September 02, 2014
Remember Lois Lerner? Sure you do. She's the gal who would be in trouble for siccing the IRS on conservative organizations seeking tax-exempt status recently -- except that her dog (well, somebody's dog) ate her hard drive, destroying all the e-mails that might prove it.
Or maybe not. Seems that, contrary to what some IRS flunkies have testified, their e-mails actually ARE backed up. It's just that it's oh, so hard to retrieve them from the backups.
Anyhow, Lois is in the news again. The Daily Caller News Foundation (TheDCNF) has obtained an e-mail that shows that back a few years ago, Lerner received reports that major unions were, to use a popular phrase, under-reporting political activities on their tax returns, to the tune of millions of dollars.
Now, if conservative organizations had been doing that, we'd expect Ms. Lerner to, ah, get her knickers in a real knot. But when unions did it, somehow she managed to keep her cool. I'll quote from the article here, and please note the statement at the end of this quoted section:
At the time of the email, Lerner was the Director of Exempt Organizations at the IRS.
Lerner wrote, "We looked at the information you provided regarding organizations that report substantial amounts of political activity and lobbying expenditures on the DOL Form LM-2, but report little to no political expenditures on the Form 990 filed with the IRS.”
"We believe this difference in reporting does not necessarily indicate that the organization has incorrectly reported to either the DOL or the IRS,” Lerner concluded.
Don Todd, the deputy assistant secretary of the Office of Labor-Management Standards (OLMS) at the time the email was sent, confirmed seeing Lerner’s email and remembering similar complaints at the time. OLMS oversees labor union financial disclosures within the Department of Labor.
"The law’s never been enforced,” Todd told TheDCNF. "The IRS was telling us it would cost more to enforce the law then they would collect.” [Emphasis mine.]
Well! [Trying to assume my best Jack Benny inflection here] It's nice to know the IRS is trying to observe all due economy here, and not waste taxpayer money collecting taxes. I wish they'd forget about trying to collect my taxes -- and Tim's too, while we're at it. But shall we continue?
In 2006, the year leading up to Lerner’s email, the national headquarters for the AFL-CIO reported no direct or indirect political expenditures with the IRS on their 990 form, leaving the line 81a blank. That same year, the AFL-CIO reported $29,585,661 in political activities with the Department of Labor. (I'd have thought that would have added up to a few bucks in taxes owed.)
Also in 2006 the Teamsters Union reported no political expenditures with the IRS while at the same time reporting $7,081,965 with the Labor Department.
Again in 2006, Unite-Here reported no political activity with the IRS and $1,451,002 with the Labor Department.
In 2005, the National Education Association also reported no political expenditures with the IRS while at the same time reporting $24,985,250 with the Labor Department.
Labor union political spending overwhelmingly benefits Democrats. Todd told TheDCNF Lerner may have been playing favorites. Lerner has been accused of singling out tea party groups applying for tax-exempt status. Yes. Yes! YES!
Now, don't you think it's high time for the House Subcommittee on Whatever's Fishy in DC to get going on this one, and haul Ms. Lerner in front of them, in chains if necessary?
September 01, 2014
Yet another Al Gore prediction about global warming is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Happy Labor Day weekend. May you use it to promote right-to-work and free-enterprise capitalism!
My article this week addresses President Obama’s amazing ability to focus like a laser on golf swings and the supposed dangers of computer-concocted climate chaos – combined inexplicably with his inability even to recognize (much less address) looming or even exploding terrorist threats around the globe. The analysis presents some disturbing realities about the nature and scope of ISIS terrorism … and offers thoughts on what the White House and United States can and must do to prepare for and prevent the potential onslaughts.
Obama AWOL again – on energy terrorism
The president fails to prepare for anything, except vacation, golf and climate change
Four news stories in four days sum up the Obama presidency and help explain why the world and U.S. economy are in such a mess. President Obama just returned from his two-week beach and golf vacation at Martha’s Vineyard. It took him a month from the time special forces located journalist James Foley to approve a rescue mission – by which time Foley had been moved (and was subsequently beheaded).
Mr. Obama may pursue a sweeping international climate change deal that bypasses Congress. But on dealing with ISIS terrorist butchers months after they swept through Iraq, "We don’t have a strategy yet.”
President Obama has ordered limited air strikes to "contain” (but not defeat) Islamic State terrorists who have shot, crucified and beheaded thousands of men, women and children in Iraq and However, he still has no plans for protecting the United States from the energy terrorism that jihadists are planning.
The president’s failure to "connect the dots,” to see and prepare for potentially devastating attacks on U.S. and global citizens and energy supplies, is an inexcusable threat to our security. Preparations for massive energy terrorist attacks around the world are increasingly open and obvious. Now that Mr. Obama is back in the White House for a few days, hopefully to deal with real crises literally exploding around the world (from the Middle East to Afghanistan to Nigeria and beyond), let me connect some dots for him.
With Iraqi and other oil fields in jihadist hands, petroleum has become the mother’s milk of Islamic terrorism. Along with drug trafficking and bank robbery, it provides financing to arm, feed, train and pay terrorists on a scale that makes Leonardo DiCaprio’s Blood Diamond loot look like chump change.
Islamic State butchers are raking in an estimated $2 million or more every day by selling oil on the black market, from wells they have seized in Iraq and Syria. "This could fetch them more than $730 million a year, enough to sustain operations far beyond Iraq,” Iraq Energy Institute Director Luay al-Khatteeb told CNN in late August. More captured Syrian oil fields could raise ISIS oil revenue to $1.2 billion a year, says Theodore Karasik, research director at the think tank INEGMA in Dubai. Or worse.
ISIS conquest of Iraqi Kurdistan’s Kirkuk area could boost the terrorists’ oil production from 30,000 barrels a day now to as much as 1 million barrels a day: $11 billion a year, if they can peddle their oil at (say) a way-below-market $30 per barrel to countries that are naïve, support terror or ignore human rights.
That could buy unfathomable terrorism – on levels portended by a laptop computer that moderate Syrian forces found in an ISIS hideout. Amid some 34,000 files, it includes manuals on car theft, disguises and bomb making, documents on how to develop biological weapons and "weaponize” bubonic plague, and a radical Muslim cleric’s fatwa justifying weapons of mass destruction, "even if it wipes them and their descendants off the face of the Earth.” Detonate the bio-bombs in malls, air conditioning intakes and similar places, the manuals advise. With laboratories in Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria now in ISIS hands, these neo-SS lunatics could well turn their caliphate dreams into Western World nightmares.
Even just a few such attacks would shut down commerce, the way 9/11 and the DC sniper did.
Should the Islamic State conquer the rest of Iraq and other Arab and Muslim lands, it could also cause major oil price increases that would cripple economies worldwide. By then vastly wealthier than Genghis Khan, such an empowered Islamic State could even decide to impose an oil embargo on the U.S. and other nations – as Arab oil exporters did for six months in 1973 and 1974, with devastating effects.
Other terrorist groups are fighting to control oil and natural gas supplies elsewhere. And Qatar – whose oil and gas have made it the richest country in the world, on a per capita basis – is acting as the terrorists’ ATM, bankrolling their activities, while playing the "good-guy” host of the 2022 FIFA World Cup.
So what can America do to prepare? First, recognize the threat and develop a strategy – not just to contain ISIS, but to eliminate its threats. Mr. Obama has already missed several opportunities, but the U.S. has the necessary capabilities. He needs to use them, and find some leadership skills to rally and recruit allies.
Second, secure our southern border. A friendly border control agent chatted me up ten days ago about the $10 poster I was bringing back from Canada. His attentiveness to the Quebec-NY border was gratifying. But meanwhile thousands are still streaming across our Mexican border, with minimal safeguards, despite reports of Korans, prayer rugs and English-Arabic dictionaries being found on these "immigrant” trails. (As to offending Hispanics, they don’t want to get blown up or murdered with bubonic plague, either.)
Third, develop more U.S. oil and natural gas – and persuade Europe to start fracking. The United States consumed 18.6 million barrels of oil a day in 2013, the U.S. Energy Information Administration says. Better vehicle fuel mileage, other energy conservation efforts and the Obama economy have reduced oil imports from 12.6 million barrels per day in 2005 to 7.5 million this year. But even though America’s oil (and natural gas) production continues to climb, we still import about one-third of our oil.
Reducing foreign oil dependence can be accomplished via continued energy conservation, switching to natural gas, building more nuclear and coal power to generate electricity for hybrid and electric cars, and brewing more ethanol and biodiesel (while ignoring their food, economic and environmental costs). But these will barely make a dent, compared to more drilling and fracking on onshore and offshore federal, state and private lands – and pipelining more oil from our stable neighbor and longtime ally, Canada.
Unfortunately, President Obama has thus far been loath to do any of this. Yes, domestic oil and gas production has risen under his watch. However, the increase has come from state and private lands, while production has fallen significantly on lands under federal government control.
President Obama and many Democrats in Congress and state governments continue to oppose drilling for oil off our East and West Coasts, and in Alaska and our Western states. They oppose construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, which could safely transport 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Canada (plus Montana and North Dakota oil) to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries, thereby reducing risks of more rail accidents. Many of these same Democrats also oppose hydraulic fracturing, which could greatly increase U.S. oil and gas production for many decades to come.
Tapping into our nation’s vast oil and natural gas supplies would even allow us to export oil, natural gas and refined products. That would help our allies and trading partners become less dependent on terror-sponsoring oil producers and Russian "oiligarch” blackmailers – until they can get their act together on fracking. Such sales would also reduce our trade deficit and create much-needed American jobs.
History shows that even today’s friendly oil producers can become tomorrow’s adversaries. We were importing 554,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran, at the peak in 1978, before Islamic extremists took the country over and held our diplomats hostage. Our imports from Persia have been zero ever since.
Too many "environmentalists” reflexively oppose all oil and natural gas production, all the time. They refuse to admit that we cannot slash our reliance on these two fuels from 64% today to zero in a few years – and cannot bring new oil and gas supplies online in just a few years, in the midst of a crisis.
Khalid A. Al-Falih, CEO of Saudi Aramco, the world’s biggest oil producing company, recently told an energy conference in Norway that even without terrorist threats the world will need to produce 40 million more barrels of oil a day within the next 20 years – just to replace what we are depleting. Finding enough to supply billions of people striving to rise up out of abject poverty will take far more than that.
Instead of waiting for an energy 9/11 to hit, President Obama and members of Congress are duty-bound to act now on all these steps, and more, to protect America’s national security. They must stop ignoring the imminent and growing threats of energy and energy-funded terrorism that America and the world face – before we run out of time to prepare for and prevent the potential onslaughts.
The president, Secretary of State John Kerry, EPA and too many politicians are too focused on overblown dangers from climate change. They need to wake up to the terrorist train that is raging toward us.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death
August 31, 2014
Yesterday protesters stormed the beaches of Ferguson (which is just down New Florissant Road from Normandy).
The event was organized by the Justice for Michael Brown Leadership, a group that seems more interested in political power than in actually seeking justice (if that were not the case they would wait until the investigation was completed.)
Here is a list of the demands made by the "coalition" which includes the New Black Panthers, the Nation of Islam, and a host of radicals:
Has anyone else noticed the speed with which slogans have been created? Almost immediately we had "hands up! Don't Shoot!" appearing on signs, and we had protesters raising both hands in a street theatre performance. It is as if someone had this in store and trotted it out. Ditto the slogan "we can't stop now" which appears on many of the orange signs that were present at Saturday's rally. Who paid for the signs? Does anybody else find this odd?
I wonder if taxpayer money is filtering down to these protests. Considering that the Justice Department bused protesters to demand "justice" for Trayvon Martin (coercing prosecutors to file murder charges against George Zimmerman) I wouldn't put it past Eric Holder.
Remember who Barack Obama is; a "community organizer". This sort of thing is right up his alley.
Mr. Obama worked for the now allegedly defunct ACORN, the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, which had ties to the Occupy Wall Street groups. Strange how these Michael Brown protests resemble OWS demonstrations. And SEIU, the public sector labor union, was also a driving force in the OWS movement. SEIU is the Obama power base.
I sought in vain to find a roster of people involved with the Justice for Michael Brown Leadership group on the internet; there were plenty of references to it but little inside information on exactly WHO is running this group. We do know that Malik Shabazz and others like him are part of it. I want to know who else; are members of ACORN or SEIU, Occupy Wall Street, or any of the other violent revolutionary groups involved. Certainly ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) was promoting attendance at the rally.
What I want to know is who exactly is organizing this stuff, and where the money is coming from. I strongly suspect money is being funneled from stimulus funds and whatnot via the laundrey system to promote this.
The Democrats need this to keep burning; it's the only thing they have to run on.
The shooting in Ferguson may not have been planned, but the quick response most assuredly was. I suspect the "community organizers" had this all ready and just awaited an incident.
Ferguson Mo. has turned into the vortex of all anti-Americanism and racicial grievance.
The Left never sleeps - and never retreats. In the '90's Bill Clinton nominated a Missouri judge for the Federal bench named Ronnie White. White was torpedoed by then Senator John Ashcroft because, well, he liked to make his own law and let criminals walk, and Ashcroft was petitioned by a large number of Missouri Police and Sheriffs to stop White's elevation.
Here was Ashcroft's statement about White:
"Some have suggested that my opposition to the appointment of Judge Ronnie White, an African- American Missouri Supreme Court judge, to a lifetime term on the federal bench was based on something other than my own honest assessment of his qualifications for the post. As governor, I was the appointing authority for judges. I exercised the power with special care to promote racial diversity on the Missouri bench. [In the Senate] I voted to confirm 26 out of 27 African- American judicial nominees.
My opposition to Judge White was well-founded. Studying his judicial records, considering the implications of his decisions and hearing the widespread objections to his appointment from a large body of my constituents, I simply came to the overwhelming conclusion that Judge White should not be given lifetime tenure as a US District Court judge. My legal review revealed the troubling pattern of his willingness to modify settled law in criminal cases. 53 of my colleagues reached the same conclusion.
Source: Senate confirmation hearing Jan 17, 2001"
Obama has nominated White again, and he has passed the Senate thanks to the removal of the filibuster by Harry Reid.
The Speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, Tim Jones, had this to say:
"This is disturbing and an outrage. Judge White was previously rejected 15 years ago for good reason: his record of being weak on crime. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri handles many criminal cases, and we cannot afford to have a judge with a weak record appointed to this vital position. Unfortunately, this is not a surprising move for the Obama administration, which seems more concerned with rewarding Democrat allies than in appointing people who will do the job well,” said Speaker Jones.
"And I make this statement based upon personal experience. Judge White wrote the lone dissent in the appeal of a death sentence for a man who was convicted of killing a sheriff, two deputies, and the wife of a sheriff – a relative of mine – as well as injuring others during a shooting rampage. The case against this criminal was airtight, but Judge White thought he should be awarded a new trial because of outlandish claims made by his lawyers during the trial. Overall, he voted to overturn or grant a new trial in more than 30% of the death penalty cases he heard on the Supreme Court. This is not the kind of record we need on the court for the Eastern District of Missouri.”
The Left never gives up. Conservatives all too often get distracted and stop fighting.
My brother Brian wrote Claire McCaskill about Ronnie White and was given this brush-off:
Dear Dr. Birdnow,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Ronnie L. White to be a United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. I was very proud to nominate Judge White to this seat and am pleased that the Senate approved his nomination. I appreciate hearing from you, and welcome the chance to respond.
President Obama nominated Judge Ronnie L. White on November 7, 2013. At the time of his nomination, Judge White was a partner at the St. Louis law firm of Holloran White Schwartz & Gaertner LLP and an adjunct professor at Washington University School of Law, in St. Louis. Prior to that, he served as a judge on the Missouri Supreme Court, where he acted as Chief Justice from 2003 to 2005. Judge White received his first judicial appointment in 1994 when he was selected to be a judge on the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.
In addition to that service, he was appointed City Counselor for St. Louis, he worked at the Law Offices of Cahill, White & Hemphill, he was elected to the Missouri House of Representatives three times, he worked in the law firm of Young, Russell, Crawford & Black, and he served in the Office of the Public Defender. Judge White received his J.D. from the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law in 1983 and his B.A. from the St. Louis University in 1979. His nomination received the American Bar Association's highest rating of unanimously well qualified.
As your United States Senator, I will never play partisan politics when carrying out my constitutional duty to provide "advice and consent" on the President's nominations. I will only support nominees who I believe, based on their record, will be fair and objective in performing their duties and upholding the Constitution. On July 16, 2014, I joined a group of my Senate colleagues in voting to confirm Judge Ronnie L. White with a vote of 53 to 44.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.
United States Senator
White has benefitted from his being African American his whole life, and has been promoted against all reason because of his color and his liberal leanings. He should have been stopped long ago in his rise, but Missouri is a purple state and was a blue state not long ago, and so the Hon. Mr. White was pushed along. Now he will shape our legal system for decades.
We have got to learn fortitude; the Left beats us because they never give up. Ronnie White is proof.
This also proves the need for conservative search engines; it is a bear to find anything detrimental to White, even though I know it's out there, or at least it was back in '99. Now it is buried . And this, too, proves the danger we face, for Obama and Reid have been stuffing the Judiciary with their hand-picked people and the GOP, denied the filibuster, can't stop them. We are facing a completely leftist branch of government in the future.
Essentially we are going to have to disempower the judicial branch or we will fall.
It's time our side wake up.
Actually, it would do the guy good to perhaps confront ISIS as part of the U.S. military; it might make him grow up. He's been listening to too many talking heads (and with ISIS it's sans body). But then, he may be confusing ISIS with The Secrets of Isis.
Maybe the guy just likes hot '70's babes!
The St. Louis Rams , the NFL's first openly gay drafted player, from the opening team roster as the regular season begins.]
Police shot an unarmed white youth 16 times and the media remains silent.
According to Raw Story courtesy of the Gateway Pundit:
" Family members of a teen who was shot at least 16 times by police in Ottawa, Kansas said this week that the 18-year-old was unarmed and suicidal when he was gunned down.
Brandy Smith told KCTV that police were there when her nephew, 18-year-old Joseph Jennings, had tried to kill himself with pills last week.
"Tonight is the night goodbye everyone!!!!! It was truly a good ride! And I’m sorry for who I might of hurted (sic) and people that I may of offended, But I love all my family and I hope you don’t hold this against me,” he reportedly wrote on Facebook before trying to overdose.
About 10 minutes later, Jennings swallowed 60 pills. And Smith said two officers took him to Ransom Memorial Hospital.
Jennings survived, and was released from the hospital two days later. But only three hours after that, he was on a "suicide mission” when he walked to Orscheln Farm and Home, according to his aunt.
Smith recalled that around six officers responded, and two of them had helped save Jennings’ life by taking him to the hospital after his overdose just days before.
"It was like six — six officers, and one cop yelled, ‘Bag him!’ And they bagged him,” she said. "And he kind of puffed up a little bit, and then they bagged him two more times, and then like 16 shots rang out, and they shot him. And he fell to the ground.”
Jennings was later pronounced dead at a nearby hospital."
Where is the wall to wall media coverage? Where are the cries of indignation at police brutality? Where are Sharpton and Jackson? Strange how nobody cares if a WHITE boy is shot down like a dog.
I suppose you can call that White Privilege...
A Kurdish oil tanker carrying $100 million dollars with of oil disappeared off the coast of Texas.
According to the article, Iraq filed a suit in U.S. court, claiming the oil belonged to it and not the Kurds.
From the article:
"The US Coast Guard has lost track of a Kurdish tanker carrying $100 million in disputed oil off the coast of Texas, the Independent reports. Headed for Galveston, the United Kalavyrvta was anchored at least 60 miles off-shore when it vanished from radar screens. The ship's haul fell under legal dispute when Iraq filed a lawsuit in US courts, urging American officials to grab the ship's oil in Galveston because it belongs to Iraq, not the Kurdish National Government. But Kurds say it's theirs, and insist they need oil-export dollars to survive and fund their future independence, the Washington Post reports.
In any case, a US court denied the lawsuit Monday because America has no jurisdiction over ships more than 60 miles off the coast. Meanwhile, the United Kalavyrvta may have moved beyond US antennas or could be suffering technical problems, the US Coast Guard says (or maybe it "voluntarily switched off its transmitter," says the Daily News). It's not unusual for ships to vanish from radar systems when transporting disputed oil, Reuters notes: A few days ago, a Kamari ship with Kurdish oil "went dark" near Egypt's Sinai and turned up near Israel two days later, its oil gone."
This is quite curious; an oil tanker is hard to "disappear" and had it sunk it would be visible by it's spill. Only in Obama's America can we lose sight of a supertanker full of oil.
This smells of a government operation, either our own or the Russians or Chinese.
August 30, 2014
The Gang Green, those worshippers of Nature and Nature's, uh, Nature, are attempting to reintroduce wolves to large swaths of America with predictable results.
Marita Noon discusses it at Western Journalism:
"A new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) plan to expand the area for the Mexican grey wolf reintroduction calls for virtually all of Southern New Mexico to become wolf habitat—but advocates at a hearing about the plan, held on August 13, repeatedly expressed their desire to have wolves introduced north of I-40—which would include the urban areas of Albuquerque and Santa Fe.
Wolves are master predators that attack bigger prey: deer, elk, horses, and cattle—but will carry off dogs and cats. The wolves that are a part of the reintroduction program are not afraid of people and will come right up to a house if they are hungry.
Supporters plead for people to "open their eyes and hearts to wolves, to remove boundaries.” One claimed that "The big bad wolf isn’t so bad after all,” and added: "There’s no proof a wolf has ever harmed a human.”
Most opponents of the plan live in areas already impacted by the original 1998 wolf reintroduction.
One woman told of growing up on her family’s farm. She remembers being able to play by the stream without fear. But now, with wolves around, it is a different story for her grandchildren. They came to visit one day. They brought their new puppy. As they bounded out of the car toward the house, two wolves emerged from the creek and snatched the puppy, as the shocked children helplessly watched. They are now afraid to go to grandma’s house. They have nightmares.
Others told similar stories. Children, waiting for the school bus, have to be caged to be protected from the wolves. Nine ranches in the current habitat area along the New Mexico/Arizona border have been sold due to wolf predation—too many cattle are killed, and ranchers are forced off the land."
And indeed wolves were thinned in numbers precisely because they were the apex predator in North America (except for the aboriginal humans aka Indians). It was not the bear, nor the cougar, nor the rattle snake, nor alligator that dominated the food chain on this continent but the wolf, and they were extremely dangerous. A wolf is a very big canine, an untamable canine with the intelligence of a smart dog and sharp fangs and the aid of a pack, soldiers who work together. They could bring down the largest and most fearsome of game including Buffalo. They would eat cattle or dogs or sheep - or men - with equal relish.
Wolves were at least partly responsible for the extinction of Woolly Mammoths, which once roamed the American prairies as freely as the buffalo. Ditto other Pleistocene creatures (such as giant sloths) that made presented themselves as tasty morsels for the wolves. Wolves were uniquely suited to the changing climate, because of their tendency to hunt in packs; the other Pleistocene hunters (sabre tooth tigers, for example) simply couldn't compete.
It is interesting to note that the coming of the Holocene saw the introduction of humans into North America which undoubtedly pushed many of the creatures into extinction. What is interesting about that? For starters, we are always being told how the American Indian was such a great steward of the environment, when in fact on his watch there were huge numbers of extinctions, likely caused by predation by the hunter-gatherer tribes themselves. The second interesting thing about this is that Man, like the wolf, hunts in packs and cooperates. Few animals hunt the way people do; we work together, lay out traps for the prey, and key in on one specific animal which we chase until we kill it. Most predators are opportunists, and if a prey is too tough to catch the predator simply lets it go. Humans don't. Neither do wolves.
So humans and wolves are natural rivals, and humans won that battle - along with their friends the dog, cousin of the wolf but symbiot of the Man. The wolves didn't have pet humans.
Now, nobody wants the wolves to become extinct, but neither should we want them back. They are natural killers, and the settlers of the West TRIED to get rid of them because they were at the very best a terrible nuisance. The Indians didn't have the power to kill them off, but the farmers and ranchers did.
So, why are liberals so hell-bent on reintroducing the wolf? Because in their minds they believe in the inherent goodness of Nature, and believe that the hardship and suffering of this life is entirely a product of Western Civilization, which alienated Man from the soil. It is utopianism in it's most illogical form. Essentially, it takes the Judeo-Christian concept of Eden and reinvents the Sin of Adam and Eve to be not against God but against Nature, the creation of first Agriculture then Industrialism. Man is in misery because he is not free to roam about half naked, taking what he can from the bounty of the natural world. Many of these people also believe in vegetarianism, and would likewise ban hunting and meat eating, thinking they can subsist on a diet of berries and whatnot. Good luck with that.
This utopianism is at the heart of modern Progressivism. They believe they can restore Man to paradise by a program of deindustrialization. That is at the heart of the whole Global Warming scare; we must scale back our industry. They have bought into Paul Ehrlich's notion of a population bomb, which was nothing but a reworking of Thomas Malthus. They want the human population to be limited, want the environment restored as it had been prior to human habitation (where are they going to get the Mammoths, the Sabre-toothed Tigers, the Giant Sloths?) They believe that if they can somehow destroy the evil works of Man that we will return to a state of nature, a happy, peaceful, freedom that our ancestors so enjoyed.
But of course there is nothing happy or peaceful or free about a neolithic lifestyle, let alone a paleolithic one; civilization developed out of dire need. The liberals do not understand that it gets cold in the winter, hot in the summer, and takes huge amounts of effort to make everything one needs for onesself. Food has to be obtained, and enough to last through the unproductive winter. The Indians used to call late winter the starving time, and they often took to eating tree bark and other things. I once read the writings of Euelle Gibbons of "ever eat a pine tree" fame; he experimented with the old Indian trick of eating pine bark. Said it tasted absolutely terrible, like turpentine. And it was a lot of work to produce a meager amount. It was done because a people who are starving TO DEATH have little choice.
And there are so many other things; medicines for example. Native Americans used to chew willow bark for a painkiller. That painkiller is called aspirin, and we have a much more concentrated dose then they. We can make much better painkillers than that; the Native American had to endure pain. And there were no antibiotics, so many Indian tribes nearly went extinct after contact with the Europeans (who didn't have them either at that time but had natural immunity.) A dose of Cipro could have saved many tribes from extinction.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Civilization was created because of need, and that need will not disappear if we suddenly remove the bounds of our "alienations". Wars were endless in the pre-civilizational times, and strangers were a terror - especially to the weak, the aged, the sick, and to women. Feminism will be dead ten minutes after the fall of civilization, I might add. Without guns or other technology to equalize power women will be forced to latch onto the strongest male they can find. It will be survival of the fittest, with the fittest being the strongest and baddest.
But none of this percolates through the obtuse craniums of the Gang Green, who cannot face the reality that the Earth is imperfectable. They cannot face the thought that this life will always include suffering and misery. Christianity offered the hope of something better in the afterlife, but the modern Liberal rejects Christ's path because it does not comport with their carnal desires. They want a human-only paradise, one without God. But the human condition is fallen, and as such there is no way to create this pastoral paradise of which they dream.
So they desperately attempt to reconstruct a world that is gone forever, one that never really existed in the first place.
And the result will be many will suffer for their pipe dreams. People will be attacked by wolves and some killed. People will lose their pets. Ranchers their livestock. Other animals will go extinct because the wolves will kill them or kill the things they eat. All in the name of a dream that can never be.
Good luck with that.
August 29, 2014
Looks like San Francisco is stressing about income inequality in their fair city and believes a big minimum wage increase is the just the ticket.
Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't Frisco, dominated for decades by very liberal Democrats, be a worker's paradise by now? Why is there such an income gap when socialistic policies have been employed for over a generation?
According to the article:
"A new study released Wednesday finds that increasing San Francisco's minimum wage would give raises to 23 percent of the city's workforce, helping to reduce the city's growing income inequality.
San Francisco voters this fall are set to consider a ballot measure that would raise the local minimum wage from $10.74 to $15 an hour by 2018. The measure is part of a Bay Area-wide "regional referendum" backed by a coalition of labor and community groups that is also looking to raise the wage in nearby Oakland, Richmond, Berkeley and Concord.
Researchers from the University of California, Berkeley found that 142,000 San Francisco workers would see an increase in pay if the measure were approved in November. According to the study, average annual incomes for those individuals would rise by about $2,800. This would result in a total increase in earnings of $397 million by 2018.
The study also found that hiking the minimum wage would be especially beneficial for women and minorities. Under the proposed law, 26 percent of female workers in the city would receive a raise (compared to 21 percent of male workers), while minorities would account for 71 percent of those affected by the wage increase."
Of course, the jobs lost will increase the wage gap, not reduce it, but why mess up a feel-good message with such a detail. I suppose women will see an increase of 26% easily, since they will be unemployed and 26% of nothing is still nothing.
I guess you might say these are San Francisco family values in practice.
Speaking of unusual family values, a judge in Utah has ruled that a provision in the Utah anti-polygamy laws is unconstitutional. Ace of Spades is on it:
"In Utah, they prohibited adult men and women who weren't married to each other from cohabitating.
They couldn't live in the same house.
The reason for this is that polygamists would have several non-state-recognized wives, and they'd all live in the same house together. While the state did not recognize the plural marriage, they lived as a polygamist family anyway.
Cohabitation was the means by which polygamists evaded the letter of the law against polygamy.
So Utah banned cohabitation by adults.
And this federal judge has ruled that to be an unconstitutional law discriminating against religion (Mormonism, I guess), so while the state does not have to recognize these marriages, it can no longer act to prevent these non-legal-marriage-like living arrangements, either."
We could see this coming a mile away; polygamy has a much stronger claim via historical precedent than does gay "marriage" which is a notion that has only been around for a few decades. The Bible is full of polygamy, including King David and his very randy son Solomon (who had 700 wives). The Muslims have always allowed four wives. And polygamy is a part of the Mormon religion, thus bringing the First Amendment into play. It was inevitable that the polygamists would demand the right to multiple marriages if their homosexual bretheren were going to be granted an exception.
And naturally modern liberal judges would be happy to find that previous legal scholars knew nothing whatsoever about the matter all this time.
Soon there will be a demand to regularize incest. After all, who are we to judge the love of another? With modern contraception (paid for by employers through the Affordable Care Act) there is little to worry about genetic inbreeding. And marriage would logically be more secure, since the happy couples will already know each-other pretty well.
And of course we cannot continue to discriminate against necrophiliacs; why shouldn't a man dig his wife (up)? There's no danger of pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases, although worms may be a concern.
Shoot, Bill Clinton was aroused by a mummy one time, or was that his mommy...
Needless to say a person should be able to marry their favorite pet. When a guy says his wife is a real animal in the sack he can truly mean it!
Once you pull out a thread the whole thing unravels, just like that sexy mummy in Bill Clinton's fantasy.
August 28, 2014
Is there anybody of the "old guard" more embarrassing and loathsome than Jimmy Carter? (And is this the kind of stuff we can expect from eventual ex-president B. Hussein Obama?) Every time he makes an appearance he figuratively soils himself. In a current article from Newsmax, we learn that
Former President Jimmy Carter will headline a fundraising convention for Hamas, a group which has been recognized by the U.S. as a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of Israel.
Breitbart News reports that Carter, 89, long known as a supporter of Hamas in its struggle with Israel, will be welcomed this weekend to the Detroit event by members of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), implicated by the Justice Department in a scheme to funnel $12 million to Hamas.
Carter's involvement may be in violation of the law, U.S. Code 2339B, Section 18, which makes it a crime for any U.S. citizen to provide material support to any group designated as a foreign terrorist organization.
Constitutional law expert Alan Dershowitz stressed that Carter's actions, in raising funds for the ISNA, place him "very close, if not across the line," of criminal behavior.
Boy, oh boy. Liberalism certainly is a disease. I happen to believe that anti-semitism is also a disease, but that's just me.
The Newsmax article is here: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Jimmy-Carter-Fundraiser-Hamas/2014/08/28/id/591451/?ns_mail_uid=95809690&ns_mail_job=1583615_08282014&s=al&dkt_nbr=8aair1ak
I, for one, hope that ol' Jimmah attracts very, very few takers!
August 27, 2014
allegedly uncovered a tape of the Michael Brown shooting. Apparently a man was engaged in a sex chat online via Skype or some other video chatting system, and the recording he made of it captured ten loud reports supposedly from the officer's sidearm. There were six in quick succession, a very short gap (less than a second) and four more. CNN believes this is somehow damning of Officer Wilson, with the gap proving he didn't need to kill the y0uth.
The effect is viceral when heard, which is the whole point in releasing it now; it's apt to stir renewed anger and resentment. CNN was very angry at the release of both the Michael Brown strongarm robbery tapes and the report that Officer Michael Brown suffered a broken eye socket. There was need of a game-changer, as the evidence leaking out was turning the narrative away from that set by the media of a bright young black Albert Schweitzer brutally murdered by a racist monster. A black thug who assaulted a cop and was shot is far less dramatic, and spoils the whole party as CNN sees it. CNN wanted to get back onto the high ground.
CNN recently reported an anonymous source contradicting the broken eye socket report from The Gateway Pundit. This was then contradicted by a Fox News anonymous source claiming he did indeed suffer this injury. Whether CNN is correct about the nature of the injury should be immaterial; Wilson was in fact taken to a hospital for injuries to his face, that is not in dispute. He did not get those injuries while shaving.
Clearly he was assaulted, and CNN wanted to blunt the damage this news did to a dandy good v. evil narrative they had invested much time in.
And there are big problems with this tape.
First, everyone is in agreement that a shot was fired in the car, yet that is missing on the tape. If that is the case then 11 shots were fired, not the ten that can be heard.
Second, what does this matter anyway? That the officer stopped shooting momentarily only buttresses the case that he was trying to avoid killing the man; he hoped Brown would drop and he could stop firing. Police officers are trained to shoot at the thickest part of the body and keep shooting until the assailant stops. There is no "shooting for the gun hand" or the kneecap to disable someone. On the streets there are too many variable that can lead to sudden death for the officer, and so when the gun comes out it may well mean death.
And this very large man had already tried to take the officer's gun away. What choice did he have?
And no, he could not use a taser or whatnot. Tasers are risky business; it's easy to miss, and a man of Brown's size may have continued to come at him. Tasers work better on smaller people. Pepper spray? They were outside so it would disperse, and if it was close enough Brown would have been on him. Brown walked through a hail of bullets, so does anyone believe burning eyes would have stopped him?
Also, do not forget that there were TWO of them. Almost everyone seems to forget that Brown was not alone, but was accompanied by a criminal named Dorian Johnson. Had Wilson stopped short of killing Brow he could well have been attacked from behind by Johnson.
I've been trying to find out what type of sidearm the Ferguson Police carry. This web threat at Glocktalk says St. Louis County officers:
"The County officers there have S&W M&P's in 40. Ferguson uses .40 but my source isn't too sure on the platform."
"Look like .45 acp entry wounds to me"
"Looks like Sig P226's. Probably in .40."
A .45 ACP holds 12 rounds, which would leave the officer with one bullet. The Sig p226 holds between 10 and 15 rounds in the .40 series.
Any way one looks at it the officer had nearly emptied his clip. This would be dangerous given too assailants, but perhaps Officer Wilson was not thinking clearly.
At any rate, one must also ask why Officer Wilson took ten shots to take down Michael Brown. The autopsy says only six struck him. IF Brown was as close as witnesses claim then some other factor was at work - like a broken eye socket. It seems likely that Officer Wilson was having trouble seeing.
Back to the tape. Rush Limbaugh noted yesterday that the man making the tape never broke his Barry White routine despite what amounted to a wild west shootout just outside his window. He lived in an apartment with undoubtedly thin walls - thin enough to hear gunshots easily. If nothing else, wouldn't the Lotharian have paused from his electronic carnality to at least make sure he wasn't going to be hit by a stray bullett? Perhaps he was swept away by passion, but to me a gunshot would generally kill the mood. There is absolutely no reaction from this guy, none, zero, nada, the null set. It's as if these shots were superimposed on the tape.
Rush points out too that this tape could have been made in any violent city. It could be in Chicago, or in Detroit, or East St. Louis.
If it IS legitimate, again, what does it prove? We already knew a young man was killed by at least six gunshots coming from a police officer's service pistol. The point is moot.
What I find interesting is the lack of eyewitness testimony over this incident. It was a beautiful Saturday afternoon, and in poorer black communities that generally means there are lots of people outside to socialize and get out of their cramped apartments. Yet we have just two witnesses presented to us - one the accomplice in a recent robbery. Omerta is one thing, but this is ridiculous. And what of the "snitches get stitches" that was plastered around after the riots? It seems likely there were numerous eyewitnesses who either are refusing to come forward or have come forward and have not been interviewed by the media. I suspect the latter. African Americans AREN'T Sicilian immigrants, after all.
It was a nice try on the part of CNN to change the narrative back to a young promising college kid was executed by racist cop for walking while black, but it just doesn't wash.
Captain Ron Johnson, the man running security in Ferguson, draws his sidearm on unarmed white bikers.
Captain Ron Johnson, the man put in charge of security in Ferguson Mo., pulled his pistol on two unarmed white kids. According to The Gateway Pundit:
"Now there’s this photo of Captain Johnson pulling a gun on white kids…
This photo was from the "Ride of the Century” stunt bikers event in 2013. There was No reason for a gun to be drawn. The kids were doing bike stunts and the highway was clearly already shut down at this point."
Had Captain Johnson shot those white motorcyclists, would the media have turned out in such numbers? Would Al Sharpton have flown in? Jackson? Holder?
Strange how one-sided the anger is in this instance.
29 queries taking 0.1058 seconds, 167 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.