Homeland Security Warned of Tea Party Extremism But DHS Report Called #Occupiers Peaceful Activists | The Gateway Pundit

Homeland Security Warned of Tea Party Extremism But DHS Report Called #Occupiers Peaceful Activists | The Gateway Pundit

It’s an Obama world.

(Bay Citizen)

The #Occupy radicals have put together quite a record of accomplishment since September:

- 9 deaths, 5 found dead in tents, One found dead after 2 days
- 2 murders (Not counting the protester who strangled his parents and stuffed them in a car)
- Tens of millions of dollars in damages, layoffs, vandalism, law breaking
- Multiple Rapes
- Thousands of arrests
- Public masturbation
- Feces
- Child molestation and baby abuse

But forget the facts – Homeland Security saw the #occupy protests as a peaceful movement.

In 2009 Homeland Security released a report suggesting the tea party was a sign of right-wing extremism.
The Huffington Post reported:

A new report issued by the Department of Homeland Security that says right-wing extremism is on the rise throughout the country.

In the report (a full copy of which is below), officials warn that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country’s first black president to recruit new members to their cause.

In the intelligence assessment issued to law enforcement last week, Homeland Security officials said there was no specific information about an attack from right-wing extremists in the works.

Fast forward to 2011…
The Department of Homeland Security published a report on the #Occupy criminal movement but described the hooligans as a “peaceful” movement. The report was leaked in a recent Wikileaks document dump.

As Occupy Wall Street spread across the nation last fall, sparking protests in more than 70 cities, the Department of Homeland Security began keeping tabs on the movement. An internal DHS report entitled “SPECIAL COVERAGE: Occupy Wall Street,” dated October of last year, opens with the observation that “mass gatherings associated with public protest movements can have disruptive effects on transportation, commercial, and government services, especially when staged in major metropolitan areas.” While acknowledging the overwhelmingly peaceful nature of OWS, the report notes darkly that “large scale demonstrations also carry the potential for violence, presenting a significant challenge for law enforcement.”

The five-page report – contained in 5 million newly leaked documents examined by Rolling Stone in an investigative partnership with WikiLeaks – goes on to sum up the history of Occupy Wall Street and assess its “impact” on everything from financial services to government facilities. Many of the observations are benign, and appear to have been culled from publicly available sources. The report notes, for instance, that in Chicago “five women were arrested after dumping garbage taken from a foreclosed home owned by Bank of America in the lobby one of the bank’s branches,” and that “OWS in New York staged a ‘Millionaires March,’ from Zucotti Park to demonstrate outside the homes of some of the city’s richest residents.”

But the DHS also appears to have scoured OWS-related Twitter feeds for much of their information.

Obama Hits the Gas – Prices Double in Just Three Years Due to His Failed & Insane Policies | The Gateway Pundit

Obama Hits the Gas – Prices Double in Just Three Years Due to His Failed & Insane Policies | The Gateway Pundit

Obama Hits the Gas–

Quick Facts on President Obama’s Acceleration of Gas Prices via the Republican Study Committee:

** Oil production on federal land fell 11% last year. During the exact same time frame, oil production on private and state-owned land – land beyond the federal government’s grip – grew 14%.
** Shortly after Steven Chu professed a desire for European-level gas prices, President Obama named him Secretary of Energy. Italians currently pay about $9.00 per gallon.
** The Obama administration imposed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico followed by a “permitorium” with very few permits issued for new drilling. Data from the Energy Information Agency show production in the Gulf of Mexico dropping by 120 million barrels annually from 2009 to 2012.
** The Keystone XL pipeline could bring our economy thousands of new jobs and transport 830,000 barrels a day to American refineries. President Obama rejected it.
** Drilling plans have historically been approved 73% of the time. For the start of 2012, President Obama has only approved 23%.

And here’s the insane part…
The Obama DOE is not even working to lower prices… And they have no shame in admitting it.
The Politico reported:

The Energy Department isn’t working to lower gasoline prices directly, Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday after a Republican lawmaker scolded him for his now-infamous 2008 comment that gas prices in the U.S. should be as high as in Europe.

Instead, DOE is working to promote alternatives such as biofuels and electric vehicles, Chu told House appropriators during a hearing on DOE’s budget.

But Americans need relief now, Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R-Miss.) said — not high gasoline prices that could eventually push them to alternatives.

“I can’t look at motivations. I have to look at results. And under this administration the price of gasoline has doubled,” Nunnelee told Chu.

“The people of north Mississippi can’t be here, so I have to be here and be their voice for them,” Nunnelee added. “I have to tell you that $8 a gallon gasoline makes them afraid. It’s a cruel tax on the people of north Mississippi as they try to go back and forth to work. It’s a cloud hanging over economic development and job creation.”

Chu expressed sympathy but said his department is working to lower energy prices in the long term.

Articles: A Guide to the Liberal Mind

Articles: A Guide to the Liberal Mind From the American Thinker

A Guide to the Liberal Mind

By Victor Volsky

As a great fan of Jeff Foxworthy, it occurred to me that it might be a good idea to use his hilarious you-might-be-a-redneck comedy routine in an attempt to characterize the liberal mindset (tweaking Jeff's formula a bit to convert it from the suppositional to the unconditional). So, with apologies to the wonderful country comedian, here are some of the notable features of the liberal's mental landscape:

• If you believe that freedom of expression is sacrosanct but would like nothing better than to deny it to anyone who doesn't share your views, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the 1^st Amendment separates church from state, but not state from church, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the 2^nd Amendment was the founding fathers' big mistake and that the 10^th Amendment shouldn't be taken seriously, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that endlessly discussing a problem amounts to actually solving it, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the results of progressive programs are irrelevant and that only good intentions count, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Mark Foley, who wrote salacious e-mails to a young but legally adult congressional page, was an evil libertine, while Gerry Studds, who had sex with an underage congressional page, was a knight in shining armor, you are a liberal intellectual.
• If you believe that Obama is an intellectual giant whose IQ is off the charts even though you have no idea what his IQ actually is, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that a decades-old drunk-driving episode in George W. Bush's biography comes under the "people's right to know" doctrine while the entire past of Barack Obama is protected by his right to privacy, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that we can spend and borrow our way out of the recession in keeping with the thoroughly discredited Keynesian model, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that taxpayers don't change their behavior when the government tries to squeeze more tax money out of them, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Americans are undertaxed, while carefully hiding your own money in offshore tax shelters, you are a liberal.
• If you believe, with Nancy Pelosi and Valerie Jarrett, that unemployment benefits are a boon to the economy (but without taking this brilliant insight to its logical conclusion: that the path to unprecedented prosperity lies through 100% unemployment), you are a liberal.
• If you believe that affirmative action improves the lot of poor minorities rather than miring them in perpetual misery and dependence, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty failed because not enough money (a trifling $16 trillion) was spent on it, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that God's middle name is Kennedy, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Jimmy Carter, who has been working indefatigably over the last three decades to subvert his country's foreign policy, is the best ex-president ever, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the Fox News Channel is the modern-day equivalent of Völkischer Beobachter and The New York Times a light unto the world, and whatever the Times publishes is God-given truth while whatever it deems unfit to print doesn't deserve to be known, you are a liberal.
• If you angrily castigate your compatriots for being profligate with their energy consumption while generously allowing yourself to use more than 20 times as much energy as a regular household (see Gore, Al), you are a liberal.
• If you believe that your choice of a car affects the planet's climate while sunspot activity doesn't, you are a liberal.
• If you are notoriously stingy with personal charitable giving but deliriously generous with other people's money while proudly posing as the true benefactor of the poor, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that human nature is infinitely malleable and that nurture easily trumps nature, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that your women's studies degree is superior to a Ph.D. in engineering, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the anarchists, hoodlums, and hobos who make up the Occupy movement are noble idealists who truly represent the 99 percent of America while the Tea Partiers are Nazi troglodytes and of course racists, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that perjury is not a crime if it is about sex, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Bill Clinton defended the Constitution as he repeatedly perjured himself, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Hillary's rather primitive bribery scheme with cattle futures was so complicated as to be beyond human comprehension and thus ought to be shoved into the memory hole, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Chuck Colson, who served seven months behind bars for procuring a single FBI file, got away with murder, but the Clintons, who demanded from the FBI some 900 files, were defenseless lambs relentlessly persecuted by cruel Republicans, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the mountains of corpses and rivers of blood that have been the chief result of all communist "experiments" are merely collateral damage, a possibly regrettable but unavoidable byproduct of the high-minded attempts to build paradise on earth and thus nothing to talk about, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Alger Hiss or Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were innocent victims of McCarthyism, you are a liberal.
• If, to reinforce your salon cred, you bedeck your infant in a T-shirt bearing the likeness of that murderous sadist, Che Guevara, you are a liberal.
• If you believe, against plentiful historical evidence to the contrary, that appeasement works and that America's unilateral disarmament will surely mollify enemies by demonstrating our peaceful intentions and shame them into following our example, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that negotiations are the be-all and end-all of international relations and that as long as our adversaries deign to talk to us, everything is fine and dandy, even if they clearly use the negotiations as a smokescreen to pursue their nefarious schemes unmolested, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that the Palestinians sincerely want an accommodation with Israel and that only the stiff-necked Jews' obduracy stands in the way of Middle East peaceful settlement, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that all cultures are equal but that Western culture is less equal than the others, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that a crucifix immersed in the "artist's" urine or a bucket of paint splashed onto a canvas is genuine art, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that a murderous hoodlum is not really guilty because he grew up in a tough neighborhood and that "judgmentalism" is really the only crime deserving of opprobrium, you are a liberal.
• If you reflexively sympathize with the criminal while scornfully ignoring the crime victim, you are a liberal.
• If you believe that Bill Maher is indeed politically incorrect and Warren Buffet is dying to pay more taxes, you are a liberal.
• If you love the "people" but despise the "populace," you are a liberal.
• If you believe that you and your ilk will be able to fool the American people indefinitely...well, you may have a point there.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/a_guide_to_the_liberal_mind.html#ixzz1nm68QQZe

Who's the Hater? Episode #1

I think I've finally had it! My Gay and pro-gay friends never shy away from calling me a homophobe or a hater because I follow a different set of values (That is to say, "Values" - as opposed to just following whatever impulse comes along). In looking back over the many people I know and have known, by far the most hateful, bigoted and fascist among them are of the LGBT (is that a sandwich?) "community".

The fact is, most homos I know are disgusting - not because of the behavior they may or may not exhibit in the privacy of their own relationships - because of the behavior they exhibit towards me and toward anyone that doesn't bow and scrape before them for fear of being called a bully, or a bigot, or a homophobe.

I don't care what kind of relationships people want to have. I don't care that 6% of the population wants the other 94% to bend over (hah) backwards for them so they can feel "Normal". If you want to be treated like everyone else, act like everyone else. Or, you can just muddle along like most of us enjoying the fruits of our labors and suffering the consequences for the choices we make.

Which brings me to the latest edition of "Who's the haters?" Today's episode Starring Dan Savage


Obama Admin Hooks Up With Gay Activist Who Created Santorum Google Bomb/

Dan Savage is one of the more repulsive columnists in America. He writes a sex advice column titled “Savage Love,” in which he describes in grotesque detail all sorts of fringe sexual practices.

He’s also a personally disgusting human being, at least according to his own accounts – in 2000, Savage signed on as a staffer on the Gary Bauer presidential campaign in Iowa, where, enraged by Bauer’s social conservatism, he began licking doorknobs in order to infect other staffers with his flu.

So now Savage has a new campaign. This one, you’ve likely heard of: the It Gets Better Project. It asks people to take a pledge: “Everyone deserves to be respected for who they are [except, obviously, religious conservatives and others who disagree with Dan Savage]. I pledge to spread this message to my friends, family and neighbors. I’ll speak up against hate and intolerance whenever I see it, at school and at work [but not against Republicans]. I’ll provide hope for lesbian, gay, bi, trans and other bullied teens by letting them know that ‘It Gets Better.’”

But that’s not the purpose of the It Gets Better campaign anyway. It’s not about bullying of gay kids, which everyone agrees is wrong and needs to stop (as bullying of all kids should). The purpose is to browbeat anyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage, or thinks that the gay agenda isn’t good for America. That’s why Savage, a bully if ever there was one, is heading up the project. And that’s why Obama and Co. are supporting it, even as the founder of the project continues to hold Rick Santorum’s name and reputation hostage.

Bipartisan Group of Over 200 Representatives Urge White House to End Job-Killing Junk Science Climate Regulations | The Gateway Pundit

Bipartisan Group of Over 200 Representatives Urge White House to End Job-Killing Junk Science Climate Regulations | The Gateway Pundit

A group of over 200 US representatives, including 14 democrats, sent a letter to the Obama White House this week urging the administration to end their job-killing junk science regulations.
The Hill reported:

More than 200 House Republicans and about a dozen conservative Democrats called on the White House Thursday to kill pending climate regulations, arguing they will impose huge costs on consumers.

“Affordable, reliable electricity is critical to keeping growing jobs in the United States and such a standard will likely drive up energy prices and threaten domestic jobs,” the 223 lawmakers, including 14 Democrats, wrote in a letter to White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) acting director Jeffrey Zients.

The letter marks the latest affront on the Environmental Protection Agency’s pending rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new and modified power plants that burn fossil fuels. Republicans and some centrist Democrats in the House and Senate have been working for months to scuttle the regulations.

But EPA and other backers of the rules say they will offer huge public health benefits and help to tackle climate change at a minimal cost.

The rules, which EPA is issuing under a settlement with environmentalists and several states, have been delayed repeatedly.

“Our timeline has been for the end of January. We think we are close to that timeline,” Gina McCarthy, EPA’s top air quality official, said Jan. 19.

Christians are always ready to be of service

Nigerian Churchgoers Club Suicide Bomber to Death After His Car Bomb Fails to Kill Him | The Gateway Pundit

The churchgoers decided to help him along on his way to paradise.



Angry worshippers at the headquarters of Church Of Christ In Nations (COCIN) in Jos on Sunday killed one of the two suspected bombers. (Times of Nigeria)

Nigerian churchgoers clubbed an Islamic suicide bomber to death after his car bomb failed to kill him. The suicide bomber drove his car into a church during a prayer service.
The Times of Nigeria reported:

Angry worshippers at the headquarters of Church Of Christ In Nations (COCIN) in Jos on Sunday killed one of the two suspected bearers of the explosives that hit the Church in the morning.

The News Agency of Nigeria (NAN) reports that the bomber and one other, who both wore army camouflage, drove into the Church and beat the security before hitting the building.

NAN correspondent, who was at the scene, reports that the suspect appeared to be in his early 30s.

The suspect, who wore a neatly carved moustache, looked well-fed.

But probably afraid of dying, the bomb carrier jumped out of the vehicle just before the blast went off and attempted to run but could not move as he was affected by the blast.

The angry worshipers, however, descended on him and clubbed him to death.

An eyewitness and a worshipper in the Church, Joyce Dalyop, told NAN that there were arguments among the worshipers over what to do with the bomber before he was finally killed.

» Going back to the pre-Obama world - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

» Going back to the pre-Obama world - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

NJ Teachers’ Union Thugs Protest At Student’s Home To Send Father A Message | RedState

NJ Teachers’ Union Thugs Protest At Student’s Home To Send Father A Message | RedState

In Delsea, New Jersey, the teachers’ union (a sub-chapter of the NEA) has been fighting over the amount of their pay increases (not decreases) since 2010.

On Valentine’s Day, according to NJ.com, the union teachers decided to make their grievance personal by protesting in front of the Delsea school board president’s home.



Unfortunately, the school board president was not home—but his children were, including his daughter whose teachers were among those protesting outside her home.

via NJ.com [emphasis added]:

While the group of teachers, support staff and aides – who have been in contract negotiations since 2010 – were demonstrating within the boundaries of the law, school board members are “appalled and disgusted” with the union’s call to picket in front of Mario Christina’s home while his children were present.

[img]urlhttp://www.redstate.com/laborunionreport/files//2011/03/danger-teacher-bad-mood.png[/img]

Christina, who had no comment following the incident, was not home when the picket line assembled outside his Chew Avenue residence. His daughter, whose Delsea teachers were among the crowd, was home at the time.

The leader of the union protesters, Union President Christine Onorato (who also teaches children at Delsea ), appears to be unapologetic about protesting in front of a student’s home.

“It was a simple expression of our democratic right to express our discontent of not having a contract,” she said. “This was something our membership expressed, and our negotiating team said … we are going to do it.”

Apparently, this teacher’s union thug finds targeting individuals at their personal residence a legitimate tool in the union arsenal—even if inside the home are students of the very teachers protesting outside.

To someone like Onorato, the student(s) inside the home she and her union thugs were protesting are mere collateral damage.

What exactly are these teachers teaching?… That it is acceptable for the mob to target individuals and their children if the mob doesn’t get its way?

Now, that’s a lesson worth remembering.

Per person cost of federal high-risk medical plan doubles - The Washington Post

Per person cost of federal high-risk medical plan doubles - The Washington Post

Solyndra abandons efforts to go clean and green - Washington Times

Solyndra abandons efforts to go clean and green - Washington Times

Federal officials hailed Solyndra LLC’s plan to create clean energy when they awarded the company more than a half-billion dollars in loans, but the solar-panel maker’s abrupt closure now threatens to leave behind an environmental mess.

The company plans on paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to clean up its own property in Fremont, Calif., but a separate leased property in nearby Milpitas sits vacant with barrels of unknown chemicals and lead-contaminated equipment, attorneys for the landlord, iStarCTL I L.P., said in recent bankruptcy court filings.

The full extent of the potential environmental problem at the leased Solyndra facility remains unclear. Officials at iStar say in court papers that they were not given the keys to the premises until this month, though Solyndra stopped making its lease payments in September when it filed for bankruptcy protection in Delaware.

“There may be environmental, health and safety issues and regulatory violations at the premises based on the materials the debtor has left behind, which consist, in part, of open containers of unidentified chemical waste and lead processing machinery,” iStar attorney Karen Bifferato wrote in a recent court filing.

Photographs attached to the iStar court filing provide an inside look at Solyndra’s stripped-down facility after the company hauled away whatever equipment might fetch money at auction.

In one picture, two large blue drums are filled with a black substance with no secure lids and covered instead with clear plastic wrap. Another photograph shows a yellow drum about the size of a large garbage can containing a yellow-brown gooey substance.

Yet another picture shows a large machine with a metallic tube coming from the top and another tube from the side. Both tubes display the words “lead exhaust.” A smaller sign on the front of the machine says “toxic” next to what appears to be a small skull and crossbones. A large structure outside the facility has the words “Argon Refrigerated Liquid” on its side.

Court filings from the landlord also describe a high temperature oven assembly that is connected to an outside collection system, all of which are contaminated with lead.

“It is not yet known if the lead contaminated equipment at the iStar premises poses an imminent health problem, and since iStar only recently obtained access … it is in the process of having the lead contamination investigated,” the landlord stated in court papers.

At a bankruptcy hearing Wednesday, Ms. Bifferato said the landlord is worried that it will be stuck with “a big mess with potential environmental problems,” including Environmental Protection Agency violations.

While Solyndra is paying to clean up its own property in Fremont in hopes of selling it, the company isn’t setting aside enough money to clean up the leased property, Ms. Bifferato said. She argued that Solyndra should set aside funds in the bankruptcy to create an environmental remediation fund to cover the cleanup costs.

Solyndra attorneys disagreed, saying it’s not unexpected that Solyndra would pay to clean up its own property because the sale will return money aimed at maximizing the value of the estate.

Solyndra has hired outside contractors to help remove scrap and clean up its own Fremont plant. In a motion to hire the vendors, attorneys for the company cited the need to dismantle, decontaminate and dispose of scrap metal, robotic enclosures and other equipment.

One company, Catalyst Environmental, will dispose of liquid chemical compounds, including cadmium sulfide, thiourea and hydrochloric acid, all of which were used to help make Solyndra’s solar panels, according to court records.

Another contractor will get a base sum of about $140,000 for five weeks of work to provide mechanical demolition of various piping and sheet-metal connections to factory equipment.

The contractors are needed to prepare the Fremont property for “marketing and sale,” Solyndra bankruptcy attorneys said in filings, adding that the company doesn’t have enough employees to do the work on its own.

Most of Solyndra’s employees were laid off last year. The company had employed about 1,100 people, but an earlier bankruptcy filing shows fewer than 100 remain.

To keep workers from leaving, the company this week won permission from U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Mary Walrath to pay out more than $300,000 in incentive bonuses to 20 key employees, mostly in the finance and engineering departments.

The company also won approval this week to hire Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. to help sell Solyndra’s property.

Green company gets $390M subsidies, lays off 125

Green company gets $390M subsidies, lays off 125

Why College Aid Makes College More Expensive - SmartMoney.com

File under - Things we already knew but the left refuses to accept:

Why College Aid Makes College More Expensive - SmartMoney.com

By JACK HOUGH

Federal aid for students has increased 164% over the past decade, adjusted for inflation, according to the College Board. Yet three-quarters of Americans and even a majority of college presidents see college as unaffordable for most, and that sentiment has been steadily spreading, the Pew Research Center reports.

Two new studies offer clues on why. One measures the degree to which some colleges reduce their own aid in response to increased federal aid. The other suggests federal aid is helping to push college costs higher.

Recipients of federal Pell Grants have, by definition, limited means to pay for college, so they are likely to qualify for grants and price breaks given out by schools, too. But schools view a student's sources of federal aid before deciding how much to give on their own, rather than the other way around. The result is a crowding out effect, where some schools give less as the government gives more.

Lesley Turner, a PhD candidate at Columbia University, looked at data on aid from 1996 to 2008 and calculated that, on average, schools increased Pell Grant recipients' prices by $17 in response to every $100 of Pell Grant aid. More selective nonprofit schools' response was largest and these schools raised prices by $66 for every $100 of Pell Grant aid.

Aid from schools over the past decade has increased about half as fast as federal aid, according to the College Board.

Perhaps worse for students than a crowding out effect is the Bennett Effect, named for William Bennett, who 25 years ago as Secretary of Education wrote for the New York Times, "Increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions."

If subsidies puff up buying power and shift prices higher, as economics courses teach, could federal aid for college help create an affordability problem? After all, the federal government began spending more on college aid with the Higher Education Act of 1965 and the full funding of Pell Grants in 1975. Since 1979, tuition and fees have tripled after adjusting for inflation. That's much faster than the increase for real estate and teacher pay.

There have been mixed findings on the Bennett Effect in recent decades, with some studies finding a dollar-for-dollar relationship and others, none at all. Determining why college costs are rising is a difficult task, after all. Stephanie Riegg Cellini of George Washington University and Claudia Golden of Harvard take a new approach, focusing on for-profit schools. Some of these are eligible to participate in so-called Title IV aid programs (named for a portion of the aforementioned Act) and some not.

After adjusting for differences among schools, the authors find that Title IV-eligible schools charge tuition that is 75% higher than the others. That's roughly equal to the amount of the aid received by students at these schools.

Studies like these suggest that if one goal of government is to make college affordable, aid should become more thoughtful instead of merely more plentiful. And the total cost of federal spending on college isn't fully known. That's because spending on loans dwarfs that on grants. Student loans recently eclipsed credit card debt.

With credit cards, borrowers pay high interest rates to make up for their lack of collateral. Many many student loans have subsidized rates; others have low rates based on the assumption that a college education is a good financial risk for lenders.

If costs outpace the ability of graduates to find jobs with good pay, and repayment rates on these loans slide, taxpayers could end up feeling the crunch.

Hillary Clinton Praises Yemen’s Democratic Elections …(10 Dead & Only 1 Candidate) | The Gateway Pundit

Smart Diplomacy...

Hillary Clinton Praises Yemen’s Democratic Elections …(10 Dead & Only 1 Candidate) | The Gateway Pundit

Why conservatives like 'The Walking Dead'

The Walking Dems by Joseph Farah

I don’t watch much TV, but occasionally – just occasionally – I’ll get hooked on a new show.

I’ve written about my favorite TV program, CBS’ “Person of Interest.” I never miss it. And I know why. It’s about our surveillance society and how one high-tech genius figured out a way to harness the invasions of privacy we undergo on a daily basis for good – for saving the lives of innocent victims of crime.

My second-favorite show – and the only other TV program I actually make a point to watch weekly – is “The Walking Dead” on AMC.

At first I couldn’t really put my finger on why I liked a show about zombies – you know, people who got some dread virus and mutated into brain-dead eating machines with a taste for human blood. In “The Walking Dead,” most of the world is ravaged by this virus, and the show revolves around an intrepid band of uninfected humans trying to survive in the apocalyptic aftermath.

I don’t usually go in for vampires or zombies. So what is it about this particular show that keeps me coming back week after week?

Granted it’s well crafted. It’s suspenseful. There’s plenty of action – and even a reasonable amount of character development.

But it’s more than that.

I think I relate to this show as a kind of metaphor for life in America today.

If you watch the show, you’ll understand what I mean.

I’m one of the survivors. The Walking Dead are the majority of Americans who voted for Barack Obama – and who may be planning to vote for him a second time. In real life, we could call them the Walking Dems. They suck the blood of the shrinking productive class in America. What will become of them when they bleed all of us dry has never occurred to them and never will – because they don’t think. They just consume.

This hit me during a recent episode when one of the survivors betrayed himself as a bleeding heart. His wife and some other family members were infected, but he didn’t put them out of their misery by shooting them in the head, as one must do with the Walking Dead. He kept them locked up in the barn and fed them live chickens, hoping a vaccine would be found some day that would revive them.

You won’t survive long in Walking Dead Land with that kind of attitude, which explains why there aren’t more bleeding hearts on the show.

The bleeding hearts have all been ravaged by the virus. They are the Walking Dead.

So I continue to watch to see if the survivors in Walking Dead Land find an answer. Will they ever be able to beat the odds? Can they ever overcome the superior numbers of bloodsuckers out there – or “walkers,” as they call them?

I’m interested because if they can find an answer, maybe we can, too.

I want to know how to survive in a world of blood-sucking Democrats – crazy, brain-dead, flesh-consumers who only care about their own carnal needs. Maybe this show has the answer.

I don’t think we’re going to find the answer without some help. I’m pretty sure the next election is not going to provide the solution. It doesn’t look like the Republicans have the antidote.

So maybe, for once, we’ll get some inspiration from Hollywood.

Maybe this season finale or next season’s finale will provide the epiphany we need to learn how to cope in this world of the Walking Dems.

That’s why I’m staying tuned.

You know where to find me Sunday night.

Watch a video version of this column by Jerry McGlothlin:

» Chicago Teachers Union Pawns Protest Rahm: Protesters Can’t Explain Signs, Organizers Get Aggressive - Big Government

» Chicago Teachers Union Pawns Protest Rahm: Protesters Can’t Explain Signs, Organizers Get Aggressive - Big Government




Chicago Teachers Union Pawns Protest Rahm: Protesters Can’t Explain Signs, Organizers Get Aggressive

by Rebel Pundit

Monday night Chicago Teachers Union and Occupy Chicago protesters, along with some local residents, showed up in Chicago’s North Center neighborhood to protest converting 18 public schools into charter schools. While none of the schools considered for conversion are in the north-side neighborhood, these community organizers chose this location specifically because it is where Mayor Rahm Emanuel resides.

We asked several protesters the meaning of their signs and what brought them out to join the protest march. Many were quite pleasant and agreed to respond–despite being completely unaware of both the meaning and the names mentioned on the signs and stickers they held. There was one group in attendance, however, that responded to questioning with both defensiveness and aggression, directing their surprising hostility both at myself and another journalist on the scene.

After explaining who I was, a woman began to follow me through the crowds, interrupting interviews I was conducting and instructing protesters not to participate. One of her companions confronted me as I was attempting to cover the event, and refused to respond when I asked his affiliation or give his name, as well as acknowledge any organizations he is a part of. After further research, we identified him as Dennis Kosuth, a socialist organizer and longtime member of the International Socialist Organization. Both became quite confrontational and continued to harass myself and the other citizen journalist on the scene for the duration of the protest.

Other protest organizers as well as members of Occupy Chicago refused to disclose their affiliation with any organization, and refused to state their reasons for attending the protest. This gives rise to the question, what are the true intentions of the protest organizers? Clearly individuals are being used to convey a message they are not even able to accurately explain themselves, and when questioned, they are shielded by socialist organizers and members of Occupy Chicago from inquisitive journalists.

An eyewitness observer spoke with us off-camera and explained how they overheard some teachers bragging about the indoctrination system they have in place to bring new teachers in to support their cause. According to this source, new teachers are required by the union to attend protests and work on behalf of the union initiatives or they are ultimately forced out of teaching or fired.

Shameless… Jay Carney Says Obama Didn’t Turn Down Keystone Pipeline – It Was Republicans | The Gateway Pundit

Shameless… Jay Carney Says Obama Didn’t Turn Down Keystone Pipeline – It Was Republicans | The Gateway Pundit

Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, February 21, 2012, 3:16 PM



It wasn’t Barack. It was that other president in the White House.

Jay Carney blamed Republicans today for blocking Keystone.
Real Clear Politics reported:

White House press secretary Jay Carney first says Republicans “forced” President Obama to deny the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. Later in his press briefing, Carney says Obama didn’t turn down the pipeline.

“In terms of Keystone, as you all know, the history here is pretty clear. And the fact is because Republicans decided to play political with Keystone, their action essentially forced the administration to deny the permit process because they insisted on a time frame in which it was impossible to completely approve the pipeline,” Carney said when asked about the pipeline by ABC News’ Jake Tapper.

Later in the briefing, Carney says it is the Republicans’ fault.

What shameless liars.

The video is here.

Planned Parenthood Already "Rapes" Women in Pre-Abortion Ultrasound | LifeNews.com

Planned Parenthood Already "Rapes" Women in Pre-Abortion Ultrasound | LifeNews.com

The Planned Parenthood abortion business has crated a firestorm of criticism for itself by making the wild-eyed claim that allowing women in Virginia a chance to see an ultrasound of their unborn child before the abortion is akin to rape.

However, new information has surfaced showing the abortion business already does pre-abortion ultrasounds on women to determine the age of the unborn child prior to the abortion — making it so the abortion business, in its own words, “rapes” women already. The question then becomes whether or not women will be allowed to see the ultrasound image or heart the audio of the heartbeat of their baby.

Alana Goodman of Commentary magazine says Planned Parenthood provides the following on a telephone hotline:

“Patients who have a surgical abortion generally come in for two appointments. At the first visit we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit generally takes about an hour. At the second visit, the procedure takes place. This visit takes about an hour as well. For out of town patients for whom it would be difficult to make two trips to our office, we’re able to schedule both the initial appointment and the procedure on the same day.

Medical abortions generally require three visits. At the first visit, we do a health assessment, perform all the necessary lab work, and do an ultrasound. This visit takes about an hour. At the second visit, the physician gives the first pill and directions for taking two more pills at home. The third visit is required during which you will have an exam and another ultrasound.”

“From a health perspective, these ultrasounds are critical. They detect the exact age of the fetus, which often dictates which type of abortion procedure the woman can receive. They can also spot potential complications that could impact the procedure, like ectopic pregnancies. In clinics that don’t have access to ultrasound technology, sometimes pelvic exams can be used as a substitute. But those are arguably just as invasive as the transvaginal ultrasounds pro-choice activists are decrying,” Goodman writes. “In other words, the real reason pro-choicers oppose the law isn’t because of the “invasiveness” or “creepiness” of ultrasounds. It can’t be it. Virginia Planned Parenthood clinics already include them in its abortion procedures.”

As pro-life blogger Jill Stanek notes, the ultrasound bill in Virginia in question doesn’t mandate that an ultrasound is performed — essentially because Planned Parenthood already does them.

“There is nothing in HB 462 that mandates the use of transvaginal ultrasound rather than abdominal ultrasound, but pro-aborts have swarmed around this possibility comparing it to rape,” she says.

“Early in a pregnancy - 4-8ish weeks depending on several factors, including the girth of the mother – a baby’s age cannot be ascertained by other than a transvaginal ultrasound,” Stanek explains. “And this has been determined necessary for the safety of mothers in Virginia based on previous disciplinary actions against abortionists for grossly misjudging a baby’s age.”

Stanek points out that in 1999, the state medical board disciplined abortion practitioner Mi Yong Kim for beginning the abortion of a mother she believed was 8 weeks pregnant via pelvic exam, only to have to stop the abortion because the baby was much larger.

“A hospital ultrasound determined the baby was actually 26-4/7 weeks, and still alive. Kim performed a hysterotomy without further consulting the mother and delivered the dead baby, who weighed a little over 2 pounds, consistent with the measured gestational age,” she notes.

In 2006 the Virginia Board of Medicine suspended the license of abortionist Reffat K. Abofreka for underestimating the age of one unborn child and missing a mass on another baby.

“In January 2006 Abofreka began the abortion of a baby he thought was 12 weeks old by pelvic exam only to find the baby was much larger. The baby was later delivered alive at a hospital measuring 23-2/7 weeks but died,” Stanek noted. “In 2005 Abofreka performed no diagnostic tests whatsoever and began an abortion of a patient. When Abofreka could not get “a satisfactory amount of tissue during the procedure,” he wondered if this was instead an ectopic pregnancy and performed an ultrasound, whereupon discovering a cystic mass between the uterus and left ovary. At the hospital it was determined there was indeed a mass and also a 6-6/7 week old baby. Whether the baby lived or died is unknown.”

Most Absurd Obama Chart Ever? - YouTube

Returning military members allege job discrimination — by federal government - The Washington Post

Returning military members allege job discrimination — by federal government - The Washington Post

Some federal employers have forced reservists to leave military service as a condition of their hiring, which is also against the law, according to Samuel Wright, director of the Service Members Law Center at the Reserve Officers Association.

Memo to Obama: Chevy Volt Fails to Make List of Top 12 'Greenest Vehicles'

greenercars.org | the greenest vehicles of 2011

Zombies lean Democrat

Zombies lean Democrat

(WASHINGTON TIMES) — Did you know that according to a new Pew study, more than 1.8 million dead people are registered to vote? And that leading Democrats are fiercely opposing new laws that tighten voting requirements?

This tells us, just as we suspected, that the zombie population is becoming a major Democratic constituency.

No wonder the leading lights of the left contend – without a shred of evidence – that Republican-led legislatures are enacting photo ID laws to “suppress” the minority vote. Zombies have rights, too, you know. And minorities can’t be expected to do the same simple things everyone else does in order to vote, such as show a photo ID. They’re just, well, incapable, according to Democrats, who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being racist.

The Obama administration is imposing a national school curriculum, even though the law doesn’t allow it,

Obama imposing national school curriculum

A new report compiled by several former Education Department insiders for the Pioneer Institute warns that the Obama administration is imposing a national school curriculum, even though the law doesn’t allow it, by making trades with districts seeking waivers from other program requirements.

“In three short years, the present administration has placed the nation on the road to a national curriculum,” said the authors of the reported called “The Road to a National Curriculum: The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and Conditional Waivers.”

“By leveraging funds through its Race to the Top fund and the Race to the Top Assessment Programs, the [Education] Department has accelerated the implementation of common standards in English language arts and mathematics and the development of common assessments based on those standards,” the authors said. “These standards and assessments will create content for state K-12 curriculum and instructional materials.

“The department has simply paid others to do that which it is forbidden to do,” the report continued. “This tactic should not inoculate the department against the curriculum prohibitions imposed by Congress.”

The authors are Robert S. Eitel and Kent D. Talbert, with help from Williamson M. Evers.

Eitel is a founding member of Talbert & Eitel, an education law firm in Washington, and he advises clients on education-related legislation, regulations and cases. From 2006 to 2009 he was deputy general counsel of the U.S. Department of Education.

Talbert is co-founder of Talbert & Eitel, and provides legal services to colleges and universities, accrediting agencies and professional organizations. He was from 2006-2009 general counsel to the Education Department.

Evers is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and specializes in research on education issues. He was from 2007-2009 the U.S. assistant secretary of education for planning, evaluation and policy development. He also was a senior adviser to then-Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.

The Pioneer Institute is an independent, nonpartisan, privately funded research group that supports scholarship on Massachusetts public policy issues.

The authors said the federal agency is using “waiver conditions” for various requirements – “a power that Congress has not granted” – to set up the national standards.

“Given the intense desire of most states to escape the strict accountability requirements of the [Elementary and Secondary School Education Act], most states will agree to the department’s conditions in order to obtain waivers. By accepting the department’s conditions, these states will be bound indefinitely to the Common Core standards, [Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers-SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium] assessments, and the curriculum and instructional modules that arise from those assessments,” the report said.

“As already evidenced by the eleven states that have already applied for waivers, most states will accept the Common Core standards and the PARCC-SBAC assessment consortia conditions. Once this consummation occurs, the department will not permit a state to walk away from that commitment without the state losing its coveted waivers.

“It is also highly doubtful that states will turn away from the Common Core standards and assessments after making the heavy investment that these initiatives require,” the report said.

“In the view of the authors, these efforts will necessarily result in a de facto national curriculum and instructional materials effectively supervised, directed, or controlled by the department.”

The authors suggest a multifaceted response to Obama’s agenda, including that Congress “should immediately pass legislation clarifying that the department cannot impose conditions on waivers requested by states under ESEA.”

Further, congressional committees should hold hearings on the Race to the Top and related programs “to ascertain the department’s compliance” with various requirements.

Congress also should determine whether it needs to strengthen the legal ban on federal involvement in elementary and secondary curriculum programs and members of Congress would should have the Government Accountability Office review and identify faulty efforts, the report said.

The study comes from the Pioneeer Institute’s Center for School Reform, which tries to boost education options for parents and students and ensure accountability in public education.

The launch of ESEA in 1965 under President Lyndon Johnson brought about huge advances in federal involvement in education, except that the Education Department generally followed the rules not to be involved in curriculum over the years.

In 2009, that changed.

“Actions taken by the Obama administration signal an important policy shift in the nation’s education policy, with the department placing the nation on the road to federal direction over elementary and secondary school curriculum and instruction,” the report warned.

Even though there were protections for local control of education, “at the direction of the present administration … the department has begun to slight these statutory constraints.”

The report said through its administrative authority, “The department has created a system of discretionary grants and waivers that herds state education authorities into accepting elementary and secondary school standards and assessments favored by the department … these standards and assessments will ultimately direct the course of elementary and secondary study … running the risk that states will become little more than administrative agents for a nationalized K-12 program.”

Obama’s administrators are moving that direction even though the law bans federal instrusion into any “direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institute, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials…”

The report details how common standards began as a voluntary effort on the part of the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, simply defining what students should know in order to graduate from high school.

Then Obama had the Race to the Top grants require districts to adopt the Obama standards in exchange for participating.

The winners “adopted or indicated their intent to adopt” the standards, the report confirmed.

That raised concerns, with Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott telling Sen. John Cornyn, “I believe that the true intention of this effort is to establish one set of national education standards and national tests across the country. Originally sold to states as voluntary, states have now been told that participation in national standards and national testing would be required…”

Weeks later, the Education Department confirmed that, stating its assessment standards will be used “to meet the assessment requirements” in federal programs.

“Through the Race to the Top Assessment Program, the department displaces state assessment autonomy with new common assessments for all states in the consortia, directed and influenced by $362 million in federal funds and program requirements,” the report said.

Additionally, the Obama administration is using school requests for waivers from various requirements to leverage states into a long-term national system of curriculum, “notwithstanding the absence of legal authority.”

“Any state effort to untether from the conditions imposed by the department in exchange for having received an ESEA waiver will certainly result in the department revoking the waiver. Like the dazed traveler in the popular Eagles’ song ‘Hotel California,’ states can check out any time they, but then can never leave,” the report said.

» Obama 2008 v. Obama 2012: An Amateur v. a Failure - Big Government

» Obama 2008 v. Obama 2012: An Amateur v. a Failure - Big Government

The screaming crowds and near Elvis-fanfare that greeted Obama as he campaigned across America in 2008, began dying down in late 2009 and have been reduced to nothing more than a whimper in 2012. He is no longer the juggernaut on an upward trajectory: rather, he’s the man who promised hope and change but delivered Fast and Furious. He’s the propagandist for government sponsored green energy programs that are going belly-up at a record pace, and the author of economic policies that have kept unemployment above 8% since February 2009. He so badly wants to hear Farrakhan use the word “messiah” when referencing him again, but the Nation of Islam leader who said he heard the messiah speak when Obama spoke in 2008 has since called Obama “a murderer.”

Gas prices are up over 80% on Obama’s watch, yet his approach to gasoline remains unchanged. Which means we continue to buy our gasoline from many of the same countries that can’t wait to see a nuclear weapon detonated in an American city. So oil is over $100 a barrel, and parts of our country are already paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, while Obama continues to ignore the misery such prices are sure to bring to the middle-class families he claims to be looking out for.

In the midst of this, we’ve been shamed on the battlefield, where Obama pulled our soldiers out as a result of his election year promises to the 21st century counter culture. There were no stated qualifications for victory, only the promise that on such-and-such a date our troops would be coming home. And now that the majority of them are home, Obama’s cutting the size of the standing army and suggesting an 80% reduction in our nuclear arms arsenal.(?) Perhaps Rush Limbaugh described it best when he called it “unilateral disarmament.” It sounds like national suicide to me.

Yet in the midst of all this (and I’ve only scratched the surface), far left members of the media are trying to convince us that Obama still makes Chris Matthews feel a tingle go up his leg. And when unemployment numbers can be doctored so as to reflect a .05% drop in unemployment from one month to the next, Obama claims his economic policies are starting to work. However, the current (supposed) 8.3% unemployment rate Obama & Co. can’t quit bragging about is simply a figment of someone’s political imagination.

According to the Congressional Budget Office:

The official unemployment rate excludes those individuals who would like to work but have not searched for a job in the past four weeks as well as those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time work; if those people were counted among the unemployed, the unemployment rate in January 2012 would have been about 15 percent.

Did you see that? If Obama & Co. were doing the math honestly, unemployment would be at 15%.

I’m just saying, Obama is pawning himself off as the 2008 candidate all over again. And he hopes a majority of Americans will fall under his trance once more. The problem is, between the Obama economy, the Obama military strategy, the Obama green initiative, the Obama unemployment numbers, etc., it’s simply impossible to believe these are better days.

The bottom line: Obama has been a disaster and he is beatable. Anything his campaign publishes to the contrary is just a facade.

» Obama Forcing Private Companies to Have Board Votes on Illegal Policy - Big Government

» Obama Forcing Private Companies to Have Board Votes on Illegal Policy - Big Government

Another day, another Barack Obama Administration totalitarian diktat.

In other words, whatever Obama wants – by any means necessary.

Behold Obama’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Which last week handed down from on-high a mandate that telecommunications companies AT&T, Verizon and Sprint MUST have Board votes on Network Neutrality.

SEC to Telcos: Yes, Net Neutrality is a Significant Policy Issue



The problem for Obama’s SEC is – Net Neutrality isn’t even a LEGAL policy issue. Because Congress has never passed a law making Net Neutrality actual policy.

The federal government – via the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – first tried to unilaterally impose Net Neutrality in 2008. And the D.C. Circuit Court in April 2010 unanimously threw the government out on its ear.

Because the FCC “has failed to tie its assertion” of regulatory authority to an actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the power to regulate an Internet provider’s network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Tuesday’s decision could doom one of the signature initiatives of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat. Last October, Genachowski announced plans to begin drafting a formal set of Net neutrality rules–even though Congress has not given the agency permission to do so.

But it didn’t doom Genachowski and Obama’s illegal Net Neutrality intentions. It didn’t even daunt them. Just eight months after this stinging rebuke, Obama’s FCC went ahead and illegally jammed through Net Neutrality anyway.

They did so despite the D.C. Circuit Court’s unanimous ruling. And they did so despite the fact that more than 300 members of the then still-Democrat-Majority Congress – the body charged with giving the FCC Net Neutrality authority – were for months in advance telling them not to.



Verizon, MetroPCS and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli are all now suing to undo this particular Obama power grab. In the same D.C. Circuit Court that threw out the FCC’s first illegal attempt.

There are very few things judges and courts like less than summarily dispatching a case – and then again having to hear the same case. So the FCC’s Illegal Attempt II will most likely suffer the exact same fate as Illegal Attempt I.

The FCC has been all along hedging its Net Neutrality bet – by illegally jamming merging companies with Net Neutrality mandates as a condition of the government approving said mergers.

Which – on the 2010 Comcast-NBCU merger – even the uber-Leftist Washington Post thought was a bad idea:

FCC officials should resist calls by some merger opponents to impose “net neutrality” principles on Comcast’s Internet component.

Obama’s FCC – shocker – did it anyway.

(Why private companies that have reached mutually agreeable business arrangements must then seek government approval is one excellent question. Why the government can then illegally make up laws out of whole cloth and stick these companies with them as approval conditions is another.)

—–

So what Obama’s SEC is now doing on Net Neutrality is just and yet another illegal power play by Obama’s Administration.

Overrunning the private Board practices of private companies – and mandating they vote on something no government agency has any authority to impose.

Uber-Leftist policy – by any means necessary.

The Obama Way.

» Obama Cuts Weather Satellites for Defense…But Not For Commerce - Big Government

» Obama Cuts Weather Satellites for Defense…But Not For Commerce - Big Government

The insistence on cutting defense programs even while spending hundreds of million of dollars to fund the misnamed Arab Spring seems bizarre at the very least.

But there’s a reason that Democrats made their budget cut proposals contingent on military funding being cut: they dislike the military strongly, and want America to be a far less assertive global leader. They’d prefer we spend the money on critical items here at home … like weather satellites that may harm commerce. Or something.

» Rep. Allen West Delivers Epic Speech on GOP’s Proud History of Fighting For Black Equality - Big Government

» Rep. Allen West Delivers Epic Speech on GOP’s Proud History of Fighting For Black Equality - Big Government

In a sweeping and stirring oration on the floor of the House of Representatives, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) proudly recounted the Republican Party’s long history of fighting for black freedom against the Democratic Party’s history of racism and oppression.

Rep. West’s speech offered a timeline of Republican Party victories on behalf of African Americans’ long battle for equality. From the elections of the first black members of Congress (Sen. Hiram Revels (R-MS) and Rep. Joseph Rainey (R-SC)), to the adoption of the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 15th Amendment, 1875 Civil Rights Act, 1957 Civil Rights Act, 1964 Civil Rights Act, and of course the Emancipation itself, Rep. West recounted how each victory was the result of the Republican Party’s commitment to freedom for all citizens, regardless of hue.

Rep. West’s oration marking Black History Month also placed his own election in the pantheon of Republican victories on behalf of African Americans:

In some ways, Mr. Speaker, I carry the torch of Josiah Walls. You see, in 1876, the Democrats contested his election and had him replaced midterm with one of their own. No black Republican would again be elected from Florida to this House until November 2, 2010, when the voters of that State entrusted me to be their Representative.

Rep. West also recounted the victories of GOP luminaries like President Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, President Dwight Eisenhower, and Sen. Everett Dirksen.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans were unfazed by the many Democrats, including John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, who criticized President Eisenhower’s decision. Meanwhile, it was the Democrats in the Senate who filibustered the first civil rights act of the 20th century and the Republicans who managed to pass it nonetheless. The law established a Civil Rights Division within the Justice Department and authorized the Attorney General to request injunctions against anyone attempting to deny a person’s right to vote. It was written at the behest of President Eisenhower after a long drought of civil rights bills under Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and President Harry Truman.

It was a Senate minority leader, Everett Dirksen, a Republican, who helped write the first Civil Rights Act of 1964, widely regarded as the most influential of them all. And in recent years, it’s been the Republican Party that has fought to prevent African Americans from being trapped in a permanent underclass through dependence on government handouts.

In the speech’s moving peroration, Rep. West closed his remarks by reaffirming the Republican Party’s commitment to conserving the dignity of every human life, regardless of position or color.

With a core belief in the supremacy and the sovereignty of the individual and the unconditional dignity of every human life, the Republican Party is, always has been, and forever shall be the party of equality of opportunity. Happy Black History Month.

When Is A Tie Not A Tie?

JustOneMinute: When Is A Tie Not A Tie?

When is a tie not a tie? And when is a tie-breaker not a tie-breaker? When our friends in the liberal media are reporting on Obama.

So Michelle and Barack win the "Most Charitable" title because they contributed a higher proportion of their Gross Income to a tax-advantaged retirement plan? I understand that charity begins a home, but really?

Articles: Obama and the Negotiator's Tactic

Articles: Obama and the Negotiator's Tactic

By Russell Nagelkirk

There is a pattern to how Obama has advanced the project of a command-and-control economy -- i.e., fascism with a veneer of capitalism. Using a negotiator's tactic, Obama sets up his opposition so that they will be happy with meaningless scraps. The idea is to make demands that are outrageous to demand and then later back away to a degree it is no longer deemed egregious. The opposition walks away foolishly thinking it scored a victory, all the while not realizing that the line had been moved. By being focused on the worst of the demands, no one notices that they are accepting the premise behind the demands.

This is the tactic of the shrewd negotiator, who includes things that he knows he does not need in his list of wants. It is his hope that when he feigns a concession by removing some of the unneeded items, the other side shall be in a morally obligatory position to make their own concessions.

In the political arena, the use of this tactic serves two purposes, the first being to put false pressure on the other side and the second to create a smokescreen for an underlying agenda.

Obama regularly employs this tactic and has shoved us towards fascism with it. Here I mean "fascism" in the sense that Obama believes that the capitalist economic system must be directed, managed, and coordinated under the supervision of the state, to bring about transformation the state deems desirable.

For example, instead of proposing to cut corporate business taxes, limiting regulation, or other actions that tangibly free up business capital to hire, he proposes a "stimulus" instead, a scheme to spend money that does not yet exist to come from someone in the private sector and to be spent on nonexistent "shovel ready" jobs. With a budget that automatically increases each year, it was outrageous to demand that we spend more. The parties should reasonably hammer out something that reduces costs to business. But instead of the debate being about whether or not there should be a stimulus, they compromise instead about how much the stimulus should be. Invisibly, the line is moved so that the stimulus represents a fresh baseline for the budget, and the false premise that the government can boost the economy tacitly receives the imprimatur of Congress.

Then there was ObamaCare. Shrouded in a miasma of inconsistency, questions abounded whether the president was determined to get single-payer, government-run health care. He said he wanted to increase competition and reduce costs, that we have to work with what we have and fix what is broken. He then, nonetheless, pushed for a major overhaul that injected government into the "system" of health care. Again, this was an outrageous step. It was so outrageous that no Republicans signed up, so the negotiation ended up being between Obama and the more conservative Democrats. The final holdouts, including Bart Stupak, signed on thinking they won victories for their causes, including a useless executive order ostensibly to prohibit directing federal funds to abortions. But by signing on, they moved the line. They accepted the premise that government's role and authority to manage and control the health care industry should be almost limitlessly expanded.

Finally, there is the recent rule by the administration that requires health plans to provide free contraception and sterilization, except if the employer is religious. The outrage is that the definition for "religious" is so narrow that it does not exempt Catholic hospitals or universities, so, Catholic or not, they will have to set aside their conscience and convictions. Obama must have known that this would spark outrage. They went ahead anyway. Why? I think it is the same negotiation tactic, though technically this isn't negotiation; it is rule-making. Obama wants greater government control, so he demands the outrageous, and now he is testing how much he has to walk it back to quell the fires. As seen here, he has offered a "compromise" (a meaningless scrap), and since the religious institutions speaking out don't want confrontation, they may bite. If so, Obama will have moved the line. This process also serves as the smokescreen for his effort to cement the premise, which premise is the rule itself, created so that, as Krauthammer put it here, "the rest of civil society may be broken to the will of the state's regulators."

In short, we're making such a fuss about the exception to the rule that we don't object to the rule.

Consider the ramifications of where we are today. We have generally accepted the gross idea that government may be entrusted with the power so controlling and intrusive that it may compel one side to buy the product of insurance, another side to sell it (if you mandate the purchase, logic holds that you mandate the sale), and then on top of all the very composition of the product.

Ladies and gentlemen, tyranny and fascism are here. When are we going to draw the line?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/obama_and_the_negotiators_tactic.html#ixzz1mjwUFa5n

Black liberals should be ashamed

Black liberals should be ashamed

As we know, it is liberals’ proclivity for projection that compels black liberals to deride conservatives of color as sellouts, Uncle Toms and things of this nature, when it is they who are acceding to the dominion of progressive overlords and advancing that cause. Among the progressive overlords are factions that not only are conspiring to compromise black Americans socially, culturally and economically, but which would have kept blacks in the back of the bus and drinking from their own water fountains had they been able to maintain the status quo in segregated America.

Yet, black liberals – prominent ones, more especially – continue to advance the socialist doctrine of their overseers, with relish and most vociferously, to be sure. Some have taken it to a high art, while others rail as inarticulately as severe brain injury patients, astonishing us with the fact that they have not only gained employment doing so, but made lucrative careers out of deceiving their fellow Americans of high melanin conten

I discussed many of the methods and machinations of liberal politicians and career activists pertaining to race politics in my book, Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal – America’s Racial Obsession,” but as more and more sulfurous fissures have erupted across the political landscape (primarily due to the policies of the Obama administration), the issue of prominent black liberals and their duplicity becomes increasingly significant.

As commentator Glenn Beck has pointed out, there are scores of noteworthy black achievers throughout American history, ranging from the Revolutionary War period up through the pre-Civil Rights Movement days, but black kids aren’t taught about them. Why? Because it is more important for them to learn that blacks weren’t able to accomplish anything in America until the left began fighting the good fight on their behalf than it would be to expose them to that which would instill pride in their forebears and, by extension, them. The prospect of hope and change to which that might give rise is far too frightening to the left to allow.

We know that politicians are essentially whores; more than even money or power, they thrive on their ability to artfully play the game. As such, they will stoop to anything, even if it humiliates them, their constituency, or some other individual or group. That being the case, it is always only a matter of time before they sell out to someone, some thing, or some destructive agenda.

But what’s the prominent black activist’s excuse?

It isn’t conservative white Republicans who have institutionally undereducated generations of black kids; those responsible aren’t even exclusively white. It’s been liberals, segregationist Democrats at first, and then socialists as these infiltrated that party. As civil-rights activism became a cottage industry, and more and more blacks were offered political opportunities to shill for the liberal power structure, their trusting compatriots of color had no reason not to buy into the lies.

Those lies became increasingly infused with Marxist dogma as the radical left’s power base coalesced: Those who’d been dedicated to holding blacks in thralldom were not only white, but conservative, Christian and, of course, dedicatedly capitalist. Having heard many a young, angry black nationalist spout off when I was a child, I know the rhetoric well, but young black people don’t know that it’s an old, communist con any more than white kids do. As I’ve said time and again: What progressives have done with regard to the black community in America is probably the single most successful thing they have accomplished. In part, this is due to so many blacks having been willing to carry their water, whether due to ignorance or ideology.

The high-profile black liberal, however, can’t really fall back on ignorance. One would have to be monumentally dull to continue to fall for the lies and manifest inferiority of liberal doctrine in perpetuity after being on the inside for years. In their hearts, men like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and even Barack Obama know that they’ve no more interest in the welfare of black Americans than “Great Society” President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who is reported to have said, “I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

So, I would ask of high-profile black liberals: Are you really in favor of the universal suffering that socialism promises to bring upon us all regardless of race, or are you just as innately unintelligent as your liberal overseers believe you to be?

Communism by insurance mandate - HUMAN EVENTS

Communism by insurance mandate - HUMAN EVENTS

One theory for why Barack Obama pushed the contraception mandate right now is that it helps Rick Santorum. Others theorize it's because Obama is an anti-religious bigot with a left-wing agenda. Reasonable minds can disagree on this.

But it may end up helping Mitt Romney by reminding people that the "individual mandate" is the least of the problems with ObamaCare. (The "individual mandate" is simply the legal argument for why ObamaCare is unconstitutional in a country that has accepted Social Security and Medicare as constitutional.)

This isn't a Catholic issue or even a religious issue. Conservatives are falling into the Democrats' trap by denouncing it as such. It's a freedom issue. (Or, as Democrats call it, "the F-word.")

If liberals like it, it's subsidized; if they don't, it's prohibited. And now they can impose their left-wing authoritarianism on the entire country by calling their mandates and prohibitions "insurance."

Liberal fundamentalists say: I don't see why anyone needs to hunt; I don't know why anyone needs to eat meat; I don't see why anyone needs to bathe every day; I don't know why anyone minds looking at urine in a low-flow toilet; I don't know why anyone needs an incandescent light bulb ...

Screw you, liberals. I don't know why anyone needs an abortion, free contraception, crap-ass "art" with photos of vaginas on the Virgin Mary, non-farming farmers or a $1 million pension for Anthony Weiner.

But I'm forced to subsidize all of that.

And now we're all going to be forced to subsidize the entire wish list of the Berkeley City Council, recast as "health insurance."

Insurance is not supposed to be for normal expenses in the ordinary course of events, such as multivitamins, house painting or oil changes. Insurance is for unexpected catastrophes: fires, accidents, cancer.

The basic idea is to spread the risk of unforeseen disasters. Filling up your gas tank, for example, is not an unforeseen disaster (though it's getting to be under Obama).

So why is birth control covered by insurance? Birth control pills aren't that expensive -- generics are about $20 a month -- nor is the need for them a bolt out of the blue. Why not have health insurance cover manicures, back massages, carrot cake and nannies?

Liberals huffily ask why it's so important to the Catholic Church not to pay for insurance plans that cover birth control, but the better question is: Why is it so important to liberals to force them to? (Wait until they have to buy coverage for vibrating butt-plugs!)

The answer is: They want the government giving official sanction to birth control and, later, abortion. That comes next. They want it for same reason gays want gay marriage -- it's purely symbolic.

Following Betty Friedan, gender feminists believe the pill is so central to what we are as a nation that it must be paid for by all, i.e. by insurance. The argument for fully subsidized abortions will be: We don't vote on a basic human right!

Whether or not it's a "right," it's not an area for "insurance." Abortion is an elective procedure. No families are going bankrupt because they had to pay for an abortion -- which costs about as much as a haircut for John Edwards or Bill Clinton. Can't we limit the health insurance we are all required by federal law to purchase to financially ruinous, actual medical problems?

No, that is not in the cards. Just as liberals have turned the Constitution into a vehicle for achieving all the left-wing policies they could never get Americans to vote for, now they are going to use "insurance" for the same purpose. Their new method doesn't even require them to get votes from five justices on the Supreme Court.

The secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, will do it all on her own.

Anything close to the beating heart of feminism is about to become a mandatory part of insurance coverage: fertility treatments, chemical sensitivities, a year's leave of absence for fathers after the birth of a child, attention deficit disorder, massages, aromatherapy, watching MSNBC, sex change operations, gender reassignment surgery, gender re-reassignment surgery.

And then, once every single insurance plan in the country is required by federal law to cover one million liberal causes having nothing to do with medical problems, Democrats will be happy to let us purchase health insurance across state lines. Sure, buy your insurance from Utah or Kentucky. Every insurance plan in the country, by federal law, will be identical.

The contraception diktat is only the beginning of the government controlling your life under ObamaCare. There are approximately 100,000 more decisions the HHS Secretary will have to make under ObamaCare that you will not be able to appeal.

The bill should have been called "Kathleen Sebelius' Dream Journal."
As we have seen, Sebelius is not a go-with-the-flow kind of secretary. She is a doctrinaire feminist who thinks it's important to make a statement by ordering something that has only a tangential connection to health care but will have the effect of costing everyone more money.

Are you getting why this isn't a Catholic issue? So what if some "compromise" is reached that makes the Catholic bishops happy? They supported ObamaCare to begin with! They ought to be forced to live with the consequences of the totalitarian regime they helped foist on the rest of us.

Maybe they'll get a waiver from the contraception mandate on religious grounds -- just like unions and Obama-friendly corporations got waivers on the grounds that they realized ObamaCare would suck and they didn't want to be a part of it.

What about the rest of us? You know, the ones who didn't support ObamaCare? We still have to live under the thumb of a nutcase gender-feminist with unlimited authority to ban whatever she doesn't like, subsidize whatever she does like and call it "insurance."

If Obama is re-elected this November and ObamaCare is not repealed, Republicans' only option will be to make Rick Santorum the head of HHS under the next Republican president (if we ever have one).

He can prohibit insurance companies from covering anything related to contraception, AIDS and substance abuse, and mandate that insurance plans pay subsidies to stay-at-home mothers, tuition for home-schooled kids and cover the purchase of his book, "It Takes a Family."

Those particular lifestyle choices have as much to do with "insurance" as contraceptives do.