Log in

"Extremism *in the defense of Liberty* is no vice."
"The Left isnt made up of friends&allies. It's made up of competing parasites."
Recent Entries 
9th-Feb-2016 10:52 am - Kasich disqualified
This is a Republican candidate on the socialist versus the crony corporate socialist in the Democrat Party: “One of them’s too hot, one of them’s too cold, but I’ve got the right temperature.”
Got that? He's halfway between the two.
From his own mouth.
You know what that's not? Conservative.
So if you support this guy you might be an idiot.

When he announced that he'll send a Bible to anyone who doesn't agree with his Medicare expansion he should have been done.
This might even be worse.
Kasich will switch parties after this election (IF he isn't foolishly made VP).

5th-Feb-2016 01:07 pm - On jerks calling Ted Cruz 'Rafael'
This just came up in a forum. Since jackasses will be running with this petty nonsense again I might as well put it here to cut and paste as a time saver.
"Question, and I am not against Cruz in any way nor a fan of Obama, but if an author wrote an article on Obama and used his birth name, would you still call it a spin or the author a "nutcase" or "loon"? Just curious."

Cruz changed his name at 13 because he was teased about the nickname he went by, "Felito". Cruz was integrating. It wasn't political.
Obama changed his name at 19 from Barry to Barack, specifically as part of a rejection of the culture/nation. It was as an adult, and entirely political.
Do you see the difference between the two? Just curious.

Did you know why Cruz changed his name when you compared the two?

"When he was 13, Cruz decided to change his name to 'Ted.'
Born Rafael Edward Cruz, he’d gone by the nickname 'Felito' most of his life. Cruz describes the nickname often resulted in him being teased. He refers to that time of his life as a time where he was an 'unpopular nerd.'
'The problem with that name was that it seemed to rhyme with every major corn chip on the market. Fritos, Cheetos, Doritos and Tostitos- a fact that other young children were quite happy to point out,' Cruz wrote.

Frankly, He's lucky. At age 13 I'd have called him 'fellatio.'

"Cruz wrote that his mother gave him the idea to change his name: '‘Ted’ immediately felt like me. But my father was furious with the decision. He viewed it as a rejection of him and his heritage, which was not my intention.'"

He goes by his middle name?!? *GASP*

David Dwight Eisenhower, John Calvin Coolidge, Stephen Grover Cleveland, Hiram Ulysses Grant aghast!

Not that leftists will care about truth.

"Many historians have made the case that Jefferson was not a Christian, therefore removed all verses that suggested the supernatural or divine nature of Jesus Christ, a theory that is widely accepted."

"“People always say, ‘Well, that’s where he cut out all the miracles.’ Really? Well, he’s got raising the dead in there, he’s got healing the sick, he’s got casting out devils in there, he’s got resurrection in there,” Barton told Beck.
Barton says Jefferson made the original 1804 version, which was titled ”The Philosophy of the Jesus of Nazareth,” as an evangelistic tool in order to spread the Christian gospel among the Indians."

"As for Jefferson’s second version, titled “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth,” Barton says the founder created it in 1820 in order to compare the moral teachings of Jesus to that of the many scholars he had studied."

“'So what he decides he’s going to take the moral teachings of Jesus and show how superior they are to all the moral teachings of the world,' Barton said.
Barton went on to tell Beck that Jefferson’s 1820 version, which he says contains “81 moral teachings of Jesus,” was then offered to all of Congress in order to avoid “trouble with corruption.”"

Offered to all of Congress. Imagine the outcry in our Godless, anti-Christian country today.

A good interview. Worth the watch.

4th-Feb-2016 08:49 pm - Rubio Reminders
Sellout Santorum is asked to name one thing Rubio did - sponsor a bill, offering something in committee - one thing that Rubio did that inspired sellout Santorum to endorse him.
NOTHING. NADA. Asked three times he had no answer. Not even an inspirational anecdote.

Because what Rubio has going for him is entirely that he's the GOP's Obama.

Establishment shills.


"Now, if we all squawk, and make noise, and have our tantrum, but then, in the end, dutifully support an Amensty Super-Hawk like Marco Rubio, precisely as the Establishment always planned for us to do, do you think they'll take that as a repudiation, and a sign that they must reform?

Or do you think, rather, they'll take that as a sign that they calculated the political math perfectly, and they knew our numbers to three decimal places, and they did everything right, and have successfully Managed their stupid, three-toothed inbred voters yet again?

Of course it's the latter."

3rd-Feb-2016 11:47 pm - How to Stop Rape - make it legal
"I thought about this problem and am sure I have the solution: make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds.

The exception for public rape is aimed at those seedy and deranged men who randomly select their rape victims on alleys and jogging trails, but not as a mechanism to prevent those rapes, since the verdict is still out if punishment stops a committed criminal mind, but to have a way to keep them off the streets. For all other rapes, however, especially if done in a dwelling or on private property, any and all rape that happens should be completely legal."

Now, before your head explodes...

I of course don't sign on with the argument taken literally, but the article does raise some very good points that desperately need to be made.

"So, was Megyn Kelly’s line of questioning during the debate foul? She presented a series of edited clips that made it appear Sen. Cruz had flip-flopped on the issue of immigration. However, in her follow-up interview (see below), she admitted Cruz’s record did not support that argument, that he had been solid on the issue of immigration."

"MEGYN: You were talking about people coming out of the shadows. It seems like acting. TED: Well, look, what I often do, particularly when debating Democrats — and I was debating Chuck Schumer there — is use the language of the Democrats to show their hypocrisy. Because, you know what, Chuck Schumer and the Democrats talked about people coming under the shadows. But it wasn’t about that. It was about votes.
MEGYN: And they were saying at the time that it wasn’t about citizenship. And you were trying to put the lie to that? Is that the — TED: Yes. Right. MEGYN: As I read your testimonials on this, that’s how I read it.
TED: No, that’s exactly right. They said it was all about bringing people out of the shadows. And I said, “Well, great. Then you should be happy to take citizenship off the table.” And, of course, Chuck Schumer responded, “If there is no citizenship, there is no reform. We’ll kill the whole thing.” And, you know, there’s an old joke that the new politically correct term for illegal aliens is now undocumented Democrats. This was about votes. And that amendment laid that there. And when the hypocrisy was shown to the American people, that’s one of the reasons we were able to kill it.
MEGYN: I got it.
TED: It’s why Jeff Sessions said if it wasn’t for Cruz — he said, “If Ted wasn’t there, they would have passed.”
MEGYN: I thought is he lying about this poison pill thing? The record supports you that it was a poison pill."

28th-Jan-2016 02:17 am - Asked about gay marriage
Regarding a leftist who pretends to be libertarian pushing a video demonizing those against gay marriage.

"Watch if you'd like"

"(although I know some here hate giving 'those guys' clicks.)"

"What are your real reasons?"
The opening implication is that we are liars. Always a good start. Just yell 'homophobe' and save us the time.

"The way I see it, from a government standpoint it is largely a way for devoted couples of any sexual orientation to have equal legal rights regarding their spouse"
Except 1) it does not do that and 2) there were other ways. So what's _your_ real reason? SWITD?

"I understand that "redefining" the word "marriage" is a hang up for lots of folks, so is that it? "
Redefining words and their legal meanings is dismissed as a "hang up". Well, this opening is chock full of honesty.

"slippery slope argument"
People who are not aware should keep a special eye out for this term. 'Slippery slope' can be and often is a fallacy. However, like Godwin's Law, the mere accusation does not automatically render the argument invalid.
What we now call "liberalism" is in fact "progressivism". The word describes the agenda and methodology. Every step is another step toward their utopian ideal. The 'slippery slope' _is_ progressivism. They believe society (meaning YOU) must be made "better", must be improved, progressed, but it must be done slowly enough that the serfs (you) don't panic and revolt.
They may not know it but this is part of why they often say, "you're on the wrong side of history." Because the future will be 'progressed' and look back disapprovingly.

Read more...Collapse )
Leftist scum tries to slide in how Reagan was convinced to hate on AIDS / gays for years while discussing something else. I reply...

You mean Reagan, who in 1978 while trying to woo conservatives still put out a public opinion that favored gays?
"In 1978, when California was on the verge of passing a state ballot initiative that would ban openly gay teachers, it was Reagan's opposition that changed public opinion."

Reagan, who was dealing with what appeared to be a brand new and barely understood disease?
"By August 1982, the disease was being referred to by its new CDC-coined name: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).[74]

In May 1983, doctors from Dr. Luc Montagnier's team at the Pasteur Institute in France reported that they had isolated a new retrovirus from lymphoid ganglions that they believed was the cause of AIDS.[75] The virus was later named lymphadenopathy-associated virus (LAV) and a sample was sent to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, which was later passed to the National Cancer Institute (NCI).[75][76]

In May 1984 a team led by Robert Gallo of the United States confirmed the discovery of the virus, but they renamed it human T lymphotropic virus type III (HTLV-III).[77]

In January 1985, a number of more-detailed reports were published concerning LAV and HTLV-III, and by March it was clear that the viruses were the same, were from the same source, and were the etiological agent of AIDS.[78][79]
May 1986: the name HIV"

And who appears to have participated in increases to deal with it?
"Precise budget requests are difficult to calculate, as online records from the 1980s are spotty. Nevertheless, New York University's archived, hard copies of budget documents from fiscal year 1984 through FY 1989 show that Reagan proposed at least $2.79 billion for AIDS research, education, and treatment. In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. This higher number reflects President Reagan's proposals as well as additional expenditures approved by Congress that he later signed."


To which leftist scumbag responds that he prefers the CDC rather than my sub par sources. (Then provides a link with no argument or excerpt)

So I read his link and...

"During the initial year after the first reports of AIDS, when the term "gay plague" was commonly used, the disease received relatively little attention from the mainstream media, the public, or politicians. By the end of 1982, however, it was clear that others were at risk for the disease, and what had been complacency turned into serious concern, even panic."

So in one year people knew and there was a panic. So where is his denying it for so long because it was only a gay disease?

Doesn't it ever bother you that leftist Narratives regarding history seem to be so flawed? It should.

And he ran away after insulting me.

Leftism is an Orwellian cult
"With the lifting of sanctions against Iran, the market, already oversupplied, is expected to be flooded.
It's the anticipation of this which pushed the price of Brent crude down below $28 - or £19.60 - on Monday.
Bizarrely, that makes the cost of the oil inside a barrel less than the cost of a barrel itself."

Here's a flashback of Obama, 2012.
"And you can bet that since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their three-point plans for $2 gas. I’ll save you the suspense: Step one is drill, step two is drill, and step three is keep drilling. We heard the same thing in 2007, when I was running for President. We hear the same thing every year. We’ve heard the same thing for thirty years.
Well the American people aren’t stupid. You know that’s not a plan – especially since we’re already drilling. It’s a bumper sticker. It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. It’s a strategy to get politicians through an election. You know there are no quick fixes to this problem, and you know we can’t just drill our way to lower gas prices.”"
Link for this quote - http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/19/video-remember-when-barack-obama-said-we-couldnt-just-drill-our-way-to-lower-gas-prices/

So not only was Obama (and all Democrats) completely wrong in his regular mantra,
not only was he typically mocking (and an ideological fanatic or liar) while being completely wrong,
not only could AMERICA have been benefiting all along if Democrats hadn't always resisted it,
but it turns out that due to additional Obama brilliant policies it's the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, who chants death to America, an authoritarian theocracy, that now gets to profit!
Democrats. Perpetually harming the country and the world while blaming Republicans.

From ultra left Robert Reich. Given that's the source, Cruz couldn't ask for a better endorsement. Full of excellent, accurate insights. If translated from the anti-Constitution/American/liberty left wing cult, it spot on.

5 reasons Ted Cruz is more dangerous than Donald Trump.

Read more...Collapse )
15th-Jan-2016 06:21 pm - Conspiracy theory!
"Cass Sunstein has long been one of Barack Obama’s closest confidants. Often mentioned as a likely Obama nominee to the Supreme Court, Sunstein is currently Obama’s head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs where, among other things, he is responsible for 'overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.'"

"Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). This program would target those advocating false “conspiracy theories,” which they define to mean: “an attempt to explain an event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.” Sunstein’s 2008 paper was flagged by this blogger, and then amplified in an excellent report by Raw Story‘s Daniel Tencer.

There’s no evidence that the Obama administration has actually implemented a program exactly of the type advocated by Sunstein, though in light of this paper and the fact that Sunstein’s position would include exactly such policies, that question certainly ought to be asked. "

This is the most important to me, as it speaks to the rampant deceit by Democrats on the issue.
"'The epidemic of gun violence in our country is a crisis,' [...] But as he mentioned during the townhall, __two-thirds__ of the '30,000 deaths due to gun violence' are suicides."

Rational, honest people citing VIOLENCE statistics don't include people killing themselves. If they do then we have to start talking about pill violence, water violence, and rope violence. Poor Robin Williams suffered BELT VIOLENCE!
Do you see how ludicrous it is when we take guns out of the equation and replace them with any other method of suicide? It's Goebbels-esque propaganda. It is a Big Lie.

Take note of someone citing "violence" statistics. If they defend citing suicide as part of violence statistics they are likely incapable of an honest exchange.


"1. The mass shooting bait and switch. As he did in his speech on Tuesday, Obama last night repeatedly invoked mass shootings to justify policies that would not have prevented them."

"2. The argument from emotion."
" You either grieve with us, or you're against us. If you feel bad about murdered children, you have no choice but to support Obama's gun control agenda. A CNN survey suggests that focusing on intentions rather than results can be an effective strategy: "

"3. The false crisis. 'The epidemic of gun violence in our country is a crisis,' Obama declares in the opening line of his op-ed piece. But as he was forced to admit at the townhall, __the murder rate in this country has reached historically low levels__ after declining for years."

"6. Support for gun bans. Obama supported Chicago's handgun ban, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2010, and claimed it was consistent with the Second Amendment. He favors a new, broader federal ban on so-called assault weapons, although he does not seem to know what they are. Last night he said the Newtown massacre would have been less lethal if its perpetrator had not been able to obtain "a semiautomatic," [which means] a ban on a category of firearms that includes many hunting rifles and almost all modern handguns"

"If the idea that "Obama's trying to take away your guns" is an "imaginary fiction," it's not because he does not want to take away your guns. It's because political and legal realities prevent him from doing so. "
Short version: It's a lie. It's been making the rounds lately among the left. I got into it with someone about it today.

This is going to be a mess because I'm too tired to assemble and edit it. These are excerpts from my arguments. If you can make sense of it there are some important points here.

First off: The two main sources for this are a leftist academic study that sources THE BRADY CAMPAIGN for information and then some site called 24/7 Wall Street. The former should obviously immediately be disqualified. The latter might have meant well, but as soon as you look at their definition of "violence" problems arrive for rational and honest people.


Note: USA Today titles this "States with the most gun violence", a perfect headline for the left to spread. The definition of "violence" that you and I would think of isn't theirs.


Skip USA Today and just keep reading. The next link was their source...



From that link, watch the propaganda...
"As mass shootings continue to appear in the news, many Americans and state leaders are asking how to address the problem without restricting constitutional rights."
So the premise is mass shootings, right? That's what this whole "states with most violence" is all about, right?

"Suicide is the leading cause of gun-related deaths across the nation in recent years. Of the 32,351 firearm deaths in 2011, nearly 20,000 were suicides. In all but one state with the most gun-related deaths, suicide accounted for the majority of fatalities.

Their definition of gun "violence" includes SUICIDE. Do YOU think "suicide" when you think "gun violence"?


Why does it matter?

Because to rational, honest people VIOLENCE statistics don't include killing oneself. If they do then we have to start talking about pill violence, water violence, and rope violence. Poor Robin Williams suffered BELT VIOLENCE!
Do you see how ludicrous it is when we take guns out of the equation and replace them with any other method of suicide?


To think it should be included among violence statistics has only one of two possible motivators:
1) Either the person doing so is so personally biased against firearms and firearm ownership themselves that they are sympathetic to the point of irrationality, so much so that anything firearm equals violence (see above) even when other objects for the same end goal don't or
2) It is deliberate inflation and manipulation of the numbers by anti gun propagandists with the goal of banning guns.
Those are the two choices.

While homicide technically means death by human, it is irrational or dishonest to include suicide in those statistics. When people are discussing violence in Chicago we aren't talking about some Gold Coast resident swallowing a bottle of pills.

"Why would gun suicides being minimized be a bad thing?"
If you want to reduce SUICIDE, do so. Wanting to reduce the phenomenon of suicide is noble. Deal with the overall issue. Hiding behind firearms being a fast method is just a way to attack guns. Period.
If you want to hinder or deprive law abiding Americans of their right to defend themselves and their families because of suicides, absolutely not.
Using the tragedy of suicide is not acceptable.

This is an orchestrated propaganda campaign. This is all SOP Goebbels Democrats.

When I went looking for the info on Alaska to debunk it I found this.

"Alaska has a lot of suicide. Over 80% of firearm deaths in Alaska were self-inflicted, and Alaska has the highest suicide rate in the US — nearly double the average."

EIGHTY percent.
So what the left is doing is USING the tragedy of suicide to paint Alaska as a dangerous place, blaming the gun freedoms.

It's really remarkably evil. Sadly, it's not unusual when one drills into leftist statistics.

I'm sure between that deceit and Democrat cities in the other states they target most of the stats would be accounted for.

An ideology so superior it requires constant deceit.



And now some thoughts on what we should really be looking at...

Read more...Collapse )

Next to the name of the cities is the result of my looking to the history of the cities' Mayors. It's incredible to me.

10. Stockton, California - GOP currently. It's too much a pain to look further.
9. Cleveland, Ohio - Democrat since 1990, two GOP since 1942
8. Baltimore, Maryland - Democrat since 1967, five GOP in the entire 20th century
7. Little Rock, Arkansas - Democrat since at least 1993
6. Milwaukee, Wisconsin - Democrat or SOCIALIST with one brief "nonpartisan" exception since 1916
5. Birmingham, Alabama - Democrat since at least 1999 and probably long before
4. St. Louis, Missouri - Democrat since 1949
3. Oakland, California - Democrat since 1966 when I stopped checking.
2. Memphis, Tennessee - Democrat since at least 1992
1. Detroit, Michigan - Democrat since 1962

Democrats won't look at any of this and consider the real problems.

Read more...Collapse )

A favored current talking point is "states with lax gun laws", "the states", "the states". I'd like to see those stats redone when the "state with lax gun laws" removes (SUICIDE then) the black holes of failure, misery, and crime that are long term Democrat run cities. A competent Governor of any party pretty much has to just suck up the entropic holes that dot the state landscape, as the powers that be (incl. media) in those holes will resist any state influence to fix anything.
I was reminded today of an old article on how Star Wars came about. Lucas is given sole credit by many for all of the episodes. They also often accept his pathological revisionist history. Many of those fans seem not to notice the massive difference in feel between episodes IV & V vs VI.

The reality is Lucas owes his success and his billions to many people who once told him no. The crap fests that followed Empire were riding that wave.

"Mark Hamill, who portrayed Luke Skywalker, later explained it in broken-family terminology. "He said it was like mom and dad getting a divorce. They were both equally loved and respected on the set."

For Kurtz, the popular notion that "Star Wars" was always planned as a multi-film epic is laughable. He says that he and Lucas, both USC film school grads who met through mutual friend Francis Ford Coppola in the late 1960s, first sought to do a simple adaptation of "Flash Gordon," the comic-strip hero who had been featured in movie serials that both filmmakers found charming."

"The team of Lucas and Kurtz would not hold together during their own journey through the jungles of collaborative filmmaking. Kurtz chooses his words carefully on the topic of their split. After the release of "Empire" (which was shaped by material left over from that first Lucas treatment), talk turned to a third film and after a decade and a half the partners could no longer find a middle ground."

And that split brought us Leia as sister, Force ghosts, another Death Star, C3PO worship, and teddy bears beating the Empire...

" Kurtz said that ending would have been a more emotionally nuanced finale to an epic adventure than the forest celebration of the Ewoks that essentially ended the trilogy with a teddy-bear luau.

He was especially disdainful of the Lucas idea of a second Death Star, which he felt would be too derivative of the 1977 film. "So we agreed that I should probably leave.""


"Harrison Ford was particularly outspoken, and his difficulties with Lucas' dialogue led him to improvise many of his lines in the series.
Ford famously told George Lucas, concerning the clunky dialogue in "Star Wars," "George, you can type this shit, but you sure as hell can't say it."
Harrison Ford later confirmed this:
"I told George: 'You can't say that stuff. You can only type it.'"
Regarding Ford's improvisation:
Mark Hamill, for one, was amazed at the dedication Ford put into each and every line, stating, "He'd written things in the margins, saying the same thing basically, but his way. He had an amazing way of keeping the meaning but doing it in a really unique way for his character."

For instance, "I know", one of the best lines in cinema history because it says so much about the character, was all Ford. "I know" is poignant as the last thing we hear from him, and speaks to the character, who was consistent from when we met him as the only person who shot in the scene with Greedo. In Jedi he's approaching Jar Jar territory.


It took his producer, Ford, and who knows who else to create the classic we got. Jedi, descending to the prequels and the redoing of finished works, is what we would have gotten from Lucas alone.
How the HELL did I not know this? Thanks mainstream media, Praetorian guard gate keepers for Democrats, so much so they protect RAPISTS.
P.S. Republicans share guilt, too. GHWB and Dole had a duty to trumpet this until it was heard.

"The list, as per the article in the Sydney Morning Herald includes only 'confirmed' affairs and sexual interactions by Mr Clinton, and it has to be said much of it went on before he was President; but never the less:
Eileen Wellstone: as a 19-year-old student she lodged a complaint of sexual assault against Bill Clinton, in 1969 while he was at Oxford. She reconfirmed the incident to reporters in 1999."


"Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman, said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969. In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there."

He was EXPELLED for RAPE (in an age when that was a real accusation) and became President of the United States. Most Americans have heard Romney cut some kid's hair in high school but Clinton RAPED someone in college and it barely comes up.


And then we have this...
Dick Morris said he believes Bill was a very good president but he left because he said, “What really turned me off was what I call secret police. When she [Hillary] hired this fleet of detectives to go around examining all of the woman who had been identified with Clinton. Not for the purpose of divorcing Clinton. Not for the purpose of getting him to stop but for the purpose of developing blackmail material on these woman to cow them into silence that had a Nixonian quality that I hold against her and I continue to.”

That's from a year ago, and something he's always said. It's not some newly manufactured accusation because of the Trump fight.

Doing the jobs Americans won't do... because the Americans are fired, actively discouraged from taking or staying at the job, or never told the position even exists.

Government and employers working together to avoid hiring American workers.

Fairly long. Worth the read.

I loved Force Awakens on the first viewing. That was mainly because a lot of it was a sloppy kiss to fans that - with brain shut off - could feel like they did watching the first two films. However, I know it's going to lose a lot in repeated viewings.That's because on repeated viewings I'm going to think. That leads me to these two great pieces. Some points I'd quibble with (and he corrects a few in the follow up article). Almost are are good points, and many really should be unacceptable from, as he says, a six figure earning script.

"A lot of people reading "40 Unforgivable Plot Holes" wondered how one could love a film and also see its glaring deficiencies. And yet, to compare apples and oranges, just as being willing to see how America could improve is a prerequisite for living here intelligently, loving a movie means seeing it for what it is and it isn't. And when the movie at issue is set to be the most successful movie in the history of cinema, some good old-fashioned reflection is in order. Reflection is even more urgent when we have high-brow publications like The New Yorker writing of Abrams' poorly plotted film, 'It's so adroitly wrought that lovers of the original may not even notice the skill.'
I'm also a writer, and I think writers are especially hard on other writers. So if you're reading this piece, please know that the complaints made here are more on the order of 'Capitalism owes us better story-writing than this!' than 'There are too many grip-notches on Luke's light saber!' It's also true that pointing out plot holes in a film you love can be cathartic. I think that, as movie-goers, it helps us process our movie-watching experience. That's been especially true for me with this article series."


19th-Dec-2015 02:20 pm - kafkatrapping
Something Democrats should consider. Non-leftists should, too, as a reason why they should condemn not humor the behavior.

"The term "kafkatrapping" describes a logical fallacy that is popular within gender feminism, racial politics and other ideologies of victimhood. It occurs when you are accused of a thought crime such as sexism, racism or homophobia. You respond with an honest denial, which is then used as further confirmation of your guilt. You are now trapped in a circular and unfalsifiable argument; no one who is accused can be innocent because the structure of kafkatrapping precludes that possibility."

"Kafkatrapping twists reason and truth into self-parodies that serve victimhood ideologues who wish to avoid the evidence and reasoned arguments upon which truth rests."

"A movement becomes widespread because its voice is truth – at least, largely so – and its demand for justice is valid: For example, homosexuals have been hideously abused through much of history. When a movement discards the truth and justice that made it grow and favors abusive attacks instead, it is in decline. The abuse also quashes any productive discussion of real issues."

"A separate problem arises if the accuser honestly believes the kafkatrapping. A woman who believes all men are oppressors is unlikely to cooperate with them in a good will attempt to solve social problems. She is more likely to seek a position of dominance over men, which she justifies in the name of self-defense or as a payback that is her due. This heightens tension between the sexes and obstructs sincere attempts to resolve problems. A kafkatrapper true believer becomes increasingly isolated from people who are seen as "the enemy" because they disagree; the true believer becomes increasingly unable to even communicate with or have empathy for a broad spectrum of people. The kafkatrapper 'wins' the argument but loses a shared humanity."


c/o writerspleasure
Fascinating stuff if you have the time.


18:05 LAR - Law of Accelerating Returns.
"Halfway through the genome project 1% had been finished. So people said, 'seven years, 1%, it's going to take seven hundred years. Like we said'. ... My reaction was, oh gee 1%, we're almost done. 1% is only seven doublings from 100%. ... It kept doubling. It was finished seven years later. All of biology now is understood as basically software, and our ability to update that software and reprogram it is doubling every year.
[Holds up cell phone] This is several billions times more powerful per constant dollar than the computer I used when I was a stuident. It's 100 thousand times smaller in size. And we'll do both of those things again in 25 years. So this again will be several billion times more powerful per dollar and the size of a blood cell."
When a leftist accuses you of hating Muslims and Democrats defending them, refer back to this. I looked this up today to post to a forum. Some names and groups we should know, because sure as hell leftist media won't report them.

Ed's posting about a Muslim march in Dearborn reminded me of some information I'd wanted to post. The following are some links more people need to know about.

What I generally maintain when the topic of Islamist terrorism or my supposed FEAR and HATE of all Muslims is that the religion has always had a problem, is broken, and needs reform. *gasp*. Luckily, it appears I have some allies among Islam. You'll rarely if ever find these voices of reform being cited by left wing sources. The left wing supports and works with CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, pretty much any bad actor among uslims they can find. Judge for yourself what that means. The next time a leftist accuses the right of hating all of Islam, offer them some of the information below and ask if they'll support these people, too.

"In a December 4 press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, a dozen imams, activists, and faith-based leaders declared the principles of what they call the Muslim Reform Movement: nine precepts that advocate for human rights and freedom of thought and action, as well as a rejection of the radical religious ideology that has inspired slaughter from Paris to San Bernardino.

Joining Jasser in this courageous stand, one that could earn its proponents the death penalty in certain areas of the world, is Asra Nomani, a journalist and author whose fight for women's rights within Islam is at the heart of her 2005 book Standing Alone in Mecca: An American Woman's Struggle for the Soul of Islam.

At the press conference, Muslim Reform Movement members took turns at the mic, discussing the importance of the document that they had spent the previous two days hashing out."

*** "That's one reason Nomani urged the group to go to the conservative, Saudi-financed Islamic Center of Washington, DC and post its precepts to the mosque's door. Following the press conference, members of the group did this, though the document was quickly taken down by the mosque's caretaker. ***

In most mosques, men and women are segregated in prayer, a practice that Nomani continues to battle. In the past, Nomani and other Muslim women have attempted to pray in the main part of the DC mosque reserved for men, instead of in a basement area, where women are supposed to pray.
Eventually, Nomani and the other women were allowed to pray in the space reserved for men, a breakthrough of sorts, considering the discrimination Nomani normally confronts."


much moreCollapse )

The pattern is consistent. Democrats support and defend the worst of Islam while doing everything possible to prevent weeding that out of the "refugees". They do this while ignoring Muslims who agree reform is needed. They do this as they constantly accuse the right of hating Muslims. It's an agenda of balkanization.
Of course many of the right will be extreme. In the face of constant accusations, betrayal, and colonization of an intended voting bloc, all while increasing the risk of terrorism from people who've already killed so many on our own soil, people are going to be ever less inclined to being reasonable.
Wouldn't it be nice of Democrats supported the moderates above who are doing good instead of defending and rewarding the dangerous and their supporters?
links to a bunch of news articles

A wikipedia list of various reports on it

Photos of articles

Wrong, Bill Maher - Reporting in '70s on Global Cooling Not Limited to Single Story in Newsweek - See more at:
From that link, here's Walter Conkrite, cordially inviting Democrat deniers to suck it:


What I saw a leftist try to get away with today was claiming "there was no consensus" in the 70s. That's deceit. No one is claiming there was a consensus. What we are claiming is that the left, including the media, hyped it for power.
11th-Dec-2015 02:53 pm - Gun violence
Glenn Kessler and his "fact checking" are more often than not just water carrying for the Democrat Party. His low ratings for Dem lies and high ratings for GOP inaccuracies or differences of opinion are overt bias.

That makes this case all the more glaring. The Democrat Party *USES* the dead at every opportunity to push gun control. Gun Rights advocates often point out that the legislation the ghouls are pushing wouldn't have stopped the incident being *used*. Democrats hate that, I think mainly because it so clearly illustrates their agenda is taking guns, not safety.

Recently Marco Rubio said, “'None of the major shootings that have occurred in this country over the last few months or years that have outraged us, would gun laws have prevented them.'” Kessler decided to "fact check" this.

Did it get two Pinocchios? One? Nope. "He earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark."

Remember this when a leftist is using the dead to attack you, the NRA, and push gun control as so many did while the blood of the victims was still warm in San Bernardino.

"These are just a few of the things the New York Times chose not to run front page editorials on."
"The Peace of Versailles, Buck v. Bell, the Great Depression, Pearl Harbor,* the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Ukrainian famine, the internment of Japanese-Americans, the Tuskegee experiments, the Holocaust, McCarthyism, the Marshall Plan, Jim Crow, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Kennedy Assassination, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Kent State, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Watergate, withdrawal from Vietnam, the Killing Fields, the Iran hostage crisis, the Contras, AIDS, gay marriage, the Iran nuclear deal:"

"But, the “Gun Epidemic” in America? That deserves a front-page editorial."

"Third, while I have no doubt the authors are sincere in their desire to mount a national movement against guns (I also have no doubt they’ll fail), it is impossible to read this as anything other than an attempt to change the subject in the face of all the facts we learned today."

I somewhat disagree with him here. He's certainly right that the NYT is trying to lead the charge toward any distractions from the items below, but they absolutely want to ban and confiscate firearms, disarming the populace. That is far more important to the left.


"These include, off the top of my head: This was a terrorist attack, the most deadly since 9/11.
The killers were inspired by ISIS, a group the president has insisted is “contained” and only last week said posed no threat to the homeland.
No remotely plausible gun-control reforms would have prevented the Farooks from killing people.
The immigrant screening process let Jihadi murderer, Malik Tafsheen, into the United States despite the fact she gave a fake address. This happened at a moment when the president — and the New York Times – have insisted time and again that concerns about Syrian refugees amount to little more than xenophobia and know-nothingism."

And it isn't just Dear Leader and his guard Praetorian media doing it.

"One hour before the FBI confirmed this was a terrorist attack the White House still refused to describe it as one."
This last is easily missed but important. If the FBI knew it was going to call it a terrorist attack the White House knew it an hour before.

"This fact is particularly salient given that the president has always downplayed, diminished, disregarded, and dismissed concerns about terrorism in America."

Now to the NYT:
"Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did."

And what is their compelling retort, worthy of a FRONT PAGE EDITORIAL?

Brace yourself!

It's serious stuff, from the greatest minds of the left.

"But at least those countries are trying."


At least they're trying! Take THAT gun rights advocates!


Their "solution"? How we should "try"?

"Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."

At least now the left is comfortable enough to start to be honest about their agenda. They want to ban and confiscate firearms.

If you think they don't run this exact same editorial about the next group of firearms after they get this ban and confiscation I don't know what to tell you. Using the dead for agenda.
And some of it is damned reprehensible.

"It hasn't even been a week, and the Times has already run more than a dozen articles on the shooting at a Colorado Springs shopping mall. Hey -- everybody remember the wall-to-wall coverage of the mass shooting at a Salt Lake City shopping mall in 2007? Five people were killed.
Here's a clue: Two days after the attack, the Times ran an article titled, "Anti-Bosnian Backlash Is Feared in Utah." (The killer: Bosnian immigrant Sulejman Talovic.)"

"The media use their own lack of coverage as proof that mass murder by non-whites almost never happens. It's exactly what they're doing to Donald Trump over his claim that a lot of Muslims celebrated the 9/11 attack."

"After 20 years of nearly non-stop mass murder by non-white immigrants in a country that is still majority white, our media have the audacity to claim that tens of thousands of Syrian Muslims are less dangerous than the most pacific human beings in world history: 21st-century white American men. "

4th-Dec-2015 06:30 pm - The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'
What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

4th-Dec-2015 02:01 pm - More mass shootings lies
"The Washington Post reported yesterday that there have been 355 mass shootings so far in 2015. "

"The source of the stats is an unofficial, crowd-sourced compilation of news articles of shootings by members of the anti-gun Reddit sub-forum GunsAreCool which is also mirrored on the Mass Shooting Tracker website."


Newsrooms have been quick to claim that there have been 355 mass shootings in America so far this year, but they've ignored that this statistic comes from an anonymous Internet group with an entirely arbitrary definition of "mass shooting."

4th-Dec-2015 12:56 pm - A wonderful opportunity
"“We’re at the point where these issues have come together really like never before in law enforcement thought and in our nation’s history and it gives us a wonderful opportunity and a wonderful moment to really make significant change,”"

The dead are a wonderful opportunity. Lucky for her she's not a Republican. That would end her job. The "mainstream" media would hound her President until she was fired.

"she is increasingly concerned with the “'incredibly disturbing rise of anti-Muslim rhetoric … that fear is my greatest fear.'”
Got that? Talk she doesn't like about Muslims. That's her greatest fear.
Not risk to American lives. Unapproved speech.

"'When we talk about the First amendment we [must] make it clear that actions predicated on violent talk are not American.'"
What?!? What does that even mean?

Maybe 'a wonderful moment to really make significant change' means making free speech criminal if not approved by Democrats.

The only concerns Democrats have shown since this incident have been gun laws, condemning speech about Islam, condemning "the right wing". In short, every dead American is nothing but "a wonderful opportunity" for agenda, because "never let a good crisis go to waste". It's no surprise they wouldn't want to stop terrorism.

"There is a lot going on in these demands, including an attempt to turn universities into organs of leftist indoctrination, with all opposing viewpoints rigorously purged. (The Dartmouth demands include a provision specifically targeting the school’s conservative student newspaper, the Dartmouth Review, while Boston College protesters demands that their school “Reform Pedagogy & Curriculum to Reduce Eurocentric Focus and Address Racism and diversity in the classroom.” So much for “academic freedom.”)

But underneath the creepy totalitarianism, there is a more mundane and practical purpose. Once you’re attuned to it, it’s hard not to be struck by how much of this agenda consists of commanding universities to hire a specific group of people: the professional campus “diversity” activists. Universities are exhorted to hire them, promote them, increase their budgets, pay them more, and create new offices for them with new powers."

Congratulations, Student Protesters, You Just Got Used

Here's the real agenda:
"The zampolit was officially tasked to conduct the following duties: organize and conduct political work, participate in planning for combat and political training, cultivate loyalty to the Soviet fatherland and Communist Party, and conduct propaganda among the soldiers on the successes of communism and hatred of enemies.(23) Unofficially, the zampolit conducted political supervision of the officers and men of his command, assisted in caring for the morale and welfare of the soldiers, and helped generate artificial enthusiasm for "socialist competition."

Political supervision is the primary reason for the existence of and the first duty of the zampolit. He attested once a year to the political maturity and reliability of all the officers in the unit. Junior officers seeking Party membership, and senior officers desiring promotion needed his favorable judgement in this area.(24) Note that he attested to the political suitability of his commander for future promotion and advancement! He ensured the orders of the commander are in line with Party policy and doctrine, and he put the weight of Party authority behind the approved actions of the commander. This situation gave the zampolit tremendous informal power in the parallel Party control system of the armed forces."

Regarding the propaganda of the despicable Think Progress lie...
"You Are More Than 7 Times As Likely To Be Killed By A Right-Wing Extremist"
OH NO! Except it's a lie built on a tower of lies.

The ENTIRE source of the lying ThinkProgress scum:
Islamic apologists and anti-right zealots Professor Charles Kurzman and Duke Professor David Schanzer


So let's move on to that linked source...

"The Growing Right-Wing Terror Threat"

What were their sources?
"In a survey we conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum" (Probably left wing, but nearly useless if you look into it)
A survey!

"An officer from a large metropolitan area"
"One officer explained"
"An officer on the West Coast"

Then we get to the real source:
"In contrast, right-wing extremists averaged 337 attacks per year in the decade after 9/11, causing a total of 254 fatalities, according to a study by Arie Perliger, a professor at the United States Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center."
Now that sounds serious!

"Other data sets, using different definitions of political violence, tell comparable stories. The Global Terrorism Database maintained by the Start Center"
Note, apparently the professors and Think Progress were too sloppy (or assumed loyal leftist drones wouldn't notice) but the Perliger study sources this, so it's double reference for clout.

"The International Security Program at the New America Foundation"
This is a far left think tank masking as non partisan, with the goal of controlling news. It's Goebbels USA. I don't care if that's believed or not. Look into them yourself. Start here. http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7616


So let's move on to the SINGLE "credible" source for their claim....

"Data gathering was based on a variety of resources including relevant information drawn from the Global Terrorism Dataset the SPLC hate crime dataset informative reports by various relevant organizations such as SPLC, ADL, RSCAR relevant
academic texts and various media source datasets Lexis Nexis."
Did that say SPLC? The discredited hate group that claims to monitor and report hate? This information is now useless.

But let's move on.

Looking into what the author described as far right... the KKK. Any National Socialist. Anyone that can be considered a hater. Any Christian. Anyone who believes in the NWO. And many more.
The terror victims? It appears... Blacks, Jews, Gays, any government building, pretty much anythign the left believes it is the protector of being attacked appears to count as far right extremist terrorism.

At bottom you can enjoy Table 4 and consider the categories and numbers for yourselves.
"The overall findings are presented in Table 4 and provide several important insights. The most important is the applicability of the iceberg model to describe American far right violence. As can be observed, the number of violent acts that are produced by unaffiliated individuals is extremely high; moreover, these attacks are usually unsophisticated only 1% of the attacks included the use of firearms or explosives, well below what could be observed in any other group or stream. Thus, in most cases we are concerned with spontaneous beatings of minorities or vandalism of facilities."
Unaffiliated. Spontaneous. 'We guessed it was terrorism.'


This is a big part of what leftists do. They source one another in an ever growing ring, creating the perception of credibility. They are the Goebbels party.

 photo FarRightChart_zpstayxkua2.jpg
Because I'll need to say this yet again I'm sure...

It's annoying when people ignorant of the history and meaning of the Statue of Liberty cite it as some Impenetrable Argument about illegal immigration (and refugees), arguing that because of it we must accept invasion, colonization, and suicide. It's infuriating that in every case those same zealots can't give a damn about the law or the ACTUAL FOUNDING DOCUMENTS except for how to use them for agenda.

It was a present and a poem, not policy. Learn something.
24th-Nov-2015 01:24 am - Syrian Refugees, Totally Safe
"Succar, a member of the Bay Ridge Community Council, said corruption in his homeland is so rampant that anyone could easily pay bribes and obtain official identification papers bearing a fake name to disguise their real identity.
'You can go to the Syrian government today and say to them, ‘I need a piece of paper that says I’m Tony Caterpillar.’ And they give it to you,' he said.
'These are not forged documents. These are written out by a government employee who needs money, whose family has no food.'"

But remember, they are being vetted, the Obama administration and leftist supporters swear.

I applaud my American brother, a man of Syrian descent, for his bravery in making this statement.

"Mayor Bill de Blasio said Wednesday that 'a grand total of eight' Syrian refugees had settled in the city as part of an official State Department program, and City Hall later lowered that number to four, blaming the information mixup on the feds."

Well, that instills confidence.

23rd-Nov-2015 11:47 am - Ted Cruz and Climate Change
Saving this as I know I'll want to quote it again.

"Thirty to forty years ago there were a group of political liberal and scientists who said we were facing global cooling. They said we were headed toward a global ice age and the solution to global cooling was increased was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives. Then the data disproved it. [...] And the new theory of global warming interestingly enough, the solution was the exact same as the solution had been for global cooling. It was massive government control of the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives. But then the problem became the data and evidence didn’t back up global warming. [...] So then the theory changed to a third version [...] climate change is the perfect pseudo-scientific theory. Why is that? Because it can never be disproven. Whether it’s hotter or colder, whether is wetter or drier the climate is always changing. [...] interestingly enough the political liberals, their solution to climate change is exactly the same as it was to global cooling and global warming. Massive government control of the economy, energy sector, and our lives. And when you start to see politicians who propose the exact same solution to every problem regardless of the facts or the data you start to think these are politicians who just want power over our lives. "

If you haven't seen this ten minute video on immigration it is absolutely worth the watch.

It brilliantly illustrates what a complete global socialist, anti American scam any immigration debate is. Watch it. Share it.

20th-Nov-2015 10:33 am - A reminder - Jamie Gorelick
Gorelick might possibly be some major demon of hell. She's not THE Devil, but she might be up there in the pantheon. Certainly she's an agent.

Some highlights.
"Gorelick spoke in favor of banning the use of strong encryption and called for a key escrow system to allow the Federal government access to encrypted communication"

The Gorelick Wall, which was not just a memo (as leftists would have you believe), but an attitude that terrorism is strictly law enforcement not intelligence. Consider that between the 1st WTC bombing and 9/11, then watch a leftist pretend that doesn't matter.

After the Gorelick Wall (I'll quote wiki here) "Even though she had *** no previous training nor experience in finance ***, Gorelick was appointed Vice Chairman of Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from 1997 to 2003. She served alongside former
Clinton Administration official Franklin Raines.[7] During that period, Fannie Mae developed a $10 billion accounting scandal." She made millions in salary and bonuses. (Can you say payoff?)

COINCIDENTALLY... That was exactly the period Glass–Steagall was repealed, the housing bubble exploded (with the help of Fannie/Freddie), and Paul Krugman called for a housing bubble.

Despite her controversial involvement with the "Gorelick Wall" she was appointed tot he 9/11 Commission.

She then went on to be involved in the Duke Rape Case, on the side of those falsely accusing and attempting to destroy the alleged rapists.

Later she moved on to helping the Obama administration shake down BP for billions after the OBama admionistration deliberately allowed the BP disaster to get worse. Technically "In her most recent public outing, Gorelick represented BP in the Gulf oil mess", a 'representation' that absolutely refused to stand up for the company. The fix was in.

She has recently been "a lobbyist for the lending industry fighting student loan reform", and still may be.
Teh IRS targetign of conservatives? She might have a hand in that, too. "Disturbing enough was WND’s breakthrough discovery that the liberal, Soros-funded Urban Institute has an officially sanctioned role in the vetting of nonprofits that seek tax-exempt status through the IRS.
Almost equally disturbing is the revelation that the vice chairwoman of the Urban Institute Board of Trustees is none other than Jamie Gorelick."

I don't know what she's up to currently. My guess would be overseeing the building of the Death Star.

My words on Islam in general.
Islam has a conquest, oppression, slavery, rape, murder problem. It isn't just now, but throughout history. It isn't just one location, but world wide.
The two largest sources of terrorism in the world are Iran and Saudi Arabia. Both actively export terrorism. Both are not just Muslim countries by population, but by strict rule.
Most of the worst strife in the world happens to involve Muslims on at least one side of it. Throughout the world where there are Muslims living with others there is usually conflict.

We get it. Not all Muslims are terrorists. But most world terrorism for the last how many years can be traced back to Islam?

The religion _in practice_ has a problem, and needs to address that. Rational people are sick to death of Muslims killing people then the rush to tell us the real issue is "right wing backlash" and oppression of Muslims.
The FIRST action, every damn time we have to see this crap, should be to include condemnation of the latest Muslim bloodshed against innocents.

Leftists insist that a larger Muslim population isn't dangerous
"Second, Islamic State has a practical reason to focus on France: With the largest Muslim population in Western Europe, it has become Europe’s biggest potential source of Islamic State recruits. "

That's the LA Times accidentally admitting that.


Leftists claim the "refugees" are being vetted. This is a lie.
FBI Director Robert Comey: "The only thing we can query is information that we have. So, if we have no information on someone, they’ve never crossed our radar screen, they’ve never been a ripple in the pond, there will be no record of them there and so it will be challenging."

FBI Assistant Director Michael Steinbach to the House Homeland Security Committee: "The concern in Syria is that we don’t have systems in places on the ground to collect information to vet…You’re talking about a country that is a failed state, that does not have any infrastructure, so to speak. So all of the dataset, the police, the intel services that normally you would go to to seek information doesn’t exist."

Christians have been excluded as leftists lecture us that we must accept Muslims
"America is about to accept 9000 Syrian Muslims, refugees of the brutal war between the Assad regime and its Sunni opposition, which includes ISIS, Al Qaeda, and various other militias. That number is predicted to increase each year. There are no Christian refugees that will be admitted.
Why? Because the Department of State is adhering with all the rigidity of a Soviet era bureaucracy to the rule that only people at risk from massacres launched by the regime qualify for refugee status. The rapes of Christian women and the butchery of Christian children do not count. No matter how moved Americans were this Christmas season by the plight of their fellow Christ followers in Syria and Iraq, no matter how horrific the visuals of beheadings, enslavement, and mass murder, the Christians fleeing death do not engender the compassion of this president.
The Christians are being raped, tortured, and murdered by militias, not by the Syrian government. This technicality condemns them to continue to be victims without hope"

Those Christians being excluded we KNOW are targeted for genocide, and there are menus online pricing Christian children sex slaves. Those Christians HAVE NO refuge. Yet they are ignored.
"A recently discovered and interpreted document reveals that the Islamic State has an actual price list it uses to sell the women and children its terrorists take — and that prices vary, depending on age, gender and ethnic background."

"And women and children between the ages of 10 and 20 are set at $127 each. Children, meanwhile, between the ages of 1 and 9 are priced to sell for $169, the document reads"

On comparing these refugees to refusing Jews during WWII
1. Jews were not a terror threat; there is evidence terrorists are hiding among Syrian refugees.
2. Jews were singled out for persecution by the Nazis, not (initially) fleeing an ongoing war.
3. Jews had nowhere to go; Syrian refugees should have many places to go.
4. Opposition to Jewish refugees was “racial”; opposition to Syrian refugees is based on security concerns.
5. Many of the Syrian “refugees” are neither Syrian, nor refugees.
6. The Jewish refugees had communities willing and able to resettle them; the Syrian refugees may not.

More on comparing these 'refugees' to Jews
"No self-identifying Jews in the early 20th century were randomly massacring European citizens in magazine offices and concert halls, and there was no “Jewish State” establishing sovereignty over tens of thousands of square miles of territory, and publicly slaughtering anyone who opposed its advance. Among Syrian Muslims, there is. The vast majority of Syrian Muslims are not party to these strains of radicalism and violence, but it would be dangerous to suggest that they do not exist, or that our refugee-resettlement program need not take account of them."

"Third, European Jews in the early 20th century were more amenable to assimilation than are Syrian Muslims in the early 21st. By the time of the rise of Nazism, Jews had participated in the intellectual and cultural life of Germany for a century and a half — a life that, despite regional particularities, indisputably fell under the broad banner of Western civilization, in which America participated, too. Moving from Munich to Miami took some getting used to, but you could hear Beethoven in both. [...] The intellectual, cultural, and political traditions of Syria are not in concert with those of the West, and it would be foolish to think that that does not matter — especially when combined with the uncertain sympathies noted above."

"Finally: Jewish refugees — for example, those in the SS St. Louis — were coming from Germany (or Nazi-controlled Austria or Czechoslovakia), but most Syrian refugees seeking entry into the United States have already found refuge elsewhere. Of the 18,000 refugee-resettlement referrals that the United States has received from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, “the vast majority,” according to the State Department, are from Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Egypt (and Iraq, parts of which remain sanctuaries from the Islamic State). It is one thing to rescue Jews from imminent danger; it is another to offer greater safety to those who already have it."

"'No regrets' is a hashtag, not a policy proposal."

"Perhaps Rubio is unfamiliar with an amendment strategy when fighting legislation because he has been in very few firefights for the cause of conservatism since his election to the Senate. "

"As highlighted in his Conservative Review profile, Rubio was promoting his bill as ‘enforcement first’ even as he was voting down amendments to make the bill do just that. It’s not just that Rubio changed his position to “enforcement first,” it’s that he touted that Gang of 8 bill for months as doing just that. He opposed the following amendments:

A provision to ensure that the border is secured before any amnesty is granted. (Senate.gov)
A provision requiring completion of the reinforced double-layered border fencing. He was one of only five Republicans to do so. (Senate.gov)
A provision requiring that a visa tracking system be implemented before any amnesty is granted. (Senate.gov)
A provision that would require congressional votes affirming the border has been secured before the granting of temporary legal status. (Senate.gov)

As noted in our guide to political conversions, a legitimate recent convert to a cause is usually the most zealous in championing the issue unprompted by political pressure. When Cruz was fighting Obama’s executive amnesty, the border surge, sanctuary cities, the release of criminal aliens, the Islamic refugee scheme, and homegrown terror threats via immigration – using all his platforms on committee, floor speeches, and in the media – where was Rubio? Until Breitbart called him out for not supporting a single enforcement effort, Rubio never even signed onto the effort against sanctuary cities.

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable – what then?"
- George Orwell

Or that boys aren't girls, or girls aren't boys if they feel they are.

He TOLD us all what they would become, and they've done it anyway.
"Liberalism has run out of battle grounds. It’s run out of things to say. But because it is, at its core, a deception, it cannot remain still. It must 'progress,' in the sense that it must always run left, even when it appears to have run out of room."
In other words, as I continue to say, progressivism never stops. Ever. It must continually push and assault.

"Liberalism has no truth at its foundation, so it can only keep moving. [...] With 'transgenderism,' there is some evidence that liberalism has wandered a bridge too far. Unlike some of their other ideas, they have absolutely no defense here. Not only does 'transgender' propaganda undo many of their own positions, but it makes a proposition that can only be accepted by those already fully indoctrinated into the liberal religion."

"Liberalism has officially severed itself from any semblance of reality, and indeed declared war upon it. If our culture cooperates; if we relent and concede that science is relative and human beings are gods who can choose their own biological makeup; if the left jumps over the shark and into the dark waters of full fledged insanity, and many in our society take the plunge right along with it, then there will be no stopping liberalism. It will have won the culture irreversibly.
If we willingly forfeit the definition of 'man' and 'woman,' right after forfeiting the definition of marriage, and long after forfeiting the definition of human life, then we will have no basis left to oppose anything else liberalism tries to do. We will have given it everything, ceded its every demand, compromised on every single imaginable point, and that will be the end of it. All we’ll be able to do, then, is sit and wait for our civilization to eat itself and collapse into dust."

There is no gay agenda? Let me tell you what it always was once the left got a hold of it.

Modern liberalism is a totalitarian ideology. Even compliant disagreement isn't enough. They demand you obey AND agree with them, and they will continue to find ways to assault you and those you love, no matter who you are, in any way they can until you do. The ideology is insatiable and demands obedience. If you don't care now as they force the sexual assault of every girl in every public school, eventually they'll keep pushing until they find something you do care about. When you object you will be labeled a "hater" just like us. It's not about concern. It's about control.

In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."

There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as "Jewish wailing" and "sob stuff"; expressing (to a senator ) his pride that "there is no Jewish blood in our veins"; and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as "a dirty Jewish trick." But the most common theme in Roosevelt's private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were "overcrowding" many professions and exercising undue influence.

27th-Oct-2015 11:42 pm - Police shootings
From left wing WAPO.
"Snyder’s killing, as documented in interviews and police reports, is among the 800 fatal shootings by police so far this year. As the tally continues to grow, so does public debate and criticism over police use of deadly force.
But only a small number of the shootings — roughly 5 percent — occurred under the kind of circumstances that raise doubt and draw public outcry, according to an analysis by The Washington Post. "

"Of the 800 people killed by police this year, almost half have been white"

Shove this down the throat of the Orwellian cultist regurgitating the complaint about the cost and time of the Benghazi committee.

"The clock showed the investigation has cost $4,809, 266 as of Thursday afternoon. The figure is more than $1 million less in taxpayer funds that were given to an accused conman to finance his condom inventions and studies into why the majority of lesbians are overweight.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave $2,466,482 to Daniel Resnic to develop three versions of the Origami condom, including the “first of its kind” anal condom. Resnic was later accused of wasting the money on full-body plastic surgery, trips to Costa Rica, parties at the Playboy mansion, and patents for inventions such as “rounded corners.”
The NIH has also given $3,531,925 to researchers to determine why lesbians are obese and gay men are not. Results have included: gay men have a “greater desire for toned muscles” than straight men, lesbians have low “athletic self-esteem,” and young men think about their muscles.
These two projects cost taxpayers $5,998,407."

Democrats don't care about costs, lying to the American people, or MURDERED Americans, including an American Ambassador. They care only about agenda and talking points to push that agenda. It is impossible to respect a Democrat voter.

23rd-Oct-2015 10:28 am - Hillary laughing at Benghazi hearing
Leads to 1 minute video. I dare you to listen to this and not hear the evil in her laughter.

23rd-Oct-2015 12:07 am - Hillary before the committee
“I want to show you a few things here. You’re looking at an email you sent to your family. Here’s what you said. At 11 o’clock that night, approximately one hour after you told the American people it was a video, you say to your family, ‘Two officers were killed today in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda-like group.’ You tell the American people one thing, you tell your family an entirely different story.

Also, on the night of the attack, you had a call with the president of Libya. Here’s what you said to him: ‘Ansar al Sharia’s claiming responsibility….And finally, most significantly, the next day, within 24 hours, you had a conversation with the Egyptian prime minister. You told him this: ‘We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.’

Let me read that one more time. ‘We know’ — not we think, not it might be — ‘we know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest.’

State Department experts knew the truth; you knew the truth. That’s not what the American people got. And again, the American people want to know why. Why didn’t you tell the American people exactly what you told the Egyptian prime minister?”

Video shows it at https://youtu.be/8OzrFDBMd0g?t=5m5s

We know she lied. We know it was all calculated.
I am sick of the evil Democrats accept. I am sick to death of pretending they mean well but are misguided.

19th-Oct-2015 12:27 pm - Trump on Bush & 9/11
This is too big for FB and I might as well save it someplace. I'm sure I'm going to have to repeat it to the legion of stupid.

HEADLINE: http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/trump-doubles-comments-blame-bush-9-11-article-1.2401898

Controversy! Controversy! Trump attacks W! Not so much.

First, in defense of Bush on the overall topic...
Intel briefings said what they'd said for months and years - Bin Laden is going to attack! Um, yep.
They did not say "bin Laden has people on overstayed visas who've been living here for years who will peacefully board planes, hijack them, then fly them into buildings."

Revamping and reprioritizing the entire intelligence community after at least 8 years takes some time. Do I know that President TSA would have done that? No. But 8 months isn't that long to correct the kind of deep damage of 8 years of a POTUS who demanded the executive treat terrorism like a mugging.

Now, behind the cut, a brief tangent on a fraction of what Bush had to deal with...
Read more...Collapse )

Now, in defense of Trump's comments, THIS IS CORRECT...

"'I believe that if I were running things, I doubt that those people would have been in the country,' the bombastic billionaire added, referring to the hijackers who stayed in the U.S. illegally.
'I'm not blaming George Bush,' Trump said. 'But I don't want Jeb to say 'my brother kept us safe.'"

Nothing he said should be controversial. People were here due to our lousy immigration enforcement. Bush didn't care about immigration enforcement (just like all GOPe and all Democrats). Trump wants to immediately start enforcing immigration standards.

Nothing controversial.

The real problem is that media does NOT want us talking about the real issue - immigration/invasion/colonization. So it spins this into derp Trump bash Bush.
18th-Oct-2015 01:38 pm - What the climate wars did to science
A long but excellent piece well worth the full read.

"Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas."

"The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly.
What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate.
[...] Nina Teicholz’s book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press."

"Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked.
These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media"

"The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the 'probability density functions' of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end."

"Following what the psychologist Philip Tetlock called the “psychology of taboo”, there has been a systematic and thorough campaign to rule out the middle ground as heretical: not just wrong, but mistaken, immoral and beyond the pale. That’s what the word denier with its deliberate connotations of Holocaust denial is intended to do. For reasons I do not fully understand, journalists have been shamefully happy to go along with this fundamentally religious project."

"Barack Obama says that 97 per cent of scientists agree that climate change is “real, man-made and dangerous”. That’s just a lie (or a very ignorant remark): as I point out above, there is no consensus that it’s dangerous.

So where’s the outrage from scientists at this presidential distortion? It’s worse than that, actually. The 97 per cent figure is derived from two pieces of pseudoscience that would have embarrassed a homeopath. The first was a poll that found that 97 per cent of just seventy-nine scientists thought climate change was man-made—not that it was dangerous. A more recent poll of 1854 members of the American Meteorological Society found the true number is 52 per cent.
The second source of the 97 per cent number was a survey of scientific papers, which has now been comprehensively demolished by Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University"

"The Cook paper is one of many scandals and blunders in climate science." Too long a list for pull quotes.

"There is, however, one good thing that has happened to science as a result of the climate debate: the democratisation of science by sceptic bloggers. [...] Papers that had passed formal peer review and been published in journals have nonetheless been torn apart in minutes on the blogs. There was the time Steven McIntyre found that an Antarctic temperature trend arose “entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together”. Or when Willis Eschenbach showed a published chart had “cut the modern end of the ice core carbon dioxide record short, right at the time when carbon dioxide started to rise again” about 8000 years ago, thus omitting the startling but inconvenient fact that carbon dioxide levels rose while temperatures fell over the following millennia."

"And it’s not working anyway. Despite avalanches of money being spent on research to find evidence of rapid man-made warming, despite even more spent on propaganda and marketing and subsidising renewable energy, the public remains unconvinced. The most recent polling data from Gallup shows the number of Americans who worry “a great deal” about climate change is down slightly on thirty years ago,"

This page was loaded Feb 10th 2016, 6:38 am GMT.