Special Comment: “You are too much of a p*ssy to shoot me.”

Those are the last recorded words of Michael Brown, the 18-year-old black man, who decided that it would be cute to try to football tackle a Ferguson, Missouri police officer named Darren Wilson, who also happened to be a white man.

A grand jury was convened, and the decision took a very long time. All the facts were considered. Witnesses were questioned, inconsistencies and outright lies were discarded. The facts are that this black man of 18 years of age and crazed on THC, attacked a white officer and was shot dead. Officer Darren Wilson was doing his job and because of that, was not convicted.

So, why is it that Ferguson last night basically went up like a match stick and is threatening to do so tonight? The simple answer is this here: Cultural Marxism. Cultural Marxism is embedded deeply into the community and into the psyche of good part of the black race. There are exceptions to this rule; but not very many at all. It is not only in the black race, but also in the good majority of the Latino races as well, especially among Mexicans.

These Marxist uprisings or as they are commonly called, “Protests” are springing up all over the country. In fact, even here in Detroit there are protests, on the freeways. Think about that for a second: People here in Detroit are actually taking the freeways here in Detroit, risking getting killed, and getting arrested, to supposedly “Protest” about a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri doing his job.

This which is happening now, underscores my issue with the black race in general; and that is that if a white police officer or even a white person kills a black man or woman; it is considered a national story and a horrible crime. However, if a black man or police officer kills a white man, it is seen as no big deal. Let us just be real about this whole thing, shall we? If the police officer in Ferguson were black and this 18-year-old kid were white — you would have never heard about it in the media.

However, because this whole story fits the liberal progressive and Cultural Marxist narrative, it is a national news story. This is what gives that racial grievance-mongering crowd oxygen into their movement. The sick and insidious part is that the current President of the United States of America and the United States of America Attorney General have basically given these thugs the wink and a nod to carry out these Marxist uprisings. This is also what happens when you have a Democrat Governor and a Democrat Prosecutor who declined to convict, knowing full well that this decision would spark riots and uprisings across the Country.

However, the tide is turning. Americans are seeing what they elected in 2008 and in 2012. Republicans made some serious gains in many important places; even in Illinois, which is very shocking. It is expected that the Republicans will do well in 2016 and maybe then, we can get this Nation back on its rightful track.

This is, if we even make it to 2016.

(cross-posted at Beforeitsnews.com)

 

 

Sickening: Upstate NY farmers targeted for not hosting Lesbian wedding

This one comes via Selwyn Duke and is reported at The New American:

It gives new meaning to the term “shotgun wedding”: Government officials in New York have told an upstate farming couple that they must host same-sex “weddings” on their property — and because they refused to do so they must pay a $13,000 fine.

The hapless farmers are Robert and Cynthia Gifford, who have owned Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, New York, for more than a quarter century. During much of that time at least, writes The Daily Signal’s Leslie Ford, they have opened “the farm to the public for events like berry picking, fall festivals, and pig racing” — and, sometimes, for weddings. This was never a problem until 2012, when, reports Ford, “Melissa Erwin and Jennie McCarthy contacted the Giffords [by telephone] to rent the family’s barn for their same-sex wedding ceremony and reception. Cynthia Gifford responded that she and her husband would have to decline their request as they felt they could not in good conscience host a same-sex wedding ceremony at their home.”

Unbeknownst to the Giffords at the time, however, the phone call was being recorded.

What happened next was that Erwin and McCarthy filed a discrimination complaint with the government. On what basis? Ford explains, “New York’s Human Right’s [sic] law (Executive Law, art. 15) creates special privileges based on sexual orientation that trump the rights of business owners. Because the Giffords’ family farm is open to the public for business, New York classifies it as a ‘public accommodation’ and then mandates that it not ‘discriminate’ on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The Giffords were then found in violation of the law and were “ordered by DHR [Division of Human Rights] Judge Migdalia Pares and Commissioner Helen Diane Foster to pay $10,000 in fines to the state and an additional $3,000 in damages to the lesbian couple … for ‘mental pain and suffering.’ Additionally, the Giffords must provide sensitivity training to their staff, and prominently display a poster highlighting state anti-discrimination laws,” reports Lifesite’s Kirsten Andersen.

This issue strikes especially close to the Giffords’ heart because “marriage ceremonies on the farm typically take place in and around the couple’s home, where they live full-time and are raising their two children,” writes Andersen. “They consider the farm their home,” said the Giffords lawyer, Jim Trainor. “They live there, they work there, they raise their kids there.” In fact, not only is the couple intimately involved in planning weddings they host — providing catering, floral arrangements, and everything else save a wedding official — but they even allow part of their living quarters to be used as a bridal suite.

None of this mattered to the NYS DHR, however. This prompts Ford to ask, “Should the government be able to coerce a family farm into hosting a same-sex wedding?” She then answers, “In a free society, the answer is no” and explains, “Government shouldn’t be able to fine citizens for acting in the market according to their own — rather than the government’s — values, unless there is a compelling government interest being pursued in the least restrictive way possible.” As many critics would point out, however, there’s the rub. What constitutes a “compelling government interest”? And should the state have the power to use private property for its own interests in the first place?

We live in a sick and sad, sin-depraved society that long ago rejected the Christian values that this nation was founded upon; this story proves that little notion. Christians talk of revival; what bunk! —  that ship sailed long ago. Judgement is coming, but, there is hope.

Joe Piscopo says adios to the Democratic Party

Join the club Joe.

Joe writes in the Washington Times: (via Newsbusters)

I don’t think I’m ready to become a Republican yet … In good conscience, however, I can’t continue to call myself a Democrat. In becoming an independent, I think I’m maintaining the independent (dare I say, libertarian?) mindedness and patriotism that my parents endowed me with. For the country’s sake and for their own, I hope the Democrats wake up.

[…]

I was a Democrat because while it was clear to me that the Republican politicians were out of touch and cared for only the upper class, Democrats like Franklin Roosevelt cared for the masses and helping the working man … By and large, none of these values are represented in the Democratic Party today.

From where I’m standing, the party has largely abandoned its commitment to civil rights and instead allows race-baiters to be national power brokers. As spokesman for the Boys and Girls Clubs of New Jersey, I am hurt that there is not one Democrat in Washington who cares enough about the great inner cities of this country to help those in dire distress from poverty and crime. These cities are in worse shape than those countries from which all those illegal ‘children’ crossing our borders daily are coming….

Most disheartening, though, is the Democrats’ weak commitment to a strong defense and maintaining America’s place in the world as the only superpower. All I see is an American foreign policy led by a Democratic administration that is floundering when it comes to things like dealing with Iraq, Russia and Syria, inept when it comes to crises like Benghazi, and weak at the knees when it comes to protecting our strongest Middle Eastern ally, Israel.

When you lose someone, like this guy? You know your political party has issues. :shock:

Thug Michael Brown was shot in the front, and not in the back as the lying liberal media said

The money quotes via The New York Times, which come via Darlene over at Protein Wisdom:

Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager who was killed by a police officer, sparking protests around the nation, was shot at least six times, including twice in the head, a preliminary private autopsy performed on Sunday found. One of the bullets entered the top of Mr. Brown’s skull, suggesting his head was bent forward when it struck him and caused a fatal injury, according to Dr. Michael M. Baden, the former chief medical examiner for the City of New York, who flew to Missouri on Sunday at the family’s request to conduct the separate autopsy. It was likely the last of bullets to hit him, he said. Mr. Brown, 18, was also shot four times in the right arm, he said, adding that all the bullets were fired into his front. 

And….:

Dr. Baden provided a diagram of the entry wounds, and noted that the six shots produced numerous wounds. Some of the bullets entered and exited several times, including one that left at least five different wounds. “This one here looks like his head was bent downward,” he said, indicating the wound at the very top of Mr. Brown’s head. “It can be because he’s giving up, or because he’s charging forward at the officer.” He stressed that his information does not assign blame or justify the shooting.We need more information; for example, the police should be examining the automobile to see if there is gunshot residue in the police car,” he said. Dr. Baden, 80, is a well-known New York-based medical examiner, who is one of only about 400 board-certified forensic pathologists in the nation. He reviewed the autopsies of both President John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and has performed more than 20,000 autopsies himself. 

So, you see, the media lied. The black liberal activists lied. Just like the black radicals lied when they said that a black man was shot, face down at a blind pig in Detroit; which sparked the 1967 riots in Detroit. It’s all the same, start a rumor,rile the people up and force change. This is how the left works, they have been doing it for years.

Others: (via Memeorandum Politicoprotein wisdomNational ReviewFox NewsBusiness InsiderLiberalandWashington PostThe Gateway PunditFront Page MagazineRTSt. Louis Post-DispatchMediaiteBoing Boing,Independent Journal ReviewDaily KosJustOneMinuteShakesvilleGawkerSOOPERMEXICANBooman TribuneSt. Louis Public RadioGuardianTalking Points MemoTwitchyColorlinesPolitical Insider blog,Hit & RunClash DailyHot AirVox PopoliPrairie WeatherHinterland GazetteThe Daily BanterWWBT-TVThinkProgressThe Daily CallerNew York’s PIX11CBS St. LouisThe Moderate VoiceMashable,Wall Street JournalThe Jawa ReportLittle Green FootballsFOX2now.comTalkLeftAssociated Press,Progressives TodayCNN and Reuters

Fourth of July for Marxists

You know, I really was not going to post anything against the left today, seeing that it is a holiday. But, you know; I just think this needs to be said.

Take a look at what this holiday means to the left; go here, herehere and here — and read what this truly American Holiday means to these stinking Marxist swine bastards. These people are evil to the stinking core; and should be identified and treated as such. These aren’t the Democrats of the Roosevelt and Truman era; these are Marxists and committed ones at that.  You know, sort of like our so-called President?

In my mind and in my humble opinion; there is only one thing more evil, more dangerous and more Satanic than the marxist liberal left; and that is the bastard neoconservatives of the Kristol and Podhoretz stripe. Those are the bastards that gave us Iraq and want us to go back; and they are the ones who want to bring down, along with the Marxists; our current American capitalistic system, in favor of a one world Government — complete with a one world currency and a microchip under the skin of the hand. They will get it too, once the body of Christ is taken out of this sin depraved world.  After all, the neoconservatives are of the same tribe which sent Christ to the cross for supposed blasphemy.

Instead of yowling on any further, I’ll just quote this:

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. — (Matthew 10:16 KJV)

 

Responding to the drive-by comment

From to time to time, I get comments like this, and I like to respond to them — For the record, he is referring to this posting here:

Author : mrethiopian (IP: 203.174.86.88 , 203-174-86-88.rev.ne.com.sg)

E-mail : mrethiopian@gmail.com
URL : http://gravatar.com/mrethiopian
Whois : http://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/203.174.86.88
Comment:
Hopefully you have time to respond, I see your site is inundated with a plethora of comments. Could you elaborate on your statement “extremists on the left” your suggesting that the left has a spine and has actually used it in the past, to my knowledge the left hasn’t once committed an action that can be interpreted as extreme, ever in the existence of time, so what the hell are you talking about?

BTW- have fun with my spoofed IP 

I really enjoyed your bigoted Blog, have a great life living in your box.

Perhaps this idiot ought to google Floyd Lee Corkins and learn a little, before shooting off his mouth.

Not to mention this list of them here: (H/T LiveLeak)

Leo Burt- Bombed Colleges, Part of Left Wing Terrorist Group ‘New Years Eve Gang’.

Jeff Jones – Bombed Pentagon, Killed Police, Current CEO of Appolo Alliance, An eco group funded by Obama

Berandine Dorn – Bombed Petnagon, Killed Police, Obamas friend, baby sat Obamas Kids.

Bill Ayers – Bombed Pentagon, Killed Police, Obamas Best Friend, Wrote Obamas Book.

Amy Bishop- college professor obsessed with Obama, shot 6 people.

Jared Loughter – killed 6 year old girl and shot gabby giffords

James holmes - Batman shooter

John Patrick Bedell -petnagon shooter

David Guy McKay – Plotted to bomb the Pentagon, caught first

Bradley Neil Crowder – Plotted to bomb the Pentagon, caught first

Antonio Martinez - Bombed a Recruiting Station

Una Bomber – Another left wing college professor psychopath

James W. Von Brunn – Holocaust Museum Shooter

Andrew Joseph Stack III – Bush Hating Leftist Who Flew His airplane into IRS building 9/11 style

Ryan Komosinski - Occupy Wall Street, Caught in BOmb Plot.

Brandon Baxter -Occupy Wall Street Protester Caught Planning to Blow Up Bridges

Douglas Wright – Occupy Wall Street Protester Caught Planning to Blow Up Bridges

Anthony Hayne -Occupy Wall Street Protester Caught Planning to Blow Up Bridges

Connor C. Stevens- Occupy Wall Street Protester Caught Planning to Blow Up Bridges

Joshua S. Stafford -Occupy Wall Street Protester Caught Planning to Blow Up Bridges


I wonder what Mr. Special Snowflake would say about that? 

If anyone has any more to add, do it in comments section.

 

Trader Joe’s drops plan to build store in Portland, Oregon because of black racism

No, this isn’t a joke.

This story comes via TopConservativeNews.com, who notes the following:

Notice that it is perfectly acceptable for black people to oppose the demographic change of their neighborhood. If the races had been reversed, the national media would be screaming “RACISM!”

Consider this statement from the Portland African American Leadership Forum. They “remain opposed to any development in N/NE Portland that does not primarily benefit the Black community.” This would be a national controversy if the races were reversed. They would be denounced as the Ku Klux Klan.

The story via AP:

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The Trader Joe’s grocery-store chain has dropped a plan to open a new store in the heart of the city’s historically African-American neighborhood after activists said the development would price black residents out of the area.

 

The grocer, whose stores are found in urban neighborhoods across the nation, said Monday it wouldn’t press its plan, given community resistance, The Oregonian (http://bit.ly/1n7Jyqb ) reported.

“We open a limited number of stores each year, in communities across the country,” it said in a statement. “We run neighborhood stores, and our approach is simple: If a neighborhood does not want a Trader Joe’s, we understand, and we won’t open the store in question.”

The Portland Development Commission had offered a steep discount to the grocer on a parcel of nearly two acres that was appraised at up to $2.9 million: a purchase price of slightly more than $500,000. The lot is at Northeast Alberta Street and Northeast Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and has been vacant for years.

So, why did Trader Joe’s decide not to build there, well for two reasons:

Critics said the development would displace residents and perpetuate income inequality in one of the most rapidly gentrifying ZIP codes in the nation.

…and the biggest reason? This:

The Portland African American Leadership Forum said the development commission had in the past made promises about preventing projects from displacing community members but hadn’t fulfilled them.

It sent the city a letter saying it would “remain opposed to any development in N/NE Portland that does not primarily benefit the Black community.” It said the grocery-store development would “increase the desirability of the neighborhood,” for “non-oppressed populations.”

Mayor Charlie Hales and the urban renewal agency’s executive director, Patrick Quinton, signed a letter in January that described what they said was the commission’s contributions “to the destructive impact of gentrification and displacement on the African American community.

Translation:

We don’t want no honkeys in our neighborhood! If you ain’t black, we don’t want your business here!

Now, could you imagine, if a business, who was owned by a black man, wanted to open a store, say in like Troy, Michigan or Rochester Hills, Michigan; which are, for what it is worth, predominantly upper middle class/wealthy class, white neighborhoods and a group of white people starting complaining about it and starting saying that it would cause the neighborhood to go into decline? Man, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be all over it!

There would huge protests and it would be all over the media. However, because this is a black thing, and the company is white owned; it is no big deal, nothing to see here, move along. :roll:

This is why I continue to run this blog; regardless of the fact that I make little or nothing on this blog at all, despite the fact that I make little or nothing on this blog, since Google Adsense dropped me. Because this sort of stuff is NOT reported by the national media; least of all by MSNBC and CNN. Fox News most likely will not touch it either, because of the taboo subject.

Furthermore, I believe that the Conservative right just will not touch this one; because they are afraid of being called racists. I do not have such issues. I simply do not care what blacks really think of me; least of all black liberals. Considering what happened to my cousin and myself; I think I’ve earned the right to point this stuff out.

By the way; these are Obama’s people and don’t you ever forget it. :mad:

 

Stupid black woman gets pulled over, tries to run from the police and then complains when her van gets shot at!

This is un-freaking-believable!

The video:

The story:

Several New Mexico police officers are under investigation for a routine traffic stop that devolved into a chaotic car chase last month. In their attempt to apprehend an uncooperative driver, the officers smashed a baton through the woman’s car window and fired several bullets at the children-filled vehicle.

The incident was recorded by a police dashcam video, which was released last week to KRQE News 13. According to a report from Taos News, the incident started when a New Mexico State police officer pulled over 39-year-old Oriana Ferrell for speeding 16 mph over the limit on a state highway.

The officer (whose name has not been revealed) approached Ferrell’s minivan in what appears to be a calm manner and told her to wait while he returned to his vehicle. Ferrell then sped off, starting a chase. When she pulled over again, the officer returned to the driver’s side window visibly agitated.

via Cop Fires Shots at Minivan Full of Kids After Mom Flees Traffic Stop – Hit & Run : Reason.com.

A few things to point out here:

  1. She ran, she could have gotten her ticket, kept her mouth shut; and everything would have been fine. But, no, she started arguing with the cop and then on top of that, she takes off —- twice! You cannot do that and not expect the police to get pissed off!
  2. She had her kids attack the police; if that had been me; that 14-year-old would have ended up in a body bag when I shot him!

I think it is important to point out; she is black. Which basically means that she will most likely get a slap on the wrist and will file a lawsuit and get a bag full of cash; and live high on the hog. Because some evil, racist white police officer actually decided that he was going to do his job. (and yes, that is sarcasm…)

Sorry, but Reason magazine is full of crap on this one; this woman broke the law and paid the price for it. The only person that is to blame for this woman’s kids getting shot at; is Oriana Ferrell and that is the only person who should be blamed.

Like my earlier posting’s video said; blacks seem to believe that they can do as they damned well please, because the actions of white men 300 years ago and it is never, ever their fault; it is the fault of the evil white man and society. :roll:

Police State? Not on this one. More like a stupid black woman. :mad:

Update: Blogger Round up via Memeorandum — your mileage may vary on these:  Hit & RunThe Taos NewsNBCNewsMediaite and The New Civil Rights Movement

 Fixed some typos and spelling errors…. What I get for blogging in a hurry. :roll:

Update #2: Da Tech Guy links in! Thank You! :D

Sorry, But, Sally Kohn is just not funny

I have made it clear on this blog many times, that I simply am not a big fan of Ted Cruz.

However, this little tweet here, just struck me, as…well, just wrong:

The Tweet I am referring to:

Full coverage at Twitchy.

Let me say this here. Because of the writing business that I am in here and because of my political position that I happen to hold to; I have good deal of interaction with white supremacists, white nationalists and white separatists. So, I feel to label someone, like Ted Cruz, who is a Cuban minority; is quite bigoted in my humble opinion. I understand, if this woman was trying to be funny. If she was, it didn’t work, at all.

I can understand her political position; but she could have said the very same thing, without coming off as some sort of knuckle-dragging bigot. Which is what she totally sounded like, when she made that demotivator. I also happen to be quite against illegal immigration as well; is Sally Kohn going to label me a Neo-Nazi as well?

You know, if I were an undignified sort; I could very well raise the point that the only reason she gets away with things of this sort, is because she is a Jew or maybe because she is a bull-dyke Lesbian. However, I will not do that; because like her little lame demotivator — it is just a bit too easy.

Popular Science shuts off comments on its site

Not shocking at all, most liberals do not like being questioned.

Quote:

Comments can be bad for science. That’s why, here at PopularScience.com, we’re shutting them off.

It wasn’t a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.

[….]

But even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader’s perception of a story, recent research suggests. In one study led by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Dominique Brossard, 1,183 Americans read a fake blog post on nanotechnology and revealed in survey questions how they felt about the subject (are they wary of the benefits or supportive?). Then, through a randomly assigned condition, they read either epithet- and insult-laden comments (“If you don’t see the benefits of using nanotechnology in these kinds of products, you’re an idiot” ) or civil comments. 

[….]

A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to “debate” on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science.

via Why We’re Shutting Off Our Comments | Popular Science.

Vox Day Saith:

Comments aren’t bad for science. Comments are bad for those who are stubbornly clinging to outdated scientific paradigms that are showing obvious cracks. 

William Teach AKA Porter Good says:

I guess they haven’t heard of using methods like Bad Behavior, Akismet, Disqus, and others commenting blockers. They aren’t perfect, but certainly cut down quite a bit.

[….]

There are many Warmist websites I’m blocked from commenting at. Same with other Climate Realists like Steven Goddard, Tom Nelson, Anthony Watts, etc. Because Warmists do not want debate: they want people to sit down, shut up, and smile as Government becomes more intrusive and controlling. All based on a lie.

This is pretty much what I was thinking too. If you have a blog or a website; and you do not allow comments, what you basically have is a pulpit with an empty Church. Now, I moderate comments, because this blog sometimes like to attract the attention of some trollish folk who like to make appearances here. But, anyone can comment and as long as the comments don’t blatantly violate my comment policy, I will let them stand. This is because I do not mind people coming back and commenting. I also like it when they donate, but I digress. ;)

 

War: Democrat Doxes a Blogger

This is not good, at all.

Go read over at Lady Liberty: #ShutUppery and the Drums of #WAR

As Andrew Breitbart would say….:

Update: Okay, as I said in my comment policy. I normally don’t ask for, or allow personal information of anyone to be posted. Except, when I ask for it. I know where this personal lives. The problem is that his surname is a common one. If anyone knows what this guys age is let me know and I will post his address and phone number.

And there is a damned good reason: Back when I was still on the “skeptical left of center camp,” I did something like this here. It involved Michelle Malkin. The difference is, the information that I found on the web, was quite old. This guy here, posted the real name of a blogger, who wished to keep her identity secret. So, as far as I am concerned, turn about is fair play. Anyone that knows the age and maybe the actual address of this guy, please, feel free to turn it over to me and I will publish it. The first amendment works BOTH WAYS. He wants to play that game? I am more than willing to do it too. My name, address and telephone are a matter of public record and I have zero to hide. Can Mr. Greg Flynn say the same thing? I highly doubt it.

Update #2: I lined out the above for a reason: Lady Liberty replied to my e-mail and told me that she does not support such actions. So, I will respect her wishes. Consider yourself lucky Mr. Flynn. :mad: 

Debate this

This liberal blogger here seems to think that my cousin getting murdered is funny.

I’m thinking a nice blog swarm is needed here. :mad:

Update: Besides mocking my dead cousin, this liberal, whom I assume is black, made this statement on his blog:

 I wuz robbed. Farewell, Unca Cletus

That right there is a racist statement. Calling a white person Cletus or Roscoe; which is a reference to the 1980’s show, “The Dukes of Hazzard”, is nothing more than an underhanded swipe at me, for being a white person. It is another way of calling me a stupid white redneck.

Nice to see that the Democrats are still living up to their historical reputation of being nothing, but a bunch of racist bigots. It was that whites were bigoted against blacks. Now, it has changed, it is the blacks which are bigoted against the whites. Same hatred, different players.

 

Interesting article on President Obama

This is an interesting article on the President, and is basically what I already knew about him….

Quote:

As for Barack Obama he was the stranger with the vaguest and nebulas agendas ever.  He offered Hope and Change.  He also said he would fundamentally change America.  Since Obama was Black and viewed as a Liberal they wanted to and still do believe Obama was somehow one of them.   Obama has his own ideas and they are a lot of things but traditionally Liberal is just not one of them.

via CRIME, GUNS, AND VIDEOTAPE: Liberals Were Mistaken About Barack Obama, He’s Not One of Them.

The only thing I will add to the above is this; Barack Obama is not of Clinton stripe or even Truman or Roosevelt stripe. Obama is what is known as a neo-leftist. The only difference between a neoconservative and a neo-liberal is their differences on the opinion of scope and role of Government. Both are foreign policy hawks and both are okay with big Government, as long as they control it.

Obama and his people are neo-progressives. They are also, like the Clintons, internationalist Democrats and Wilsonian foreign policy devotees as well as devotees of the frankfurt school as well.

(H/T Lew Rockwell)

Liberal idiot minority woman writes that pedophiles ought not to be charged with crimes

I was not going to write about this; but seeing that I got on twitter and shot my mouth off, I figure that I could at least explain myself in long form here on the blog.

It appears that defending pedophiles and saying that they are not criminals is in vogue with the progressive left. Which is to be expected of them, seeing that they really see living, breathing babies as nothing more than a blob of tissue and not worth really to be spared what I happen to consider a butchering at the hands of a Godless doctor.

I give you a perfect example of this, from the Washington Post’s opinion section:

There is a painfully uncomfortable episode of “Louie” in which the comedian Louis C.K. muses that maybe child molesters wouldn’t kill their victims if the penalty weren’t so severe. Everyone I know who watches the show vividly recalls that scene from 2010 because it conjures such a witches’ cauldron of taboo, disgust and moral outrage, all wrapped around a disturbing kernel of truth. I have similar ambivalence about the case involving former Montana high school teacher Stacey Dean Rambold. Louie concluded his riff with a comment to the effect of “I don’t know what to do with that information.” That may be the case for many of us, but with our legal and moral codes failing us, our society needs to have an uncensored dialogue about the reality of sex in schools.

As protesters decry the leniency of Rambold’s sentence — he will spend 30 days in prison after pleading guilty to raping 14-year-old Cherice Morales, who committed suicide at age 16 — I find myself troubled for the opposite reason. I don’t believe that all sexual conduct between underage students and teachers should necessarily be classified as rape, and I believe that absent extenuating circumstances, consensual sexual activity between teachers and students should not be criminalized. While I am not defending Judge G. Todd Baugh’s comments about Morales being “as much in control of the situation” — for which he has appropriately apologized — tarring and feathering him for attempting to articulate the context that informed his sentence will not advance this much-needed dialogue.

I do think that teachers who engage in sex with students, no matter how consensual, should be removed from their jobs and barred from teaching unless they prove that they have completed rehabilitation. But the utter hysteria with which society responds to these situations does less to protect children than to assuage society’s need to feel that we are protecting them. I don’t know what triggered Morales’s suicide, but I find it tragic and deeply troubling that this occurred as the case against Rambold wound its way through the criminal justice system. One has to wonder whether the extreme pressure she must have felt from those circumstances played a role.

I’ve been a 14-year-old girl, and so have all of my female friends. When it comes to having sex on the brain, teenage boys got nothin’ on us. When I was growing up in the 1960s and ’70s, the sexual boundaries between teachers and students were much fuzzier. Throughout high school, college and law school, I knew students who had sexual relations with teachers. To the best of my knowledge, these situations were all consensual in every honest meaning of the word, even if society would like to embrace the fantasy that a high school student can’t consent to sex. Although some feelings probably got bruised, no one I knew was horribly damaged and certainly no one died.

[….]

If religious leaders and heads of state can’t keep their pants on, with all they have to lose, why does society expect that members of other professions can be coerced into meeting this standard? A more realistic approach would be to treat violations in a way that removes and rehabilitates the offender without traumatizing the victim. The intensity of criminal proceedings, with all the pressure they put on participants, the stigma, the community and media scrutiny, and the concurrent shame and guilt they generate, do the opposite of healing and protecting the victim. Laws related to statutory rape are in place to protect children, but the issue of underage sex, and certainly of sex between students and teachers, may be one in which the law of unintended consequences is causing so much damage that society needs to reassess.

So there you have it. This above is nothing more than a progressive liberal justification of underage sex between school students and teachers — because underage kids have, as she calls it, “sex on the brain.”

What bothers me about this piece is, for one; it is saying that people that commit acts of pedophilia should not be subject to the legal system. Another thing that bothers me is this here:

Betsy Karasik - A liberal minority that thinks that Pedophiles are just perfectly fine.

Betsy Karasik – A liberal minority that thinks that Pedophiles are just perfectly fine.

No, I am not complaining that she is a woman — please, I am not that big of an idiot. What bothers me about this article and its author is that she is a liberal minority. In the world of the progressive left, you can pretty much say and do what you damned well please —- because you are liberal minority. In progressivism, being a minority of any sort is an automatic ticket to be as outrageous as you want to be, without having to worry about repercussions. It is, in fact, a cover for them.

Some from twitter might have noted that I called this idiot liberal minority woman a “Jap.” I really have no idea really, what her ethnic background is, nor do I really care. She does appear to be someone from the Asian region. For what it is truly worth, you can click here and find out what I really do truly feel about the Japanese and their idiotic Country. Some of us have not forgotten about what happened on December 7, 1941. Some people forgive and forget —- I choose not to do such a foolhardy thing. My family fought in that war, and spilled blood for that cause; and I choose not to just act like that never really happened.

As I wrote above, being a liberal minority is a ticket to be as outrageous, or as in recent times — as criminal as one wants to be; and there is a double standard when it comes to that as well. This was proven when a black thug, by the name of Trayvon Martin decided to stalk and beat the living crap out of a Latino man named George Zimmerman and ended up being shot to death by Zimmerman. Who, in fact, was defending his own life; the liberal media went crazy, calling Zimmerman a white man in hopes of starting a race riot in this Country — which failed thankfully. It seems the American people, including blacks, have a bit more restraint than the liberal media in this Country.

Now to show you what rather rank hypocrisy exists in the liberal media and in the progressive movement, altogether I give you two documented incidents:

There was a recent incident where a white woman was attacked by a black mob — did you hear anything about that on MSNBC? No. There was also an incident where a World War 2 veteran was attacked and beaten to death, by two young black thugs. Again, did you hear about that on MSNBC? No, and you will not either.

Why is this, you ask? Because in the world of liberal minorities, especially blacks — there is a mentality, that any violence or any other sort of misdeeds perpetuated by blacks toward white people is somehow or another justified. It is to be justified by liberal progressives, and yes, blacks themselves — because of the horrible things that happened in this Country over 300 years ago. I am referring to the importation of criminal blacks into the United States from Africa to be used as slaves.

What I have just described to you is nothing more than the anti-American works of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory at work. The problem is that there are some so-called Conservatives and some so-called libertarians who are of that same mindset. There is a common name for whites who do this sort of thing; it is called white guilt.

In conclusion: This article should, not shock Conservatives and those who disagree with the progressive left; it is simply the manifestation of the works of the Frankfort School. Those who are of the Frankfurt School mentality consider anything that is moral, law abiding and or that promotes American values racist. Dr. Michael Savage said it best, “Liberalism is a mental disorder” and this Washington post opinion piece and its idiot liberal author are living proof of that fact.

Others: Ed DriscollMediaiteLawyers, Guns & MoneyHot Airamericanthinker.com,National ReviewNewsBusters and The Other McCain

Video: This is why I do not trust Al-Jazeera TV

American version of it or not. I simply do not trust it and this here is why. This comes via Memri TV:

Some of you might say, “But, aren’t you a Buchananite type?” Yes, indeed I am. Which simply means that I am not a fan of Wilsonian Foreign Policy and that’s all it means. If Al-Jazeera TV is putting this sort of garbage on it’s Arab speaking network, it has zero business being in the United States of America. This is nothing more than Anti-Jewish propaganda and it furthers the blood libels that the terrorists thrive on and use to commit acts of carnage.

If our President were actually worth a tinkers damn, he would tell Al-Jazeera TV, “You either do something about that, or you can pack your little network up and go back to mecca, where you truly belong.” But, because we have a President who kowtows down to Arabs and their religion, instead of defending Jewish Americans, you have this network Al-Jazeera TV here to brainwash Americans into believe that 9/11 was somehow justified.

…and that, my friends, is a great American tragedy.

(H/T to Commentary Magazine)

No, Sorry, Dick (head) Cheney, I do NOT trust you or your idiotic successor in the White House!

Ol’ Dick (head) Cheney says that we ought to just trust the Government.

The Video: (Via Think Progress)

Okay here is the little small problem with trusting Dick Cheney and his boss George W. Bush, they lied, as in like 935 times in a row, during their Presidency and Vice Presidency.

Prove it, you say? Sure.

Via The Center for Public Integrity, which is as follows:

The Center for Public Integrity was founded in 1989 by Charles Lewis. We are one of the country’s oldest and largest nonpartisan, nonprofit investigative news organizations. Our mission: To enhance democracy by revealing abuses of power, corruption and betrayal of trust by powerful public and private institutions, using the tools of investigative journalism.

Anyhow, here is why I don’t trust Neocons, nor do I trust Democratic Party liberals or Neo-leftists:

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

  • On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ “
  • In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.
  • In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with  Al Qaeda is unclear.”
  • On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
  • On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
  • On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].”

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. 

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, “independent” validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.

The “ground truth” of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: “It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual “ground truth” regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who’s Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation’s allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government’s pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

A video:

The real sick and sad part is this; the same people that are having a hissy fit on the right about this program existing under Obama, are the same ones who were perfectly fine with it existing under Bush. In other words, they trusted the program under Bush. like idiots. My question to that crowd is this; why do  you not trust Obama? Because he is black or because he is a Democratic Party liberal?

Anyone and I mean anyone, who puts their trust in this Government of ours, based upon partisanship is nothing more than a darned fool in my opinion. Both of these political parties are two sides of the same coin and that is corruption and big Government socialism. Both parties promote it, both parties contribute to it. Government hand outs are Government hand outs; whether it be in the forum of welfare or Government subsidies. It is big Government statist and it flies in the face of our Constitution and in the face of what this great Nation was founded upon.

Others: Prairie Weather