Tag Archives: Obama

A Review of The Butler Starring Forest Whitaker and Oprah Winfrey

by Jeremy Griffith
Cross-posted from AmericanMillenniumOnline.com

Director Lee Daniels of The Butler with leading actors Oprah Winfrey and Forest Whitaker. source: Alberto E. Gonzalez/Getty Images

Director Lee Daniels of The Butler with leading actors Oprah Winfrey and Forest Whitaker. source: Alberto E. Gonzalez/Getty Images

The Butler movie in theaters right now, starring Forest Whitaker and Opera Winfrey offers wonderful insight into the evils committed to the black communities in the history of our country. Whitaker and Winfrey offer emotional and rich performances in the telling of this story, but the writing of the script depicting Republican presidents as weak, ineffectual or downright racist is jaw-droppingly inaccurate, unfair and detrimental to the historicity of the film.

 

I had high expectations for this film as it was warmly reviewed prior to it’s release. And in reviewing the film myself for the first time I can honestly say I would recommend it to anyone, despite it’s obvious flaws. The story follows the life of a black man, Cecil Gaines, who escapes from life as a sharecropper in the south to become a butler at the White House. After the rape of his mother and the murder of his father, the grandmother of the rapist takes young Cecil into their house and trains him to be a “house nigger”. Through that employment and good luck, Cecil gets a rudimentary education and training in the skills as a butler that eventually helps him launch a career in the service industry.

 

Cecil leaves his old life behind and gets work as a butler, getting some mentor ship from and older black butler. Eventually he gets hired by the White House and the story continues to follow his life in that role, through the presidential administrations of Eisenhower to Reagan. The story largely takes place in the ’60s during the height of the Civil Rights movement. There is conflict between two schools of thought, that of Malcolm X and the more peaceful resistance of Martin Luther King. It is unfortunate that Malcolm is not actually ever mentioned in the film, but the violent resistance of the Black Panthers is. Cecil’s son gets involved in this movement and it causes friction in the family.

 

Predictably, Hollywood has painted Democrats such as Kennedy and Obama as heroes of Civil Rights while painting Republicans like Eisenhower and Reagan as merely tepid, unwilling participants. Nixon gets the worst treatment, depicted as insincere, two-faced and pathetic.

 

The historical background of this film is so bad that even Wikipedia cites its obvious factual inaccuracies. According to Wiki, the story of The Butler is loosely based on the life of a real life African-American Butler Eugene Allen, who was employed at the White House. From there the similarities end. In the movie, the Cecil character resided as as sharecropper in Macon Georgia where he witnesses the horrible crimes committed to his family by white farmers. In truth, Allen lived in Virginia, and there is no evidence that any such crimes ever took place. In the movie Cecil has two sons, one a right leaning young man who dies in his country’s service in Vietnam and another a radical leftist who joins the Civil Rights movement and ultimately the ultra-violent Black Panther Party. In fact, Allen had only one son, who was indeed an activist, but not nearly as far left as portrayed in the movie.

 

In the Movie, Ronald Reagan gets some positive treatment as he and his wife Nancy invite the Cecil character and his wife to a White House dinner as a gesture for Cecil’s efforts to increase the pay and benefits of black White House employees to the same level as the white employees. Right after this scene however the memory of Reagan gets a slap in the face. Reagan’s gesture to Cecil and his family is marginalized as merely for show as the President is depicted as a shill who vindictively vetoes congressional efforts to pass measures to punish Apartheid in South Africa.

 

In fact, the historical records show that Reagan hated Apartheid and did everything he could to nudge the South African government to adopt a more moderate tone. He did indeed veto the congressional boycott, but the movie never explains why. In fact, Reagan was working with moderates to push the South African government and shied away from more radical elements so as to avoid unnecessary violence. In deed, Reagan feared that if the government fell it would be replaced by a more radical leftist totalitarian regime like many other African governments already had. At the time the US had a small contingent of free-market investments in South Africa and black Africans were being employed at US based firms in that country, earning a better wage and benefits than they could expect otherwise. In overcoming the President’s veto, congress forced sanctions on South Africa limiting the ability of private firms from investing in that country and hurting blacks that were finding a better life through employment in American firms as a result, just as Reagan feared it would.

 

Reagan was not the only politician libeled by this film. Eisenhower takes a hit too. Conversations overheard by Cecil indicate that President Eisenhower was weak on Civil Rights and unwilling to send troops to protect black children attending school in Little Rock Arkansas. Indeed the Supreme Court ruled segregation of public schools unconstitutional in its decision Brown vs. Board of Education that year, and Eisenhower did send troops to uphold that decision. Previous to the time line of the movie, Eisenhower desegregated the military when he was the Supreme Commander of allied forces in Europe during WWII in opposition of the wishes of his chief of staff. Government documents showed that Eisenhower was moving to desegregate schools on military reservations prior to the Supreme Court decision. Eisenhower further drafted sweeping Civil Rights legislation that would grant even more rights to blacks in this country, but the efforts were opposed and watered down by a democratically controlled senate. Eisenhower implemented a Civil Rights commission to focus attention on the issue of voting rights for black Americans and he was the first to hire an African-American to an executive position in the White House.

 

Ultimately, Eisenhower gets no credit from this movie script for his efforts to help black citizens struggling for their rights during his administration. President John Kennedy gets the credit though, as a hero for passing legislation in his administration granting those rights to blacks, a legislation by the way that mirrored the original intent of the Eisenhower bills.

 

It’s unfortunate that leftist Hollywood has to do this injustice to history. Indeed blacks in this country have suffered under the unfair and crushing yoke of oppression and slavery since the founding. But the selective interpretation of history by Hollywood is an unfair and an inaccurate representation of what actually happened. A millennial viewer of this movie will likely not dig into the facts of history to find out the truth, rather they will get their impression of history solely from movies like this, which is what the left intends. Disarmed by the propaganda, they will be continually led to believe that only Democrats and black leaders are responsible for their progress towards Civil Rights and not any white man, and certainly not one with an R behind their name.

 

This historical dramatic license prevents blacks in this country from getting the full picture and ultimately damages them by keeping the facts from them. That in my view prevents this movie and this script with its many great performances from elevating itself from a merely good movie to a great one.

 

I was a little uncomfortable with end of this movie as it seemed like a free endorsement of the Barack Obama administration. I think it accurately portrays the feelings of many blacks that at last someone would arrive in the White House who will finally make advancements for oppressed colored people in this country, and as such we get a sense of what they were feeling when Obama was elected.

 

But when it comes to historical facts, again, the Obama administration will be judged as severely lacking. Under the George W. Bush administration, African-American students have been suffering in inadequate schools in the Washington DC school district. Bush implemented a plan to offer vouchers for such students so they could get out of failing schools and attend private schools. This policy offered hope to many African-American students to finally get the better education that they deserved, but predictably, Bush doesn’t get any credit for this. In fact, the Obama administration’s first action does not uphold this program. Rather, the nation’s first black president reverses this progress and closes the program down, committing future students in those same schools to be forever trapped in schools that under-serve them.

 

Today you can’t visit the Martin Luther King Jr. monument in Washington D.C. The park police have barricaded this open air memorial because of the government shut-down, under the orders of the nation’s first black president.

 

Overall I give this movie three and a half out of five stars. It is enjoyable and educational in the treatment of the feelings surrounding the black experience here in America during the Civil Rights era. It’s lack of historical realism leaves something to be desired. Cuba Gooding Jr’s performance shows his capacity as an actor even in a supporting role and we could have seen much more of him in this film.

 

For more on this topic, try some of these historical and entertainment links.

 

Barton, D. (2003, March). Black history issue 2003. Retrieved from http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=134

 

Wikipedia. (n.d.). The butler. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Butler

 

Poland, D. (2013, August 09). Review: The butler. Retrieved from http://moviecitynews.com/2013/08/review-the-butler/

 

Freidman, R. (2013, August 17). Reagan diaries: Detested apartheid but refused to support sanctions, never mentions mandela. Retrieved from http://www.showbiz411.com/2013/08/17/reagan-diaries-detested-apartheid-but-refused-to-support-sanctions-never-mentions-mandela

 

Civil rights: Brown vs. board of education. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/civil_rights_brown_v_boe.html

All the Way to Baghdad and All I Got Was this Satellite

Iran_Iraq

Iran_Iraq

President Barack Obama loves to complain about all the things he was saddled with as he rose to become the most powerful man in the world: the economy, the Constitution, Joe Biden… but he’s rarely taken to the stage to talk about the war in Iraq. You could hardly blame him: he was steadfastly against the Bush surge, which ended up stamping down the daily suicide bombings, and provided a sustainable level of security.

True to his campaign pledge, on October 21, 2011, Obama announced the end of the war and pulled US forces out of the desert nation. With the exception of Vietnam, it may have been the worst US pullout of all time.

Whatever one might think of the US invasion, after 8 years of war, thousands of casualties and tens of thousands of wounded, one would have to hope all of it meant something. That it was all worth something. In the end, that’s a hard argument to make.

The nation we invaded was ruled by a sadistic, paranoid psychopath: Saddam Hussein, and terrorized by his even more psychotic sons. No one is sorry to see the likes of them gone. For years the Bush administration pushed to establish a functioning Arab democracy in Iraq, and to some degree he was moderately successful in that aim by the time he left office. With the 2007 troop surge, the daily suicide bombings were all but eliminated, allowing the Iraqi people and their government to function.

After Obama took office, the press quickly got very quiet about troop deaths and violence in Iraq. In fact, when Obama announced the end of the war in 2011, most Americans responded with, “What? Oh, yeah, I remember that war…” And the nation we left behind we left behind fell quickly into chaos.

It wasn’t hard to predict: the US pullout came with absolutely no plan for long-term security of the country, and no strategic agreement with the government of Iraq. When the troops took off, they left a power vacuum in their wake, and as vacuums are want to do, it pulled in all comers.

It was also not overly difficult to predict who would emerge victorious in the new bloody battle for power either. After all, the 2010 re-election of Shi’ite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was not due to American security or support, but due to the backing of the Shi’ite regime in Tehran. Iranian supplied and supportive militias roam the streets of Iraq while the Sunni dissidents rely on suicide bombings.

This year Iraqis killed in terrorist attacks are at levels unseen since their height in the US occupation. Recently, over 1,000 Iraqis are killed in terrorist strikes every month.

American influence in Iraq is nonexistent. Iraqis know as well as any American that the US is certainly not putting boots on the ground in Iraq again anytime soon. And whatever aid we send over can’t be cut out without an admission that the Obama administration utterly failed to responsibly end the war.  So Maliki, being the good puppet of Iran that he is, expresses his support for Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and has allowed Iranian weapons and supplies to flow through Iraq on their way to Syria. US Secretary of State, John Kerry, even flew all the way to Baghdad to pressure Maliki to put an end to it. Maliki seemed as impressed with Kerry as… well… just about everyone else, plainly telling the top US diplomate to take a hike.

Last month, 52 Iranian exiles were murdered, execution style, by Iraqi Security Forces. The exiles were members of the Iranian Mujahedin Khalq (MeK) group, which has long fought the theocratic rule of Tehran. After renouncing violence in 2001, the UN was in the process of providing safe passage for the exiles to Algeria.

Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran’s Qods Force, a division of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard, had other plans. After visiting Baghdad on August 27, the exiles were executed September 1. The mass murder was highly lauded in the halls of Tehran.

Perhaps most disturbing of all, Hassain al-Shahristani, Iraq’s Deputy Prime Minister for Energy, has announced Iraq is ready to help Iran develop her nuclear program.

 

Eight years.

4,500 KIA.

35,000 wounded.

1 Iranian satellite nation.

Follow Jeff on Twitter

Federal Government: Embarrassing to the Point of Painful

As the so-called “government shutdown” drags on, one thing is hard not to admit: the Obama Administration is acting in a manner that is attempting to extract the maximum amount of pain on the American people. While many are wondering how it came to this point, those of us who actually paid attention in Social Studies, Civics and American History classes – school subjects that are, today, given little, if any, attention –
understand it’s because the US Constitution and the purity of the original governmental process has been raped by the opportunistic political class.

Our nation has always had a robust political discourse, commencing from before we were even a documented nation. We have always been represented by a passionate, spirited political class; strong in their beliefs, but educated and knowledgeable enough to legislate and govern for the good of all the people. Today, this is not the case.

Today, we have a political class that insists on the importance of ideologically motivated political “achievements” over the honest representation of the American people; loyalty to political faction – of which each and every Framer and Founder warned – over loyalty to those who delivered them to power via the ballot box.

Today, we literally have people in the political class that have an inferior command of the English language, an inferior and under-performing understanding of the principles of the Constitution and the Charters of Freedom, and a devotion to Progressivism; a non-indigenous, Marxist-based ideology that believes the State is the Alpha and the Omega; the giver of rights and the final arbiter of freedom and liberty.

Today, we have a government that does not – does not – serve the American people, evidenced – in a singular point – by the overwhelming and sustained majority of Americans who do not want the Affordable Care Act implemented on any level.

FOX News reports:

Is the Obama administration employing a make-it-hurt strategy to gain political leverage in the budget battle on Capitol Hill?

Republicans are making that charge as the stalemate drags on, and point to the Pentagon furlough of 400,000 civilian staffers — even though Congress passed and the president signed a bill to supposedly keep them on the job…

Republicans argue that the intent of the law was to keep them on the job, and that the Obama administration “narrowly interpreted” it against congressional intent in order to furlough more employees.

It’s one example of how, Republicans say, the administration is making the partial shutdown of government services worse than it needs to be. Many have complained about the National Park Service cordoning off even open-air monuments in Washington, DC, such as the World War II Memorial.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), responded to criticisms by saying, “It is time for Speaker Boehner to stop the games.”

Shamefully, FOX also reported that correspondence on this situation has stalled because, as Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), stated, “Unfortunately, most of the staff who draft congressional correspondence are furloughed.”

A few notes on this shameful situation.

First, and to be equally critical to both sides, if “staffers that draft congressional correspondence” have been furloughed, perhaps those elected to Congress should learn to (and actually) write their own correspondence.

Second, to the Progressives, Democrats and our embarrassing President, it is never “game-playing” when the taxpayer’s money is being spent. It is “game-playing” when members of our military who have been maimed and permanently injured can’t get medical care because the politically opportune refuse to entertain appropriations passed through a traditional method (not every spending bill has to be an omnibus package, in fact traditionally, the 12 appropriation bills have been passed separately).

House Republicans “screwed the pooch” when they didn’t advance ACA funding as a separate, stand-alone appropriations bill from the start. When House Speaker Boehner stated that this Congress would operate under “regular order” he should have stated that the House would be de-bundling all legislation into stand-alone pieces, shining the light of truth and accountability on everything that passed across the House floor. Sadly, traditional, inside-the-beltway pork politics prevailed and the practice of bundling legislation to appease the politically greedy has delivered us to this point.

Truth be told, had the political class not blindly followed the Progressive Movement into ratifying the 17th Amendment, none of this would have ever come to pass. But, then, the Commerce Clause wouldn’t have even come close to allowing much of what the Federal government has done that encroaches into our daily lives.

Additionally, if Harry Reid would have operated lawfully, the omnibus appropriations package would have already been legislated, as he is – is – bound by law to have produced a budget by April 15 of each year. He has not done so since before Republicans took control of the House.

The sad, but glaringly true, fact is this. Our government has become too big and too bureaucratic. Our government has manipulated and strayed from the boundaries of the US Constitution, which is a mandated blueprint for limiting government.

Until We the People insist on repealing the 17th Amendment so as to re-employ constitutional protections for the States, and until Congress re-visits the Federal government’s grotesquely over-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause, it will be up to the States to save the nation, either by Constitutional Convention (which in and of itself is very dangerous were the original words of the Constitution to be manipulated by the opportunistic) or by, God forbid, secession.

And it is with tears in my eyes for our country; for freedom; for liberty itself, that I acquiesce to the notion. Buy, my God, are we to allow the greatest achievement of freedom in the history of the world be extinguished at the hand of ideological bullies?

The words of Patriot Patrick Henry said so very seriously then, are just as cogent today:

“Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! — I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

The Fomentation of a Government Shut Down

Well, it is upon us, the dreaded government shutdown. And yet the Earth still spins, the water still runs, the electric is on and Harry Reid is still tossing verbal grenades at anyone who dares represent an opposing view to the lock-step Progressive agenda. Imagine that! Our daily lives didn’t come to a grinding, catastrophic halt because the big government nanny state was sidelined by the fruits of their own discontent. In fact, to paraphrase an often heard chant at any Leftist-leaning protest march, “This is what not spending looks like!”

Truth be told, if our nation would have stayed true to our Founding Documents, the crisis that delivered unto us this dastardly government shutdown would never had existed. Indeed, if we would have executed government with fidelity to the Constitution, to governmental process and to the legislated laws instead of capitulating to the Progressive’s fundamental transformation of the United States of America (a transformation launched at the turn of the 20th Century), World War II veterans wouldn’t have had to push aside hastily erected barriers meant to shut down the World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC, Tuesday simply to experience the memorial erected in their honor.

I mention a lack of fidelity to the US Constitution and the rule of law because had two specific established protocols – Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution and The Budget Control Act of 1974 – been honored, not only would the environment in Washington, DC, been devoid of gridlock, but regular order would have mandated the annual delivery of appropriations to the various departments and agencies.

When our Framers crafted the US Constitution they included Article I, Section 3, which reads:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” (Emphasis added)

Where the members of the House of Representatives were to serve as the “voice of the people,” the Senate was supposed to act as the protector of States’ Rights. The check-and-balance between the co-equal branches of government was to have a check-and-balance within the Legislative Branch to assure that both the voice of the people and the rights of the States were balanced in any legislation that would emanate from that branch of government. By constructing this internal check-and-balance, the Framers enshrined the power to both force compromise with the Executive Branch and protect the rights of the minority (Read: States’ Rights) in the Legislative Branch.

But with the Progressive Era’s 1912-1913 achievement of the 17th Amendment, that check-and-balance, along with the protection of States’ Rights was obliterated, and a gigantic move toward a centralization of government power at the Federal level was achieved.

The 17th Amendment reads, in part,

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.” (Emphasis added.)

So, by effectively transforming the US Senate from a protector of States’ Rights to a redundant chamber catering to the voice of the people, Progressives created two chambers vulnerable to political faction; two competing political entities that could gridlock because their tasks were the same – their authorities derived from the same source.

Today, had the 17th Amendment not existed, the US House of Representatives would have advanced their bill to defund the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Senate – given that 38 States have indicated they do not support the ACA – would have concurred, sending a Continuing Resolution to fund the whole of government but defunding the ACA to President Obama. The President would have almost certainly vetoed the legislation which, by virtue of the Senates’ loyalty to their respective State Legislatures, would have been overturned by the whole of the Legislative Branch. Of course, this is predicated on the ACA ever having had become law in the first place, which, under the original intent of the US Constitution, would be questionable.

Additionally, had the United States Senate, under the disingenuous and corrupt political hand of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), not insisted on existing in defiance of a federal law – The Budget Control Act of 1974, the entire Continuing Resolution process wouldn’t have taken place.

The Budget Control Act of 1974 mandates that,

“…Congress pass two annual budget resolutions (it later was decreased to one) and set timetables for finishing budget work. The budget resolution specifies spending levels in broad areas and may direct congressional committees to find ways to save money. Initially the date for completing the budget resolution was May 15, but later the deadline was changed to April 15.

“It’s a deadline Congress seldom has met. Since 1974, Congress has only succeeded in meeting its statutory deadline for passing a budget resolution six times. Sometimes it’s months late. Sometimes, as in Fiscal 2011, Congress doesn’t pass a budget resolution at all.

“Another section of the Budget Act of 1974 states that Congress cannot consider any annual appropriations bills until it adopts an overall budget blueprint…In Fiscal 2011 there should have been 12 appropriations bills.”

So, had Senate Majority Leader Reid actually adhered to the law by advancing a budget resolution to be reconciled, this “showdown” might never have come to pass. But, because there are automatic increases built into each annual budget to account for inflation, etc., it was to the benefit of the spendthrifts in Congress to refuse to advance – or even negotiate – a budget resolution. By using a Continuing Resolution they didn’t have to cut any spending in the face of repeated requests from President Obama to raise the debt ceiling even as the citizenry – and the elected GOP – screamed for fiscal responsibility and debt reduction.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that Mr. Reid had an underhanded and completely partisan reason for not following the law. We should have come to understand that the Progressives of the 21st Century are vicious, win-at-all-cost, slash-and-burners when then-House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), dismissed the idea of legitimately legislating the ACA by saying,

“We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit.”

And we should have known that 21st Century Progressives would scald their own Mothers to submission to advance their cause when we were subjected to the over-the-top and venomous assaults they made on duly elected officials who dared to disagree with their political agenda:

“It is embarrassing that these people who are elected to represent the country are representing the TEA Party, the anarchists of the country…” – Sen. Harry Reid, (D-NV)

“Obama will not – he cannot – negotiate with a roving band of anarchists who say, ‘Build our oil pipeline or the troops don’t get paid.’” – Former Obama Speechwriter Jon Favreau

“I have never seen such an extreme group of people adopt such an insane policy.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

“These people have come unhinged.” – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (P-FL)

“I believe it’s terrorism…This is an attempt to destroy all we know of the republican form of government in this country.” – Chris Matthews, MSNBC

“What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.” – Dan Pfeiffer, White House Senior Adviser

“I call them ‘legislative arsonists.’ They’re there to burn down what we should be building up…” – Nancy Pelosi (P-CA)

I could go on but you get the picture.

The bottom line here is this. Progressives will do anything and say anything; they will lie, cheat and steal, to achieve their goals; their agendas. They will alter the Constitution, create new behemoth entitlement programs, spend, raise taxes and amass debt from which there is no return, in any and all efforts to advance their nanny-state, centralized government vision for our country. And if those who believe in Constitutional law, States’ Rights, individualism, personal responsibility the free market and liberty don’t take a stand – now…well, it will all be over very, very soon…at the hands of the Progressives’ ideological death panel.

Of course, these are just the ravings of an “unhinged, roving legislative arsonist touting an insane terrorist policy, a bomb strapped to my chest,” don’t you know…

Progressives, Dems Slap the Faces of Benghazi Dead

In a move that illustrates why the overwhelming majority of American’s have grown to despise partisan politics – and come to be understandably offended by the actions of the Left, Progressives and Democrats on the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee executed – under the guise of protest – one of the most insensitive and disrespectful actions in the history of the United States House of Representatives. They staged a pre-planned and organized “walkout” before the testimonies of the families of those slaughtered in Banghazi on September 11, 2012.

Those elected to office are sent to Washington to represent the whole of their constituencies, not just those with whom they agree. By staging this inarguably childish – and ultimately selfish – political theater, they have abdicated their responsibility to represent those with whom they disagree ideologically. This is an abdication of their obligation to the office; to their constituents. It is an action that even their supporters should abhor and, in fact, penalize them for.

The Capitalism Institute reports:

Earlier today, an important hearing regarding the attack on Benghazi was being held by the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee. The parents of the Benghazi heroes who died fighting to protect the US consulate were about to speak.

Then, in a turn of events that’s disgusting even by DC standards, most of the Democrats stood up and walked out. Apparently, they were either protesting or trying to show disrespect — either way, if there was any honor in their districts at all, this would end their careers…

Here’s the list of people who walked out:

Carolyn Maloney (P-NY)
Danny Davis (P-IL)
Eleanor Holmes Norton (P-DC)
Gerald E. Connolly (D-VA)
Jim Cooper (D-TN)
John Tierney (P-MA)
Mark Pocan (P-WI)
Matt Cartwright (P-PA)
Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM)
Peter Welch (P-VT)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
Steven Horsford (P-NV)
Tammy Duckworth (P-IL)
Tony Cardenas (D-CA)
William Lacy Clay (D-MO)

Remember, last week John Kerry stopped the Benghazi survivors from being even questioned by congress.

What were these vicious ideologues trying to prove? That they could be indignant to the point of insulting parents and family who had to receive coffins in place of an embrace from their loved ones as they returned home from serving their country?

What was the statement the country was supposed to take away from their actions? That they are too good to listen to the grief that their political party’s infantile foreign policy has foisted onto these families?

Will these indignant Progressive and Liberal zealots have us believe that there was some “higher principle” to take away from their affront to the aggrieved; some “larger purpose” to their hate-filled and arrogant actions?

Progressives and Liberals would have you believe that their party – the Democrat Party – is the party of compassion and understanding; that the Democrat Party is the political party that commiserates with those affected by “social injustice” and morally transgressed in our country. The actions of these fifteen intellectual reprobates proves – in no uncertain terms – that Progressives couldn’t care less about those they disagree with, even when life has been lost…even when life has been lost in the service of our country…even when life has been lost in the service of our country at their political party’s direction (or indirection, if you will).

The mother of slain diplomat Sean Smith, in probably the most moving comment of the session, asked:

“Every time I see this on TV, I see these bloody fingerprints crawling down the wall of that Benghazi place, and I keep asking everybody…‘Do those belong to my son?!’”

How can any human being – elected to office or not, ideologue or not – care less about this woman’s torture; care less about that singularly important question? What kind of monster(s) ignores this woman’s plea for answers?

With each footstep that each of these fifteen political derelicts took leading to the doors of the committee chamber, we should all remember that those were footsteps that Amb. Chris Stevens, Diplomat Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty will never – ever – be able to take…anywhere…ever.

I think it is safe to say that the actions of these fifteen “lawmakers” exemplify the worst in American politics today.

The sad thing in all of this is that there are people who will vote for these national disgraces again in 2014, dismissing their cruel and unusual actions against the grieving families of the Benghazi dead. To those people I say, when you cast your vote for one of these fifteen, take note of the blood dripping from your hand, because it is there.

I must say, over the years I have become thoroughly disgusted with the Progressive movement for their selfish, narcissistic and ignorant nature. This action seals it.

God bless those who lost their lives in the Benghazi slaughter, for which our Commander-In-Chief offered no aid; for which our President and his Progressive minions have affected no justice. And God protect those who grieve for their loss.

New York Times Finally Has Authentic Communist Columnist to Make Alger Hiss Would Red With Envy: Vladimir Putin!

Putin KGB officer

Putin KGB officer 

 

 

The New York Times finally has an authentic Soviet communist writing its progressive op-eds: Former KGB Assassin now thug Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And he rides in shirtless, his naked chest covered in gold chains and in bad need of a woman’s 18 Hour bra, atop a horse!

shirtless putin

Ah yes, it creates a whole new mean to the question: “Where’s the beef?”

putin

Alger Hiss would be red with envy!

This KGB assassin who views himself as Russia’s sexy killer beefcake is now an official featured op-ed contributor for the New York Times! And he has a column in the September 12th issue op-ed section titled “A Plea For Caution: What Putin Has To Say to Americans About Syria,” explaining his relationship with Obama. Don’t worry darling leftists; Vlad let us Americans know his “relationship” with Marxist pal Obama is

marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.

 

Good heavens, I hope American exceptionalism his considered treacherous to a dodgy murderous thug like Putin! We should want that S.O.B. afraid of America, not laughing at America because we have a mommy-pants-wearing Marxist president who handed the keys of free world leadership over to Putin on a Chinese-made silver-plated platter as he addressed the nation concerning Syria and Putin taking control of chemical weapons negotiations.

What could Putin tell Americans about Syria that we haven’t already figured out: Russia uses its veto power to protect Bashir Assad, Russia and Iran enable and aid Syria, Russia is in league with Iran and Syria and Russia is intent on becoming the world’s supper power and head of the free world.Yes, there’s much to trust there!

Look how Russia is now calling the shots– through the New York Times:

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades. No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

 

The UN falling by the wayside because an incompetent Marxist can’t swing anything but a golf club? Oh my, we don’t want the fate of the world suffering at the hands of a community organizer who’s only capable of organizing his golf swing. The profound wisdom of Putin can lead us as the “underpinning” for the weakened and unstable leadership of Obama.

The New York Times has found its Joseph Stalin!

putin assassin

The op-ed killer warns us further:

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance… Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

 

Talk about clever. The devout Soviet officer taking the side of life and peace! A professional assassin talking about protecting the world from mercenaries: What does that tell you all?

Does Putin really want peace or is he in this for what he can gain? If you have to think twice about that answer, you might be an Obama voter.

The Russian assassin is warning America—via the Times— that Obama’s foreign policy will destabilize the world. As if we don’t know that already. But hey, Gulags never complicated anything!

The fact is Putin wants control of world and the United States: That way Putin, who never leaves office, has control of oil and world currency with his Muslim and Chinese friends on his side. And the backing of the New York Times of course!

Putin gave the anti-war crowd what they want: He criticized Obama’s Afghanistan policies: The war has been escalated, not ended, and more have been killed when Obama promised peace and hope.

Even Hitler would be in awe of this con job comment:

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

 

Russia, the land of torture-by-starvation, an advocate for peace? Russia, the home of bullets-to-the-head and poison soup, speaking out against aggression? Russia invented the Gulag for heaven’s sake! Russian leaders are as peaceful as a Roman Senate playing with knives in the month of March.

Putin will protect us as: “Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored,” and “We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.”

Since when does a Russian dictator care about attacks on Israel? Russia executed Jews in mass numbers during its Gulag years and ignores its starving Russian Jewish population left to die.

Since when does Putin not use the “language of force?” This guy is all about forcing civilization to his political will.

The New York Times must be on cloud nine. They finally have a writer who took five minutes of attention away from Rush Limbaugh! Five minutes is better than nothing when you are the New York Times and nobody except Chris Matthews and his six viewers care what you print.

We Need to Be Honest; Dispensing With the Spin

Daquella Manera (CC)

As we consider the anniversary of September 11th – now, both 2001 and 2012, it is important to consider some simple truths. These truths eluded our government and the nation in the early days after September 11th, 2001, because partisan politicians in Washington, DC, erected walls that kept our law enforcement and intelligence communities from honestly informing each other about the threats to our nation and her citizens. Even more disturbingly, today, little has changed. Twelve years after the initial attacks by al Qaeda on our country, most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations are left unaddressed and an administration has been elected to office that refuses to identify the enemy for their common bond.

Sun Tzu wrote, in The Art of War, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.”

Before September 11th, 2001, we, as a nation, were unfamiliar with not only Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but also the whole of the Islamist dogma. Now, after the slaughter of four brave Americans in Benghazi on September 11th, 2012, our nation’s leadership, hobbled by the Progressive tenet of political correctness, refuses to accurately identify the enemy; to identify the root cause for the overwhelming number of terrorist acts around the world.

Before September 11th, 2001, we were ignorant of the lesson found in Sun Tzu’s quote. After September 11th, 2012, our leadership simply ignores Sun Tzu’s wisdom.

It is indisputable that with precious few exceptions, the perpetrators of almost every terrorist act in the world today have a direct connection to Islamist jihadis; who, in turn, exist solely under the ideological umbrella of the religion of Islam. Those who argue to the contrary are either uninformed, deniers, fools or intellectually stunted. Yet our current leadership exists so crippled by their ideological dogma that they, purposefully, refuse to identify the obvious enemy; the enemy who has declared, in no uncertain terms, that Islam will reign supreme; that they intend to conquer the world in the name of their religion.

A perfect example of this pig-ignorance comes in the issue of Syria.

Whether you believe President Obama and his team are inept in their foreign policy, unconcerned about anything but the “fundamental transformation” of the United States domestically, or sympathetic to the Islamist cause – or perhaps all three, the notion that there is a side to champion in the Syrian conflict is ignorant folly. Yes, Bashar al Assad is a tyrant, brutal to his own people in his quest to retain power in that country. And it is a distinct possibility that he or his field commanders may have used chemical weapons against civilians as well as rebel forces. But intervening in an effort to champion al Assad’s opposition literally places the United States in an alliance with those who support and fight in the name of al Qaeda, the very people who both slaughtered 2,996 people and injured over 6,000 more on September 11th, 2001, and viciously murdered four Americans, including a US ambassador on September 11th, 2012.

Additionally, each action and non-action taken by this administration has not only decreased the standing of the United States in the Middle East, but has facilitated the rise of Islamists to positions of influence throughout the region. Even the Obama Administration’s objection to the Egyptian military’s deposing of the illegitimately elected Muslim Brotherhood to government, in the aftermath of Mubarak’s fall from power, favored Islamists; those who would establish Sharia law and band together to form a regional caliphate.

So, the base question that each and every American should be asking him or herself is this. What the hell are we doing? Why are we aligning or aiding any faction, movement or government that exists sympathetic or in allegiance to anything Islamist?

Further, why haven’t we had the courage – as a free people – to ask the questions that politically correct Progressives and the intellectually squeamish run from, like:

▪ Why isn’t the Islamist ideology held accountable for the violent actions of those who commit atrocities in the name of Islam?

▪ Why hasn’t Saudi Arabia – the protectors of the most holy locations in the Islamic religion, been held to account for not only the actions of their charge, but for literally exporting the most virulent strain of Islam (Wahhabism) to foreign shores?

▪ Why are our elected officials so adverse to recognizing – and then stating as their positions – that the tenets of Sharia law are not compatible with the freedoms and liberties enshrined in our Charters of Freedom and in Western ideology?

▪ Why – why – are our leaders so frightened of identifying an enemy who has declared war on the West – and the United States and Israel, specifically, for years and years and years…?

▪ Why – why – is the West so terrified of confronting the evil that exists in the Islamist ideology; the evil that cuts the heads of innocents, eats the organs of its foes, burns Christian churches to the ground as they execute priests and nuns; the evil that wants to finish what Adolf Hitler started with regard to the world’s Jewish population?

▪ And why, why, why, do we elect idiot politicians who make excuses for bloodthirsty jihadis, even to the points of denying that “Allahu Akbar!” is an Islamist battle cry and lobbying for weaponry and alliance?

The issue of whether the United States should act because chemical weapons were used in Syria is a serious matter. The use of WMD is something that the entire world community should take very seriously. But when both sides of the conflict despise you; when both combatants in the fight hold you, your nation, your nation’s citizens and the whole of the Western world in contempt, perhaps that fight; perhaps the action needed in the aftermath of the use of those WMD, must come from within that faction’s own world. If the use of WMD is so outrageous to the whole of humanity, perhaps Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain should take action against Syria, the rebels or whoever else is eventually found to be guilty of this atrocity.

To wit, the fact is undeniable: Whoever wins in Syria will not be a friend to the United States and the West, so aiding one side over another is a pretty stupid investment of blood and/or treasure.

And while the debate on the use of WMD in Syria is one that should be undertaken, it should be undertaken with the pre-condition that we in the West – and especially we here in the United States – realize that Islamists are not our friends, evidenced not only by their actions, but by their words; their threats, their promises and their declarations.

The battle – both ideologically and physically – between the West and Islamism is a fundamental battle between good and evil; between the cultures of personal liberty and oppression. Islamism, Sharia and all of the Islamist tenets that entangle that dogma in conquest, oppression, violence and the worship of death, exist as nemesis to the free world; the enemy of freedom itself.

That limp-wristed politicians, Progressives and sympathetic apologists from the West refuse to admit the obvious doesn’t make the fact any less real. It just makes the West – and the people of the West – subject to the dangers, subject to the murderous violence, that Islamism projects onto the world.

On this observance of September 11th, 2001 – and now September 11th, 2012, I, again, offer my condolences to all those directly affected by the loss of life, and offer my appreciation to all those who have answered the call to defend liberty and freedom around the world.

On this observance of the “September 11ths,” I stand unashamed to say, I know who the enemy is…both inside and outside the gates.

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge Sept. 7th

sncl_logocdn

When:Saturday, August 31st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Jason Pye from United Liberty, and Jackie Bodnar from FreedomWorks join Taylor to talk Syria, liberty, and more.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Saturday Night Cigar Lounge, August 31st

sncl_logocdn

When:Saturday, August 31st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Saturday Night Cigar Lounge with Taylor on Blog Talk Radiosncl_logocdn

What: Saturday nights were meant for cigars and politics.

Hear Taylor and his co-host Liz Harrison talk about everything from the past week – from politics, to news, to books, and entertainment. Whatever comes to mind, and of course, sobriety is not likely.

Tonight: Sean Venkman guests to discuss Syria, Syria, Texas unions and the NSA.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

An Obama Scheme

obama-angry_05

So, today, as Secretary of State, John Kerry, reeled off the reasons that the United States should find itself embroiled in a civil war in the Middle East, as Vladimir Putin weighs his responses, and as Obama declares that the U.S. will go it alone if they have to, the world waits. The world seems to split into a few different camps .

Some wonder who actually used the poison gas that killed thousands of Syrians (despite Kerry’s swearing that he is positive it was Assad’s men, not rebels). Some wonder, why now? Suddenly, gas is a thousand deaths too far? Yet others may wonder why there is not more pressure on the U.N. to provide peacekeepers, or to investigate if it was actually gas used, or to hold a vote, in the face of an assured Russian veto, to allow nations to intervene.

Here at home, there are any number of Obama administration scandals that a person could point to, that would easily take a backseat to a brand new war. While the country is war-weary, the men that do the fighting are fathers, sons, and brothers, and using them as some sort of executive strike force would lose far more respect for the president than allowing most of the scandals to run their course. Of course, that takes for granted that this administration still has respect left to lose.

As it seems now, any Syrian actions will revolve around the use of tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost around $1.4 million per launch. The odd thing about a new attack (or kinetic military action, as they are now known), is that the president may have waited so long to act, he has excuses no matter the outcome. Perhaps that is what the delay was all about – coming up with explanations to describe what has happened, no matter what happens.

Plan A: Obama orders $140 million worth of missile strikes (probably a very low total estimate of what strikes would actually cost), and they will have little to no effect on the man who Obama intends to punish, Bashir Assad. Assad has already had plenty of time to move the missiles and other weapons that Obama would ostensibly target. So, the missile strikes would amount to little more than another giant waste of money and manpower, and accomplishes nothing…Except anger Russia and Iran. For his part, Obama stresses how he only had the most positive outcome in mind. He was trying to do the right thing.

Plan B: Obama orders his strikes, and through either bad intelligence or some other missile snafu, a strike hits a Russian or Iranian-owned building or other concern. In that scenario, I would anticipate a quick reaction of the administration to be to throw money at the problem, to quickly make it go away. For Russia or Iran’s part, they could probably take the issue to the United Nations, and seek to shame the United States. As a result, the U.S.’s standing in the world gets tarnished again. Obama says it was an unfortunate event, (and without mentioning the payoff) he is glad that the country who suffered the loss decided against any “rushed actions”, and that the countries have something to build on now.

Plan C: Obama orders more extensive actions than just a missile strike. This not only entails aircraft, both fighters and bombers, it also risks pilots’ lives – something that missiles do not do. One can only guess how an angry Assad, unjustly attacked (in his eyes) would treat a downed American pilot. In that case, who does Obama turn to, being allied with Al-Qaeda elements and France, for diplomatic channels to get the pilot released? Once he figures out the magic word (or amount) I would expect Obama to spin the achievement of his State Department.

When you are a Teflon president, there is little worry of having a scandal or war failure attach to you. With the ongoing scandals having little effect on Obama so far, it may have only emboldened him to act more brazenly than he might have previously. With so many yes-men in place, willing to fall on a sword for you, what is the your source of critical thought or reflection of your actions? Having only been told positive things about your actions, while having a press that minimizes negativity, warranted or not, is not good for a leader. Of the many things that Barack Obama has done, and has taken upon himself to enact via executive order, this should truly bear the title of Obama’s War, regardless of outcome.

Government Shutdown?…Blame Obama & Reid

sankar govind (CC)

There are two statements one can make with certainty about the current situation inside the beltway. First, truth is a rare commodity. What was promised to be the most transparent administration in American history has proven to, by comparison, make Richard Nixon’s Administration look like Wikileaks. And second, the Republican Party, at its highest level, has a lethal messaging problem. These two truths combine for a moment in time when the United States government is not only susceptible to Progressive despotism, but well down the road to succumbing to it.

Where the transparency and honesty of the Obama Administration is concerned, the examples of dishonesty are many. From using the Internal Revenue Service to cripple their ideological and political opponents to advancing fiction as the cause of the slaughter of four Americans by al Qaeda operative in a quest for an election victory, the list of matters ringing dishonest emanating from this administration is profound:

▪ The IRS scandal
▪ Benghazi cover-up
▪ The NSA surveillance scandal
▪ Spying on the media
▪ Fast & Furious
▪ Being able to keep your current coverage under Obamacare
▪ The Pigford debacle
▪ Sebelius violating the Hatch Act
▪ The use of secret emails by agency heads
▪ Solyndra
▪ Dropping prosecution of the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation

The list goes on and on and on, all the while the mainstream media provides cursory coverage at best, even as they provide rhetorical cover for the administration’s misdeeds.

But perhaps the most dishonest misinformation emanating from the Obama White House – and from the Democrat and Progressive controlled Senate, for that matter, is that Republicans want to shut down government. This out-and-out lie was false in 2011 and it is false today.

Since Republicans wrestled control of the US House of Representatives from the talons of Nancy Pelosi and her Progressive coven, the House has satisfied its constitutional obligation to craft and pass a budget, on time, each and every year, including for 2014. Conversely, Democrats and Progressives in the Senate have manufactured gimmicks and excuses to elude their budgetary obligations.

On January 7th, 2013, The Washington Examiner’s Byron York wrote:

“Tuesday marks the 1,350th day since the Senate passed a budget. The law requires Congress to pass a budget every year, on the grounds that Americans deserve to know how the government plans to spend the trillions of taxpayer dollars it collects, along with dollars it borrows at the taxpayers’ expense. But Majority Leader Harry Reid, who last allowed a budget through the Senate in April 2009, has ignored the law since then.

“There’s no mystery why. The budget passed by large Democrat majorities in the first months of the Obama administration had hugely elevated levels of spending in it. By not passing a new spending plan since, Reid has in effect made those levels the new budgetary baseline. Congress has kept the government going with continuing resolutions based on the last budget signed into law.

“While Reid has forbidden action, the House has passed budgets as required. Senate Democrats have been highly critical of those budgets, designed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan. But under Reid’s leadership, Democrats have steadfastly refused to come up with a plan of their own.”

Yet the narrative advanced by Reid, his Democrat Senate cronies and the White House is that it is Republicans who exist as “the party of ‘no’” in the US Congress. The facts, as they present, prove otherwise.

Which leads us to the current misinformation spin being advanced by the Progressives in Washington, DC: The Republicans want to shut down government over Obamacare. Truth be told, even the staunchest TEA Partier in the House and/or Senate has gone on record as not wanting to shut down government.

Article I, Sections 7, 8 and 9, respectively, of the United States Constitution states mandates that the “power of the purse” resides solely with the US House of Representatives:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills…”

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States…”

“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

A plan being advanced by the fiscally responsible in the US House proposes to fully fund the US federal government, devoid of any funding for the notorious and ill-crafted Affordable Care Act. The facts surrounding the proposal are thus:

▪ Government funding through the Continuing Resolution will expire on September 30th.

▪ The House should pass a Continuing Resolution to fund the entire federal government, except for Obamacare. To do so, the Continuing Resolution should include the Defund Obamacare Act (HR2682/S1292) to explicitly prohibit mandatory and discretionary Obamacare spending.

▪ If Republicans stand together, with 218 votes in the House and 41 in the Senate, we can win. House Republicans should send the Senate a Continuing Resolution that fully funds the government without funding Obamacare, and Senate Republicans should ensure that no Continuing Resolution providing Obamacare funding is signed into law.

▪ If Republicans do this, President Obama and Harry Reid will falsely accuse Republicans of threatening a government shutdown. But only they control whether to shut down the government just to implement their failed law.

To date, more than 60 House Republicans and 14 Senate Republicans have joined in this effort. The likes of Richard Shelby (R-AL), John McCain (R-AZ), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Roy Blount (R-MO), Richard Burr (R-NC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Orin Hatch (R-UT) have come out against the measure for what can only be construed as purely political reasons.

Given that the Progressives of the Obama White House and the Reid Senate have no issue with crafting falsehoods to advance their political power, Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and fiscally conservative Democrats should admit this inevitability. Whether fiscally responsible Republicans fund government devoid of Obamacare or not, Progressives and Democrats – including their sycophants in the mainstream media – are going to blame the GOP for any and all push back on the budget, the debt ceiling and the implementation of Obamacare, no matter what Republicans do.

This makes it all the more frustrating, if not infuriating, that Republicans at the national level – both elected and not – are miserable at messaging. In the last decades Republicans have shown not only a weakness in being able to message; to convey simple cognitive thoughts, to the American people, they have displayed a complete inability to craft and take control of “the narrative,” pre-emptively.

And while “establishment Republicans” (many of whom are Progressive elitists in their own right) blame their inability to communicate to the American people on a “facture within the party,” this avoids the stark truth that the national Republican party hasn’t had a coherent message or employed a potent counter-measure to the Progressive message since the days of Ronald Reagan.

(A note about the “facture within the party: It is more a confrontation between moderate Republicans who have allowed the party to be “nudged” to the ideological Left continuously and without reciprocation during their tenure, and those loyal to the party’s charter and tenets circa 1856; those identified as the TEA Party faction of the Republican Party; those advancing the “Defund Obamacare” movement in Congress. To wit, establishment Republicans didn’t want Ronald Reagan as their nominee either. He would have been considered a TEA Partier had the movement existed in his day.)

That said, the only thing keeping the Defund Obamacare initiative from saving the country from economic devastation and a nation devoid of individual rights is intestinal fortitude; courage and conviction.

On August 21st, 2013, a gunman, armed with an AK-47 and over 500 rounds of ammunition, entered a Georgia elementary school. Michael Brandon Hill, a 20-year-old man with a history of mental health issues, proceeded to take the school bookkeeper, Antoinette Tuff, hostage, in what could have been yet another senseless tragedy; another murderous rampage. Instead, the situation resolved in Mr. Hill being taken into custody unharmed, the children of the school safe and sound, all because Ms. Tuff had the courage to try to do the right thing. Ms. Tuff talked the would-be gunman into surrendering and seeking medical attention. Because of Ms. Tuff’s courage, because of her willingness to put the good of the children before her own self-preservation, everyone involved in the incident lives to see another day: Hill gets the help he needs and the children live to embrace their futures.

That the “establishment Republicans” on Capitol Hill would display the same courage as Ms. Tuff when it comes to doing the right thing; when it comes to making a decision to take a stand; when it comes to placing the good of the people about political self-preservation. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuffs on Capitol Hill. Sadly, there are very few Antoinette Tuff’s in the Republican Party.

But there was a time when this was not the case.

I’m Still Looking For The 57 States

Dumb

How can we ever forget Obama on the campaign trail in 2008, stating that he has been in 57 states,  he said, “uh, because, you know, i-i-it is just wonderful to be back in Oregon, and over the last 15 months we’ve traveled … uh to every corner of the United States. Uh, I’ve now been in fifty … ss-seven? states. I think one left to go. Uh, one left to go — eh, Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to, even though I really wanted to visit but my staff would not, uh, justify it.” Not only that, but because of his Islamic upbringing, many people think he was referring to the Islamic States. We are all familiar with Obama’s sympathies toward, if not belief in, Islam and his confrontations with Christian doctrine and sensitivities. Was his “57 States” remark a slip of his true beliefs?

Then recently, Obama was on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, here is what was said.

LENO: You mentioned infrastructure. Why is that a partisan issue? I live in a town, the bridge is falling apart, it’s not safe. How does that become Republican or Democrat? How do you not just fix the bridge?

OBAMA: I don’t know. As you know, for the last three years, I’ve said, let’s work together. Let’s find a financing mechanism and let’s go ahead and fix our bridges, fix our roads, sewer systems, our ports. You know, the Panama Canal is being widened so that these big supertankers can come in. Now, that will be finished in 2015. If we don’t deepen our ports all along the Gulf — places like Charleston, South Carolina, or Savannah, Georgia, or Jacksonville, Florida — if we don’t do that, those ships are going to go someplace else. And we’ll lose jobs. Businesses won’t locate here.

I thought Obama was supposed to be a smart man, every schoolchild knows that the cities he mentioned are not on the Gulf Coast, but on the East Coast. I have always said I do not think Obama is as smart as everyone says he is, 57 States, Gulf Coast Cities, maybe I was right all along?

And how could we forget the time he was in Hawaii, thinking it was Asia. “When I meet with world leaders, what’s striking — whether it’s in Europe or here in Asia…” -mistakenly referring to Hawaii as Asia while holding a press conference outside Honolulu, Nov. 16, 2011

 

“The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.” –Tampa, Fla., Jan. 28, 2010

 

“Let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel’s. It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under a McCain…administration. It will be a strong friend of Israel’s under an Obama administration. So that policy is not going to change.” –Amman, Jordan, July 22, 2008

 

“I’m here with the Girardo family here in St. Louis.” –speaking via satellite to the Democratic National Convention, while in Kansas City, Missouri, Aug. 25, 2008

 

“In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.” –on a Kansas tornado that killed 12 people.

There are plenty more, but who has that much time. The point here should be obvious, he is not as smart as they say he is and he is even less smart when he is off his Tele-Prompter, but I think most of us already knew that.

“What Kind Of Society Are We Leaving Our Kids” Available Here.

Dumb

This is one man’s opinion.

White House Has ‘Peculiar’ Justification for Illegal Immigration

John C Calhoun, the newest White House advisor on immigration.
John C Calhoun, the newest White House advisor on immigration.

John C Calhoun, the newest White House advisor on immigration.

Someone in the White House is channeling John C. Calhoun.

Stephen Dinan, of the Washington Times, writes the White House has issued a report that claims, “…the strength and continuity of rural America is contingent on common–sense immigration reform.” In other words, the availability of your boutique tomatoes depends on amnesty for illegals.

The Obama Administration believes rural America, much like the antebellum South, has a ‘peculiar institution’ the rest of the nation must respect. In this instance the 50 to 60 percent of the agricultural workforce that’s in the country illegally.

In the 20–page report Calhoun, whoops…the authors, claim farmers are having trouble hiring workers and as a result are cutting back on planting or “are moving operations abroad as a result of the labor shortage.”

That must require some doing. Are they boxing up the plantation and shipping it — dirt and all — to foreign shores? What happens to the hole left behind in Mississippi? Do administration staffers really think produce is grown in the back room of Whole Foods, adjacent to the customer bathroom?

The justification for tolerating widespread illegality among sodbusters goes like this, “Under the current system, rural America is losing opportunity and harvests due to lack of a stable workforce. Coupled with a decline in native-born rural populations, the strength and continuity of rural America is contingent on common-sense immigration reform that improves job opportunity, provides local governments with the tools they need to succeed, and increases economic growth.”

The entire argument sounds suspiciously like Calhoun’s justification for slavery. He contended, according to Wikipedia, “Southern whites, outnumbered in the United States by voters of the more densely-populated Northern states, were one such minority deserving special protection in the legislature.”

The only real difference is how the workforce arrived to participate in the vital rural economy. In Calhoun’s day slaves arrived under duress, in Obama’s day the helots volunteer. Either way the rest of the country is supposed to tolerate and approve of what Democrats desire.

Both systems undermine our domestic labor market, penalize low–income Americans and reward those with no respect for the rule of law, which in this instance includes both employers and employees.

A simple application of market forces would solve the farmer’s labor problem. Right now there’s little demand among U.S. citizens for agriculture jobs at wages that are depressed by illegal immigration. Close the border while raising wages and watch the wonder of the marketplace at work.

Or invest in mechanization and replace the human factor with machines. Farmers made the switch from horses to tractors. Does the administration think automobile manufacturers would have invested in robotics if they had access to illiterate high school dropouts willing to work for minimum wage and no benefits?

The question answers itself. America would have been entertained by footage of workers fleeing Chipotle and General Motors when INS vans pulled into the parking lot. At least until the Obama re–election campaign began.

Agriculture lobbyists, dripping with concern for harried shoppers, contend that raising wages will mean produce prices go up. That’s a risk I’m willing to take. Besides, if gutless Republican Congressmen would force the federal government cut back on the double subsidy agriculture policy currently in place — farmers are guaranteed a minimum price and get paid by Uncle Sam, while consumers are stuck with higher prices at the grocery store — the reduction in prices caused by letting the market work without government interference, could well balance the increase in costs due to paying a market wage.

Strangely, the White House report issues a vague threat to begin “immigration enforcement actions that could tighten the supply of farm labor.” That appears to be a reference to deportation; something the Obama Administration essentially ended last summer. Threatening to do something Republicans have been demanding for months is hardly a credible threat and will do nothing to put pressure on the House to pass an amnesty bill.

Unfortunately for the administration, this warning is old, discredited news. Alabama passed a bill cracking down on illegal “rural” workers in 2011 and Democrats used many of the same scare stories. Yet Alabama produce did not vanish from the shelves. In fact, Gina Loudon reported, “Immediately after the bill (HB 56) was passed, the unemployment rate began to drop. Since the bill passed last legislative session, in some counties, unemployment has dropped dramatically. For example, unemployment has gone from 10 percent to 6.9 percent in the former illegal immigrant hotbed of Marshall County, Alabama.”

But it was so hard on farmers. According to a Reuter’s story, Jerry Spencer estimates 90 percent of the illegals left the county (note to Members of Congress) and he started recruiting the unemployed to replace the vanished amigos. “There’s a fair amount of reticence on the part of farmers to take the city folk and unemployed workers,” Spencer said. “They really hate letting go of their amigos because they’re so problem-free. They don’t squabble.”

Yeah, there’s nothing like a field full of docile illegals to make one feel like a real patron.

Before the Civil War Democrats and their politicians exploited slaves so they could live in the manner to which they had grown accustomed. Modern Democrat politicians, and the businesses they enable, are willing to exploit illegal immigrants for the same reason. Both sets of Democrats are more than happy to dump the resulting social costs on the rest of the country.

The question is how much longer are we going to put up with it?

Switching Parties – How a Lifelong Conservative Joins the Democrats

Vote-Democrat_02

Feelings matter. When feelings are at stake there is no room for facts, logic, critical thinking, or rational ideas. Feelings trump all. And next to feelings lives fairness, which is also of critical importance. Fairness must be achieved and feelings protected at any cost. It’s taken me awhile to realize this, but now that I have I find I feel not just better, but better than you. My feelings and sense of fairness have made me quite superior to others. So I’ve decided to become a democrat.

It isn’t as if I’ve come to this decision lightly. I’ve had to open my mind, which is so hard for a conservative. I’ve had to abandon absolute truth in favor of a reality that exists only in my head and some of my old political science text books from college. I’ve had to learn to embrace feelings over facts which, while seemingly quite stupid, is actually very freeing. No one should be overcome by an excess of facts and logic. I’ve come to understand facts and logic are racist.

There are several reasons I’ve decided to abandon a principled lifestyle and join the “if it feels good, do it” crowd and they extend beyond all the free birth control I’m now going to hoard. I’ve outlined these reasons and I think after reading them and examining your own feelings, you’ll walk the path of enlightenment with me.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best strategy in war is defeat. I’m vociferously anti-war when there’s a republican in office. Obviously. I’ll even lie about the reasons we’re involving ourselves in conflict (that “no blood for oil” slogan was genius; I wish I was a democrat then) because it’s obvious republicans only go to war to kill brown people. I feel that way, so it must be true. But while I won’t be quite so vocally anti-war when a democrat is in charge, I will still work to undermine our troops and compromise the mission as much as I can from my cozy Southern California living space. I will support politicians who champion cut and run strategies, who want to drastically cut the defense budget, and who’ve never spent a minute in a uniform because pacifism is the path to peace, and I feel that history has proven as much.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best way to prove I’m not a racist is to be totally racist while accusing my opposition of being racist. Following in the footsteps of one of my democrat heroes, Lyndon B. Johnson, I’ll continue his dream of having “those n*ggers voting democratic for the next 200 years” (I learned all about his disdain of minorities in Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House, but I forgive him for it because he was a democrat so I’m sure he felt he had a good reason). Now that I’m a democrat, I am convinced minorities (and gays and women, for that matter) are fundamentally incapable of achieving the same level of success a white man can based solely upon their accidents of birth. I believe that the only way the lesser human beings can function in society is with government mandated success in the form of affirmative action, set asides, and quotas. I support democrat politicians and policies who want to keep minorities in stomach churning poverty because I sure don’t want them in my neighborhood. The bonus is, while I can vote to keep them segregated from me (other than the uppity Uncle Toms who succeed in spite of themselves, but I deal with them by belittling and defining them as race traitors) I can simultaneously convince them that the republicans, who champion policies to lift people of all colors out of poverty, are racist because they believe everyone, regardless of color, gender, or sexual orientation have the same opportunity to live the American dream if the government would just get out of the way. Republicans are such assholes.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because no woman should be punished with a baby but babies should be punished for existing. Have you met a baby? Those things are horrible. Unless they’re wanted, in which case they’re fine but if they’re unplanned? Unimaginably awful. Now that I’m a democrat I’ve come to realize that women are weak and need to be coddled. We not only need a collection of men (the government) to provide us with contraceptives because let’s face it, math is hard; we cannot possibly work nine dollars worth of pills into our budgets, but we also need the government to create the “right” to kill our inconvenient babies. We’re irresponsible and flighty. We’re stupid enough to get pregnant unintentionally and some republican without a uterus is going to trust us with a baby? No. I know that women cannot possibly rise to the occasion of their circumstances. It’s too hard and we can’t expect women to do hard things. And if a baby has to die because a woman is incapable of raising it in all but the utopian best of circumstances? Well, according to another of my leftist heroes (I don’t recognize the feminized version of the word anymore because sexism) Melissa Harris Perry, a baby, whether born or not, is not alive until I feel like it is.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because socialism isn’t unsuccessful, it just hasn’t been implemented successfully because the wrong people have been in charge. If we elect leaders, and I think we finally have in Dear Leader Barack Obama (blessed be his name) who can do socialism the right way, we’re in business. After all, the only human event on par with feelings is fairness and have you even read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle?

I’ve decided to become a democrat because criminals should be understood, not punished. Now that I value my personal feelings over objective facts, I’ve decided that when people commit crimes it isn’t their fault. Criminals are nothing but products of their environment, and I’m convinced their environment was created by racist republicans. Therefore, instead of locking away violent animals who have earned complete separation from society, we should understand that they likely had hard lives. Perhaps they came from abusive homes or they were loners in high school. Can we ever really know what external forces create criminal behavior? I’m not sure we should even try to find out since, as a democrat now, I can no longer support things like “effort” or “success”.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the government is much better at child rearing than parents. Let’s face it. Republicans can’t parent and democrats shouldn’t have to (after all, anti-woman republicans have pushed through legislation forcing us to birth at least some of our babies) so we need the government to do as much of the parenting as possible. First, these conservative republicans are putting their children to work (I even know of one who makes her six year old do hard labor on her ranch) and probably placing unrealistic expectations on them. And let’s not even talk about the abuse they call “spanking”. Clearly they need to be reined in. But more than that, as democrats we can’t be expected to perform tasks on our own. I believe the government needs to tell us how to feed, clothe, house, educate, and train our children so they can become not productive members of society, but faithful servants of the state.

Finally, I’ve decided to become a democrat so I can retire my brain and coast along on feelings, all while suffering no consequences or having to be self sufficient. I have no wish to work anymore, but to declare myself a member of a protected class entitled to a life of leisure on someone else’s dime. Who’s with me?

 

Did Race Baiters Like Al Sharpton Nearly Get George Zimmerman Convicted

Trayvongun
Al Sharpton uses race baiting to continue attacks on George Zimmerman

Al Sharpton uses race baiting to continue attacks on George Zimmerman

There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.” (1911) Booker T. Washington.

There is a class of people in this nation that are the problem profiteering pimps of race baiting who gain nothing from eliminating the source of barriers that block progress for black people. That is why they have nurtured the frenzy of hate against George Zimmerman.

They worked for well over a century, even before 1911 to manufacture a hysteria that could bolster their own economic standing in terms of their bank account, with no account for validity, accuracy or the truth. Their practices have been hewn from the tree of hate, because it is in hate that they rise and it is in falseness that they thrive. Black progress is their adversary and nemesis.

Zimmerman’s innocence is of no matter to race baiters because it is easier to manufacture a lie which they can easily push than a truth which forces the black public to look inside and ask questions about their own true issues. So deflection, cries of denunciation and of racial injustice against Trayvon Martin was the banner they designed and carried against George Zimmerman last year. Even though the prosecutors found no proof and the FBI investigation found no proof indicating profiling… race baiters like Al Sharpton insisted George Zimmerman was guilty and sold this narrative to the public. It nearly got him convicted!

Yet there was a truth which was not shared. Yet is as punishing as it is illuminating. Out of the mouth of the only true witness to the words and the deeds of Trayvon Martin’s last minutes alive, came an alarming insight. Rachel Jeantel seemed to imply on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Live.” Show early this week, that it was Trayvon Martin who approached the car of George Zimmerman.
According to her, it was Trayvon Martin who profiled George Zimmerman and caused a dangerous down spiraling to ensue because she suggested to Martin that Zimmerman might be a gay man who could be a rapist.

So if the words of the only person who actually was talking to Trayvon Martin is suggesting that Martin did not run away when he could have, but instead approached the car of Zimmerman, where was the “hunting down” of Martin?

When it comes to civil rights, whose civil rights were being violated? This is a question that legitimate fact finding can arrive at a conclusion on. Consider that the FBI had already done an intensive investigation to determine if Zimmerman’s past conduct demonstrated he had a propensity to racially profile blacks or that he was a rabid racist.

The FBI investigators arrived at the conclusion that there was no evidence as in nada, that Zimmerman was a proven racist who would or could lie in wait for the opportunity to racially profile and murder a black youth for no reason.

Again, not the narrative that race hustlers want to hear or to accept. Their future income depends upon stirring the pot so that their bank account grows fatter or the television or media ratings increase, as in the case of Al Sharpton’s’ little watched MSNBC show.

The jury’s decision to find George Zimmerman innocent on murder and manslaughter charges all but threatened to stop the manufactured racism money gravy train for the celebrated liberal media who were startled that justice did work. Unfortunately it was not the result that they wanted, so again the cries of racism have filled the skies and the air waves.

Unfortunately, in all of the continued hysteria a young man is dead and another man has to live with the knowledge of his actions. Those are the facts of this tragic occurrence. In all death there is life and one would hope and pray that there are lessons that America as a whole can learn from this, and it is not a simple discussion of race.

It should be a discussion that parents have with their own children about looking past the fears that are planted by race baiting on either side. Let it be a lesson of what the bible says about hate, injustice and persecution through hysteria:

“Exodus 23:1-3 “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.”

The only person alive, with the exception of Zimmerman who heard and spoke with Trayvon Martin was Rachel Jeantel his friend on the phone. She spoke, the jury listened and the jury decided to acquit Zimmerman.

Whether Jeantel’s remarks on CNN were true or simply spoken in frustration, Zimmerman does deserve to not be prosecuted again and again in the mainstream press, the DOJ or by race baiters. Give it a rest and instead focus on why hundreds of black youths are being murdered in the President’s city of Chicago with zero outrage. Or are their young black lives not significant enough to race baiters because race baiters cannot make a profit?

( Let me know what you think )

« Older Entries Recent Entries »