► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Charlie Who?

by Iron Fist ( 134 Comments › )
Filed under Leftist-Islamic Alliance at January 16th, 2015 - 7:00 am

Charles Krauthammer has a piece in today’s Washington Post Taking Emporer Obama to task for Sunday’s breach of decency:

On Sunday, at the great Paris rally, the whole world was Charlie. By Tuesday, the veneer of solidarity was exposed as tissue thin. It began dissolving as soon as the real, remaining Charlie Hebdo put out its post-massacre issue featuring a Muhammad cover that, as the New York Times put it, “reignited the debate pitting free speech against religious sensitivities.”

Again? Already? Had not 4 million marchers and 44 foreign leaders just turned out on the streets of France to declare “No” to intimidation, and pledging solidarity, indeed identification (“Je suis Charlie”) with a satirical weekly specializing in the most outrageous and often tasteless portrayals of Muhammad? And yet, within 48 hours, the new Charlie Hebdo issue featuring the image of Muhammad — albeit a sorrowful, indeed sympathetic Muhammad — sparked new protests, denunciations and threats of violence, which in turn evinced another round of doubt and self-flagellation in the West about the propriety and limits of free expression. Hopeless.

As for President Obama, he never was Charlie, not even for those 48 hours. From the day of the massacre, he has been practically invisible. At the interstices of various political rallies, he issued bits of muted, mealy-mouthed boilerplate. Followed by the now-famous absence of any high-ranking U.S. official at the Paris rally, an abdication of moral and political leadership for which the White House has already admitted error.

But this was no mere error of judgment or optics or, most absurdly, of communications in which we are supposed to believe that the president was not informed by staff about the magnitude, both actual and symbolic, of the demonstration he ignored. (He needed to be told?)

On the contrary, the no-show, following the near silence, precisely reflected the president’s profound ambivalence about the very idea of the war on terror. Obama began his administration by purging the phrase from the lexicon of official Washington. He has ever since shuttled between saying that (a) the war must end because of the damage “keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing” was doing to us, and (b) the war has already ended, as he suggested repeatedly during the 2012 campaign, with bin Laden dead and al-Qaeda “on the run.”

Yeah, he’s right that Obama doesn’t take the “war on terrorism” (which really should be a war against militant Islam) seriously. He doesn’t act like a man who is trying to win anything there. He’ll make a gesture towards it from time to time, but he really doesn’t care enough about it to focus any real attention on it. Benign neglect is about the best we can hope for from Obama. With the way he is releasing prisoners from Gitmo, I think you really have to question how benign that neglect is. He continues:

Hence his accelerating release of Gitmo inmates — five more announced Wednesday — fully knowing that up to 30 percent have returned to the battlefield (17 percent confirmed, up to 12 percent suspected but not verified). Which is why, since about the Neolithic era, POWs tend to be released after a war is over.

Paris shows that this war is not. On the contrary. As it rages, it is entering an ominous third phase.

The first, circa 9/11, involved sending Middle Eastern terrorists abroad to attack the infidel West.

Then came the lone wolf — local individuals inspired by foreign jihadists launching one-off attacks, as seen most recently in Quebec, Ottawa and Sydney.

Paris marks Phase 3: coordinated commando strikes by homegrown native-speaking Islamists activated and instructed from abroad. (Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has claimed responsibility for the Charlie Hebdo killings, while the kosher-grocery shooter proclaimed allegiance to the Islamic State.) They develop and flourish in Europe’s no-go zones where sharia reigns and legitimate state authorities dare not tread.

Krauthammer doesn’t mention it, but the attack in Nairobi was another of these kind of attacks. This is another example of why you should be armed basically all the time. The only thing that could have stopped these terrorists is armed victims. Armed victims isn’t a panacea. When terrorists strike like this, people will be killed no matter what. But if they are armed, they can shoot back. They can minimize the damage caused by these kinds of attacks. At the end, Krauthammer asks the right questions:

The war on terror 2015 is at a new phase with a new geography. At the core are parallel would-be caliphates: in Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State; in Sub-Saharan Africa, now spilling out of Nigeria into Cameroon, a near-sovereign Boko Haram; in the badlands of Yemen, AQAP, the most dangerous of all al-Qaeda affiliates. And beyond lie not just a cast of mini-caliphates embedded in the most ungovernable parts of the Third World from Libya to Somalia to the borderlands of Pakistan, but an archipelago of no-go Islamist islands embedded in the heart of Europe.

This is serious. In both size and reach it is growing. Our president will not say it. Fine. But does he even see it?

I think Obama sees it. Krauthammer doesn’t ask the most important question. That question is does Obama want to see the terrorists achieve their goals? I think the answer to that is a qualified yes. He wants to see them succeed to the extent that they bring down America and Western Civilization. He doesn’t particularly want an Islamic Caliphate. Like Charles Manson thought of the blacks, Obama expects the Mohammedans to overthrow Civilization, and then ask Liberals to run their shiny New World Order. We’ll see how that works out for him.

An Open Letter to PM Tony Abbott…and Deputy PM Julie Bishop #auspol

by 1389AD ( 94 Comments › )
Filed under Australia, Dhimmitude, France, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness at January 13th, 2015 - 4:00 pm
Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop

Dear leaders,

I voted for your ‘Team Australia” at the last election. I could hardly wait to get rid of the previous Labor Governments after seeing the economic mess they had made here, as well as the mess made by their disastrous immigration policies, including the loss of lives caused by it.

It’s true you have stopped the boats but you have failed miserably in stopping our Fifth Column: the ABC – a tax-payer funded organisation that would love to see you fail and disappear into political oblivion!

As I read many blogs and websites I KNOW that many people can’t wait for you to do this.

I think, if you knew the ratings figures, you would find ‘our’ ABC is not very popular, and most Australians are not keen to see their tax dollars paying for their own destruction.

You had sufficient reasons – we are broke! The ABC/SBS can easily find sponsors for funding, and should there not be enough – well…tough! No one will miss them, will they?

This past week we have seen all too clearly just what Muslim immigration can do.

Whilst Australia has a lower percentage of Muslims it can be assumed that it only needs a small number of people to create havoc as we saw in the Lindt Coffee Shop in Sydney recently.

It is clear to me that whenever there is such an incident more often than not the perpetrators are Islamic.

Oooops, I said the ‘I’ word !!!!

If I can say it why can’t you? Why are you and other world leaders afraid of this word?

You have now begun to call ISIS the “Daesh” or “The Khorasan Group” thinking perhaps, that the majority of Australians won’t catch on, or are you avoiding offending the local Muslim community?

Why? Many of them offend us on a regular basis. We get no apology or reassurances from them – quite the contrary.

Sometimes I get a fanciful notion about conspiracy theories. and when I do I can’t help but wonder whether some faceless cabal from the UN comes to visit each newly-elected leader just to tell them: Do as we say, or else?

Please tell me I am wrong and foolish but it certainly looks that way, or something like it.

Somehow the UN has omitted telling Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Benjamin Netanyahu how to play by their rules.

Of course we all know Mr Netanyahu is World Enemy #1 in the UN’s eyes, and Vladimir Putin is The #1 enemy of NATO and the EU which is why they have spent so much time making him look positively evil.

Putin and Netanyahu have problems with Islam and they call it out when they see it.

It was the incident at Beslan that helped get Putin as much popularity as he has now. Both these leaders actually care about their citizens…a new concept, I know!

When you were going to ‘shirt-front Putin’ I saw a red flag. I know you were concerned about a missing plane and our citizens but we didn’t have enough information to jump to any definite conclusions.It showed me you were at one with the UN.

Now we have just witnessed two atrocities in France: the murder of cartoonists and the murder of hostages at a Kosher (that means Jewish) grocery store.

There has been an outpouring of support for the cartoonists: the Jewish hostages not so much!

It isn’t that long ago since WW2 ended and yet we are seeing an amazing resurgence of anti-Semitism which is most alarming.

Here’s the full list of leaders who met in France today – many have been instrumental in ruining their own countries:

French President Francois Hollande
German Chancellor Angela Merkel
British Prime Minister David Cameron
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi
Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy
Romanian President Klaus Iohannis
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker
European Parliament president Martin Schulz
European Union president Donald Tusk
Nato secretary general Jens Stoltenberg
Polish Prime Minister Ewa Kopacz
Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt
Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel
Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte Greek Prime Minister Antonis Samaras
Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny
Portuguese Prime Minister Pedro Passos Coelho
Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka
Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico
Latvian Prime Minister Laimdota Straujuma
Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borissov
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban
Croatian Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic
Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel
Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat
Slovenian Prime Minister Miro Cerar
Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven
Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko
Swiss President Simonetta Sommaruga
Kosovo President Atifete Jahjaga
Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama
Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu
Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg
Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibachvili
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz
Canadian public safety minister Steven Blaney
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman
Jordanian King Abdullah II and Queen Rania
Palestinian Authority President Mahmud Abbas
United Arab Emirates foreign minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahayan
Qatari Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani
Bahrain Foreign Minister Sheikh Khaled ben Ahmed Al Khalifa and Prince Abdullah Ben Hamad al-Khalifa
Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita
Gabonese President Ali Bongo
Niger President Mahamadou Issoufou
Benin President Thomas Boni Yayi
Tunisian Prime Minister Mehdi Jomaa
Algerian Foreign Minister Ramtane Lamamra

Russia sent a representative, and Benjamin Netanyahu went also, in spite of the fact that Monsieur Hollande told him not to! How quaint! How insulting! How very French!!!

But the French have always been appeasers.

Over the weekend, Andrew Bolt said, “Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no”:

Australia also has oppressive racial vilification laws which Prime Minister Tony Abbott had promised to relax but last year decided to keep, saying changing them would become a “complication” in making Muslim Australians side with the rest of us against jihadists.
[…]
This will go on. Be sure of it. Your ruling classes will not easily admit to having made an error that cannot now be fixed. It will prefer oppression to freedom, if that brings at least the illusion of peace — and many may even think they are right.
[…]

The French Ambassador now tells us – and as if we didn’t know…Paris attacks: French ambassador urges Australia to remember ‘the spirit of Charlie’ – video

The French ambassador to Australia, Christophe Lecourtier, tells people at a rally in Martin Place, Sydney, to keep in mind the protest ethos of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. He says those at Martin Place would be acutely aware of ‘what violence means’. Three days of bloodshed in France saw 17 people and three gunmen killed. Twelve people died at the offices of Charlie Hebdo and there were further attacks at a kosher supermarket and other sites around Paris.

Seems he can’t say the “J” word! And he can’t say the “I” word either!!

So what we have now is a situation where we must rely on our own cartoonists for the truth, and for showing principles leadership.

Mr Larry Pickering:

Halal certified Muhammad-piggie ready for roasting on a pencil spit over a pile of Qurans - and wearing nipple clamps!

Mr Bill Leak:

Bill Leak cartoon: Free speech as long as it doesn't offend - with Aussie Labor/Green senators in front

Perhaps these two gentleman would better serve the Australian public!

Oddly enough, US President Barack Hussein Obama didn’t attend with the group of world leaders. He sent his AG to France, not his VP, but Holder didn’t attend either!

Obama: ‘The Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam…’

That’s a very telling little sentence! What does he know that you don’t know?

PS: That lovely picture of you both is courtesy of Mr Larry Pickering!

Gramfan
 

Mars Presents: From The New American: Obama Hides Executive Abuses by Calling Decrees “Memoranda”

by Mars ( 170 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Communism, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Debt, Democratic Party, Energy, Fascism, government, Guest Post, Immigration, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Politics, Progressives, Regulation at January 7th, 2015 - 8:00 am

While everyone is watching and tracking his executive orders Obama is throwing out decrees left and right through Presidential Memorandas.

Despite promising repeatedly on the campaign trail to rein in George W. Bush’s executive-branch usurpations of power, Obama has been spewing a particular type of unconstitutional decree at a rate unprecedented in U.S. history. While the Obama administration has indeed unleashed a full-throated attack on the Constitution using “executive orders,” even more of his decrees have come in the form of so-called “presidential memoranda” — an almost identical type of executive action that he has used more than any previous U.S. president, according to a review published this week by USA Today.

Since taking office, Obama has issues 198 decrees via memoranda — that is 33 percent more than Bush, the runner up for the record, issued in eight years — along with 195 executive orders. Among other policy areas, Obama’s memoranda edicts have been used to set policy on gun control, immigration, labor, and much more. Just this week, Obama issued another memoranda decree purporting to declare Bristol Bay in Alaska off limits to oil and gas exploration — locking up vast quantities of American wealth and resources using his now-infamous and brazenly unconstitutional “pen and phone.”

“Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don’t require action by Congress,” reported USA Today as part of its investigation into Obama’s decrees. “They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.” However, despite the newspaper’s obvious confusion on constitutional matters — only Congress can make law, not the White House — the review raises a number of important issues.

For instance, as the paper implies, Obama has been using deception to conceal his radical — imperial or dictatorial, according to many lawmakers — machinations purporting to change policy and law by fiat. “The truth is, even with all the actions I’ve taken this year, I’m issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years,” Obama claimed in a speech last July, without mentioning that he has issued more “memoranda” than any American president in history. “So it’s not clear how it is that Republicans didn’t seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did.”

Other leading Democrats have made similarly deceptive arguments to dupe “stupid” voters, as ObamaCare’s Gruber put it. Aside from the fact that previous abuses by Republicans do not legitimize or excuse current abuses, the oft-heard claim that Obama has issued fewer “executive order” decrees than other presidents is more a matter of semantics than substance. “There’s been a lot of discussion about executive orders in his presidency, and of course by sheer numbers he’s had fewer than other presidents,” Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College, told USA Today.

“So the White House and its defenders can say, ‘He can’t be abusing his executive authority; he’s hardly using any orders,” Rudalevige continued. “But if you look at these other vehicles, he has been aggressive in his use of executive power.” Indeed, as The New American has documented extensively, Obama has been purporting to rule by executive fiat on everything from gun rights and the “climate” to immigration, education, national security, foreign relations, and health.

However, according to constitutional experts and even the president himself (before he took office), none of the “law”-making by presidential decree is actually legitimate. According to the U.S. Constitution, which created the federal government and granted it a few limited powers, only Congress has the power to make laws — assuming they are constitutional. The president’s job, by contrast, involves merely enforcing the laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, not making them up while hiding behind patently bogus claims of imagined “executive authority.”

Obama, of course, understands that well — or at least he claimed to less than seven years ago. “I taught constitutional law for ten years,” then-Senator Obama told gullible voters in 2008 amid his first run for the presidency. “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that were facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

Except rather than reversing the illegitimate usurpation of unconstitutional power, Obama expanded it by leaps and bounds — to the point where his administration openly creates pseudo-“law” and pseudo-“treaties,” and then mocks Congress about it. Among the “memoranda” used by Obama thus far was the purported creation of the MyRA “savings” scheme, a widely ridiculed and criticized unconstitutional plot that analysts said would be used to extract more wealth from Americans under the guise of “helping” them. Even Congress does not have the authority to create such a program — much less the administration.

Obama, though, regularly brags about his lawless pseudo-lawmaking. “One of the things that I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for a legislation [sic] in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” Obama announced at the beginning of the year, right before his first cabinet meeting. “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone — and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.”

Shortly after that, in his State of the Union speech to Congress, he brazenly told the American people’s elected representatives that he would ignore them if they did not promptly submit to his demands. “America does not stand still — and neither will I,” Obama threatened before lawmakers stood up and applauded the outlandish behavior. “So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.” Many lawmakers were furious, blasting Obama as a “socialistic dictator,” calling for his impeachment, and more, and the public was horrified, but the rule-by-decree continued.

Indeed, unlike his false campaign promises, Obama did indeed make good on his threats to continue ignoring Congress and the Constitution to rule by unconstitutional decree. Behaving more like a Third World dictatorship than a U.S. presidential administration, the White House even trotted out senior officials to tell the press that even the American people’s elected representatives would be unable to stop the usurpations and abuses. In addition to the “executive orders” and “presidential memoranda,” which the administration itself considers to be essentially the same, Obama has also unleashed dozens of so-called “presidential policy directives.”

Of course, there can be some legitimate functions for executive orders — outlining the manner in which the administration plans to faithfully execute the constitutional laws passed by Congress, for example. However, purporting to make and change law — or even contradict existing federal law, such as Obama’s radical amnesty-by-decree scheme supposedly preventing the enforcement of immigration law — are certainly not among those legitimate functions.

The solution to the imperial decrees and pretended acts of legislation from the White House is simple: Congress must refuse to fund it. However, despite being elected on a wave of popular outrage against the Obama administration’s usurpations of power, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle recently voted to fund virtually all of the White House’s illegal decrees through next September. The only way to put a stop to the scheming will be for an educated American electorate to hold their elected representatives accountable to the oath they swore, with a hand on the Bible, to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU. He can be reached at

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/19739-obama-hides-executive-abuses-by-calling-decrees-memoranda

Mars Presents: From the American Thinker “The Left’s Base Motive: Vengeance”

by Mars ( 120 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Bigotry, Bill Clinton, Blogmocracy, Communism, Corruption, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Fascism, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Hillary Clinton, Hipsters, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Media, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Politics, Progressives, Racism, Socialism, Tranzis at January 5th, 2015 - 8:00 am

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_lefts_base_motive_vengeance.html

This article presents a very well written analysis of something I’ve been trying to put together in my head for some time now. I’ve mentioned many times the lefts drive for vengeance in everything they do. They never grew out of the stage where they are trying to get even with everyone for some imagined slight in their past. I would go so far as to say that the difference from liberals and conservatives is that conservatives learned to “get over it” where liberals were taught they were precious little flowers and how dare they be treated that way. Anyway, for your enlightenment I am presenting this article from American Thinker. I hope everyone enjoys it as much as I did. And dreads what it portends for the next two years.

January 2, 2015
The Left’s Base Motive: Vengeance
By J.R. Dunn

American leftism has gotten an awful lot of mileage by monopolizing the moral high ground. It is the sole force in American that favors the poor. The sole enemy of racism. The sole comforter of rape victims. The sole protector of defenseless Muslims. The sole guardian of the environment, and so on ad nauseum.

It all falls apart eventually — with friends like the left, nobody needs enemies. But often overlooked is that fact that it’s bogus from the start. Any prolonged glance at the left reveals it to be an ideology of power, its major tool violence, its goal revenge.

Leftism has always been about revenge. The works of Marx are filled with fantasies of retribution and judgment. Their tone reeks of resentment and paranoia, with blame cast for even the most trivial. “The bourgeoisie,” Marx once declared in a letter to Engels, “will remember my carbuncles until their dying day.” That’s leftism in a nutshell.

The Paris communards of 1870, the first instance of an actual leftist government-in-being, immediately began shooting bourgeois on taking power, giving full rein to the European hatred for the middle class that is all but incomprehensible to Americans. That practice has been repeated by every hard left government that has ever taken power — the USSR, communist China, Castroite Cuba, Pol Pot’s Kampuchea, down to minor examples such as Bela Kun’s Hungarian “Regime of Light” (1919), which reintroduced the Roman practice of decimation.

This unvarying tendency toward atrocity suggests that all these regimes had something in common, and it’s not that they all suffered from boils. It’s the lust for vengeance — revenge for slights and crimes either real or imaginary, that can be found in every leftist from Nechaev to Bill Ayers. No less than Barack Obama spilled that when, his back apparently against the wall in 2012, he began ranting about “voting for revenge”.

This was displayed clearly enough this past holiday season.

First in the wave of bogus rape stories, brought up not to assure prosecution or to curtail such crimes, but solely as ideological weapons for use by feminists.

American leftism has always been about magnifying trivial complaints to serve as excuses for revolutionary action. The U.S. has never had a feudal system, nor a proletariat, nor any other conceivable reason for revolution. (German Marxist Werner Sombart pointed out in 1903 that the American masses already possessed what the left was promising them. His comrades badgered him mercilessly for this insight.) Instead we see trivia blown up to apocalyptic proportions — and nowhere less than in feminism. Betty Friedan hated the suburbs. Gloria Steinem served as a Playboy bunny and never got over the humiliation. They therefore set out to upend Western civilization by inflating these slights while millions of other women fastened on atrocities such as “the male gaze,” having doors opened for them, “manspreading,” and attempted pickups — or lack of the same.

The one actual atrocity available was rape, which feminists have utilized as heavy artillery — “all men are rapists”, “all sex is rape”, and the like. The latest barrage came from Tawana Dunham and Rolling Stone’s “Jackie.”

Dunham, the East Coast sophisticate’s 300-lb. “It” girl, claimed in a memoir that she had been raped by an infamous Republican while at college, while “Jackie” regaled Rolling Stone with a tale of gang rape at the hands of the always-reliable frat house.

Suffice to say not a single detail of either story help up. A “Barry” did attend Oberlin, and he was a power in local campus conservative politics, but he lacked a handlebar mustache and he’d never met Dunham. The fraternity in “Jackie’s” yarn threw no party the night in question, nor did she show any signs of suffering such an ordeal.

One of the grotesque aspects of this scandal is that nobody in the legacy media so much as alluded to the Brawley and Duke hoaxes, which in many ways were identical to these accounts. In the Brawley case a black teenage girl, afraid to return home after a late night out, claimed to have been raped by a gang of whites under degrading circumstances. A gullible media hooted the story to the skies, egged on by the “Rev.” Al Sharpton. In the Duke case, the entire lacrosse team was publicly indicted for the mass rape of a stripper brought in to entertain a stag party.

Both these stories began to collapse almost immediately, but proponents insisted it didn’t matter — white men had raped black women innumerable times before, so collective guilt demanded that someone be persecuted. As for Duke, lacrosse was an upper-class WASP sport, and the team deserved to be punished for that alone.

Dunham and “Jackie” would do well to contemplate the fates of the accusers in these hoaxes. Although Brawley’s champion Al Sharpton used the incident as his next step in clawing his way to the heights (if that’s the word) of MSNBC, Brawley herself today lives pseudonymously in Northern Virginia owing millions in legal fines. The Duke athlete’s accuser, Crystal Mangum, is serving hard time for the murder of a paramour.

Both Dunham and “Jackie” were looking for revenge for something — all that we know is that it wasn’t rape.

Even more serious — for the nation as a whole as well as those directly involved — is current racial unrest triggered by blatant attempts to manipulate racial tensions through the actions and rhetoric of Barack Obama and Eric Holder et al. Long-term efforts to decriminalize the actions of black lawbreakers, beginning with the Trayvon Martin incident and progressing to the Ferguson shooting, have dovetailed with several standard episodes of police incompetence in Cleveland and Staten Island to create as fraught a racial atmosphere as at any time since the late 60s. (So much for the “post-racial” president.) This culminated in the assassination of two police officers in Brooklyn by an unstable career criminal, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who had boasted on his Facebook page that he was out to avenge the Brown shooting by “giving wings to pigs.” (With the customary competence of the urban gangster, Brinsley shot not white officers but Wenjian Liu, an Asian, and Rafeal Ramos, a Hispanic.)

Here is a case where the leftist yearning for vengeance was reified by a maniac — a not at all uncommon occurrence. Their rhetoric and posturing brought their fantasies and desires for vengeance to life before their eyes — though certainly not in a way that they would have approved of, seeing as there can be little opportunity to exploit it. Whatever else he was, Brinsley is in no way a revolutionary hero.

The left’s entanglement with vengeance is easily understood — it has nothing else. Their messiah has failed to lead them into Eden — his policies, both domestic and foreign, have failed catastrophically one after another, leaving him nothing to show for six years as president and a nightmare gauntlet for the remainder of his term. His response — and the response of the left as a whole — amounts to little more than disjointed and incoherent actions. In the past six years, every last hope and dream of the left has been exposed — there is nothing left.

So what does the left have but vengeance? It got them this far — it will have to maintain them through the rest of Obama’s tenure, and beyond.

So it follows that we will see more of it over the coming two years. It could be argued, in fact, that a number of Obama’s recent actions amount to revenge. His immigration “reform” was punishment for a nation not worthy of him. His “opening” to Cuba acts as a punishment of Hispanics for letting him down in the midterms.

“Revenge is a dish best eaten cold”; “When seeking vengeance, be sure to dig two graves”. All the adages concerning revenge are cautionary. It’s something to be avoided, to left to fate or karma or the hands of the Almighty. This is not something to be overlooked, if the condition of Tawana Brawley and Crystal Mangum are any indication.

But the left will overlook it. They despise ancient wisdom and they don’t have an Almighty. That being the case, we should prepare for a parade of Trayvons and “Jackies”, Lenas, and Ismaaiyls.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/01/the_lefts_base_motive_vengeance.html#ixzz3Np0NHS9K
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Conservative?

by coldwarrior ( 138 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, Conservatism, Elections 2016, Libertarianism, Open thread, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, Tea Parties at January 4th, 2015 - 11:00 am

Conservative….I am pretty much to the point that I don’t know what that word means anymore. There has been serious definition creep on the meaning of that word over my life time.

When I was younger, Conservative meant the Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan wing of the GOP. It meant the fiscal hawks who railed against big debts and big government. It meant that people (and too big to fail companies) should be free to choose, free to make mistakes, and free to fail without the nanny state there to ‘help’ them; Conservative meant you would fight the progressives and ‘tax and spend liberals’ to preserve freedoms enumerated in the Constitution. Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative” was the lens by which Conservatives saw the world.

Recently, the mantle and definition of “Conservative” has been  twisted and abducted by those who would not have been “Conservative” in the past. George Bush is an example. Sure, he talked  good game but governed like a Progressive adding debt and government programs and in real terms, governing over 8 years negative wage growth, flat GDP growth, huge bailouts of failed entities, and debt debt debt. But, hey, he talked about God and claimed to be a Christian. Good enough to be a ‘Compassionate Conservative’ Whatever that means.

 

On righty blogs, anyone who is from the libertarian/fiscon Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan wing has been pushed out of the ‘Conservative Club’ for being libertarian on social issues. Its in our nature to allow people to make their own decisions and then they have to live with the consequences. If you aren’t four square against abortion, 100% behind the police, and happen to believe that states should make their own laws independent of DC then you are not Conservative, you are a libertarian Paulian Kook! So says the God Squad.

SO now, to be a Conservative all one must do is publicly natter on about Jesus and God, be totally against abortion, never believe the police can be wrong, and be OK with big government as long as the big government is doing you bidding.

 

Why am I on my horse? Mike Huckabee is going to run again as a ‘Conservative’.

My own frustration with President Obama is not merely the dramatic point of view that I have with him, between his liberal views and my conservative ones. It’s as much with his squandering the opportunity that he had that he do he said he would do … back in 2008. …

“Quite frankly governing is hard work. It requires the patience of Job, the strength of Samson, the courage of David, the perseverance of Noah, the intellect of Paul, the wisdom of Solomon, and the forgiveness of Jesus. And there is no substitute for time spent building relationships with people who don’t like you and who don’t want to work with you. In the words of that great political philosopher Mick Jagger, ‘You can’t always get what you want.’ …

Wrap your head around that statement that I highlighted.

 

[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Just like in Saudi Arabia? The founders did not have Huckabee’s attitude when they wrote the founding documents. The Constitution was written by Deists, not Evangelicals. The ‘Conservative’ Huckabee governed to the Left of Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas! Praise HIM and pass the tax and spend plate!

 

I’ll stop here because yinz can continue to Bing “Huckabee is no Conservative”, “Huckabee taxes”, Huckabee record” and read it yourselves.

The Huckster is my straw man for a larger problem on the right, both Scott Walker and Huckabee are called Conservative. One actually is, and one is a Progressive.

Huckabee is a Baptist Preacher, a hard core Progressive with a Bible who is convinced that his way is GOD’s way. He is not at all fiscon or for more personal liberties, smaller government, and state’s rights…you know, the things that founded this country  and ideas that USED to define one as a conservative. Now, I guess to be called ‘Conservative’ all one has to do is be a busybody like Huckabee.

NYPD Turns Backs on DeBlasio during Funeral

by Macker ( 1 Comment › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Communism, Crime, Headlines, Joe Biden at December 27th, 2014 - 2:35 pm

They say a picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, it’s worth three times the 49,524 remaining employees (or thereabouts), and you can guess what those three words are:

Joe The Biden™ went in place of Обама, who was too busy whipping up hatred against all police departments with rhetoric in absentia. And this was only the funeral for Officer Rafael Ramos. It’s a sure thing the same will occur at Officer Wenjian Liu’s funeral.
Read the article here.

Bill Whittle: Obama’s black skin privilege

by 1389AD ( 13 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Political Correctness, Racism at December 12th, 2014 - 3:30 pm

On YouTube:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec72dLSHRHk

Published on Dec 5, 2014 TruthRevoltOriginals
Everyone knows it is true, and no one has the courage to say it. The American people are letting Barack Obama destroy this country through illegal executive orders for one reason and one reason only. In his latest FIREWALL, Bill Whittle has the courage to speak out and make the case that no one else will make.

TruthRevolt has the transcript.

Anonymous supporter attacks a Fox News camera

by Rodan ( 213 Comments › )
Filed under Fascism, Politics at November 25th, 2014 - 9:22 pm

Last night’s riots in Ferguson was the result of an alliance of various groups. One of the main organizers of the disturbances was the online Anarchist group Anonymous. They ordered a general mobilization of their supporters and helped to coordinate the various protests across the country. In Ferguson, the Anonymous supporters wore Guy Fawkes masks and were at the forefront of the riots. They even attacked a Fox News camera!

Update: Here is another Anonymous rioter standing outside a looted store.

Anonymous Ferguson

The protestors and rioters are really an eclectic mix of Leftists and Rightists who have jumped on the Michael Brown situation to further their own pet causes. The media is not reporting this because they want a racial angle, when clearly this has evolved beyond race.

MULTICULTURALISM? …first define “culture”

by 1389AD ( 137 Comments › )
Filed under immigration, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness at November 20th, 2014 - 5:00 pm
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Harry Richardson at The Pickering Post has the story:

All of today’s Australians (even the Aboriginal people) are either migrants, or descended from people who migrated here from overseas. From the founding of the modern Australian State at Federation, until the early 1970’s, the basis of our immigration policy was more or less the same as that of the United States.

This was articulated clearly in the following letter from Theodore Roosevelt to the American Defense Society:

In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here.

Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.

This policy worked because our earliest immigrants worked hard to become Australians. The great majority were from Europe and the UK, whose cultures were quite similar to ours. Cultural harmony is no problem with harmonious cultures. Children of immigrants were almost indistinguishable from their school mates.

These immigrants turned Australia into one of the most prosperous and successful countries in the world. Sometime between the early 1970s and the early 1990s however, every “Western” nation around the world (excluding wealthy “non Western” countries such as Japan) decided to implement a previously unheard of doctrine known as multiculturalism.

In Australia, this policy was introduced in 1973 by controversial Whitlam Minister and suspected Mafia collaborator Al Grassby. The public was never consulted about this policy, and the concept of “culture” was never defined.

If you have ever been to a “cultural” festival or celebration, you would most likely have found it full of exotic spicy foods, ethnic people doing lively, interesting dances and wearing unusual and brightly coloured clothing. When we hear the term “culture,” these days, this is what immediately springs to mind.

If this were all that was meant by the term “culture,” then a multicultural human society might exist in peace and harmony. What is there NOT to like about that?

However, the flaws in this policy come into stark relief when we understand the deeper meaning of the word “culture”. This meaning is far less visible and will never be on display at any “cultural” festival, but is in fact, far more important. Culture in its deepest sense, refers to the set of values which are used by a society to determine its ethics. It is those things which a society, as a whole, considers to be right or wrong.

An example: Hindus consider it very wrong to kill a cow, whereas most Westerners are happy to enjoy a nice rump steak. For this reason, India may have laws outlawing the killing of cows, whilst we have no such law.

This has nothing to do with ethnicity or race. If you or I had grown up in a Hindu family in India then we would also probably consider killing a cow to be morally wrong. This is the basis of any culture, a set of shared beliefs in what constitutes right and wrong which are shared by one group but not another.

These values are passed on from one generation to the next by parents, religious institutions, media, schools, peers and other institutions.

Each of the different cultures has its own concept of right and wrong. There is no universal definition of what is right and what is wrong. We in the West tend to rather arrogantly assume that the Ten Commandments’ principles of not to kill, steal, cheat, or lie etc. exist in every culture but this is demonstrably not true.

In the past (and probably even today in remote areas) there have been warrior societies where killing was considered a rite of passage for all males. The Vikings were somewhat famous for glorifying rape, pillage and plunder and there are numerous examples of cultures which considered particular Western (Judeo/Christian based) “sins” to be virtues.

Going back to our original example, we cannot say that all Westerners will agree to killing cows for food, or that no Hindus will ever have a sneaky t-bone steak. However most Hindus would consider eating beef to be “wrong” and for most Westerners it is “OK”.

The doctrine of “multiculturalism” as opposed to “multi ethnicity,” dictates that groups of people with different cultures will live in one society and retain their culture, rather than trying to assimilate into the culture of the host nation.

The first problem with this lies in the fact that the laws which a society makes, and agrees to be governed by, are simply an extension of the culture of that society.

Continue reading…

You’re Stupid!

by Iron Fist ( 158 Comments › )
Filed under Politics, Progressives at November 12th, 2014 - 7:46 am

And the Democrats hate you, so vote Democrat!

Supporters of the Democratic Party have many theories to explain the drubbing they were handed on Election Day. The explanations seem to boil down to one basic proposition, however: Voters are too stupid to know what’s good for them.

Let me say it clearly: The Democratic Party will continue to underperform until it learns to take election beatings a bit more personally.

The sheer variety of theories based on the stupidity of voters is what’s so impressive. For instance, the Obama administration’s record is good, and the economy is finally doing better; but voters are too stupid to see that. Or: The policy record is poor and the economy is screwed, which is the Republicans’ fault for paralyzing Washington; and voters are too stupid to see that. Or: The policies are bad, the economy is screwed, and Democrats are to blame for failing to press the robust progressive agenda that voters want; then voters (who really are impossibly stupid) punish this lack of commitment by electing conservative Republicans.

These theories aren’t mutually exclusive, apparently. I think Paul Krugman has supported all of them at various times. Like many progressives, he’s lost count of all the ways voters are stupid.

This is the Democrat answer to the election. It is not that the voters rejected Leftism and all its works, but that they were too stupid to vote the way that they should vote. The subtext of this is “Will no one rid me of these troublesome elections?” The Left are totalitarian in mindset. Their real goal is and always has been the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship with them at the head of it. Anything else that they espouse, whether it is civil rights, gay rights, women’s rights, or what have you is simply a means to an end. You can see this all over the place. The Democrats don’t really try very hard to hide what they are. They know that they can fool 51% of the people most of the time, and that the Right is too chickenshit to come out and say The Left are EVIL, so they don’t feel like they have to hide it. Think about it. We’ve now heard this kind of refrain several times, from several different Leftist leaders, whether it is Obama’s “bitter clingers” statement or this last guy’s assertion that the voters are stupid. Think about all the things that they have said in private that we haven’t heard tapes of.

The article finishes up with this:

The constant emphasis on social injustice, economic inequality, class struggle and the existential perils of climate change advertises a far-reaching transformative ambition. Here’s the problem: Even putting aside the question of competence, U.S. voters aren’t sold on the idea of having their society transformed. They just want it made better. To be popular, the progressive agenda therefore needs to be plausibly delimited. The Democrats need to make clear what they won’t do as much as what they will. Without a clear program, that’s difficult.

It won’t do to say, “Trust us to dismantle this fundamentally broken society and build something new. You can leave the details to us.” That’s what Democrats were offering the country last week. The voters said, “No, thanks.” I wouldn’t call that stupid.

He comes at this really from a Center Left perspective (it is in Bloomberg News, after all). Even he can’t be sold on the “pass it to see what’s in it” blank check to Big Government to do whatever the hell it pleases. He doesn’t come to the same conclusion that I do, that the Democrats are evil. He still essentially sees the Democrat’s problem as a messaging problem. He is wrong. The reason the voters reject the Democrat’s position is that most Americans want a prosperous, free, and happy America. The Democrats want none of this. And the “stupid” voters are starting to see that.