|« May||Jul »|
There is a Very High Price to Pay for Open Immigration – It is a Weapon Used By The Elitist Politicians Against The Common Man
Fjordman’s latest essay has been published at FrontPage Mag. Some excerpts are below:
In his 2008 book Et Delt Folk (“A Nation Divided”), The Danish historian and writer Morten Uhrskov Jensen carefully went through publicly available sources. He demonstrated that the opening up of his country for mass immigration was arranged by just part of the population, sometimes in the face of considerable popular opposition.
Roughly speaking, those representing the political and media establishment and the upper classes were in favor of open borders, whereas those from the lower classes were often opposed. This divide is viewed by those from the upper segments of society as caused mainly by racism, prejudice, ignorance and xenophobia.
Since the educated classes enjoyed a virtual hegemony over public debate, they were able to define all opposition as hate and intolerance, exemplified by people such as Pia Kjærsgaard of the Danish People’s Party. The well-to-do themselves rarely lived in areas with many immigrants and could afford to move, at least for a while, if that was needed. They focused on the abstract and allegedly humanitarian aspects of mass migration.
For poorer people, immigration was a concrete issue, as immigrants moved into their neighborhoods and went to school with their children. To put it bluntly, for those with money, globalization initially meant that they could travel on holidays to exotic lands and treat the world as their playground. For those who were less well off, it meant that the entire world suddenly moved into their street and took over their children’s local playground.
When the Titanic during her maiden voyage across the Atlantic Ocean struck an iceberg just before midnight on 14 April 1912, the first people who could see the water pouring in were the third-class passengers who happened to be situated closest to the waterline. Meanwhile, the richest passengers at the top were drinking fine cognac long after the ship had started sinking. They didn’t realize what was going on for quite some time, because they were further removed from the physical problem. The poor passengers still unfortunately suffered the highest fatality rates, because the wealthy benefitted from having privileged access to the lifeboats.
We see the same phenomenon on display today, on a much larger scale. Having Islamophobia in Europe today is just as rational as having icebergophobia on board the Titanic in 1912.
Uhrskov Jensen in 2012 published another book, Indvandringens Pris (“The Price of Immigration”) about how much money non-European mass immigration costs his native Denmark. His conclusion is that this cost is great in terms of welfare payments and rising crime combined with declining efficiency and technological innovation.
He shows through carefully researched statistics that only certain Asian immigrants are able to keep up with northern Europeans in the educational system. A few skilled immigrants from India or elsewhere can compete, but mainly those from East Asia: Japanese, Koreans, Chinese, and to some extent Vietnamese. All other non-Western immigrants show lower levels of skill and competence than Europeans, many of them a lot lower.
Found at 1389 Blog: http://1389blog.com/
Despite the absurd ruling by turncoat Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Junta, the individual mandate is a power grab, not a tax — not that there is any shortage of taxes in ObamaCare, as Americans for Tax Reform documents:
1. Excise tax on charitable hospitals ($50,000 per hospital hike).
2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” ($4.5 billion tax hike).
3. “Black liquor” tax hike ($23.6 billion hike).
4. Tax on innovator drug companies ($2.3 billion).
5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield tax hike ($400 million).
6. Tax on indoor tanning services ($2.7 billion).
7. Medicine cabinet tax ($5 billion).
8. HSA withdrawal tax hike ($1.4 billion).
9. Employer reporting of insurance on W2.
10. Surtax on investment income ($123 billion).
11. Hike in Medicare payroll tax ($86.8 billion).
12. Tax on medical device manufacturers ($20 billion).
13. Raise haircut for medical itemized deduction ($15.2 billion).
14. Special needs kids tax ($13 billion).
15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage.
16. Annual executive compensation limit for health insurance executives ($600 million).
17. Individual mandate excise “tax” (actually, this one is a penalty).
18. Employer mandate tax.
19. Tax on health insurers ($60.1 billion).
20. Excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans ($32 billion).
In return for all the $billions upon $billions being looted from us, we get to watch vast armies of petty tyrant bureaucrats cut us off from our healthcare system.
Ramming ObamaCare down the country’s throat despite mass public resistance is the Manchurian Moonbat’s only achievement of any significance whatsoever. He ran on the incessantly repeated promise that he would not raise taxes “one dime” on 98% of Americans. That is, he ran on a brazen lie. Yet there are people who would vote for him again.
On a tip from TheWrightWing.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Powered by Hate: Racist Content from Dreams from My Father
Numerous urban legends circulated about the content of Barack Obama’s Dreams from My Father during the 2008 election. The concept of falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in all) means that people who read enough proven lies about the book will then not believe the truth. It is therefore important to circulate the truth as widely as possible, and with page numbers for easy verification.
The following quotes are from the paperback edition from Three Rivers Press (New York), ISBN 978-1-4000-8277-3. The content is also verifiable from Google Books. It is important to state up front, and reiterate later, that the racist content of Dreams from My Father is 100 percent consistent with Mr. Obama’s open association with hate-mongers like Jeremiah Wright and Al Sharpton.
Pages 99-101 of the book are particularly informative because Barack Obama talks very explicitly of his racial identity politics. He identifies very clearly as an African-American as opposed to a melting pot American, which makes him totally unqualified to be president for Americans of all races and ethnicities. He begins by talking about “problems” with a classmate of multiracial (Caucasian, Native American, and African-American) ancestry, and then talks about showing one’s loyalty to “the black masses.”
That was the problem with people like Joyce. They talked about the richness of their multicultural heritage and it sounded real good, until you noticed that they avoided black people. … To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.
… But this strategy alone couldn’t provide the distance I wanted, from Joyce or my past. After all, there were thousands of so-called campus radicals, most of them white and tenured and happily tolerated. No, it remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.
Barack Obama on “Race Mixing”
Mr. Obama next (pages 101-102) provides his opinion of miscegeny, which is also known as “race mixing.” The following is quite a statement for a man of biracial origin:
Tim was not a conscious brother. Tim wore argyle sweaters and pressed jeans and talked like Beaver Cleaver. He planned to major in business. His white girlfriend was probably waiting for him up in his room, listening to country music.
Alternatively, as the Saxon warlord (doubtlessly modeled on today’s skinheads and other white supremacists) put it in the movie King Arthur, “We don’t mix with these people. … We’ll not have our Saxon blood watered down by mixing with them.” Mr. Obama’s comment about his black classmate’s Caucasian girlfriend is consistent with this kind of thinking, along with his statement in the Preface (page xv) that disowns half of his own genetic composition:
I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites[.]
Obama, Black Nationalism, and Racial Identity Politics
Dreams from My Father gets even worse when Obama talks about Black Nationalism and “race loyalty” on pages 199-200.
[Questions as to the adequacy of Black identity politics that suppressed anger toward white people, or that "failed to elevate race loyalty above all else"] contradicted the morality my mother had taught me, a morality of subtle distinctions-between individuals of goodwill and those who wished me ill, between active malice and ignorance or indifference. … Desperate times called for desperate measures, and for many blacks, times were chronically desperate. If nationalism could create a strong and effective insularity, deliver on its promise of self-respect, then the hurt it might cause well-meaning whites, or the inner turmoil it caused people like me, would be of little consequence.
If nationalism could deliver. As it turned out, questions of effectiveness, and not sentiment, caused most of my quarrels with Rafiq.
Barack Obama’s problems with Black Nationalism therefore related only to its effectiveness, as opposed to its rightness or morality. His next question to Rafiq was incidentally as to whether the latter could turn out his followers “if a public showdown with the city became necessary.” This seems to place the current occupant of the White House at exactly the same moral and intellectual level as, for example, the Stormfront White Nationalist Community: another racial identity organization that assigns more importance to the color of a person’s skin than to the content of his or her character.
The Complete and Ugly Picture
The appalling content of Dreams from My Father becomes even worse in the context of the complete picture. This picture includes Mr. Obama’s 20-year membership in Jeremiah Wright’s racist church, the same church that gave Michael Pfleger a standing ovation when he exulted that Hillary Clinton’s defeat left “a whole lot of white people crying.” This, along with its social achievement award to Louis Farrakhan, is apparently what Mr. Obama’s church calls “Christianity.”
Next comes Mr. Obama’s open association with the prominent racist and anti-Semite Al Sharpton. A simple Google search on “Sharpton” and “Tawana Brawley” or “Crown Heights” or “Freddy’s Fashion Market” will show what Mr. Sharpton thinks of white people in general and Jews in particular. Sharpton personally called the owner of Freddy’s a “white interloper,” and he has also referred to Jews as “diamond merchants.”
This ugly portrait of Barack Obama’s racial policies would not be complete, though, without the equally repulsive content of Michelle Obama’s senior thesis. On page 2 of this thesis, as hosted on Politico, she makes it unequivocally clear that she is now first lady for only one segment of American society; emphasis is ours.
Earlier in my college career, there was no doubt in my mind that as a member of the Black community I was somehow obligated to this community and would use all of my present and future resources to benefit this community first and foremost. My experiences at Princeton have made me more aware of my “Blackness” than ever before.
The context of this statement is Ms. Obama’s belief that some members of the Princeton community may have treated her differently because of her race, and she might well have been right; there are plenty of racists around. She also, however, expressed concerns about assimilation into “a White cultural and social structure,” which is an attitude consistent with the views her husband expressed in Dreams from My Father.
William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management including content on organizational psychology, as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.
From American Thinker
Found at The Feral Irishman: http://theferalirishman.blogspot.com/
The State of Things
In light of the above examples and the Court’s generally odious history, and if one must engage in fruitless speculation, I suppose one might adopt this rule of thumb: with the subject and questions of the particular case in mind, what is the worst way the Supreme Court can fuck you? Answer that, and you should at least be in the right ballpark.
For the moment, I’ll leave the lengthy exercises in sadomasochism, otherwise known as legal analysis, to others. For those of us favored by Providence to live in the freest, noblest, bestest ever country in this best of all possible worlds, here is how things stand. The following summary rests on a charmingly out of date notion — namely, that once a principle has been established, the rest is only a matter of time and degree. And this principle was not proclaimed for the first time today, although today’s decision states the principle in stark terms which cannot be avoided or minimized.
The State has announced:
You will do exactly as we tell you in every area of your life. You will work as and when we allow you to work, you will spend what little money we allow you to keep as and when we tell you to spend it, you will say what we tell you to say — and if you disagree with us about any of this, you will indicate your disagreement as and when we allow you to. In brief: you will follow orders. Please don’t be tiresome and petulant, telling us this isn’t what you want. We’ve been systematically approaching this end for well over a century. You can hardly claim this is surprising, not if you wish to avoid ridicule. And you might have stopped these developments much earlier — if you’d wanted to. You didn’t want to.
Aw, you’re upset. What are ya gonna do? Not vote? Not pay taxes? Not buy health insurance? Hahahahaha. A few Americans have responded that way in the past when the State acted in ways they viewed as deeply evil. One of your great heroes did. But you don’t want to do that, do you? Of course you don’t. Inconvenient. Might cause trouble. Oh, a few of you respond that way today, but not enough to make a difference. And we know who you are. If we allow you to get away with it, that’s only because you amuse us. And when a few of you object in ways that might actually matter and we let you get away with it (at least temporarily), it allows the rest of you to continue to believe you’re “free.” We love that shit.
So understand this:
The Constitution created a government of, by and for the most wealthy and powerful Americans — and it made certain (insofar as men can make such things certain) that their rule would never be seriously threatened. The most wealthy and powerful Americans were the ones who wrote it, after all.
We emphasize: that is what the Constitution itself accomplished. And you say you’re surprised by subsequent events? You’re making this much too easy. You could at least make it more interesting for us.
Yes, it’s all about us. We talk about how much we care about “ordinary” Americans, and constantly proclaim that everything we do is for their benefit — and some of you actually believe that crap. Christ, you’re funny, in a sickeningly pathetic kind of way.
So you’ll do exactly what we tell you to do, with regard to everything that matters to us. We’re giving you exactly what many of you said you wanted. So shut up and stop being annoying about it.
Oh, there is one more thing. It’s a little thing, and almost none of you seem to have even noticed it. Even after you do everything we tell you to do in every area that we care about, there is something else we still might do. We might do it because we’re in a rotten mood, or because we’re bored, or because we just feel like it. We won’t announce our decision, or tell you anything about how we made the decision. What? You think you have a “right” to know such things? God, you are so funny.
So one day, when you’re going to the job we allow you to keep, or buying something we tell you to buy, or minding your own business in the home we permit you to live in, we might decide to give the order. Maybe just because we feel like it, or because you pissed off the friend of our sister’s husband’s father. For some reason, or for no reason at all, we’ll decide to give the order.
There now. Is it all finally clear to you? Now do what we tell you, follow orders — and shut the fuck up.
(Highlights are by ZT editor. ZTW)
Anarchy and Tyranny
Posted on 26 June 2012
By: John C. Wright
Stephen J comments:
… I don’t disagree with the primary point of the original post.
You may be correct in claiming that my warning is redundant, but it is my experience that it is precisely when we dismiss warnings as redundant that they have the greatest tendency to be most urgently apt. I’ve talked before about reimagining “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” as a tragedy about an honest but paranoiacally overreactive shepherd, rather than a cautionary tale about a dishonest, foolishly mischievous one; or, for a more Classical example, consider Cassandra. And if the modern age is far more reflexively inclined to consider rebellion against authority more virtuous than submission to it, can we really say the history of the 20th century has not provided copious good reason for such a perspective?
That said, the tradition of modern thought varyingly called here Antifatherism, Antinomianism, Radical Progressivism, Leftism, Libertinism etc. is not in practice against all power or authority — only certain very specific forms of it (mostly Judeo-Christian religious, cultural or familial traditions), and only in certain very specific areas (mostly sex-related). So you are undoubtedly correct in noting that if my cautions are legitimate, they should nonetheless be much more productively directed elsewhere.
Let us contemplate an observation from C.S. Lewis’ Uncle Screwtape:
“The use of Fashions in thought is to distract the attention of men from their real dangers. We direct the fashionable outcry of each generation against those vices of which it is least in danger and fix its approval on the virtue nearest to that vice which we are trying to make endemic. The game is to have them all running about with fire extinguishers whenever there is a flood, and all crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under. Thus we make it fashionable to expose the dangers of enthusiasm at the very moment when they are all really becoming worldly and lukewarm; a century later, when we are really making them all Byronic and drunk with emotion, the fashionable outcry is directed against the dangers of the mere “understanding.” Cruel ages are put on their guard against Sentimentality, feckless and idle ones against Respectability, lecherous ones against Puritanism; and whenever all men are really hastening to be slaves or tyrants we make Liberalism the prime bogey.”
In this case, what is it that Uncle Screwtape wants the modern age to be hysterical about avoiding?
Obviously I will not disagree with any man who calls for a balanced judgment and coolheaded consideration of the dangers of leaving the happy medium which (or so Aristotle assures us) is the source of a contented and virtuous life. The twin dangers of anarchy and totalitarianism confront the Twentieth Century with an impending immediacy not seen since the turmoil leading to the downfall of the Republic and the rise of the Imperium in Rome.
I urge you to notice what both anarchy and totalitarianism have in common: neither one accepts the notion that authority is not power.
Anarchy holds that all authority is illegitimate exercise of raw power, or, in other words, that authority as such does not exist; and totalitarianism holds that raw power is the only reality, and that all acts whatsoever are authorized for the good of the state, or the people, or the glorious revolution, or whatever this season’s excuse is, or, in other words, that authority as such does not exist. Both are attempting to dismiss the notion that authority has limits beyond which it is illegitimate, and within which it is legitimate.
All modern philosophy, and I do mean all, renounces the concept that there are legitimate versus illegitimate uses of the will, either on the grounds that the free will does not exist, or on the grounds that limits to the will do not exist. It is, in other words, anarchy and totalitarianism again, this time in the sphere of the volition. Only in Catholicism is there a foundational belief in the authority of God and the authority of the human will. God Himself is not authorized to over-ride or over-rule our free will, not even to save us from the fires of hell. Even He cannot compel you involuntarily to enter into paradise, the realm where all obedience is voluntary because loving.
What makes the topic confusing to Americans, is that we are rebels and the sons of rebels, and we tend to forget that our mutiny against the British Crown was based on the idea that the Crown had legal and natural limitations on His Majesty’s Authority, limitations imposed by the God who granted men innate and inalienable rights, and His Majesty’s abuse of authority permitted, nay, required rebellion in the name of obedience to God. The French and Russian revolutions did not have this religious character, did not have the correct view of authority, and the result was the Terror and the Gulag and the mass-murder of the Kulaks. The Italian and German reaction kept the appearance of law at first, raising fascist and national-socialist dictators to positions of totalitarian power, but totalitarianism is innately lawless, since it governs by the power of the man who claims to represent the people, or history, or destiny. Totalitarianism is theocracy without God: the enthusiasm of religion, but faithless, idolizing the state or the Fuhrer. That was the mere opposite of the career of George Washington, who is the Cincinnatus of the New World.
Ed.Note: Who was Cincinnatus?
Cincinnatus was a Roman farmer, dictator, and consul from the legendary period of Roman history. He gained fame as a model of Roman virtue. He was a farmer above all, but when called to serve his country he did so well, efficiently, and without question, even though a prolonged stay away from his farm could mean starvation for his family. When he served his country, he made his stint as dictator as brief as possible. He was also admired for his lack of ambition.
Thus Americans, who tend toward the anarchic, have a wise fondness for rebellions like their own, legitimate rebellions against overreaching authority, but also a foolish fondness for rebellion antithetical to their own, French and Russian rebellions against the entire concept of private property or established churches, and Utopian blithering which rebels against the very concept of public peace and public order.
Any age which does not understand the concept of Authority cannot understand the difference between anarchy and liberty, cannot tell the difference between a democratic yet limited government and mere ruthless empire.
My suggestion is that in an era which enjoys a greater contempt for authority than any of which history speaks, particularly masculine authority, especially clerical authority, and most especially the clerical authority of the Roman Catholic Church on whom all Western civilization, like it or not, is based.
Authority by its very word refers to that which an author authorizes, which means, a definition or delimitation.
My assertion is that modern outbreaks of totalitarianism are not symptoms of love of authority but of hatred of authority and its constitutional limits due to love of unbridled power.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, and Americans, more than any people in history, should be quick to see and decry abuses of power or encroachments of the state beyond the strict limits of the Constitution, and should be quick, even reckless, to resort to mutiny and bloodshed against our public servants lest they forget who is master here.
It were better to fight a useless war in the name of liberty than to slumber like Gulliver and awake to find ourselves tied down by the countless threads of the patient Lilliputians, unable despite any strength to stir. Those who say we must avoid such war at all cost, even at the cost of our liberty, in effect say it is better to live as a slave than die as a free man.
Liberty is the bride of Authority, not his enemy and not his concubine. The eternal rebellion of Lucifer against all forms of authority is one and the same was the eternal tyranny of Lucifer, for Anarchy is the bride of Tyranny.
Let us return to my question. What is it that Uncle Screwtape wants the modern age to be hysterical about avoiding?
Uncle Screwtape is not trying to get the anarchists of the Left to rebel against the Totalitarians of the Right, in the name of social justice and sexual liberation and Occupy Wallstreet; nor is he trying to get the anarchists of the Right to rebel against the Left in the name of the First and Second Amendments and rule of law and the Tea Party; nor again is he trying to get the totalitarians of the Left to squash the Right in the name of Socialized Medicine; nor again is he trying to get the totalitarians of the both parties to use war hysteria to torture prisoners of war, spy on America citizens, and kill innocent civilians with drones; nor again is Uncle Screwtape favoring the top-hatted plutocrat over the wild-eyed bomb-throwing anarchist or the pot-smoking pinko university professor; nor again is he aiding the tinpot dictator with a chest of medals over the pompous Colonel Blimp or the lunatic Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper.
Uncle Screwtape is trying to get all of these things done because he wants none of them. It is not Right against Left or even Elitists against Popularists. That is not the real conflict.
(A digression: My friend Mark Shea says over and over again that the Right is no longer against the Left in this nation. The real struggle is the Rich and Powerful of both parties, against the Rest of Us, the dispossessed. Much as I admire him, I think his analysis is wrong. The Stupid Party and the Evil Party are indeed in cahoots in major ways, but they are at odds in just as many, and the Elite have more in common with their constituencies than they have with each other, even while the Elite of opposite factions make alliances against their constituencies to keep all the sheep in line. The example of the marriages of convenience in Europe during the Ancient Regime spring to mind, where all the royalty of the continent were cousins and second cousins, brothers and sons — and yet they all went frequently to war with each other to their mutual destruction, and also at times took up arms against their subjects and serfs.)
The darkness where no distinctions are made between right and wrong, power and authority, is in rebellion against the light in whose light all distinctions are clear. That is the real conflict.
The marriage of Anarchy and Tyranny is against the marriage of Liberty and Authority. That is the real conflict.
Uncle Screwtape wants divorce. He wants Tyranny to oppress Liberty in the name of Authority, and for Anarchy to rebel against Authority in the name of Liberty.Uncle Screwtape wants every man to be a morally retarded sophomore who cannot tell the difference between legitimate and illegitimate uses of force.
The Tyrant of Hell is in rebellion against the Father in Heaven. That is what is behind everything that is really going on here. That is what has always been behind the surface appearances of the world.
From John C Wright: http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/06/anarchy-and-tyranny/#more-5743
Thy holy cities are a wilderness, Zion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation….Our beautiful house, where our fathers praised thee, is burned up with fire: and all our pleasant things are laid waste. — Isaiah 64:10-12
Found the pic and verse from American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
A voice was heard upon the high places, weeping and supplications of the children of Israel: for they have perverted their way, and they have forgotten the LORD their God.
THIS IS WHAT AMERICA MUST DO: REPENT
New Living Translation (NLT)
A Call to Repentance
12 That is why the Lord says,
“Turn to me now, while there is time.
Give me your hearts.
Come with fasting, weeping, and mourning.
The Supreme Court decision on Obamacare confirmed that lies have triumphed over the Constitution.
It also is a reminder that the Supreme Court is a political entity and a human one. Only the Justices who dissented from the majority decision on Obamacare were willing to take the heat. The majority ruled that the individual mandate under the commerce clause was unconstitutional, but gave Obamacare life as a tax.
It was always a tax, but President Obama repeatedly told Americans that it was not until his administration’s lawyers went before the Supreme Court and admitted and argued that it was a tax. The lawyers on the Court agreed, the majority in effect saying that there is no limit to the ability of Congress to tax Americans.
As Politico.com reported: On the losing end of a 5-4 decision, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said that the entire health care reform law should have been struck down.
They wrote: “The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have been enacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative.”
Obamacare is a blow to state’s rights as sovereign republics.
A fellow blogger, writing under the pseudonym of J.D. Longstreet, warned that “The lesson here is — don’t play around with socialism. You cannot win. It kills its host country every time.”
Not since the Civil War and the more recent 9/11 has America faced a darker day. That day killed nearly three thousand Americans. Today, the fate of more than three hundred million Americans has been sealed. This is particular true of older Americans who, if the law is not repealed, will learn to their dismay that they cannot have essential medical care if bureaucrats conclude it is too costly. Others will die waiting to be admitted to hospitals to mitigate cancers and other life threatening diseases.
It is a death sentence for them. It is a death sentence for America.
There is the prospect that Mitt Romney may secure election to office and that the Republican Party may secure control of the Senate as well as the House. Without question Obamacare along with the economy becomes the central issue of the months leading up to Election Day.
Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare 820 days ago.
The House will vote on a full repeal of Barack Obama’s health care law during the week of July 9, Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday morning. The scheduling of another repeal vote came less than an hour after the Supreme Court upheld the health care mandate.
This is, however, purely symbolic. The bill will not be taken up in the Democrat-controlled Senate. It would be vetoed if sent to Obama.
Too many with whom I have talked believe that the same Americans who elected Obama in 2008 will reelect him in 2012. He lied his way into office then and it is entirely plausible he will do so again.
America will not survive him if he is reelected. He is truly the Manchurian candidate sent to destroy America.
Allen West Rips Congessional Black Caucus For Staging Holder Walkout Based On “The Color Of His Skin”…
Sadly, in all likelihood the CBC agrees.
Via The Hill:
Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) on Thursday blasted his fellow members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) for staging a walkout on a contempt vote by the House against Attorney General Eric Holder.
“Today the Congressional Black Caucus and other liberal Members of Congress judged the Attorney General by the color of his skin, and not by the content of his character,” he wrote on his Facebook page. “I am disappointed my colleagues would rather engage in a political stunt to distract the American people from knowing the truth behind the Attorney General’s disregard of the law and disrespect of congressional oversight to provide requested documents.”
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week moved to hold Holder in contempt, charging he had not cooperated fully with the committee’s investigation into the controversial gun-tracking operation known as “Fast and Furious.” The full House voted 255-67 on Thursday to hold Holder in contempt, but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and many other Democrats joined the (CBC) in staging a walkout during the vote.
Pelosi tweeted that it was a “hyper-political contempt vote.” Democrat leadership has called it a “political witch hunt” against the administration.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Obamacare Supporters Call Supreme Court Justice Thomas A “House N*gga” And A “Uncle Tom” After He Dissents…
Expect any less from degenerate lefties?
Clarence Thomas voted against Obamacare…to me he is that field nigga that will never be a house nigga but he keeps trying anyway
That’s just the tip of the iceberg, Twitchy has more…
ZIP from Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Note: Twitter has given these mendacious, death loving, inhuman, frothing, verminous, illiterate, perverse, psychopathic, imbecilic liberals a platform to spew their venom over a wide audience which gives them a false sense of importance for a moment. They live in a basement with no job, no life, and no future. ZTW
This simple tweet:
Leads to this:
ZIP from Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
ObamaCare: The Supreme Court Has Just Handed Romney The Presidency, But Is He Smart Enough To Take It?
Today’s USSC decision upholding ObamaCare’s individual mandate as constitutional has served one positive purpose, which is to practically guarantee Barack Obama’s defeat in November.
How so? It’s fairly simple, really. You see, Mitt Romney can now run on two major campaign issues, the terrible economy and Obama’s hideous health care law. Frankly, either of these poisoned pills alone would probably be enough to sink Obama’s re-election campaign, but taken together they’re as toxic as the Fukushima nuclear plant.
But Ed, (you ask with your head cocked slightly to one side) how can the guy who brought RomneyCare to Massachusetts reasonably argue that ObamaCare is a bad idea and should be repealed?
1. RomneyCare is actually legal, even though it’s an anti-free market “solution” to the problem it was designed to solve, and will inevitably destroy the health care system of the Bay State.
ObamaCare is blatantly unconstitutional, despite the recent USSC ruling to the contrary, and anyone with half a brain knows it.
— By the way, SHAME ON YOU CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS for siding with the radical leftists of the court in this case. You are all MALIGNANT TUMORS on the neck of our great nation. —
2. RomneyCare – while it is nearly as awful as ObamaCare – was a popular idea among the mostly leftist citizenry of Massachusetts when it was proposed. Suffice it to say that those idiots got exactly what they asked for.
ObamaCare has never been popular among anyone outside of Washington DC, Hollywood and most mainstream media news organizations.
3. RomneyCare doesn’t inflict its stupidity upon the people of any other state.
ObamaCare is a plague on all Americans, and if left unchecked, will lead to the otherwise completely avoidable deaths of countless U.S. citizens.
Simply put, if there is any single issue that can unite right-leaning Americans against the tyranny of the left, this is the one. Traditional conservatives, libertarians and most independents DETEST the very notion of socialized medicine, and the aforementioned Supreme Court decision will unleash a firestorm of revolt among them come election day. After all, it was the ObamaCare debate that fired up average Americans in 2010 and led to the Tea Party-fueled electoral tsunami that swept Republicans back into power in the U.S. House, as well as in state legislatures and governors’ mansions across the country.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Also keep in mind that all this happened back when the GOP still had a shot at getting Obama’s health care monstrosity overruled by our nation’s highest court. Since that option is no longer on the table, we the people have no alternative but to rid our federal government of every parasitic leftist we possibly can, even if that means replacing some of them with – shall we say – less than hard-right Republicans. To do otherwise is to commit national suicide, and even some Ron Paul supporters are now beginning to recognize that fact.
Mitt – if I may be so bold as to address you by your nickname – all you have to do to win the White House at this point is refrain from saying anything truly stupid or offensive to conservatives, stick to the topics of the economy and ObamaCare, and try to pick a running mate who isn’t as big a RINO as you are. Might I suggest Marco Rubio… or Allen West?
As for you, Barack, you’re political death warrant has just been signed, sealed and delivered by five smarmy, activist lawyers in black robes, and the genuinely comical thing is that you’re too dumb to realize it. While I’m sure the Jurassic press will join you in declaring victory today, I’m equally as certain that the real victors in all this will be the people of this country once they throw your sorry butt out of office and begin the process of retaking their liberties from a degenerate and dictatorial federal government.
So go ahead and gloat over your perceived triumph, Mr. President. Pop the champagne corks and revel in your success. While you’re busy patting yourself on the back, freedom-loving Americans like myself will be actively engaged in undermining every Marxist scheme you devise.
See you in November, jackass.
Mandate upheld: what now?
posted at 10:41 am on June 28, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
It’s an interesting argument, but one that should have Americans worried. Basically, this is a tax that you have to pay to private companies. For all of the screaming the Right did over single-payer — and for good, outcome-based reasons — at least the money paid by taxpayers would go directly to government [see update II]. The Supreme Court has signed off on what is, in very practical terms, a tax levied by the insurance industry on Americans simply for existing. It’s an amazing, and fearsome, decision that really should have both Right and Left horrified.
Nevertheless, this is the law of the land. We can now look forward to taxes levied by the auto industry for not having bought a new car in the last seven years, the liquor industry for buying too few bottles of wine to maintain your health, and by the agricultural industry for not buying that damned broccoli after all. We might even have Obama attempt to impose a tax for not buying enough contraception; we can call that the Trojan tax.
By the way, don’t forget when Obama insisted that this wasn’t a tax, via Patterico:
So what now? Mitt Romney and Republicans can now run on repeal as a big issue in the campaign. They should emphasize the tax argument when they do, because this tax hits everyone. The ruling may alleviate some of the bad polling the ACA has received, but probably not by much. It’s going to remain deeply unpopular for the next few months. On top of that, the decision to uphold the law also means that the fight is still on over the HHS contraception mandate. We can expect the Catholic bishops to keep up the pressure on the Obama administration’s attempt to define religious expression for the purpose of controlling and limiting it — and we can probably expect the challenge to it to reach the Supreme Court, too.
This started off as a political fight, though, and it’s now clear that it has to get resolved as a political fight.
Update: Bill Whittle explains why ObamaCare won’t work:
Expect the GOP to be making these arguments on the campaign trail over the next few months.
Update II: I clarified what I meant in the second paragraph by editing it a bit. My argument is this: the tax isn’t just on non-compliance, which is what Roberts and the court ruled constitutional. The law forces people to give money to private industry, in the form of buying health insurance. That’s a tax too, imposed by force on Americans, in this case the force of the penalties and the legal consequences of not paying them.
By: Daniel Greefield
Note: Highlights by ZTW
Today the Supreme Court is slightly tilted in our favor, which is to say that it has a few members who believe that the Constitution is more than blotting paper for their opinions, and that individuals and states have rights, rather than just being troublesome cogs in the mighty machine of the national policy apparatus bent on tackling one growing crisis or another.
How long will that tenuous state of affairs endure? Who knows. In the meantime we are caught between an omnipotent executive who believes that he is above the law, an unelected court which includes two of his appointees, one of them his lawyer, and a Congress which does little except spend gargantuan amounts of money. And our best bet is the court, because it is the hardest to bribe and some of its members believe in the law, rather than in the almighty policy ends that justify all means.
When the highest official in the land decided to sell the American people into slavery to insurance companies to get his landmark legislation passed, we took to the streets to protest, we changed the composition of Congress, and here we are waiting for the Supreme Court to decide that maybe we aren’t the property of the Executive Branch, warm bodies to be traded at the slave market of policy to get a bill passed.
147 years after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are back to debating slavery. But it’s not a debate that began today. Everyone who pays taxes can calculate how much time they spend working for their masters in Washington, D.C. How much of their income the serfs are obligated to send home to the barons in the white palaces who will decide how much of it to hand out to their friends and how much of it to use on the endless expenses of government.
Around the same time as the evils of racial slavery were being fought, the building blocks of economic slavery were being hammered together with the Revenue Act of 1861, the first Federal income tax and the first attack on the Constitution, that concluded with the Sixteenth Amendment. One hundred years before the election that brought Obama to power, the Democratic platform called for an income tax, “to the end that wealth may bear its proportionate share of the burdens of the Federal Government”.
The burden has grown vastly since then. It has grown out of all proportion. And to achieve its goals, the government began selling off its assets. Its chief assets are us.
The ObamaCare Mandate is a fairly simple trade between health insurance companies, which largely owe their existence to government tinkering with the health care market, and its government patron. In exchange for giving the government what it wants, the government gives them what they want, us.
Supporters of the Mandate have been legitimately confused by all the protests. As they understand it, we are property– so why are we complaining about being rented out to another master? If Obama and Congress own us, why can’t they lease us out to their supporters in the insurance industry? Especially when it’s for the greater good.
Today we’re being leased out to the health insurance industry. Tomorrow we might be sent out to go bring in the harvest, the way that citizens were compelled to in Communist countries. Once we have been designated as warm bodies for sale to the highest bidder, when there is, what politicians can describe as, a legitimate concern, then there is absolutely no end to it. And when China finally decides to recoup some of its investment, there will be a mandate for that too.
The Constitution has been so comprehensively violated and we have been deprived of so many rights that defending any right becomes a rear-guard action. After so many violations, we take a stand on the chalk outline of the latest outrage, while having to argue that this is the red line. This is the one that is too much. And we put our faith in a Supreme Court that occasionally respects the Constitution and occasionally creates its own Constitution. And we sit here waiting to find out which it will be this time. Freedom or slavery.
The policy machine that grinds on in Washington, in state capitals, in municipal city halls and in the halls of a thousand think-tanks and the banquet rooms of a hundred forums is built to deprive people of their rights. It is not easily stopped. Even when the Supreme Court rules against it, it studies the ruling and attacks it from another angle until it gets its way.
Many of the modern violations of our rights went through this process, losing a Supreme Court decision and then finding another way through the door. Once the policy apparatus has agreed on something, the mere objection that it is against the law will not halt them for long. The only way to stop the machine is to break the machine. To tear out its levers and gears, to fill it with sand, spill out its oil and turn it to grind uselessly facing a wall.
A Supreme Court of Constitutionalists might deal it some serious setbacks, but it has become clear that we are headed into dark territory where the laws don’t matter anymore. Obama has shed most of the pretense of legality, doing things because he wants them done. The legal rationale for ObamaCare never existed. Those who wrote and passed it did not believe that such a rationale was even needed.
Their only argument has been the policy argument, the ends justifying the means. The policy ends which justify the oppressive means is their argument for every one of their endless streams of abuses. It is a position that places them and their actions completely outside the law. Anything they do is justified because it is for the greater good, to meet one “growing crisis” or another, whether it’s health care, obesity, racism, bullying, profiteering, homophobia, high prices or anything you see discussed with serious faces and even more serious hairdos on the evening news.
Even Supreme Court rulings depend on executive compliance. Obama has demonstrated several times that he will simply not comply with the law. And a showdown between the law and an executive backed by the media and a parade train of experts, not to mention a completely corrupt Attorney General, will not be a pretty sight.
The mere willingness of the executive branch to operate outside the law acts as a restraint on the Supreme Court’s willingness to challenge the executive. That is what FDR managed to accomplish by alternately terrorizing and bypassing the Supreme Court. Obama has shown every sign of being willing to do the same thing. Some liberals are already proposing their own court packing schemes. The Washington Post has an article calling for upping the number of justices from 9 to 19, which is certainly one way to gain a majority.
The left has gotten this far by subverting institutions and it is being increasingly open about not caring for the forms or for anything that interferes with its objectives. As a defense against it, the Supreme Court is a fragile entity. It is meant to serve as a final review for a law-abiding legislature, not for a thuggish executive and a legislature that passes bills without knowing what it is in them. In an era in which the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches have all been warped, none of them can be relied on to do the right thing.
We are in the midst of another Civil War. Not a war of bullets, but a war of laws. And the lawmaking apparatus is a tool for depriving people of rights, not a tool for creating safe spaces for rights. In the firefight, those who want to limit rights through government mandates will have the upper hand. The Supreme Court, as a reviewing body, is less vulnerable to the seduction of legislation than the legislative and executive branches, but it has done its share of legislating, and activist Federal judges are a reliable way of subverting democracy and states’ rights.
We can’t depend on the Supreme Court to do the right thing, though it can occasionally be an important ally in the struggle to restore the Constitution, the rule of law and the rights of the individual. The ball is not in their court, it is in ours. And it is important that we understand what is at stake. Behind all the policy debates is a simple question. Do we want to be free men and women or will we agree to be slaves?
The final review of every act of government does not come from within the government, but from the people, who have to decide what is acceptable and unacceptable. This is a law of human nature that is not subject to any higher court, only the court of the conscience. Rights and freedoms do not come from government, they come from the people. We have seen how in Egypt, the people chose slavery. That makes it all the more vital to remember that, no matter what we are told, we have a choice, and the greatest power that we have is the knowledge that the choice and the final decision are ours.
☠ ☠ ☠ ☠ ☠
No matter how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare this week, much of the damage has already been done.
The first casualty is the rule of law. The US Constitution (not to mention the Constitutions of the various States) have been flouted for many decades. Nowhere in the US Constitution is there any language empowering the federal government to involve itself in medical care. Our Founders might have made an exception for medical care and pensions for military personnel serving under the federal government, but that would have been the extent of it.
It isn’t just Obamacare, Romneycare, Hillarycare, or even Medicare/Medicaid. The rot started with third-party payers in general, including private insurance – and I know whereof I speak. I misspent too many of my long and painful years in the IT industry doing subcontract work for private health insurance companies. Some of those insurance carriers contracted with governmental bodies at various levels; all of them were horrific places to work for anyone with a conscience. From the inside, I can tell you that the amount of waste and corruption in the insurance industry is far beyond the power of anyone to estimate, let alone control. I blew a few whistles and suffered for it, big time, but those are stories for another day. From the outside, I have seen too many instances of employees who lost their jobs as soon as they became too expensive for their employers to maintain on their insurance rolls. Unemployment is the inevitable result of all efforts to force employers to provide universal insurance coverage.
Long ago, I reached the conclusion that the only health-care system that is truly affordable is direct fee-for-service, with no third-party payers. Without the staggering tax burden and bureaucratic waste that accompany our present system, and without the restrictions on faith-based charities imposed by the militantly secularist US government, private charities could easily take up the slack for those who genuinely cannot afford basic medical care.
In Our Sick State, Mark Steyn laments the endless, inevitable bureaucratic shuffle that US consumers already must endure in obtaining and paying for common prescription medications, especially when there has been a change in insurance coverage or any sort of a clerical error.
…It turned out my friend’s prescription was denied because someone at the pharmacy had transposed two numbers. Oh, well. Could happen to anyone. And, in fact, it does. Speaking as an unassimilated foreigner, I notice when you’re standing in line that the big difference between a trip to the pharmacy in the U.S. and one in the rest of the developed world is that in America the druggists spend virtually their entire time talking about not the medicine but the “customer”‘s degree of access to it.
I don’t quite know what you’d call these rituals, but the term “private health-care system” doesn’t seem the most obvious fit. Indeed, as in so many other areas of American life — the Fannie-Freddied mortgage market, the six-figure college education — the main purpose of these dysfunctional labyrinths ever more disconnected from any genuinely free market seems to be to discredit the very concept of a “private” system and thus soften up the electorate for statist fixes. I’ve argued for years in these pages that governmentalized health care fundamentally transforms the relationship between citizen and state in ways that make it all but impossible to have genuinely conservative government ever again.
Details here – worth a read!
How bad does it get at the bottom of the slippery slope?
☠ ☠ This bad: ☠ ☠
- Professor says doctors use ‘death pathway’ to euthenasia of the elderly
- Treatment on average brings a patient to death in 33 hours
- Around 29 per cent of patients that die in hospital are on controversial ‘care pathway’
- Pensioner admitted to hospital given treatment by doctor on weekend shift
Three years ago Sarah Palin made waves with charges that the Obamacare health care bill would lead to “death panels” that would rationing medical treatment and lifesaving medical care for patients.
In August 2009, Palin posted a well-received note on Facebook saying she worries the health care bill will be paid for on the backs of the elderly and disabled, who could be pushed into euthanasia and assisted suicide via rationing of medical treatment.
“And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course,” she said.
“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society’ whether they are worthy of health care,” Palin said then. “Such a system is downright evil.”
“The health care law instructs the IPAB [Independent Payment Advisory Board] to make recommendations to limit what all Americans are legally allowed to spend for their health care to hold it below the rate of medical inflation. The health care law then empowers the federal Department of Health and Human Services to implement these recommendations by imposing so-called “quality” and “efficiency” measures on health care providers,” Popik continued. “What happens to doctors who violate a “quality” standard by prescribing more lifesaving medical treatment than it permits? They will be disqualified from contracting with any of the health insurance plans that individual Americans, under the Obama Health Care Law, will be mandated to purchase. Few doctors would be able to remain in practice if subjected to that penalty.”
“This means that treatment a doctor and patient deem advisable to save that patient’s life or preserve or improve the patient’s health–but which exceeds the standard imposed by the government–will be denied even if the patient is willing and able to pay for it. [emphasis added] Repeal of IPAB is critically important to prevent this rationing of life-saving medical treatment,” she added.
Read it all here.
From 1389 Blog: http://1389blog.com/
Students from “Miss Ruby’s” School.
“Miss Ruby’s” school outside Mobile, Alabama, gives underprivileged kids a chance.
In 2007, a pastor with broad vision and indefatigable will named Ruby Eldridge dreamed of a model school for the underprivileged community near her small church in Prichard, the impoverished (indeed, municipally bankrupt), nearly all-black city bordering Mobile, Alabama.
“Miss Ruby” had a grandson who had graduated from UMS-Wright, an elite, largely white, private school in Mobile, with financial aid. So she approached businessman Sandy Stimpson, former board chairman of UMS-Wright. The pastor had a persuasive manner. “These children [in Prichard] are smart,” she told Stimpson. “They really are. I’m going to build a UMS out here in Prichard. All they need is a better chance.”
Stimpson helped find financial support, and eventually even the Mobile County public school superintendent gave encouragement and the city of Prichard helped them find a usable property. Prichard Preparatory School (pre-K through fifth grade) opened its doors in the fall of 2008.
Read the entire article at The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2012/06/28/in-midst-of-poverty-an-educati
To check out Miss Ruby’s School, go to their web-site: http://www.prichardprepschool.com/index.html
With the help of liberal courts, Big Government’s most terrifying agency continues to tighten its death grip on American society in the name of a discredited hoax:
In a surprisingly sweeping win for the Obama administration’s climate policies, a federal appeals court said Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency is “unambiguously correct” in the legal reasoning behind its regulation of greenhouse gases.
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit strenuously backed the EPA’s finding that the climate-altering emissions pose a danger to public health and welfare. It also upheld the agency’s early requirements for vehicles and new industrial plants while rejecting every challenge brought by a host of industry groups, states and other critics.
In addition, the court approved the EPA’s attempts to narrow the number of companies that must comply with its greenhouse gas rules. And the three-judge panel rejected attacks on the EPA’s interpretation of climate science, including critics’ argument that the “Climategate” email scandal required the agency to reconsider its decisions.
The court even mocked the critics’ claim that the EPA had improperly “delegated” its scientific judgment to outside groups, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The UN’s IPCC is well documented to be a complete farce, admittedly devoted not to magically changing the weather but to the redistribution of wealth. But it serves the purposes of authoritarians by making preposterous claims regarding the fate of the planet if we don’t renounce our modern lifestyle and live like Medieval serfs under a totalitarian green oligarchy.
The ruling can only be appealed to the Supreme Court, which has already ruled that our very breath is a “pollutant” that causes global warming and thereby can be regulated by the EPA.
This is going to get ugly.
On tips from Shawn and Varla.
I have eaten my last Oreo, having laid eyes on this:
Via ABC News:
America’s favorite cookie is stirring up more than milk today after Kraft Foods posted a gay pride Oreo on the cookie’s Facebook page.
Oreo posted the photoshopped picture of an Oreo cookie stuffed with rainbow-colored layers of frosting Monday evening with the caption “Proudly support love!”
Liberalism once referred to individual liberty. Now it is synonymous with authoritarian oligarchical collectivism. Likewise, love apparently now refers to sickening acts of depravity responsible for countless death through AIDS and other horrific diseases.
What corporations hope to accomplish by helping the government ram the extremely distasteful homosexual agenda down our throats is difficult to imagine, but it has been clear for years that advertising now serves primarily to push political correctness, and only sells products as an afterthought.
What comes next, after adult homosexuality has been sufficiently normalized? Ask Jerry Sandusky.
The one thing we know for sure is that so long as they encounter no meaningful resistance, moonbats will always continue to push the envelope.
On tips from Winston Smith, Bob Roberts, Shawn, and Viking04.
From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/
Guide Horses for Blind Mooslims? That’s Horseshit! That’s What Will Be all over The Floors Everywhere They Go…
GUIDE HORSES? Obama’s Department of ‘Islamic’ Justice bows down to Muslims’ irrational hatred of dogs
Posted: June 27, 2012 | Author: barenakedislam |
Because Muslims consider dogs to be filthy, the cases of pet dogs being posioned in Europe and Turkey have skyrocketed. And now, this Muslim dog insanity is being submitted to by the Islamopandering Obama Regime, who have ruled that ‘Guide Horses’ must be allowed in shops, restaurants and even on airplanes.
logic from DOJ: Miniature horses are viable alternatives to dogs for individuals with allergies, or for those whose religious beliefs preclude the use of dogs,” the rules state. A recent Justice Department ruling that allows miniature horses to be used instead of dogs as service animals for the blind and handicapped, also mandates that shops, restaurants, hotels and even airlines be forced to allow service horses into their establishments or face lawsuits if they refuse to accommodate horses.
First, let me tell you why the use of horses as service animal is both stupid and cruel to the animals. Horses are NOT domestic animals as dogs and cats are. Horses are not physically compatible with an indoor life in a typical home. Horses, no matter how small, are grazing animals who require several hours a day of outside turnout where they can roam and graze at leisure. Horses cannot be housebroken which means these guide horses are fitted with a diaper – humiliating. To confine a horse to a house with only a limited amount of slow walking as exercise is cruel and unusual punishment.
Horses require a lot more room than dogs.. Dogs are fed and walked a couple of times a day, while horses eat hay and grass and produce waste throughout the day. Even the smallest mini needs an 8-by-10-foot stall and room to run around for exercise. Walking slowly in a harness does not constitute exercise for a horse. A horse is meant to be in an environment where he can move about, small or not, eat throughout the day and be with his buddies.
Horses don’t get fleas, but they do get parasites, ticks and attract flies.
Now that the Department of ‘Islamic’ Justice has ruled that service horses must be allowed in all retail establishments, there will be a run on people getting mini service horses, knowing that they can sue any business or restaurant that refuses to allow them in. I can see CAIR sponsoring a program to give horses to Muslims, just so they can sue even more businesses for ‘Islamophobic’ discrimination.
But just as fast as people may rush to get in on the newest fad, once they find out how difficult it is to properly care for horses, they will abandon them, leaving the animals homeless if it doesn’t work out. It’s not unusual, unfortunately, for them to end up on the slaughterhouse floor because there’s no home for them.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) is trying to have this stupid mandate overturned. As he stated,
“What I object to,” said Chaffetz, “is the Department of Justice forcing businesses and restaurants…. think about airplanes. Look, even the Miniature Horse Association has come out and said, look, you can’t potty train, for instance, a horse to the same degree you can a canine. And so it just seems like the federal government, the Department of Justice, is going overboard in issuing a rule. Sure enough, they issued a rule, March 14th, and within a week, restaurants being sued in California for not allowing horses into their restaurant. It just seems absurd, just over the top.”
Read the rest at Bare Naked Islam: http://barenakedislam.com/
Dear CBC: Please don’t go away mad, just go away
Let’s face it. They don’t give a damn about who killed border agent Brian Terry.
The Hill reported:
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) plan to stage a walkout during Thursday’s vote on whether to place Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress.
The CBC is scheduled to meet at 10 a.m. on Thursday to discuss the details of the walkout and is planning to circulate a letter to House Democrats requesting that they join them on the Capitol steps for a press conference during the contempt vote.
The move comes less than 24 hours before the House plans to vote for the first time in history to hold a sitting attorney general in contempt of Congress for not complying with a congressional subpoena. Holder is the first black attorney general in U.S. history.
The walkout is reminiscent of a similar move made by Republicans in 2008 during a Democratic-led vote on whether to hold two senior staffers in President George W. Bush’s administration in contempt of Congress.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) — then the minority leader — led the walkout with Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) following closely behind him. Issa, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, is the sponsor of the contempt resolution against Holder.
“The House floor is the scene of a partisan, political stunt,” said Boehner at the time. House Democrats have been expressing similar comments about the Holder contempt measure.
CBC Chairman Cleaver released this statement on the Fast and Furious investigation this week.
“During this critical moment in our nation’s history, the attention of our country’s chief law enforcement officer should be focused on addressing ongoing law enforcement challenges and championing real issues, instead of being distracted by manufactured, partisan political ones. This is an extremely low moment in our body politic. The cause for civility has been met by an unnecessary and unfortunate partisanship.”
These miscreant racists bottom feeders are a disgrace.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
The Communist Party Want Their Comrade – O’Commie Back in Office…Why Ceeeertainly…He is Just Like Their Hero Lenin
A writer for the Communist Party USA says that “. . . re-electing Obama is absolutely essential,” and warns that “divisions among Democrats and a potential wave of bad economic news can combine to threaten President Obama’s reelection.”
Marxist John Case, who writes for various CPUSA publications, has written a piece, “The danger of a Romney election,” for the party publication People’s World, which warns that “Re-electing Obama is not sufficient to bring economic recovery or even relief to our people. Only a different class configuration in political power can do necessary minimum reforms to give us a chance. But re-electing Obama is absolutely essential. Now is not the time for hand washing the complexities and tactics away — or failing to triage the most critical questions from those that are less critical. We cannot win everything at once!”
In reality, the CPUSA’s endorsement of Obama for a second term is not surprising. Various CPUSA officials, including Jarvis Tyner and Joelle Fishman, have openly expressed support for the U.S. President and his agenda.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
(INN) — Egypt’s Foreign Ministry said Wednesday it had told Israel that it would not be “appropriate” for Israeli pilgrims to make an annual visit to the tomb of a 19th-century Jewish holy man in the Nile Delta.
Egypt notified Israel two months ago that it would be “impossible to hold the annual ceremony because of the political and security situation in the country,” the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said.
Wednesday’s announcement came as Muslim Brotherhood activists mobilized to block the pilgrimage route.
Ceremonies at the tomb of Rabbi Yaakov Abuchatzeira have triggered yearly political sparring in Egypt throughout most of the last decade.
An Islamist politician involved in organizing protests against the march meanwhile said that visiting the gravesite in the village of Daymouta, 180 kilometers (112 miles) north of Cairo would be a “suicide mission” for Israelis.
“Normalization (of relations) with Israel is forced on the people, and the visits too come against the will of the people and despite popular rejection,” said Gamal Heshmat of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Egypt’s daily Al-Ahram newspaper reported Tuesday that 31 parties and groups had joined this year’s campaign to block Israeli pilgrims from reaching the site.
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
The Contents of Obama’s CharacterJune, 27, 2012 — nicedeb
Andrew Klavan, PJ Media: The Contents of Obama’s Character:
…of all the weird, creepy and false left-wing religious tenets the Obama administration has forced down this nation’s throat, none is as impossible to swallow as the myth of the president’s superior character.
I am so with him on this:
1. He lies to us constantly about who he is. Not in the way most politicians lie, spinning and shading events with self-serving half-truths. He lies with the arrogant bravado of a con man messiah. My grandfather was tortured by the British. My parents met because of the march in Selma. My white girlfriend wanted to be black. These aren’t lies that were forced out of him in a rough moment to defend himself from controversy — like the lie about terrorist William Ayers being just a guy in the neighborhood, or the one about never having heard the hate-mongering of Jeremiah Wright — these are intentionally crafted falsehoods. They were meant to do exactly what they did: to recreate Obama in the image of the black savior leftists had been waiting for, the man who would relieve them of the disfiguring guilt arising from their dreadful history of racism and justify the disastrous havoc their policies have wreaked on African-Americans.
2. He does not believe in the American way. When he is not lying, when he thinks he’s among friends, when he inadvertently announces his radicalism because it runs so deep he doesn’t even realize it is radicalism, when he thinks he can get away with it because it’s good politics, Obama reveals his philosophy to be antithetical to the exceptional American project of limited government, personal liberty and free enterprise. The Constitution needs to be falsely interpreted to allow wealth redistribution. The free market doesn’t work. His actions should not be hampered by Congress. The Supreme Court has no right to overturn his laws as unconstitutional. America is arrogant overseas. He can decide unilaterally which laws will be enforced. He can override the free practice of religion if he thinks the issue is really, really important. Again and again, he reveals himself to be wholly a product of the anti-American, anti-liberal and anti-democratic left at odds with the principles of our founding.
3. He has no clue how things actually work. Even if socialism did work, it would be wrong because it would strip people of the fruits of their labor and the property rights on which liberty depends. Thankfully, it doesn’t work, which makes the moral issue moot. But Obama has no clue of what’s been tried and found wanting. He surrounds himself with ideologues and tunes out anyone who’s ever made an honest dime in the real world. Thus every single idea the “progressive” president puts forward is a regressive throwback to notions that have been failing miserably for more than seventy years. The stuff he believes is just plain dopey. He thinks technology is the cause of unemployment. He does not understand that only private jobs create the wealth that makes public jobs possible. He thinks that wind and solar energy should be subsidized and fossil fuel production suppressed. He insists on bringing the European social model to the U.S. even as the model implodes in front of our eyes.
Read the entire piece at PJ media.
From Nice Deb: http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/