Where We Create & Share Music, Talk Radio Shows, Conservative News & Cartoons for Our Subscribers, Viewers, Other Artists & the General Public. (WFZR Radio / TV Coming Soon)
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2012/07/20/norah-odonnell-challenges-paul-ryan-tax-rate-extension-afraid-call-th#ixzz21W4Pf4Ed
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: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/20/obama_you_didnt_build_that_comment_has_turned_
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.
OCCUPIER SPEAKS ABOUT HIS FRIEND AND FELLOW OCCUPIER CHARGED WITH ARSON
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.
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.
Chelsea Schilling is a
commentary editor and staff writer for WND, an editor of Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, and a proud
homeschooling mother. Schilling joined the Army at age 17, receiving the
exceptional designation of expert marksman three times. In addition to WND,
Schilling has worked as a news producer at USA Radio Network and as a news
reporter for the Sacramento Union.More ↓Less ↑
It’s a case of a massive, bullying Goliath government versus a God-fearing
David company.
And David just won the first round.
Federal district Judge John J. Kane of Colorado has granted a Christian-owned
company a temporary injunction blocking Obamacare’s mandated coverage of
sterilization, contraception and abortion-inducing drugs from being applied to
the private business.
Nonetheless, the Obamacare contraception mandate goes into effect today – a
day that’s been dubbed “D-Day for religious freedom in America.”
Hercules Industries of Denver, Colo., a company that manufactures air
conditioning products, filed suit against the government in April, arguing
Obama’s mandate conflicts with the Christian faith of the business’ owners.
The government fought back, claiming Hercules is not a faith-based
organization. It threatened the company, which employs 265 people, with millions
of dollars in fines if it refused to comply.
Hercules sought the injunction in federal court and received one July 27.
In a radio interview with WND’s Greg Corombos, Hercules Vice President Andy
Newland said, “We realized we had a choice nobody should really have to face.
That’s the choice to do business according to our faith, which we think is
really important, or pay onerous crippling fines. And nobody, we believe, should
be forced to make that decision.”
Newland added, “We believe in providing generous benefits to the employees
and operating our business in accordance with our moral beliefs and faith,
ultimately, as a recipe for success.”
Matt Bowman of the Alliance Defending Freedom represents Hercules Industries
in court. He said the government mandate on contraception is blatantly
unconstitutional, and he expects the case to be watched very closely by the
Catholic Church and other challengers to the mandate.
“This case does not involve stopping anybody from doing anything in terms of
employees,” Bowman told WND. “What it involves is using Obamacare to impose
mandates on families who are just wanting to earn a living, forcing them to
violate their faith and to facilitate things that violate their faith simply
because they’re Americans who want to have a business and follow their religious
values.”
Bowman said the Obama administration’s argument that Hercules is not a
religious organization – and, thus, not exempt from Obamacare’s contraception
mandate – is a clear case of religious discrimination.
“That was their argument,” he said. “If you listen to it, what the government
is doing is it is picking and choosing what faith is, who the faithful are and
where and how that faith can be practiced. That’s not compatible with principles
of religious freedom in America.
“The Constitution and federal law both protect every American, including
family business owners, with the freedom to live and do business according to
their faith.
“Ultimately, what the judge did in this case is he granted an injunction
against the Obamacare mandate for this family because he said the interest the
government was proposing ‘pales in comparison’ to the infringement of religious
freedom for a family.”
Newland applauded the judge’s recent decision and said he expects more
victories.
“Frankly, the injunction that we received is an example of how our great
system can work, and we’re confident in how things are going to move forward,”
he said.
Where does the Hercules case go from here?
“This is an injunction that is going to stop the government’s mandate against
faith for this family as long as this case lasts,” Bowman explained. “That can
happen in a period of months or years, depending on how things go. Alliance
Defending Freedom is committed to protect the Newlands, as well as in other
cases we’re handling, because every American – including family business owners
– should be free to live and do business according to their faith.”
He said this is will be a precedent-setting case in future battles against
the mandate.
“This is a case that all the other cases are going to look at and consider,”
Bowman said. “They’re really going to face the same question: Can Washington
bureaucrats force families to abandon their faith just to earn a living or serve
their community? The first court to rule on that question ruled in favor of
religious freedom.”
The Obamacare contraception mandate is now officially in effect as of Aug. 1,
2012.
Today, The
Catholic Association, or TCA, released a statement warning, “August 1, 2012,
indeed marks a seismic shift in the world of religious liberty in America. Once
the mandate goes into effect, the government has codified into law the notion
that employers may be required to violate the teachings of their faith if they
are a for-profit employer. … August 1 is D-Day for religious freedom in
America.”
TCA noted that the penalty for noncompliance is $100 a day, per employee.
At least 24 lawsuits have been filed across the nation to stop the
contraception mandate from applying to various businesses.
Earlier this month, Wheaton College announced it had joined the Catholic
University of America in filing suit before District of Columbia federal
court.
Other organizations filing similar lawsuits include the University of Notre
Dame, the Archdiocese of New York and the Catholic University of America.
On July 17, a federal judge dismissed lawsuits against the contraception
mandate by Republican attorneys general from Nebraska, Florida, Michigan, Ohio,
Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. Other plaintiffs included three
Nebraska-based employers affiliated with the Catholic Church, a nun and a
missionary. U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom wrote, “The plaintiffs face no
direct and immediate harm.”
Several leaders of religious-advocacy groups are warning of the Obamacare
contraception mandate consequences for business owners of faith:
Larry Cirignano, president of Faithful Catholic Citizens: “Give up your
religion or go bankrupt. This is not a mandate; it is an ultimatum. Buy
insurance and kill babies or go bankrupt fighting us. Not all of us can afford
lawyers to fight this ‘mandate.’ None of us can afford to pay the fines $100 per
employee.”
Matt Smith, president of Catholic Advocate: “Aug. 1 will be remembered as
the day our most cherished liberty was thrown in a government dumpster and
hauled away. A day when family owned small businesses were forced to abandon
their religious beliefs to provide products and services for free. And if they
don’t, they will be taxed and fined at a time when job creators are struggling
with enough costs and bureaucratic red-tape at every level of government just to
stay in business. While the courts have provided a reprieve for one family
business in Colorado, the government will never be able to repair the broken
conscience of thousands of others until this mandate is removed.”
Brent Bozell, chairman of ForAmerica: “August 1st is a day that will live in
infamy for the First Amendment and the fundamental freedoms and rights we as a
people have enjoyed since the founding of our nation. The HHS mandate imposed on
the American people is the beginning of the end of freedom as America has known
it and loved it. August 1st marks the day when many family owned and operated
businesses lose their rights to exercise their faith in their daily lives. The
government has told them – either comply with this mandate in violation of your
faith and do what we tell you, or you will pay crippling faith fines to the
federal government. With the stroke of a pen, the Obama Administration has
shredded the First Amendment and the Constitution right before our eyes.”
Grace-Marie Turner, president of the Galen Institute: “The Obama
administration’s assault on religious liberty is taking root … Failure to comply
with the mandate will result in penalties that could cost business millions of
dollars. The administration clearly did not reach a much-vaunted ‘accommodation’
with business owners who strongly oppose the mandate and believe it is a clear
violation of their constitutional protection of religious liberty. The HHS
mandate forces business owners to choose between following their religious
beliefs or obedience to the federal government. The Obama administration clearly
believes the government is supreme and that individuals and businesses must bow
to its dictates or suffer severe consequences. We know that Obamacare is wrong
for America. The HHS anti-conscience mandate is clear evidence of why the law
violates the most fundamental principles upon which our country is founded.”
Gary Marx, executive director of the Faith & Freedom Coalition:
“Confidence in the system and hope for religious liberty was mildly restored
when a federal district judge issued a temporary injunction blocking Barack
Obama’s health-care mandate from compelling a business to provide insurance
coverage of sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs. This is
certainly a victory, but the fact that it only applies to one company means the
federal government is still going to force millions of Americans to choose
between having health insurance or their conscience and faith. With an
administration intent on suppressing religious liberty, we can expect a historic
turnout of voters of faith show up in November.”
Penny Nance, president and CEO of Concerned Women for America: “The only
solution that has been provided to the majority of Americans is to stand up and
fight for their religious rights by refusing to comply or battling in court. …
We must remember the wise words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘All tyranny needs to gain
a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.’ To force
religious groups to deny their deeply held convictions is not called balance; it
is called tyranny.”
Jeanne Monahan, director of the Family Research Council’s Center for Human
Dignity: “Today as a result of this initial implementation of the HHS mandate,
the relationship between the separation of church and state is critically
changed. Americans can no longer follow their consciences or religious dictates
on issues as critical as abortion-inducing drugs. Organizations such as Wheaton
College, or businesses such as Weingartz Supply of Ann Arbor, Mich.,will be
forced to violate their consciences. On this sad day Americans have no ‘choice’
in this matter.”
David Stevens, MD and CEO of the Christian Medical Association: “What will
stop this administration, with its radical pro-abortion agenda, from further
undermining conscience rights and pursuing policies that effectively force out
of medicine physicians with life-honoring convictions? Who will keep government
panels from effectively denying physicians and patients choice about what are
the most effective and appropriate medicines, surgeries and treatments? We call
on Congress to turn back this law’s assault on our freedoms and restore American
values and constitutional principles in health care.”
Paul E. Rondeau, executive director of American Life League: ”History
tragically teaches us that if our government can abolish one constitutional
right, then all constitutional rights are put in jeopardy. This path sets a
dangerous and foolish precedent that First Amendments rights such as freedom of
speech, association, freedom of the press and the rights to assemble and
petition the government may be just as easily curtailed in the future. We call
on all citizens to tell their elected representatives that this erosion of
rights must not stand.”
Kristin Hawkins, executive director of Students for Life of America: “Today
marks the beginning of the end of religious and conscience rights in America. As
an employer, I am forced to make a false choice between providing a vital
service to my employees and violating my conscience and values. The
abortion-pill mandate is an egregious attack upon my rights, as well as the
rights of all people of values and faith in America.”
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.
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.
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
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.
@hblodget And Now For A
Bunch Of Things I Just Learned About The Founding Of Mormonism… http://read.bi/T1246i Expand @pointsnfigures @hblodget were you worried about Obama’s church of
choice in 2008? Bush’s in 2000? Clinton in 1992? Does it
matter? @hblodget @pointsnfigures Or not “worried,” really… I’m not
“worried” about Romney’s religion. Mostly curious. 1:30 PM – 30 Jul 12 via TweetDeck · Details ?@pointsnfigures @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. UPDATE
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.
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.
"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.
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."
Where We Create & Share Music, Talk Radio Shows, Conservative
by 
