Category Archives: Humor/Satire

Abortion As Performance Art

Tough choice for Exhibitionist of the Month: Emily Letts or Michael Sam?

Tough choice for Exhibitionist of the Month: Emily Letts or Michael Sam?

A New Jersey execution was recently videotaped and posted on YouTube. Instead of using a simple, painless pill authorities in New Jersey opted for an invasive mechanical method that took longer and carried risk. Yet the resulting video was awarded a prize and greeted with shouts of joy by the left and other cultural arbiters.

For those coming to this story late, Emily Letts is the new face of abortion after taping hers and winning the Abortion Care Network’s Stigma Busting video competition. Letts is an actress with three IMBD credits (‘Hallows’ Eve,’ ‘Ivy’ and ‘Clap on Clap Off’) and since Capital One wasn’t exactly beating down her door to flog credit cards, Emily opted to raise her profile by endorsing death.

Of course this doesn’t rule out a call from Capital One in the future, Emily just has to make sure she doesn’t offend the Gaystapo.

Letts is a ‘patient advocate’ at the Cherry Hill Euphemism Factory in New Jersey. Whoops, make that ‘Women’s Center’ — but only if the woman taller than a travel mug. When Emily became pregnant she didn’t think of her abortion as losing a child. It was gaining the role of a lifetime!

Letts’ wrote an explanation in Cosmopolitan that gives insight into a shallow, confused individual for whom an abortion is a good career move. She explains, “I was a professional actress for many years. I loved acting, but I felt fairly depressed most of the time…I felt completely alienated from myself and everyone else because I was intent on being successful.”

In reality Letts was lost and deeply disturbed, but she did have a friend “who was a birth doula, and she fascinated me with her stories about giving birth and growing life.” (For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a doula is a type of life coach, except I don’t think they use LinkedIn and their cards are always recycled from sustainable trees. Doulas are frequently found cluttering up delivery rooms or cheerleading during a home birth.)

So after being exposed to the wonders of life, Emily decides to become a volunteer sonderkommando working in an abortion mill. Maybe because she avoids long–term commitments and didn’t want to agonize over buying age–appropriate birthday presents.

Letts job is to support and reassure women during the abortion process, turning a grave sin into something like pre–emptive liposuction. After she went to work for the center, “I fell into this perfect world that fulfills me in so many different ways.”

By day Emily counsels women — somehow the advice is always to kill the baby — and dispels rumors surrounding the abortion process, because in her words, “The misinformation is amazing. And she helps women rationalize the consequences their decision by stressing, “they are still wonderful and beautiful.”

By night she’s personally tormented by rumors and misinformation regarding the pill. “(H)ormonal birth control scared me because of complications I’d heard about from friends — gaining weight, depression, etc.” That’s why Emily adopted the rhythm method and prevented awkward, calendar–based inconvenience by sleeping around and avoiding long–term partners.

Then she became pregnant. Here the timeline in her story becomes vague. Outsiders have to consider four distinct actions while evaluating “her story.”

1. Finding out about the Abortion Care Network’s video competition.

2. Discovering there were no videos that featured a woman going through an abortion and happy about it.

3. Getting pregnant even though Emily checks her ‘Ovulation App’ almost every day.

4. Starring in Emily Gets Her Abortion a mere two weeks after learning she was pregnant.

I suppose the order could have been 3 – 2 – 1 – 4, but somehow I doubt it.

After finally getting top billing in a movie, Letts video commentary proves she needs help, the kind unavailable at the ‘Women’s Center.’ During the video Emily says she’s “in awe that I can make a baby. I can make a life.” After which she snuffs it out like a candle, while bizarrely humming during the abortion.

A reporter writing for the UK’s Independent was impressed. “In filming and sharing her experience with the world, Letts has not only dragged from their caves the dank and sordid unmentionables who still think a woman a murderer for choosing her own life over a cluster of cells, she has shown that an abortion can be a positive experience.”

Unfortunately for the reporter, we are all a “cluster of cells” it’s just some clusters are larger than others. Evidently somewhere deep inside a conflicted Emily knows that too, because she also says, “I still have my sonogram, and if my apartment were to catch fire, it would be the first thing I’d grab.”

Our nation’s Media–Entertainment–Cultural opinion setters are an iron triangle of license and irresponsibility that we are supposed to rectify. Last week in Oklahoma it was outraged that a man responsible for murder and multiple rapes experienced some discomfort during an execution held before a handful of witnesses. And now it celebrates a performance art video of the brutal dismemberment of an innocent, unborn child, who was only responsible for being both alive and inconvenient.

After forcing her baby to pay the price for Letts’ own irresponsibility, Emily claims to be entirely free of guilt. “Still, every time I watch the video, I love it. I love how positive it is.”

Emily Letts is lost and in need of our prayers, but she’s certainly not alone.

Hooray for the Death Penalty!

Anti capital punishment memeFor a brief moment I almost believed the mainstream media when I read: ‘Oklahoma Execution of Murderer Went Horribly, Horribly Wrong.’ ‘Oklahoma Governor Calls for Independent Review of Botched Execution.’

My initial response was horror, too: You mean that violent sadist is still alive?!!!

But the execution wasn’t botched. Clayton Lockett is dead, dead, dead and good riddance. The ceremony may not have been esthetically pleasing to capital punishment opponents, but any execution where the murderer winds up dead is, by definition, a successful execution.

According to hysterical coverage by USA Today (Headline: Botched execution could slam brakes on death penalty) “Clayton Lockett, 38, struggled violently, groaned and writhed after lethal drugs were administered by Oklahoma officials Tuesday night, according to eyewitness accounts. State Corrections Director Robert Patton halted the Lockett’s execution, citing vein failure that may have prevented the deadly chemicals from reaching Lockett. He eventually died of a heart attack.”

In a sane world the inefficient Oklahoma execution would slam the brakes on frivolous death penalty appeals. The goal of the left is to step–by–step end capital punishment. First the electric chair was deemed ‘inhumane.’ So government switched to lethal injection. In return the left attacked the chemicals used.

Since no subject has ever walked out of a lethal injection meeting alive, it would appear the original chemical cocktail works fine, but I’m not a judge that grants spurious legal relief. Over the years drug manufacturers have been under relentless legal assault.

Today the proven, effective drug, thiopental, is unobtainable and states are forced to experiment. This is fine with opponents, because rather than taking the blame for banning the effective and humane drug, they shift blame to the state for using a substitute.

Leading to an interesting pharmaceutical contrast. The same political class that is morally outraged by lethal injection, is equally outraged when the state of Oklahoma bans the off–label use of abortion–inducing drugs by requiring doctors only administer the drug in accordance with FDA protocols.

It’s exactly the same strategy the murderer’s lobby uses to prevent the use of thiopental. Yet regulation that saves a truly innocent baby’s life is unacceptable, because it impedes a woman’s ‘right to choose.’ While the other instance is a barbaric throwback to savagery when it restores balance and justice.

In fact Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, made an unintentionally hilarious comment in the wake of Lockett’s passing, “Somebody died because of the state’s incompetency.”

The second contrast involves medical professionals. Doctors with a sense of justice have been prevented from participating in executions by means of a leftist perversion of the Hippocratic oath. State medical societies threaten doctors with penalties and loss of medical license. Yet abortionists have no problem with ‘first do no harm’ during their procedures, even though harm is the goal. As a result executions are conducted by penal employees who may or may not have adequate training.

Which justice opponents also use to attack governments like Oklahoma.

This problem lends itself perfectly to a genuine ‘bi–partisan compromise: let late–term abortion doctors perform really late term abortions on murderers. Of course the left won’t agree.

The campaign against the death penalty has all the trappings of modern gestures of misplaced moral authority: Achieving the goal comes at someone else’s expense.

Arguments against the death penalty have three main components: The death penalty is not an effective deterrent, it is cruel and unusual punishment and life in prison is a more severe than death.

But since when did deterrence become the benchmark for a law’s utility? Prevention is an equally valid way to judge a law’s effectiveness and the death penalty has a 100 percent success rate in preventing future murders. Laws against robbery don’t always deter robbers. Laws against sawed–off shotguns didn’t deter Lockett. And, laws against speeding don’t deter the readers of this column, yet the laws remain on the book.

Death is the final earthy punishment, but that doesn’t make it cruel. Dennis Prager has made a strong case for the moral authority of the death penalty based on the Bible and the fact we are made in God’s image.

The facile counter–argument that ‘eye for an eye’ law no longer applies because of its savagery is historically ignorant. Lex talionis, outlined in Exodus 21:24, is actually a legal innovation that restored fairness in the law by holding everyone responsible regardless of his station in life. Eye–for–an–eye meant that a rich man could not buy his way out of punishment, while the poor man suffered severe consequences as happened in pagan cultures. It made the law truly impartial and just.

The final argument has always been incoherent. If the death penalty is inhumane how can these compassion tourists advocate a punishment that’s worse? Simple, they are lying. I’ve driven by Huntsville prison in Texas more than once and I have never seen inmates hanging bed sheets out of the window demanding they be put our of their misery.

If murderers were offered a chance between death and life in prison, almost every one would choose life. Then murderers would be free to endanger the guards, medical staff and other inmates in the prison, but the exhibitionist left can’t be bothered with that petty detail.

In spite of years of anti–death penalty propaganda in the mainstream media, 55 percent of the public still favors the ultimate punishment. But reporters keep trying. In January Oklahoma executed Michael Lee Wilson with another mysterious drug cocktail. In an effort to elicit sympathy for the unsympathetic reporters say his last words were, “My whole body is burning.”

But I don’t think that was in reference to the execution. I think he was referring to his destination, because not all near–death experiences are glowing lights and fluffy bunnies.

Donald Sterling and the Crime of Opinion

brian0

Donald Sterling is the owner of LA Clippers basketball team who, you may recall, was allegedly caught on tape talking about how he really doesn’t like black people. His thoughts and ideas were recorded by his girl friend, who isn’t white, so he’s not a racist as long as the woman is hot. Typical white male.

His family quickly issued statements saying that they don’t share his “despicable” ideas, and everybody under the sun has hurried to any TV camera in spitting distance to make sure we know where they stand, letting out a breathless blubbering rush of “Sterling’s ideas are his own and I’m not guilty by association because I voted for Obama three times so I’m not a racist okay?” which is apparently necessary, less they get tarred and feathered by the 187th “So Help Me God” Division of the Sharpton Commandos, who are landing in LA for some justice.

Speaking of Barrack, he had to get involved, because, as a capable basketball player himself, he knows what it’s like for the homies on the court. He allegedly said, “If I had a son, I wouldn’t let him play for the Clippers,” but I wasn’t really listening. I’m sure that’s close enough.

Joking aside, there are bigger questions in this case that demand an answer.

Why do so many seek, so quickly, to disassociate themselves with Sterling and his remarks?

Is it a crime to hold an unpopular opinion? If so, we’re all guilty of something. Are the activists trying to scare us into silence?

It is a disturbing trend in this country that anybody who says they don’t like gays, Muslims, blacks, or miscellaneous, for whatever reason, suddenly are faced with investigations and resignations and forced apologies. Why is it a crime to say something that isn’t popular? What do those running away from Sterling fear?

What will the next criminal opinion be?

Support for capitalism?

Doubting global warming?

Holding a Bible study in your home?

It’s a slippery slope, folks. Better hope the friction doesn’t burn a hole in your jeans.

Are You Smarter Than a Supreme Court Judge?

Stevens’ idea for amending the Constitution is a loser, too.

Stevens’ idea for amending the Constitution is a loser, too.

April was not a good month for Americans that still believe the Supreme Court is a font of legal wisdom. Former Justice John Paul Stevens authored an Op–Ed in the WaPost proving you can be ignorant of history, blinded by ideology and confused regarding the plain meaning of words and still get to wear the black robe.

Stevens’ essay was titled ‘The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment.’

And no, Stevens’ five words weren’t “you can’t have a gun,” but that’s a good guess.

He began his effort in problem–solving by using the left’s favorite technique: Use distorted statistics to shock the public and advance a disingenuous argument: “Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents.”

That’s a big number. Almost as big as the total number of Americans killed each year in car crashes. What Stevens purposely leaves out is the fact that 19,392 — or six in ten — of those deaths were suicide!

Once the suicide is removed from the total, it become obvious that riding in a car driven by a cell phone–wielding woman is much more dangerous than living in Virginia where people are allowed to carry guns openly. And cell phones aren’t protected by the Constitution.

What Stevens should be calling for is federal suicide control. If Congress would stop listening to the mortuary lobby and pass an effective law banning suicide — or at least get the ball rolling by creating suicide–free zones (this alone would speed up Metro travel in DC) — we could eliminate almost two–thirds of the gun deaths overnight.

The rest of the country could experience the safety and tranquility that residents of Detroit and Chicago currently enjoy in their gun–free cities. Once suicide is outlawed only criminals will kill themselves, surely a win–win.

But suicide doesn’t generate much news coverage so publicity–seekers aren’t interested in this sensible step to prevent unnecessary death.

Stevens contends the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was ‘settled,’ much like global warming science, until the NRA went rogue. “For more than 200 years… federal judges uniformly understood that the right…was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.”

That’s accurate without being truthful, since for two centuries neither states nor the federal government were trying to ban types of weapons, restrict the sale of weapons or impose ownership restrictions. So who would file a suit to stop an infringement that didn’t exist?

As for not imposing a limit on state or local governments, Stevens proves his knowledge of the Constitution is limited. If what he wrote is true then the Bill of Rights wouldn’t prevent states and cities from limiting speech, searching without a warrant and shutting down the newspaper if it criticized Barack Obama.

Stevens then lurches from urging judges to butt out because, “Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.” To complaining that those same legislators aren’t doing enough to seize weapons from the law abiding in the wake of Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.

Before gracing us with his five–word prescription for domestic gun bliss, Stevens’ last contribution is to completely misrepresent the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment. He claims the amendment “was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated.” This is ludicrous on its face. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect individual rights and without those 10 amendments the Constitution would not have passed.

The obvious plain language of the 2nd protects an individual right to own weapons, but that’s evidently too subtle for a retired Supreme Court justice.

Then Stevens graces us with his solution: His amended amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

If anything those five words would initiate an explosion of litigation.

In Athens a citizen was subject to military service until age 60. I figure I can pull a trigger until well into my 90’s. Sixteen–year–olds often served in militias, too, so many underage restrictions go by the board, thanks to Stevens.

As a serving militia member I will need my weapons at hand in case of a sudden call out. That makes militia members immune to any restrictions on carrying a firearm. I can carry in schools, courtrooms, national parks, football stadiums and even Toby Keith’s.

Stevens evidently believes the same legislators who aren’t passing the gun laws he wants are suddenly going to come down hard on militias. Historically militias were locally based and locally run without interference or control from the state government.

Each militia decided what weapons to carry, uniforms to wear, method of selecting officers and how often to meet. With Judge Stevens help you can think of the new militia as the Shriners with sidearms.

And as for what weapons to carry, let’s look at the world’s best–known militia the Taliban. The Talibs have RPGs, fully automatic rifles, grenades, heavy machine guns and donkeys. Everything the well–equipped American militia member could want, except for the donkey.

Stevens’ ‘solution’ removes age restrictions, expands the scope of weapons allowed for personal ownership and eliminates most geographic restrictions on where weapons can be carried. It’s the exact opposite of what Stevens wants, but not an unusual outcome for leftist social engineering.

If it weren’t for those boring monthly militia meetings, I would support him 100 percent.

What Michelle Obama would’ve said in her graduation speech

polishgazetteaDear fellow students and future government dependents. It is my honor and duty to impart some words of wisdom from myself and the President. We are so proud of all of you now that you have graduated with your high school diploma in Democratic studies. As you venture out into your Common Core initiated and recommended career choices always remember this. You didn’t build your futures, we did.

All you have to remember in life is to always feel guilty for any successes you might achieve and never turn down a helping hand from your loyal and loving government. We are here to help you. We are here to guide you throughout your entire life to the day you part the earth and go to the collective city in the sky.

Some of you will benefit from the hard work of the person sitting right next to you. So of you will be taking care of the person sitting right next to you. It is ok not to succeed. Striving to be your best is so 2007. Not everyone can be a provider some need to be receivers.

You see, Barack and I have always felt that welfare was put in place to replace jobs. Welfare was never supposed to be a temporary thing. Why would it be when you have all these strong, able bodied men and women who can and will work hard so that others don’t have to?

Remember kids, Capitalism is an evil rich man’s game. The rich didn’t get that way through hard work and dedication; oh no they got that way by exploiting and victimizing poor Black and Hispanic minorities. The rich don’t care about you, (even though they supply all of your jobs). They don’t deserve to keep their businesses or their profits.

So make sure when you go to work for one of these evil job creators that you use all of the skills you learned from kindergarten till now. Make sure you create a false injustice at work. Make sure you show up late and leave early. Make sure you find a way to eventually be fired. When that day comes you immediately use the race card that we gave you and use it to right the injustice. Contact the ACLU or Southern Poverty Law Center and tell them you were fired, not because of your lack of work ethic but instead because you were a victim. You were oppressed. You were not allowed to sleep at work or take your 2 hour mandated Union Breaks.

You see, the race card is your most powerful weapon. Use it often and use it wisely. The race card is how Barack and I became President. You see, we learned along time ago that victimization and claims of false oppression are the keys to getting ahead in America. We knew that our lackeys in the media would cover for us by calling out anyone who didn’t support or vote for us as racists. This is how we were able to paralyze White America with guilt and get them to help us fundamentally transform her in the process.

America is not a shining city on a hill. America is the land of injustice and greed. America is not the land of opportunity. America is the land of share responsibility. That is why we need you to talk to your parents and tell them they are wrong for creating wealth and prosperity. Tell them to sacrifice their futures and well being for the betterment of us all. And it is time for all of you to not fear government and instead embrace it. The only thing you have to lose is your freedom?

So please, grow up students and sign up for Obamacare. We need your healthy bodies to pay premiums so we can give illegal aliens free healthcare as an “act of love”.

Then once we guilt all the Washington Republicans into passing Amnesty by calling them anti-Hispanic racists our mission will be complete and so will Barack and I’s dream of destroying the greatest, most freest nation on earth.

And just think students you will be able to look back proudly knowing that you had a part in all of this! So, to all my new worker bees go out there, work hard for your government, and accept our helping handouts!

May Government bless you, and Government Bless America!

http://www.doublewidenetwork.com/index.php/Shows/detail/the_josh_bernstein_show

Suggested by the author

Barack Obama, liberal policies fan the flames of racism against White America

Common Core is the common whore of education

How gun free zones and liberal policies contribute to mass shootings

Why our Southern Border will never be secure

An armed society is a polite society

Liberal Worry: A Good Thing for the Good Guys

brian0

Look, ma, the liberals are crying.

Why are they crying, Timmy?

Because America isn’t buying their crap anymore.

We don’t use language like that, Timmy.

Regardless of your choice of words, I came across a poll today that I think Timmy summarizes correctly, and it’s worth a mention because you’re not likely to see it mentioned elsewhere.

Ben Dreyfuss, writing in Mother Jones, that paradise of leftist ideologists who think they’re smarter than you, posted about an Associated Press-GfK Public Affairs poll and said the following:

According to a new poll, 51 percent of Americans do not believe in the Big Bang. Fifty-one percent of Americans are wrong.

Forty-two percent of Americans are not falling for this “evolution” mumbo jumbo. They too are wrong.

Thirty-seven percent of Americans are not convinced that humans are causing global warming. Wrong.

Thirty-six percent of Americans are not buying this whole “the Earth is 4.5 billion years old” thing. Wrong wrong.

Fifteen percent of Americans are unsure that vaccinations are safe and effective. Wrong wrong wrong.

Have a nice day.

Actually, Ben, I am having a nice day over this, because this poll reveals a big problem the left may have to contend with: Americans aren’t buying their crap anymore.

And if America is starting to doubt the left, the left is doomed.

This article was posted on Facebook by one of my liberals friends (everybody needs one!) and some of his liberal friends reacted in such a way that, I think, deep down, they came to the same conclusion as I. They’re worried about these numbers.

Why?

Let’s look at the major points of the poll, as some of them (the age of the earth and vaccinations) do not belong in this discussion. I’m going to combine the first two into one since they’re part of the same argument:

According to a new poll, 51 percent of Americans do not believe in the Big Bang. Forty-two percent of Americans are not falling for this “evolution” mumbo jumbo.

The left has been trying to convince the world for over 50 years that God is dead. Why? Because a God that demands accountability prevents humans from practicing the religion of “if it feels good, do it” and all that entails. Examples will occur to you, but we know that the compromised values and general debauchery of our society stems from the early days of the “God is Dead” argument. If there is no God, what we do doesn’t matter, since we’re all going back to dust anyway. Now, I won’t get into the specifics of arguing for evolution or the Big Bang. As an advocate of intelligent design, I don’t believe we crawled out of primordial ooze, but that we were indeed created as-is, but there have been notable evolutionary changes within the species that are a reaction to time and environment. That shouldn’t bother anybody, and I don’t think it clashes with Christianity. However, according to the left, “God is Dead,” so there’s no room for anything but the idea that we came from sludge and go back to sludge. When we ask why they’re so stuck on that theme, they respond “Because science, bitch!” or something more eloquent. Problem is, if 51% of Americans are rejecting the “God is Dead” meme, the left is in trouble. “No God” is the very foundation of liberalism.

Thirty-seven percent of Americans are not convinced that humans are causing global warming.Wrong.

With all the evidence of junk science and reports that have been doctored to show the global warming point of view, I think there’s at least a serious question as to whether “global warming” or “climate change” is really an issue. But questioning global warming is anathema to the liberal, because the liberal needs a dying earth to make the rest of society pay for their way of life. We need to pay for our freedom by having less of it in the name of saving the earth. If 37% of Americans are beginning to doubt the meme, the left is doomed. The left needs a pliant population, willing to believe the worst and make the necessary lifestyle changes, to achieve its agenda.

So, yeah, liberals are crying. These poll numbers are not on their side. They’ve had two, maybe even three, generations to get the numbers on their side and it’s not happening.

When faced with defeat, liberals do not retreat. They try harder. And they get sillier. Expect more of that from the left; as a result, I think the numbers in that poll will actually increase in our favor, to the point where we may see a drastic societal shift in the “right” direction. Sure would be nice.

Eros and Estrogen on the Front Line

Do women–in–combat cheerleaders realize Lt. Ripley was only a movie?

Do women–in–combat cheerleaders realize Lt. Ripley was only a movie?

This December it will be 42 years since the last male was drafted into combat, but it looks like the fun is just starting for women. Not that they will be going to the post office to register anytime soon. Instead woman already in the military — who thought they were being all they can be by typing 130 WPM or checking PowerPoint presentations for typos — will find themselves assigned to combat arms to meet a quota designed by a wide–load Member of Congress whose most strenuous activity is the Pilates class she makes once a month.

Still, they won’t be seeing the elephant overnight. Right now only a handful of the 203,000 women currently in the military can pass the physical for combat infantry or Marines. When faced with the reality that women can’t pass the test, Congress and Pentagon paper–pushers will change the test until they can pass.

(For details see the shifting metrics that define Obamacare. Currently the administration has ruled that if a patient is able to get an appointment with the foreign–born medical professional she’s stuck with in the new, severely limited health care network — and the doctor doesn’t recommend bleeding as a cure — the program is a success!)

Unfortunately, when you lower standards by definition you get substandard material. This is not to say women as a group are substandard. I’m married to one that’s outstanding, but even in her twenties she wasn’t ready for combat.

The Marine Corps, which I was counting on to maintain standards, is showing signs of going wobbly. CNS News reports the Corps has delayed a requirement that female Marines do a minimum of three pull–ups. The postponement came after 55 percent of females in boot camp couldn’t meet the standard. By comparison, only 1 percent of the males failed.

This test is important for the future of our military’s combat effectiveness because upper body strength is vital both in combat and on the front line where soldiers carry ammunition, lift the wounded, manhandle sandbags and tote weapons.

I suppose we could allow women to push a shopping cart into combat or issue ‘spinner’ luggage. But that won’t work either because after she fills the bag with shoes there won’t be any room for equipment.

The deadline for degrading the combat arm is 2016 and as the date approaches, and the lack of qualified women becomes obvious enough for even a Democrat to see, that’s when the pressure to change the test will be the most severe.

Pentagon mouthpieces may continue to reassure an anxious public that physical standards won’t be lowered to pass females into the combat arm, but recruiters also telling female recruits they can keep their doctor.

What’s really strange in all this is the left’s inability to maintain a consistent story line. On one hand every female recruit is a potential Lt. Ellen Ripley. On the other, current female troops are already engaged in hand–to–hand combat with members of the opposite sex and they’re losing. The female that’s ready to put her life on the line in defense of her country is evidently incapacitated by a pat on the behind.

The Pentagon recently released the results of a survey that showed 6 percent of the women in the military (a total of 12,000) were victims of unwanted sexual contact. This covers everything from rape to following too closely in the chow line. (Maybe the left wants women issued rifles so they can defend themselves when they’re on the receiving end of sexual friendly fire.)

But as The Washington Times Rowan Scarborough has pointed out the Pentagon’s results are wildly out of step with overall US statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics survey showed that in contrast to the Pentagon’s 6 percent, only “one-fourth of a percent of women ages 18 to 34 had suffered such abuse in 2010. Preliminary numbers for 2012 show a rate of just over four-tenths of a percent.”

The difference in the numbers reflects methodology. The Pentagon survey, so beloved by sexual harassment axe grinders, used email for results. The Bureau survey used 146,570 in–person interviews and follow–up telephone sessions. In–person and telephone interviews are the gold standard of survey research. By comparison if cheap email surveys were accurate, politicians would use them in their campaigns, but they don’t.

The Pentagon survey even manages to have a larger total of victims than the total of completed surveys. One item that was particularly interesting is the 14,000 men that claimed they were victims of sexual assault, which means some men were evidently telling in spite of official policy not to ask.

Of course inaccurate results are no obstacle for leftist social engineers if the numbers can be used to advance an agenda. The Obama administration likes to depict our fighting arms as havens for macho cavemen that need to be curbed. One gets the feeling they are shocked the military, of all places, attracts men with a high testosterone count.

The Soviet Red Army had political commissars assigned to every unit, maybe the Pentagon plans on assigning sexual commissars to tell soldiers how much fraternizing is allowed with your battle buddy. I’m thinking commissars will prove invaluable during those unfortunate times when females are captured by the enemy and the captors are agonizing over the knotty moral question of whether a simple rape or the more inclusive gang rape is allowed.

Leftist social engineers never account for reality in their planning. The enemies we are most likely to face don’t have women in combat slots and they aren’t making the barracks safe for lavender. The fact that no successful military in history has put women in combat has escaped Pentagon HR planners completely. Brunhilde, and Ripley for that matter, were only a myth.

When conflict occurs armies aren’t matched according to brackets or seeds. If that were the case we could volunteer to fight the Isle of Lesbos and leave it at that. The obvious solution for sexual assault in the military is fewer females in close proximity to males or at least a more accurate survey, but with this administration neither is likely to happen.

Transparency – The White House Unabridged Definition!

transparency_public_rights_to_know_copy

Jay Carney recently said once again said that “this White House is the most transparent White House ever.” WOW! Really? Does he live in one of the states where you can easily get marijuana? Does he have a different definition of “transparent” than the rest of the planet? Maybe he is using the Obama unabridged dictionary that defines words based on the meaning needed at the time? Maybe he really meant to say the “least transparent” White House? Or maybe he is just one very confused man.

If comments like, “you can keep your doctor”, his proposal wouldn’t “increase our deficit by a single dime”, there’s “not even a smidgeon of corruption” in the IRS, Benghazi was because of a bad video, and so many more are “true” according to the White House definition of “true,” then I guess Mr. Carney’s definition of “transparency” must also be “true.”

Mr. Obama has been honest with us with about almost nothing he has said. The more I look into it, the more I see as problematic.

Mr. Carney stated several times that there were no major issues with the Obamacare website. All sites have issues when first launched and all would be fine at launch time. Contractors and subcontractors for the website all said they had informed the administration plenty of times that work was not complete and many areas were yet untested, security being one of them. They wanted a beta test period and not a simple go-live date. After being in the web and technology industry 20+ years, going live without a beta test never works. Sites need to be stress tested, traffic tested, and security tested. Contractors knew there were issues, major issues, and yet no one ever said a word to the American public. Transparency?

Mr. Obama stated many times that we would be able to keep our doctors we have it on speech after speech after speech. When confronted about it he said, “What I said, or meant was that if your doctor is in the plan you can keep it.” Many emails that have surfaced and many close to the inside have said this was known early on before the vote and they chose not to share it with the people. Transparency? Nope!

From day one of the IRS scandal they told us it was a couple of rouge agents in Chicago or Ohio or in Never-Neverland that did this and, besides, it was only done to a small group, so no big whoop. Now we see that they knew before we did that Lois Lerner, and other brass at the IRS, not to mention Elijah Cummings and God only knows who else were involved, and not in a good way. We were told that we had received access to all the emails for the IRS case. Now we find out that’s not true. Where does most of the information come from? The Attorney General’s (AG) office. Where does the AG office get its marching orders? The White House!

It’s not transparency when you admit to it after you’ve been caught or questioned.

The AG office knew this was going on well before the investigation started. When the president said he has instructed Mr. Holder and his administration to do what it takes to get to the bottom of the IRS scandal and to cooperate with Congress, once again, it’s a backwards meaning. Transparency is when all parties get to see what’s going on. Unfortunately, only the White House knows what’s real.

Just before the holiday season, the White House issued a press memorandum that press would no longer be allowed into special meetings and many meetings with heads of state. It went on to say that all information and pictures as to the content and meaning of the meetings would be furnished by the White House. Huh? Thank God the Democrats and liberals saw the writing on the wall. It’s the same wall the conservatives have been writing on for 5 years. They raised so much noise the White House backed down. Transparency?


Read more at http://therealside.com/2014/04/transparency-the-white-house-unabridged-definition/#XeVIfgLmy8civUmB.99

Round ‘Em Up! They’re Illegal!

CowboyHorse

No, No, No silly. Not the Illegal aliens. The ones grazing on grass.

We have all been hearing about Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy who has been fighting the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for almost 20 years now. He feels that because his family settled the land in the early 19th century and has been using it since then, he has the right to ignore court orders, many court orders, and just keep the cattle there.

Bundy sights the bogus claim that a “federally protected” desert tortoise started all this back in 1993. As of late, I understand these tortoises are, in fact, not in danger and that the cattle in a “step” test didn’t step on one of them when the tortoise and the cattle where released in a small area.

Eventually, Bundy also decided, because the property rights belonged to his family (and other technical issues), that he would stop paying grazing fees to the government. Try not paying your taxes for a few years and see what happens.

The government claims it has cost them plenty to take this issue to court and get the judgments against Bundy. They also claim there has been damage to property by his cattle that trespassed and grazed on federal land.

Many cattle ranchers pay grazing fees. Why doesn’t Bundy?

Let’s be clear. I am not in agreement with the way the government is handling this issue and the amount of force used by the BLM. But we conservatives keep screaming we are a “nation of laws.” Do we only do that when it’s convenient? We get mad when the government and others don’t follow the law. We take up the pitch forks and torches and set off to right the wrong.

Mr. Bundy has had support from all over the country. Many have come running to his aid to fight the big bad government. Good for them! But wait!

Mr. Bundy has already lost this case several times in a court of law. He has, several times, been told to keep his cattle off government land, yet they continued to cross over from his property to theirs. Why didn’t he put up a fence to protect his cattle? It may have stopped a lot of unnecessary aggravation and cost.

Why did he stop paying grazing fees to the tune of over 1 million dollars that over 1600 other ranchers pay? Is he special? Did his family get special dispensation from Thomas Jefferson or Washington?

We can’t have it both ways and those of you “running” to protect him, be careful. Rather than spending money help him on-site, the people running out to help and the 1600 other ranchers should pool their money and sue the government? Take them on and push back! Fight it from within the law. Make sure you do everything right and then go after them.

And to you Mr. Government… SWAT teams? Really? Two hundred armed BLM agents! My God, if we could only get those agents on the borders. Wouldn’t it be great if, instead of you trying to stop cattle from grazing on public land, you used those same armed BLM agents to keep legal, taxpaying, land-owning American citizens safe on their own property rather than being trespassed and violated by illegal immigrants? Wouldn’t it be great if you upheld and protected Americans at our borders with those same laws you are trying to use against Bundy?

To the 200+ “Bundy Cowboys,” just your presence caused the government to stop and think about what a disaster this could be. The Feds stood down and made arrangements to return the cattle.
Read more at http://therealside.com/2014/04/round-em-up-theyre-illegal/#QJhUuEtkq90L62EZ.99

Flavor Is a Human Right, Too.

Flavor is not a choice. What bigot would deny this man his rights?

Flavor is not a choice. What bigot would deny this man his rights?

The biggest problem Christians and conservatives have in making the case for marriage to the younger generation is we don’t speak the same language, and I’m not referring to the number of ‘likes’ inserted into each sentence that replace thought. Our frame of reference has only a tangential connection with that of the younger generation.

The default authority for Christians when explaining their opposition to homosexual marriage is the Bible. But it’s not for the generation born after 1980. The Washington Times reports, “More Americans are doubting the infallibility of the Bible, treating it as a guidebook rather than the actual words of God, according to a survey released Wednesday.”

This belief (no pun intended) puts that generation in agreement with Episcopalians, Methodists and Unitarians who also don’t understand what the big deal is when Rev. Adam and his wife, Steve shake hands with the faithful as they leave the sanctuary on Sunday.

This finding was part of a survey conducted on behalf of the American Bible Society. In the Times its president, Roy Peterson explained, “I think young people have always questioned their parents, questioned the church…Today the skeptics are saying, ‘It’s just like any other piece of literature, and it’s no different from that.”

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that when a Christian references the Bible, the youngster counters with, “You may like the Bible, but I’m partial to the Epic of Gilgamesh. However, if there was a modern language translation, the Egyptian Book of the Dead also has some value for those who want to increase their spirituality quotient.”

This declining interest is an indication there’s a real chance the Bible may lose it’s spot as the perennial number one best–seller, although this is not sufficient cause for Ellen to hope her bio will take its place.

The importance of the Bible for moral instruction has also declined. In 2013 almost a third of respondents “blamed a lack of Bible reading as the problem” behind a decline in American morals. This year it’s only 26 percent, but that decrease may be explained by the corresponding number of Americans who purchased 70” TVs in the intervening months.

So how does one explain opposition to homosexual marriage in terms the young can grasp? How does one put in context the aggressive demand that Christians conform to an unprecedented definition of marriage that didn’t exist even 25 years ago and flies in the face of all of human history?

How can they relate to our rejection of this absurd definition of marriage that completely upends an accepted way of life in the interest of pleasing an intolerant minority and its cheering section.

There are essentially no sexual taboos today, so approaching the problem from a Biblical angle is like expressing your opposition to the healing power of crystals by using the Physicians Desk Reference, when your audience hasn’t read either one.

Fortunately in today’s brave new culture food taboos have replaced sex taboos and it is here Christians can make our case in a way that duplicates the situation we encountered with homosexual marriage and is simultaneously understandable by the younger generation.

My analogy works regardless of whether you’re locked in debate with a smug and superior homosexual marriage supporter or you’re simply answering a question from one of those ‘love and let love’ types unable to understand why we feel so strongly about the issue.

The demand that Christians completely redefine marriage and accept a radical new definition that institutionalizes and affirms a form sexual practice the Bible specifically forbids, is the exact equivalent of pork lovers demanding that vegan restaurants serve bacon.

If America’s homosexuals can demand “marriage equality” then bacon lovers can demand “flavor equality.”

A vegan’s unconstitutional exclusion of bacon is simply elevating personal preference over a fundamental human right to have food that tastes good. And even diners who aren’t eating bacon because of an irrational fear of being attacked by their heart, can still feel the pain and humiliation of being ostracized.

Just try wearing an Arkansas Razorbacks’ Hog Head hat into your nearest Busboys & Poets restaurant if you want to see how a real second–class citizen is treated by kale bigots.

And who says vegans get to define what qualifies to be labeled as “vegan?” Flavor is flavor, people. Just as we’ve been told “love is love.” You may like the slimy feel and hay–infusion aftertaste of tofu, but I like the crunch of crispy, fried bacon and how can that be so wrong?

One doesn’t choose to love bacon any more than one chooses whom to love. It’s fried into my DNA.

I should be able to go into Sweet & Natural bakery and ask them to whomp up a delicious quiche Lorraine and not get a bunch of sanctimonious static about beliefs, animal rights and cholesterol.

Who are these Pharisees to tell me I can’t eat pork?

And the same goes for the photographer who refused to document my family’s annual fall hog butchering reunion and hoe down. If she/he (I think the photographer was undergoing some sort of transformation) is open for business to the public, then the photographer should not be allowed to discriminate based on unscientific belief and superstition. Go down that path and the next stop is Montgomery and Bull Connor.

Separate but equal is inherently unequal. If Western Sizzlin’ can offer food for vegans then its only fair that Arugula ‘R We be forced to offer a BLT.

All Hail Margaret Sanger?

margaret-sanger-planned-parenthood-abortion-blacks-african-americans

A few weeks ago President Obama decided to insult Pope Francis by giving the blessed rosary beads given to him by the Pope to Nancy Pelosi.

The first insult, re-gifting something that a leader of one of the largest religious groups in the world gave him. Really? It’d be like giving Quran’s signed by Osama bin Laden to the families of 9/11 victims. Why didn’t he just save them and to include in his Presidential library? Does he not understand the gesture and value? Does he care?

The second insult, last September, Vatican Chief Justice Cardinal Raymond Burke said that Pelosi must be denied communion under the law of the Catholic church because of her longstanding support for abortion. She was shunned when she went to Rome. It doesn’t really sound like Nancy’s a treasure to the Catholic church. She openly states that she disagrees with the church’s stance on abortion. Really? How? What scripture is she using to base that belief on? Does she study?

Nancy seems to know more about what’s best for us as it pertains to healthcare, religion, and abortion. Maybe she should be the “Grand Pubah” of the universe. Hey Nancy, here’s a hint here for you. The Bible, yes, the scripture you say you live by as a Catholic says (I will paraphrase) that if anyone adds a word or deletes a word the same will be done to their lives.

It would appear the other supreme ruler (President Obama) seems to feel that “no-thing” applies to him. Yes, I said “no-thing” because it doesn’t matter whether it’s the law, social graces, or just good manners, he is above it all! I believe he knew exactly what he was doing with the Pope’s gift, he just doesn’t care!

To further add insult to injury, Nancy then goes on to accept one of the highest awards bestowed by Planned Parenthood, the Margaret Sanger Award. Oh joy!

That’s an organization started by a racist, black-hating woman named Margaret Sanger. Margaret didn’t care about a woman’s right to choose, nor did she care about “female reproductive health”. She didn’t care about overpopulation. She wanted to keep the blacks and other less desirable (her view, not mine) people from populating the planet in any way.

Does my pointing out the history of Planned Parenthood aggravate you? How about a few quotes from the award’s namesake herself, Ms. Sanger, as a reminder:

“[We should] apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring. Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

Can you imagine if these words were associates with a Republican? I was guilty by association for allowing a person who is against gay marriage speak at a prayer event I chair! OMG! How evil am I? (The speaker was Brad Dacus from the Pacific Justice Institute.) I wasn’t getting or giving an award (unlike Nancy Pelosi). I just allowed him to speak about his personal life.

Here’s another gem!
“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

How do you who lean Left and extoll the virtues of Planned Parenthood for “the great things they do” not know about this woman’s agenda? Personally, I think you do, you just don’t care! Shame on those who know this and continue to support Planned Parenthood. They don’t care about women’s rights or health. They care about making sure the “less desirables” don’t keep procreating.

And last but not least:

Read more at http://therealside.com/2014/04/all-hail-margaret-sanger/#mlG6mGvuDQ4Fx8TW.99

World Vision’s Secular Myopia

Even better than having 'Vision' in your name is having it in your brain.

Even better than having ‘Vision’ in your name is having it in your brain.

Maybe it was a Mexican divorce.

Last Monday World Vision President Richard Stearns walks hand–in–hand down the aisle pledging fealty to homosexual marriage until death do they part. This is big news, because World Vision is a Christian charity and the nation’s 10th largest.

Then, only 48 hours later, the happy couple is fighting over who gets to keep the china as Stearns backpedals furiously.

And through all the uproar Stearns has this slightly baffled aspect, as if he’d just spent the last two days selling flowers in Terminal A for the Moonies, and now his parents have whisked him back home where he decides joining the Jaycees isn’t that bad after all.

For those who missed the controversy, in Christianity Today World Vision announced it “will no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman” — an implied endorsement of homosexual marriage.

Stearns characterized this surrender as a “very narrow policy change.” Yet AP described it as “a dramatic policy change on one of the most divisive social issues facing religious groups.”

During an interview Stearns became defensive, “We’re not caving to some kind of pressure. We’re not on some slippery slope…This is not us compromising. It is us deferring to the authority of churches and denominations on theological issues.”

Which makes one grateful World Vision didn’t have any members of Westboro Baptist on the board.

Still you can’t help but wonder what version of the Bible Stearns and the board is consulting. “This is also not about compromising the authority of Scripture. People can say, ‘Scripture is very clear on this issue,’ and my answer is, ‘Well ask all the theologians and denominations that disagree with that statement.”

This is sophistry. Bart Ehrman is James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the UNC and a best–selling author, yet he denies the divinity of Christ, which at the time this is written World Vision still supports. Evidently Stearns and the board pick–and–choose among theologians as they pick–and–choose among Bible verses.

Then demonstrating his utter cluelessness regarding fundamental issues of church doctrine and how the secular world views the faithful, Stearns remarked, “I don’t want to predict the reaction we will get. I think we’ve got a very persuasive series of reasons for why we’re doing this, and it’s my hope that all of our donors and partners will understand it, and will agree with our exhortation to unite around what unites us.”

I suppose this type of reasoning makes sense when your reading matter is limited to The New York Times and Sojourners.

But in the Evangelical Christian world his “persuasive series of reasons” produced a stunning backlash. In the ensuing 48 hours World Vision lost money, support and credibility. Approximately 5,000 individual sponsors and contributors canceled, costing the organization upwards of $2.1 million. 60 church partners called the office to withdraw their support. And a number of employees at headquarters resigned. Some in protest, some because of the stress of dealing with the fallout from Stearns’ colossal stupidity.

Wednesday a chastened Stearns and board chairman Jim Beré signed a contrite letter that read, “We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness.”

Later in a conference call with reporters, Stearns elaborated, “We have listened to you and want to say thank you and to humbly ask for your forgiveness” and if he “could have a do-over on one thing, I would have done much more consultation with Christian leaders.”

But he just ran out of time, what will all the meetings with The New York Times editorial board, the Human Rights Campaign and the cast of The Laramie Project.

The rapid retraction is a good first step, but the fact remains World Vision’s current leadership is unfit to run the organization.

In a post–divorce interview with Religion News Service, Stearns is taken aback by the notion he bears any responsibility. “No, there have been no serious requests for my resignation. I would certainly under- stand if the board wanted to make a decision around that. Some of the board members have asked the question about their own resignation. Right now, our feeling is we were all in this together. We made certainly, in retrospect, a bad decision, but we did it with the right motivations.”

Here we agree. Stearns and the board are all in it together and they should all take the honorable path and resign.

Here’s just a brief rundown of the unnecessary havoc these morally blind people have caused:

  1. Seriously damaged a reputation in the Evangelical community it took 63 years to build.
  2. Proved themselves totally unfit to manage the reputation and public relations of a billion dollar organization by demonstrating a basic failure to understand the culture and media.
  3. Potentially endangered employees working in Africa where governments are passing laws criminalizing homosexual conduct.
  4. Cost the organization millions of dollars.
  5. Opened World Vision up to scrutiny and attack from militant homosexual organizations and a hostile Obama administration.
  6. Distracted the staff from the mission of serving the world’s poor.

Any one of these offenses is enough, but all are an indictment that only resignation, reflection and repentance will answer.

Naturally many Christian leaders are welcoming World Vision’s return to the fold and urging Christians to resume financial and prayer support.  But as for me, if I want to make a contribution to an organization run by leadership that is this slippery and disingenuous, I’ll send a check to Congress.

Cows Cause Global Warming, but Obama Has a Plan

brian0

We learn today of a new effort by the Obama administration to further curb global warming, or climate change, whatever they’re calling it now, by regulating cow flatulence.

Apparently cows have a greater carbon footprint than all the SUVs in Beverly Hills, and they’re flatulence is killing us. Don’t worry; Obama has a plan.

You can read about it here at the Daily Caller.

As we often joke, it’s nice to know the administration has time for such issues now that every other crisis has been solved, though we wonder what those in the Ukraine about to be crushed under the weight of the Soviet (um, I mean Russian) military machine might have to say, and we also wonder what the cancer patients left in the cold by Obamacare might add to the conversation.

One cannot help but think about what kind of plan Mr. Obama will implement to curb cow flatulence. (Feel free to include your own suggestions in the comments.)

Based on previous action, and following in the footsteps of the California legislature who imposed a similar plan, it’s not hard to figure out what the administration will try.

Mr. Obama will probably set up a cap-and-trade program for cows. They’ll be limited to so many farts a day until they have to trade with other cows who haven’t yet used up their farts. Cows will probably trade food for farts–in fact, that’s a good name for the bill, “Food for Farts”. In other words, one cow gives up some of his food to be allowed to fart more while the other cow, who farts less, can eat more. This sounds counter intuitive, but don’t worry, it’s the government, so it will make perfect sense.

Conservatives will argue that this will lead to some cows getting more food than others, and then we’ll have a “grass inequality” crisis to go along with the “income inequality” crisis which will require another government program and waste tax payer money. Better to just let the cows fart all they want.

The left will say these programs will create jobs and put people back to work, and accuse the Republicans of hating cows, because they’re part black (Republicans hate anything black), even though there will be no proof that Republicans have anything against cows.

We are glad in our hearts knowing the Mr. Obama is in charge, and we cannot wait to see how he saves us this time.

Ukraine Sanctions With Teeth Instead of Gums Are Still Possible

Putin-laughing-at-serious-steps-memeFor a very brief moment it looked like the White House and I were finally going to be in agreement on the topic of misrule in the United States. Obama’s White House Press Office released a statement with harsh criticism of government actions that threaten “peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets.”

It appeared the president had seen the light and was finally going to stop his abuse of office and his promiscuous use of executive orders. But then I read further and saw he was talking about Vladimir Putin and his beachfront trespassing in the Crimea. I thought Obama likes trespassers. Could it be that Putin rejected his offer of in–state tuition?

Of course there are differences between the strongman’s approach and that of the girlyman. Putin’s misrule is designed to advance the interests of Russian nationalism, while Obama appears content to undermine US standing and interests in the world.

With the result that Russian oligarchs will soon have prime sites for expansive vacation homes within the border of a newly expanded Russia. While our leaders launch deadly cutting remarks that include “wrong side of history” and “19th century thinking” mimicking Harvard faculty lounge habitués criticizing the NFL 1st round draft choice that gets the millions and the girl.

I know this criticism is not entirely fair. The Obama administration has decided to impose sanctions on Russia. Out of a current population of 141,924,000, the Obama administration has singled out seven (that’s right, seven) for punishment. The original intent of White House strategists was to just single out a certain percentage of cells in each of the seven individual’s body for pinpoint sanctions — gas pains, lumbago, toenail fungus, impotence — but the surgeon general informed the White House that either those maladies took to long to manifest or present technology didn’t support the goal.

Instead the administration opted for financial sanctions that make it harder for the Moscow 7 to gain access to any funds they have deposited in Western banks. The Washington Post described the strategy as an attempt “to see whether a symbolic first gesture would be sufficient to give Putin pause….” sorta like the famous “red line” in Syria.

Like much of Obama’s strategy, whether in health care or the economy, this gambit backfired. The Russian stock market went up after the announcement, instead of going down.

But that doesn’t mean the great minds in this administration are going to give up. Much like Robert McNamara carefully calibrating just the right amount of ordinance necessary to bring North Vietnam to its knees, Obama’s financial calibrations have room for expansion.

An administration insider has leaked a plan that will escalate the impact of the next round of sanctions to an almost superhuman level of intensity, while expanding the reach of inconvenience for the Russian Revanchists beyond just the financial realm.

None of the Seven are now allowed to make wire transfers withdrawing their funds from Western banks, but after the sanctions are escalated, they will be limited to a maximum ATM withdrawal of $40 per day AND the Coinstar machine will be completely off limits.

If any of the sanctioned try to travel to the US it’s also No More Mr. Nice Guy. The TSA’s expedited ‘Pre’ lane will be off limits. The Crimean Criminals will be assigned to the rubber gloves and high–school–field trips line for the foreseeable future and they will always be relegated to the last boarding group regardless of their frequent flyer status.

Assuming the Seven can’t take a hint and come to DC in spite of Obama’s disdain, anytime they attempt to use the Uber app to arrange transportation it will result in a fast busy signal, forcing them to use DC taxis. Even worse their lodgings will be in hotels built by Sochi Olympics construction firms.

Since unrepentant aggressors like these will no doubt try to bypass this sanction, even if they rent a car both the GPS device and their E–ZPass transponder will be jammed by NSA, meaning that even if they can find a toll road, they will be forced to use the exact change booth.

And finally, to show Obama really means business, if any of these Russian Reprobates have more than 15 items in their cart when shopping, they will be ejected from the express lane.

There’s also a role in this for Vice President ‘Uncle Joe’ Biden — a nickname freighted with meaning for Russians. Proving irony isn’t dead in this administration, Biden will be visiting many of the Western nations were Obama earlier canceled plans to install anti–missile batteries after Putin objected.

While looking due East, Uncle Joe will advise these buffer states to buy shotguns and if they see any Russian troops playing footsie with their borders, go out on the balcony, point the muzzle skyward and fire a couple of rounds to scare the bear away.

How CPAC Stacked the Deck on the Amnesty Panel

illegal-aliens-obamacatchreleasevoteHere’s a handy rule of thumb: If two of the four members of an immigration panel have Hispanic surnames you can bet it’s an amnesty panel in disguise. That was certainly the case at CPAC’s ‘Can There Be Meaningful Immigration Reform Without Citizenship?’

(This phenomenon is evidently peculiar to Hispanics. If two people named Schmidt and Kruger were on a panel it would be unfair to assume they enthusiastically support bomb damage reparations from WWII.)

Alfonso Aguilar and the Rev. Luis Cortes were joined by moderator Mercy Schlapp — a veteran of the Bush White House that was pushing amnesty until 9/11. The anti–amnesty speaker was Derrick Morgan of the Heritage Foundation and the afternoon’s advocate for the feudal system was Helen Krieble.

Schlapp set the tone when she remarked on the favor illegals were doing the economy by being here. Much like burglars boost an area’s GDP when they make the rounds of pawn shops.

Sbe was followed by Kreible, president of the Vernon K. Kreible Foundation, who said the debate should be about American principles: Equal treatment under the law, individual freedom and personal responsibility. So far so good, but then she reduced our choices to a false binary: Grant amnesty or do nothing.

The realistic option is removing the job incentive for illegals. But that is not a choice Kreible will ever entertain, because that would mean business can’t import serfs. She claims it’s wrong to set “artificial” limits on the number of workers you can hire. It’s Kreible’s belief that borders are a government matter, but workers are a business matter. In practice this means the federal government can keep Mohamed Atta out, unless he plans to mow your lawn.

What Kreible objects to is that ‘citizen’ word. She wants to implement a “red card” program that puts citizens in the penalty box. She would import workers without conveying citizenship or the right to remain after the job is over. This is similar to the wildly successful Turkish guest worker program the Germans had. Only problem is the Turks are still in Germany.

And while individuals should be “responsible,” American business is exempt. Right now if a US business thinks US workers want too much money, the business is free to open a subsidiary in Mexico and hire all the Mexicans it wants. But that’s a problem for agribusiness corporations, because shipping Alabama to Chihuahua would be a logistical nightmare. What’s more, sometimes the Mexican government seizes private business, you can’t trust the cops, ‘mordida’ cuts into profit margins and there’s always that decapitation problem.

So for Kreible the business solution is to flood the labor market by bringing Mexico here and let taxpayers deal with social costs.

Unfortunately for her there is no moral, ethical or conservative justification for bringing in foreign labor when unemployment in the US is over 7 percent and labor participation rates are at an all time low.

Alfonso Aguilar, director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, evidently believes the word ‘conservative’ is a verbal spice you sprinkle on leftist policies to make them more palatable for genuine conservatives. He wants conservatives to “own” the immigration issue by out–pandering the Democrats.

Aguilar contends the entire illegal problem is a result of “big government” setting quotas and holding the quaint notion that US jobs should go to US citizens. He recycles every lame, reverse racist amnesty cliché he could find, beginning with illegals are doing the jobs Americans won’t do.

After that howler he became incoherent. Aguilar says illegals taking jobs here “creates jobs for working class Americans.” He claims that illegals did not disregard the rule of law because they didn’t come here voluntarily. Instead business brought them here. This was genuine news to me. Who would have thought coyotes were members of the Chamber of Commerce?

Aguilar also introduced the concept of “circular immigration.” Letting illegals come here and return to their home country as many times as they and Greyhound wished. Although something tells me the circle would stop abruptly in the US when it came time to collect Social Security.

He was followed by the Rev. Luis Cortes who is the president of Esperanza. The organization’s website motto is: “Strengthening our Hispanic community” meaning it’s La Raza with a Bible. Cortes’ solution is to make citizens of anyone who ranks Cinco de Mayo ahead of the 4th of July. Otherwise, “it gives Democrats an issue.” And afterwards Democrats won’t need an issue because with 9 million or so new voters they’ll never lose another presidential election.

The most insulting aspect of the panel was how the pro–amnesty participants evidently believed using the word ‘conservative’ to describe leftist policies would somehow convince a gullible audience.

A conservative immigration reform would be built on trying something new: Enhancing the law we have now. Make it a felony to hire an employee that failed an E–Verify check or hire an employee without checking E–Verify. And strictly enforce the prohibition against illegals enrolling in any welfare or social programs.

Drying up the job market will accomplish two goals. First many of the illegals will self–deport. Second it will raise wages for US workers and lower the unemployment rate. Right now many jobs go unfilled by citizens because they aren’t willing to accept the prevailing wage scale in Juarez because they don’t live in Juarez. If employers were forced to pay wages high enough to attract US citizens, more citizens would work.

That’s a conservative, free market solution that’s good for the country and preserves the rule of law. Unfortunately the ‘C’ in CPAC now appears to stand for ‘capitulation.’

« Older Entries Recent Entries »