. But for now, a Palestinian state is a recipe for endless bloodshed.”

How blind can Yemini be? The only political horizon the Palestinians will accept is one which wipes Israel off the map. Their goal is not to found a state, but to destroy a state. It is a total lie to say that that “Palestinians need to be given a political horizon and hope”. What they need is to abandon their goal of destroying Israel and to be liberated from their leadership who misdirects them and steals them blind. Even so he writes, “But for now, a Palestinian state is a recipe for endless bloodshed.”

Nevertheless, he argues that this doesn’t make the Right, right.

“Does this mean that the Israeli right is right? Far from so. The right is leading Israel into a reality of one large state. Rather than a Jewish state, Israel would become a bi-national one. Mixing populations that demand an expression of national independence – with each population group having a different ethos, a different language, a different religion, a different culture – is a recipe for bloodshed.

“This is what is happening in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Europe. This is exactly what is happening now in eastern Ukraine. This is what happened in the 1990s in Yugoslavia. A brotherhood of nations was a nice idea in theory. But Yugoslavia split up, after years of bloodshed, into seven entities. It doesn’t work and it didn’t work in the heart of Europe.

“Why does the right want to force this mixture onto Israel?”

Martin Sherman shares this belief and accordingly, he is adamantly against giving citizenship to qualified Arabs in Judea and Samaria, were Israel to extend sovereignty to these lands as proposed by Caroline Glick and originally proposed by Mike Wise.  He writes “The only thing more dangerous, delusional and disastrous than the Left’s proposal for a two-state solution, is the proposal now bandied about by the Right – for a one-state solution.”

Instead he advocates for The Humanitarian Solution, as opposed to the Two State Solution which he calls “the political solution.” In it he proposes to pay the Arabs to leave voluntarily.

Yes, it’s time for a reevaluation.

In Netanyahu’s Bar Ilan speech of 2009, in which he supported “two states for two peoples”, he argued “The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been – and remains – the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland…. The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People.” In addition, he adds the caveats that Obama ignores, namely that the state be demilitarized and that Israel retains defensible borders.

Obama two state solutionWithout this recognition, there can be no peace. That is why Israel insists on it.

Some progress seems to have been negotiated between Obama and Netanyahu pursuant to which the United States provided a cool reception on Friday to a new French initiative on a new Security Council resolution to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

“We’re not going to get ahead of any decisions about what the United States would do with regard to potential action at the UN Security Council,” a U.S. official told AFP, hours after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius announced the plans.

“We continue to engage with key stakeholders, including the French, to find a way forward that advances the interest we and others share in a two-state solution,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Of course this wasn’t a freebie.  Netanyahu’s announcement canceling the proposed 1500 units in Har Homa, in Jerusalem, and his announcement releasing the withheld tax money to the PA were probably the price paid.

 

via Articles: Let’s Get Real: Re-evaluating the Two-State Approach.

Mar 182015
 

By Daniel Greenfield — March 18, 2015 

If you believe Hillary Clinton, her email scandal happened because she couldn’t figure out how to do what every American of working age knows how to do; juggle a work and personal email account.

Hillary-email-press-conference-620x435

 

The Clinton vaporware bridge to the 21st century turned out to be a private email server that kept out the media, but not foreign spy agencies. When Hillary finally had to turn over some emails, she printed out tens of thousands of pages of them as if this were still the 20th century.

But like the rest of her party, Hillary is very much a 20th century regulator, not a 21st century innovator.

Despite claiming to have invented the internet, the Democratic Party isn’t very good at technology and doesn’t like technology. Everything from the Healthcare.gov debacle to the VA death lists happened because this administration was completely incompetent when it came to implementing anything more complicated than a hashtag. The success rate for exchanges managed by its state allies isn’t much better. The only databases it seems able to handle are for its incessant election fundraising emails.

Democrats not only didn’t invent the internet, but they’ve been trying to kill it ever since it existed. The latest attempt to hijack the internet under the guise of net neutrality follows multiple attempts to implement CDA laws censoring it back in the Clinton days. Obama’s rhetoric over reclassifying the internet is a carbon copy of Clinton’s own rhetoric over the Telecommunications Act.

Obama and Clinton are not innovators, at best they’re marketers, at heart they’re regulators. They don’t want ‘open’ anything. Regulators seek to define and classify everything before freezing it into place. It’s the same control freak impulse at the heart of Hillary’s private email server. They want to enforce a comprehensive ruleset without regard to functionality that privileges their own communications.obama-fcc-control-the-internet

 

It’s a short leap from Hillary’s private email server to Obama’s private internet. Both want their own communications to be unseen, witness the way that the White House deals with Freedom of Information requests, but they want oversight of what everyone else can and does say online.

Innovators disrupt. Regulators control. The left’s hysteria over companies like Uber and Airbnb is typical of the regulator mentality. The left’s propaganda operations have boomed thanks to the internet, but rather than celebrating open technology, it responds by trying to closely regulate the internet instead.

The American left understands that it cannot market itself as progressive without embracing technology, but culturally it is a reactionary movement whose embrace of organic food, no vaccines and paranoia about technology causing Global Warming reveals a deep unease about the technology it claims to love.

Democrats like technology the way that they like science in general, as an inspiring progressive idea, not as the messy uncertain reality that it really is. But applying their logic of “settled science”, in which a thing is assumed to work because their ideology says it should, to technology leads to disaster. Technology is a real life test of ideas. Its science is only settled when it can be objectively said to work.

Healthcare.gov was an example of the GIGO principle that governs information technology and life.

If you put garbage in, your output will be garbage. ObamaCare was a garbage law. The policies it offers are garbage and its website, produced through the same corrupt and dysfunctional processes as the rest of it, was also garbage. The left has to deny that its productive output is garbage because recognizing that would mean having to admit that its ideological input was garbage.

obamacare-website-down-testify

 

If you try to set up a website for a law whose actual functioning no one understood designed in part by bureaucrats who were better at writing mandates than making things that work and by an assortment of corporations that got the job because of who their executives knew in the White House, the other end was bound to be a giant pile of garbage that worked as well as the law it was based on.

That’s why Democrats hate technology. Real science doesn’t give you the results you want. It doesn’t care about your consensus or how you massaged the numbers. It gives you the results you deserve.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Obama wasted billions on Green Energy because his people couldn’t be bothered to examine the vested claims of special interests. His people insisted that Ebola wasn’t an infectious disease because that would interfere with immigration policy. Science and technology don’t come first. They’re just there to serve the same empty marketing function as the ‘smart’ part of his smart power which led to ISIS.

Green Energy and ObamaCare had to work because they were shiny and progressive. The messy reality of the technology or the business models for making them work didn’t matter to Obama.

Progressives mistake this brand of ignorant technophilia for being on the side of progress, when really it’s just the flip side of technophobia. The technophobe raised in a push button world in which things just work doesn’t necessarily fear technology; instead he fears the messy details that interfere with his need for instant gratification.

The new lefty Luddite loves gadgets; he just hates the limitations that make them work. He wants results without effort or error. He wants energy without pollution, consensus without experiment and products without industry. The same narcissism that causes him to reject the fact that he has to give something to get something in human affairs leads him to also reject the same principle in technology.

He wants everything his way. He thinks that makes him an innovator, when it actually makes him a regulator. Innovators understand that every effort comes with risk. Regulators seek to eliminate risk by killing innovation. The progressive Luddite believes that he can have innovation without risk. But that’s just the classic progressive fallacy of confusing regulation with innovation and control with results.

Selling regulation as innovation is just marketing. And that’s all that progressives like Obama are. Their openness is pure marketing. Their need to control everything is the regulatory reality underneath.

Bill Clinton’s idea of innovation was censoring the internet. His wife’s idea was setting up a private email server with terrible security to shut down information transparency. Obama’s idea of innovation is regulating the internet while golfing with the CEO of the cable monopoly being used as an excuse for those regulations.

This isn’t the party that invented the internet. It is the party that’s killing it.

The innovator knows that reality is messy. He lands a probe on a comet while wearing a tacky shirt. The regulator however can only see the shirt. Technology only interests him as a means of controlling people. The shirt matters as much as the comet because both are ways of influencing people.

The left wants technology only as a means of achieving its utopian visions. The technology itself is push button; it means nothing except as a means to an end. The regulator is not thrilled by the incredible ingenuity it takes to link together the world, just as the comet means nothing to him. The technology either serves his political goals or it does not. It lives under his regulations or it does not.

To the left, skill and ingenuity are just forms of unchecked privilege. The only achievement that matters is power over people. The revolutionary exploits technology, but his revolution is that of the regulator, his machine is collective; its ultimate design is to end ingenuity and abort progress. His communication is not a dialogue, it is a diatribe, and his vision of the internet is only meant to be open until he can close it.

The technological vision of the Democrats is just the same old central planning in a shinier case.

 

via Why Democrats Hate the Internet | FrontPage Magazine.

Mar 132015
 

By Billy Blanco — March 12, 2015

Poor Hillary!  She had a plan:

Leave the White House and become the junior senator from New York, and then jump from there back into the White House…but this time as the star, with Bill doing the dishes and her doing the interns. 

Clinton_Libya_0abb3

Yes Hillary had a plan… How is that working out now?

Barack Obama got in the way.  But those Clintons, you can’t hold them down.

Remember Bill?  That whole intern thing would be funny, except for the fact that it ruined that poor girl’s life.  In fact, Clinton, Inc. put a great deal of effort into destroying her. 

You have to give Ms. Lewinsky credit, however – she held her head high throughout the entire ordeal and every day since.  It could not have been easy; in the end, only she paid a price.  But that’s what happens when you run with the Clintons: they get new Air Jordans, and you get athlete’s foot.

bill and monica

Bill and Monica; Can you say presidential disgrace….

With Bill, it’s been a lifetime binge of rape, pillage, and plunder, all on the public’s dime.  What he will pay for the choices he has made as a human being will be decided at the pearly gates, and his presidential legacy defined by historians long after he has shuffled off this mortal coil. 

Bill still likes the pretty girls...

Bill still likes the pretty girls…

For now, he lives like a king, with poor Hillie Joe his somewhat grubby queen, but people love them.  They used to say Reagan was made of Teflon because nothing stuck to him.  In reality, the true Teflon president has always been Bill.  Those of us too new and shiny, or too unaware to remember any of the Clinton presidency, will get the opportunity to watch Hillary strive for the same deference – the “Whatever I did, wrong or illegal, it’s no big deal” treatment.

Wasn’t that her attitude at her press conference?  And having the Turkish News pose the first question, implying that this would not have been as big a deal if she were a man, was brilliant.  It got the “Vagina Defense” out there without her people having to bring it up.  It’s called “pimping the question”; Lois Lerner would have been proud.  It also shows that nothing is beneath Hill and Bill.

After all, what difference, at this point, does it make? hilary

And, like her husband before her, it could all have been avoided.  If Bill had just said from the beginning, “Hey, I like pretty girls,” America would have forgiven him – even the Republicans, because they like pretty girls, too.  The world would have been spared the tawdry spectacle of a futile impeachment endeavor and a sitting president committing perjury.

What was Hillary thinking?  She had to know that people would recognize an e-mail address that didn’t end in .gov as not being official.  No, she expected that people would recognize that whatever the rules were, they didn’t apply to her.  Because, you know, she’s a Clinton. 

The only reason to have a server in your basement and your own internet domain is to control what can and cannot be seen by the public.  She recently released 55,000 pages of e-mails, but only after her best team of men scoured her server and deleted anything that might be embarrassing, or perhaps even criminal. 

That’s not 55,000 e-mails, by the way; that’s 55,000 pages.  Try printing an e-mail from a lawyer.  With all the disclosure drivel at the bottom, some e-mails can be many pages – even the ones that only ask, “Hey, how’s it going?”  Yet Hillary’s crack team of obfuscators use the number of pages as a descriptor, because it looks better than saying they released 100 e-mails.  I wonder how many pages the 32,000 e-mails that were deleted would have amounted to if printed.  We’ll never know – they were deleted.

Pop quiz: name anything Hillary did in her four years as secretary of state.  For extra credit, name anything – I mean anything – this woman has done or accomplished since she came on the scene as Bill’s first lady.

hillary_oldOh, Hillary!  She flew a million miles, accomplishing nothing more than setting up a private e-mail account and maybe directing funds to her non-profit, the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Foundation

Ah…the Clintons’ foundation/charity, or non-profit, if you prefer, is fronted by the HilBilChel triumvirate, and it’s said they do a lot of work in Haiti.

Haiti…now there’s a place.  The Clintons have been fixing that country for decades, yet it still looks the same.  They have diligently devoted time and money to improving the lot of people who live in what is one of the poorest countries on Earth.  

And those poor Haitians have been rewarded by having the opportunity to live in one of the poorest countries on Earth.  Like Hillary, some things never change.

Again, poor Hillary – a million miles traveled as secretary of state, and a non-profit with 250 million dollars in the bank, and not a blessed thing has changed.  Except, having left the White House in January of 2001 (apparently with the furniture, spoons, and plates secreted away), “dead broke,” with God as her witness, Hillary would never go hungry again.  She now gets hundreds of thousands of dollars for 45-minute speeches, and I would be willing to bet each new one is almost that same as the last.

When I was a younger man in the 1980s, a non-profit was a license to steal.  Guys I knew of in Brooklyn used to advertise for junk car donations to help the blind.  They would then sell the cars for quick cash and, as CEO, hire their wives, children, and any other family members and pay them as much money as sales of donated cars could support.  As long as they had a dollar left at the end of the year to donate to the blind, they were a non-profit.

Now, I’m not saying that Bill and Hillary would ever do something like that (nah…not them), but scale the hell out of it, dress it up, put a little lipstick on it, and the business model still works.

Poor Hillary!  We all know how she grew up: a strong woman with twelve siblings in a one-room shack, having to share the outhouse with those filthy Republicans.  She struggled through adversity, and when true love called, she was there ready to marry Bill and take on the challenge of making the world a better place…and, of course, make a ton of money in the process.hillaryclinton-300x250

Her hero, however, is not her husband.  It is Barack Obama.  Her husband is a big man with big ideas, who did best when he caved and adopted the Republican platform while shutting his mouth.  But Barry was right – Bill wasn’t transformational.

No, she admires Barry, who is a small man standing athwart history screaming, Go ahead!  We deserve it anyway.  Whatever Barry’s done, she will do better, and when the both of them are finished with our precious republic, it will no longer be precious or a republic.  There will be flames and ashes, because even though the Iranians have been threatening to kill us since 1979, we did not believe them.  Or rather, Barry and Hillary didn’t believe them.

Yet you have to admire Barry.

Bill Clinton is the type of guy who hits on your underage daughter at a party and then has his friends forestall the beating while he makes his getaway, inevitably on his way out the door picking up the plump girl with a heart of gold, who believes all his lines.

Now Barry…he’s the kind who sleeps with your wife (or husband, not that there’s anything wrong with that); steals your business, while destroying every other aspect of your life; and then says nice things about you at your funeral, while releasing a picture of himself with your family to show how broke up he is about your death.

Obama-Hillary-and-Rice-all-lied

Ambassador Chris Stevens blood is on their hands.

The saddest statement you can make about America today is that so many people take these clowns seriously. 

For my money, I wouldn’t care if they all jumped off the Tallahatchie Bridge.  For Hillary, it might be a good career move.  And as I said, what difference, at this point, does it make?

 

via Articles: An Ode to Hillie Joe.

Feb 232015
 

By Jack Cashill — February 23, 2015

Thankfully, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani shows no sign of backing down.

Rudy Giuliani

Rudy Giuliani

To reinforce his claim that Obama did not “love this country,” Giuliani explained his thinking to the New York Daily News.

“I don’t [see] this President as being particularly a product of African-American society or something like that. He isn’t,” Giuliani told reporter Celeste Katz. “Logically, think about his background.. . . The ideas that are troubling me and are leading to this come from communists with whom he associated when he was 9 years old.”

The communist in question, as Giuliani clarified, was Frank Marshall Davis. In fact, Obama was likely ten years old when his grandfather Stanley Dunham introduced young Barry to Davis, but otherwise Giuliani was correct. In so saying, he may well have been the first prominent political figure of either party to mention Davis in public, a testament to the dread of being branded racist that paralyzes the political class. For that matter, the New York Daily News is the rare mainstream media outpost to mention Davis, a collective oversight that flirts with conspiracy.

Obama and his mentor Communist Frank Marshall Davis

Obama and his mentor Communist Frank Marshall Davis

Although Obama’s mother and grandfather both leaned strongly to the left, Davis, as Giuliani suggested, was the first capital “C” Communist to influence Obama. Davis, as they say, had some “issues.” He was not only a Communist, but also a bisexual pornographer and nude photographer with at least a fictional taste for underage sex partners.

“Here are the facts and they are indisputable,” wrote historian Paul Kengor in his insightful book, The Communist — Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, “Frank Marshall Davis was a pro-Soviet, pro-Red China, card-carrying member of Communist Party (CPUSA). His Communist Party card number was 47544.”

As Kengor observed, Obama dedicated 2500 words in Dreams to Davis, who “surfaces repeatedly from start to finish, from Hawaii to Los Angeles to Chicago to Germany to Kenya . . . from the 1970s to the 1980s to the 1990s.”

As critical as Davis was to the formation of the fatherless Obama, Pulitzer Prize-winner David Maraniss managed to write a 10,000-word piece for the Washington Post on Obama’s early years in August 2008 without a single mention of Davis. In the runup to the election, when the Maraniss article was published, the many Obama enthusiasts in the Post audience no more wanted to read about Davis’s unseemly hobbies than Maraniss wanted to write about them. Win-win.

Obama and his admirers in the media understood that this was a relationship best kept under wraps. Davis never renounced his Communist past. As his FBI file reveals, the Hawaiian Communist Party simply went underground and infiltrated the Democratic Party.

Maraniss could barely bring himself to talk about Davis even in his lengthy 2012 biography of Obama’s early years, Barack Obama: The Story. He suggested, in fact, that Obama included “Frank” in his memoir Dreams from My Father because he “tended to focus on characters who could accentuate his journey toward blackness.”

Given the depth of his research, Maraniss had to know what he was hiding. Davis, in fact, played such an essential role in Obama’s formation that, as Maraniss admitted in the biography, he became “a subject of some of [Obama’s] teenage poetry.” Obama has had at least two poems about Davis published. “An Old Man” appeared in his prep school’s literary magazine. “Pop” appeared in Occidental College’s. “Pop” tells how Davis and the underage Obama got drunk together and hints perhaps at a sexual dalliance as well.

Obama and Davis - At best an illicit relationship.

Obama and Davis – At best an illicit relationship.

These poems may have been part of a trilogy. A few years prior, Davis had written a poem called “To a Young Man,” which also described the relationship of a naïve young man with a cynical old man but from the older man’s perspective. A close textual reading leads one to suspect that Davis wrote all three of these poems, including the two fronted by Obama.

When Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum showed Obama “An Old Man” in 2008, Obama responded, “That’s not bad. I wrote that in high school?” He recovered quickly, adding, “It sounds in spirit that it’s talking a little bit about my grandfather.” No, the poem in question, the “it,” was not talking about Stanley Dunham. The named author of the poem was talking about Davis. The two were that close.

In his Obama biography The Bridge, New Yorker editor and Obama fanboy David Remnick dismissed the charges of “communist” and “pornographer” against Davis as mere noise from the “right-wing blogosphere.” He preferred to introduce Davis as an “aging poet and journalist” whose relationship with Obama was of “no great ideological importance.” In one of those unguarded moments that shine a bright light on the liberal brain, Remnick described Dunham’s introduction of his grandson to this Communist, pornographer and possible pedophile as “one of the more thoughtful and consequential things Stanley did in his role as surrogate grandfather.”

Okay, enough of these irrelevancies, let’s get back to the real news, Scott Walker’s senior year at Marquette.


** Below is a video of Rudy Giuliani having to put up with that air-headed talking head at Fox News, Megyn Kelly.  If you watch it to the end you will see that he is certain about his position and in spite of Fox’s agenda to cause him to recant, or at least walk back his comments, he stubbornly refuses to do it.  This is a man with conviction who is willing to say out loud what the majority of the American people know to be true.

 

 

via Articles: Was Giuliani the First to Use The F Word (as in ‘Frank’)?.

Dec 302014
 

By Caren Besner — December 30, 2014

Webster’s Third International Dictionary defines torture as the infliction of intense pain in order to punish or coerce someone; or to give sadistic pleasure to the torturer. 

 In times past, devices such as the Bastinado, the Rack, and the Iron Maiden were used to extract information or confessions from individuals suspected of everything from witchcraft to heresy.  It is therefore not surprising, under the circumstances, that people would admit anything in order to get the torturers to stop.  Surviving records of people admitting under torture to being in league with Satan, would of course, not be admissible as evidence in any modern court of law; but were seen as valid for hundreds of years from Medieval times through the Inquisition.  Only with the advent of the Enlightenment did civilized societies come to view torture as archaic, obscene, and repugnant.

The Persian Bastinado

The Persian Bastinado

Torture today has an entirely new face, as new techniques have replaced the old.  Instead of the Bastinado, we have the slap in the face.  In lieu of the Rack, we have Waterboarding, and in the place of the Iron Maiden, we have sleep deprivation, hoods over the head and exposure to a cold concrete floor. 

The Rack

The Rack

Torture today has an entirely new face, as new techniques have replaced the old.  Instead of the Bastinado, we have the slap in the face.  In lieu of the Rack, we have Waterboarding, and in the place of the Iron Maiden, we have sleep deprivation, hoods over the head and exposure to a cold concrete floor.

The Iron Maiden

The Iron Maiden

Come to think of it, compared to torturers of old, their modern day CIA equivalents are wussies by comparison; not that anyone would want to experience a Waterboarding session.  It is at best, an extremely unpleasant procedure, albeit one that has been used by our own military in the training of US Navy Seals and other special operation forces.  But does it constitute torture according to the dictionary definition?  That would depend on one’s interpretation of the term “intense pain.”  It is also unlikely that our modern day torturers derived any sadistic pleasure from their actions; although an extreme dislike of the subjects of their enhanced interrogation cannot be ruled out.  They are dealing with individuals such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed; the mastermind of 9-11, the man who beheaded Daniel Pearl and an individual with the blood of thousands of Americans on his hands. 

 

In an ideal world, no sane person would condone the use of torture.  But we do not live in an ideal world.  If tears must be shed for any perceived “victim,” better it be for the families of those who died in terrorist attacks, both before and after September 11, 2001.  On that day, our world changed irrevocably, as an age of innocence suddenly and violently came to an end. The recent release of a report detailing the methods used by the CIA to interrogate captured terrorists serves as both a reminder and a warning of the terrible choices we are forced to make in order to ensure the safety of our population.  The report, based on material supplied by the CIA to a Senate Investigative Committee led by Senator Dianne Feinstein, came to the conclusion that NO useful information was obtained from the use of enhanced interrogation techniques.  That absolutely NO useful information at all was ever obtained is a suspicious statement in and of itself; but the fact that none of the CIA’s three previous directors, the current director, or any of the agents involved in the program was interviewed or put under oath shows a remarkable lapse of judgment and evinces a possible bias toward an already pre-determined conclusion.  The fact that this committee was composed entirely of Democrats also raises questions about the impartiality of the decision and the statement that “no useful information” was obtained contrasts sharply with transcripts of the following interviews: On 12/17/14 Megyn Kelly from Fox’s, “The Kelly File” interviewed Dr James Mitchell, the “Man Who Waterboarded 9/11 Mastermind: If it was torture, I would be in jail.”  This psychologist, who developed the program for the CIA, indicated the techniques were both effective and useful.  Similarly, former Navy SEAL Rob O’Neill, who killed bin Laden, stated on a Fox interview with Peter Doocy that enhanced interrogative techniques used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed yielded positive results.  Previously, we had been told that the raid on bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan was possible only because the name of his courier was divulged during an enhanced interrogation session of a major al-Qaeda terrorist, supposedly Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  Before we became aware of his function, this courier was just another name in a very long list of suspected terrorists.  After we learned of his role, we had only to follow him until he eventually led us to bin Laden’s lair.  Peter Bergen’s interview on CNN, 12/11/12, where Mr. Bergen gives the names of four al-Qaeda terrorists, all of whom were subject to the same techniques and gave up information.  There are probably instances of other terrorist attacks that have been thwarted using information gathered during these sessions, but security protocol prevents them from being disseminated.   

 

The re-emergence of al-Qaeda, the conquests of ISIS, the resurgence of the Taliban, and the exponential growth of other Islamic terror groups such as Boko Haram, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Shabab, Hamas, and Hezb’allah serves as a warning that we cannot relax our guard for an instant.  We need intelligence from whatever source we can get, and if that means a terrorist has to get slapped or Waterboarded, then that is a better option than the sight of a mushroom cloud over a major American city.  The attacks of 9-11-01 and the murder of 3000 innocents should serve as constant reminders of the nature and intent of the enemy we face and of the failure of the intelligence community to heed the warning signs.  One has only to read accounts of the depredations of ISIS and other terrorist groups from the Middle East to Africa and even on our own home soil to come to the conclusion that we are at war with an implacable foe.  Reports and videos of beheadings, mass executions, crucifixions, abductions, forced slavery, rape, and even being buried alive are commonplace, yet we seem to be more concerned with the perceived ill-treatment of a terrorist than of the aforementioned atrocities.  It has been said that all societies make compromises with their core values during times of distress.  The implication here being, that the threatened society will re-embrace those core values once the crisis has passed.  We can only hope that the compromises we must make during these troubled times do not compromise us as a nation.

 

via Articles: The Bastinado, The Rack, The Iron Maiden, and the Waterboard: Torture in Historical Perspective.

Dec 182014
 

By Bruce Deitrick Price — December 17, 2014

It’s one of the most bizarre and destructive events in American history.  

Dyslexia

 

Circa 1931, public schools started using Whole Word to teach reading.  (This method has many other names, such as Look-say, Whole Language, Dolch Words, and Sight Words.)  Almost immediately, children started having psychological problems – i.e., mental health issues.

The typical pattern is that a boy will reach the second or third grade and realize that his teachers and family think he is, in effect, retarded because he can’t do this simple thing that most other kids can do.  In fourth grade he will be labeled dyslexic.  In fifth grade he will be declared to have ADHD and be in need of Ritalin.  This story, in endless variations, has descended upon millions of Americans, on males more than females (so it is a component of the War on Boys).

Long story short, millions of Americans think they have a serious disability called dyslexia.  All phonics experts say that these victims do not have “dyslexia”; they merely have the side-effects of being taught by misguided teachers.  It’s those side-effects that have caused so much suffering and educational decline since 1931.

 Siegfried Engelmann, one of America’s great educators, pointed out: “But the assumption of the label dyslexia is that the kid is at fault – not that the kid has been the victim of academic child abuse.  We have worked with thousands of kids and never seen one who failed to learn to read when the teaching and management details are in place. We worked with several hundred kids whose IQ was below 80 and every one was able to read by the end of first grade.”

Mona McNee, the phonics expert, insisted that reading failure is usually due to faulty methods.  People, she said, “should use the word dysteachia, not dyslexia.”

The younger a person is, the easier it is to correct “dysteachia” simply by teaching phonics.  It’s more difficult for older people, just as it would be difficult for a two-finger typist to become a real typist.  Bad habits have been learned; they must be unlearned.  Indeed, Whole Word is best described as a cluster of bad habits.

dyslexia-symptoms

Now, think about these millions of crippled children, and the psychiatric attention they need, the drugs they consume, the extra remediation they need, and you see multi-billion-dollar industries based on a lie.  Rudolf Flesch tried to answer the question 40 years ago of whether children ever have dyslexia.  He and his experts decided that it happens, just as insanity, schizophrenia, blindness, and other major problems do happen.  But it’s seen in fewer than 1% of children.  However, for the last 40 years, our public schools have almost proudly announced that 20% of their students have dyslexia!  Note that this diagnosis serves as a cover-up of bad methods. Of course, our kids could read  if only they didn’t have dyslexia!

Dyslexia is a controversial area.  But consider the facts we know.  Virtually all phonics experts say that, based on their professional experience, when systematic phonics is taught, nearly all children learn to read by the end of first grade.  However, when Whole Word is taught, two thirds of the children are still below “proficient” in fourth and eighth grade, as all the NEAP scores reveal.

If a child is taught with intensive phonics and still has a problem that can be called dyslexia, then you know the child does have a genetic or inborn condition.  But this is rare.

Here is another fact we know for sure about this weird story.  Dr. Samuel Orton  all the way back in 1927, conducted research showing that Whole Word not only prevented children from reading, but also caused serious mental problems.  This result was published in the Journal of Educational Psychology.  Everything his article asserts was already known before Whole Word was even introduced into the schools.  Orton concluded:

[T]his technique…often proves an actual obstacle to reading progress, and moreover…faulty teaching methods may not only prevent the acquisition of academic education by children of average capacity but may also give rise to far reaching damage to their emotional life.

It’s a complex, almost garbled paragraph, but Orton’s message is shockingly clear: Whole Word will both cripple a child’s education and cause “far-reaching damage,” which we today call mental health issues.

dyslexia-word-confusion

Thanks to Orton’s research, the professors of education knew ahead of time that they were going to harm children and create lots of mental health problems.  Our Education Establishment, “progressives” all, did not care.  They apparently considered this damage acceptable or even desirable.

The goal seems to have been a more socialist society.  Advanced literacy was deemed an obstacle to that goal.  Whole Word was a proven antidote for too much literacy.  So the strategy become obvious: demonize phonics while imposing Whole Word on every public school student.  Some may have trouble calling this a criminal conspiracy; but it seems obvious that that’s what it is.

 

via Articles: Education as a Cause of Mental Health Issues.

Nov 222014
 

By M. Catharine Evans — November 22, 2014

I don’t know if Bill Cosby drugged and raped women over the past four decades. 

No one in the media knows, either – not the ladies on The View, not MSNBC, not the Washington Post, and certainly Cliff Huxtablenot black feminists calling for his head.  CNN’s Don Lemon doesn’t know, either.  In a second interview with one of Cosby’s accusers, Lemon acted like a prosecutor when it came to her claims of forced oral sex, even going so far as to ask why she didn’t “bite” Cosby.

So far, the only alleged victim to file charges was paid off in 2006. Up until now, Cosby, along with his Cliff Huxtable character,  has survived the occasional news reports of alleged assaults.  As late as 2012, Saturday Night Live felt comfortable enough with Cosby’s public image to parody his top-rated 1980s sitcom, The Cosby Show,  with their own version called The Obama Show.

Try comparing Barack Obama to Cliff Huxtable today.  Due to the severity of the recently surfaced accusations, Netflix and NBC have already canceled upcoming specials, and the actor’s lawyers are in damage control mode.  TV Land is pulling reruns of his long-running sitcom.

Cosby is finished.  The star’s guilt or innocence will eventually work itself out, or not.  But a peripheral question emerges from the barrage of coverage this story has received: why has the mainstream media suddenly come down on the 77-year-old former TV star like a proverbial ton of bricks when allegations of sexual assault have been swirling around Cosby for decades?

Cosby’s latest troubles started when a Chicago-born comic, Hannibal Buress, skewered the septuagenarian at Philadelphia’s Trocadero Theatre on October 16.  Until then, the newest rape accusations weren’t  getting much play in the media.  At the time,  Buress was riding high after a September gig at the Verizon Center in D.C. and a write-up in the Washington Post.  His Philadelphia act, which included the lines below, ignited the firestorm now engulfing Cosby, and it didn’t take long for his attack on Cosby to hit the mainstream.

 

From Philly Magazine:

… And it’s even worse because Bill Cosby has the [f******] smuggest old black man public persona that I hate, “Pull your pants up black people. I was on TV in the 80’s. I can talk down to you because I have had a successful sitcom. Yeah, but you raped women Bill Cosby, so brings you down a couple of notches[.]

The comic wasn’t the only voice out there calling Cosby a rapist and dissing his sitcom.  Brittney Cooper, a black feminist academic and co-founder of the Crunk Feminist Collective blog, came out with her own take on the Cosby mess.  Nothing enrages a feminist like the sight of a functional nuclear family, and Cooper is no exception.  Her October 24 article on CFM entitled “Clair Huxtable is Dead: On Slaying the Cosbys…” appeared a week after Buress’s stand-up.  Cooper seized on the alleged victims’ cries of rape to air her personal views onThe Cosby Show – namely, that black folks like the Huxtables promote white privilege.  For Cooper, the traditional nuclear, upwardly mobile family is a racist, oppressive social construct that “never was.”

 

From “Clair Huxtable is Dead”:

Now that a Black male comedian Hannibal Burress [sic] has had the courage to take Cosby to task for his conservative, anti-poor, misogynistic respectability rants, people are listening again. …

And since Bill Cosby is a rapist, his avatar Cliff Huxtable is a representational terrorist, holding us hostage to a Black family that never was. But let him die. …

[I]t has long been time to slay the Huxtable patriarch. So Cliff Huxtable, you’re dead to me! …

[E]verybody should be clear that Clair Huxtable is dead, too.

The Cosby Show, which premiered in 1984 during the Reagan era, birthed a new paradigm in television.  For the first time, an upper middle-class black family unit was seen in a positive light.  Its predecessors , shows like Good Times, Sanford and Son, and The Jeffersons, depicted angry, boisterous black fathers, some using the N-word and calling white people “honkies.”

Huxtable Family

The Huxtable family of the Bill Cosby Show — What should be the Black American dream family.

By contrast, the highly rated Cosby Show rarely dealt with race issues or the contemporary black experience.  Bill Cosby’s character, a successful physician and caring father, raised the bar and created a foundational narrative built on what black families could be – especially if they didn’t spend all their time railing against “whitey.”  After 20 years of failed multi-billion-dollar government welfare programs and social justice scammers like the Children’s Defense Fund, Americans of all colors embraced the Huxtables.  The show’s popularity and stellar ratings suggested that the American Dream was not dead – only dormant.

Bill Cosby; Phylicia RashadThe Dream for many  began in the 1950s with the rise of the middle class.  By the mid-1960s, more and more blacks were moving away from poverty and into the middle class.  But this upward mobility began to seriously stall with Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty.  As the welfare rolls rose, so did the number of single-parent black families led by females.  Race-baiters, activists, socialists, and Ivy League scholars were out in force and quick to deride anyone for daring to criticize single mothers in the black community.  The first female president of Howard University said, “One must question the validity of the white middle class lifestyle from its very foundation because it has already proven itself to be decadent and unworthy of emulation.”  Feminists loved this kind of talk since they, like Cooper, saw the nuclear family as economically oppressive and husbands/fathers as the oppressors.  In her writings, the Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison glorified the suffering single black mother as superior to a married white mother bound to one man in an unequal relationship.

By the 1980s, Americans, including blacks feeling the effects of generational welfare, were opening their eyes to the devastation caused by ivory tower-dwellers far removed from the inner-city ghettoes.  No wonder The Cosby Showwas such a big hit.  Its popularity reflected what  the majority of Americans  needed and still need – a mother and father working together to provide a better life for their children.  In 1989, while Barack Obama was listening to Reverend Jeremiah Wright degrade middle-class values, The Cosby Show was number onein the ratings.

Now, twenty years later, 85% of all black children in poverty live in single-mother households, there’s  skyrocketing  black-on-black crime, and Americans across the nation are waking up to the realization that  their tax dollars have been subsidizing dependency and degeneracy for fifty years.  It’s the ’80s all over again.  Progressives are feeling the rumblings of mass discontent.  The Huxtables must be destroyed.  It’s too risky.  Ferguson is looming.  Black kids with no fathers and no moral compass can’t have a mythical figure like Dr. Huxtable appearing in their living rooms every night, getting their hopes up.

 

via Articles: Bill Cosby: Why Now?.

Nov 142014
 

by Joshua Riddleyoungcons.com — November 14th, 2014

A mom who we only know by her blogger name Sherry wrote about how she was out with her son who has Down syndrome and a cashier implies she should have had an abortion.

gabe-ds

Sherry has a two-year-old son named Gave whom she loves dearly, so when someone says something so horrible it’s almost hard to know how to respond. I thought Sherry handled herself with class while getting a very important message across.

From IJ Review:

Sherry started her post by writing about her two-year old son, Gabe, who acts like, well, most two-year olds. He’s curious, throws tantrums, and loves music. Sometimes, she even forgets that her son has Down syndrome.

Like the cashier that gave me sad eyes and spit poison in a whisper.

“I bet you wish you had known before he came out. You know they have a test for that now…”

Shock, horror, hurt and fury coursed through my body. I considered jerking her over the register and beating her senseless. I looked her up and down, I could take her….

But instead of lashing out at the cashier, she did this:

Instead I used whit (sic): I smiled a crazy lady smile “I know right?! It’s so much harder to get rid of them once they come out. Believe ME I’ve tried…” Jackpot! Her mouth dropped open and she stared at me in shock.

I leaned over the register and whispered to her,

“What you’re saying is that it’s okay for me to kill him while he’s inside, but not outside? In my book there isn’t a difference. For the record, we knew EVERYTHING about him during my pregnancy. He is our son now and he was our son then. There is no way in hell that I would let any harm come to either of my children. Including during the time that they’re so ridiculously considered disposable.”

 

via Cashier tells mom she should have aborted her Down syndrome son, mom’s response is legendary |.

Oct 182014
 

By Lloyd Marcus — October 18, 2014

Bill O’Reilly asked Dr. Charles Krauthammer why, despite low approval nationwide, Obama still maintains over 80% approval in the black community. Krauthammer, in my opinion sympathetically, chalked up Obama’s high approval among blacks to racial pride and loyalty.  

Can-Obama-Still-Win-The-African-American-Community-And-Support-Gay-Marriage

Krauthammer pointed out that ethnic groups tend to be loyal to each other and that in the same way, you would see the gay community rally around the first gay president.

While I understand where Krauthammer and black America are “coming from” (my ’70s lingo), as an American who happens to be black, I cannot give black folks a pass who are willing to follow Obama to hell because of racial loyalty and America’s past sins.  It is just plain wrong.

Krauthammer further defended his understanding of why blacks are loyal to Obama.  He said there are blacks still alive today who experienced racism in America.  In various articles, I have talked about the horrific racism that my 86-year-old black dad suffered.  So I get it.

A white friend said, “Well, I guess I can give your dad’s generation and even yours a pass for staying loyal to Obama.”  My retort was, “No, there is no acceptable excuse for continuing to follow Obama as he takes our country over a cliff.”

The image that comes to mind is Obama dressed as a pied piper – playing a seductive tune, leading black Americans to their deaths, drowned in a river.  Blacks are suffering big-time under Obama.  

I am sorry, folks.  But there comes a time when the America-did-us-wrong excuse simply is not good enough.  We are all Americans.  It is morally right and our patriotic duty to lay aside resentments and racial, sexual, and gender loyalties and do whatever is best for our country.  While I respect Dr. Krauthammer, I cannot give black America a sympathetic pass for taking the low road. C’mon, black America.  We are better than that. 

Bumper Sticker

Bumper Sticker

 I keep coming back to white America’s pattern of expecting less of black Americans because of slavery.  I just want to scream, “Stop it!”  There are many rock-solid right-thinking, responsible blacks out there – fully capable, willing, and able to stand on their own two feet without government handouts or special concessions due to their race.  And yet, such blacks are purposely kept in the shadows by Democrats and the mainstream media.

Rather than pandering to blacks, giving them a pass for placing loyalty to skin color above their country, how about holding them to a higher standard as equal Americans?

Where are the leaders out there boldly celebrating America, educating blacks about the great sacrifices that were made in the battle to emancipate blacks?  Over 600,000 Americans died in the Civil War, in which slavery was a huge issue.  Where are the people explaining to blacks why they should be grateful and proud to be Americans?

black-thanks

Black American should be grateful for the sacrifices of so many white Americans who have given so much for their freedom.

Insidiously, there are those who believe that America’s debt for slavery will never be paid.  It’s the gift that keeps on giving to liberals and race exploiters.

With the surge of liberalism under Obama, I would not put it past our emboldened liberal public-school system to come out of the closet and be honest about what they have being teaching our kids for decades.  Don’t be surprised to see all students K through 12 required to take yearly installments of a course titled “Why you should hate your country.”  White students seeking extra credit may take “White Guilt 101.”  Black students are mandated to take “Why I am forever a victim of racist white America.”

A Fox News poll says 58% of voters believe our country is “going to hell in a hand-basket.”  We are a nation in crisis.

The Democratic Party and the mainstream media are notorious for masterfully encouraging Americans to segregate themselves into victimized voting blocs – blacks, Hispanics, women, the class-envious, homosexuals, and so on.  This enables Democrats to deceive each group to use their votes for Democrats as currency.  It’s protection money against their supposed Republican, rich, white, racist, sexist, and homophobic oppressors.

Thanks to our reluctant warrior Commander-in-Chief, we are losing the war against ISIS.  Obama has allowed over 60,000 illegals to stroll across our southern border, infecting Americans – among them our kids – with various contagious viruses, with no end in sight. 

Allow me to remind you that when he was a senator in Illinois, to secure the radical feminist vote, Obama voted against legislation three times that would stop the barbaric practice of forcing hospitals to leave babies who survived abortions out to die (the Born Alive Infant Protection Act). 

Common sense has led several countries to restrict flights from West African countries.  We are further witnessing Obama’s trademark cold, calculating political posturing with his refusal to block flights from the Ebola hot zone. 

The real Obama - A pitiful human being...

The real Obama – A pitiful human being…

Rush Limbaugh reminded us that Ronald Reagan said that the Soviet Union would eventually implode because of the weight of its own immorality.

I thought, oh my gosh, we are witnessing the implosion of the Obama presidency for the very same reason: his immorality.  This is a man who uses every governmental agency at his disposal to punish his opposition and bully Americans into submission.  His immorality includes being an award-winning serial liar.

The stakes are far too high to give black Americans an understanding pat on the back for circling the wagons around a failed presidency.

My fellow Americans, regardless of race, color, or creed, we must come together – one nation under God, united and unhyphenated – to do whatever is politically necessary to heal our land.  Because first and foremost, we are Americans.

 

via Articles: America in Crisis: Sorry, Blacks, You Can’t Sit This Out.

Oct 152014
 

by Ed Lasky — October 14, 2014

We are led by a bunch of juveniles — led straight into a ditch that will take a long time to crawl out of, assuming we get a good president in 2017 (a big assumption given the ongoing slow motion Clinton coronation).

The White House apparently believes the way to lead is by getting out the coloring books and cameras. True, we live in a visual age with a SnapChat attention span but does an agenda have to be reduced to the lowest common denominator? Can’t the greatest communicator on earth educate and inform instead of distract and prevaricate? Can’t a team that takes many billions of dollars of taxpayer money come up with a better way to formulate and pitch policy than relying on tweets and silliness?

tommy vietor

Tommy Vietor, former van driver and now spokesman for the Obama Whitehouse.

Instead we get comments such as “dude that was two years ago” to explain away the Benghazi disaster and divert blame from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from a former van driver turned National Security Council spokesman, Tommy Vietor. We get the same drivel from failed short-story writer Ben Rhodes — who has become a key foreign policy makers because … I cannot figure that answer out, but it might have something to do with sycophancy, a talent for lying that Obama (who, after all, lied about his own mother’s death for political purposes and clearly feels no compunction about serial lying ) values in people, and a brother who heads up CBS News.

 

Talent is a job-killer for people wanting to work in the White House. But skill at Adobe Photoshop and reducing complex foreign policy and other issues to 140 characters helps. Simple-mindedness is a must, along with a touch of mendacity.

For this is the mindset of the adolescents running this administration. Of course, this team knows their base the best, so maybe they calculate (and they are a calculating lot) that this is the way to build support among many Democrats.

 

Just to recap a brief history:

We had a campaign based entirely on slogans and photos. We had Hope and Change; Yes We Can; We are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For. And other meaningless gibberish-including emails with led by informative hard-hitting subject lines along the lines of “Hey.” For more of this electronic litter see “15 best Obama email subject lines.”

To sell ObamaCare we had Pajama Boy: An insufferable Man-Child, in Rich Lowry’s words.

Obamacare pajama boy

Obamacare pajama boy

Obama’s reelection featured the cartoonish “The Life of Julia,” the story of a cradle to grave life blessed by the soul-sucking policies of Obama 

Last week, President Obama’s campaign launched a fictional storybook ad called, “The Life of Julia.” The slide show narrative follows Julia, a cartoon character, from age 3 to age 67 and explains how Obama’s policies, from Head Start to Obamacare to mandated contraception coverage to Medicare reform, would provide Julia with a better life than Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan could.

Julia is not your typical all-American girl, but an obviously independent, yuppie liberal woman. She goes to public school, graduates college, and becomes a Web designer. She is able to pursue her career because, at age 27, “her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health.”

At age 31 she “decides to have a child,” with no mention of a father or husband. Her son Zachary heads off to a Race to the Top funded public school, while Julia goes on to start her own Web business. She retires at age 67 with Social Security and Medicare supporting her financially and spends her later years volunteering in a community garden.

Her life was a fairy tale remarkably void of reality and thus well-aimed to capture the votes of the low-information (or no-info voter or wrong-info voter). Bill Bennett fact-checked and injected some “uncomfortable truths” into the argument. Of course, younger votes don’t have the faintest idea who Bennett is and relied on the narrow-streaming spewed out by the Obama campaign.

 

But wait there is more!

A senior White House official thinks Saudi Arabia shares a border with Syria (Obama thinks Hawaii is in Asia, so perhaps we must give the official a break). A van driver can become a senior advisor – and this is another van driver different from Tommy Vietor.

The White House team apparently thought the likes of former KBG chairman Vladimir Putin could be swayed by the same simpleton ideas.

There was the infamous Red Reset Button:  

Hillary's "diplomatic" flub.  - The Red Reset Button

Hillary’s “diplomatic” flub. – The Red Reset Button

Note to self: When trying to improve ties with a former Cold War-era foe, check a dictionary

Secretary of State Hillary Clintonlearned that lesson the hard way Friday when she presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov with a gift bearing an incorrect translation — one that implied hostility, rather than peacemaking. 

Clinton presented Lavrov with a gift-wrapped red button, which said “Reset” in English and “Peregruzka” in Russian. The problem was, “peregruzka” doesn’t mean reset. It means overcharged, or overloaded. 

And Lavrov called her out on it.

Really? Will that stunt go down as one of the silliest State Department ideas ever? Does anyone think the former head of the KGB looked at this red button as anything other than a green light to go on the march?

They couldn’t even get that right? Can’t they even use Google Translator? And, by the way, the red button was ripped off from a hotel in a sophomoric stunt. How fitting.

 

Barack Obama is notoriously insular. He won’t talk with experts or leaders from not just the Republican Party but also the Democratic Party. But he did make time to chat with the Pimp with a Limp; hang out with rappers who just happened to drop by the White House situation room — a historic room turned into a rapper selfie photo shoot; play hoops with NBA stars and, needless to say, golfs with his chef, among others.

Good Grief, as Charlie Brown might comment: there is no shame in this White House and certainly no respect for the office or the responsibilities of the presidency.

The Gang That Could Not Shoot Straight marked another notch in its popgun with the execrable and incompetent State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

After the invasion of Ukraine she and the White House responded resolutely by sending out tweets and hashtags: Hashtag Diplomacy That Had Putin Shaking in his boots:

Jan Psaki making an ass of herself.

Jen Psaki making an ass of herself.

Tweets, hashtags, and Facebook postings have replaced serious communication, just as they have for so many teenagers. That is not a good sign. Nor is it a healthy sign that Obama and his team seem to spend a lot of time tossing footballs (at least they are not Nerf ones) in the Oval Office, playing cards, and watching sports.

No wonder Obama makes decisions by checking off boxes on multiple choice memos handed to him. They are easier than real thinking.

 

When Bill O’Reilly mentioned he thought Jen Psaki was out of her depth (a commonly held view among foreign policy veterans) another of Obama’s appointees, Marie Harf, went on a junior-high school like rampage for her BFF.

As the midterms approach America is being subject to a new low in the puerile policies of the White House.

Whitehouse emojis

Whitehouse emojis

The Obama administration even planned to use emojis to reach out to young voters. This is not a joke, but rather taking Valerie Jarrett’s advice to use simpler words one step farther – using pictures instead of words. No Joke: Obama Admin To Use Emojis To Reach Out To Young Voters…

The excellent weaselzippers website caught this one and commented “It’s come to this…”

But is has been like that for years with goofy emails asking Obama supporters to wish Barack a Happy Birthday or the Obama’s a Happy Anniversary-along with some campaign money.

 

Via BuzzFeed:

The White House is preparing a new emoji-based social media campaign to make its economic pitch to young people, BuzzFeed News has learned.

Starting Thursday, White House social media accounts will blast out charts, graphs, and yes, emojis, aimed at catching the eye of young voters weeks before the November elections.

In the face of ridicule, the White House has dropped the emojis idea.  However, their prior plans are scary glimpse into the minds of those running the nation.

I recently heard a pundit declare how hard it was to get into the mind of Obama. Why? There seems to be a lot of space there.

 

Leon Panetta, esteemed by people on both sides of the aisle with a career history of serving the public that makes Obama’s look as thin as his ectomorph body type, writes a memoir critical of the president’s leadership. One of the goals was to encourage Obama make better decisions in the two years left in his term.

Instead of logically and rationally addressing the issues raised, Bill Burton — Obama’s former deputy Press Secretary and now full-time political hack — slurs Panetta with a name-calling blitz: Panetta, according to the man-child (who does resemble Pajama Boy), Bill Burton is “dishonorable” “Sad’ Small and Petty.” He must be taking talking points from his former boss, Barack Obama, who routinelytaunts and mocks political opponents in a manner that disgraces his office.

The world’s tyrants and terrorists look at this and mock Obama and America.

Here is Putin’s retort-in visual form:

putin-obama-7

As Instapundit Glenn Reynolds often sarcastically notes “we are in the best of hands”.

Bullies and predators prey on weakness, and such a pathetic approach to the presidency invites contempt and aggression. The lack of gravitas is historic. And perilous.

America will be paying the price empowering these people for many years to come.

 

via Articles: Not Even JayVee Level: Obama’s Juvenile Communications Team.

Oct 132014
 

by Washington Free Beacon Staff — October 13, 2014 4:06 pm

Marine Corps Gen. John Kelly said that if and when the Ebola virus escapes its containment in West Africa, infected people may flee those countries and spread the disease to Central and South America.

GUINEA-EBOLA_SPANAGUI101-1-640

 

Last week, Kelly said that if such a migration occurs, it could cause “mass migration into the United States” of those seeking treatment, CNS News reported Monday.

“If it breaks out, it’s literally, ‘Katie bar the door,’ and there will be mass migration into the United States,” Kelly said in remarks to the National Defense University on Tuesday. “They will run away from Ebola, or if they suspect they are infected, they will try to get to the United States for treatment.

“The potential spread of Ebola into Central and Southern America is a real possibility,” the article written about the general’s speech and posted on the Department of Defense website on Wednesday stated.

Kelly also said that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 1.4 million people could be infected with Ebola by the end of the year, with 62 percent of those dying from the disease.

usnewsebola-patient2-640

“It will cause panic, and people will flee the region,” Kelly said. With the criminal networks that already exist in Central and South America, Kelly said there could be transnational groups smuggling in people infected with Ebola, making countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador especially susceptible to an outbreak.

 

via Potential for Ebola-Driven ‘Mass Migration’ from South of US Border | Washington Free Beacon.

Sep 222014
 

by Washington Free Beacon Staff — September 22, 2014

$10M ‘fixer-upper’ has been taking up street parking for 17 months 

zuckerberg

Mark Zuckerberg – CEO of Facebook

The construction of Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s $10 million house has begun to infringe on his neighborhood’s peace and quiet, according 

to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Zuckerberg’s Dolores Heights, Calif., “fixer-upper” is surrounded by “no parking” signs that have kept residents from parking outside their own homes for the past 17 months.

The Chronicle reports:

Dozens of construction workers, using backhoes and jackhammers, are busy installing everything from a new kitchen to bathrooms and decks — and tearing up the sidewalks for new fiber-optic cables that will connect to the home.

And it’s all being overseen by round-the-clock security.

“This is nothing short of a fortress,” said one homeowner, who asked not to be named to avoid a public kerfuffle with the new Facebook neighbors.

Assessor’s records show that contractors for Zuckerberg and his wife, UCSF physician Priscilla Chan, have taken out no fewer than 10 permits for millions of dollars in construction work to the 1920s-era home — located just a block and a half from hipster central Dolores Park.

One permit lists a $65,000 remodel of the kitchen and six bathrooms — a figure that appeared to be so small that one real estate agent called it “a joke.”

zuckerberg fixer upper

Other permits:
•$720,000 for an office, media room, half bathroom, mudroom, laundry room, wine room and wet bar, plus a new second-floor half bathroom and remodel of the second, third and fourth floors.
•$750,000 for an addition to the rear and side of the house, reconfigured landscaping and window restoration work.
•$25,000 to make the fourth floor legally “habitable,” add a bathroom and turn part of the roof into a deck.

There’s also a new basement garage, complete with a turntable pad so cars can get in and out more easily. One neighbor privately complained to us about the steady noise and hassle getting out of a driveway. Another said the problems are real, but that “it’s hard to talk about it without sounding whiny or like the wealthy need to be punished just because they have money.”


via Facebook CEO, Amnesty Enthusiast Mark Zuckerberg Is a Terrible Neighbor | Washington Free Beacon.

Sep 172014
 

By Todd Starnes – FoxNews.com — September 16, 2014 

Virginity does not rock at Ramay Junior High School in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

virginity-rocks

That’s the lesson 13-year-old Chloe Rubiano learned. Chloe is in the eighth grade. She is also a good church-going girl. So you can imagine her mom’s surprise when she got in trouble at school.

Chloe showed up at school wearing a T-shirt that reads: “Virginity Rocks.”

“It’s a positive message,” said Bambi Crozier, Chloe’s mom.

Apparently some folks at Ramay Junior High don’t understand the concept of virginity.

But school officials disagreed. They said the shirt could cause a classroom disruption and contained sexual content. Apparently some folks at Ramay Junior High don’t understand the concept of virginity.

The 13-year-old, who bought the shirt at a Christian music festival, was told she had to change shirts.

“It was so bizarre,” Mrs. Crozier told me. “She had the shirt for several years and wore it a number of times to school.”

I called the school district hoping to talk to the person in charge of the fashion police – but no one’s called me back. A spokesperson told local news outlets that they have a rule banning any clothes that might cause a distraction.

“Why is it such a bad thing to talk about virginity when they’re handing out condoms and girls are pregnant?” Mrs. Crozier wondered. “It blows my mind.”

It does make you wonder why the guidance counselors are doling out condoms to the junior high crowd.

“I think they’re bigger concern (is) they just don’t want to talk about virginity,” she said. “Today, people think that virginity is a dirty word. It’s not in our household.”

Or maybe they’re concerned the “Virginity Rocks” shirt might cut down on condom distribution?

Who knows?

Mrs. Crozier said her daughter did as she was instructed to do and put on a gym shirt.

virginity-rocks2-jpg

“We totally believe in respecting rules,” she said. ‘We totally believe in listening to leadership. If that’s what their request is – that’s okay. There are certain battles in life you are going to choose and whether or not you can wear a shirt is not a big deal.”

So being a good church-going girl, Chloe abided by the school’s orders – because heaven forbid a 21st century teenager be caught promoting abstinence. Planned Parenthood must be having convulsions.

Mrs. Crozier said she was taken aback by the national attention her daughter’s shirt has received.
“All I did was post on Facebook to my friends,” she said. “Now my daughter has gone viral.

Chloe, meanwhile, seems to be taking her 15 minutes of fame in stride.

“She thinks it’s cool,” Mr. Crozier said. “She updated her Instagram page to say ‘Chloe: As Seen on TV.’”


via School orders girl to remove ‘Virginity Rocks’ shirt | Fox News.

Sep 072014
 

By Michael L. Grable — September 6th, 2014

The American Republic’s ill.  The disease is entitlementalism.  Its only cure may be limiting suffrage.  

Apostasy?  Hardly.  Suffrage wasn’t unlimited in Jefferson’s and Madison’s America.  The notion Entitlements2would have been risible.  Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights mentioned suffrage, and even most white males couldn’t vote unless they owned property or paid taxes.  Those without a tangible stake in society didn’t vote.  Unlimited suffrage emerged from five later amendments.  Apart from the 14th, they were the 15th in 1870 (enfranchised black males), the 19th in 1920 (enfranchised women), the 23rd in 1961 (enfranchised D.C. residents), the 24th in 1964 (prohibited poll taxes and literacy tests), and the 26th in 1971 (enfranchised 18-year olds).  Incarcerated felons and the mentally incompetent still can’t vote.  So why should the vocationally incompetent, for whose subsistence government steals the value of others’ labor?


America’s 226-year experience with suffrage and governance is essentially this: governance limited while suffrage was, became unlimited as suffrage did (the socialist prescript).  Constitutions aside, the adult question is whether equal and universal suffrage today threatens America’s tomorrow.  If so, the only remaining adult question is who amends what to limit the suffrage of whom with the least civil disability.


John Stuart Mill, England’s foremost liberal philosopher, condemned universal suffrage in one fundamental respect.  His Considerations on Representative Government – written during America’s Civil War – said this about England’s Poor Law and its compulsory parish relief:

I regard it as required by first principles, that the receipt of parish relief should be a preemptory disqualification for the franchise.  He who cannot by his labor suffice for his own support, has no claim to the privilege of helping himself to the money of others.  By becoming dependent on the remaining members of the community for actual subsistence, he abdicates his claim for equal rights with them in other respects.  Those to whom he is indebted for the continuation of his very existence may justly claim the exclusive management of those common concerns, to which he now brings nothing, or less than he takes away.


Would you allow an indigent who – upon your charity – lives in your house and eats at your table a vote equal to your own about your house’s management, your table’s bounty, and your resources’ husbandry?  If not, why would you and your fellow citizens allow a multitude of indigents who – upon your charity – live in the nation’s house and eat at the nation’s table a vote equal to your own about the nation’s management, its table’s bounty, and its resources’ husbandry?

Freedom-640


A statement attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville makes things clear: “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”  The statement’s otherwise consistent with de Tocqueville’s classic view of the American Republic:

A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.

Americans are so enamored of equality; they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.

Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it.  Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number.  Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality.  But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

When the taste for physical gratifications among them has grown more rapidly than their education and their experience of free institutions, the time will come when men are carried away and lose all self-restraint. … It is not necessary to do violence to such a people in order to strip them of the rights they enjoy; they themselves willingly loosen their hold. … [T]hey neglect their chief business which is to remain their own masters.


Mill’s and de Tocqueville’s philosophies half a century after the American Republic’s founding voting has changed too muchwere consistent with the founders’ philosophy half a century before.  A century and a half later, neither is consistent with an American entitlement mentality, which, in less than another half-century, will make government more our master than our servant.  Taxpayers are already in servitude for the one third of each year they must work to pay their taxes.  Even that won’t be enough.  The master will require more, the servants receive less.  Without limiting the suffrage of those “helping … [themselves] to the money of others,” de Tocqueville’s distinction between democracy and socialism may be meaningless.


Annually transferring $2 trillion from those who earned it to many who didn’t is bad enough (as evidenced by the nation’s debt, now greater than its GDP, and its unfunded liability, now ten times greater than its GDP).  The real crux, however, is our transition from governance that serves us to governance we serve.  Americans are, as de Tocqueville warned, neglecting “their chief business which is to remain their own masters.”


A century of Soviet history says all we need know about the communitarian ethos in the sovereign state.  Millions died, and tens of millions more were oppressed and impoverished – all to indulge a psychopathic state whose sole ethos became the security of its own ruling-class clique.  Even in today’s reformed Russia, with its immense natural resources and the largest territory on earth, the per-capita GDP is only half the size of Italy’s, and a corrupt clique of siloviki has stolen most of its wealth.  The state has no ethos but the state.


The American State crossed the Mill/de Tocqueville Rubicon fifty years ago, as well as with Lyndon’s Johnson’s “Great Society,” and is well on its way to its own version of political Caesarism.  States can be stolen by bullets, as with the Bolshevists, but they can also be stolen by ballots, as the democratic entitlement mentality now shows in America.  Combine “democratic government … in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it” with a Caesarist Congress (where re-election rates are close to 100%), and the Congress can steal the state by “bribing the public with the public’s money.” 

Thomas-Jefferson-Quote-Entitlement1


Fifty percent of Americans pay 97.6% of federal income taxes (25% pay 85.6%).  The other 50% pay only 2.4%.  The bottom 20% receives $8.13 for every $1 tax it pays.  At least $1.5 trillion is annually redistributed from the top 40% to the bottom 60%.  At a cost of $600 billion annually, Americans receiving means-tested welfare now outnumber those working full-time.  Can the Republic be said any longer to exist when unlimited suffrage permits the majority of voters to live in the minority’s house and eat at the minority’s table while it “brings nothing, or less than it takes away” to either the house or the table?


This can’t continue without bringing America to its knees.  That’s just property’s grim reality in the collectivist state.  Yet it will as long as universal suffrage does.  “Equality in restraint and servitude” will replace “equality in liberty.”  And all but America’s own version of a Supreme Soviet and its security apparatus will be, in de Tocqueville’s words, “a flock of timid … animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”  Ironically, the majority that today votes for entitlementalism will tomorrow be its foremost victims after those for whom it voted finish stealing the state, to which they alone will then be entitled.  No suffrage of any sort will mean anything in a one-party state.

Entitlement leads to Socialism....

Entitlement leads to Socialism….

Can we still reassert Mill’s “first principles,” seek de Tocqueville’s “equality in liberty,” avoid his “equality in restraint and servitude,” and reverse the stealing of the American State?  The good news is that we can – and justly limit the resulting civil disability too (another topic for another time).  The bad news is that we don’t want to.


via Articles: The Stealing of the American State.

Aug 312014
 

By Lilly Williams — August 30th, 2014

…big governments do not work; big governments are very dangerous because they eventually use force. Big government attracts people who love power and control. Big government seems to want to distract you and direct your choices to unimportant social conventions yet limit your choices on really important things like speech, self-defense, and property rights.

Lilly Williams - Chinese immigrant...

Lilly Williams – Chinese immigrant…

I am an Chinese immigrant who come to America to seek freedom from the Communist China. I was born right before China’s Cultural Revolution and grew up in Chengdu, Capitol of Sichuan province, China. As you know, in China there is only one party that is truly in power: The Communist Party. The government, which is the Communist Party, controls everything: Factories, schools, the press, hospitals, land, and universities. Growing up there, I never heard of such a thing as a “private company.” There were no choices of any sort. We were all poor. We had no gas or stove, no TV, no phones, no refrigerators, and no washing machines. In the cities, electricity was rationed. In the countryside, there was no electricity.

Human rights abuses are the order of business in Communist China

Human rights abuses are the order of business in Communist China

Our family of five had to live on the very low wages my parents earned. The local government issued coupons for people to buy everything from pork to rice, sugar, and flour and there was never enough. We got to buy only 2.2 pounds of pork per month for our family of five. We lived in a two room ‘apartment’, without heat in the winter and no indoor plumbing. I got impetigo every winter from the cold damp winter weather, which was common for kids to get. Eight families lived in our complex, and we had to share bathrooms (holes in the ground outside), one for all males, and one for all females. When the lights were out, no one would replace the bulb for a while so it would be totally dark to go to the bathroom. It became a quite scary adventure at night for us to go there. We had only government run hospitals which were filthy. I was afraid of going to a hospital because I might get diseases. The last two years before I left for college, we moved into a three-room apartment provided by my dad’s work-unit. It had concrete walls and a concrete floor, a water faucet and sink, but no heat. It had a shared public restroom without a shower or bathtub – but, it was infinitely better than what we had before. 

I was eager to go to school when I turned 6 years old. My parents did not let me to go to school because they needed me to babysit

Mao

Mao

my younger brother who was one year old. They could not afford his child care. I cried for a long time that night. My parents felt so guilty so they bought me a movie ticket next day. Finally, I went to school at age of 7. I was so happy and motivated to be a top student. As a child, we were brainwashed in public school every day. We were taught that two-thirds of the world population were suffering and living in hunger and our socialist country was the best. We didn’t think that maybe China should be counted as part of the two thirds of suffering humanity! We believed whatever the government told us because we did not know anything else. I thought the other countries must be hellish if they were worse than we were. Anyway, we chanted daily: “Long Live Chairman Mao, Long Live the Communist Party. I love Chairman Mao.” I was so brainwashed as a small child that I could see Chairman Mao in the clouds or the cooking fire. He was like a god to me. We were required to read all of Mao’s Red books, wear Mao’s buttons, write journals, and confess any bad thoughts to Mao.

We were required to conform, not stand out as an individual. I was held back to join the Young Pioneers because I was not humble enough (I told my classmates I should be in the first batch to join due to my 100% grade on every subject and

You must vote as I say or else...

You must vote as I say or else…

they reported on me). The big powerful state from top to bottom was always watching us very closely: from Beijing’s central government to our neighborhood block committees and police stations. We had no rights, even though our constitution said we did. It was very scary that local police could stop by our home to pound on the doors at night for any reason. The government told us how to dress (Mao’s suit), what to buy and eat (coupons), where to live (household registration system) and what to read (government newspapers). The land belonged to the people (the government actually) and citizens were not allowed to have any weapons or off to prison they would go. Things have changed a lot in China since the open door policy of Deng Xiaoping really got going in the early 1980s; people have more freedom than ever before to start businesses, get jobs in another city, travel overseas, etc, but the political system is still fundamentally the same one party rule.


My favorite teacher in high school told me that he was sent to a Re-education Labor Camp because the Communist Party punished those who criticized the party even though the party was asking for feedback. His health was ruined during those 

Tiananmen Square

Tiananmen Square

years. He said “China is not a country of laws.” I was determined to study law in college. After three whole days, eight hours of testing each day, I scored very high and was admitted by Fudan University (one of the top five universities) in Shanghai law school. I became the first one in my entire extended family ever to go to college. When there I was depressed to find out that what we learned in school and what was reality were totally different things. The society was not ruled by law but ruled by men. After I became a law school faculty member at Fudan University in Shanghai, I had to be careful about what to say in the classroom or during the party political study and self-criticism meetings. My leaders in law school even intruded into my private life telling me, for example, that I received too many letters (I was too social), or I should not go to my boyfriend’s parents’ house for dinner and spend a night. I was a law school faculty member and yet I was still being treated as a child!


I realized I could not really have the personal freedom I dreamed to have if I stayed in China, so I decided to re-enter school in the USA. It was a long and stressful process for me to step down from my position and leave China. I went to the local security office to apply for my passport seven times and was treated as a deserter with papers literally thrown at my face. My law school made me sign a paper saying that I must return to my job in Shanghai after two years of graduate study, or they will eliminate my position and send my personnel file (everyone has one in China which follows you from birth to death) to my hometown in Chengdu, which would be a death sentence for my law teaching career. However, I was determined to leave and did not care about what I had to sign.

China will reeducate government officials to remind them that Communism is awesome

China will reeducate government officials to remind them that Communism is awesome


I arrived in America in 1988 with $100 in my pocket. The first ten years when I was in the U.S, I still had nightmares about being trapped in China by the government and having to dig a big hole in the ground, into the blue Pacific Ocean, so I could escape, jump into the Ocean, and swim to the United States. Even when I went back to China later to visit with my American husband in 1991, my fears would return. For example, staying at a friend’s apartment in Beijing, one night the police came to pound on the door and wanted to check our papers. Someone must have reported to them that that there was a foreigner in the neighborhood. I was pregnant with our first son at that time, and we were in deep sleep after midnight when the police’s door-pounding scared the heck out of me and brought all the childhood bad memories back. Fortunately, they only wanted to check our papers, or maybe just let us know who was in charge. Another time I was in China during June 4th (Tian An Men crackdown) anniversary for a business trip, I was in a business-friend’s car, when we were randomly pulled over by the local police to check out our IDs and search our car. They did not have to show any search warrant. I used to also travel often to Guangdong Province for business when I worked in Hong Kong. I remember the taxi drivers called the local police “mafia” because of their brutality and corruption.

Orwell's 1984 is alive and working in China

Orwell’s 1984 is alive and working in China


I did not hesitate to become an American citizen in 1995. Here I could speak freely and have my rights protected. I do not take my new freedom for granted. I vote in every election. As a U.S. citizen, I have worked for private companies in Hong Kong and Denver. Later, I started my own business and worked hard to grow my business. For the past 15 years, my husband and I have raised three children in Parker, Colorado, enjoying a middle class life: kids, a house, a dog, and 2 cars. From the $100 I brought over from China to having my own businesses and properties, I know I am living the American Dream. All the immigrants I know who come to this country do so because they believe America is a land of opportunity and freedom. We know that if you are smart, work very hard, and save your money, you will be successful and make a nice living here. I love this country. I want my children to continue to enjoy the freedom that brought me here. I want my children to have the same opportunity I had to succeed.

By telling my own story, I wanted to share my message with you: big governments do not work; big governments are very dangerous because they eventually use force. Big government attracts people who love power and control. Big government seems to want to distract you and direct your choices to unimportant social conventions yet limit your choices on really important things like speech, self-defense, and property rights. The freedom we have in this country is precious. The governments in the US are essentially pretty good. However, we are losing more and more liberty every day. The two major parties of this country have always expanded the government (federal or state), even when they say they are shrinking them. Whoever is in power always wants to ‘do’ something, to ‘solve’ some problem. It never really works because government must use force to solve whatever problem of the day arises. Now the federal government is $17 trillion in debt from all the problems it has ‘solved’; we are losing our freedom to choose in many aspects of our life: health care, education, speech, privacy, what we want to buy to protect our families, how much money we want to keep after our hard work, etc., and even in New York drink sizes! Big government is like a cancer; it will grow and spread and keep growing if we don’t stop it. Do not believe things will always get better. I know that people are born the same everywhere, yet their cultures and systems of government can be vastly different. Our culture, our people, and our increasing reliance on more government are, I think, a very dangerous trend.


The country has been on the wrong path for too long, all our governments have been growing bigger for too long.
What kind of country is this if we have to work over a half of the year to pay all the taxes and fees: federal, state, city, county; including payroll, phone, gas, car license, eating out, hotel stays, air travel, licenses, tariffs, etc. We are taxed to death for many things we don’t want and the country is broke. This is astounding to me. What kind of country is this if the government uses force to take your money and spend the way they see fit and still tell you it is good for you? Are you its servant or master? Do you own yourself or not? What kind of country is this if the government takes away your choice of marrying anyone who makes you happy? Are you a consenting adult or not? What kind of country is this if the government can put you into a prison for what you are consuming? What kind of country is this if we become like a China Socialist Iron Rice Bowl, where people are treated the same everywhere; where it does not matter whether you work hard or not, that you are told “If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” and where you must redistribute what you produce. What kind of country is this where the government monitors our private email and phone calls? What kind of country is this if the IRS can target you based on your political affiliation? Why have we Americans become so unsure of ourselves that we want to be like other countries and to think like them instead of wanting them to be like us? When did this change happen? Where is the America I dreamed of – full of strong men and women without fear of acting on their own behalf?

100103_obama_china_hmedium


Big government people have always been attracted to power, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Big government people are perpetually alarmed busybodies who fearfully want to insert themselves into everybody’s business here and abroad, telling them what to do or not do. That is why I felt I had to become an advocate for liberty. Let us stop these people now. Wake up and stand up. Remember how this country was founded and what our constitution really protects – Individual Liberty! Vote for liberty, vote for small, effective, and limited government.

 

via My Journey from Tyranny to Liberty | FreedomWorks.