The articles posted on this page are written from a conservative, Christian worldview. Patriot Post publications are usually posted M, W, & F. Others are posted as discovered by yours truly. These posting are meant to instill a love for God, family and country as well as to educate, equip, enlighten, and challenge to good deeds for the betterment of mankind, those who visit these pages.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president." Author Unknown
Scroll down for articles for past week.
The Patriot Post
Tuesday’s Daily Digest
Sep. 2, 2014
“Shame on the men who can court exemption from present trouble and expense at the price of their own posterity’s liberty!” –Samuel Adams (“Candidus”), 1776
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Where Have the Unaccompanied Alien Children Gone?
The government has shut down three shelters at U.S. military bases holding the unaccompanied alien children that streamed across the southern border earlier in the year. The government has released 37,477 of the children across the states, but exactly where they won’t say. Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, said, “It’s outrageous. Now, this administration is telling the American people – and Congress – that we’re not even entitled to know where these people are, where they’re being held, what communities are going to be impacted.” HHS has released a list of where 29,890 of the unaccompanied alien children were sent by county1. But it doesn’t show what towns are affected, whether the children are sent into a group home, or whether they are united with their families or are now in the foster care system. According to the Washington Examiner2, only 280 were deported.
Militia in Benghazi: Consulate ‘Totally Secure’
So far, we know the U.S. embassy in Libya is still standing, the cornflakes are sitting out and the various militias have not pillaged the protein bars from the gym to fuel their running and gunning. Since U.S. officials fled the embassy in Tripoli due to fighting in the area, the embassy was first secured by a militia “from Zintan,” which, according to BBC News4, could be the Al-Sawiq Brigade. But then a new group, Dawn of Libya, drove that militia out of the American compound and its leader, Abu-Zaqia, says it’s totally cool if American diplomats decide to come back because it’s all safe. “We entered and put some of our fighters to secure this place and we preserved this place as much as we could,” the Dawn of Libya leader said. U.S. staff “are most welcome in God’s blessing, and any area that is controlled by Dawn of Libya is totally secure and there are no troubles at all.” With 13 armed groups BBC identified running around Libya – not to mention this new “Dawn of Libya” group – it’s hard to believe Abu-Zaqia when he says any compound in the nation where Ambassador Chris Stevens died is “totally secure.” On the contrary, Libya’s decent into chaos5 continues.
Obama to Regulate Kitchen Appliances
In the past, the big-government progressives used to promise a chicken in every pot and a car in every driveway. Today’s progressives only rip those dreams away thanks to the unrelenting march of “green” regulation. First, the government went after automakers and the coal industry. Now, the Obama administration is going after the appliances that cook the chicken. “The Obama administration is working on new efficiency standards for seemingly every appliance but the kitchen sink,” The Hill reports. “The administration says the standards will not only help the planet but also stimulate the economy by saving consumers money on their energy bills that they can spend elsewhere.” In reality, increased regulation means appliances will get more expensive and more out of reach for the average consumer. But the Obama administration knows better than us simple commoners or the manufacturers of air conditioners, blenders and dishwashers. So prices rise as he leads us who knows where.
$3 Million Went to Study Lesbian Obesity
The National Institute of Health has sunk almost $3 million into studies trying to figure out why 75% of lesbians are overweight and male homosexuals remain slender. Last year, the researchers “concluded that gay and bisexual males had a ‘greater desire for toned muscles’ than straight men,” the Washington Free Beacon reported. “The project now claims that lesbians have lower ‘athletic-self esteem’ that may lead to higher rates of obesity. Another research paper found that lesbians are more likely to see themselves at a healthy weight, even though they are not.” Self-identified homosexuals make up only 1.6% of the U.S. population8, which shows how much of an overweight priority homosexuals are in popular culture. They are of particular concern to the Left because the homosexual community is a major source of donations9 for progressive campaigns. Hence wasting taxpayer dollars on waistlines.
Kroger: ‘We Trust Our Customers’ on Guns
Kroger is the world’s third-largest retailer, doing $100 billion in annual sales. That makes them a big target for anti-gun zealots like Moms Demand Action (MDA), which enjoys the backing of billionaire former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. After appeals from MDA for the grocery giant to ban guns in its stores, Kroger responded, “Our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to ask customers to be respectful of others while shopping. We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue, and we trust them to be responsible in our stores.” Trusting responsible gun owners – what a novel concept. Kroger may simply want to avoid angering gun owners, which is wise all by itself, but they may also be well aware that law-abiding are not a threat. On the contrary, gun owners often provide unseen security.
No Strategy for the Cart and Horse
In his now infamous press conference last Thursday, Barack Obama told reporters to slow down with speculation on U.S. actions to counter ISIL. “I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” he said. “We don’t have a strategy yet15.” It was a reckless admission by the commander in chief, and the repercussions could be severe.
The threat on the home front is acute. ISIL is reportedly eying the U.S.-Mexico border16 for opportunities to infiltrate and attack the U.S. Astoundingly, however, in its recent national threat assessment for domestic terrorism, the FBI doesn’t mention Islamic terrorist threats17.
Specifically, ISIL may be seeking to create and deploy biological weapons. What might be called “BioBombers18” are Islamist “martyrs” who, instead of strapping on a bomb and detonating themselves in a crowded urban area, become human hosts for virulent strains of deadly contagions.
A laptop recovered from ISIL jihadis reveals the plan. According to Foreign Policy magazine19, “The [ISIL] laptop contains a 19-page document in Arabic on how to develop biological weapons and how to weaponize the bubonic plague from infected animals. ‘The advantage of biological weapons is that they do not cost a lot of money, while the human casualties can be huge,’ the document states.” Furthermore, the document instructs, “Use small grenades with the virus, and throw them in closed areas like metros, soccer stadiums, or entertainment centers. Best to do it next to the air-conditioning. It also can be used during suicide operations.”
So long as the supposed “caliphate” exists, they will control the land and resources (including oil fields for financing) necessary to develop such horrific weapons. That’s a good reason to consider ISIL a serious threat and to have a strategy for defeating it.
In the week before Obama’s “no strategy” remarks, several officials within his administration had been giving warnings and laying out possible action. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned that ISIL is “beyond just a terrorist group” and “beyond anything that we’ve seen.” Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sounded a similar note, saying ISIL “is an organization that has an apocalyptic, end-of-days strategic vision which will eventually have to be defeated.” He said that will almost certainly entail countering them in Syria as well as Iraq – “both sides of what is essentially at this point a nonexistent border.”
Meanwhile, however, the State and Justice Departments were downplaying the threat. As we have already noted20, this incoherence is dangerous. And then Obama managed to make it worse.
Even Obama’s Leftmedia water carriers see the problem. NBC’s Richard Engel called ISIL’s rise “incredibly predictable” because “[w]e reported about it. Reporters risked their lives going into Syria to talk about this buildup of extremists in the country, yet nothing seems to have been done. And now we have a very serious situation.” Furthermore, he said, “I speak to military commanders, I speak to former officials, and they are apoplectic. They think that this is a clear and present danger. They think something needs to be done.”
Even a president who finds out about current events by watching the news has no excuse.
Obama says not to “put the cart before the horse,” but it’s he who has done so, ordering seemingly half-hearted airstrikes with entirely too limited objectives. He doesn’t seem to be mindful of the internal strife in Iraq between Shiites and Sunnis, or how to avoid creating more of it. The New York Times reports21, “The militants from [ISIL] were able to storm into Iraq in recent months in part because Sunnis felt so disenfranchised by the Shiite-led government of former Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. If the United States is seen to be strengthening the hand of militias that terrorized Sunnis during the sectarian war of 2006 and 2007, the minority Sunnis might balk at participating in America’s long-term goal of a unity government. Or, in a worst-case scenario, more Sunnis could align with [ISIL] fighters.”
As for Syria, Iran supports Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Any action the U.S. takes there against ISIL could have the undesired effect of strengthening Assad, and therefore Iran.
That said, ISIL’s defeat is the primary objective. American air power is key against an enemy that more brazenly gathers its fighters than previous iterations. According to retired U.S. Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap, “ISIL’s penchant for operating openly – as well as for seizing, occupying and trying to administer territory instead of hiding quietly among the civilian populace – presents targeting opportunities that other terrorists assiduously avoid.”
Air strikes must be done in conjunction with other efforts to stabilize the region. In terms of U.S. interests, stability and security are paramount. Achieving that will require the cooperation of Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, as well as that of other nations in the region – all while, if possible, marginalizing Iran.
It’s one thing to be cautious or to mask our strategy – both of which are advisable. It’s another thing entirely to be willfully blind and unprepared. And when even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) says Obama is “too cautious22,” it puts the problem into stark relief.
Arresting Parents for Letting Kids Play
Unaccompanied minors have become a major problem in this country. But we’re not talking about the tens of thousands of illegal minors pouring across our southern border and then being released to sponsor families around the nation. We mean children left playing on neighborhood playgrounds – gasp – unattended by adults.
In recent weeks, there have been numerous stories23 of parents being arrested for leaving their children to play without supervision. Lenore Skenazy, author of “Free-Range Kids,” writes24, “In another era, it not only would have been normal for a child to say, ‘Goodbye, mom!’ and go off to spend a summer’s day there [at the playground], it would have been odd to consider that child ‘unsupervised.’ After all, she was surrounded by other kids, parents, and park personnel. Apparently now only a private security detail is considered safe enough.”
This is not an argument for abandoning one’s children for hours on end with no available supervision. One mother was arrested for leaving her nine-year-old at a park in order to work a shift at McDonald’s. But while the merits of her babysitting strategy are dubious, we’re not convinced it was worthy of 17 days behind bars, much less the potential 10-year prison sentence.
Yet a Reason/Rupe poll25 revealed that 68% of Americans think there ought to be a law prohibiting kids nine and under from unsupervised play. For 12-year-olds, some 43% still think a law is needed, and even letting a 10-year-old play alone in their own front yard is frowned upon. Who knew helicopter parenting was this popular?
Common knowledge (62% of those polled) says the world is more dangerous than a generation or two ago, but the truth is that crime is at its lowest levels since World War II26. Child abduction is no more common now than 40 years ago, and today’s kidnappings are often committed by estranged spouses. And as the Christian Science Monitor noted in 201227, “[T]he last time the crime rate for serious crime – murder, rape, robbery, assault – fell to these levels, gasoline cost 29 cents a gallon and the average income for a working American was $5,807.”
Crime is still serious, even at a lower rate. And appropriate precautions with children are always in order. But why the overabundance of fear? Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods, blames the 24-hour news cycle. Turn on the news, he says, “and all you have to do is watch how they take a handful of terrible crimes against children and repeat that same handful over and over. And then they repeat the trial over and over, and so we’re conditioned to live in a state of fear.” After all, who wants to become the subject of one of those stories? According to the Reason poll, more than two-thirds think news coverage is either accurate or underestimated.
Other factors could be at play, including the prevailing culture of lawsuits for every real and perceived injury – that’s why playgrounds themselves are so different today. Also, the breakdown of the family and communities has left many mothers parenting alone and turning to the government. Or maybe we’ve gotten so overprotective simply because kids are so expensive. According to the USDA28, raising a child in a middle-class home can cost $245,000.
There are important implications of this shift in thought, and they’re not limited to children or parenting. Take ObamaCare for example. Democrats are correct that, while the law as a whole and as implemented is not looked upon favorably, some of its individual provisions – like keeping “children” on parents' insurance until age 26 – are popular. In fact, most government programs that “take care of people” enjoy wide public support, which is why responsible fiscal management of those programs is nearly impossible.
Children may well be marginally safer in this tightly controlled environment, but they also may not be learning critical life skills such as responsibility, problem-solving and independence. Hence, when they grow up, they want government to do things for them.
And sometimes, children never actually do grow up, which is why statists are so successful at fomenting envy among various constituent groups. Petty jealousy is a prevalent trait among five-year-olds, and leftists know just how to cultivate it into adulthood.
One key to breaking this cycle of dependence is for parents to raise their children with a bit more independence and responsibility. Start small but keep growing. America was birthed with the Declaration of Independence, and in order to recapture its greatness, our children must learn autonomy. Maybe even by going to the playground on their own.
OPINION IN BRIEF
English physician and writer Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682): “No one should approach the temple of science with the soul of a money changer.”
Columnist Ed Feulner: “It’s only natural that parents would take advantage of the rise in school choice options to ensure that their kids were in the best schools possible. The idea that you have no choice but to attend the school closest to where you live, or the school that the ‘authorities’ assign to you, is absurd. It’s blatantly anti-American, quite frankly. When someone receives a Pell Grant to help finance higher education, the government doesn’t assign him to a college. Why should it be any different for the education that precedes college? … Yet something far more important to us – not only as parents who care about our children but as citizens who care about our country – is treated as a non-negotiable, take-it-or-leave-it commodity. That’s why the rise in school choice is such a promising trend.”
Columnist Thomas Sowell: “With many people now acting as if it is time for ‘a woman’ to become president, apparently they have learned absolutely nothing from the disastrous results of the irresponsible self-indulgence of choosing a President of the United States on the basis of demographic characteristics, instead of individual qualifications. It would not matter to me if the next five presidents in a row were all women, if these happened to be the best individuals available at the time. But to say that we should now elect ‘a woman’ president in 2016 is to say that we are willfully blind to the dangers of putting life and death decisions in the hands of someone chosen for symbolic reasons. … No public official should be considered to be above criticism – and the higher up that official is, the more important it is to hold his or her feet to the fire when it comes to carrying out duties involving the life and death of individuals and the fate of the nation.”
Twitter satirist @hale_razor: “If Jennifer Lawrence really wanted to keep her photos from ever being seen, she should’ve stored them with Lois Lerner’s emails.”
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
9/2/2014 12:01:00 AM - Thomas Sowell
The latest Gallup poll indicates that 14 percent of the people "moderately disapprove" of Barack Obama's performance as president and 39 percent "strongly disapprove."
Since Obama won two presidential elections, chances are that some of those who now "strongly disapprove" of what he has done voted to put him in office. We all make mistakes, but the real question is whether we learn from them.
With many people now acting as if it is time for "a woman" to become president, apparently they have learned absolutely nothing from the disastrous results of the irresponsible self-indulgence of choosing a President of the United States on the basis of demographic characteristics, instead of individual qualifications.
It would not matter to me if the next five presidents in a row were all women, if these happened to be the best individuals available at the time. But to say that we should now elect "a woman" president in 2016 is to say that we are willfully blind to the dangers of putting life and death decisions in the hands of someone chosen for symbolic reasons.
If we were to choose just "a woman" as our next president, would that mean that any criticism of that president would be considered to be a sign of being against women?
No public official should be considered to be above criticism -- and the higher up that official is, the more important it is to hold his or her feet to the fire when it comes to carrying out duties involving the life and death of individuals and the fate of the nation.
We have not yet had a Jewish president. If and when we do, does that mean that any criticism of that individual should be stigmatized and dismissed as anti-Semitism? What of our first Italian American president, our first Asian American president?
Human beings of every background are imperfect creatures. When they are in a position high enough for their imperfections to bring disasters to more than 300 million Americans, the last thing we need is to stifle criticism of what they do.
It is by no means guaranteed that this country will survive the long-run consequences of the disastrous decisions already made by Barack Obama, especially his pretense of stopping Iran's becoming a nuclear power. Obama may no longer be in office when those chickens come home to roost.
If we wake up some morning and find some American city in radioactive ruins, will we connect the dots and see this as a consequence of voting to elect an unknown and untried man, for the sake of racial symbolism?
Among those who look around for someone to blame, how many will look in the mirror?
Presidents already have too much insulation from criticism -- and from reality.
When President Calvin Coolidge caught everyone by surprise in 1928, by announcing that he would not run for reelection, despite a prosperous economy and his own personal popularity, he simply said, "I do not choose to run." Coolidge was a man of very few words, despite his knowledge of multiple languages. Someone once said that Coolidge could be silent in five different languages.
But, when he later wrote a small autobiography, Coolidge explained the inherent dangers in the office of President of the United States, especially when one person remains in the White House too long.
"It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshippers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness.
"They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant."
Of presidents who served eight years in office, he said, "in almost every instance" the last years of their terms show little "constructive accomplishments" and those years are often "clouded with grave disappointments."
Another president chosen for demographic representation (whether by race, sex or whatever), and further insulated from criticism and from reality, is the last thing we need.
Religious Freedom Fighters
9/1/2014 9:06:00 PM - Leah Barkoukis
Editor's note: This article originally appeared in the September issue of Townhall Magazine.
In 2008, the Romeike family had a big decision to make about the future of home schooling their children: stay in Germany, where the practice has been banned since 1918, and risk losing custody of their children, or seek political asylum in the United States.
As many are aware, they chose the latter.
By January 2010, all seemed well for the devoutly Christian family. A U.S. immigration judge made an unprecedented decision to grant the Romeikes asylum on religious freedom grounds, saying that Germany’s policy of persecuting homeschoolers is “repellent to everything we believe in as Americans,” and that the family was being denied “basic human rights that no country has a right to violate.”
But the victory would be short lived. The decision was challenged and overturned by the Obama administration, and by 2014, after years of uphill legal battles in the American court system, it looked as though the family may be deported to Germany.
Thanks in part to significant political and media attention, however, the administration suddenly relented in March and granted the family permission to stay in the country indefinitely.
The outcome of the Romeike family’s case was one of the Home School Legal Defense Association’s greatest successes in recent years, William Estrada, HSL- DA’s director of federal relations, tells Townhall. HSLDA, which represented the family, has been advocating for the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children since 1983.
“It was an incredible victory for the Romeike family and it really showed Germany is out of the mainstream in the way they do not allow any home schooling in their country,” he says, pointing out that even Russia and communist China allow the practice.
Although home schooling may seem like a deep-seated right in America, it was not long ago that HSLDA was fighting for its very survival in this country.
“The first 10-15 years [of HSLDA’s existence] you could say was actually the battle for home schooling’s survival, that was where we were defending families who were in prison; we were fighting to make home schooling legal,” says Estrada, a home-school graduate. “When we were founded in 1983 only a handful of states allowed home schooling. In pretty much all of them, home schooling was a criminal offense because it would be a violation of the truancy laws.”
By the early 1990s when home school- ing was legal in all 50 states, HSLDA transitioned to national work: battling H.R. 6 of 1994, which would have required all teachers, in all types of schools, to be certified in every subject area they teach; trying to keep the federal government from encroaching on home school- ing freedoms; and working to stop U.N. treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
“Home schooling is very bipartisan. It’s grown and is now recognized by everyone, and what we’re fighting for is more of a long-term defense to protect parental rights, Estrada says.
The numbers alone demonstrate its increased acceptance.
When the U.S. Department of Education first started conducting a quadrennial report in 1999, there were roughly 850,000 home-schooled students. Now, however, there are approximately 1.8 million students, according to its latest report of the 2011-2012 school year.
As the number of home-schooled students has grown, so too has the diversity of the population choosing this education option.
“When home schooling started in the ‘70s and ‘80s it was primarily fundamentalist Christian families who were home schooling because they didn’t like the direction the public school was taking as far as religious issues,” he says. “We are seeing home schooling rising across the board, among secular families, people who are home schooling who think the school is too conservative or too religious, and that has really started to swing the demographic.”
In addition to religious reasons, parents who choose to home-school most often cite concerns about the school environment and the academic content of the public school, the Department of Education has found. There are also sizeable minorities of people who home- school for other reasons, such as military families or families who have a child with a disability.
And Estrada says that anecdotally at least, dissatisfaction with Common Core has contributed to increasing numbers of home-schooled children in the last year or two.
“The good news is that Common Core does not apply to home-schools,” he says, “the bad news is if we’re unable, and I mean public school, private school, and home-school parents, if we’re unable to stop Common Core, we’re very concerned about the future of home schooling. You know, down the road there will be pressure on home schooling to conform.”
College acceptance could become harder for students who have not gone through Common Core, requirements to receive federal student aid could change, and so could standardized testing. For all these reasons, HSLDA remains actively engaged in the fight against Common Core.
There’s no question home schooling- has come of age, but that doesn’t mean HSLDA’s work is over. The association actively promotes home-school-friendly legislation on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures across the nation, and continues to provide invaluable home-schooling-related legal advice and representation to its more than 84,000 member families.
“We have the greatest members and that’s why we’ve continued to be able to fight for home schooling, for parental rights—those freedoms that are so dear to all parents,” he says. •
Joe Biden Declares war on Prosperity While in Detroit
9/2/2014 12:01:00 AM
Apparently the White House decided to let Joe Biden out of his padded room for the long weekend. The incorrigible gaff machine was spotted in Detroit, speaking to labor unions, liberal activists, and Democrat campaigners in what used to be Tiger Stadium. Amazingly Biden managed to navigate himself through his remarks without any painfully obvious “foot-in-mouth” moment… Well, at least not anything worse than normal Democrat talking points; but those were probably intentional.
Standing among the ruins that were once a shining example of American prosperity, the Vice President championed the values of organized labor and liberal economic policies. (Ya know… Because it has worked out so well for the bankrupt city of Detroit.) He stuck to the tried and true theme of class warfare, and even managed to take a jab at all those devious corporations that are legally lowering their tax bills by taking advantage of a complex tax system. (Because I’m sure Joe pays every penny of 39.6 percent of his income to Uncle Sam, right?)
With the withered memory of Detroit’s grandeur conveniently ignored, Biden harped on the need to “take America back”… Which, by the way, kinda brings up the question: Who are we supposed to take America back from? I mean, you progressive geniuses are kinda the ones in charge, remember? Also, I can’t possibly be alone in thinking that there is a fairly obtuse irony of a pro-union-liberal touting pro-union talking points in a pro-union town (that went bankrupt because of pro-union policies), can I?
A couple of highlights from Biden’s unintentional recap of Detroit’s failed policy ideas are actually somewhat entertaining:
“Why in God’s name does someone who makes tens of millions managing a hedge fund pay only 15% in taxes, while the average GM worker who makes $55,000 a year pays 25% in taxes?”
Because, Joe, America’s tax code is 74,000 pages of nonsense. I mean, sure, we could write some sort of a flat tax, or maybe just move toward a consumption tax; but so far “Progressives” and Democrats have been clinging to the 100 year old idea of a complicated and archaic system for raising Federal Revenue. The vary fact that Biden managed to bring a Detroit crowd to their feet by arguing for an expansion of today’s crony-capitalist tax regime is telling. After all, he wasn’t arguing for lower taxes, simplified taxes, or even flatter taxes… He brought a crowd of Union-loving liberals into a roar of cheers by promising to raise someone else’s taxes. Envy, it turns out, is a pretty powerful political asset.
Of course, Joe continued his parade through progressive talking points:
“[A job is] about your dignity. It's about your place in the community. ... You can't do that unless you get a fair wage.”
No, Joe… A “job” is about earning some money, and gaining some experience. A career is about dignity, and your place in the community. Flipping burgers, for example, was never a position of employment designed as a career path. “Fair wages” are merely the amount an employer, and employee, decide upon for a particular series of duties. In other words, a wage is generally proportional to the value an employee provides for labor… Of course, this doesn’t actually seem to be the case in much of America; after all, we still pay politicians.
The most glaring observation that can be made about Joe’s appearance, however, is not specifically what he said… It is where he said it. Detroit is a shining example of liberal failures… And, there was Biden, shouting about reinstating the very policies that helped disintegrate Detroit’s wealth into oblivion. Thanks largely to ideas crafted one hundred years ago (and still championed by the “progressive” Democrat Party) the city has become a punchline for government mismanagement.
If this is really the best that Democrats can offer (and as far as ideas go, it’s kinda looking that way), then there is little reason a Conservative comeback can't happen in America. Oh, sure… Liberals have their promises, their fairy tales, and their platitudes. But, they also have a history; and as Detroit clearly demonstrates, that history is plagued with failures.
Of course, we shouldn’t be too hard on the over-paid, under-taxed, progressive Democrat Vice President. After all, he was right about one thing: We do need to take America back.
Al Sharpton's Moment of Truth
Aug. 31, 2014
The Rev. Al Sharpton is getting the right kind of grief.
This time it’s not from conservatives for being a race hustler who exploits every white-on-black killing to raise money for his civil rights group National Action Network or to boost his miserable ratings on MSNBC.
This time Sharpton is being criticized by other blacks – liberal blacks – who didn’t like the tough sermon he preached at Michael Brown’s funeral on Monday.
Sharpton’s fiery eulogy was not the familiar Gospel of the Rev. Al.
Sure, he quoted the Bible and criticized Ferguson police for allowing a young black man’s body to lie in the middle of the street for more than four hours.
But after calling for major reforms in policing, Sharpton pulled a switcheroo. He pointedly condemned the violence and rioting that came in response to Brown’s death.
Then he surprised everyone in the church by bringing up a subject that too few black leaders — particularly the part-time one in the White House — are brave enough to bring up on a public stage.
Sharpton said blacks have to take responsibility for the chronic violence and bad behavior in their community that creates so much police attention in the first place.
“We have to be outraged at a 9-year-old girl killed in Chicago. We have got to be outraged by our disrespect for each other, our disregard for each other, our killing and shooting and running around gun-toting each other…”
As Sharpton said, “Blackness has never been about being a gangster or a thug.” It has been about rising up, fighting against discrimination, building churches and black colleges and succeeding in life and never giving up.
“And now,” he said, “we get to the 21st century, we get to where we’ve got some positions of power. And you decide it ain’t black no more to be successful. Now, you want to be a n—– and call your woman a ‘ho.’ You’ve lost where you’re coming from.”
The New Rev. Al had Spike Lee and other sensible blacks standing in pews when he declared, “We’ve got to clean up our community so we can clean up the United States of America!”
But since Monday Sharpton has been rapped by “progressive” blacks for using Brown’s funeral and the notoriety of a tragic police shooting to scold the black community for its own sins.
The Rev. Al’s critics say the issue of black-on-black crime is irrelevant to Brown’s death. Brown was shot by a white cop, not another young black male, they argue.
BS, I say. Sharpton was right to use a national pulpit to challenge black leaders to address the black-on-black killing spree that has been decimating the youth of our inner cities for decades.
Thanks to the attention of the national media and professional race-card players like Sharpton, everyone in America knows about Michael Brown’s tragic death. Soon we’ll know how it actually happened.
Meanwhile, have you ever heard of Dorval Jenkins, Marcus McCarty or Antonio Smith?
They’re just three of the 26 murder victims in Chicago since Aug. 9, the day Brown was killed in suburban Ferguson.
All but one or two of the 26 dead Chicagoans were young black males. All but one or two were shot to death deliberately or by accident by other black males.
Jenkins was 19. McCarty was 14. Antonio Smith, deliberately gunned down by local gangsters in a dead-end alley for unknown reasons, was 9.
Al Sharpton didn’t show up at their funerals. Neither did Spike Lee or Snoop Dogg. Neither did several underlings from the White House. Neither did Brian Williams and Anderson Cooper.
Black-on-black gang murders are too common. They’re not news. So they don’t bring good ratings or network camera teams.
It’s great to see the Rev. Al’s call for blacks to man-up and address the violence and gang culture that’s destroying their community and tainting their entire race.
Now, if he’s really serious, he needs to take it to the streets and churches of Chicago.
Whether the cameras follow him there or not.
Paul Ryan Has Answer for Ferguson
9/1/2014 12:01:00 AM - Star Parker
Economist Milton Friedman said “The economic race should not be arranged so everyone arrives at the finish line at the same time but so that everyone starts at the starting line at the same time.”
Those on the left and the right have always contended whether economic outcomes for any given set of individuals is the business of government. But few, on the left or right, dispute that government should work to assure that every American starts the game under fair conditions.
It’s the latter point, fairness at the beginning of the game, that defines the motivation behind Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s vast and sweeping new set of ideas for taking on poverty in our nation.
According to the Census Bureau, there are almost 50 million Americans living under the poverty line.
Since President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” half century ago, government has spent $15 trillion dollars fighting poverty. The federal government now spends $800 billion per year on means-tested anti-poverty programs.
Yet, we see no change. The incidence of poverty has remained constantly at around 15 percent of the population. And the racial component has been constant, with black poverty rates consistently at three times the rate of white poverty.
Paul Ryan’s important contribution here is to show that not only are these vast government anti-poverty programs not working, but also they themselves contribute to the persistence of the problem.
Because these programs are means-tested – they’re tied to how much money you earn – they perversely discourage work and advancement because earning more means losing a huge array of benefits.
Beyond creating a universe of disincentives to work and advancement, many of these individual programs create their own unique perversities.
HUD housing vouchers, for instance, simply subsidize slumlords and build ghettos because they can’t be used freely anywhere, but only with landlords authorized by HUD.
The end of it all is we wind up with entrenched areas of poverty, which foster crime, drugs, unemployment, frustrated youth, and then, inevitably, tragic incidents like we just witnessed in Ferguson, Missouri.
The left yells racism and calls for more government, more money, even though this is most often the source of the problem, not the solution.
If we are going to spend the money, says Congressman Ryan, let’s try to do it in a way that will lead people out of poverty, rather than perpetuate it.
Ryan is proposing experimental programs – Opportunity Grants – that consolidates 11 distinct government anti-poverty programs into one cash grant to states, allowing states flexibility to propose new and creative ways to use these funds.
I am currently working with state legislators in Oklahoma, led by Senator Rob Standridge, to show how government assistance for the poor can encourage, rather than discourage, work, marriage and family, education, and savings.
Low-income families with children would get matching grants from the state up to an annual income of $30,000. So as a married couple earns more, government grants kick in – up to $30,000. For every year the couple stays married, $2500 is deposited in a household retirement account, $2500 in a housing down payment account, and $5000 in an education savings account. A monthly housing grant of $500 is provided while household income is under $50,000.
Ten hours of monthly volunteer service at a community non-profit would create eligibility for prizes at monthly raffles.
Beyond this, minimum wage laws that discourage employment should be addressed, as well as taxes and regulations that discourage opening businesses in low-income neighborhoods.
Low wage workers and America’s poor need freedom to labor, not laws that penalize businesses that come to their communities or laws that keep them from moving to the second or third rung of the economic ladder. They need freedom from policies that keep their kids trapped in government subsidized, union controlled schools, and government housing policies that keep them trapped in ghettos.
Justice Dept Sues Police Force for Treating Women Equally
9/1/2014 12:01:00 AM
Forget about that phony IRS scandal… The DOJ apparently has a real problem to which they are focused like a laser. The Pennsylvania State Police are being sued by Eric “The Extortionist” Holder for alleged sexual discrimination. No, the Penn police department didn’t do anything as egregious as force women to pay for their own birth-control; but apparently it was enough to persuade the DOJ to file a lawsuit. The offense: Women are being held to the same standards as their male counterparts!
Apparently, requiring all candidates to pass the same standard physical fitness test is sexist. See, women are having a tough time passing the test – and this is obviously by design. According to the DOJ lawsuit:
“Through the use of these physical fitness tests, Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of employment discrimination against women in [Pennsylvania State Police's] selection process for entry-level trooper positions in violation of Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964].”
Those chauvinist creeps in Pennsylvania: How dare they expect a woman to be able to do a man’s work! Wait a minute… Is that really the problem here? The DOJ is suing a state police force, because they expect their female cadets to complete the same minimum requirements as men? Whoa. Maybe we should make a separate test for women that treats them as equals, right? I mean heck, it worked for race relations in Democrat controlled states in the 1960s, right? </SarcasmFont End>
So what is this horribly sexist barrier to female employment really look like? Well, there are five components of the physical test. A 300 meter run, sit-ups, push-ups, a 1.5 mile run, and a vertical jump. Roughly 94 percent of male candidates pass. Only about 70 percent of women pass.
Of course, if I suggested that this test was too much for a woman to handle, I’d be labeled a sexist faster than you can say liberal hypocrisy… Yet the Police force in Pennsylvania is being sued because they dare to suggest that, yes indeed, women should be evaluated the same as men.
So, let me get this straight: We’re supposed to treat women the same as men, unless they are incapable of achieving the same results. In that case, we’re apparently supposed to give them a handicap. Well, I guess this explains the two sets of tees on the golf course; but I’m not totally on board with this separate-but-equal mentality when it comes to first responders, law enforcement officers, or even Walmart rent-a-cops.
Aside from Holder’s decision to sue based on the absurdly racist/sexist notion of disparate impact (hang on to your hats – if your gender makes such hanging possible – because we’ll address that in a minute), he has also decided to sue over the police department’s failure to compensate women who fail said physical test. Yeah, that’s right: The DOJ expects Pennsylvania’s state police to pay women who fail the test. It’s kinda like a consolation prize, but with a W-2 included.
The notion of disparate impact (I told you) is nothing more than a tool for race hustlers to squeeze businesses, governments, and apparently police forces, into affirmative action. In short: Even if a policy has no intention of discrimination, it can be found to violate the Civil Rights Act if it results in a racially, or sexually, skewed outcome. In other words, if too many women fail to pass the test, the test can be found discriminatory – even though it was never intended as a barrier to allowing women in the force.
But the bigger message here seems to be the mentality of those victim-obsessed hustlers who are currently running the Federal Government. Despite the fact that over 70 percent of female applicants pass the test, Holder and Company have decided to sue. And why?
Well… Because those evil cops in Pennsylvania had the audacity to treat female candidates the same as their male counterparts. Don’t those out of touch, sexist, creeps who run the police department know by now that, in Holder’s America, “equality” means treating everyone differently? See, women are equal. Well, unless they’re not. In which case, we should treat them unequal in order to make them equal. But not too unequal. After all, they are equal… Unless they’re not. Are they? (Please don’t sue me.)
Welcome to our progressive Utopia: Where people get sued for not lowering their expectations.
I Can Destroy Your Reputation and Career in Two Minutes
9/1/2014 12:01:00 AM - Rachel Alexander
There is a new form of cyberbullying out there and it is scary, because it could derail the professional career of any conservative - even those working in apolitical jobs. Slimy folks like “Busta Troll” are hijacking Facebook pages of conservatives, replacing the content with goats and anti-conservative messages. Some believe a goat is used because it is a Satanic symbol; many of the conservatives are targeted because of their Christian or Jewish views.
The conservative Citizens’ Post page on Facebook was hijacked by the “Goatz Alliance,” which also goes by the name “Busta Troll,” by pretending to be from a conservative organization called Freedom Alliance. The bullies also set up several fake conservative Facebook groups to give themselves credibility. Once they cajoled the owner into giving them admin privileges, the hijackers posted anti-conservative propaganda all over the page. On one of their fake Facebook pages, a cyber thug claims to be paid by George Soros.
Another conservative Facebook page, “America, the Next Generation,” was hijacked not just once but twice by the cyber thugs, who pretended to offer help fixing a rude post about Obama, but then posted goats. R.W. Burgin, who runs a Facebook page called The Seditionist, told The Examiner that liberal cyber thugs copied photos from his page and photoshopped them into parody pages and videos, including alongside pornography. He was called a pedophile and his employer was contacted, in order to try and get him fired.
The cyber thugs are clever and have a lot of time on their hands. The main thug, Busta Troll, apparently gave an anonymous interview to the Atlanta Conservative Examiner, boasting that he had “goated” 17 Facebook pages. Then he supposedly set up an elaborate scheme where he pretended that a conservative named Kevin Kopper had his Facebook page hijacked, so Kopper offered $1,000 to anyone who could out Busta Troll. Kopper claimed he found someone for $1,000 who identified Busta Troll as Christopher Lyman. Busta Troll explains the scheme on his website and how all the names involved are fake. It looks like Busta Troll’s identity may have finally been discovered. Fortunately, Facebook appears to be cracking down on Busta Troll, at least for the most part.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are even more disturbing ways cyber thugs are going after conservative activists. Donna Cruse, a vocal Tea Party activist, had one of these hateful people photoshop her Facebook page to make it look like she said something racist related to her credit union employer and how they give out loans. The screenshot was then posted publicly by Americans Against the Tea Party, and the credit union was contacted to complain about her.
The problem? They should have contacted the credit union first. The bank told the anonymous coward that she hadn’t been employed there since 2010! Her alleged comment makes no sense in 2014. Unfortunately, her current employer watched as the cyber storm occurred on the credit union’s site, and due to the frenzied public reaction to this hoax, she was immediately suspended and has been placed on indefinite, unpaid suspension. She is nowreceiving death threats. Her previous co-workers are afraid to associate with her, possibly out of fear for their jobs. Even more outrageous, Donna has many black friends - who I happened to notice in photos with her on her Facebook page - and last year, she shaved all her hair off her head to show her support for an ethnic friend who was undergoing chemotherapy for cancer.
Nevertheless, her current employer launched an investigation into her and found what they believed to be another Facebook profile of hers, but it was actually a dormant account of a leftist troll who simply changed the name and added a stolen photo, causing further investigation into her personally. In other words, Donna has become “the criminal” in the story. This is how they terrorize people on the right to the point of suicide.
I am fairly good with photoshopping, and know how simple it would be to superimpose a fake comment onto a screenshot of someone’s Facebook page. I photoshopped a screenshot of Barack Obama’s Facebook page to say he was becoming a Republican in less than two minutes. How this tactic could be used to take out conservatives is frankly terrifying. The best way to prevent it is to spread the word and explain how the photoshopping works. Someone loves Hitler? Someone wants to kill Obama? Someone is a white supremacist? Someone hates gays? Photoshopped sex photos? The possibilities are endless. The left is excellent at making this kind of thing go viral and getting activists to call and make complaints.
Progressives and their comrades in the media are always trying to claim there is a link between right-wing conservatives and offensive viewpoints - even though the truth is abhorrent viewpoints are more closely connected to the left - so some employers may believe the anonymous thugs over a Tea Party member. Especially if they pile it on by having a few more anonymous people post comments after the article claiming the person has made offensive comments in the past (even though they have no proof), and bang! It begins to sound convincing.
One little two-minute photoshopping incident and your entire career aspirations could be over - forever. Anyone who Googles you for the rest of your life will likely find the abhorrent things about you. And it’s not just what someone said about you - it’s what YOU supposedly said so it’s even tougher to dispute.
Wikipedia is another forum conservatives need to take on, since it has become the number one source for encyclopedia-like, general information. Trolls - probably mostly unemployed criminals living in their parents’ basements - have taken over much of it, posting horrendous things about conservative people and conservative organizations. Unless someone has a lot of money to pay someone to clean up their reputation, or time to spend hours learning how to maneuver the complexities of editing Wikipedia, this site can significantly hurt their credibility.
Hopefully, entities like Facebook will address this in the future, perhaps by setting up a department to deal with requests for records in order to prove the photoshopping is false. A spammer took my photo and started a fake Facebook profile with it recently; I complained to Facebook and they wouldn’t remove it (fortunately it has since disappeared). Another solution is to set up a website where these incidents can be exposed and debunked. If anyone is looking for a new venture to help conservatives, this would be a very valuable project. Otherwise, expect to see many more conservatives destroyed over false accusations - including some big names.