September 20, 2014

Boehner Says Amnesty Will Help the Economy

Timothy Birdnow

John Boehner's latest boner.

Yes, speaking extemporaneously (that is, going off script for a minute) the Speaker of the House claimed "comprehensive immigration reform" would help our economy.

From The Hill:

"It wasn’t part of the jobs message he planned to pitch, but Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that immigration reform would help boost the economy.

"Immigration reform will help our economy, but you’ve got to secure the border first,” the Ohio Republican said after a speech at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute. "We’ve got a mess and everyone knows we’ve got a mess.

"Our legal system is broken, our border isn’t secure, and we’ve got the problem of those who are here without documents,” the Speaker continued. "It needs to be fixed. We’re a nation of immigrants, the sooner we do it, the better off the country would be."

End excerpt.

His reasoning is beyond me; what does Mr. Boehner think will happen if you amnetize these illegals? They are ALREADY HERE! Are they going to somehow become more because they have been given amnesty? If anything they will become less productive because they no longer have to fear deportation, don't have to please their employers quite as much.

And once given amnesty they can join a labor union and REALLY slough off. They will draw more pay once legalized, be put into social security and other government "safety net" programs, will fall under OSHA and other regulatory bodies. The cost of employing them will rise considerably. So either the employer finds a new illegal willing to work outside the law or he raises his prices.

Yeah; that's a great economic incentive!

The only benefit from amnesty is to broaden the tax base. But the U.S. collects taxes on a monumental scale right now, and still spends far more than it takes in. Any new taxes will be spent by Obama and company. This will not improve our economic circumstances.

Meanwhile these newly amnetized aliens will be eligible for all of our social programs, for AFDC, EBT, Obamacare subsidies, Medicair, Medicaid, FHA housing loans, HUD Section 8 housing assistance, programs assisting with utilities, etc. They will draw more out of the tax rolls than they contribute.

That's really going to help, isn't it Boehner!

The Heritage Foundation conducted a study that disproved this ridiculous claim by Boehner.

Another study shows that virtually all new jobs in the U.S. since the year 2000 have gone to immigrants. Fully 67% of job growth since Obama took office has gone to immigrants.

This is not helping the economy. It is helping Mexico, perhaps, and Central America. It is helping Washington. It is helping the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other fat cat employers who want a loophole in American labor law. But it does not encourage economic growth, nor help the middle or lower classes.

And it does not even help the upper classes in the end; how does the creation of a permanent underclass that must be supported through taxes on the wealthy and corporations ultimately help them? They are looking two years out, and nothing more. They want cheap labor for now. The Devil take the rest!

And that is precisely what will happen as America turns into another Latin American hellhole.

If John Boehner cannot understand this he should not even be in Congress much less be Speaker of the House. The man cannot be that stupid. But he could be bought.

And a bought man is equally dangerous - perhaps more so than the fool. Boehner must go.

As long as the Reublican Party is run by such people we will never make any headway in saving this country. A vaccuum of leadership on the part of the opposition is killing us.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:57 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 639 words, total size 4 kb.

For and Against Impeachment

Timothy Birdnow

Our side of the aisle has been grappling with the question of what to do about Barack Obama. Obama has committed not one high crime and misdemeanor but dozens - so many it would be difficult to enumerate them all in understandable terms. (Remember Joseph Goebbles' Big Lie - small timers go to prison, big timers rule.) Take your pick; Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Libya, the lack of border enforcement, refusing to obey court orders, interfering with the Kenyan Constitution to promote abortion (in violation of the then in force Hyde Amendment), the IRS abuse scandal, the NSA spying scandals, etc. etc. etc. Any one of these scandals could bring down a sitting President. But Obama is no ordinary sitting President, and the multiplicity of scandals make it hard to go after the first Black (well, one quarter black) President because nobody knows where to start, or how to explain it to the American People. If you want to committ a crime you should steal the Crown Jewels and not rob a Quicktrip.

So how do we proceed?

Elise Cooper, writing in American Thinker, interviews Ben Shapiro, who takes a dim view of the remedy offered by the Founding Fathers.

From the article:

"American Thinker: Why not go the impeachment route?

Ben Shapiro: It’s important to start seeing the Obama administration as a criminal enterprise. It’s really the only way to understand what it is that they’re doing. Impeachment says this is a political problem. This is not a political problem, but a criminal problem. And detailing it in those terms, in terms of what laws have been broken, is important to understanding exactly who these folks are, and what they’re doing: exploiting their power."

End excerpt.

This is flabbergasting reasoning; he's committed crimes so we cannot remove him for High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Look, Congress is a political body. If they are to act against another branch of government it can only BE through political channels. The Founders offered only a couple of remedies - impeachment or defunding of the President's administration. The GOP attempted a lukewarm, half-hearted defunding and caved under media pressure. Impeachment is the only other option.

Impeachment is not intended to replace legal action, but to remove an unfit Executive from office lest he do more harm. It is but the beginning of legal action.

I don't really understand what Shapiro thinks can be done; the President is the chief law enforcer in the land, and he has appointed a large swath of the Judiciary.

Strangely, Shapriro seems to realize this while dismissing impeachment:

AT: What do you want readers to get out of this book?

BS: We should wake up from this attitude of a Stockholm syndrome. We must not sit back and tune out. We need to hold politicians accountable for their crimes.

President Obama has decided that he will rule via executive fiat, or, as he said, with his phone and his pen. Commentators will tell you that constitutionally, Congress has two options: impeachment or cutting off funds. Meanwhile, Congress play patty-cake with the executive branch because they do not want to be held responsible for their actions. With all these scandals, no one has been held responsible. Has Congress actually held anyone in contempt? No one who has participated in a scandal has been fired.

This executive branch is completely out of control and violating our rights. We must change the laws so that someone who works for the government is held criminally responsible just like you or I would be.

End excerpt.

I agree; Congress should be citing numerous Obamatrons with contempt, but that in itself is almost as hard as impeaching the guy, given the fact that the President can use Executive Privilege to get around the matter.

There are two ways a contempt citation can work. The older method involves the House of Congress directly affected, and is executed entirely by Congress. The Sargent-at-Arms arrests the contempt suspect, and said individual is held by Congress until he or she is tried by the full chamber (if it goes that far). Punishment is then meted out. This is a time-consuming process and one not relished by Congress for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the "witch hunt" feel about it which may be damaging to the political fortunes of individual members. This method hasn't been used since the Great Depression.

The second method is to refer the citation to the Prosecuting Attorney for the District of Columbia - an appointee of the President. Obviously the GOP cannot do that in the case of Obama.

And Mr. Shapiro cannot possibly expect men like John Boehner to push repeated (and that is what it will take) citations for contempt (and punishment) over a long-range strategy. Boehner and the other Republicans don't think that long term, but rather consider their own political fortunes. Chasing Obamatrons with contempt citations and taking the heat in the media serves them poorly from a selfish politcal standpoint. It ties up Congress, giving Obama ammunition to campaign against the "Party of NO!" as obstructionist and lazy do-nothing bums. And, as mentioned before, this only works if the Obama people actually testify - something that can be prevented with Executive Privilege.

Of course, impeachment will fail if the Democrats hold the Senate, or even if they are in a slight minority. Many GOP Senators will refuse to convict him.

Shapiro thinks that changing the law to allow the Executive Branch to be sued under RICO statutes is the way to go. I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that this is destined to failure. If the Presidency can be sued, how long before demands are made to allow Congress to be sued? How many members are going to vote for that? Even if they do, it has to pass both houses and the President. Does Shapiro really believe Obama would sign such a law? Even then, you are talking about the payment of monetary damages, and Obama is nothing if not generous with the public treasury. Why would he care? This isn't going to stop him from doing further damage. And, as chief law enforcer, he could simply ignore the court judgement.

And the DOJ could no doubt tie the court proceedings up for years, perhaps decades.

This is not an optimal solution.

The reality is that failure to impeach the President speaks volumes about his political enemies - meaning us. It says to the public we do not have the courage of our convictions, meaning we don't really believe our claims of criminality.

I remember the Clinton impeachment investigation. James Carville was railing on Special Prosecutor Ken Starr, calling him an evil pervert. Carville was asked if he then favored the removal of Starr and his replacement with a better man. Carville was flabbergasted by the question "nobody's suggesting Starr be removed." Why? Carville and the other Clinton defenders wanted to tarnish Starr before the American public, make the impeachment appear to be a petty act of political vengence and not a serious concern about misuse of Presidential power and criminal behavior. Carville showed he was politically motivated at that point.

Of course the media did not report this and the public wound up buying the Carville version, but the GoP allowed that to happen, fearing the impeachment so much that they consummated it with a farcical trial, refusing to put Betty Curry - the head of the bimbo eruption squad - on the witness stand. Had Curry been threatened with jail she would probably have talked, but the GOP were afraid of grilling an older black woman in public. The GOP was afraid on a number of levels. They feared putting Al Gore in the Presidency (hahaha!). They feared political reprisal from Democrats. They doubtlessly feared the Clinton threat of a "sexual Armegeddon" where their own sins would be revealed. So they put on a quick show trial that ended with Arlen Specter trying to vote not proved and then voting for acquittal along with enough GOP Senators to allow Clinton off the hook.

It was their lack of intestinal fortitute that caused them to fail. In the words of Yoda from The Empire Strikes Back "that is why you fail!" Lack of faith.

When you acquiesce to breaking the law you are c0-guilty. Congress cannot fail to invoke one of it's two Constitutional remedies without sharing Obama's guilt. Saying impeachment is a political act and not the best remedy may be technically true but it does not absolve Congress of aiding and abetting - especially in the eyes of the public. It is necessary to take a stand.

They refused to do so with the government shutdown, running for cover as polls suggested they were taking the blame. (Saul Alinsky - Obama's spiritual and philosophical mentor - said "if you push a negative long enough and hard enough it can break through and become a positive". The GOP timidly pushed a negative and turned tail and ran at the first signs of damaging political fallout. You cannot win with this sort of mindset.

I am not advocating impeachment right now, but we need to ramp up the investigations and prepare to offer articles immediately after the next election. If the GOP wants to be anything but a permanent minority party (and many an elephant wants exactly that - it's easier and more fun to let the Dems run things while the Pachyderms get to enjoy all the perks) they are going to have to take a stand. Right now the public sees them as smarmy, venial, self-seeking scoundrels. The public sees the Dems as scoundrels too, but at least admire their chutzpah.

Nobody admires the victim of a bully. That is what the GOP has become.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1643 words, total size 10 kb.

September 19, 2014

Homeschoolers Ordered to Follow Common Core

A.J. Cameron

Jack-booted thugs walking amongst us?

This should awaken those who have resisted the truth to the truth that 'CommonCore' is designed as a blanket application of indoctrination across all forms ofK-12 education. We must prevent charter schools and Common Core from stealingour future by denying effective education to our children/students.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Goes Scotland Goes America?

... twitter pricesthe scottish flag under the stop for scottish trhgfg

Timothy Birdnow

It appears Bonny Scotland has voted to remain in the United Kingdom.

I have some thoughts on this.

First, I must say that I know little about Scotland and less about Scottish politics. I suspect Scotland is not the conservative part of the U.K. and so secession would not solve the problems that decades of Progressive control of Britain have wrought. This is unfortunate (assuming correct) because the need to dissolve the U.K. is predicated on saving a remnant. At the current rate of Islamic expansion into England there won't BE a U.K. in years to come; rather, Britain will become part of a European Caliphate, with the English people almost certainly being subsumed into the hordes of Islamic immigrants. By dissolving the Union Scotland stood a chance of remaining Scottish. (Anyone remember Braveheart? Longshanks says "if we can't get them - the Scots - out will breed them out". He attempted to force interbreeding with English nobles via Primae Noctis. Turns out this is the policy of the current U.K. government writ large.)

The United Kingdom has lost whatever worth and vitality it once had, and it's existence is really an embarasment. Where once it was a union of stubbornly independent nations with an overarching vision of a greater Brittania, now it is a sniveling welfare state bound hand and foot by political correctness. Consider that the authorities would not even stop Muslim men from raping English girls out of fear of being accused of racism; only the most debased culture would voluntarily dhimmitize itself in this fashion. The United Kingdom has outlived it's worth.

That is not to say it won't be a sad day when the U.K. is dismantled. Like it or not England is the mother of much of the world - including the United States - and English culture has given us so much in the way of law, philosophy, commerce, government, and we should be grateful. Of course, we have gotten much from the rest of the United Kingdom too, and I think the Union was, at it's best, greater than the sum of her parts. We owe much to Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. But it was England that was the core of the U.K., and a dissolution of the U.K. would mean the absolute end of England, in my view.

In 1066 William the Conqueror invaded England, defeating the tragic king Harold Godwinson at Hastings. The Normans brought people from all over Europe (in a prefiguration of the Crusades) and gave these landless nobles titles and land grants. England moved from a Germanic kingdom to, well, England. It created a new language and culture, one far more cosmopolitan than the old. This was the start of the drive to Great Britain; there was a sort of manifest destiny in England after the Norman Invasion, a sense that the islands would be united some day and become a great peoples astride the Earth.

The peoples of Britain have always been a mixed lot. The original inhabitants - called the Britons - were of Celtic descent, related to the Irish and Scots. Rome conquered the southern part of the main Island, and the Britons intermarried with Romans and enjoyed the blessings of Roman protection for centuries. The decline of Rome left the Britons undefended, and a series of Germanic invasions drove them ever westward; Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, all invaded and took control of the principle parts of the island. For a while the Danes ruled (anyone remember C-Nute?) and in fact Danish settlers were allowed to live under their own laws (the Danegeld) for a long time, after the older Saxons took back control of England. The original Britons were pushed back into the mountain country on the peninsula of Wales, where they stopped the Germanic incursion for a time. Tywysog Cymru: (Perhaps their most famous leader was Tywysog Cymru.) Sadly the Welch could never unite effectively against the English. Eventually the Welch were brought to heel In 1282, after the death of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd , and they were promised a prince of their own. As it turns out, Edward I had a son born on Welch soil during the war, and the English prince was declared "Prince of Wales", a title held by the first born son of the English royal family ever since.

Ireland was a much tougher nut to crack, being a seperate island with a very cantankerous people. Northern Ireland was settled by Protestants from the big island - mostly Scotland - and it remaines a part of the U.K. despite decades of terrorism to force it's independence. After centuries of military domination the southern part of the island was granted independence as the Irish Republic.

And then there is Scotland. Rugged, tough, too tough for the Romans to conquer, the Emperor Hadrian actually built a wall on the northern frontier to keep the Scots out. (It worked to a fair degree, too, putting the lie to those who claim a border fence won't stop illegals from invading the U.S.)

Scotland was not invaded much by Germanic tribes, although the Vikings did establish a kingdom there in the 8th century, leading to a union of the Scots and their rivals, the Picts. This led to the establishment of a Scottish Kingdom (after throwing off the yoke of the Vikings). Scotland's first king was a man named Kenneth MacAlpin.

Problems with succession led to wars with England during the 13th and 14th centuries as two familial claimants to the throne fought for control and likewise fought the English, who dominated for a time. Eventually the House of Stewart was established, which would likewise rule England for a time. Scotland was free until it voluntarily joined the United Kingdom in 1707.

So warfare and voluntary union have been at the heart of the creation of the United Kingdom, and the death of that kingdom is going to come sooner or later as the demographics and cultural values change. Frankly, to save these once noble nations it MUST die. As I stated above, England is largely finished as a specific nation; it is now a rotting imperium, a mixed bag of settlers who have colonized the English lands. Secession is the only way to save the rest.

This decision by the Scots not to secede may be their death warrants.

I had hoped they would, because it would validate other such movements. I am thinking in particular of the United States; I fear America cannot survive if it stays together as currently constituted. The United States government has spent far, far too much money and the crushing debt incurred will swallow us up in years to come. Partition will be the only option at some point, because it will be impossible to pay this debt (unless we pay it with hyper-inflated currency, wrecking our economy). The imperial American government will also impose radical leftist ideology on the nation, as it has been doing. How long can, say, Texas survive while the U.S. not only invites illegal immigrants but actively works to stop the border states from enforcing immigration law? Texas is the endgame too, because if Texas turns into a blue state the Democrats will own the political landscape for half a century or better. And they have no thoughts for the future other than power. If our culture and heritage are to survive we MUST partition at this point.

I know many will call me a radical for this view, but I see no alternatives if this nation is to survive. Otherwise we will come under the domination of foreign powers as Igor Panarin, Russian analyst, predicted back in the '90's. Nobody took Panarin seriously then, or when he reaffirmed his analysis, but who doubts him now? Panarin said the U.S. would fall because of profligate spending. He is being vindicated.

I would like to see our nation part in friendly fashion, while there is still time to avoid the abyss. Let California, Oregon, Washington continue their socialistic experiments. Let Massachusetts and New York run their welfare states. These leftist theories seem so dear to them they should be allowed to pursue them in full, not encumbered by the negative restrictions of the U.S. Constitution. Those of us who believe in those restrictions and in old America virtues should be free to pursue them as well. Give people a choice, I say.

The only good argument against secession during the Civil War had nothing to do with secession but with the enslavement of a whole race of people. It can be argued that this overrode the right to secede. Now the moral argument is exactly reversed; we have a whole class of people being forced to conform to a minority worldview - and pay for it. Liberals are 26% of the population yet they have nearly free rein these days because they own the media, the schools, the universities, and other levers of power and dissemination of information. With the death of the filibuster the Courts will now be wholly a subsidiary of the Democratic Party. And this unholy alliance is determined to fundamentally change America, and by fundamentally change they mean destroy and built on a foundation they prefer. That's why they want so many immigrants "if we can't get them out we'll breed them out". Longshanks could only dream of a Primae Noctis so powerful! Just bring in people from another country to colonize and push the old line Americans out!

So I had hoped Scotland would provide a model for the States on how to peacefully do this. It would give us an international precedent, especially if the U.S. recognized the new Scottish state (which it would have to do.) How could the U.S. stop Texas independence if it recognized Scottish?

The longer the United States exists in her current form the worse the fall will be. I want to minize the horror of that fall. I want to avoid civil war. I want to avoid a police state (oops, too late!) I want to save a remnant.

But with the failure of Scottish independence that goal is farther away.

Somewhere between 1990 and the not too distant future a line will be drawn by future historians demarkating the fall of Western Civilization. It may be that they will point to this vote in Scotland as the point where it became obvious that the West had no vitality left. It certainly is a key event in the history of the last several hundred years.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1762 words, total size 13 kb.

September 18, 2014

My Father Repented of “Christian Spanking” Too Late

M. Dolon Hickmon

My father’s old-fashioned discipline was rooted in the advice and example of his community, his parents, and his church.

For me, the photos of the injuries Adrian Peterson inflicted on his young son stirred a particularly difficult memory: In it, I stand at the foot of my parent’s bed, frail and blond. Behind me, my father utters yet another masculine grunt of exertion. The belt licks my bare skin, and the pain is alarmingly severe — something of a surprise for a preschooler who’d grown accustomed to losing count after forty lashes. The edge of the belt rips a gash, and a slick of wetness forms on my back. I plead: "Daddy, stop! I’m bleeding!” He goes on chopping, not missing a beat. With each lash, I grow more certain that this is the time that he will go on long enough to kill me.

Thirty-four years later, that memory remains as vivid as if it had happened this morning. The images loop through my mind; I shake and pant like a wounded beast, my ears ringing and my heart racing.

The horrific beatings didn’t begin until my parents joined the Baptist church and gave up drinking.
My parents were not stereotypical child abusers. Sure, both were reared in what many would now consider abusive homes, and when they met they were both alcoholics. But the horrific beatings didn’t begin until my parents joined the Baptist church and gave up drinking.

Prior to becoming born-again, my father would whip my brother and me much the way his father had beaten him: snatching his belt from his slacks in a fit of pique and then raining lashes until his tension was relieved. It was a pastor who taught him the "right” way, which involved beating his children for the tiniest transgressions, reading scripture before, during, and after punishment, and the necessity of continuing and escalating until his children were reduced to submissive, plaintively whimpering heaps.

My parents divorced and my father left the state when I was fifteen.

My thoughts turned from contemplating suicide to plotting to murder my dad.
As an adult, I didn’t speak to my abuser for more than ten years. I spent my late teens and early twenties in intensive group and individual psychotherapy. By my mid-twenties, I’d hit my stride; it seemed that I’d finally found a way to work around the emotional and psychological scars of abuse. But a chance encounter with a secondary trauma caused the flashbacks and nightmares to return — this time, so severely that I couldn’t function personally or professionally. Clawing my way back to normal would cost me six more years.

Before reaching that point, I despaired. In the grip of a terrifying madness, my thoughts turned from contemplating suicide to plotting to murder my dad. Sometimes, I pictured it quick and bloody; I’d pulverize his skull, splashing brains and bits of bone on the ceiling. Other times, I’d imagine revenge served with frosty deliberation: I’d keep him chained up somewhere, so I could return each moment of pain and humiliation that he’d burned into me.

I tracked him down by calling companies that sold supplies related to his trade. When I’d located him, I drove for hours to sit in my car, observing his habits. He worked for himself, out of an isolated woodshop in the back corner of a mostly unoccupied industrial park. He was by himself all day, every day. There were power tools. It would be perfect.

When I entered his shop, my father was hunched over a sawhorse. I could have pounced, but for the first time it dawned on me that my father was much smaller than I was. In high school, he’d been a competitive swimmer and for years he’d maintained the swimmer’s muscular physique. But since I’d last seen him, he’d shriveled to the size of a scrawny lad of thirteen. Hearing a sound, he turned, his face registering surprise when he set eyes on me. He wore magnifying glasses, like an old man.

Pinching a smoldering cigarette from his lips, he started to speak.

My father resembled Gollum from The Lord of the Rings. His eyes were sunken, his cheeks hollow. There were blackened stumps where he should have had teeth. His black hair was baby-fine with scalp showing through. Grubby with sawdust, his clothes hung as if draped on a skeleton.

Later, I would work out a map of his pathetic transformation: He’d splattered a testicle by hot-dogging a dirt bike into a tree and, over decades, the resulting diminishment of testosterone caused his temperament and his body to change gradually. He lost his facial hair, then his muscle mass, and finally the entirety of his libido. Self-employed and without health insurance, he neglected himself until his teeth rotted away. Unable to eat, he lived on nicotine, Pepsi, and coffee, supplemented with Ensure. Once, he described how he’d used a mirror and woodworking tools to extract the broken shards of several of his own teeth.

He’d gone from being my mortal enemy to being just an old woodworker whom I could trust with the terrible truth about my dad.
Seeing his condition, the fire drained out of me: there was simply nothing tempting about the thought of battering such a withered, miserable thing. We had a brief, awkward conversation, during which he mumbled a vague, unasked-for apology. His "sorry” seemed sincere, but it meant nothing to me. I wasn’t pining for reconciliation; we had no relationship, and we never had. The thought that we might had never even occurred to me.

Over the next several years, whenever the flashbacks or depression became especially severe, I would go visit my father at his shop. It was soothing to see him hungry, lonely, all but destitute, and in constant physical pain. We talked like a couple of strangers. Over months and years, I shared each memory of abuse and explained how it continued to have a constant daily effect on me.

My father never defended himself. "I remember something like that,” he’d say; or "I don’t recall, but it sounds like me.” Sometimes he’d relate my experiences to a memory of his own childhood: "I remember that feeling of just giving up. Being so defeated you can’t even cry anymore.”

In the last year of his life, we spoke on the telephone almost every day. I referred to him by his first name, never hugged him, and avoided him completely on Father’s Day. I didn’t love him, and he didn’t expect that I would. Yet, at some point, he’d gone from being my mortal enemy to being just an old woodworker whom I could trust with the terrible truth about my dad.

He died at home of a heart attack, last September. The body went undiscovered for days, finally bursting open as it decomposed. A grown nephew and I had the job of hauling the gore-soaked foam rubber mattress out of his apartment. The stench was unbelievable, and hordes of fat, black flies buzzed everywhere. Later, my brother and I arranged a cremation and paid our father’s final bills. We sold his tools and put the rest of his belongings on the curb. There was nothing in his household of sentimental value.

As we finished emptying the deceased’s tiny two-room apartment, I asked my brother, "How are you doing?” He shrugged, an expression of woeful indifference that mirrored my own feelings on the matter.

A friend told me, "Feelings will bubble up.” They didn’t.

My father was born in a holler, down in Tennessee, and he spent his later childhood in a predominantly black neighborhood in Detroit. He raised his own kids with what he considered to be old fashioned, tried-and-true discipline, following the advice and example of his community, his parents, and his church. Ultimately, he came to recognize and own that whipping his children had been a terrible mistake. Unfortunately for our family, the realization came far too late.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1340 words, total size 9 kb.

Anita Hoge -- Common Core, Choice, And Charter Schools

A.J. Cameron

As bad as Common Core is, it is only part of the overall assault upon our educational system, our children and our republic.

This column addresses the overall assault, and is a MUST READ by every caring parent, grandparent, aunt and uncle, guardian, teacher, school administrator, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, and patriot.

Defeating Common Core while allowing for Charter Schools is tantamount to leaving the back door open to the ultimate deployment of Common Core, without recourse. While I encourage opting out of national testing and removing students from any school that has imposed Common Core in any form within its corridors, this is akin to placing the smallest of band-aids upon someone with multiple compound fractures.

The only thing I disagree with within this column is the reference to 'ALL' children/students. Politicians and the elites will always have their own schools for their children, and they won't be subjected to the myths and lies of Common Core. They will be taught how to dominate those who are taught under Common Core, just as those taught under Common Core will be taught to be subservient to those who are their 'superiors'.

It is time to join forces (anti-Common Core and anti-Charter Schools/Vouchers) to go on the offensive to save our schools, our children/students, and our constitutional republic.
Laurie Roth's column on

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 03:11 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 233 words, total size 2 kb.

Unfinished Sonata; NFL Domestic Violence and the Lessons We Should Draw

Ray Rice, Super Bowl XLVII: Ray Rice has blossomed into a smiling ...

Timothy Birdnow

This is my unfinished sonata. I have been working on this for a few days, and the research is incomplete. I wanted a better statistical analysis but time ran out, as first Jack Cashill stole much of my thunder at American Thinker and then Rush Limbaugh put the nail in the coffin yesterday on his radio show. Now I have little that is new, so I banged out a quick and rather anemic ending and here she blows:

Timothy Birdnow

By now everyone has heard about Ray Rice, the Baltimore Ravens running back who was caught on tape cold-cocking his then fiance' in an elevator. The media - and especially the very liberal sports media - was furious and calls have gone out for the resignation of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to resign for not acting strongly enough against Rice. There is considerable anger among the Left over this, and the more feminist minded are screeching at this as a typical abuse of women that has always accompanied the NFL. Are these criticisms valid?

First, bear in mind that the NFL is a professional football league. Like other trade associations the NFL is a business, one dedicated to creating a product. Like all employers the NFL tries to minimize it's involvement in personal affairs of employees, although there are clauses in the contracts of all unionized players that require a certain amount of ethical behavior. The League cannot simply fire someone because of assertions made of criminal behavior - especially when that behavior occured in private and the primary victim refused to press charges (indeed, she went on to marry the man). An auto worker doesn't get fired for alleged spousal abuse off the clock, in most instances, so one must ask why it is incumbent upon Goodell and the NFL to sack Rice when he hasn't been found guilty of anything in a court of law.

One suspects the Left wants to rewrite the burden of proof standards in America, making someone guilty until proven innocent. Are they trying to create a kind of people's court that supercedes the criminal?

We are told by the National Organization for Women and other leftist groups, we must have zero tolerance for violence, especially violence against women. The NFL is seething with such violence, they claim, and the Super Bowl is the equivalent of kristallnacht for abused housewives as their drunken husbands beat them within inches of their lives during commercial breaks. Urinate, punch woman in eye, raid fridge for beer, lather, rinse, repeat.

But that has been shown to be nonsense (even the liberal Snopes debunked it. and the reality is that violence has never been linked to football in any way.

But we know that pro football players have a higher incident of spousal abuse than average, right?


Let's look at the numbers, shall we?

According to the USa Today NFL arrest data base, there were 83 domestic violence arrests of NFL players, making domestic violence by far the largest category of criminal behavior by NFL players at 55.4% of all crimes committed. Aha! See, football promotes domestic violence!

But that is not the case, given that this number is well below the national average.

And it should be; these athletes are rich, and as people in the top income brackets they have more to lose by acting out on violent impulses.

This from


Note that murder scores relatively high, but the raw numbers are extremely low (there are two in the database, though a third case — domestic in nature — resulted in suicide). But there are 83 domestic violence arrests, making it by far the NFL’s worst category — with a relative arrest rate of 55.4 percent.

Although this is still lower than the national average, it’s extremely high relative to expectations. That 55.4 percent is more than four times worse than the league’s arrest rate for all offenses (13 percent), and domestic violence accounts for 48 percent of arrests for violent crimes among NFL players, compared to our estimated 21 percent nationally.

Moreover, relative to the income level (top 1 percent) and poverty rate (0 percent) of NFL players, the domestic violence arrest rate is downright extraordinary. According to a 2002 Bureau of Justice Statistics Report covering 1993 to 1998, the domestic victimization rate for women in households with income greater than $75,000 (3.3 per 100,000) was about 39 percent of the overall rate (8.4 per 100,000), and less than 20 percent of the rate for women ages 20 to 34. That report doesn’t include cross-tabs, and it’s a little out of date (more current data is harder to find because more recent BJS reports on the issue do not include income breakdowns), but that sub-20 percent relative victimization among high-income households is consistent with the NFL’s 13 percent relative arrest rate overall (arrest disparities between income levels are probably even greater than victimization rates).

Burea of justice stats 2002 later reports do not include breakdown by income."

End excerpt.

But there is another aspect to this, an elephant in the room that nobody wants to discuss.

Fully 67% of NFL players are black, and the black community has a much higher rate of intimate partner violence than does most other categories (except Native Americans, who top the list.) According to a survey conducted by the American Bar Association:

ABA Commission of Domestic and Sexual Violence

African Americans African Americans, especially African American Women, suffer deadly violence from family members at rates decidedly higher than for other racial groups in the United States. However, it is observed that research concerning family violence among African Americans is inadequate.

Overall, African Americans were victimized by intimate partners a significantly higher rates than persons of any other race between 1993 and 1998. Black females experienced intimate partner violence at a rate 35% higher than that of white females, and about 22 times the rate of women of other races. Black males experienced intimate partner violence at a rate about 62% higher than that of white males and about 22 times the rate of men of other races.

Callie Marie Rennison. and Sarah Welchans, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 178247, Intimate Partner Violence (2000), available at
African-American women experience significantly more domestic violence than White women in the age group of 20-24. Generally, Black women experience similar levels of intimate partner victimization in all other age categories as compared to White women, but experience slightly more domestic violence. (Estimates are provided from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which defines an intimate partner as a current or former spouse, girlfriend, or boyfriend. Violent acts include murder, rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault.)

Callie Marie Rennison, U.S. Dep't of Just., NCJ 187635, Intimate Partner Violence and Age of Victim, 1993-1999, at 4, (2001), available at
Approximately 40% of Black women report coercive contact of a sexual nature by age 18.

Africana Voices Against Violence, Tufts University, Statistics, 2002,
The number one killer of African-American women ages 15 to 34 is homicide at the hands of a current or former intimate partner.

Africana Voices Against Violence, Tufts University, Statistics, 2002,
In a study of African-American sexual assault survivors, only 17% reported the assault to police.
Africana Voices Against Violence, Tufts University, Statistics, 2002

End excerpt.

While I do not have the breakdown of Intimate Partner Violence by race in the NFL, I would suspect it mirrors that of the general public.

The NFL is an unique business, because it is one of the few places where dirt-poor young men can become fabulously wealthy as employees. They work hard - no doubt about it - but they make their money from pay received with no training outside of the sport itself. Yes, these men do indeed grow, and learn discipline when they realize how much they have to lose, but they are coming out of the traditional African American street culture in many cases, and they are carrying that culture with them. This isn't like becoming a doctor or lawyer where you have to become educated in many fields to get to that level. Yes, many attend college, but it is well known that college athletes are frequently passed along with little emphasis on academics. Anyone remember basketball player Patrick Ewing? The guy had a college degree and couldn't read.

And African American culture is more willing to suffer domestic abuse. Consider this:

Cultural Values and Beliefs That Inhibit Disclosure

African American women are strong (pride) - deny violence, vulnerability
African Americans are responsible for themselves and others around them; as African Americans we take care of ourselves - self-blame, self-sacrificing, embarrassed, ashamed if unable to control or endure situation
African American women are responsible for keeping family together - avoid leaving (Have to consider effect of leaving on the children. How can you stop him from seeing his children?)
African Americans "don't tell their business" - deny, or avoid disclosure
Religious views (God will take care of it; pray; The Lord will change him)
Community Attitudes That Inhibit Disclosure and Intervention

Definitions of abuse (pushing and shoving are not serious)
Distrust of institutions (concerns related to police response to AA women, legal system involvement, and agency attitudes)
Loyalty issues, family pressure that inhibit self-disclosure and action (How can I (you) have him arrested? How could you leave him?).
I did nothing wrong. Why should I leave?
Rely on family, friends, and church for resources and referrals

End excerpt.

So there is a higher level of domestic abuse in the African American community and a majority of NFL players who come from that cultural background.

It could be argued that violence in the NFL is a function not of machismo but of a value set that has been heavily promoted and encouraged by Progressives over the years. The Rap culture is clearly misogynistic, with talk of beating "bitches and hoes" and odes to carnal excess. Rap videos treat women like hunks of raw meat to be devoured and discarded. Furthermore, the media and the academic leftists (with the backing of government) coddles black criminals and is quick to excuse what would be intolerable behavior among other races. Consider the way the media immediately blamed the "white hispanic" George Zimmerman when they had scanty information, or the way Michael Brown was portrayed as an angel by the press, one shot down in cold blood by an evil, racist cop. There was no condemnation of his beating the tar out of a store clerk immediately before the incident. And there was little condemnation of the riots and looting; that was just "black rage", something fully understandable and justified. The media ignores heinous crimes committed by blacks against whites on a regular basis. For that matter, they ignore or excuse heinous crimes committed by blacks against other blacks. How much do we hear about murders in Chicago? We just had seven shooting in one day here in St. Louis and nary a peep.

No; instead it's portrayed as cool to be criminal by the media, and academia backs this up as "multicultural".

Is not the lesson of Ray Rice really a lesson on the pernicious nature of modern Progressivism? The decline of the black family has been catastrophic for so many black men. "Hands up! Don't shoot!" should be the chant of blacks everywhere against liberals, not the police or the white "establishment".

Progressive meddling has caused a catastrophe in the black community. That the NFL players have so low an incident of domestic violence, indeed, of all criminality, is shocking and heartening. We need MORE NFL values, not fewer! The NFL does not need reforming - society does!

Of course, this current push is an attempt to gin up the "Republican War on Women" mantra for the November elections. This, along with the Ferguson riots, is intended to bring out the Democratic base. Tell women they are in peril from macho football neanderthalls while telling blacks their children are in peril from evil racist cops. It's all about stoking rage.

And for what? Ultimately for the political power of the establishement class. There is little being done that is in the interest of our communities, or of the nation at large.

Frankly, instead of demanding Roger Goodell resign, we should be promoting him and the rest of the NFL to run for public office; they have done a better job of it than any in our government.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2103 words, total size 16 kb.

Obama Declines to Attend Memorial Dedication for Disabled Veterans

Jack Kemp

There's nothing to add to this.


Obama Declines to Attend Memorial Dedication for Disabled Veterans

President’s decision not to attend is among first in recent history
September 16, 2014 2:55 pm

President Barack Obama has declined to attend a dedication ceremony in October for a new memorial honoring American veterans who have been disabled fighting for their country in wars, according to sources close to the event.
The American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial (AVDLM), the first such memorial of its kind, is set to be dedicated during a ceremony on Oct. 5 near the National Mall in downtown Washington, D.C.

However, Obama, who was first invited to attend the event in January, will not be among those in attendance, according to a source who is familiar with the situation.This would be among the first national memorials in recent history not to be formally accepted in person by a sitting U.S. president.

Organizers of the event were caught off guard when informed by the White House of the president’s decision this week and are hoping to receive an explanation from the White House as to why Obama will not be attending the ceremony, according to the source, who is involved with the memorialand was informed of the decision this week.

U.S. presidents have historically been on hand during dedication ceremonies for major memorials in D.C., including the Air Force memorial, the World War II memorial, the Vietnam War memorial, the Korean War memorial, and the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial, which Obama attended and spoke at. The White House declined to comment when asked by the Washington Free Beacon to confirm if Obama would be unavailable to attend the ceremony
"It’s disappointing that the president is unable to celebrate the dedication of this historic memorial with the heroes that it honors—our nation’s disabled veterans,” said the source.

Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell is currently scheduled to attend the ceremony, as is Secretary of Veterans Affairs Robert McDonald.

The AVDLM memorial, construction of which recently finished, will honor the millions of disabled U.S. veterans who have fought in wars over the decades, including those with physical and mental injuries.

"The memorial will serve as a constant reminde rof cost of human conflict,” the memorial’s organizers wrote in a recent press release sent to reporters.
The idea for the memorial originated in 1998 and led to the formation of the Disabled Veterans’ Life Memorial Foundation, which first approached Congress to initiate the lengthy authorization process before beginning to raise funds for the memorial.

It now stands completed on a 2.4-acre sight near the National Mall, just south of the U.S. Botanic Garden.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 459 words, total size 7 kb.

Joe Bite-Me rides again

Dana Mathewson

Or should I say, talks again. Here he denigrates the entire banking community -- or at least the Jews in it -- by referring to them as "Shylocks."

Now, what I want to know is this: Who put him up to it? Because, quite frankly, I cannot imagine Joe's having the synapses to connect well enough to remember Shakespeare's seminal anti-hero Shylock -- although Joe is certainly "of an age" where he would have bumped up against The Bard when he was in school, and "The Merchant of Venice" is certainly one of Shakespeare's most important works. But with Joe's deteriorating mental capacity these days, I just can't imagine his remembering a single Shakespearean character, even one whose name is on the play, such as Hamlet or perhaps Julius Caesar.

I think Joe was prompted on this one, and I'd bet it was somebody like Jesse Jackson -- of "Hymietown" fame.


Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 159 words, total size 1 kb.

I Want One

Supercar That Runs Using Salt Water Approved For Use On European Roads

Supercar That Runs Using Salt Water Approved For Use On European Roads

Dana Mathewson

Check out this wild car design! It uses a new type of battery. To charge it, you fill it up with... salt water. Granted, it would take a new infrastructure to provide that. But it's a heckuva lot safer than hydrogen, which was going to be the new big thing a few years ago, remember?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:11 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 2 kb.

Liberal Eye Test

7lb. Dave forwards this:

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

September 17, 2014

Red Crush

Timothy Birdnow

The State of California has closed down a small family winery because they used volunteers to help during the crush. According to Thomas Lifson at American Thinker:

"The State of California continues its war on productive activity, fining a small family-owned winery that earns $11,000 a year a whopping $115,000 for the crime of inviting volunteers to learn about wine while helping out with the harvest and the crush. That is enough to drive it out of business, and the winery is starting to lauch a going out of business sale in response."

End excerpt.

Mr. Lifson believes this is over unpaid taxes:

"Where is the fairness in stopping people from having a good time, learning about a subject they care about, and maybe tasting a few grapes and freshly-squeezed grape juice (there’s nothing like it – trust me) along the way?

I suspect that a much bigger reason for the state crackdown is that there is no withholding tax paid and no unemployment insurance paid. As regionally syndicated talk show host Joe Getty puts it, the State of California is like the Mafia: they want a cut of everything that goes on in its turf. And like the Mafia, it will destsroy those who refuse to give them a cut."

End excerpt.

No doubt true, but is this all?

Remember this?

SEIU tried to force people who take care of sick loved ones and who receive any sort of state aid to join their union.

"Illinois resident Pam Harris is a 55-year-old mom earning less than the minimum wage who cares for her son Josh Harris, 25. He has Rubinstein-Taybi syndrome, a muscular degenerative disease, compounded by physical disabilities and mental illness.
Josh and his family qualify for an Illinois home-based support-services program that lets disabled adults live at home. He gets $721 each month from Medicaid to cover the costs of the constant supervision he requires.

To the Service Employees International Union and Illinois' Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, the fact that Josh's mother receives a small government stipend given to home health-care workers makes her a state employee subject to forced unionization.
Under an Illinois law crafted by the incarcerated former Gov. Rod Blagojevich and enforced by his successor Quinn, home caregivers like Harris are designated state employees required to pay dues whether they join the union or not.

In January 2009, Gov. Quinn, who has taken nearly $5 million in campaign contributions from SEIU, signed an executive order stating these home caregivers — even moms and dads — are in fact public employees available to be unionized by the SEIU, which had been granted exclusive representation rights over the state's 20,475 "personal assistants," as they were designated."

End excerpt.

This bespeaks a larger issue than just money - it is a materialistic mindset that, like Karl Marx, sees all human relations as purely economic. The idea is to force everyone into groups rather like healthcare alliances or trade organizations. And it is a way to assert the authority of government over even clearly voluntary relationships. If any labor requires pay then it falls under the umbrella of labor relations law.

Anyone remember this?

At every turn the Progressives seek to impose society over the rights of individuals to free association.

We are all socialists now.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 4 kb.

DiCaprio film magnifies the real climate change 'monster'

... DiCaprio Leonardo DiCaprio as Arnie Grape in 'What's Eating Gilbert...

Paul Driessen

Leonardo DiCaprio’s new movie Carbon claims we face a "climate crisis.” The film wails that our world is threatened by a "carbon monster” – that coal, oil and natural gas are causing dangerous climate change and must be shut off as soon as possible. Not so. As Tom Harris and Bob Carter explain in this compelling article, Mr. DiCaprio is blaming the wrong monster.

The real monster – the real threat to civilization – is the climate scare: about global warming that is not occurring, accelerated sea level rise that is not occurring, and increased extreme weather that is not occurring.

This constant fear-mongering is being used to justify spending countless billions of dollars on alarmist global warming research … shutting down abundant, reliable, affordable carbon-based energy … trying to run our economy on expensive, subsidized, intermittent wind, solar and biofuel "alternatives” … and let millions of people die every year in developing countries because they are still being denied the countless health and economic blessings that fossil fuels could bring.

... DiCaprio Leonardo DiCaprio as Arnie Grape in 'What's Eating Gilbert...

DiCaprio film magnifies the real climate change 'monster'

Real problem is monstrous government programs that perpetuate poverty, disease and death

Tom Harris and Bob Carter

In Carbon, Leonardo DiCaprio’s new film about the "climate crisis,” we are told the world is threatened by a "carbon monster.” Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible, DiCaprio insists.

But he has identified the wrong monster. The real one is the climate scare – something DiCaprio promotes with his sensationalist, error-riddled movie. That is the real threat to civilization.

Carbon is the first of four films that DiCaprio planned to release in the weeks prior to the United Nations’ Climate Summit 2014, to be held in New York City September 23. If Carbon is any indication of what the rest of the series will be like, the public needs to brace itself against still more mind-numbing global warming propaganda.

DiCaprio repeatedly uses the "carbon pollution” and "carbon poison” misnomers – when he’s really talking about carbon dioxide (CO2), the plant-fertilizing gas that is essential for all life on Earth. But in addition to that deception, DiCaprio’s film is based on a myth: that CO2 from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) lists thousands of scientific papers that either debunk or cast serious doubt on this popular though misguided notion.

Oregon-based physicist Dr. Gordon Fulks explains that the climate scare has "become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus. CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring, for ocean acidification that is not occurring, and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

Fulks is right. DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.

According to NASA satellites and ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s, some 18 years ago. And yet, CO2 levels have risen almost 10% since 1997, a figure that represents an astonishing 30% of all human-related emissions since the industrial revolution began. These facts contradict all CO2-based climate models, upon which nearly all global warming concerns are founded. Similarly:

* Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even decelerating; over recent decades they have averaged about 1 mm/year as measured by tide gauges and 2-3 mm/year as inferred from "adjusted” satellite data. That works out to a mere 4 to 12 inches per century, which is hardly a cause for alarm.

* Satellites also show a greater expanse of Antarctic sea ice now than at any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. During this period, Arctic sea ice has remained well within historic bounds and fluctuations, dating back centuries.

* The NIPCC’s March 2014 Biological Impacts report explains that the minute decline in alkalinity of the oceans projected by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s speculative computer models is small compared with the daily and seasonal changes that marine organisms already experience. Neither the IPCC nor the NIPCC forecasts that human CO2 emissions will cause oceans to become acidic in the coming centuries. They have become ever so slightly less alkaline over recent decades, but they are still very far from becoming acidic.

* A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or the intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. For the United States, the eight and one-half years since a category 3-5 hurricane made landfall is the longest such period since at least 1900.

The costs of feeding the climate change monster are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2001 and 2014 the US Government spent $131 billion on human-caused climate change projects. They also allowed tax breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives totaling $176 billion.

Federal government spending on climate change and renewable energy is now running at $11 billion a year, and tax breaks at about $20 billion a year – for a total of more than double the total value of all wheat produced in the United States in 2013 ($14.4 billion).

Dr. Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020 will cost almost $100 billion annually by 2020 – or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century.

That is currently the most severe target in the world. It has caused EU energy prices to rise ominously, costing numerous jobs, sending millions of families into "fuel poverty,” and resulting in thousands of mostly elderly people dying from hypothermia, because they could not afford to heat their homes properly during cold winter months.

Lomborg, a supporter of the UN’s climate science, asserts, "After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference” between global temperatures a century from now with a 20% reduction in EU carbon dioxide emissions by 2020, or without it.

So, Al Gore was right in one respect. Climate change is indeed a moral issue.

There is nothing quite so immoral as wealthy, well-fed, well-housed Westerners like Messrs. Gore and DiCaprio promoting the waste of huge amounts of money on futile anti-global warming policies – money that could instead be spent improving living standards and saving lives in developing countries.

Billions of people in those poor nations lack adequate lights, refrigeration, sanitation, schooling, clean water and proper health services. Tens of millions of them suffer needlessly from malnutrition and horrible diseases of poverty, and millions of them die prematurely every year.

Denying them the finances to build inexpensive hydrocarbon-fired power stations has been aptly described as technological genocide. That is where the moral outrage should lie.

Perhaps Mr DiCaprio would like to make a film about this – the real climate monster.


Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition. Dr Bob Carter is former professor and head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia.


292 x 208

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:15 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1229 words, total size 13 kb.

Cool new weapon we'll be able to use before long

Lockheed's New Laser Super Turret Could Change Air Combat Forever


Dana Mathewson

Sci-Fi lives, guys. And once we get this thing into the air, "boots on the ground" will be a tad less important at least for some kinds of situations. This'll give us the availability to really take out a lot of THEIR boots.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 05:52 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

September 16, 2014

Celebrating Bigotry

Jack Kemp forwards this:

The Met Opera’s new musical celebration ‘promoting bigotry’

September 15, 2014 | 2:39am

This is not just offensive. It’s dangerous.
The month after we observed the 13th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks, the Metropolitan Opera, one of the world’s most prestigious cultural institutions, will bow to forces of anti-Semitism and pro-terrorist sentiment. The Met is to present an obscene opera titled "The Death of Klinghoffer” — a musical celebration of the senseless murder by Palestinian monsters of a defenseless, elderly Jewish New Yorker.
People of good conscience are not taking this artistic assault lying down.
"Are we in hell?” veteran actor Tony Lo Bianco asked me.
"I don’t know who we are anymore,” he said. "Our values have been destroyed. We’ve gone politically correct, and we’ve destroyed ourselves.”
Since it was first produced at the Brooklyn Academy of Music in 1991, "The Death of Klinghoffer” has outraged some audiences. But it also has inspired hatred among people of all religions with its romantic portrayal of an act of violence committed by creatures who don’t deserve to breathe air.
The opera, by American composer John Adams with a libretto by his countrywoman Alice Goodman, dramatizes the murder — not merely the "death,” as the title implies — of Leon Klinghoffer.
The retired 69-year old businessman, confined to a wheelchair after a stroke, was slain off the coast of Egypt as he took a cruise on the ship Achille Lauro with his wife, Marilyn, to celebrate their 36th wedding anniversary in October 1985. Members of the Palestine Liberation Front hijacked the ship. Before they surrendered, a butcher shot Klinghoffer in the back.
While he still breathed, the savages dumped him, along with his wheelchair, into the Mediterranean Sea. Marilyn Klinghoffer, 58, died four months later of cancer in New York.
Here are a few lyrics:
"Whenever there is misery, you’ll find Jews getting fat,” sings a terrorist called Rambo.
"You know how to cheat the simple, exploit the virgin, pollute where you have exploited.
"Defame those you cheated and break your own law with idolatry
"America is one big Jew.”
Another idiot spouts: "We are soldiers fighting a war. We are not criminals and we are not vandals, but men of ideals.” Right.
Lo Bianco, who appeared in the 1971 film "The French Connection” and is about to reprise his one-man stage role in "Little Flower,” about the legendaryNew York City Mayor Fiorello La Guardia, plans to speak at an anti-opera rally on Sept. 22.
"I’m a tremendous supporter of Israel,” said Lo Bianco, who has not seen the opera.
The rally, in front of the Metropolitan Opera House at Lincoln Center, is expected to draw more than 2,000 people, including some 500 high-school students from Westchester County and Long Island, plus representatives of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human-rights organization. It coincides with the season’s opening-night gala for opera donors.
In June, Peter Gelb, the Met’s general manager — who has been plagued lately by dwindling audiences and the need to cut union wages — canceled a simulcast of "Klinghoffer” that was set to beam a live performance into more than 2,000 movie theaters in 67 countries worldwide on Nov. 15. He tossed the show after striking a deal with Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who represented the Klinghoffers’ daughters, Lisa and Ilsa.
"‘The Death of Klinghoffer’ perverts the terrorist murder of our father and attempts to romanticize, rationalize, legitimize and explain it,” the Klinghoffer sisters said in a statement released by the ADL.
A message from the two women is to be posted on the Met’s Web site and in printed programs for the opera, which is set to run for eight performances beginning on Oct. 20.
Foxman told me he doesn’t consider the opera anti-Semitic — because, in its current form, the anti-Jewish sentiment is expressed by a terrorist. But he didn’t want it to play in Europe, where attacks on Jews are growing in number.
Is he rationalizing filth?
"Why would anyone want to do an opera about a hideous, hateful murder?” asked Foxman, who saw an earlier version he does consider anti-Jewish on videotape. "It’s not anti-Semitism, per se. It shows this murderer as an anti-Semite. I was more concerned that this opera will be shown all over the world, from Vienna to Madrid and, I don’t know, Algiers — was it playing in Algiers?”
Gelb, the Met’s general manager, did not return my call seeking comment.
This opera, staged in the heart of New York City, serves no purpose except to promote bigotry. Cancel it! There is still time.
Running circles around justice.


There will be a protest on September 22 at 4:30 at the Lincoln Center Meetropolitan Opera House.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:02 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 798 words, total size 6 kb.

September 15, 2014

Leftists, Alinsky, and the Left's Bad Religion

Saul Alinsky

Timothy Birdnow

David Horowitz was a Communist, of that there can be no dispute. If we are to get anything out of this essay we must acknowlege his insider view of the political Left. Horowitz knew them, lived with them, breathed their air, drank their whine (yes, I meant to do that). Horowitz is an invaluable resource to us, the defenders of Orthodoxy and Judeo-Christian values, because he had dined with the Devil through his early life. They call people like Horowitz "Red Diaper Babies" and Horowitz was raised to manhood along side of the worst sort of leftists.

That is why we must take Horowitz at his word when he makes pronouncements about how Leftists think.

I have long argued that the Left is utopian, believing in the perfectability of the human condition. They really DO believe paradise is possible by human effort alone. They really do think that all that is necessary is the removal of the corrupting influences of industrialism, of civilization, of human culture and the natural inherent goodness of Man will shine through, giving those happy descendents of our communist revolutionaries a perfect existence. It is a religion to them, a belief that is irrational and powerful. It is not necessary to do anything more but destroy, to vandalize, to smash the old order.

Horowitz agrees.

Here are some excerpts from a book by Mr. Horowitz entitled Barack Obama; Rules for Revolutionaries - the Alinsky Model

Guided by Alinsky principles, post-Communist
radicals are not idealists but Machiavellians. Their
focus is on means rather than ends, and therefore
they are not bound by organizational orthodoxies in
the way their admired Marxist forebears were. Within
the framework of their revolutionary agenda, they are
flexible and opportunistic and will say anything (and
pretend to be anything) to get what they want, which
is resources and power.


Unlike the Communists who identified their goal
as a Soviet state - and thereby generated opposition
to their schemes - Alinsky and his followers organize
their power bases without naming the end game,
without declaring a specific future they want to
achieve - socialism, communism, a dictatorship
of the proletariat, or anarchy. Without committing
themselves to concrete principles or a specific future,
they organize exclusively to build a power base
which they can use to destroy the existing society
and its economic system. By refusing to commit to
principles or to identify their goal, they have been
able to organize a coalition of all the elements of the
left who were previously divided by disagreements
over means and ends.

The demagogic standard of the revolution is
"democracy” - a democracy which upends all social
hierarchies, including those based on merit. This is
why Alinsky built his initial power base among the
underclass and the urban poor. The call to make the
last ones first is a powerful religious imperative.
8 Rules for Radicals, p. 113
But in politics it functions as a lever to upset every
social structure and foundation. For Alinsky radicals,
policies are not important in themselves; they are
instrumental - means to expanding the political base.


Alinsky is the Sun-Tzu for today’s radicals,
his book a manual for their political war. As early
as its dedicatory page, Alinsky provides revealing
insight into the radical mind by praising Lucifer as
the first rebel: "Lest we forget, an over-the-shoulder
acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all
our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to
know where mythology leaves off and history begins
- or which is which), the first radical known to man
who rebelled against the establishment and did it so
effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -
Thus Alinsky begins his text by telling readers
exactly what a radical is. He is not a reformer of the
system but its would-be destroyer. In his own mind
the radical is building his own kingdom, which to him
is a kingdom of heaven on earth. Since a kingdom
of heaven built by human beings is a fantasy - an
impossible dream - the radical’s only real world
efforts are those which are aimed at subverting the
society he lives in. He is a nihilist.

I am constantly asked how radicals could hate America
and why they would want to destroy a society that
compared to others is tolerant, inclusive and open,
and treats all people with a dignity and respect that is
the envy of the world. The answer to this question is
that radicals are not comparing America to other real
world societies. They are comparing America to the
heaven on earth - the kingdom of social justice and
freedom - they think they are building. And compared
to this heaven even America is hell.

In my experience conservatives are generally
too decent and too civilized to match up adequately
with their radical adversaries, at least in the initial
stages of the battle. They are too prone to give them
the benefit of the doubt, to believe there is goodness
and good sense in them which will outweigh their
determination to change the world. Radicals talk
of justice and democracy and equality. They can’t
really want to destroy a society that is democratic
and liberal, and more equal than others, and that has
brought wealth and prosperity to so many people. Oh
yes they can. There is no goodness that trumps the
dream of a heaven on earth. And because America is
a real world society, managed by real and problematic
human beings, it will never be equal, or liberal, or
democratic enough to satisfy radical fantasies - to
compensate them for their longing for a perfect
world, and for their unhappiness in this one.

angry obama saul alinsky is my hero period

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:21 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 959 words, total size 9 kb.

GOP Reinflating the Mortgage Bubble

Timothy Birdnow

Republicans and Democrats just don't play the same game. It is rather like watching an amateur badmitton player against a tennis pro, or a kid used to shooting for the windmills against a PGA champion. Sometimes it is beyond painful. Here is a case in point.

Not having learned one solitary thing from the mortgage crisis that gave us Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid (the Progressive Trinity) Republicans are pushing for a relaxation of subprime mortgage standards.

From Net Right Daily:

"Overall, the perils of debt deflation were fully on display. One might think that the lesson learned would be not to do it all over again. Not to engage in stupid, risky lending backed up by a near limitless supply of government. Not to use housing valuation inflation as the primary means of expanding wealth. Not to depend on debt creation to generate economic growth and new jobs.


Now, seven years after the crisis began in the summer of 2007, demand for new credit remains low by historical standards. The amount of labor force displacement as a result of the initial recession remains quite elevated. Home values, although having recovered somewhat from the market bottom, have stalled right along with home sales. To the extent that we had a recovery, it looks like it has pretty much run its course. Time for another cooling."


"For example, recently the House Financial Services Committee, run by Republicans, sent H.R. 5148 to the floor of the House. It eliminates mandatory appraisals by an independent appraiser in higher risk mortgages of homes valued $250,000 or less. Those are mortgages with higher interest rates ranging from 1.5 to 3.5 percentage points higher than prime. By definition, then, these "higher risk mortgages” are subprime.

The legislation does not apply to prime mortgages. So for the vast majority of legitimate loans, a mandatory appraisal will still be necessary. The exception will be subprime. But is that a good idea? Aren’t higher risk mortgages the ones where an honest valuation is the most important?"


"Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), the bill’s sponsor, believes the change is necessary for rural communities, where a supposed lack of local appraisers requires bringing in appraisers from miles away to get houses to go to closing. As a result, escalating closing costs are being passed on to consumers.

But, if the bill is supposed to be simply for rural areas where there are no appraisers, then why does it encompass all subprime loans, which naturally will be concentrated in suburban communities, not family farms? What about prime loans in rural areas? Why do they still need independent appraisals? It doesn’t add up.

And yet, if this one has you scratching your head, it shouldn’t. This is reflective of a larger problem, that is, the need for ever-expanding debt to grow in our finance-based economy. When the government perceives not enough new loans are being created, and market conditions are too cool, the natural response to get things moving is to make it easier to make the loans. In this case, by removing the need for appraisals for higher-risk loans.

While both parties may disagree on the means, H.R. 5148 passed out of committee on a party line vote, they do both appear to agree on the ends. This is seen on the left with the push for so-called community reinvestment, that is, loans being given for low-income families in higher risk neighborhoods. Or in the push to punish lenders who do not. It is seen in calls for more banks to give out Federal Housing Administration (FHA) loans, even though they are already widely available."

End excerpts.

Blaine Luetkemeyer is a Congressman in a district neighboring my own here in Missouri. While I generally agree with him, he is a standard issue Establishment type, albeit a fairly conservative one.

The Democrats are licking their chops with this one. They successfully blamed the GOP for the original subprime mortgage mess, despite efforts by House Republicans and the Bush Administration to rein in Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac prior to the bubble burst. The problem is that the GOP was on board with the housing bubble because it appeared to be good politics, and when it burst the Dems and their media allies immediately blamed them, managing to deflect blame from themselves. The mortgage crisis was a result of long-term polices set in motion primarily by Democrats (such as the Community Reinvestment Act) and by strange actions taken by people like Tim Geitner at the New York Fed prior to the collapse.

Now idiots like Luetkemeyer have given them another source for a bubble and we have no reason to suspect it will turn out any differently. Needless to say the GOP will take the blame.

It's strange; the GOP cowers whenever any action popular with the public and with their base in particular is concerned but are lions when "bipartisan" bills are brought forth. Like Charlie Brown kicking field goals, they never learn that the ball will be pulled out from in front of them and they'll land on their posteriors.

If people like Blaine Luetkemeyer want this bad bill, he should get a Democrat to sponsor it and quietly back it. Then he can come out against it after it is an established fact as more of what caused our current predicament. I know; Republicans don't pull such acts of duplicity. But the Democrats would not think twice about it.The GOP has to start thinking like the Dems.

But in reality it should not be done at all. This is nothing but an attempt to reinflate the mortgage bubble. That bubble was driven by government programs designed to foster "affordable housing" - a phrase we often heard from Barney Frank and the other Progressive Liberals, who pushed government intervention in housing for a reason. That reason was to empower the government, to make it possible for government to control where people live and who they live amongst. If government regulates mortgages, who is to say they can't promote mortgages to people who are not financially qualifiable? To promote integration of classes, of races, of disparate groups through the Fair Housing Act via control of the flow of money? That was the goal and is the goal, and the subprime mortgage was the instrument to create this multicultural paradise. Poor people were moving into middle-class neighborhoods as a direct result of subprime mortgages. That was no coincidence.

Robert Romano believes the primary purpose of this is to buttress lending, the backbone of modern economics. I believe it is much deeper, a way to manipulate America's social and economic fabric.

And our brave defenders in the GOP are right on board.

The problem with the GOP is that there is no longer a Democratic Party. The radicals took over the Dems back in the 1970's, and people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan would have no home there. The GOP IS the home of moderates in twenty first century America, and the result is we now encompass both the Conservatives and the moderates. Claims that the GOP has moved to the right cannot be factually supported in any logical way, but claims it has moved to the center are abundantly evidenced. This is one example.

So we are in a siamese twin relationship with moderates, who thirty years ago would be known as liberals. There is nowhere for the mod squatters to go, because there no longer is a Democratic Party to join. This is a huge problem, because we can't live with 'em and can't shoot 'em.

We will never make real reforms with the GOP in it's current incarnation. I know many conservatives who argue we have to take the party over, but this is simplistic thinking; we can't exclude the moderates, and they have nowhere to go save the GOP. SOMEBODY has to give, and unfortunately the Conservative wing is not the monied class in this party. The monied class represents the Demicans.

Third party is not just tricky, it's nearly impossible given the way America is set up. We are institutionally structured for two parties. There have been third parties in the past (take the National Republicans "no-nothings" or the Populists, or even the Republicans) but to attain real power one of the original parties has to collapse, like the Whigs, or the Federalists.)

We don't need so much to take over the GOP as to get the GOP to leave us. There has to be an alternative to the Republicans for moderates. That's one reason I hate this "big tent" that is promoted every election cycle; it encourages a watering down of our message until we are the equivalent of a political Bud Select; less calories, less carbs, less taste.

At any rate, Luetkemeyer shows exactly what is wrong with the GOP, and why we will never bring about a renewal in America under their banner.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:56 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 1494 words, total size 9 kb.

Ozone 'Twixt the Ears; Claims that Treaty Fixed Ozone Dubious

Timothy Birdnow

This from Matt Ridley at the U.K. Times:

The Ozone Hole Isn’t Fixed. But That’s No Worry
The Times, 15 September 2014

The risk from extra UV light is just one of the dangers that have been overplayed by the eco-exaggerators

The ozone layer is healing. Or so said the news last week. Thanks to a treaty signed in Montreal in 1989 to get rid of refrigerant chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the planet’s stratospheric sunscreen has at last begun thickening again. Planetary disaster has been averted by politics.

For reasons I will explain, this news deserves to be taken with a large pinch of salt. You do not have to dig far to find evidence that the ozone hole was never nearly as dangerous as some people said, that it is not necessarily healing yet and that it might not have been caused mainly by CFCs anyway.

The timing of the announcement was plainly political: it came on the 25th anniversary of the treaty, and just before a big United Nations climate conference in New York, the aim of which is to push for a climate treaty modelled on the ozone one.

Here’s what was actually announced last week, in the words of a Nasa scientist, Paul Newman: "From 2000 to 2013, ozone levels climbed 4 per cent in the key mid-northern latitudes.” That’s a pretty small change and it is in the wrong place.

The ozone thinning that worried everybody in the 1980s was over Antarctica.
Over northern latitudes, ozone concentration has been falling by about 4 per cent each March before recovering. Over Antarctica, since 1980, the ozone concentration has fallen by 40 or 50 per cent each September before the sun rebuilds it.

So what’s happening to the Antarctic ozone hole? Thanks to a diligent blogger named Anthony Watts, I came across a press release also from Nasa about nine months ago, which said: "Two new studies show that signs of recovery are not yet present, and that temperature and winds are still driving any annual changes in ozone hole size.”

As recently as 2006, Nasa announced, quoting Paul Newman again, that the Antarctic ozone hole that year was "the largest ever recorded”. The following year a paper in Nature magazine from Markus Rex, a German scientist, presented new evidence that suggested CFCs may be responsible for less than 40 per cent of ozone destruction anyway. Besides, nobody knows for sure how big the ozone hole was each spring before CFCs were invented. All we know is that it varies from year to year.

How much damage did the ozone hole ever threaten to do anyway? It is fascinating to go back and read what the usual hyperventilating eco-exaggerators said about ozone thinning in the 1980s. As a result of the extra ultraviolet light coming through the Antarctic ozone hole, southernmost parts of Patagonia and New Zealand see about 12 per cent more UV light than expected. This means that the weak September sunshine, though it feels much the same, has the power to cause sunburn more like that of latitudes a few hundred miles north. Hardly Armageddon.

The New York Times reported "an increase in Twilight Zone-type reports of sheep and rabbits with cataracts” in southern Chile. Not to be outdone, Al Gore wrote that "hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fisherman catch blind salmon”. Zoologists briefly blamed the near extinction of many amphibian species on thin ozone. Melanoma in people was also said to be on the rise as a result.

This was nonsense. Frogs were dying out because of a fungal disease spread from Africa — nothing to do with ozone. Rabbits and fish blinded by a little extra sunlight proved to be as mythical as unicorns. An eye disease in Chilean sheep was happening outside the ozone-depleted zone and was caused by an infection called pinkeye — nothing to do with UV light. And melanoma incidence in people actually levelled out during the period when the ozone got thinner.

Then remember that the ozone hole appears when the sky is dark all day, and over an uninhabited continent. Even if it persists into the Antarctic spring and spills north briefly, the hole allows 50 times less ultraviolet light through than would hit your skin at the equator at sea level (let alone at a high altitude) in the tropics. So it would be bonkers to worry about UV as you sailed round Cape Horn in spring, say, but not when you stopped at the Galapagos: the skin cancer risk is 50 times higher in the latter place.

This kind of eco-exaggeration has been going on for 50 years. In the 1960s Rachel Carson said there was an epidemic of childhood cancer caused by DDT; it was not true — DDT had environmental effects but did not cause human cancers.

In the 1970s the Sahara desert was said be advancing a mile a year; it was not true — the region south of the Sahara has grown markedly greener and more thickly vegetated in recent decades.

In the 1980s acid rain was said to be devastating European forests; not true — any local declines in woodland were caused by pests or local pollution, not by the sulphates and nitrates in rain, which may have contributed to an actual increase in the overall growth rate of European forests during the decade.

In the 1990s sperm counts were said to be plummeting thanks to pollution with man-made "endocrine disruptor” chemicals; not true — there was no fall in sperm counts.

In the 2000s the Gulf Stream was said to be failing and hurricanes were said to be getting more numerous and worse, thanks to global warming; neither was true, except in a Hollywood studio.

The motive for last week’s announcement was to nudge world leaders towards a treaty on climate change by reminding them of how well the ozone treaty worked. But getting the world to agree to cease production of one rare class of chemical, for which substitutes existed, and which only a few companies mainly in rich countries manufactured, was a very different proposition from setting out to decarbonise the whole economy, when each of us depends on burning carbon (and hydrogen) for almost every product, service, meal, comfort and journey in our lives.

The true lesson of the ozone story is that taking precautionary action on the basis of dubious evidence and exaggerated claims might be all right if the action does relatively little economic harm.

However, loading the entire world economy with costly energy, and new environmental risks based on exaggerated claims about what might in future happen to the climate makes less sense.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:03 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1124 words, total size 7 kb.

September 14, 2014

Egypt Offers Palestinians a Homeland - they Reject it

Timothy Birdnow

Here is something interesting the media isn't reporting; Egypt offered 1,600 Kilometers (about 800 miles) of land in Sinai to the Palestinian Authority as a free gift. The idea was to greatly enlarge the Palestinian State, and allow a return of refugees in the enlarged area. The offer was rejected.

According to Front Page Mag:

"On August 31, PLO chief and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told an audience of Fatah members that Egypt had offered to give the PA some 1,600 kilometers of land in Sinai adjacent to Gaza, thus quintupling the size of the Gaza Strip. Egypt even offered to allow all the so-called "Palestinian refugees” to settle in the expanded Gaza Strip.

Then Abbas told his Fatah followers that he rejected the Egyptian offer.

On Monday Army Radio substantiated Abbas’s claim.

According to Army Radio, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi proposed that the Palestinians establish their state in the expanded Gaza Strip and accept limited autonomy over parts of Judea and Samaria.

In exchange for this state, the Palestinians would give up their demand that Israel shrink into the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, surrendering Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. Sisi argued that the land Egypt is offering in Sinai would more than compensate for the territory that Abbas would concede.

End excerpt.

So, despite being offered what the Palestinians claim they want, the Egyptians were rejected. Why is that? Because demands for a Palestinian state have never been about a home for Palestinians but rather for the destruction of Israel. This is the age-old Islamic view that where the Prophet's followers set foot they shall not be driven out. Israel infuriates them because it exists where they believe Sharia should rule.

Nothing matters but driving Israel into the sea. Nothing.

Strange how the media failed to report this to us.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 12:12 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 313 words, total size 2 kb.

Destroying The World as We Know It

By Joseph Dalton Leatherwood

Nancy Pelosi said if republicans win the senate in 2014 the world as we know it
will end?

How about some truth- it has already ended! The world as we have known it has
ended because it has been systematically destroyed by reactionary socialists,
like Nancy Pelosi and the federal government.

They have:

-- shredded the Constitution and stymied our Republic;
-- destroyed our economy through willful acts of nationalization, oppressive
regulation and bureaucratic coercion;
-- undermined the electoral system through judicial fiat, IRS intimidation and
outright voter fraud;
-- worked to debase the culture and society through legislative mechanisms
(ACA), judicial rulings, bureaucratic fiat and executive actions;
-- degraded citizenship through domestic spying and a growing nationalization of
police forces; and
-- obliterated federalism through outright bribery - using taxpayers dollars to
force conformity on states, local governments and special districts.

What Pelosi and the "democrat" party have wrought is socialism as an operating
system and as a means of governing. It is totalitarian in its mindset and its
nature. Under their "governance" the nation has been in the throes of a modern
disintegration and degeneration for a number a years. Despite their rhetoric,
they have brought America to a moral and cultural crisis.

Socialism is characterized by:

-- a constant deception by the rulers of the people they govern over;
-- purposefully discriminating between groups to pick winners and losers;
-- imposing its will on the people by the rulers even when its dictates run
counter to the will of the people;
-- its authoritarian enforcement of the law through a militaristic police force;
-- arbitrariness in its decision making based on greed and empowerment rather
than the rule of law;
-- its dogmatic adherence to secular humanism in the affairs of the State and
their use of State power; and
-- inclusivism which seeks to force everyone into one mass - to level everyone
and everything.

The Pelosi's of the world are the destroyers in our midst. They have brought
America to a societal crisis severely threatening the very future of this
nation. Clearly, they are an existential threat to this nation because they
have brought the nation to the edge of the abyss and seek to take us over the
edge and end the world as we gave known it.

They hold America's past in derision and seek to destroy it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:16 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 406 words, total size 3 kb.

<< Page 1 of 481 >>
159kb generated in CPU 0.06, elapsed 0.0729 seconds.
39 queries taking 0.0155 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.