► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Progressives’ Category

Follow The Money

by coldwarrior ( 53 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Energy, Marxism, Open thread, Progressives, Technology at September 23rd, 2014 - 8:00 am

Follow the money…always a good place to start:

 

What really drives anti-fracking zealots?

Author

By Paul DriessenSeptember 22, 2014 | Comments| Print friendly |

Recent news stories underscore the tremendous benefits brought by America’s fracking revolution.

  • The shale oil production boom could boost US crude production to 9.5 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) next year, reducing America’s crude oil imports to 21% of domestic demand, the lowest level since 1968. Output from fracked wells represents 43% of all US oil production and 67% of natural gas production; “frack oil” could hit 10 million bopd by 2016, the Energy Information Administration says.
  • The global economy saves $4.9 billion per day in oil spending because of the shale oil boom. Without it there would be a 3 million barrel per day shortfall and prices would likely be 55% higher: $150/barrel.
  • Constantly improving hydraulic fracturing technologies continue to increase production. For example, Cabot Oil & Gas refracked a 2013 Pennsylvania well, increasing its output to 30.3 million cubic feet of gas per day; that’s four times the output from the best well drilled in 2003. Fracking is even being used in decades-old onshore and offshore wells, to keep them producing for many more years.
  • Rust Belt cities and industries—from manufacturing, real estate and law to hotels, restaurants and many others—are rebounding because of drilling,fracking and production in nearby shale areas. In Ohio unemployment fell to 5.7% in July from 10.6% four years ago; oil output increased 26% just from the previous quarter, while gas production rose 31%—generating billions in state and local revenues.
  • The US oil and natural gas boom means jobs and business for almost 30,000 companies within the industry’s vast and complex supply chain. Indeed, the petroleum industry accounts for nearly 10 million jobs and almost 8% of all domestic economic activity, including states far from actual drilling activities.
  • The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers launched a new website to help veterans and other men and women find high-paying jobs in the booming oilfield, fuel and petrochemical industries.

Anti-fracking zealots: Follow the money—and the ideology

There are numerous other benefits, while the alleged risks are exaggerated or even fabricated. So what drives anti-fracking zealots who seem to materializeen masse whenever a new project is announced?

Follow the money—and the ideology. Big Green is big business. The US environmental activist industry alone is a $13.4-billion-a-year operation. It pours that money into determined campaigns to eliminate fossil fuels, gain ever greater control over our lives, reduce our living standards, and end free-enterprise capitalism. It drives its agenda with clever but phony crises: catastrophic climate change, unsustainable development, imminent resource depletion, poisonous frack chemicals and dozens of others.

Fracking obliterates its claim that we are about to run out of oil and gas—and so must slash our living standards, spend billions on crony-corporatist “renewable energy” schemes, and put radical green bureaucrats and activists in charge of our lives, livelihoods, living standards and remaining liberties. They are incensed that fracking guarantees a hydrocarbon renaissance and predominance for decades to come. They won’t even acknowledge that “frackgas” helps reduce (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide emissions.

Even √ºber wealthy celebrities get involved. Exaggerations and fabrications, confrontations and often callous disregard of other people’s needs are their stock in trade. In torrents of angry outrage and demands for totally one-sided precaution, they denounce any suggestion that fracking is safe or beneficial.

Whatever alternative technologies they support comply with their “precautionary principle.” Whatever they oppose violates it. They trumpet alleged risks of using fracking and hydrocarbon technologies, but ignore even the most obvious benefits of using them… and most obvious risks of not using them.

Anti-fracking zealots tend to be well-off, and largely clueless about the true sources of modern living standards. They assume electricity comes from wall sockets, food from grocery stores, iPhones from Apple Stores. You can count on one hand the farm, utility or factory workers they know personally.

They are dismissive about people who are jobless because of their war on affordable energy—and about poor rural New York families that are barely hanging onto their farms, unable to tap the Marcellus Shale riches beneath their land, because of an Albany and Manhattan-instigated moratorium.

They are equally uncaring about the world’s impoverished billions, whose hope for better lives depends on the reliable, affordable electricity that drilling and fracking can help bring. Worldwide, 1.4 billion people still do not have access to electricity including 300 million in India and 550 million in Africa. Millions die from lung and intestinal diseases that would largely disappear if they had electricity.

What the frack is wrong with this picture? This is not the same environmental movement that Ron Arnold, Patrick Moore and I belonged to decades ago. Big Green has become too rich, too powerful, too driven by perverse, inhumane notions of ethics, social responsibility and compassion. Their claims aboutethanol and wind power being environment-friendly are just as out of touch with reality.

Incessant claims that fracking contaminates groundwater and drinking water?

But what about their incessant claims that fracking contaminates groundwater and drinking water? Even EPA has not been able to cite a single “proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.” A September 2013 report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences further confirms this. After carefully examining water wells in heavily fracked areas of Pennsylvania and Texas, researchers concluded that rare cases of methane (natural gas) contamination were not due to fracking.

Instead they resulted from improper cement and pipe installation near the surface, thousands of feet above the frack zone. The problem is covered by existing regulations and is preventable and relatively easy to correct. Petroleum industry and state officials are already collaborating to further strengthen the regulations where necessary, enforce them more vigorously, and improve well completion practices.

Moreover, some of the contamination resulted from water wells being drilled through rock formations that hold naturally occurring methane. Indeed, there have been very few cases of any contamination, out of more than one million wells hydraulically fractured since the first “frack job” was done in 1947, and out of 20,000 wells fracked in Pennsylvania since the Keystone State’s boom began in 2008.

Of course, none of this is likely to assuage anti-fracking factions or end their fictions. They are driven by motives that have nothing to do with protecting people’s health or environmental quality. In fact, what they advocate would further impair human health and environmental quality.

The great Irish statesman Edmund Burke could have been talking about these “fracktivists” when he said: “Because half a dozen grasshoppers make the field ring with their importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle… chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that they are the only inhabitants of the field… or that they are other than little, shriveled, meager, though loud and troublesome, insects of the hour.”

Unfortunately, these definitely loud and troublesome insects have also grown powerful, meddlesome and effective. So fracking supporters must continue to battle the anti-energy ideologues—by becoming better community organizers and persuaders themselves, to counter the anti-fossil fuel lies and insanity, and the destructive policies, rules and moratoria imposed by ill-advised or ideological politicians and regulators.

We fracking supporters are clearly on the side of humanity, morality, true sustainability and real environmental progress. We also know that—no matter how hard eco-activists despise it and rail against it—they cannot put the fracking genie back in the bottle.

America and the world have awakened to its potential—and to the critical need for this technology. Let us applaud this incredible progress, and champion it throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and worldwide.

From this morning’s drudge:

GARBAGE MARCH FOR CLIMATE…

VIDEO: Dicaprio loses his hearing when asked about his yachts…

GOOGLE severs ties with conservative group over ‘climate change’ stance…

VIDEO: RFK Jr. refuses to give up cellphone, automobile to save planet…

Skeptics ‘should be in Hague’…

BASTARDI: ‘Nature, not man, rules climate system’…

Qatar is funding the NEXT wave of Jihad

by Iron Fist ( 93 Comments › )
Filed under Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Military, Politics at September 22nd, 2014 - 8:00 am

This is important:

The remarkable truth is that few in the Middle East would be shocked. From Hamas in the Gaza Strip to radical armed movements in Syria, Qatar’s status as a prime sponsor of violent Islamists, including groups linked to al-Qaeda, is clear to diplomats and experts.
Qatar’s promotion of extremism has so infuriated its neighbours that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates all chose to withdraw their ambassadors from the country in March.
Take Syria, where Qatar has been sponsoring the rebellion against Bashar al-Assad’s regime. In itself, that policy places Qatar alongside the leading Western powers and much of the Arab world.
But Qatar has deliberately channeled guns and cash towards Islamist rebels, notably a group styling itself Ahrar al-Sham, or “Free Men of Syria”. Only last week, Khalid al-Attiyah, the Qatari foreign minister, praised this movement as “purely” Syrian.
He added that its fighters had suffered heavy losses while combating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil), the group behind the murder of David Haines, the British aid worker, and which is holding John Cantlie and Alan Henning hostage.
Far from being a force for moderation, Ahrar al-Sham played a key role in transforming the anti-Assad revolt into an Islamist uprising. Its men fought alongside Jabhat al-Nusra, an al-Qaeda affiliate, during the battle for Aleppo and they were accused of at least one sectarian massacre.
Instead of fighting Isil, Ahrar al-Sham helped the jihadists to run Raqqa, the town in eastern Syria that is now the capital of the self-proclaimed “Caliphate”. This cooperation with Isil happened for some months until the two groups fell out last year.
Last December, the US Treasury designated a Qatari academic and businessman, Abdul Rahman al-Nuaimi, as a “global terrorist”. The US accused him of sending nearly £366,000 to “al-Qaeda’s representative in Syria”, named as Abu Khalid al-Suri.
Suri has also been a senior commander of Ahrar al-Sham. If America was right to describe him as “al-Qaeda’s representative”, then there was an overlap between the leadership of the two groups.

All of these guys are in bed together. We have no way of knowing what kind of back-door deals they have with each other. They may “fight” among themselves, and even kill people, but remember that life means nothing to these people. Killing a few (or more than a few) people in the ranks simply does not matter if it advances the Jihad. They’ll butcher their own as long as it moves the Caliphate forward.

Who is going to gainsay them? This is why we can’t fund the “Free Syrian Army”. They are all just wings of the Jihad. They are all just aspects of the real confrontation. You can’t trust any of them.

We keep making the mistake of believing that our enemies have the same morals and values as we do. They do not.

They tell us this, and we wave that away as if it doesn’t matter. They can’t really mean what they say. They say they love death. They really do. They mean what they say. They aren’t even bothering to lie to us, because they know we will deceive ourselves into believing lies that they haven’t even told us. This is important.

The Great Chicken Hawk Ad Hominem: Rule Twelve From The Alinsky List

by Flyovercountry ( 267 Comments › )
Filed under Fascism, Military, Progressives at September 18th, 2014 - 8:02 am

Once again, we’ll start this one with a definition from the Webster Dictionary.

Ad Hominem -

adjective
1.
appealing to one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one’s intellect or reason.
2.
attacking an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

The second piece of reference I’d like to use as a preface would be rule 12 from Saul Alinsky’s, “Rules For Radicals,” which is the official play book of the political left.

RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

Now, we’ll let Andrew Klavan tell you what those using the Chicken Hawk charge are really saying when they employ this tactic. This is as timely today as it was 5 years ago when he produced the video for PJTV.

The charge of Chicken Hawk is that anyone who has not served in our armed forces and advocates a foreign policy position that would see a deployment of our military, is a coward and a hypocrite. Simply put, only people who have ever served in our military should be listened to when any topic of appropriate usage of our military is discussed.

This of course, is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, dressed in fancy clothing, and trotted out as the same weak substitute for substantive debate. It does nothing to address the arguments that one may have given in support of military force, and even worse, the argument itself is a true sign of cowardice. Rather than engaging in the actual topic at hand, the employer of the ad hominem attacks the character of his debate opponent. We see this constantly from the political left, in fact, I’d call it the mainstay argument. Sarah Palin, despite being 100% correct with every statement she made during the 2008 Presidential Campaign, is stupid. Mitt Romney, despite being 100% correct about every statement he made during the 2012 Presidential Campaign is an evil plutocrat. Ronald Reagan was dumb. George W. Bush is dumb. Barry Goldwater was crazy. Richard Nixon was evil. John McCain is senile. Apparently, I’m a Chicken Hawk. This tactic is employed when the person using it feels incapable of substantive debate. In the case of the Chicken Hawk charge, the person employing it has failed to detail his position as to why military force would not be appropriate. End of story.

As you may have guessed, I was called out as a Chicken Hawk yesterday, because of this post. Now, it is possible that a counter to my argument exists, and I would be willing to consider that argument, but the Chicken Hawk cowardice is quite simply a cop out, or as Mr. Klavan put it so eloquently, nothing more than shut uppery. Why don’t we put that aside however, simply for the sake of argument. Let’s follow the charge, such as it is, to its illogical conclusion.

First, let’s think about the concept that only people with experience or expertise in specific areas of discipline be allowed to voice opinions on those areas of debate. When discussing tax policy, should CPA’s for example, be the only group of citizenry allowed to have input? Should Doctors and Nurses be the only ones allowed to vote as to whether or not Obamacare be adopted as the law of the land? In this, only-some-of-our-citizens-get-a-voice Universe, who gets to pick and choose what gravitas is necessary for an opinion? Will it extend to the ballot box?

There’s something else to consider. The person who employs this tactic also appoints himself the defacto spokes person for the military. This brings up another pet peeve of mine, argumentation devoid of any substance beyond an appeal to authority. This is the statement made during a debate in which the person debating will simply declare that debate is over, because he is an expert in the field. The problem with this on line of course, is that anyone can claim to be anything they want. You may remember for instance, when two middle aged white, and coincidentally male, college professors ran the two most popular lesbian blogs on the internet. They had dishonestly set themselves up as experts on all things related to the woes of lesbianism, and their word was accepted as gold, up until the two geniuses outed each other. If someone truly were an expert, than substantive debate should be an easy peazy lemon squeazy thing to bring off. Even more bizarre however, is that this defacto claim to speak for the military flies in the face that members of the military are able to speak for themselves. They may not according the the UCMJ be allowed to publicly advocate a political position on certain matters, but they speak through their vote. The military’s voting record as a whole, has been extremely tilted towards the conservative view point for a long time. This tilt has been about 80/20 since polling has been conducted. This disparity is in fact so large, that anyone who presents himself as a liberal veteran, while it may be possible, is immediately suspect in my estimation. More often than not, those calling out others as Chicken Hawks are usually people who by and large have real antipathy for the military, and are almost always advocating a position in fact which is 180 degrees out of sync with how most members of our armed services actually feel. In reality, those shouting Chicken Hawk are very often the same fine folks who spend vast amounts of energy and effort trying to disqualify the military vote in every national election, thus disenfranchising those for whom they claim to speak.

Let’s take it even further down this road. The Chicken Hawk argument, as stupid as it is, also pushes for something else. It is a demand for the military to be guided not by civilian control, as per Article II Section 2 of our Constitution, but to be placed instead under its own supervision and direction. The military of the United States has always, since the inception of our nation, been a tool of civilian political policy. This is one of the things which limits the military’s ability to make our nation a police state, not that I would accuse my fellow citizens of such intention, but the institution is in place for a reason. Military juntas do exist around the globe, and for the most part, the people who live in them are constantly trying to leave for a life in our nation, or some where else in a more free society. I find it ironic that people who mainly hate the military are the ones advocating for our nation to become a military junta. In fact, I find it down right hilarious.

As debate opponents go, I find anyone using the words Chicken Hawk to be the least worthy of my time, for the reasons stated above. It’s dishonest, foolish, cowardly, and does nothing to address anything even remotely related to a substantive point. In other words, it’s a typical leftist argument.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

The LEGO Movie: Emergent order wins, centralized planning fails

by 1389AD ( 121 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Economy, Fascism, Hipsters, Movies, Regulation, taxation at September 9th, 2014 - 5:00 pm

EconPop – The Economics of The LEGO Movie

Published on Jul 29, 2014 by Econ Stories
All new episode! Click to share: http://ctt.ec/myUJ0

In this episode of EconPop, Andrew discusses the animated hit comedy The LEGO Movie. Subjects include emergent order, creative destruction, and central planning.

EconPop is the YouTube series that sifts through the haystack of popular culture to find the needle of economics within… and then stabs you with it!

Starring comedian Andrew Heaton, EconPop takes a surprisingly deep look at the economic themes running through classic films, new releases, tv shows and more from the best of pop culture and entertainment. Heaton brings a unique mix of dry wit and whimsy to bear on the dismal science of economics and the result is always entertaining, educational and irreverent. It’s Econ 101 meets At The Movies, with a dash of Monty Python.

A Production of http://emergentorder.com

Produced in Association with The Moving Picture Institute. http://thempi.org

Moderate Islam Is Multiculturalism Misspelled

by lobo91 ( 54 Comments › )
Filed under Guest Post, Islam, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Progressives at September 7th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Guest Post from Aussie Infidel:

I’ve come across an article that seems to distill a lot of diverse threads into a single all embracing idea. I found it quite insightful clever and profound and I wanted to share it amongst the denizens of The Blogmocracy. I think this article is powerful enough to have an outing with a thread of its own.

Ever wonder how a progressive refuses to condemn some 7th. Century head-chopping clone, when logically the secular left are the first to be slaughtered?
How about explaining how normally rational people, who are progressives, refuse point blank to even engage when evidence is placed in front of them ?
How do nominally rational political and religious elites, both progressive and even conservative, process information that causes them to suffer cognitive dissonance?
Have you even attempted to rationally debate a progressive face to face and have you been shocked by their emergent hatred that seems to come from nowhere ?

You can read the reasons why nominally sane people behave the way they do here:

I have been searching for moderate Islam since September 11 and just like a lost sock in the dryer, it was in the last place I expected it to be.

There is no moderate Islam in the mosques or in Mecca. You won’t find it in the Koran or the Hadiths. If you want to find moderate Islam, browse the newspaper editorials after a terrorist attack or take a course on Islamic religion taught by a Unitarian Sociologist wearing fake native jewelry.

You can’t find a moderate Islam in Saudi Arabia or Iran, but you can find it in countless network news specials, articles and books about the two homelands of their respective brands of Islam.

You won’t find the fabled land of moderate Muslims in the east. You won’t even find it in the west. Like all myths it exists in the imagination of those who tell the stories. You won’t find a moderate Islam in the Koran, but you will find it in countless Western books about Islam.

Moderate Islam isn’t what most Muslims believe. It’s what most liberals believe that Muslims believe.

The new multicultural theology of the West is moderate Islam. Moderate Islam is the perfect religion for a secular age since it isn’t a religion at all.

Without a moderate Islam the Socialist projects of Europe which depend on heavy immigration collapse. America’s War on Terror becomes the endless inescapable slog that the rise of ISIS has once again revealed it to be. Multiculturalism, post-nationalism and Third World Guiltism all implode.

Without moderate Muslims, nationalism returns, borders close and the right wins. That is what they fear.

If there is no moderate Islam, no moderate Mohammed, no moderate Allah, then the Socialist Kingdom of Heaven on Earth has to go in the rubbish bin. The grand coalitions in which LGBT activists and Islamists scream at Jews over Gaza aren’t the future; they’re the Weimar Republic on wheels.

The true moderate Muslims are secular liberals of loosely Christian and Jewish persuasion who have invented and believe in a moderate Islam that doesn’t exist outside of their own heads. This secular Islam, which values all life, is dedicated to social justice and universal tolerance, is a counterpart of their own bastardized religions. And they are too afraid to wake up and realize that it doesn’t exist.

When American and European leaders insist that Islam has nothing to do with the latest Islamic atrocity, they are not referencing a religion practiced by Muslims, but an imaginary religion that they imagine Muslims must practice because the alternative is the end of everything that they believe in.

Their moderate Islam is light on the details, beyond standing for social justice, fighting Global Warming and supporting gay rights, because it is really multiculturalism wearing a fake beard. When a Western leader claims that the latest batch of Islamic terrorists don’t speak for Islam, he isn’t defending Muslims, he’s defending multiculturalism. He assumes that Muslims believe in multiculturalism because he does.

Moderate Islam is just multiculturalism misspelled. Its existence is a firm article of faith for those who believe in multiculturalism.

The moderate Muslim is an invention of the liberal academic, the secular theologian, the vapid politician and his shrill idiot cousin, the political activist. Like the money in the budgets that underpin their plans and the scientific evidence for Global Warming, he does not exist.

And it is not necessary that he should exist. It is only necessary that we have faith in his existence.

The degraded lefty descendants of Christians and Jews wait for a moderate Muslim messiah who will reconcile the impossibilities of their multicultural society by healing the conflicts between Islam and the West. Until then they find it necessary to believe, not in a divinity, but in the moderate Muslim.

Read it all

The Myths Of Minimum Wage

by Bunk X ( 42 Comments › )
Filed under Communism, Economy, Fascism, Liberal Fascism, Politics, Progressives, Socialism, unemployment at September 7th, 2014 - 12:29 am

Minimum Wage graph Poverty Level BS

My eyes glazed over when I saw that graphic, because there are no numbers or statistics to back up that arbitrary wiggly line and its specious claim. It’s pure socialist propaganda. Ready for some unadulterated reality?

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 1979-2012 minimum wage jobs comprise an average of about 60% of all hourly jobs for any given year, but guess what percentage of workers over the age of 16 make minimum wage or less?

In 2012 a whopping 4.7 per cent of the working population above the age of 16 earned at or below minimum wage nation-wide. In California, only 1.4 per cent.

[Source: www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted 20130325]

Why such a small percentage? Because the majority of those workers are in transition to better jobs, better pay, and the minimum wage jobs have an unsurprisingly high turnover rate. Who wants to scrub pots at Denny’s for the rest of their life, let alone for more than a year?

Which industries employ the majority of minimum wage earners?

Minimum Wage Bar Chart by Industry

[Source: www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2013/ted_20130325 ]

Agriculture is relatively insignificant, especially once you combine the Service/Retail percentages, and note that the Federal Government employs very few minimum wage earners.

Now let’s look at the make up of the minimum wage workforce, the nebulous 4.7 percent.

2013 Census Table 7

[Source http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2012tbls.htm#7]

Now let’s examine the age makeup of the 4.7 percent who make minimum wage or less.

Minimum Wage graph 1 ALL

Note that many workers in restaurants and hotels (waiters, waitresses, busboys, bellhops, etc.) often receive less than minimum wage, as they’re expected to make up the rest in tips. Tips account for a large percentage of income and workers typically earn more than minimum wage, sometimes a lot more in upscale venues. Since tips are un-monitored cash transactions, much of that income goes unreported. Let’s break it down a tad further.

The prevailing federal minimum wage in 1979 was $2.90, $3.10 in 1980, and $3.35 in 1981-89. The minimum wage rose to $3.80 on April 1, 1990, to $4.25 on April 1, 1991, to $4.75 on October 1, 1996, to $5.15 on September 1, 1997, to $5.85 on July 24, 2007, to $6.55 on July 24, 2008, and to $7.25 on July 24, 2009. When I checked Minimum Wage Job Numbers and correlated them with Minimum Wage Increases I found none, which suggests that employers covered the increased overhead with higher prices for goods and services in order to stay in business, and the costs were passed down to the consumer. The low income population takes another hit.

Minimum Wage graph 3 PCT Men and Women

Blue is for boys, pink is for girls. Statistics are not sexist.

I’m not an economist, and I’m also not a CPA, but I suspect the IRS gets something out of this scenario because the basic illogic of raising the minimum wage, especially in a sluggish economy, escapes me.

Who else benefits? Union leaders, long-march socialists and politicians whoring for votes.

Aside from the fact that the majority of the poor do not remain poor indefinitely (any more than the majority of the wealthy stay wealthy) raising the minimum wage gives people an incentive not to advance. If a worker finds that minimum wage meets or surpasses his/her current expenses, why not ride with it a few more years? The problem with that scenario is that the worker is not improving his/her resumé for those valuable “few years,” and by the time they realize it, they are years behind those who abandon minimum wage jobs, pick up new valuable skills, and naturally earn more. Those who choose to remain in low-skilled positions deny recent graduates the opportunity to find work, and the ladder to prosperity becomes stagnant.

Another scenario is of a family who needs a secondary income to give them a financial cushion during the expensive child-rearing years; or perhaps an elderly couple may not have saved enough for their retirement because their investments tanked; or simply because they choose not to retire.

Wage and price control is a socialist/fascist concept that has never worked because it creates more problems than it solves, and the problems it attempts to solve are non-existent in the free market. Pay a worker for the value of his/her work, and if there aren’t enough workers for the job, then you’re paying too little. Nobody wants to be a buck an hour pot scrubber for the rest of their life, but we’re still talking about only 4.7 percent of the working population, and most of those workers are moving up the ladder uninhibited.

There is also a macro-scenario that has to do with illegal immigrants and the Cloward-Piven Strategy that aims to overwhelm a stable government with free services provided and paid for by successful corporations, entrepreneurs and the common man, fomenting economic collapse and allowing Socialism/Communism/Fascism to prevail.

This road has always led to mass murder, without exception.

May God help our children and grandchildren if the progressives succeed.

Bunk

Want To Know What Causes Islamophobia? Islam Causes Islamophobia!

by Flyovercountry ( 142 Comments › )
Filed under Al Qaeda, Fascism, Islam, Islamists, Leftist-Islamic Alliance at September 5th, 2014 - 10:00 am

As a public service announcement, and because I haven’t done it in a year, I’d just like to remind everyone that when you see this bumper sticker on an automobile,

Get your camera out and contemplate asking the vehicle’s driver for an autograph. You’re in the presence of museum grade stupidity.

Now, on to my point.

Click here.
Click here.
Click here.
Click here.
Click here.
Click here.
Click here.
Click here.
Click here.

While the Muslims who make up ISIS establish their Islamic Caliphate in Syria and Iraq, further promising to fly their flag one day on the top of the White House Flag Pole, we have debates about whether or not we should be doing something as egregiously bigoted as linking Islam to the acts of terror performed by Muslims establishing an Islamic Caliphate. As Yazidi Christians are slaughtered whole sale, heads placed on pikes for that extra special home decor touch that no Islamic home is complete without, our national leaders promise to prosecute the guilty to the fullest extent of the same law that meant so much to them in the first place, that they felt emboldened to the point of openly placing heads on pikes. I do not think words can describe the depth of naivete it takes to treat our ongoing war with Islamic Supremacists as though it were an ongoing law enforcement effort. They are not impressed with the horde of prosecuting attorneys and FBI criminologists that have teemed their shores and taken up the task of gathering evidence for acts that they’ve openly bragged about on youtube videos.

As I’ve said repeatedly, six of the seven groups above are perfectly capable, and indeed compassionately willing to, “COEXIST,” with one another. The first group on that iconic display of weapons grade idiocy however is not. In fact, they have a religious belief, practiced with a fevered pedantic bloodlust, that they are bound by a duty to their deity to convert, enslave, or kill the other 6 groups called out on that graphic. The logical gymnastics used to morally equate the picketers standing too close to Abortion Clinics with the savagery of those blowing up school buses filled with seven year old children would be worthy of song, were it not so infuriating. Clearly, we need another Obama speech delivered from Cairo or the Brandenburg Gate in order to combat this evil. Perhaps, if we’re lucky, he’ll be sure to tell us all how much angrier than we are he is, and how he’ll get to the bottom of how such evil has been allowed to flourish, against his express edicts to the contrary, in those places where he’s personally created a power vacuum.

Many of my fellow conservatives have been having a field day in calling out our President for being completely disengaged. I say, be careful what you wish for, it just may come true. Personally, I like my Obama disengaged. I want him playing golf, and personally hope he gets in at least 18 holes each and every one of his days left in office. He’ll do less damage that way. I’d love for example, for the Pentagon to be allowed to establish rules of engagement for our military without the input from the Obama Administration, too busy partying it up like rock stars to get involved with such matters of limited import. I’d love to see an economy be given a chance to flex its own recuperative muscles, unfettered by a President too busy playing Basketball with NBA stars to put his pen and cell phone to work, creating more regulation via executive order.

When he’s not vacationing, Barack Obama says things like this in his speeches.

The world must not belong to those who slander the Prophet Mohamed. The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet Mohamed.

Somehow, I haven’t noticed any of the classic signs of that Muslim fist unclenching yet. I see no evidence that the Jihadis around the globe took those well spoken words proclaiming kumbayah my lord as their signal to lay down their well honed intention to kill the rest of us. In fact, things seem to have gotten worse. It’s almost as if they saw how completely inept and weak our Chief Executive was, and decided to accelerate their holy war designed to drench the world in infidel blood. But that couldn’t be, we’re armed to the teeth with COEXIST bumper stickers and clever hash tag campaigns.

I learned two things yesterday that I never, in one Million years would have been able to guess. One, Barack Obama is angrier than I am at the brutal beheading of an American Journalist being posted to youtube by this latest group of misunderstood social workers practicing that variety of Jihad that isn’t an inner struggle to conquer the evil that lives within all of us. Two, he’s going to get to the bottom of it all. Hence the exhaustive investigation to confirm that which we’ve been told via endless youtube videos from those peace loving guys in no way connected to Islam, who do their brutal deeds while shouting Allahu Akhbar.

I saw a video the other day of Bernie Sanders holding a town hall meeting in his home state. A woman in the audience screamed out that Hamas was a social service organization. I’d be willing to bet One Million Dollars that she has a COEXIST bumper sticker on her car.

Cross Posted from Musings of Mad Conservative.

Mars Attacks: Oops WSU Deadly Force Racism Study Doesn’t Follow the Script

by Mars ( 66 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Bigotry, Blogmocracy, Crime, Democratic Party, DOJ, Education, Eric Holder, Free Speech, Guest Post, Hate Speech, Political Correctness, Politics, Racism, Second Amendment at September 4th, 2014 - 8:00 am

Apparently Washington State University wanted to find out why racial “minorities” are shot more often in police incidents. The study did not go quite as the liberals in this country would have wanted it to. My explanation why the disparity exists will be at the end of the article.

WSU ‘deadly force’ lab finds racial disparities in shootings
Blacks more feared, but shot less quickly

SPOKANE, Wash.—Participants in an innovative Washington State University study of deadly force were more likely to feel threatened in scenarios involving black people. But when it came time to shoot, participants were biased in favor of black suspects, taking longer to pull the trigger against them than against armed white or Hispanic suspects.

The findings, published in the recent Journal of Experimental Criminology, grow out of dozens of simulations aimed at explaining the disproportionate number of ethnic and racial minorities shot by police. The studies use the most advanced technology available, as participants with laser-equipped guns react to potentially threatening scenarios displayed in full-size, high-definition video.

The findings surprised Lois James, lead author and assistant research professor at Washington State University Spokane’s Sleep and Performance Research Center. Other, less realistic studies have found people are more willing to think a black person has a gun instead of a tool and will more readily push a “shoot” button against a potentially armed black person.

The findings also run counter to the public perception, heightened with the recent shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., that police are more willing to shoot black suspects. Statistics show that police shoot ethnic and racial minorities disproportionately to their population.

But the last comprehensive look at the racial makeup of justifiable and non-justifiable shootings was a 2001 study (pdf) using more than two decades of U.S. Bureau of Justice data, said James. And while statistics show black suspects are shot at more frequently than white suspects, the 2001 study found black suspects were also as likely to shoot at police as be shot at.

“At the moment, there are no comprehensive statistics on whether the police do inappropriately shoot at black males more than they do at white males,” said James. “Although isolated incidents of black males being shot by the police are devastating and well documented, at the aggregate level we need to understand whether the police are shooting black unarmed males more than they are white unarmed males. And at the moment, nobody knows that.”

Shootings in the field are particularly difficult to study because they can have a multitude of complex, confounding and hard-to-control variables. But WSU Spokane’s Simulated Hazardous Operational Tasks Laboratory can control variables like suspect clothing, hand positions, threatening stance and race, while giving observers precise data on when participants are fired upon and how many milliseconds they take to fire back.

James’ study is a follow-up to one in which she found active police officers, military personnel and the general public took longer to shoot black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects. Participants were also more likely to shoot unarmed white suspects than black or Hispanic ones and more likely to fail to fire at armed black suspects.

“In other words,” wrote James and her co-authors, “there was significant bias favoring blacks where decisions to shoot were concerned.”

When confronted by an armed white person, participants took an average of 1.37 seconds to fire back. Confronted by an armed black person, they took 1.61 seconds to fire and were less likely to fire in error. The 24-millisecond difference may seem small, but it’s enough to be fatal in a shooting

The recent study analyzed data from electroencephalograph sensors that measured participants’ alpha brain waves, which are suppressed in situations that appear threatening.

The participants, 85 percent of whom were white, “demonstrated significantly greater threat responses against black suspects than white or Hispanic suspects,” wrote James and her co-authors, University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist David Klinger and WSU Spokane’s Bryan Vila. This, they said, suggests the participants “held subconscious biases associating blacks and threats,” which is consistent with previous psychological research on racial stereotypes.

However, the current study only measured the alpha waves of participants drawn from the general public, not law enforcement or the military. Consequently, wrote the authors, “results from this sample are not generalizable to sworn officers.”

“However,” they added, “there is some evidence from the field to support the proposition that an officer’s threat bias could cause him or her to tend to take more time to make decisions to shoot people whom they subconsciously perceived as more threatening because of race or ethnicity. This behavioral ‘counter-bias’ might be rooted in people’s concerns about the social and legal consequences of shooting a member of a historically oppressed racial or ethnic group.”

James said she has data on subconscious associations between race and threat from law enforcement subjects, and she awaits funding to analyze whether these biases predict decisions to shoot in the simulator. Like study participants from the general public, she said, “they were still more hesitant to shoot black suspects than white suspects. They took longer and they made fewer errors.”

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2014-09/wsu-wf082914.php

Ok, has anyone here figured out the real reason more “minorities” are shot in police incidents even though this study shows the opposite should occur? It’s pretty simple, the reason is right in the article, buried under a bunch of other information. Here’s the money quote.

the 2001 study found black suspects were also as likely to shoot at police as be shot at.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. Right in the article it shows that a previous study proved that black suspects were far more likely to shoot at the police than any other group. Yet, somehow with that information there is still a mystery here that this research team needs Scooby and the gang to help figure out. Oh, and maybe the bit about police thinking that african americans might be more violent. Well, I’m not sure where they would get that Idea.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228479.pdf

In 2008, although black youth account­
ed for just 16% of the youth population
ages 10–17, they were involved in 52%
of juvenile Violent Crime Index arrests
and 33% of juvenile Property Crime
Index Arrests

http://ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/JAR_Display.asp?ID=qa05261

The Violent Crime Index arrest rate in 2011 for black juveniles (627) was 5 times the rate for white (125) youth, 6 times the rate for American Indian juveniles (105), and 15 times the rate for Asian juveniles (41).
In the 1980s, the Violent Crime Index arrest rate for black juveniles was 6 times the white rate. This ratio declined during the 1990s, holding at 4 to 1 from 1998 to 2004. Since 2004, the racial disparity in the rates increased, reaching 5 to 1 in the late 2000s.

My advice to people is if you want the cops to stop shooting your minority group “youths”, then you should get your children to stop killing cops and other people. It would go a long way to changing the perception of potential violence seen by the police responding.

I’m trying to put this information out there without coming off insensitive, but I think we’ve hit the point where the majority of violent crime is committed by one group in this country, and that same group screams racism anytime that the police are forced to stop a violent criminal. I don’t get how this solves anything. Believe me when I say that 99% of the police out there have no interest in killing someone. That is a situation that leaves scars that few ever fully recover from. (Their leadership with their militarization goals are something else entirely, it’s always easier when you aren’t the one pulling the trigger.) If people would take the time to stop blaming others for doing their job and actually take the time to engage with their own families (or in many of these cases even admit that they have a family) a lot of this could be solved.

GOP Messes It Up Yet Again

by coldwarrior ( 242 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Election 2014, Politics, Republican Party, RINOcracy, taxation, Tea Parties, Unions at September 2nd, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Kiss Pennsylvania Good Bye in November. We will have a Democrat in the Governor’s Mansion because the GOP refuses to be fiscally conservative. The following article is how not to win in PA. We want to be left alone, not to be taxed too much, we want smaller government; the establishment GOP screwed the pooch here. Gov Corbet and the party elite have angered the Fiscon base to the point that what should be an easy win for Corbet will be a loss, and a big one. They managed to beat the motivation to get out and vote out of the Republicans.

Read My Lips, No New Taxes…he said.

 

 

Anatomy of a GOP Disaster: Losing Pennsylvania

Governor Corbett has lost support by raising taxes and giving ground to public-sector unions.

All over the country Republican governors are either poised for easy reelection (such as Ohio’s John Kasich and Nevada’s Brian Sandoval) or running even or better against Democrats (Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Florida’s Rick Scott). Then there is Governor Tom Corbett in Pennsylvania. The latest independent poll has him down a shocking 49 percent to 24 percent (with a quarter of voters undecided) against Democrat Tom Wolf.

How did Corbett become such an outlier? The answers show just how much trouble Republicans get into if they allow machine politics and public-sector unions to dictate their agenda.

Corbett aides quickly attacked the messenger, sending out tweets dismissing the recent poll, from Franklin & Marshall College.

“You are unfairly influencing this election with bad polls,” claimed Corbett campaign manager Mike Barley. But no such complaints came from Team Corbett when F&M showed then–attorney general Corbett winning the governor’s race easily in 2010. In addition, other polls confirm the governor’s dire political condition: The Real Clear Politics average of all recent polls in the race show Corbett down by 17 points. That’s in a state that Mitt Romney lost by only five percentage points in 2012.

Corbett has gotten himself into this fix in two ways: First, F&M pollster G. Terry Madonna noted that four years ago Corbett ran against the political culture of Harrisburg, the state’s capital, and “its cliques, obstructionist tactics, recurring corrupt behavior, and anti-reform ethos.” But he has consistently failed to get the major parts of his agenda through a legislature controlled by his fellow Republicans. Madonna pointed out that this leads to an obvious question: “Why can’t Corbett work with his own party?”

That question leads to the second reason for Corbett’s collapse. Pennsylvania is indeed an anti-reform state. Though once dominated by a GOP machine, it gave way to a Democratic-run machine with the advent of the New Deal. Now, the Keystone State is dominated by public-sector employee unions with their hooks buried deep inside both parties.

Time and time again, Corbett’s agenda was blocked by key Republicans in the legislature. His effort to pass school vouchers was whittled down to a measly $75 million increase in tax credits for private schools. His bid to finally privatize the state’s antiquated system of state liquor stores was thwarted. Ethics reform was dead on arrival. This year, Corbett lashed himself to the mast and vowed to steer public-employee pension reform to passage. “Sixty-two cents of every new dollar in revenue, goes to the pensions,” he told groups up and down the state. His proposal to change the pension plans for all new state and public-school employees ran aground when the GOP state house blocked it.

Corbett’s conservative allies urged him to press for “paycheck protection” — blocking the state from deducting union dues from state-worker paychecks — as the key to overriding union influence in the legislature. “Wisconsin’s Scott Walker and Michigan’s Rick Snyder have both demonstrated how union power can be curbed by ending the union-only deduction-for-politics privilege,” Matt Brouillette, president of the state’s conservative Commonwealth Foundation, told me.

But at a pro-reform meeting of the Associated Builders & Contractors of Pennsylvania this spring, Corbett gave “paycheck protection” only a passing reference in his speech. When pressed by a member of the audience, he mumbled, “I’ve told everyone, if you get that bill on my desk, I’ll sign it.” But he made no special lobbying effort for the measure, just as he allowed his political team to discourage primary challenges to pro-union GOP legislators in the 2012 midterm elections. Paycheck protection died this summer. “We took an internal GOP caucus vote, and we were a few votes short in the house,” atate representative Richard Saccone told me at an Independence Hall Association event in Philadelphia this July 4th. “The unions have powerful influence on a few of our members.”

Governor Corbett’s failure to either anticipate the intransigence of some of his GOP legislators or build outside pressure on them has been compounded by his retreat on the pledge he made in 2010 not to raise taxes or fees. Earlier this year, he angered conservatives when he raised a wholesale tax on gasoline as well as a bevy of motorist fees as part of a business-as-usual transportation bill. Unsurprisingly, he has declined to repeat his pledge this year. “We can imagine what that would mean in any second term under Corbett: higher taxes,” conservative activist Bob Guzzardi tells me. Guzzardi tried to run against Corbett in this year’s GOP primary, but his petitions were challenged by four Corbett supporters and he was thrown off the ballot. Despite Guzzardi’s lack of money, Corbett clearly perceived him as a threat. A Gravis Marketing poll in January of this year found that when GOP primary voters were asked if they wanted to reelect Corbett or go for a new GOP nominee, 41 percent plumped for a new candidate and only 38 percent stuck with Corbett. In a hypothetical matchup, Guzzardi trailed Corbett, 42 percent to 23 percent, with a full 35 percent undecided.

Corbett’s problems with his base have continued. Last week’s F&M poll found that he doesn’t even command majority support among Republicans, leading Democrat Wolf by just 48 percent to 24 percent. Astonishingly, while Republicans nationwide are more motivated to vote than Democrats, in Pennsylvania it’s Democrats who are four points more likely to say they are certain to vote this fall.

Pennsylvania conservatives have often shown in the past they want more principled and effective leadership. In 2012, tea-party activist Cris Dush came within 500 votes of beating house speaker Sam Smith in a GOP primary, prompting Smith to retire this year. Dush went on to win this spring’s GOP primary to replace Smith.

The challenge Pennsylvania conservatives will face after Governor Corbett’s likely loss is how to deal with an anti-reform legislature that is apt to remain under GOP control thanks to creative gerrymandering. In the past, too many conservatives have cut them slack and allowed the party to retain quiet insider control in Harrisburg. But Corbett’s loss would be a wake-up call that the status quo is dragging Pennsylvania’s economy down and alienating the Republican party’s base.

A new approach is required. Democrat Wolf, a former finance secretary under Democratic governor Ed Rendell, has publicly said he plans to circumvent the state’s constitutional requirement that its income tax be one flat rate. Wolf won’t disclose details of his plan for a “progressive” tax regime, but its implementation could include some Obama-like dubious assertions of executive power. If Pennsylvania Republicans don’t start holding their leaders accountable by demanding pension reform and preserving the state’s flat 3.07 percent income-tax rate, they could see the state going the way of bankrupt Illinois, which has become a sordid example of just how much damage political machines in both parties can do to a once-proud state.

— John Fund is national-affairs correspondent for NRO.

So, Yeah, the NRSC has made a game

by Mars ( 61 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Blogmocracy, Democratic Party, Election 2014, Entertainment, Guest Post, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Media, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party at September 1st, 2014 - 8:07 pm

Guest post from Mars:

 

While stumbling the internet today I came across an article about how the National Republican Senatorial Campaign had made a game. So, I of course had to check it out. You can look at it here.

I went to missionmajority.com and gave it a try. While enjoyable the game will invite ridicule on several fronts. One, they attempted to jump on the current 8-bit game fad. In recent years 8-bit style games have made a huge comeback and are the favorites of indy developers. However, it’s pretty obvious from the comments I’ve seen on several sites that this is “conveniently” overlooked by our liberal friends who use the old school look of the game to show how “out of touch” the party is. Two, it’s overly simplistic. I know they want it to be quick and easy so they can get the message across in the shortest time possible, but come on, I wasn’t even really taking it seriously and only lost two lives in the whole game. Finding a balance between simple and frustrating should have been a concern. Three, the soundbites have no context whatsoever. It’s all well and good to have dozens of damning comments from libs, but many of them I was even unfamiliar with and I consider myself fairly informed from the radio shows. How is someone who is just coming in from a link on another site (probably a liberal or at least negatively slanted site) supposed to even know what the heck half of the comments are even talking about.

This was an interesting attempt by the GOP to be hip and engage people, but I think it is far more of a misfire. Something a little more polished and with actual interesting characters and information would have been a far more effective means of reaching out. People don’t mind learning things when playing games, but they want an entertaining experience, not something that would be embarrassing for me to have my youngest child play. I’d like to give them some credit, but I think it’s for the best if this experiment in gamification is quickly and totally forgotten.

I just hope this didn’t cost the donors as much as I fear it did. Right now on Indiegala.com they have the Axis Game Factory Bundle on sale for a minimum of 9.99. With that software a day to gather sound bites, and a couple hours to draw sprites and throw it together, even I could make something better than this. (Though to be fair it will cost more to get the package that lets you format it for a website.) Not sure it would be any more informative, but it would look a hell of a lot better. Maybe a popup with who made the statement, when, and what it was about would help. It also shouldn’t just repeat the same dozen comments over and over, it would be nice to have more variety.