It’s Because You’re Stupid

The MSM has finally found a narrative they can all get behind: criticism of Obama by conservatives is racist. Forget that they’ve leveled plenty of their own criticism, because hypocrisy doesn’t matter to them. Any conservative who criticizes Obama is a racist.

The line that criticism of Obama is racist goes way back. Jimmy Carter whined in 2009 that the entire birther movement was racist. Then he claimed Republican Joe Wilson shouting “you lie!” during Obama’s campaign speech to Congress showed that there is “an inherent feeling in American that a black man should not be President.” In September 2011, MSNBC claimed that all criticism of Obama was because of “the color of his skin.”

Calling Obama “cool” was declared racist the other day. Before that the words “cocky”, “flippant” and “arrogant” were declared racist “code words.” Last month, Team Obama themselves said that trying to link Obama to Jeremiah Wright was racist and hate-filled.

Now we have Neil Munro, a reporter for the Daily Caller, interrupting Obama during his latest campaign speech from the White House where he tried to buy Hispanic votes by proposing amnesty for young illegal aliens. The MSM was immediately outraged, and quickly decided this was racist. Said MSNBC:

“I think it's a very important question because I think this is the first African-American president. We've never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We've never had a president like this heckled so disrespectfully. We've never had this otherness afforded to any other president and I think the right wing has some explaining to do because to me it's patently obvious.”

Well, actually, that’s not true. Indeed, as the Daily Caller immediately pointed out, Sam Donaldson used to do this to Ronald Reagan all the time, and yet the MSM never accused him of even bad manners.

Naturally, the MSM went to Sam Donaldson and asked him if this was true. Guess what he said? He lied about doing this to Reagan. Indeed, he said, he “never once interrupt[ed] a president in any way while he was making a formal statement, a speech, honoring awardees or in any other way holding the floor.” Of course, that’s a lie, but no MSM reporter can be bothered to go find the dozens of example disproving this.

Then Donaldson said exactly what you would expect from a leftist hack. He charged racism:

“Let’s face it: Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American!”

This is pathetic. Do I think Munro should have interrupted Obama? No. It pissed me off when Donaldson and the rest did it to Reagan and I don’t think anyone should be doing it to Obama either. But it pisses me off even more that the MSM is pushing this crap about this being the result of racism.

People criticize President "Downgrade" Obama because he’s incompetent. They criticize him because he’s an arrogant ass. They criticize Obama because he’s ruining the country and trying to destroy large parts of our economy. It doesn’t matter what color he is, the man is a menace to our nation.

Moreover, the real racists are on the left and within the MSM. It’s the leftist media which sees the world through the prism of race, not the rest of us. The rest of us have moved beyond race. We now judge men and women by the content of their characters and the competence and quality of their actions, and in that test people like Obama fail miserably. Race doesn't factor into it for us, that only matters to the race-obsessed MSM.

So in the spirit of providing proof, give us your Top Three Biggest gripes with Obama without mentioning his race?


OT, For those who regularly visit Patti's site, she's talking about my book today and there's a Q&A! Check it out! LINK

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Same Crap. Different Package.

You will be seeing two important government figures swearing by all that's holy that they will provide all the documents and reveal all the information required "very soon." Both have been asked to explain why they have been secretly performing nefarious acts while denying them publicly despite all the apparent evidence.

The headline picture is US Attorney General Eric Holder. The picture accompanying this paragraph is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both Holder and Ahmadinejad have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, and both have responded with denials, lies, obfuscation, and convenient compliance. But their most useful tool is delay. The script goes as follows: Look wounded when confronted with your failure to do what you were asked, and promise to do better next time.

Ahmadinejad has been lying about Iran's nuclear weapons development program for years. He has claimed that all Iranian nuclear development is strictly for peaceful purposes of producing energy. Though the country sits on an ocean of easily-extracted oil, good ol' Mahmoud says Iran needs nuclear energy so their people can have light and HBO (and a few missile silos). Occasionally, the timid international authorities produce evidence that disproves what he is saying. Then, Ahmadinejad quickly appears, makes a statement about how wrong those authorities are, and promises to produce documentation to prove it. This "cooperation" always occurs about the time authorities threaten to tighten the noose around his neck.

Attorney General Holder has exhibited the same behavior pattern. His indignation when accused of selective prosecution is a performance worthy of Sir Laurence Olivier. He denies racism in his dismissal of voter intimidation cases against the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia. He denies political cronyism when discussing the details of the Solyndra failure. He looks terribly wounded when someone accuses him of fake civil rights activity when denying states their right to purge their voter rolls and require photo ID for voting.

But he does come up with sufficient documentation and phony excuses to keep moving the questioning and investigation down the road. Now, the noose has been tightened in Congress in regard to Holder's knowledge of and participation in the organization of Operation Fast and Furious. This is especially noticeable in the hearings being conducted by Republican Darrell Issa of California in the House.

Holder has been adamant that he has provided all the information requested of his department by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. He has also been absolutely stalwart in his contention that he has told the truth from the beginning. He claims he knew nothing about Mexican criminal cartel gunwalking until Congress discovered the deaths resulting from the disastrous operation, including the ambush murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry by cartel members using guns purchased during the operation.

Frustrated by the minuscule information provided to his committee by Holder's office and angered by Holder's denial of clear facts produced right in front of him, Issa finally told Holder last week that he would produce the documentation and testify truthfully by this coming Wednesday or face a contempt of Congress citation. This is the first time contempt has been specifically threatened, though it has been bandied about for months.

Like Ahmadinejad, Holder steadfastly denies his involvement in the nefarious activities. In fact, he continues to deny that his department was involved in any significant Fast and Furious activity whatsoever. At least that was what he did at the conclusion of the hearing. Then, like Ahmadinejad he snuck back to his office, and fired off a memo to Rep. Issa. He promised to produce more records and information regarding the operation, claiming that his epiphany came only after the Committee stated categorically that requested information would exclude sensitive law enforcement information.

Rather than admit the noose was tightening and that his political position was in some immediate danger, Holder requested a Monday meeting with Rep. Issa while calling his offer "an extraordinary accommodation of the committee's interest." To trash a song from The Music Man, "Cheat a little, talk a little, cheat a little, talk a little, cheat, cheat, cheat, cheat a lot, cheat a little more." The stall is on, once again. First Holder presents himself as the wounded victim just trying to help, then promises to produce some more useless and irrelevant (and frequently 90% redacted) documentation, then humbly requests a meeting between gentlemen to avoid any further unnecessary acrimony.

It's hard not to think that Holder believes he can stall any further damaging revelations until after the November elections. But now that the corresponding Senate committee is making some of the same sounds, and some Democrats are just now beginning to express doubt about Holder's veracity publicly, the tactic may not work much longer. Rep. Issa doesn't seem the least bit fooled by Holder's snake-charmer eyes, and has already announced that promises will no longer be sufficient. It's a true showdown, with Issa playing the lonely sheriff and Holder the proficient gunslinger.

This coming Wednesday could be the big gunfight, unless something truly significant emerges from Holder's secret vaults. But on Saturday, Rep. Issa said he will consider postponing the contempt hearing if the information provided by Holder is truthful and truly responsive. Holder wins the round, but he hasn't yet won the fight. What's your guess as to how this is going to be resolved?
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 42

All the world’s a sitcom writ large. . . or something like that. But hey, who hasn’t enjoyed a good sitcom now and then?

What is your favorite sitcom?


Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

I'm Angry and I'm Not Gonna Take It Anymore

3/20/2010 Anti-Obamacare Rally
Washington, D.C.

You know, I am coming to the end of my patience and I may need the collective encouragement of all of the Commentarama-ians to talk me down from the ledge I am on. As the campaign rhetoric heats up, I am beginning to see a very clear pattern of how this election cycle is going to go and I do not think I can continue to keep a civil tongue in my head.

Let me start by saying that I have made no secret that I am a proud member of the Tea Party movement and have been since February 27, 2009 when I attended my first rally in City Hall Park in New York City. Since that day, I have attended many small to medium rallies sponsored by our local New York City Tea Party groups, and was in Washington for the very first 9/12 Rally on September 12, 2009 where it was reported that from 500 to 2,000,000 people attended. We all had different reasons for coming together, but mostly we knew (and still do) there was a coming fiscal disaster-train heading our way and we desperately wanted to slow that train down to minimize the damage.

We were mocked, called silly and stupid names, and became the butt of about every prurient joke the MSM et al. could throw at us. They mocked our collective ages, weight, I.Q.s, and costumes all in hopes of dissuading us and sending us running back to our Laz-y-boy recliners. Still we would not be dissuaded even when our Democrat Congressional leaders in the halls of the Congress and the MSM were telling us with great sincerity that we were all sad, misguided astro-turfers being led by unseen evil forces and would soon peter out (no pun intended) to be a unimportant footnote in history.

But then came the March 20, 2010 rally to protest the upcoming Congressional vote on Obamacare. That's when the first real cries of "racism" could be heard in earnest. The Congressional Black Caucus lead by Reps. Emanuel Cleaver, Andre Carson, and John Lewis accused us of hurling racial slurs and spitting at them with a little Rep. Barney Frank thrown in to hurl the cries of "homophobia". When asked to provide some kind of proof, they stood by their accusations steadfastly recounting flashbacks to yesteryears and imploring everyone to trust them. Even after the late Andrew Breitbart offered $250K for any video or photographic proof that would prove their accusations to be true, they could not find one shred of evidence in support. There are hours of video and audio footage from every conceivable angle of their walk through the teaming throngs of protesters [see photo above] as these heinous acts allegedly occurred. Hours of video and audio of the accusers and the accused, but not one moment of video or audio that could prove these accusations to be anything but false. Fortunately, we had learned early the ways of the MSM and collectively knew that we must maintain our own video record. A sad fact that I am almost certain that Reps. Cleaver, Carson, Lewis, and Frank had not been clever enough to foresee.

For the record, the following is the list of the Official Tea Party priorities from the “Contract From America“ published on April 14, 2010:

(1) Protect the Constitution;
(2) Reject Cap and Trade;
(3) Demand a Balanced Budget;
(4) Enact Fundamental Tax Reform;
(5) Restore Fiscal Responsibility and Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington;
(6) End Runaway Government Spending;
(7) Defund, Repeal, and Replace Government-run Health Care;
(8) Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy;
(9) Stop the Pork;
(10) Stop the Tax Hikes

For three and half years now, I, and many that I know, have been called "racists" in every conceivable venue - on the floor of Congress (both houses), by the President, in the MSM, on liberal blogs, by liberal pundits and comedians, and in every manner of public social media, because we dare to speak out against the fiscal policies of our present Administration and just will not go away. Why, only this week, I was called a racist on Facebook because I am member of the Tea Party and, as the equation has been well established by now, Tea Party = "racist". It is sad when people are so blinded by their own ignorant hatred that they can brand an entire group of people by the actions of a very few. Judging an entire group because of the actions of few used to be called "bigotry", but now it's called...well, I still call it "bigotry" and I am going to double down and call it "self-righteous bigotry" at that. For the record, there was a statement made at a Arkansas Tea Party rally that was deemed racist. The person making the statement was publicly condemned and removed from their leadership position within hours of her statement.

But what finally put me on the ledge this week were these little tidbits! Where is the outrage and condemnation from those liberals who abhor hate-filled, violent images and rhetoric? Let's just say right off the bat, if either of these images were Obama-related, people would have lost their jobs, possibly have been jailed, or, at the very least would have been outed and humiliated into making a public apology...

First - Well, we've talked about this one:



Oh, I know, the HBO Props Department just happened to have a severed head of George W. Bush lying around in their "Stock Severed Heads" closet and thought it would be really cheeky to put it on a spike in a scene in their hit series "Game Of Thrones". It probably would have been one of those inside jokes that those in the Props Department could have quietly howled about for years. But they just had to brag about how clever they were in the "Special Features" section on the DVD. Oh, yes, HBO issued their stock apology (no doubt from their "Stock Apology" closet), but I want to know who is in charge of the Props Department and I want him or her outed and publicly condemned in full living color.

Oh, and then there is this:



Shocking, isn't it? I mean, perhaps Martin Bashir, currently with NBC News as a contributor for its Dateline program, and an afternoon anchor for MSNBC, should not be fantasizing about blowing up a bus especially a bus of a current US Presidential candidate and broadcasting that fantasy in full color video. I mean, he's British of Pakistani descent - that same Pakistan that protected Osama bin Laden, so, I am going to go out on limb and call Mr. Martin Bashir of MSNBC a terrorist. Well, I mean, why not? I've already been called a racist, an ignorant hillbilly, a moron, a Teabagger, a Rethuglican, so why not add "bigot" and "xenophobe" to the pile. Oh, yeah, I've been called those too. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Polls Show Obama Trouncing Romney

If the election were held today, Barack Obama would be reelected by a major landslide. See, you’ve been reading all the wrong polls. There’s no possibility of a close election, let alone a Romney victory. Here are the results of the polls from last week, in order from highest to lowest. The question asked was: “Would you like to see Barack Obama reelected?” Yes: 92%, 89%, 73%, 71%, 69% and 67%.

Now don’t quibble with me. I’m not sure if this was a poll of likely voters or merely preferences, but either way, it’s pretty stunning. So let’s take a closer look at the demographics of the polling. Also in order from highest to lowest, the poll responders are in France, Germany, England, Spain, Italy and last, but not least, the Czech Republic. In other words, if Obama were running for President of the Eurozone, he would be a shoo-in.

Is this another example of American exceptionalism? Maybe. After all, every American poll has the race as a small Obama victory, a small Romney victory, or “too close to call.” In other words, Obama would win by a huge margin, except that Americans aren’t Europeans. I find that to be an exceptionally good thing, don’t you?

Poland is a bit of a downer for Emperor Obama, however. Only 40% of Poles polled pulled for the prissy president. It may have something to do with missile defenses and Russia’s own prize prickly president Putin, but we can’t be sure. This is bound to bring Polack jokes back into vogue.

Pew Global Attitudes Project polls also found that in the same countries, the poll respondents can be as silly as a lot of Americans. In all the nations where Obama is highly popular, the overall opinion of the United States has slipped consistently each year for the past three years. Though the numbers are still better for the United States than they were in 2008, Bush’s final year in office, they have dropped consistently since the emperor’s coronation and lofty speechifying at the Berlin Wall.

Obama came into office proclaiming that the era of American unilateralism is over. The Euros liked that. But as Obama has acted more and more arbitrarily, or worse, ignored Europe’s demands, the United States is once again being perceived as arrogant. The old anti-Semitic joke about the Jewish people has been revised somewhat. “Individually, I like Americans, but as a group, they’re pushy.”

Interestingly, outside of Europe the reverse phenomenon has occurred. In the Islamic world, the favorable opinion of America has gone up, and its view of the president has gone down. George Bush actually had higher poll ratings in Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon than Obama over the past two years. Guess there’s something to that “hell hath no fury” thing. Obama came into office practically begging Jihadistan to give him enough time to extend the caliphate to Washington DC. Instead he delivered a surge in Afghanistan and drones in Pakistan. During the “Arab Spring,” Obama did a whole lot of talking and very little acting.. That hasn’t sat well, particularly with the Egyptians.

Don’t get overly-thrilled by the results in the Islamic world, however. They still really, really don’t like the United States very much, so the increased favorability of the US and the decreased popularity of Obama are purely relative. When a people thinks its prime Western enemy has elected the first American Muslim president only to find out he demonstrates the same neglect toward Islam as he does for Christianity and Judaism, there’s bound to be a show of disappointment.

The Euroweenies seem to be doing the same thing a large number of Americans are doing. They like Obama personally, but can’t entirely explain why. They don’t support the US as much as in the recent past, but they don’t seem to be able to connect Obama to any of their decreased respect for America. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that unlike Bush II and Ronald Reagan, Obama not only enthusiastically supports world government, but is delighted to borrow more money from China to support the United Nations and Greek financial bailouts.

So until the Obama administration succeeds in passing the UN Resolution on World Voting in American Elections, he stands a much better chance of winning the top governmental spot in France or Germany than he does in America.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Eye Of CBS Is Upon You

All the livelong day. I used to believe what Walter Cronkite told me, even when I was a Berkeley radical. When he announced after the Tet Offensive that the war in Vietnam was lost, I believed him. It was years later that I found out (from the writings of NorthVietnamese General Giap) that the Tet Offensive had been an absolute disaster for the communists. He thanked Cronkite for his help in turning that around.

That left me thinking that Cronkite had made a left turn and discarded real reporting for editorializing in the 60s. Now I find out even that was wrong. It was a lengthy evolution for the voice of CBS News. It turns out that the great news reader who so loudly condemned Richard Nixon for his presidential “dirty tricks” got there way ahead of Tricky Dick. As early as 1952, Cronkite was playing a few dirty tricks of his own, all in the name of news-gathering, of course.

Turns out that “the most trusted man in America” had bugged a secret committee room of the Republican Party during that year’s Republican convention. During the Watergate Scandal, Cronkite became almost apoplectic describing the horror of Nixon’s bugging of the offices of Democratic operatives. He termed bugging of political opponents “a stunt of questionable legality that should have disqualified [Nixon] from ever holding a powerful position of public trust.” Considering that almost twice as many people trusted Cronkite as trusted Nixon, I can only say “newsman, heal thyself.”

Disguised as news, Cronkite’s editorializing misled millions upon millions of decent Americans. His contempt for Barry Goldwater was visible even when Cronkite wasn’t making direct statements about him. When Republican presidential candidate Goldwater visited an American Army base in Germany in 1964, Cronkite’s puppet Daniel Schorr reported it thusly: “Republican Barry Goldwater, announcing his presidential run, made his first campaign appearance in the center of Germany’s right wing.” The implication was clear—Goldwater was a closet Nazi. The camera returned to Cronkite in New York, and there was the old bastard, his lips pursed, slightly shaking his head indicating disapproval (of Goldwater, not Schorr). Not a word--just a look.

This kind of sneering “news” continued throughout Cronkite’s career right up to the day he retired. At least now his editorializing is no longer being treated as news. To a greater or lesser extent, he praised every Democratic candidate and damned every Republican candidate, though rarely expressly using clear wording to accomplish the task.

Now let’s jump forward to recent times to see if things have gotten better. Well, the CBS anchor for the nighttime national news certainly doesn’t have the cachet that Cronkite had. But the inability to separate news from purely political causes goes all the way up to the top. Last week, Les Moonves, president and chief executive officer of CBS News attended a widely-publicized Beverly Hills Democratic fundraiser featuring the Wonderful Wizard Barack Obama.

Responding to a question from a friendly reporter, Moonves said: “I run a news division, I’ve given no money to any candidate.” Well, technically, at this particular fundraiser, that was true. What he did give was $25,000 to the Democratic National Committee’s LGBT :Leadership Council. So he gave money to a left wing group sponsored by the Democratic Party, at an Obama fundraiser at which the candidate was present. And everyone knows that a celebrity appearance at a fundraiser for the Democratic candidate is an endorsement of that candidacy whether Moonves gave him money directly or not. My showing up at a fundraiser without writing the candidate a check means exactly nothing. The CEO of CBS showing up in the West Coast center of news and entertainment means a great deal more than a simple check.

Moonves is not a news reporter, but his position as head of the news division of a major TV network appearing at an Obamafest is news. Now, how many CBS news reporters are going to do either of two things? Report Moonves’s participation in a big Hollywood Obama fundraiser? Report on the total impropriety of such an appearance? Anyone want to hazard a guess?

It is highly-doubtful that Moonves will make a similar appearance at a Mitt Romney fundraiser. That’s because he knows that such an appearance, particularly when well-publicized among the party faithful, is tantamount to an endorsement. That would offset his tacit endorsement of Obama, and he wouldn’t want to muddy the waters. Even if he did show up, I’m quite sure he wouldn’t write a $25,000 check to the Republican National Committee’s Traditional Morals Leadership Council. (OK, I made that up).

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

You're Doing It Wrong!

Alright, a couple points then we can all get on with our days. First up, Jimmy Carville is “worried” about Obama. Second up, we have some polls showing why Jimmy is right to worry. Finally, we have a reminder why we should be done with the Bush family once and for all. Let’s do this.

● Jimmy Carville: James Carville is a partisan hack, so when he tells you that Obama is eeah, doin’ sumtin wrongg, you better believe Obama’s doing something wrong. And in this case, Jimmy C is upset that Obama is telling everyone the economy is great. Said Jimmy C on Good Morning America:

“I’m worried that when the White House or the campaign talks about the progress that’s being made, people take that as a signal that they think that things are fine and people don’t feel they ought to believe that.”

In other words, by telling people everything is fine when the public clearly knows better, Obama is squandering what little trust he has left and is telling voters that he “doesn’t get it” and has no plans to address their concerns.

As proof that Carville is right, think back to last week when Obama said at a press conference that “the private sector is doing fine.” Really? Perhaps he forgot that four million private sector jobs have vanished under his Reign of Error? The Republicans (led by Romney) pounced on this so strongly that Obama had to “clarify” his comments a few hours later by telling reporters, “it is absolutely clear the economy is not doing fine.” Nice, complete reversal “clarification.”

Carville once famously said, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Perhaps he was talking directly to Obama?

● Polls: I’ve said before that this election really comes down to Florida and Ohio. In Ohio, Romney leads Obama 46% to 44%. In Florida, Romney leads Obama 46% to 45%. With undecideds typically breaking for the incumbent, this tells us Obama will lose. Iowa, which I see as irrelevant, is also trending Romney over Obama 47% to 46%. And if that isn’t enough, get this. . .

Colorado, an Obama state, is tied 45% each. Michigan, a clear Obama state, has Romney leading 46% to 45%. Wisconsin, another Obama state, has Romney leading 47% to 45%. That’s 36 electoral votes slipping through his fingers. Winning will be virtually impossible for Obama if that happen.

● RINO-dynasty: It is time America was finished with the Bush clan. Two disastrous Presidents who did their best to tar conservatism is enough. Sadly, there’s one more out there and he’s no better. This week old Jeb reminded us again why we want no part of him. What did he do this time? Get this. . . despite the election coming up, he decided now would be a good time to call us all a bunch of extremists. Specifically, he said this:

“Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican Party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground.”

In other words, Reagan and Bush Sr. couldn’t have been nominated if they ran today because the party is now too extreme to accept them.

First of all, this is false. This is the same party which just nominated Mitt Romney, who was viewed by conservatives as a RINO and whose record as a governor is clearly moderate. This is also the same party which has made RINOs like Chris Christie and, regrettably, Jeb himself into stars. Secondly, saying this now is disloyal as now is the time to rally around the nominee to defeat Obama. Finally, it’s ultra-disloyal to say this particularly because this has been a Democratic talking point for years now, and only true RINOs adopt Democratic talking points and lend them credibility.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, I will never vote for another Bush.

OT: I was planning to do a book giveaway promo later in the year, but for various reasons beyond my control, it's moved. So next Tuesday, Without A Hitch will be FREE on Kindle. Please pick it up if you haven't and read it and then leave a review! :)

Also, if you have already read it or Wrongful Death, please do me a favor and try to leave a review before Tuesday. People judge books by the number of reviews these days so it would help me a lot if you all posted one (and no, they don't need to be 5s... be honest). Thanks! Here's the LINK
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guest Review: Another Earth (2011)

A Film Review by Tennessee Jed

This “indie” production is the first feature film collaboration between director Mike Cahill, and his long time friend, actress Brit Marling. They met while studying at Georgetown University, and co-produced and co-wrote Another Earth. Cahill directs, edits, and does cinematography while Marling takes lead acting responsibility. Made on a shoestring budget, the film received critical audience acclaim at the Sundance Festival, winning a distribution deal with Fox Searchlight Pictures. Largely unknown, this is an interesting film on several levels. Particularly noteworthy is the acting debut of Brit Marling. I unhesitatingly recommend this one, so letʼs discuss why, and review both strengths and weaknesses. Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Double Dose of Failure

Let’s cover two short issues today. First, we have economic data which confirms the middle class is getting crushed under Obama. Secondly, the NRA and Indiana seem determined to set back the cause of gun rights.

Issue One: The surest way to determine what chance a president has at being re-elected is to ask the question Reagan made famous: “are you better off today than you were four years ago?” Obama desperately needs to hope no one asks that. Why? How about these numbers:

● Unemployment: At 8.2%, unemployment is at one of its highest points in decades. In May, 12.7 million Americans were officially unemployed, with another 24 million unofficially unemployed or underemployed. Five million people have been officially unemployed for more than two years now.

● Falling Incomes: Since 2007, the median income for all American families has fallen 7.7%.

● Inflation: Inflation is eating away at spending power. A dollar today is only worth 32 cents of what it was worth in 1979. That means inflation has eaten 68% of the value of the dollar in 33 years. When you factor in wage increases, the middle class already took a 28% pay cut between 1979 and when Obama took office (the poor took a 50% pay cut). Official inflation under Obama has been minor, but that’s a fake number. Gas prices are up 83% and meat is up 24%, and real inflation is estimated at around 12%. Factor in the falling wages of 7.7% with the pay-cut of inflation at 12%, and you have a huge pay cut being taken year after year.

● Falling Net Worth: Since 2007, the median net worth of American families has fallen by 38.8% from $126,400 to $77,300. This is largely (but not entirely) the result of falling housing prices. In the West, this decline was 55%.

This tells us that the American public is taking a beating. Their savings have been cut by a third, their incomes are falling (those that are even employed), and inflation is eating away at all of it. So much for being better off today than anyone was four years ago. The exception, of course, is Club Fed which increased its spending 714% since 1979 and 33% since Obama took office.

Issue Two: Indiana has passed a law at the behest of the National Rifle Association which allows residents to use deadly force against government employees, including law enforcement officers, who “unlawfully” enter their homes. Mitch Daniels signed this in March.

This is a HORRIBLE idea!

First of all, let me ask why we need this? Is there a problem with cops attacking people in their homes in Indiana? If not, then there’s no reason for this. Secondly, has anyone asked what this will cause? How do you decide if the police are there unlawfully? Doesn’t this give people a false belief that they have a right to shoot at the cops no matter why the police are there? This is a stupid bill which will get police (and civilians) killed. And there is no need for this bill because it doesn’t stop any real problem.

This is a classic example of the stupidity of activists. Some jerkoff at the NRA decided this would be a good idea for whatever reason and the other jerkoffs talked themselves into it without every stopping to ask someone with common sense if this was a good idea. By pushing this, the NRA has put the “responsible” gun lobby on the side of fringe politics and irresponsible laws. This is, in fact, the very type of law which turns people off the cause being promoted. This is Planned Parenthood defending partial-birth abortion or gay marriage activists suing churches to force them to perform gay marriages. This is stupid. This is the kind of bill guaranteed to bring a backlash. And this is yet another reason I won’t support the NRA despite firmly believing in the Second Amendment.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Nothing Exceeds Like Excess

For fiscal year 2013, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has requested $3.143 billion for its Community Development Fund and another $2.948 billion for Community Development Block Grants. The former is a slight reduction from 2012, the latter is a “no change.” Almost all of the 2012 funds have been distributed, and most of those sums are still sitting in bank accounts, awaiting local distribution.

This seems to mean that the local authorities are not spending money fast enough to suit the Obama administration. So HUD has devoted $70 million to teach the right way to spend grant money so that it can continue to ask for more money, more money. HUD Secretary Mercedes Marquez said in a news release: “The extra $70 million will help communities and non-profits ensure that scarce federal dollars are targeted where they are needed most.” I have to wonder why we are handing over taxpayer billions to agencies which then need $70 million dollars to teach them how to use the money given to them.

Now I know that if I go to the bank to borrow money, the first thing they ask me is what I intend to use the money for. If it was for my business, I had to produce a complete business plan. But in the case of “gifts” to local communities and community agencies, first they give them the money, then they have to tell them how the money should be used. That seems slightly backwards to me. Not to mention the bank never provided me with free extra funding so I could learn how to run my business/practice. In fact, if they thought I didn’t already know how to use the money, they wouldn’t give it to me.

HUD spokesman Brian Sullivan says: “We’re talking about local jurisdictions working with each other in a local way to confront what could be an area-wide problem or a challenge. Often times, when you just deal with your own local community, you don’t take a wider look at the—maybe the regional needs of a place.” Well, they already have the money. Shouldn’t they know these things before you give them the money? Wouldn’t it be a good idea to educate them first, then allocate funds based on the viability of the projects?

Maybe things have changed, but when I was a planning commissioner two decades back, local public and private agencies had to run things past us. Then we vetted the plans, and passed them on to the city council. The city council repeated the process, then consulted with the county planners. They reviewed, then passed it on to the regional authorities (in this case, the Southern California Association of Government, or SCAG). Finally, the state was consulted as well as any federal agencies which might become involved. We simply didn’t hand over taxpayer money to any agency without thorough review of the plans they had already made as a presentation. We sure didn’t give them money in advance and hope everything turned out all right.

HUD, like all federal leviathan agencies, has a specific charge from Congress and the executive branch. But also like those other intermeddling bureaucracies, HUD’s main purpose these days is to perpetuate itself by getting, distributing and promoting the use of huge sums of the public’s money. And what better way to do that than to spend 70 million taxpayer dollars to keep the flow of money coming and going? If you don’t teach them how to spend all the money, and then some, you can’t come back and ask for more next year.

And if you don’t believe me, take their word for it. When Sullivan was queried by a reporter, this is what happened: Reporter: “If I’m reading this correctly, this a grant to teach people how to spend money they already have.” Sullivan: “Absolutely.”

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Fixing Immigration

A couple weeks ago an issue came up in the comments, which I think should be officially raised in an article: how to fix immigration. This may be the most pressing issue of our time for a number of reasons and fixing the problem will prove to be incredibly difficult. But it can be done. Here’s what I recommend.

For starters, let me point out that there is no silver bullet to resolve this problem. Sealing the borders won’t work as most illegal immigrants find other ways here (plus the real problem is those who are already here). It’s a logistical near-impossibility to deport eleven million people. Big business wants workers and will fight anything which reduces illegal immigration, so will the Democrats who want voters. The public no longer trusts the political class because they’ve lied about this too much. Hence, an amnesty won’t work because no one trusts the promises that will be made to justify it.

All in all, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t and no one. . . no one is going to let you try anything.

That sounds bleak. But it doesn’t mean we can’t fix the problem, it just means it requires a more careful plan. Indeed, any effective plan will need to be done quietly at first, so people don’t freak out, and the goal must be to build the trust needed to implement the harder parts to come.

With that in mind, I think the best strategy would be this. . . spread over two Romney terms:

Step One: In the first week in office, Romney (and the Republican Congress where needed) should slash the number of legal immigrants allowed into the US each year in half. This shouldn’t be too difficult as Obama raised the number and Romney can explain he is simply reversing that, giving new immigrants time to join the melting pot, and preventing the environmental problems of importing enough people to populate Denver each year. He can also use high unemployment as a reason. The idea here is to reduce the number of immigrants who would otherwise be in the country over the next four years by about two million. I’ll explain why in a moment.

Step Two: As soon as possible, end all payroll deductions for any business which doesn’t use the eVerify system. This would provide a strong incentive for businesses to use the system, but wouldn’t freak out big business by making it a criminal offense to hire illegals. This “voluntary compliance” would go a long way to making it harder for illegals to find work and many will leave.

Step Three: Fix Mexico. This would take several years, but the idea would be to provide military and police assistance and heavy financial aid in exchange for more libertarian economic policies along with deregulation and the busting of massive corporate empires. The idea here would be to get Mexico on its feet and turn it into a magnet for workers from all over the Americas, i.e. instead of us. If this works, and it should, then Mexico could become the destination of choice for Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants and it could draw back a large chunk of the eleven million illegal immigrants in the United States.

Step Four: Fix the guest worker program. One of the problems which has arisen is that with American paranoia over 9/11 and the border with Mexico, it has become increasingly risky for guest workers to leave the country again because there is a significant chance they won’t get back in come the next season (they are mainly farm workers). As a result, many of them have left Mexico permanently, even though they don’t want to, and brought their families here so they don’t need to run that risk. We need to make sure these people understand that they will be able to return to the US each season when needed. That way they have no reason to stay here illegally. Moreover, fixing this program will be essential to getting Big Business to stop fighting the other reforms because they can get the labor they need through this program.

If everything goes right, by the end of Romney’s first time, this program would have born the following results:

1. A reduction in the number of legal immigrants on the order of two million from those who would have otherwise been here.

2. A reduction in the number of illegal immigrants because of reduced job opportunities because of the eVerify system, improving conditions in Mexico, and the clean up of the guest worker program. Judging on the effects of the last recession, this could be anywhere from (rough guess) one to two million.

3. The pacification of Big Business as an opponent.

This means Romney can tell the public that his policies have reduced the number of “immigrants by up to four million” in his first term. This should buy him some good will with the public, for what is to come. Moreover, he can then show how the eVerify system worked, and he can make the case that those who are left likely are here for reasons other than just economics and probably have ties to the country. Thus:

Step Five: At the beginning of the second term, Romney makes the use of eVerify mandatory and imposes criminal punishments for employers who hire illegals.

Step Six: Romney proposes a long-term amnesty as follows: (1) Illegals will be required to report themselves within a month. Anyone who fails to report will be ineligible for the amnesty, as will anyone who arrives after the amnesty date (and those with criminal records). Those people will be deported immediately and local police will be required to report them to ICE. (2) For those who did report themselves, they will be issued a new “green card” which lets them act like citizens, except voting. They may work and must pay taxes. They can get drivers licenses, insurance, report crimes to the police, etc. (3) If you recall in Step One, we cut the number of legal immigrants in half. Now we do that again and allocate one half of those slots for legal immigrants and one half for converting illegals into legals, who can then apply for citizenship just like other legal immigrants. The goal would be to make them all legal over a decade long period.

Step Seven: Follow through and deport everyone who didn’t register.

Honestly, I think this is the only solution. Whether conservatives like it or not, there needs to be some way to make these people legal. Right now they can’t report crimes, can’t get car insurance (making them a road menace), and don’t pay taxes. And there just is no way to deport them. Making them legal fixes all of that -- it might also endear them to the Republican Party for making that happen. Not to mention, it will let them get on the social ladder to become property owners and stakeholders in the community, which will lead them toward conservatism.

Who would be upset by this? The left would be upset at the drop in immigration numbers, but the public won’t have a problem with that. The left will certainly be upset by the stepped-up, zero-tolerance deportations program, but they won’t have a leg to stand on since this will be given in exchange for making millions of illegals legal. The public be upset at the amnesty, but not as much as you might think because this method softens the blow considerably by reducing the number of immigrants overall to offset this amnesty. Indeed, at the end of his second term, Romney could report a “drop” (non-increase) of four million immigrants plus whatever illegals left because of eVerify and the stronger pull of Mexico. That should reduce the opposition to amnesty because it shows the public good faith that the political class is finally doing the hard part first.

Thoughts?


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

William Jefferson STFU Clinton

Oh boy, Bill is back! That’s right, former President Bill “trailer-park ten-dollar-bill dragger, depends-what-‘is’-means” Clinton, and he’s talking up a storm. And as you would expect, he’s causing Obama all kinds of problems. Ha ha.

So get this. . . some fool in the Obama Administration apparently decided to let Bill Clinton act as a campaign surrogate. They either knew nothing about Bill or they have decided that the country would be better off with Romney as president. And to no one’s great surprise, Bill has gone off half-cocked all over the place.

First, Billy Boy forgot whose side he was on and he praised Mitt Romney’s “sterling business career.” The timing on this couldn’t have been worse because Obama was already struggling to explain why his attacks on Bain Capital were appropriate, were relevant, and didn’t make him a socialist. . . like Rick Santorum.

Then Bill said that he would extend the Bush tax cuts until 2013, i.e. until after the election. This was both deeply cynical and it flew right in the face of Obama’s sworn opposition to extending those tax cuts. Clinton has since had to apologize for saying what he truly believed. . . an apology he delivered with the usual self-aggrandizement and a chuckle.

In and of themselves these statements wouldn’t be that bad, except Clinton’s supposed to be representing Obama and his timing couldn’t have been worse. Indeed, the timing is horrible because Obama’s campaign has been flailing. They haven’t been able to find anything to use to promote Obama or to tear down Romney. To the contrary, everything they’ve tried has blown up in their faces. In many ways, Obama has become the Coyote to Romney’s Roadrunner. And having Elmer Pudd shooting off his mouth isn’t helping. Every news cycle that gets wasted with Clinton contradicting one of Obama’s policies or the White House trying to explain away Clinton’s latest gaff, or with Bill trying to remind voters that he was a better President that Bush or Obama (“Remember me? I'm the only guy that gave you four surplus budgets out of the eight I sent.”), has been another precious news cycle wasted as Obama struggles to gain traction. Moreover, rather that focusing on Romney, the left has become obsessed now with trying to figure out if Bill is doing this intentionally to hurt Obama or what his real motives could be. And whether the public pays attention to the specifics or not, it’s obvious this is blue-on-blue fire, and that makes Obama’s campaign look disorganized, dis-unified and endangered.

So why is Clinton doing this? Some speculate this is an attempt to bring the Democratic Party back from the class warfare rhetoric which will doom it. I doubt that because Clinton has show no interest in helping the Democratic Party.

Others speculate this is payback for Obama beating Hillary (and Obama’s repeated humiliation of her, like his joke about her drunk-texting him). Could be. Some speculate Clinton wants Obama to lose so Hillary can rise up and run for President again. That doesn’t really make a lot of sense though. For one thing, Hillary looks horrible and I don’t just mean physically. She’s been the butt of jokes now and has no public achievements to show for her time on Team Obama. Plus, she’s been close enough to Obama to be tarred with his failure if he loses. Not to mention, she’ll never beat Andrew Cuomo, who I suspect will easily be the nominee in 2020 anyway.

Sure, these could all be his motives. But for my money, it’s much more likely Clinton is doing this to make the one person he truly loves happy: himself. By talking up his own administration and by contrasting himself with Obama (and Bush), Clinton makes sure that he’s remembered as the last “great” President. . . remember how good it was under ME, everybody? Indeed, he wouldn’t want an Obama success to stain his legacy.

Obama should have known this before he choose Clinton. Asking Clinton to act as your spokesman is like hiring Narcissus himself. But apparently Obama isn’t good at knowing things which every other American knows. . . like the number of states. So I guess Bill Clinton was just a mystery to him. Dopehead.

Finally, there was a fascinating article this weekend where some leftist AP hack tried to make all this pain go away by claiming that conservatives once hated Clinton but now praise him. Gee, I guess we’re hypocrites or something? Wrong. I do indeed have some good things to say about Clinton, but they hardly qualify as praise. My “respect” for Clinton goes a little something like this: he was smart enough to realize that his own beliefs weren’t selling, so he learned to sit back, let the Republicans do their thing and then take credit for their actions. That’s hardly high praise. That’s a bit like saying Hitler helped millions of Russians see Germany.

So what do you think Clinton is up to? Should Obama be worried? Should we? And what should Obama do about him?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Final Blow To Secularism In Turkey?

I doubt that any of our readers have failed to notice that secular Turkey, a longtime American ally, is being swept up in the Islamist cause along with the rest of the Middle East. Relations with the United States have been chilling over the past decade, and the pattern has accelerated rapidly since the Arab Spring began. Now one of the major symbols of secular tolerance may be about to fall.

Hagia Sophia, once the greatest cathedral in all of Christendom, may very well be facing the possibility of becoming a megamosque. Built in Constantinople (modern Istanbul), the cathedral remained in Christian hands until 1453, at which time the conquering Ottoman Turks finally succeeded in bringing down the walls of Byzantium and brought Islam into the cathedral. Christian priests were tossed out or killed, and many of the Christian relics and icons were destroyed.

In the aftermath of the death of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, a secularist/modernist movement led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk took the reins of Turkish government. Among the many reforms taken by Ataturk was the de-Islamisation of the official government. One of his acts, though not formalized until 1934, was to remove all worship, Muslim or Christian, from Hagia Sophia. By converting the great mosque, which had been switched from Christian worship by the Ottomans, he turned a great national symbol from a religious battleground into a national museum, visited by hundreds of thousands of tourists every year.

The building became a national symbol of the secularist, tolerant Turkish government for most of the remainder of the 20th Century. Sadly, over the past few years, secularism has become less palatable to religious Turks. Starting awhile back, the government began to abandon secularism in favor of increasing intrusion of Islamic law into the high elected offices. Though a republic, Turkey is rapidly becoming an Islamic Republic (which is somewhat of an oxymoron).

The remains of Arabic words and symbols have long been highly-visible on the walls of Hagia Sophia, but those Chrisitan symbols, paintings and icons which were still in existence at the time of Ataturk have been preserved. And though worship inside the building has long been strictly forbidden, the museum has until recently been thought of as a Christian historical center under Islamic domination.

That may all change in the near future. The first signs of unrest over the status of Hagia Sophia appeared in 2006 when Pope Benedict had planned a visit there. Though the historical Christian remnants are under the control of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (Eastern Orthodox Christian Church), radical Muslims saw the proposed visit by the Pope (head of the western Roman Catholic Church) as the first move in a Christian attempt to re-take the cathedral. The Pope bravely made the visit anyway, but he was greeted with general animosity including signs which read “Pope get out of Turkey.”

Now we have the earliest and largest demonstrations demanding the “proper” use of the building by Islamists. As reported by Reuters: “ Thousands of devout Muslims prayed outside Turkey’s historic Hagia Sophia museum on Saturday [May 23] to protest a 1934 law that bars religious services at the former church and mosque. Worshippers shouted, 'Break the chains, let Hagia Sophia Mosque open,' and 'God is great' [the notorious 'Allahu Akbar'] before kneeling in prayer as tourists looked on.”

While Christians are being murdered wholesale and churches burned to the ground with the congregants inside in other Middle East and northern African nations by Islamic militants, even such a moderate thing as a Christian historical museum is intolerable to the new generation of Muslim fanatics. Even though Turkey is semi-officially Islamic at this point, there still must be none of this Western tolerance in an Islamic Republic. While Muslims plan a megamosque in London and another at Ground Zero in New York City, the reverse must not be allowed anywhere in Jihadistan.

This one-sided tolerance is best explained by Salih Turhan, a spokesman for the re-conversion group which wants to turn Hagia Sophia back into a mosque. “Keeping Hagia Sophia Mosque closed is an insult to our mostly Muslim population of 75 million.” He doesn’t explain why mosques in the West overlooking the Houses of Parliament and within a block of the site of the mass murder of 3,000 New Yorkers and innocent visitors is not an insult to humanity.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Sister Nancy Explains It All

Well, it’s Sunday, and time for our Catholic instruction from Sister Nancy Pelosi. You see, forty-three Catholic institutions, including several Catholic bishops and archdioceses are suing the Obama administration over its mandate covering sterilization, contraception and abortifacients. But they are wrong, and Sister Nancy explains why.

Speaking of the Pope, cardinals, archbishops and dioceses, Sister Nancy says: “Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church. Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.” The best she could come up with for why all the Catholic bishops weren’t involved was “and there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature.” Well, we know she certainly thinks so, and no doubt there are other Catholics equally hesitant. She didn’t name the bishops who agree with her.

Technically, of course, she is correct. Ex cathedra refers to matters of faith and morals which the Pope has spoken on directly. The rest of the Catholic clergy may pass this message on, but it does derive from the Pope alone. However, Sister Nancy fails to notice that Popes don’t involve themselves in American lawsuits or directly address American law.

The Catholic clergy and laymen involved in the lawsuits are concerned with the law and the Constitution (neither of which Sister Nancy has read). But they did not come at this on their own. Catholic doctrine, as announced by the Pope is that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally and theologically wrong. The Catholic clergy and laymen who have filed the suits are doing nothing more than addressing American law as it affects Catholic religious doctrine and First Amendment religious protections. The Pope didn’t tell them to file lawsuits, but he did tell them what Catholics should see as right or wrong.

So after telling the world that the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops are wrong on theology (no trifling matter for a practicing Catholic), Sister Nancy then went on to tell reporters asking her pointed questions: “You know what? I do my religion on Sunday in church, and I try to go other days of the week, I don’t do it at this press conference.” Then why did you call the conference, Sister? It seems that the adorable Sister Nancy thinks press conferences are designed for her to make ex cathedra announcements without having to explain anything to anyone.

I know I’m treading on thin ice here, but as a Lutheran, I still think the proper understanding of Catholic doctrine is that the Pope is infallible on decisions of faith and morals. Sister Nancy is not, and therefore has some ‘splaining to do.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 41

We've spoken already about modern heroes and about anti-heroes, but what about classic heroes?

Who is the toughest/coolest action hero of the classic era?


Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Phew! What A Week!

What a week this has been. Events in Wisconsin this week just totally wore me out, so maybe we just need a little break this afternoon. I know what you were thinking, what could be more relaxing than watching puppies frolic, right? As a matter of fact, this is one of those interesting by-products of the internet age that is really kind of fun. There are actually websites where you can watch live video feeds of puppies sleeping and playing and doing all of those cute little puppy things that you didn't even know you wanted to watch. So get a glass or mug of your favorite beverage and watch the cuteness of it all.



Video streaming by Ustream
So, now that you are relaxed, please feel free to discuss whatever comes to mind...

Note: Sorry about the commercials and sometimes they give the puppies a break and go offline. But trust me, it's great. [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Nothing To See Here. Move On.

We have been told ad nauseam that the Obama administration’s policies are not anti-religion. We have seen that same administration intrude into the religious arena time and again, most recently when it came to denying religious exemptions for those who want no part of abortion or radical birth control (abortifacients, also know as “morning-after pills).

That has resulted in nationwide lawsuits against Obamacare mandates. But let’s look outside for a few minutes. Despite Congressional requirements, the US Department of State in May released the annual Country Reports on Human Rights without any mention whatsoever of religious oppression overseas. Continuing its defiance of Congress and its denial of the realities of Middle East Islamist oppression, the State Department simply deleted the required section on religious freedom from its report. There was method to their madness.

The administration’s fecklessness during the “Arab Spring” and fast-developing strife throughout northern Africa and the Middle East would be exposed if the truth were told with current information. So instead of including the required section on religious freedom, the Report “covered” it by referring to the 2010 International Religious Freedom Report (IRFR) and the 2010 US Commission on International Religious Freedom Report (USCIRFR). Talk about a day late and a dollar short. This is two years late, and thousands of deaths short.

The Country Report is supposed to include an up-to-date section on religious freedom and religious oppression each year since the law was enacted in 1998. But the 2012 Report would have been the first which could not ignore what is really happening in those Muslim nations which have had uprisings, revolutions and changes of government which have occurred over the past year. The Report is supposed to include a country-by-country accounting of what is good and bad in each nation that the State Department is reporting on.

This means that despite massive changes in government control in Libya and Egypt and ongoing blood-letting in Syria, where it comes to development in religions other than Islam, the Report is so out-of-date as to be meaningless. Moreover, the administration has defended its position by saying that “human rights” and religious freedom are basically the same concepts, and human rights were covered in the Report. That is the position taken by those who want complete control over every facet of life and consider religion an impediment to their agenda. Worst of all, the Report didn’t even adequately cover human rights violations which are now rampant throughout the two regions.

Religious freedom is a far smaller concern to the Obama administration than other human rights, particularly since the oppressors are Islamists and the victims Christians and Jews. The Report doesn’t even cover the conflicts between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, which seem to make things even worse. Issues such as global women’s issues have been addressed over and over, but the US official charged with protecting and reporting on religious liberty has only been in her office a couple of times in three and a half years, while the ambassador-at-large for women’s issues began working feverishly the day after Barack Obama was inaugurated.

As I mentioned above, the 2010 USCIRF Report is totally out-of-date, as is the IRFR. But nevertheless, those were the reports the State Department’s 2012 Report cited. Odd, since both the 2012 IRFR Report and the USCIRFR, which were not cited, include such tidbits as the massacre in 2011 of twenty-five Coptic Christians in Egypt during a jihadist attack on a church, and the ongoing slaughter of Christians by the Islamist thug army Boko Haram in Nigeria.

Scolder-in-Chief Obama has wagged his naughty-naughty finger at some of the goings-on during the Arab Spring, But he saved his mild admonitions for human rights and women’s rights violations. When it comes to religious freedom, he just doesn’t see a serious problem and stands by his lofty praise of Middle East tyrannies and Islam made during his Cairo speech back toward the beginning of his presidency. He has put zero pressure on either the old or new governments to protect religions other than Islam.

While bending over to kiss the hem of the Saudi king’s royal robe, Obama may have whispered “could you please be a little less harsh on women?” but nary a word about the oppression and murder of Christians, Jews and pagans throughout northern Africa and the Middle East. If you want to know what’s really going on with religious freedom in those regions, don’t rely on the US State Department to give you accurate and current information.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Army of Darkness (1992)

Army of Darkness fascinates me. This film shouldn’t work. It can’t decide if it’s serious or a comedy, which means it’s neither funny nor scary nor action-packed, and its hero is intensely unlikeable. Yet, this film works. Indeed, it’s become a cult classic because it works so well. Why does it work? Bruce Campbell.

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaFilms [+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Liberalism Is Sick

Totalitarianism and privilege runs in the blood of liberals. They want to control everyone else, but place themselves above the law. We’ve just had some classic examples of this. Observe the vile petulance of the left. . .

● S.W.A.T.ing: For some time now, prominent conservatives (including bloggers like Erick Erickson of RedState) have experienced the joys of finding the SWAT team showing up at their homes. Why? Because some liberal group has learned how to hack into the phone system and call 911 pretending to be the conservative. These calls go something like this: “I am Erick Erickson and I just shot my wife.”

Obviously, this is a crime. It is also despicable. Think about the kind of pathetic, abusive mindset someone would need to send the police screaming to someone’s house on a false murder claim? That’s Nazi-tactics. What happens when the cops show up and shoot someone by mistake? What about the emotional toll on these people’s children? Think of the people who might get killed because the police are distracted? Think of the waste of resources and the effect on the 911 system when police start doubting the veracity of calls.

But this has become the modern liberal mindset. They are abusive little Nazis who seek to instill terror in their enemies and they don’t care about the damage they do in the process. To them, it’s all legitimate -- calling out the cops, death threats by phone, mail or twitter, bomb threats to events they don’t like, property damage, arson. We have reached a point where liberals are becoming a menace to society. And something will need to be done about them. . . perhaps the old liberal favorite of re-education?

● Uncontrollable Rage: Wisconsin once again exposed the twisted emotional wreckage that is liberalism as liberals everywhere devolved into whiny rage about the election results. One guy told a camera he hopes Lt. Kleefisch dies of colon cancer. Another liberal idiot was so incapable of handling rejection that they actually slapped Dem. Candidate Tom Barrett right after he gave his concession speech. Apparently, it was Barrett’s fault the public didn’t hate Walker. . . or this liberal wanted Walker to cling to the “slim” hopes of overturning a 6.9% defeat. So much for losing with grace. Another liberal sobbed “this is the end of democracy.” How idiotic. Just because the public doesn’t agree with your view, somehow that’s the end of democracy? Someone needs a civics class. Then we have the violent Twits. They posted things like this:

KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER! Ole Bitch Ass Pig Ass Nigga!!!!

Somebody need to Abe Lincoln Scott Walker cave frog lookin ass.

I wanna kill scott walker so fucking baddd!!!!! & the racist dumb assholes that voted for him #nbs

Please somebody kill Scott Walker.

You couldn’t find a less intelligent, less hateful set of morons if you tried. And note the obvious racism. Yet liberals like to think they’re smarter? Ha. These fools can barely speak and certainly can’t think. Heck, if you want to proof of evolution, this is it -- liberals are the missing link. . . not quite human yet.

Again, frankly, it’s getting to the point that liberals need to be medicated or locked up for everyone’s good. They prove time and again that they are violent, racist creatures of hate who seek to instill terror when they don’t get their own ways. That’s called psychosis, and psychotics should be locked up for everyone’s protection.

● Heil Moochelle: Madame O has jumped on the food Nazi bandwagon once again and is expressing support for the idiotic idea of banning large drinks in New York City. This is laughable nonsense. For one thing, as with all other liberal ideas, this is unworkable. How, pray tell, do you stop someone from buying two 16 oz. drinks? Whoops, I just found the hole in the security net.

This is more evidence that liberals really are Nazis. They want to control every aspect of your life right down to how much cola you can put into a single container at a time. Think how petty that is! In fact, calling them Nazis is a bit unfair to the Nazis because they weren’t nearly the control freaks liberals are. And why am I not surprised that the people with the least grip on reality (see above) are the people most inclined to tell everyone else how to live? Pathetic.

● I Am Above The Law: Amanda Bynes (who?) is pathetic. She’s apparently an actress, though you wouldn’t know it by me, and she’s a drunk, a fool, a liar and a fascist. Two days ago she got caught DUI. Did she quietly pay her ticket like everyone else who gets caught? Heck no, she’s a liberal celebrity! Laws aren’t meant for people like her!! So first she refused to blow into the breathalyzer (which is a stupid move, especially for someone who claims they weren’t drunk). Then she took to Twitter, where all morons go to display their moronism, and she tweeted this:

“Hey @BarackObama, I don’t drink. Please fire the cop who arrested me.”

Well, honey, that’s not how the world works even for you. For one thing, your lord and master has ZERO power to fire a local police officer. You would know that if you weren’t liberal and stupid (but that is redundant). Secondly, they don’t fire people for doing their jobs just because some celebrity turd doesn’t like how they do it. But this is how liberals think: laws are meant for the little people and if you dare to apply the same law to them, well, then you need to be fired because you failed to recognize the superiority of the person you so ruthlessly treated like everyone else. What a vile little creature she is, I hope the cop sues her for something. By the way, appealing to the President to save your butt from a DUI is pretty much the definition of narcissism, another standard liberal trait.

● Who Cares About Human Life?: Patti Smith, a singer, just made a fascinating statement. For decades, liberals have whined about how any death is a tragedy and how we should go to any extent (including wrapping kids in bubblewrap) to prevent any death. But we know their willingness to take any step is selective and depends on who gets hurt and by whom. Enter Patti Smith, who is upset with Obama for continuing the war on terrorism. Why? I’ll let the callous dipsh*t explain it herself:

“[Terrorism is] not the most important issue in the world. When you think about how many people the terrorists have killed, its nothing. It’s not as many as die on a bicycle in America probably in a year or something.”

In other words, who cares, it’s only a couple people. And to make her point clear, she added this:

“I’ve said this over and over, but I’ll say it a million more times — I’m concerned more about the death of a bee than I am about terrorism. Because we’re losing hives and bees by the millions because of such strong pesticides. We can live with terrorism. We can’t live without the bee.”

Nice huh? Not only does she write off the deaths from terrorism (cost of business, I guess), but she’s more concerned about bees than the people who died. Wanna bet she believes products which might kill someone should be banned?

● Misplaced Tolerance: Finally, we have this little bit of intense hypocrisy. Janice Roberts, a 63-year old Masshole “anti-war” activist, has refused to rent an apartment to Sgt. Joel Morgan because he’s a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. So much for tolerance and so much for the lie that “we’re against war, not soldiers.”

What’s more, at the same time, over in New Mexico, the state’s Court of Appeals has ruled that a private photo studio cannot refuse service to people based on sexual orientation. The studio owner had argued that this violated his religious and moral beliefs but the court didn’t really care. This is so typical of liberal tolerance. Tolerate those whose causes you like and use the force of law to crush those whose causes you don’t.

Is it just me or does liberalism seem increasingly sick to you?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Recall! Recall! Tweet! Tweet! Bang! Bang!

After several sore losers declared that the stunning defeat of the recall effort to remove Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker “is the end of democracy” and “the end of America as we know it,” a few [hundred] non-violent tweeters put it a bit stronger. Now you must remember that Republicans use warlike rhetoric and David Axelrod has called conservatives “contract killers." So let’s take a quick look at the reasoned, peaceful way Democrats handle an electoral loss.

While the Democratic pundits ran away from the loss, blaming the disaster on “outside money,” the Supreme Court (resulting from the Citizens United case), the misalignment of Mars and Venus, distortion of the facts about public sector pay and pensions, and pretty much anything but liberalism and public sector union excesses, a few of the rank and file decided that Walker had to go. Not by recall. They tried that. They were a bit more pointed. One might think they were even a little angry and ready to implement the ever-popular leftist mantra “by any means necessary.”

Here are a few Twitter examples of how the peaceable left thinks Walker should be dealt with:

@DONTTouchTheFRO: They gone JFK Scott Walker. Shoot his mfn head off BANG BANG!!! *chief keef voice*...
@SeXXX_Symbol_: Somebody need to Abe Lincoln Scott Walker cave frog lookin ass. ...
@realwesleywess: Someone from the NRA should shoot Scott Walker in the head, GTA-style. ...
@caleb_white: Scott walker will die within the next week ive already payed for the hit ...

And here’s how they plan to get to Governor Walker through his family:

@SwaggedTf_Out: NBS I Know What School Scott Walker Son Go To


Nice, huh? I’ll be interested to see how the FBI and DHS react to all of this. The truth is, they’ll probably do nothing, with the possible exception of investigating me for writing an article containing certain key words which trigger automatic followup of “dangerous threats” used on the internet. I will note that these are equal opportunity threateners—they mentioned Democrat John Kennedy. My assessment of the intelligence level of these clowns is that they probably don’t know JFK was a Democrat who signed an executive order granting collective bargaining rights to public employees (even FDR thought that was far too radical an idea).

I believe that Barack Obama will jump into this fray immediately, just as he did to support the recall and the Democratic candidate. Which is to say, he will do absolutely nothing. I just don’t picture him calling Eric Holder into his office and ordering him to do something about threats that are direct violations of federal law. He’s too busy keeping his skirts clean for the pleasure of his radical base. And while I’m at it, did you catch the one tweet Obama did in support of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (Walker’s opponent for the recall and loser of the previous regular election)? Tweeted The One: “I stand by him.” Isn’t that the kind of thing you say after your best friend is arrested for drunk driving or a political ally has been caught online with his pants down (literally)?

Democrats have been hectoring Republicans and conservatives for “harsh language” which might result in future violence by the deranged. I am now patiently waiting for their condemnation of these Walker-haters who have gone two or three steps beyond simple harsh language. These threats aren’t even veiled. But then Scott Walker is a Republican who stepped on the toes of the unions and the something-for-nothing 99%ers, so maybe we should just overlook a little intemperate language.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...