Wednesday, August 1, 2012


Posted by BH

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was in rare form last night when she joined FOX News’ Greta Greta VanSusteren to discuss issues ranging from the Chick-fil-A controversy to Vice President Dick Cheney’s statement that she was a poor choice for Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008.
Palin Defends Chick fil A & Responds to Dick Cheney
The segment opened with the controversy surrounding the fast-food chain. VanSusteren asked Palin why she was jumping in to support the restaurant (recently, Palin Tweeted in support of Chick-fil-A). Rather than focusing upon the issue of gay marriage, Palin said her support was rooted in a dislike for the ban that has been advanced against the company.
“I’m speaking up for him and his First Amendment rights and anyone else who would wish to express their — not anti-gay people sentiment — but their support for traditional marriage,” Palin said, referring to Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy. “President Obama and Joe Biden — they both supported the exact same thing until just a few months ago when they had to flip-flop to shore up the homosexual voter base.”
The politician went on to call the poor treatment of Chick-fil-A and the calls for bans on the food establishment ”intolerant, bigoted, hypocritical“ and ”narrow-minded.”
As for Cheney, who recently said that it was “a mistake” for Palin to be chosen for vice-president in 2008, the former Alaskan governor had plenty to say. When VanSusteren asked Palin about this statement, she passionately responded, saying that she was honored to have been chosen as a candidate and that it would have been a mistake for her not to accept the nomination. Here’s her full response:
“The mistake would have been me just deciding that, ‘Hey I love my 86, 87 percent approval rating up there in Alaska as the governor moving and shaking and watching corrupt politicians and businessmen to go prison for crony capitalism. Working on 16 to 20 percent of domestic energy supplies being able to be increased via Alaska’s resource development. Ethics reform legislation that I was working on — that led to that 86 percent approval rating.
I could have decided, you know, I don’t want to be blooded up, I don’t want my family to go through what we will have to go through in order to put ourselves forward in the name service to this country. But I did it. It would have been a mistake to have hunkered down — just lived that luxurious…comfortable lifestyle in Alaska…We like so many people in this country decided, we will do all that we can in order to defend our republic, put America back on track. And I believe I did the right thing in accepting that call.”

College Friend Speaks Out On Obama’s Marxism (Part Two)

Posted by BH

In doing research for his just-released book The Communist Frank Marshall Davis: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor, Paul Kengor interviewed John Drew, a former friend of Obama during the Occidental years. John Drew states unequivocally that Obama at this time was a fervent Marxist-Leninist who looked towards a literal proletariat revolution in the United States.
(Watch Part 1 here.)
Of course, we know that President Obama has surrounded himself to the hilt with radicals who included openly communist Van Jones, who would have remained until this day if not for the likes of Glenn Beck and an army of bloggers who daily uncovered more and more of Jones’ radical connections.
Was Team Obama that dense that they didn’t know Jones was a communist? This is hardly likely since there were YouTube videos of Jones spouting off about revolution literally months before Obama appointed him Green Jobs czar.
Obama knew he was a communist because Obama during his Occidental years, during his Columbia years, during his Harvard years, and today is, as John Drew states, a Marxist-Leninist.
Hopefully, the “revolution” that Obama seeks will be the overthrow of his presidency in November—or if we’re lucky, his impeachment.

The Bush Tax Cut Lie: It’s been tax policy for ten years, letting it expire is a tax INCREASE (video)

Posted by BH

The Bush Tax Cut Lie
Friday, July 20, 2012, on CBS This Morning, Norah O’Donnell mocked Rep. Paul Ryan about Obama’s tax increase, even though Ryan accurately described our current tax situation.

Norah O’Donnell, propaganda princess 

RYAN:Remember, these tax policies have been in place for a decade, Charlie, so they’re really not tax cuts. We’re just talking about keeping taxes where they are. A year and a half ago, the President said, the last thing you want to do in a soft economy is raise taxes. We agree. The economy is worse now than it was then. So, we’re going to, next week, pass an extension of the tax code for another year, and we’ve already passed two bills dealing with the sequester, all of which are sitting over in the Senate, which hasn’t done anything for three years – no budget for three years; no sequester mitigation plan for three years.
RYAN: So we’ve been acting in the House, Charlie. We’re just waiting for the senate to do something.
O’DONNELL: Congressman, you’re calling them tax policies and tax code. You’re afraid to call them tax cuts
RYAN: They’re not tax cuts, Norah, because they’ve been the current tax policy for ten years-
O’DONNELL: (laughs) Oh, Congressman, come on! Come on, Congressman-
RYAN: No — so here — no, no. Honestly, Norah, keeping taxes where they are is not cutting taxes. Preventing a tax increase is preventing a tax increase. It’s not actually cutting taxes. So, we’re saying, don’t raise taxes, especially in this soft economy. And, more importantly, Norah, eight out of ten businesses in America pay their taxes on the individual side of the code.
Read more:
The real hypocrisy in all this, back to the context of Obama’s controversial you-didn’t-build-that speech, is that Obama is arguing to increase taxes.  Obama’s message was that if you have a successful business, you should be willing to give back — to the government of course – in a higher tax rate.  You should be willing to pay 39% in taxes because you used the public roads to get to work everyday, instead of being greedy and only paying the insufficient 34% in income taxes.  Obama didn’t deny that his policy is a tax increase.  He was actually making an argument on behalf of it, but he continues to misrepresent it by calling it “The Bush Tax Cuts.”  This is just the buzz-phrase that Obama and his lapdog media throw out there in a blatant manipulation of words.  The Bush tax policy expiring amounts to a tax increase, a large one, that begins next January.
Words Matter. Paul Ryan was speaking facts, and he was mocked for it by someone who was pushing an agenda based on a flat-out lie.  Norah O’Donnell dismissed the truth, as so many left-wingers do, with petty mocking that lacks any substantive reasoning behind it.  Every time Obama says “Bush Tax Cuts,” he’s talking about the current tax rates for the past decade.  Ending that tax policy amounts to a tax increase.
Tax increases in a period of economic stagnation, like we’re in now, will not help the economy grow.  In fact, it will hinder the economy and very likely kill even more jobs, even more small businesses who are already barely hanging on through this economic nightmare, as well as the middle class.
Obama explains his comment, he didn’t mean you didn’t build your business, but he meant that you didn’t build the roads that you drove to your business on.  Even in context, it still stinks, because all he’s doing is rationalizing why you should be happy to pay higher taxes, a.k.a. give back:
In context, it still stinks:
Mitt Romney slams Obama’s attack on business owners, says the context is worse than the quote:
Romney’s response: 

“Occupier” burns down historic Town Hall in Colorado, ignites himself on fire in the process(Video)

Posted by BH

The Media is trying to keep this silent!!
Kyle Lawrence, a Colorado Springs Occupier,  remains in a Denver Hospital burn unit with second-degree burns that he received when he caught on fire during the arson that leveled the Historic Green Mountain Falls Town Hall.
Former Occupy spokesperson, Jason Warf, says he was shocked after learning that Kyle Lawrence is being linked to the Green Mountain Falls arson. He said, ” Kyle seemed like a good guy. He was frustrated with everything going on in the world. I just never in a million years, imagined him doing anything like this.”

Zach Shaffer, 21, made the statement to an El Paso County Sheriff’s deputy the afternoon of Feb. 24, when he was at Memorial Hospital being treated for third-degree burns to his hands and ankles. Shaffer is the other suspect in the arson fire that destroyed the historic Green Mountain Falls Town Hall last week.  He described himself and an alleged accomplice as “anti-government,” and said he wanted to “do something to a judicial building.”
Why he picked the Green Mountain Falls Town Hall is not fully explained in the arrest document. Shaffer said he had lived in the town and once received a speeding ticket.  While he had no bad dealings with police, he said “he had heard several people complain about how they were crooked bastards.”
Shaffer bought a sledge hammer and crowbar, and told Lawrence he was going to use them to break into the building, the warrant said. When they got there, the window was unlocked, so both entered the building that way. Shaffer said the intent was to just break computers, “but then they decided to burn the building.”
Each poured about five gallons of gasoline inside.  Shaffer grabbed both gas cans and was heading toward the window when he heard the vapors ignite.  He said he threw the gas cans out the window and, realizing he was on fire, rolled on the ground to extinguish the flames. He also saw that Lawrence was on fire.
Once they got away from the building, they went back to Shaffer’s house where a Police standoff ensued.


The historic Green Mountain Falls building was erected in 1898, and first served as the town’s schoolhouse.  It was later converted into the Town Hall and was filled with important documents.  Town officials are still trying to determine which records were lost in the fire.
Read More From The Gazette Here
Read More From KOAA Here
Read More From KRDO Here
See More Videos From Michael Clifton(Occupier) Here
Join RWBN on Facebook Here

Monsanto's Seedy Legacy

Posted by BH

Monsanto's Seedy Legacy
by grtv
Agricultural giant Monsanto is best known for their production of pesticides and genetically modified foods, but they have a controversial history as a chemical company with a slew of toxic cover-ups.
In addition to their battle against small farmers, the newest buzz about the corporation is the speculation that their GM seeds are linked to the die-off of bees.
Abby Martin of RT brings us more on their seedy practices and what they are up to now.
For more on this story, see also:


Posted By The Circuit Rider



Posted by BH
Submitted by Roberth Firth

Tuesday, July 31, 2012


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Big Lies in Politics

Big Lies in Politics
It was either Adolf Hitler or his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, who said that the people will believe any lie, if it is big enough and told often enough, loud enough. Although the Nazis were defeated in World War II, this part of their philosophy survives triumphantly to this day among politicians, and nowhere more so than during election years. Perhaps the biggest lie of this election year, and the one likely to be repeated the most often, is that the income of "the rich" is going up, while other people's incomes are going down. If you listen to Barack Obama, you are bound to hear this lie repeatedly. But the government's own Congressional Budget Office has just published a report whose statistics flatly contradict this claim. The CBO report shows that, while the average household income fell 12 percent between 2007 and 2009, the average for the lower four-fifths fell by 5 percent or less, while the average income for households in the top fifth fell 18 percent. For households in the "top one percent" that seems to fascinate so many people, income fell by 36 percent in those same years. Why are these data so different from other data that are widely cited, showing the top brackets improving their positions more so than anyone else? The answer is that the data cited by the Congressional Budget Office are based on Internal Revenue Service statistics for specific individuals and specific households over time. The IRS can follow individuals and households because it can identify the same people over time from their Social Security numbers. Most other data, including census data, are based on compiling statistics in a succession of time periods, without the ability to tell if the actual people in each income bracket are the same from one time period to the next. The turnover of people is substantial in all brackets -- and is huge in the top one percent. Most people in that bracket are there for only one year in a decade. All sorts of statements are made in politics and in the media as if that "top one percent" is an enduring class of people, rather than an ever-changing collection of individuals who have a spike in their income in a particular year, for one reason or another. Turnover in other income brackets is also substantial. There is nothing mysterious about this. Most people start out at the bottom, in entry-level jobs, and their incomes rise over time as they acquire more skills and experience. Politicians and media talking heads love to refer to people who are in the bottom 20 percent in income in a given year as "the poor." But, following the same individuals for 10 or 15 years usually shows the great majority of those individuals moving into higher income brackets. The number who reach all the way to the top 20 percent greatly exceeds the number still stuck in the bottom 20 percent over the years. But such mundane facts cannot compete for attention with the moral melodramas conjured up in politics and the media when they discuss "the rich" and "the poor." There are people who are genuinely rich and genuinely poor, in the sense of having very high or very low incomes for most, if not all, of their lives. But "the rich" and "the poor" in this sense are unlikely to add up to even ten percent of the population. Ironically, those who make the most noise about income disparities or poverty contribute greatly to policies that promote both. The welfare state enables millions of people to meet their needs with little or no income-earning work on their part. Most of the economic resources used by people in the bottom 20 percent come from sources other than their own incomes. There are veritable armies of middle-class people who make their livings transferring resources, in a variety of ways, from those who created those resources to those who live off them. These transferrers are in both government and private social welfare institutions. They have every incentive to promote dependency, from which they benefit both professionally and psychically, and to imagine that they are creating social benefits. For different reasons, both politicians and the media have incentives to spread misconceptions with statistics. So long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Click here to find out more!

Playing Chicken with Freedom of Speech

Playing Chicken with Freedom of Speech
Each day brings new evidence of the Left’s hatred for Christians and other traditionalists, but the smear campaign against Christian-owned Chick-fil-A sets a new low.
The Atlanta-based, 1,600-restaurant chain that’s famous for its misspelling-prone cows who urge consumers to “eat mor chikin,” is under a full-scale, fascistic assault, complete with obscene celebrity tweets and government bullying.
Acting more like Benito Mussolini than Paul Revere, Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino said he will block Chick-fil-A from opening a facility in his city. Chicago Alderman Proco “Joe” Moreno said he will stop Chick-fil-A from building its second Chicago store. In Philadelphia, Councilman Jim Kenney sent a letter to Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy advising his company to “take a hike and take your intolerance with you.” Meanwhile, the Jim Henson Company, owner of The Muppets, has canceled a deal to provide toys for Chick-fil-A kids’ meals. This is just the beginning.
What has the dastardly company done? Chick-fil-A’s management, while not political, is an unapologetic defender of traditional values. Like the Boy Scouts, the company has enraged progressives who are at war with Nature and Nature’s God.
This isn’t the first time Chick-fil-A has been singled out. In February 2011, homosexual activists launched an unsuccessful boycott when they found out that the company donated food to the Pennsylvania Family Institute’s marriage retreat. Seriously, it doesn’t take much to tick them off.
The current hysteria began after Dan Cathy, son of the chain’s founder, gave an interview that ran in the Baptist Press on July 16. Mr. Cathy noted that Chick-fil-A’s management is “based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us.” When asked about the company’s positions in support of marriage and family, Mr. Cathy went on to say, “Well, guilty as charged. We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …”
This was too juicy to ignore. CNN ran a July 19 religion blog post, “Chick-fil-A’s marriage stance causing a social storm.” Casually striking a match while pouring the gasoline, writer Brad Lendon wrote that “the comments of company President Dan Cathy about gay marriage to Baptist Press on Monday have ignited a social media wildfire.”
It doesn’t matter that Mr. Cathy never brought up “gay marriage,” as noted by The Weekly Standard’s Mark Hemingway. All Mr. Cathy did was defend the company’s stance that families are paramount and that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
That’s what marriage laws do, too – they define the institution. It’s no accident that the media routinely describe marriage laws as “gay marriage bans,” as if marriage didn’t exist until recently, when it was invented solely to vex homosexuals. You think I’m joking? That’s what openly gay U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker essentially said in his bizarre ruling striking down
California’s voter-approved constitutional marriage amendment.
This madness has gone so far that simply defending marriage is enough to get you banned in Boston. There may be room, however, for a legal challenge, as UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh notes:
“Denying a private business permits because of such speech by its owner is a blatant First Amendment violation. Even when it comes to government contracting — where the government is choosing how to spend government money — the government generally may not discriminate based on the contractor’s speech, see Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr (1996).”
Perhaps the ACLU will step forward to represent Chick-fil-A. Perhaps the Chicago River will freeze in August.
Comic and Green Party favorite Roseanne Barr joined the Chick-fil-A bashing on Wednesday, tweeting, “anyone who eats (expletive) -- Fil-A deserves to get the cancer that is sure to come from eating antibiotic filled tortured chickens 4Christ.”
As reported by the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters, she sent another Christian-themed, obscene tweet that I won’t repeat, followed by this sarcastic offering: “off to grab a (expletive)- fil-A sandwich on my way to worshipping Christ, supporting Aipac and war in Iran.” (Aipac stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.)
On July 25, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank accused Mike Huckabee of pushing “obesity” because Mr. Huckabee has called for people who honor “Godly values” to fight back by eating at Chick-fil-A on August 1. Huckabee’s “defense of the fast-food restaurant will make Chick-fil-A a fat target in the culture wars and will further divide Americans,” Milbank asserted.
Right. Huckabee’s the divisive one for helping the mugging victim. If he were a Good American (like Mr. Milbank), he’d just stay silent (unlike Mr. Milbank).
Up in Boston, where consistency is not necessarily a virtue, Mayor Menino didn’t mind giving a taxpayer-subsidized, sweetheart land deal in 2002 to the Islamic Society of Boston, which has been linked to terrorist groups. But on the “Freedom Trail,” where the American Revolution began, Menino says Chick-fil-A “doesn’t send the right message to the country. We’re a leader when it comes to social justice and opportunities for all.” Except for Christians, who are about as welcome in Boston as the New York Yankees.
Stand for natural marriage and you’ll get the Left’s version of “social justice:” an iron fist in a lavender glove. The end-game is to criminalize Christianity and replace it with a state-approved, false religion that retains enough trappings to fool the unwary.
Chicago’s notoriously foul-mouthed Mayor, Rahm Emanuel, who donned brass knuckles to assist Alderman Moreno, put it this way: “Chick-fil-A values are not Chicago values.”
No, perhaps not in a town where Al Capone’s spirit animates its politics. Psalm 12:8 says, “The wicked freely strut about when what is vile is honored among men.”
As for Mr. Cathy, “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
I know where I’m having breakfast, lunch and dinner on August 1, do you?

 by WP:  I am glad I am not messrs. Emanuel, Moreno, Lee, or Menino.  Spitting in GOD"S face is not conducive to a long and happy life.  But they would have to read the Bible to learn that. The chastizement that is forthcoming will be devastating to the cities these un-GODLY people run.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Two Reservoirs of Despair

The Federal Reserve is contemplating another quantitative ease. This would be the third one since August of 2009. Like the other’s it won’t make a difference-except because they are artificially devaluing the US dollar, it will make asset prices go up so people will “feel” richer.
The idea is that if they act, they can decrease interest rates. Lower interest rates supposedly create demand so business and people borrow more, creating more economic activity. However, rates are already close to zero. I just had an adjustable rate mortgage drop to 3.1%.
Companies and individuals don’t act on macro. They behave on microeconomic principles. That means, while they look at the big picture, it’s marginal things that cause them to act. Another QE from the Fed isn’t going to move the needle enough to get any economic fires started.
The problem right now is the money that gets created sits. There is no economic velocity with regard to money. It’s not turning over because economic activity is stalled at virtually every level, and in every industry.
Companies see the macro, a decline with continuing problems in Europe; a slow down in China, and a fiscal cliff in the US, and then look at the micro in their own backyard. It’s not any better. Retail sales and consumer spending are flat. There just aren’t as many customers coming through the door.
US Retail Sales Chart

US Retail Sales data by YCharts
If we want to change the game, we have to think micro, not macro. There is little the Fed can do on a micro level given the state of the economy. The only one that can release the dam that’s creating a reservoir of despair is the President by agreeing to tax cuts for corporations and individuals at all income levels. Then, at the margin, behavior will change.
The Romney Character Assassination Has Begun
The Democrats cannot win on the facts. They tried to bend the facts, but the data keeps exploding in their face. What’s left in their playbook? Character assassination.
Here are two examples.
First, the recent Newsweek cover.

Next, comes an article at Business Insider by left leaning Henry Blodgett. The column is a backhanded, “I am just curious” assault on Mormonism. It starts out,
Our next President may be a Mormon, so it seems a good time to learn some things about that particular religion.
For example:
Do Mormons have any weird beliefs or practices that might make a President do strange things?
Is there a Mormon “pope” or other boss that a President might feel some greater allegiance to?
Can Mormons truly separate “church” and “state”–or do they think that their “God’s law” is higher than American law?
And so on…
Cheap shot for sure.
Here is our Twitter repartee.
And Now For A Bunch Of Things I Just Learned About The Founding Of Mormonism…

@hblodget were you worried about Obama’s church of choice in 2008? Bush’s in 2000? Clinton in 1992? Does it matter?
@pointsnfigures Or not “worried,” really… I’m not “worried” about Romney’s religion. Mostly curious.

1:30 PM – 30 Jul 12 via TweetDeck · Details
@hblodget I am not Mormon. You might want to take a trip to Salt Lake if you really want to find out about Mormonism.

31m 57Jeffrey Carter ?@pointsnfigures
@hblodget your was the first I saw going after Mormonism in a backhanded way.
There will be continual assaults on the Romney character, and sly attacks on the Mormon religion from now until election day. All of a sudden, religion matters to the left. All of a sudden, they are curious.
My kids sat in the pews at Obama’s church when Reverend Wright was preaching. It’s a different brand of Christianity, far from mainstream Christianity. Why wasn’t the left curious about what was going on there?
I think we know the answer. It’s a double standard. President John F. Kennedy endured the same amount of bigotry back when he was running as the first Catholic. Fortunately for him, he wasn’t a Republican.
I should clarify, my kids attended Wright’s church as a part of a program at the church I belonged to, Fourth Presbyterian. Fourth Pres confirmation classes go to other churches, synagogues, and mosques as part of a confirmation program.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


Why “You Didn’t Build That” Won’t Go Away

Why “You Didn’t Build That” Won’t Go Away
President Obama’s self-revealing “You didn’t build that” speech in Roanoke, Va., is turning out to be the gift that keeps on giving.
The speech was delivered July 13, and the New York Times last week dubbed it “the campaign story that will not go away.” There are several reasons why this story won’t—and must not—go away.
Reason number one is that this is the first time that President Obama has revealed for public consumption a foundational tenet of his economic theory. The Obama administration has a history of being cagy. For example, we think we know why White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to answer a question as to whether the administration regards Jerusalem as the capital of Israel last week. We have our suspicions. But we can’t be sure. No one will say.
With the Roanoke speech, the public at large can for the first time know with absolute certainty what the president thinks about those who succeed in business. Rather than being the engine of job creation, business mooches, in the president’s worldview. The disdain in Mr. Likeability’s voice and demeanor was palpable—and not very likeable.
This isn’t some anecdote dredged up from the president’s twenties, something uttered behind closed doors at a posh San Francisco fundraiser, something we ourselves can never hear, or an impromptu response to an importunate plumber. This is what the president believes, and for once he flat out said it. Thanks for sharing, Mr. President.
Moreover, these words, offensive to those who have worked to build family businesses, didn’t come out of thin air—rather than being the verbal meanderings of a tired man without his teleprompter, these words reflect a particular point of view that has wide currency on the far left.
William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection located one of the sources of this attack on the self-made man or woman (and that is what this is) in the works of Berkeley linguist George Lakoff. “There is no such thing as a self-made man,” Jacobson quoted from Lakoff. “Every businessman has used the vast American infrastructure, which the taxpayers paid for, to make his money. He did not make his money alone.”
This is very much what the president was saying in Roanoke. President Obama’s ally Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts senatorial candidate and darling of the far left, also has said pretty much the same thing. President Obama, who like Warren and Lakoff has spoken fondly of the anarchistic Occupy Movement, spoke his own truth in a moment of off-scripted candor in Roanoke. These were not errant words, but words of sincere belief.
The Obama campaign’s response shows that they recognize the potentially politically grave consequences of the president’s moment of self-revelation. Among other things, the campaign is vociferously claiming in an ad that the president never said any such thing (commendably bold, when you consider that the entire speech is easily available on the internet).
Showing just how devastating the president’s words potentially are to a second term, Jonathan Chait resorted to the all-purpose liberal shut up: it is racist to criticize President Obama’s anti-business tirade. Chait wrote about the speech and the reaction in New York magazine:
The key thing is that Obama is angry, and he’s talking not in his normal voice but in a “black dialect.” This strikes at the core of Obama’s entire political identity: a soft-spoken, reasonable African-American with a Kansas accent. From the moment he stepped onto the national stage, Obama’s deepest political fear was being seen as a “traditional” black politician, one who was demanding redistribution from white America on behalf of his fellow African-Americans.
Senator John McCain most likely would have been buffaloed by the racist ruse. The “You didn’t build that” speech would have been declared off limits. Romney, whose campaign drove veteran politician Newt Gingrich crazy, probably won’t. Indeed, the Chait claim that talk about the Roanoke speech is racist may mark the official moment at which the racism charge jumped the shark. Chait’s ludicrous column is provoking more mirth than the usual fear and trembling at the prospect of being (unfairly) dubbed a racist.
There will come a moment in the presidential debates when Mitt Romney and the president can go head to head on the meaning of Roanoke. I hope Romney is practicing for this great opportunity. I would suggest that, when the president says his words were twisted, or that Romney took them out of context, Romney give viewers a website where they can listen to the whole speech. This can’t be delivered in the usual go-to-my website toss-off of a politician who can’t be bothered to tell you himself. It has to be done just right to convey the idea that the Roanoke speech is the key to decoding President Obama.
If you know that this is what the president believes, the rest falls in place: his incessant calls for higher taxation on “millionaires and billionaires,” the stagnation of business in the U.S. under Obama, and, most of all, the 8.2 unemployment rate.


Posted By Woody Pendleton


10 Concepts Liberals Talk About Incessantly But Don't Understand

10 Concepts Liberals Talk About Incessantly But Don't Understand
"It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so." -- Ronald Reagan
”You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride
1) Being Open Minded: To a liberal, this has nothing at all to do with seriously considering other people's ideas. To the contrary, liberals define being "open-minded" as agreeing with them. What could be more close-minded than assuming that not only are you right, but that you don't even need to consider another viewpoint because anyone who disagrees must be evil?
2) Racism: Liberals start with the presumption that only white people who don't belong to the Democratic Party can be racist. So, for example, even if Jeremiah Wright can make it clear that he hates white people because of their skin color or if liberals take an explicitly racist political position, like suggesting that black people are too stupid and incompetent to get identification to vote, they can't be racist. White Republicans, on the other hand, are generally assumed to be racist by default, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.
3) Fairness: In all fairness, I must admit that fairness is an arbitrary concept. So, you could make the argument that no one could get "fairness" wrong. Still, liberals do because they don't make any effort to actually "be fair." As a practical matter, liberals define "fairness" as taking as much as possible from people who they don't think are going to vote for them and giving it to people who may vote for them in return for their ill gotten largesse. Certainly conservatives, libertarians, and moderates might disagree about how much money to take from the wealthy to redistribute to the poor or how to help the disadvantaged, but the only liberal answer to the question, "How much is enough?" is "more."
4) Greed: To a liberal, believing that you pay too much in taxes or even opposing paying more in taxes is greedy. In actuality, wanting to loot as much money as possible that someone else has earned to use for your own purposes, which is what liberals do, is a much better example of greed.
5) Hate: Liberals often define simple disagreement with them on issues like gay marriage, tax rates, or abortion as hatred. No matter how well a position is explained, or the logical underpinnings behind it, it's chalked up to hate. Meanwhile, the angriest, most vicious, most hateful people in all of politics are liberals railing against what they say is "hatred." This irony is completely lost on the Left.
6) Investment: Actual investments involve putting money or resources into a project in hopes that they will appreciate in value. Liberals skip the second half of that equation. To them, an "investment" is taking someone else's tax dollars and putting it into a project that liberals approve of and whether a profit is made or lost is so irrelevant that they typically don't even bother to measure the results.
7) Charity: Contributing your own money or time to a good cause is charity. Liberals view themselves as charitable if they take someone else's tax dollars and give it away to people they hope will vote for them in return. At a minimum, they should at least credit the taxpayers who paid for the money they gave away for the charity, although it's not really charity if it's involuntary. Of course, there's nothing charitable about asking someone else to sacrifice for your gain, which could actually be better described as selfish.
8) Patriotism: Liberals love America the way a wife beater loves his spouse. That's why they're always beating up the country "for its own good." Doesn't the country understand that liberals have to hit it in the mouth because they LOVE IT SO MUCH?!?!? Of course, the conventional definition of patriotism, which is loving your country and wishing it well, isn't one that liberals can wrap their heads around.
9) Tolerance: In a free, open, and pluralistic society, there are all sorts of behaviors that we may have to tolerate, even though we don't approve of those activities. Liberals don't get this distinction. For one thing, they don't understand the difference between tolerance and acceptance. They also don't extend any of the tolerance they're agitating for to people who disagree with them. Liberals silence people who disagree with them at every opportunity which is, dare we say it, an extremely intolerant way to behave.
10) Diversity: What liberals mean by "diversity" is that they want a broad range of people from different races, colors, and creeds who have identical political views. A black or Hispanic conservative doesn't contribute to "diversity" in liberal eyes because he actually has diverse views. Incredible role models for women like Sarah Palin can't be feminists to liberals because she doesn't share the same liberal beliefs as sexist pigs like Anthony Weiner and Bill Maher. How can you have any meaningful "diversity" when everyone has to think the same way?

 by WP:  The Word OF GOD  teaches that selfishness is the basic cause of sin and evil.   PRETTY MUCH EXPLAINS WHERE THE LIBERALS ARE COMING FROM.


Posted By Woody Pedleton


Obama's Entrepreneurial Communist Manifesto

Obama's Entrepreneurial Communist Manifesto
President Barack Obama's recent business-related comments in Virginia ("If you've got a business -- you didn't build that; somebody else made that happen") sounded more communistic than capitalistic, especially because the "somebody" to whom Obama referred was in fact the U.S. government. Progressives and the mainstream media were quick to come to the aid of the president by stating that similar statements have been said by other entrepreneurial moguls, such as Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Andrew Carnegie and Walter Chrysler. Others excused Obama by saying he "borrowed" his business verbiage from Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren. No one is denying the genius of collective contributions or the power of working together. One of my favorite acronyms is TEAM, which stands for "together everyone achieves more." But the key difference between Obama's reference to teamwork and all the rest of those inspirational innovators' references to teamwork is that the latter ones were regarding other individuals' collaborative efforts within their own entrepreneurialism, whereas Obama's was pointing to politicians -- specifically the federal government -- as the business associates responsible for your success. Look for yourself at how Obama progressively unveiled "government" as the "somebody" in his speech (with italics added for emphasis):
"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that; somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet."
In fact, the entirety of Obama's speech points to the prize in partnership with the federal government. Obama believes that it is not your business! Obama's statements shouldn't come as any surprise, as he has declared emphatically from early in his presidency that "only government" is our savior, and he has supported his socialistic platform through multiple company and corporate bailouts. To Obama, government is your business partner; government is your savior; government is your hero; government is the economic caped crusader who swoops down like the Dark Knight to save your soul, sales and pocketbook. In fact, Obama's belief in government partnership -- indeed, ownership -- is at the heart of his justification to increase taxes on couples who make more than $250,000 a year, a levy that an Ernst & Young study just showed would cost 710,000 U.S. jobs. Obama's business comments were an assault on free enterprise and entrepreneurialism. They were not a gaffe; they represent, at the very least, his preferred philosophy for a European type of socialism. The Wall Street Journal even editorialized that the president is "subordinating to government the individual enterprise and risk-taking that underlies prosperity." The truth is that Obama's statements in Virginia were in no way reminiscent of great capitalists and innovators. On the other hand, his words did smack of a few other societal manipulators:
"Society does not consist of individuals, but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand." -- Karl Marx "Production itself changed from a series of individual into a series of social acts, and the products from individuals to social products. The yard, the cloth, the metals that now came out of the factory were the joint product of many workers through whose hands they had successfully to pass before they were ready. (No one person could say of them: 'I made that; this is my product.')" -- Friedrich Engels "All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all." -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin "Comrades, we must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." -- Nikita Khrushchev "We must affirm anew the discipline of the Party, namely: (1) the individual is subordinate to the organization; (2) the minority is subordinate to the majority; (3) the lower level is subordinate to the higher level; and (4) the entire membership is subordinate to the Central Committee. Whoever violates these articles of discipline disrupts Party unity. -- Mao Zedong And now we can add these words to the lineup: "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that; (the federal government) made that happen." -- Barack Obama
To the contrary, America's Founding Fathers declared an independence from governmental tyranny and taxation over personal business and welfare. For them, America was a republic founded upon "We the People" and individuals' rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Government was charged with the sole role of protector, not proprietor, of those "inalienable" rights with which all humans are endowed by their Creator. Thomas Jefferson explained, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." And Benjamin Franklin said: "The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." Dare I say that if they or any of our other founders were alive today, they would say, "If you want a business, you build it. You make it happen."
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...