cheap no prescription cialis
ZION'S TRUMPET
1Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand; Joel 2:1
Show MenuHide Menu

Archives

November 2012
M T W T F S S
« Oct   Dec »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Are The Dutch Coming to Their Senses?

November 30, 2012   

NETHERLANDS: Too damn bad, Muslims, Dutch scrap blasphemy laws

Now Dutch citizens can insult Allah or Muhammad as much as they want, and you Muslim crybabies can’t do anything about it.

AP  The Almighty will have to defend his own name from now on: Dutch parliamenthas accepted a motion that will scrap a law making it a crime to insult God. A majority of parties said the European Union nation no longer needs the law, which hasn’t been invoked in the past half-century.

The movement to decriminalize blasphemy gathered strength in the last decade amid a national debate about the limits of freedom of speech. The climax came at the 2011 trial of far-right politician Geert Wilders, when judges ruled he had the right to criticize Islam, even if his opinions were insulting to many Muslims.

From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/

Yoko Ono Goes Loco Loca

November 30, 2012   

Found at Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/

Wanna Be Dictator Obama is Out Greatest Enemy

November 30, 2012   

patriots-truck

From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/

Some Things Are Worse Than Death…Getting There Can Be Hell

November 29, 2012   

 

End of the Line in the ICU

By Kristen McConnell

Last year I graduated from nursing school and began working in a specialized intensive care unit in a large academic hospital. During an orientation class a nurse who has worked on the unit for six years gave a presentation on the various kinds of strokes. Noting the difference between supratentorial and infratentorial strokes—the former being more survivable and the latter having a more severe effect on the body’s basic functions such as breathing—she said that if she were going to have a stroke, she knew which type she would prefer: “I would want to have an infratentorial stroke. Because I don’t even want to make it to the hospital.”

She wasn’t kidding, and after a couple months of work, I understood why. I also understood the nurses who voice their advocacy of natural death—and their fear of ending up like some of our patients—in regular discussions of plans for DNRtattoos. For example: “I am going to tattoo DO NOT RESUSCITATE across my chest. No, across my face, because they won’t take my gown off. I am going to tattoo DO NOT INTUBATE above my lip.”

Another nurse says that instead of DNR, she’s going to be DNA, Do Not Admit.

We know that such plainly stated wishes would never be honored. Medical personnel are bound by legal documents and orders, and the DNR tattoo is mostly a very dark joke. But the oldest nurse on my unit has instructed her children never to call 911 for her, and readily discusses her suicide pact with her husband.

You will not find a group less in favor of automatically aggressive, invasive medical care than intensive care nurses, because we see the pointless suffering it often causes in patients and families. Intensive care is at best a temporary detour during which a patient’s instability is monitored, analyzed, and corrected, but it is at worst a high tech torture chamber, a taste of hell during a person’s last days on earth.

 

read more …

It’s Easy…

November 29, 2012   

obama-grows-economy

Found at Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/

Pakistani Train Loaded With Mooslim Mail-order Brides

November 29, 2012   

Found at Wirecutter: http://ogdaa.blogspot.com/

Mooch is Insignificant…Boo Hoo

November 29, 2012   

From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/

Obama is Proud of His Lying, Commie Bitch

November 29, 2012   

Obama Says He “Couldn’t Be Prouder” Of Susan Rice, Calls Her “Extraordinary”…

It’s almost like he’s rubbing it in our faces.

(Reuters) – President Barack Obama gave a show of moral support to his embattled ambassador to the United Nations on Wednesday, calling Susan Rice “extraordinary” and prompting applause from his Cabinet during a meeting at the White House.

Rice, who is considered a top candidate to replace Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has been meeting this week with senators on Capitol Hill who have been critical of her initial remarks about what prompted the September 11 attacks on a U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

Several Republican senators, including former 2008 presidential candidate John McCain, have kept up their criticism of the ambassador after their visits.

Asked whether he thought Rice was being treated fairly in those meetings, Obama at first demurred.

“Susan Rice is extraordinary,” he then said, adding he “couldn’t be prouder of the job she’s done.”

From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/

Dr. of Common Sense: Hamas And Liberals Are The Same

November 28, 2012   

Found at bare naked islam

The UK Has Truly Gone Mad

November 28, 2012   

UK Dhimmitude, where a 16-year-old boy throwing ham at a mosque can be arrested for a ‘hate crime’

A 16-year-old boy was arrested by police investigating a hate crime after pieces of ham were thrown at a mosque. The teenager was held on suspicion of a religiously aggravated public order offence by officers called to Broadfield Mosque in Crawley, West Sussex.

London Evening Standard  Sussex Police said “real anguish and anxiety” was caused to worshippers who witnessed the incident as they left the mosque at around 4pm last Tuesday.

Eating pork and products made from it is strictly forbidden in Islam. The arrested teenager, who is from the local area, has been freed on police bail pending further inquiries.

Sergeant Jim Collen, of Sussex Police, said: “This was a very unpleasant incident which has naturally caused real anguish and anxiety amongst worshippers at the mosque. (Oh please, grow up)

“Sussex Police take all reports of hate crime extremely seriously and this investigation will be no exception.” (That’s right, ignore all the Muslim sex groomers of young white girls and focus on the ham throwers)

Disorder which broke out following the incident was also being investigated, police said. Mr Collen said: “We are aware of a relatively minor altercation that we hope to resolve using our restorative justice programme. “It must not be allowed to take the focus away from our investigation of the hate crime as this remains our priority.” (And you wonder why your country is turning into an Islamic hellhole)

 

From Bare naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/

First They Came for Tommy…Then They Will Come for You…We Are ALL Tommy Robinson

November 28, 2012   

BERLIN: German Defence League demonstrates in support of Tommy Robinson

On November 24th, the Germans showed solidarity with their English counterparts by protesting against the politically-motivated imprisonment of EDL leader, Tommy Robinson, in front of the British Embassy in Berlin.

Digital Journal  Supporters of the German Defence league held a demonstration at the same location that, as previously reported, they are now holding a regular weekly vigil until the release of Tommy Robinson.

“Why do they want to silence Tommy Robinson (a.k.a.Stephen Lennon)? He raises uncomfortable questions. He bravely brought a number of problems to light that are inextricably linked to the silent Islamic conquest of Britain. No one in British politics welcomes such news. “

“London however has already been the victim of devastating and deadly acts of terror, to say nothing of the countless violent crimes. The city has seen a shocking rise in gang rapes, perpetrated by Muslims, who are also responsible for the massive and systematic forced prostitution of native British girls.”

“In one particularly horrifying case, nine Muslims were found to have raped 631 girls. The gang raped one fifteen-year-old girl sixty times in a single day and killed two others.  These atrocities are also taking place in Germany. It’s no wonder that people like the radical Muslim imam Abu Qatada are let out on bail, while Tommy is held under inhuman conditions, allegedly in pretrial custody, as if he were a violent criminal.

The government has even gone further and now wants to throw Tommy Robinson into a maximum-security prison, where only the most hardened of criminals are locked up. And that for an alleged passport offense that took place some weeks ago. “We say to the British government ‘we don’t believe you’. We believe that you should stop the violence, terror and crime, committed daily by Muslims in Britain from spreading any further.

“You can’t suppress the truth. There are armies of Tommy Robinsons. We are all Tommy Robinson. You can’t lock up all of us. Not in Britain. Not in Germany. Not in Europe and not in the rest of the world.

From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/

No Golden Rule in islam

November 28, 2012   

From Blazing Cat Fur

Today’s Vocabulary Enrichment

November 28, 2012   

Advanced Vocabulary Training

 

brume-298048.jpg
Brume

metonymy: figure of speech in which a concept is replaced by a related object (“the crown”)

synteresis: innate moral knowledge. In Christianity, the part of the soul connected with god

ecpyrosis: the periodic destruction and recreation of the universe (ancient Greek belief)

pother: a commotion, heated discussion, or suffocating cloud (as of dust or ash)

defalcation: misappropriation of property (or the property so misappropriated)

simoniacal: guilty of practicing simony (profiting from ecclesiastical matters)

ascesis: self-discipline, often for religious purposes (var. askesis)

chasuble: a Catholic, sleeveless liturgical garment

ydrad: the state of being dreaded (middle English)

furze: “any spiny shrub of the genus Ulex.” Gorse.

hebetude: lazy or lethargic in mind or affect

inanation: exhaustion; lack of vigor or spirit

jape: a joke or mockery (v./n.)

ambulant: itinerant or shifting

brume: mist or fog

– Courtesy Coldewey’s Curiosities

From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/

 

Complete PC Bullshit

November 28, 2012   

Butler University Students Told To Disavow Their “American-ness, Maleness, Whiteness, Heterosexuality, Middle-Class Status”…

White liberal guilt, an academia favorite.

Via College Fix:

A political science professor at Butler University asks students to disregard their “American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status” when writing and speaking in the classroom – a practice the school’s arts and sciences dean defended as a way to negate students’ inherent prejudices.

The syllabus of the course at Butler, a small Midwestern liberal arts institution in Indianapolis, spells out that students should use “inclusive language” because it’s “a fundamental issue of social justice.”

“Language that is truly inclusive affirms sexuality, racial and ethnic backgrounds, stages of maturity, and degrees of limiting conditions,” the syllabus states, referencing a definition created by the United Church of Christ.

The syllabus of the class, called Political Science 201: Research and Analysis, goes on to ask students “to write and speak in a way that does not assume American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status, etc. to be the norm.” It is taught by a black, female professor.

In an interview with The College Fix, Jay Howard, dean of Butler’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, denied this practice essentially presumes every student who walks through the door is a racist or misogynist.

He said students must be told not to assume such prejudices because such assumptions are ingrained into the culture and remain there until questioned. With that, a liberal arts education questions these assumptions, and such questions can make for uncomfortable situations, he said.

“Sometimes in order to broaden the conversation and broaden the understandings you’ve got to risk making people uncomfortable,” Howard said. “There’s nothing about a college education that guarantees you won’t be made uncomfortable. As a matter of fact, if you’re never made uncomfortable in your college education, you’re not really getting a college education.”

From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/

Only 1.65 People Working for Every 1 Person on Welfare

November 28, 2012   

From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/

How Many Flavors Do They Come In?

November 28, 2012   

Found at It Ain’t Holy Water: http://itaintholywater.blogspot.com/

Silent Conquest: The End of Free Speech

November 27, 2012   

Found at American Power Blog

GroupThink – If You Don’t Think Their Way …Then Out With You.

November 27, 2012   

Foster Parents Have Children Removed for Being Members of Conservative Party

In light of Obama’s reelection, it is hard to believe things could get worse in the USA. But they can, and they will — as confirmed by Britain, which is a few steps ahead of us on the progressive road to self-imposed ruin. In that once free country, foster children are removed from parents deemed by the liberal establishment to have politically incorrect views:

A council has refused to back down over its decision to remove three children from their foster parents because their membership of the UK Independence Party meant that they supported “racist” policies.

“Racist” in Britain usually means failing to support the displacement of the native population with hordes of Islamic welfare colonists like Abu Qatada.

The children taken from the alleged “racists” are foreigners and ethnic minorities.

Joyce Thacker of the council’s Director of Children and Young People’s Services bleats about the children’s “cultural and ethnic needs” and UKIP’s resistance to the form of social corrosion called multiculturalism, even while admitting that the quality of care the couple has provided is not an issue. Evidently the authorities are worried that they might assimilate into British culture, which would defeat the purpose of importing them.

“Racism” isn’t about race. It’s about culture. More specifically, it is about the liberal ruling class replacing Britons (and Americans) with members of a culture more conducive to authoritarian statism.

UKIP
Hated by liberals: the ultimate endorsement.

On tips from Dean D, Smorfia48, Kevin in Auburn WA, and Henry.

 By  at Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/

Most Americans No Longer Desire Freedom – They Said So at The Polls

November 26, 2012   

“Democratic fascism”

Pat emails: “Like Hitler’s pre-WW II Germany, U.S. freedoms are being whittled away unnoticed” – see Jack Wheeler’s article below:

“…. America continues to commit cultural and national suicide,… the difference between a Romney Presidency and that of Obama’s America [is that the first] would have started digging itself out of a fascist pit, and one that will now dig itself ever more deeply into it.
 
None Dare Call It Fascism defined the political system of America as “democratic fascism” – a fascist government not imposed by an unelected dictatorship, but by people democratically voting to impose it upon themselves:
“By a patient Fabian strategy taking many years, the American people have been persuaded, unwittingly and almost unconsciously, to voluntarily chain themselves to their colonial masters in Washington.

Americans have imposed the tyranny of Washington upon ourselves. No longer innocently oppressed, America has become of nation of belligerent beggars, demanding with insufferable arrogance an endless cornucopia of government handouts, subsidies, and ‘entitlements. Refusing to pay for them themselves, they demand that others pick up the multi-trillion dollar tab – most especially and contemptibly, their children and grandchildren.

This is, indeed, America´s real drug crisis. Forget smack and crack. By orders of magnitude, the most addictive and destructive drug in America is… government subsidies.

Once people are shooting up the dole into their veins, be they farmers on farm price supports, artists on NEA grants, businessmen on protective tariffs and quotas, fourth generation welfare moms, or well-to-do greedy geezers on Medicare and Social Security, they´re hooked far more than any heroin addict. And any threat to cut off or even diminish their drug supply makes them go berserk.

So any attempt to really cut the federal budget, much less balance the budget, is completely hopeless because so many millions of Americans want government goodies and don´t want to pay for them.”

 
That was written in 1997. Nov. 6 was its apotheosis.” *
 
 

Written by Dr. Jack Wheeler Thursday, 22 November 2012might as well confess this right at the start: this is the saddest Thanksgiving of my life. I am still having a very difficult time coping with Nov. 6.

Yes, the number of Moron Uneducated Mooching Taxtaking Americans has increased under Zero enough to get close enough to the margin of fraud, enabling the Dems to steal it via voter suppression and theft. But what really made it within the margin of fraud is what hurts the most:

That millions of non-Democrats – Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians – chose to not vote for Romney, thus choosing of their own free will to destroy their country in an act of malicious sado-masochism.

My term for them is Platonic Conservatives, Platonic Libertarians. The basic philosophical battle of Western Civilization has for 23 centuries been between Plato and Aristotle – between Platonists who believe the perfect must be the enemy of the good, and Aristotelians who believe it must not.

Romney is a good man, an infinitely better man than Zero – yet the Platonists demanded perfection. Their condemnation of him, as Ann Coulter cogently explains, is “preposterous.”

The difference between a Romney Presidency and that of Zero’s is not between Heaven and Hell, for neither of them exist here on earth, any more than does Plato’s World of Forms. The difference is an America that would have started digging itself out of a fascist pit, and one that will now dig itself ever more deeply into it. On Nov. 6, the Platonists chose the latter.

Freedom is fragile. Once freedom is gone — especially if it is thrown away not taken away — it is very difficult to get it back. As the great polymath Jacob Bronowski observes in his masterpiece, The Ascent of Man:

“We are being weighed in the balance at this moment. If we give up, the next step will be taken, but not by us. We have not been given any guarantee that Assyria and Egypt and Rome were not given. The ascent of man will go on, but don’t assume that it will go on carried by Western civilization as we know it.”

 That is as profound a historical statement as you are going to get. If America continues to commit cultural and national suicide as it did on Nov.6, the result will be one of history’s greatest tragedies.
Yet – this choice was not made suddenly and spontaneously on Nov. 6. It was, rather, the culmination of a long degrading series of choices America has been making for decades. Bronowski wrote those prophetic words not yesterday, but in 1973.

1973 was the year seven out of nine Justices of the Supreme Court treasonously trashed the Constitution with Roe v. Wade, overturning state bans on abortion.

It was the year Richard Nixon established the Endangered Species Act. Earlier (1971), Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, established wage-price controls, and abandoned the gold standard for the dollar.

It was the year Nixon capitulated to a Democrat Congress and initiated the surrender of South Viet Nam to the Communists of North Viet Nam, ensuring that tens of thousands of Americans who fought and died there did so in vain.

It was the year Nixon presided over a “lavish expansion of the American entitlement state,” as documented by Nicholas Eberstadt in A Nation of Takers, which has never stopped expanding ever since, just as rapidly as our freedoms have been eroding.

1973 was almost 40 years ago. 14 years later, in 1997, I gave a keynote address to an organization of conservative leaders called the Council for National Policy (CNP) entitled None Dare Call It Fascism. It defined the political system of America as “democratic fascism” – a fascist government not imposed by an unelected dictatorship, but by people democratically voting to impose it upon themselves. An excerpt:

“By a patient Fabian strategy taking many years, the American people have been persuaded, unwittingly and almost unconsciously, to voluntarily chain themselves to their colonial masters in Washington.

Americans have imposed the tyranny of Washington upon ourselves. No longer innocently oppressed, America has become of nation of belligerent beggars, demanding with insufferable arrogance an endless cornucopia of government handouts, subsidies, and ‘entitlements.’ Refusing to pay for them themselves, they demand that others pick up the multi-trillion dollar tab – most especially and contemptibly, their children and grandchildren.

This is, indeed, America´s real drug crisis. Forget smack and crack. By orders of magnitude, the most addictive and destructive drug in America is welfare, government subsidies.

Once people are shooting up the dole into their veins, be they farmers on farm price supports, artists on NEA grants, businessmen on protective tariffs and quotas, fourth generation welfare moms, or well-to-do greedy geezers on Medicare and Social Security, they´re hooked far more than any heroin addict. And any threat to cut off or even diminish their drug supply makes them go berserk.

So any attempt to really cut the federal budget, much less balance the budget, is completely hopeless because so many millions of Americans want government goodies and don´t want to pay for them.”

 
 
That was written in 1997. Nov. 6 was its apotheosis.

So, what do we do? The problem was massive in 1997 and has metastasized exponentially to where the diagnosis for freedom in America is close to terminal. None Dare Call It Fascism outlined a number of proposed solutions, and we’ll be discussing them and others over the coming months.

Today, however, is Thanksgiving, a day of gratitude, a day of thanks to Providence for the blessings in our lives. With all the freedoms that have taken from us, we Americans still possess more freedoms than most anywhere else on earth. Our constitutional freedom to own guns is but one example. Americans are by far more religious than any other Western nation, a result of our constitutional freedom of religion. Americans are freer to say or write what they want – despite the CorruptMedia’s fanatical attempt to impose political correctness – than most any other people.

Or take the freedom to travel. Americans don’t need an exit visa or government permission to leave the country. In almost every country, you have to go through passport control to get an exit stamp before you can board a plane to fly out. In America – albeit after suffering through TSA – you don’t. At least not yet. Lots of folks expect it to come under Zero 2.

Yet simple gratitude is not enough on this Thanksgiving. What I’m suggesting is a conscious and sustained effort to remember freedom.

By that I mean, go back in time and remember the freedoms you once had and now are now gone or diminished. The older you are, the more examples you’ll recall. Which means this is a wonderful opportunity to discuss what life in America was like with your parents, grandparents, and elder relatives.

Relive what America was for them, recapture the joy and pride of what it meant to be an American without apology or guilt. Those days may seem like long ago. Yet remembering, reliving, and recapturing them can make them come alive for us again. This will help us commit to achieving a Free America once more.

It may take a long time before America is free as it once was. Let’s start today, on this Thanksgiving, by remembering the glorious liberties that Providence first bestowed upon our country. Those liberties created America. By remembering them, we can recreate them in America’s future.

Happy Thanksgiving to you all.

REMEMBERING FREEDOM

From Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

Liberals Want “No Gender” Kids

November 26, 2012   

Social Engineering Hits the Top Toy Catalogue

Photoshop makes social engineering easy for Top Toy, Swedish franchise-holder for Toys R Us, allowing the company to make restitution for past thought crimes:

The country’s advertising watchdog reprimanded the company for gender discrimination three years ago following complaints over outdated gender roles in the 2008 Christmas catalogue, which featured boys dressed as superheroes and girls playing princess.

A comparison between this year’s Toys R Us catalogues in Sweden and Denmark, where Top Toy is also the franchisee, showed that a boy wielding a toy machine gun in the Danish edition had been replaced by a girl in Sweden.

Elsewhere, a girl was Photoshopped out of the “Hello Kitty” page, a girl holding a baby doll was replaced by a boy, and, in sister chain BR’s catalogue, a young girl’s pink T-shirt was turned light blue.

Top Toy, Sweden’s largest toy retailer by number of stores, said it had received “training and guidance” from the Swedish advertising watchdog, which is a self-regulatory agency.

Says Jan Nyberg, director of sales at Top Toy:

“With the new gender thinking, there is nothing that is right or wrong.”

That would seem to sum up liberal morality in a nutshell — except that boys playing with toy guns and girls dressed up like princesses are wrong.

The objective of our rulers’ relentless social engineering is a civilization in which no woman is more feminine than Rosie O’Donnell, and no man more masculine than Tom Hanks.

boy-with-doll
Shaping a future generation of liberals.

On a tip from Dean D.

 From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/

Democrats Love the Government Santa Clause

November 26, 2012   

give-a-man

From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/

Liberal Logic

November 25, 2012   

liberals-vs-christians

From Moonbattery: http://moonbattery.com/

Four Americans Died…And Susan Rice Wanted America to Apologize?

November 25, 2012   

 

Found at The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/

American Liberty is Slipping Away

November 25, 2012   

Fear, Everywhere, Fear

 By Alan Caruba

If my emails and the headlines I am reading indicate anything, there is widespread fear among Americans that something terrible has occurred with the reelection of President Obama. Not all Americans, though. Those who voted for Obama appear to remain oblivious despite the threat of a “fiscal cliff” or the new taxes in Obamacare that will kick in on January 2nd.
We have a Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy, Geithner, calling for an end to debt ceilings, apparently believing that America can continue to borrow money to pay for the interest on its escalating debt, now pegged at $16 trillion and growing daily. The U.S. borrows $4 billion a day. Anyone with a credit card knows that their payments increase as they struggle to deal with their personal debt. Eventually they either declare bankruptcy or turn to companies that negotiate a payment to release them.
If America was to default on its debt, the dollar, already in free fall, would be worth nothing. We would be bartering shiny beads and anything else to buy food and other necessaries. We would become Zimbabwe where you need a million of their dollars to buy a loaf of bread.
Writing recently on her Fox Business blog, Gerri Willis spelled out the huge rise in taxes Americans are facing. “All told, next year, total taxes will go to almost 50% for the middle class; the very group that the president says he wants to protect. That means 50 cents out of every dollar earned has to go to the government. Half of everything will go to an entity that didn’t earn that money, and shouldn’t be entitled to all that dough.”
What kind of madness is it that the Teamsters union would impose such senseless rules that it would weaken Hostess to the point of bankruptcy, preferring to let the company die rather than to protect the jobs of 18,500 bakers? Other unions are engaged in attacks on a weakened economy. What kind of nation is it that its government employees are lobbying Congress to not only increase their pay, but to exempt them from the impact of the spending cuts scheduled to kick in?
There is a full-scale attack on the privacy Americans have taken for granted, protected by the fourth Amendment that says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
On November 14th, the Heritage Foundation asked “Do you trust the government with your computer?” The government has had “13 breaches and failures of its own cybersecurity just in the last six months.” Even so, “the President and his allies in the Senate are pushing forward to regulate America’s cyber-doings, without any clues about how much this will cost or how it will work.”
“It has become the norm with this President—if Congress fails to accomplish his objectives, he goes around it with executive orders and federal regulations. He’s doing it again. Congress did not pass the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 before the election, so the President has issued a draft of an executive order to put much of that legislation in place without lawmakers voting.”
This is the very essence of tyranny and the President has had four years to perfect it. Are conservative think tanks the only ones paying any attention? It would appear so.
A new proposed law in the Senate would strip Americans of any privacy as they communicate with one another by email. A vote for the law would allow warrantless access to American’s email and is scheduled for a vote shortly. It would allow 22 federal agencies as well as state and local law enforcement to access one’s emails with nothing more than a subpoena. This is totally unconstitutional.
Already $16 trillion in debt, the government is looking for ways to take over the $3 trillion that is held in private retirement plans such as 401(k) plans and IRA’s. A recent hearing by the Treasury and Labor Departments addressed the nationalization of the nation’s pension system. The director of the National Senior’s Council, Robert Crone, warns “It is clear that this is the first step towards a government takeover. It feels just like the beginning of the debate over health care and we all know how that ended up.”
As we move closer to an Electoral College vote confirming Obama’s reelection, whistleblowers are coming forth in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere to reveal that significant voter fraud was a contributing factor, but it receives little or no media coverage. One must ask how 99% of votes in Philadelphia districts went to Obama and ask why nothing is being done to investigate this and other offenses such as the 141.1% of the vote recorded in Florida’s St. Lucie County. That is statistically impossible, but it robbed Rep. Allen West (R) of his seat in Congress.
This isn’t government. It is gangsterism. It is “the Chicago way.”
The monster Homeland Security Agency just graduated its first class of FEMA Corps, kids aged 18-24, recruited from the President’s Americorps volunteers, that will become a full time, paid standing army. Fears of FEMA camps abound and in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, people seeking shelter and food were herded into one that resembled a concentration camp of the Nazi regime and told not to use various means of communication to contact the media or outside community. They went from hurricane victims to prisoners of the government.
In so many ways, the freedoms protected by the U.S. Constitution are in danger of disappearing along with the separation of powers it requires.
Little wonder that citizen’s petitions from a growing number of states are called for secession. Or that governors are refusing to set up the Obamacare exchanges required by a law that has taken control of twenty percent of the nation’s economy; their budgets held hostage to Medicaid.
On an individual level, people who have jobs are fearful of losing them. College graduates are fearful of the huge debt they carry for the loans they received. People wonder if they can afford to get married. Married couples fear the cost of having another child. Homeowners fear not being able to pay their mortgages. Seniors fear that their savings won’t last as they live longer.
There is ample reason to fear not only the collapse of the nation’s economy, but the loss of liberty in America.
© Alan Caruba, 2012

We Simply Traded One Dictator for Another Except Mubarak Was Better

November 24, 2012   

 

EGYPT: In a very Obama-like move, President Morsi declares himself God…and the people are outraged!

 

Mohamed Morsi declared that any laws or decrees he’s made since he took office June 30, and any made before a new constitution is put in place, are final and cannot be overturned or appealed. Angry protesters filled the streets of Cairo, and set fire to several Muslim Brotherhood offices around the country.

Hey…you voted for a radical Islamist,  just like we did, in the United States. You get the government you deserve. 

Protesters storm several offices of Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood inappropriately-named ‘Freedom and Justice’ party 

CNN  Morsi also declared that a 100-man council drafting a new constitution, plus the upper house of parliament, cannot be dissolved. He granted the council two more months to finish a draft constitution, meaning the panel has six months to finish. That means Morsi, who this year took over legislative powers from the military council that ruled after Hosni Mubarak’s ouster, could have at least six months of unchecked rule by decree. The draft constitution would go to a referendum before it is finalized.

Morsi’s moves come three days after the start of violent protests in central Cairo, largely by people angry at Morsi’s government and the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist movement to which Morsi belongs. There also is turmoil in the constitution panel, which has been torn between conservatives wanting the constitution to mandate that Egypt be governed by Islam’s Sharia law and moderates and liberals who don’t.

From Bare Naked Islam: http://www.barenakedislam.com/

How The Left Destroyed American Culture

November 24, 2012   

HOW THE LEFT DESTROYED THE CULTURE

More on the low state of the world and how we got here. I read this months ago and meant to share it with shruggers…..

How Highbrows Killed Culture  Fred Siegel — April 2012, Commentary

It is one of the foundational myths of contemporary liberalism: the idea that American culture in the 1950s was not only stifling in its banality but a subtle form of fascism that constituted a danger to the Republic. Whatever the excesses of the 1960s might have been, so the argument goes, that decade represented the necessary struggle to free America’s mind-damaged automatons from their captivity at the hands of the Lords of Conformity and Kitsch. And yet, from a remove of more than a half century, we can see that the 1950s were in fact a high point for American culture—a period when many in the vast middle class aspired to elevate their tastes and were given the means and opportunity to do so.

The wildly successful attack on American popular culture in the 1950s was an outgrowth of noxious ideas that consumed the intellectual classes of the West in the first five decades of the 20th century—ideas so vague and so general that they were not discredited by the unprecedented flowering of popular art in the United States in the years after World War II. And, in the most savage of ironies, that attack ended up not changing popular culture for the better but instead has led to a popular culture so debased as to obviate parody.

Throughout the opening decades of the 20th century, American liberals engaged in a spirited critique of Americanism, a condition they understood as the pursuit of mass prosperity by an energetic but crude, grasping people chasing their private ambitions without the benefit of a clerisy to guide them. In thrall to their futile quest for material well-being, and numbed by the popular entertainments that appealed to the lowest common denominator in a nation of immigrants, Americans were supposedly incapable of recognizing the superiority of European culture as defined by its literary achievements.

This critique gave rise to the ferment of the 1920s, described by the literary critic Malcolm Cowley as the “exciting years…when…the young intellectuals seized power in the literary world almost like the Bolsheviks in Russia.” The writers Cowley referred to—Sinclair Lewis, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Sherwood Anderson, and Waldo Frank especially—had “a vague belief in aristocracy” and a sense that they were being “oppressed” by the culture of Main Street. But they believed America could be rescued from the pits of its popular culture by secular priests of sufficient insight to redeem the country from the depredations of the mass culture produced by democracy and capitalism. They were championed not only by leftists such as Cowley, but also by Nietzscheans such as H.L. Mencken, the critic and editor whom Walter Lippmann described in 1926 as “the most powerful influence on this whole generation of educated people” who famously mocked the hapless “herd,” “the imbeciles,” the “booboisie,” all of whom he deemed the “peasantry” that blighted American cultural life.

The concept of mass culture as a deadening danger took on a new power and coherence with the publication in 1932 of two major works, José Ortega y Gasset’s The Revolt of the Masses and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Both books, which became required reading for a half century of collegestudents in the wake of World War II, came to be seen as prophecies of 1950s American conformism. Their warnings about the dangers of a consumerist dystopia have long been integrated into the American liberal worldview.

Ortega’s extended essay and Huxley’s novel were written at a dark time for democracy. In the course of the 1920s, first Portugal, then Spain, Italy, Greece, Japan, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, followed by Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and a host of Latin American countries had turned to dictatorship. Fascism was in the saddle in Italy and the Nazis were threatening to seize power in Germany as both The Revolt of the Masses and Brave New World were being composed—yet both Ortega and Huxley sawAmerican culture as the greatest threat to the future.

Ortega mocked common sense and empiricism as the “idiot,” “plebeian,” and “demagogic” “criteriology of Sancho Panza.” It was, he argued, the tradition of the mob. Like Huxley, he had a literary sense of reality that drew heavily on rhetorical flourishes. He saw no irony in first publishing The Revolt of the Masses denouncing popular culture in a popularly circulated Spanish newspaper. Obsessed with the danger of overpopulation, Ortega set himself squarely against admitting the upwardly mobile into civilization. Ortega’s assertions about the resentful, barely literate mob were built in part on Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time (1927), which declaimed the inauthentic life led by mass man. Both Heidegger and Ortega wrote in the tradition of imperial Germany, arguing that World War I was in part a struggle to defend the Teutonic soul from the debased modernity of modern machinery and mass production represented by Americanization.

The Revolt of the Masses, which has been described as a Communist Manifesto in reverse, was a bestseller in 1930s Germany. Such success with the mass book-buying public of the Third Reich should have unnerved Ortega, but it didn’t. When he added a prologue in 1937, he neglected to mention the Nazis while decrying the “stifling monotony” mass man had imposed on Europe, converting it into a vast anthill. Congratulating himself on the anti-Americanism of his text, Ortega scoffed at the idea that America, that “paradise of the masses,” could ever defend European civilization.

Huxley’s Brave New World was heavily influenced by Mencken. Unlike the other great totalitarian dystopias, Huxley’s World State is ordered on the wants of the governed rather than the governors. The only people with any capacity for dissatisfaction in Huxley’s dystopia are a handful of Alphas—or what we would today call “the creative class”—who, unlike the cow-like masses, aren’t satisfied with a steady dietof sex and drugs.

Mencken and Huxley shared an aristocratic ideal based on an idyllic past. They romanticized a time before the age of machinery and mass production, when the lower orders lived in happy subordination and when intellectual eccentricity was encouraged among the elites. In this beautiful world, alienation was as unknown as bearbaiting and cockfighting, “and those who wanted to amuse themselves were,” in Huxley’s words, “compelled, in their humble way, to be artists.”

They considered the egalitarianism of American democracy a degraded form of government which, in Ortega’s words, discouraged “respect or esteem for superior individuals.” Intellectuals, they complained, weren’t given their due by the human detritus of this new world. Huxley, a member of the Eugenics Society, saw mass literacy, mass education, and popular newspapers as having “created an immense classof what I may call the New Stupid.” He proposed the British government raise the price of newsprint ten or twentyfold because “the new stupid,” manipulated by newspaper plutocrats, were imposing a soul-crushing conformity on humanity. The masses, so his argument went, needed to be curtailed for their own good and for the greater good of high culture.

Huxley, writing in a 1927 issue of Harper’s, called for an aristocracy of intellect, and in a slim volume entitled Proper Studies, published the same year, he called for culling the masses through negative eugenics. “The active and intelligent oligarchies of the ideal state do not yet exist,” he told Harper’sreaders, “but the Fascist party in Italy, the Communist party in Russia, the Kuomintang in China are still their inadequate precursors.” In the future, he insisted, “political democracy as now practiced, will be unknown; our descendants will want a more efficient and rational form of government.” He warned America that while it was wedded to “the old-fashioned democratic and humanitarian ideas of the eighteenth century…the force of circumstances will be too powerful for them” and they, too, would come to be governed by a new aristocracy of spirituality and intellect.

In 1931, as Huxley was composing Brave New World, he wrote newspaper articles arguing that “we must abandon democracy and allow ourselves to be ruled dictatorially by men who will compel us to do and suffer what a rational foresight demands.” It was Huxley’s view that “dictatorship and scientific propaganda may provide the only means of saving humanity from the misery of anarchy.” Many of the elements in the “brave new world” that contemporary readers find jarring actually appealed to Huxley. The sorting of individuals by type, eugenic breeding, and hierarchic leadership were policies for which he had proselytized. The problem with the world he created is the lack of spiritual insight, spiritual greatness, on the part of its leader.

The “brave new world” is America, to some extent, or rather, Huxley’s bleak view of America, which he once described as “a land where there is probably less personal freedom than in any other country in the world with the possible exception of Bolshevik Russia.” In the Americanized Brave New World, workers are mass-produced, Henry Ford–style. Those workers live in a mindless drug-induced state of happiness little different from the drug-like effects of the Americanized popular culture Huxley so loathed. In the “brave new world,” as in America, Huxley argues, the lack of freedom isn’t externally imposed—it is, rather, an expression of a culture and polity organized around the wishes of the masses.

America’s failing was its “lack of an intellectual aristocracy…secure in its position and authority” so that it could constrain people from “thinking and acting…like the characters in a novel by Sinclair Lewis,” a man whose novels offered a stinging portrait of the stifling conformity of middle-class bourgeois life.

This potent critique of mass culture was suddenly muted in the 1930s by the rise of the Communist party in the United States, which required of the intellectuals who flocked to it a sentimental attachment to the masses. And it seemed as though it had been discredited to some degree by World War II. The “hollow men” of the middle class, whom liberal intellectuals had been taught to despise by T.S. Eliot’s poem of the same name, proved their mettle by defeating the Nazis and saving Western civilization itself.

But writing in 1944, the literary critic and historian Bernard DeVoto saw that the surcease would only be temporary. “The squares, boobs, Babbits, and Rotarians despised by literary liberals would soon again become targets for their betters. America would once again become the land where the masses were organized to crush an artist’s hopes.”

When the Second World War ended in 1945, the New York intellectual Delmore Schwartz kept repeating, “It’s 1919 over again. His friend, the philosopher William Barrett, explained Schwartz’s excitement: “Our generation had been brought up on the remembrance of the 1920s as the great golden age of the avant-garde….We expected history to repeat itself.” And in some ways it did. An incessant flow of talk and writing about “mass society” and “mass culture” were the amniotic fluid from which young liberals emerged in the 1950s. As the critic Nora Sayre explained in a memoir, she grew up in that decade around Hollywood writers and New York leftists, for whom the loathing of Main Street and Mencken’s scabrous view of the booboisie were still “the values and tropisms” that were “very much alive in our living room.”

With each new advance in American prosperity, peculiarly, the reactionary vision of Huxley and Ortega gained ground. But the target had changed. In the 1950s version of the mass-culture critique, the men and women of America were said to have become alienated from their authentic selves not by the Babbitts of conformity but by a pervasive popular culture that kept them in a state of vegetative torpor. Everything from women’s magazines to radio to comic books was implicated in this scheme, driven by the need of American capitalists to keep people in a perpetual state of false consciousness.

Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in Americaa 1956 collection of essays co-edited by Bernard Rosenberg, a contributing editor of the socialist magazine Dissent, explained the dangers at hand. “Contemporary man finds that his life has been emptied of meaning, that it has been trivialized,” Rosenberg wrote. “He is alienated from his past, from his work, his community, and possibly from himself—although this ‘self’ is hard to locate. At the same time he has an unprecedented amount of time on his hands which he must kill…lest it kill him.”

The evidence for this epidemic of inauthenticity was 561 pages of articles on such pressing concerns as “The Problem of the Paper-Backs,” “Card-playing as Mass Culture,” and “Television and the Patterns of Mass Culture.” One short article by Irving Howe, who would go on to become a distinguished literary critic and founder of Dissent, contained the following passage:

On the surface the Donald Duck…cartoons seem merely pleasant little fictions but they are actually overladen with the most aggressive, competitive, and sadistic themes. On the verge of hysteria, Donald Duck is a frustrated little monster who has something of the SS man in him and whom we, also having something of the SS man in us, naturally find…quite charming.

Howe would later distance himself from such effusions and mock “the endless chatter about ‘conformity’ that has swept the country.” But the fanciful fears of “suburban fascism,” the danger of stable families, backyard barbecues, white bread, and tail fins came to seem all too real to those influenced by exiled German academics and philosophers who came to enjoy an enormous (and often undeserved) intellectual prestige. Their writings always seemed to carry the intimidating rumble of profundity, which, it turned out, was largely a matter of misdirection aimed at obscuring their own relationship with the German traditions that had led to the horrors.

The Frankfurt School, led by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, theorized that the rough beast of popular fascism would come round at last in bourgeois America. Relying on an unholy blend of Freud and early Marx, the Frankfurt School writers averred that private life had ceased to be private since it had been colonized by the forces of industrialized leisure—movies, radio, TV, and comic books. These amusements were, they argued, the modern equivalent of the “bread and circuses” used to contain Rome’s plebeians as the empire descended into decadence. With their formidable dialectical skills, they had the intellectual dexterity to argue past the lack of evidence and insist that the jackboots were coming. Because the underlying reality of American life, dominated by hectoring fathers à la Freud, was intrinsically fascist, they argued, there was no need for an overt movement of the sort represented by the Nazis. Nazism was inevitable in America.

The Frankfurt School represented a new kind of left. It did not accept the notion that man was progressing inevitably to a higher state of consciousness. The elimination of poverty and the reduction of back-breaking work through machinery—once seen as great achievements that would help the working man achieve his mastery of the bourgeoisie—were in fact the enslavement of man by mere technology.

“In the over-developed countries,” wrote Herbert Marcuse, who became the most famous Frankfurt School theoretician of the 1960s, “an ever-larger part of the population becomes one huge captive audience—captured not by a total regime, but by the liberties of the citizens whose media of amusement and elevation compels the Other to partake of their sounds, sights, and smells.” He was arguing, in effect, for greater social segregation between the elite and the hoi polloi.

Dwight Macdonald, the most influential American critic of mass culture in the late 1950s, concurred with the Frankfurt School. Writing in crackling prose redolent of Mencken’s, he too argued that bourgeois prosperity was creating a cultural wasteland: “The work week has shrunk, real wages have risen, and never in history have so many people attained such a high standard of living as in this country since 1945,” Macdonald complained.

“Money, leisure, and knowledge,” he went on, “the prerequisites for culture, are more plentiful and more evenly distributed than ever before.”

Macdonald, who was educated at Phillips Exeter Academy and Yale and associated with the anti-Stalinist leftists at Partisan Review, still couldn’t bring himself to support the United States against the Nazis in World War II on the grounds that “Europe has its Hitlers, but we have our Rotarians.”

Macdonald made himself the chief critic of the cultural category he dubbed the “middlebrow.” The great danger to America, he argued in his most famous essay, “Masscult and Midcult,” was the effort by the masses to elevate themselves culturally. Because of the middlebrow impulse, he said, book clubs had spread across the country like so much “ooze.” The result, Macdonald believed, could only be the pollution of high culture and its degradation in becoming popular culture. “Two cultures have developed in this country,” insisted Macdonald, and “it is to the national interest to keep them separate.

His words were vicious. “Already we have far too much of this insipidity—masses of people who are half breeds” daring to partake of “the American culture of the cheap newspaper, the movies, the popular song, the ubiquitous automobile” and creating “hordes of men and women without a spiritual country…without taste, without standards but those of the mob.”

That was, Macdonald explained, because “the masses are not people, they are not The Man in the Street or The Average Man, they are not even that figment of liberal condescension, The Common Man. The masses are, rather, man as non-man.” He quoted the author Roger Fry approvingly as saying Americans “have lost the power to be individuals. They have become social insects like bees and ants.”

And what were these insects up to? They were sampling the greatest works of Western civilization for the first time. “Twenty years ago,” a salesman reveled in Mass Culture: The Popular Arts in America, “you couldn’t sell Beethoven out of New York. Today we sell Palestrina, Monteverdi, Gabrieli, and Renaissance and Baroque music in large quantities.” The public’s expanding taste and increased income produced a 250 percent growth in the number of local symphony orchestras between 1940 and 1955. In that same year, 1955, 15 million people paid to attend major league baseball games, while 35 million paid to attend classical music concerts. The New York Metropolitan Opera’s Saturday afternoon radio broadcast drew a listenership of 15 million out of an overall population of 165 million.

The overwhelming new medium of television was particularly decried by critics of mass culture. But as the sociologist David White, co-editor with Rosenberg of Mass Culture, noted, NBC spent $500,000 in 1956 to present a three-hour version of Shakespeare’s Richard III starring Laurence Olivier. The broadcast drew 50 million viewers; as many as 25 million watched all three hours. White went on to note that “on March 16, 1956, a Sunday chosen at random,” the viewer could have seen a discussion of the life and times of Toulouse-Lautrec by three prominent art critics, an interview with theologian Paul Tillich, an adaptation of Walter Van Tilburg Clark’s Hook, a documentary on mental illness with Dr. William Menninger, and a 90-minute performance of The Taming of the Shrew.

At the same time, book sales doubled. Saul Bellow’s The Adventures of Augie March, a National Book Award winner, had only modest sales when it was published in 1953. But it went on to sell a million copies in paperback—the softcover book having been introduced on a grand scale after the war. Anthropologist Ruth Benedict’s Patterns of Culture, published in 1934, sold modestly until the advent of the paperback. By the mid-50s this assault on Victorian moral absolutes in the name of cultural tolerance had sold a half million copies.

In 1947, notes Alex Beam in his recent book A Great Idea at the Time, Robert Hutchins, then president of the University of Chicago, and the autodidact philosopher Mortimer Adler launched an effort to bring the great books of Western Civilization to the people. In 1948 Hutchins and Adler drew 2,500 people to a Chicago auditorium to hear them lead a discussion of the trial of Socrates. By 1951 there were 2,500 Great Books discussion groups, with roughly 25,000 members meeting “all over the country, in public libraries, in church basements, Chamber of Commerce offices, corporate conference rooms at IBM and Grumman Aircraft, in private homes, on army bases,” and even prisons. At the peak of the Great Books boom, Beam writes, 50,000 Americans a year were buying collections of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, the Founding Fathers, and Hegel at prices that “started at $298 and topped out at $1,175, the equivalent of $2,500 to $9,800 today.”

This was the danger against which critics of mass culture, inflamed with indignation, arrayed themselves in righteous opposition.

But with the advent of the youth movement of the 1960s, the elite attack took a new and odd turn. The shift in sensibility was first announced by the 31-year-old Susan Sontag in a 1964 Partisan Review essay entitled “Notes on Camp.” The essay, which sent Sontag’s shares soaring on the intellectual stock exchange, dissolved the boundaries between high culture and mass culture in favor of a new sensibility she described as “camp.” Camp is playful, a rebuke of sorts to the cultural mandarins. More precisely, camp involves a new, more complex relation to what she called “the serious.” It allowed people to “be serious about the frivolous, [and] frivolous about the serious.” Sontag was saying it was all right for serious people to enjoy the kitsch of popular culture as long as they did it with the correct—superior and ironic—attitude.

Sontag, who thought of herself as a displaced European suffering among philistine Americans, argued that “intelligence” was “really a kind of taste: taste in ideas.” And the “new aristocrats of taste” were those led by homosexual men who saw that comic books, popular art, and pornography viewed with the right spirit of irony and mischief were an extension of the new sensibility that saw “life as theater.” In this victory of style over content and aesthetics over morality, Sontag defined the emerging ethos of the 60s. The middlebrow menace was banished to the sidelines.

By 1970 the aim of camp to “dethrone the serious” had all but succeeded. The last remnants of bourgeois morality having largely melted away as part of the national culture, there was little to make even mock cultural rebellion meaningful. The “serious” was replaced by a cheerful mindlessness, and the cultural striving of middlebrow culture came to a quiet end. Why should the well-meaning middle American labor to read a complex novel by an intellectual or try to work his way through a Great Book if the cultural poohbahs first mocked his efforts and then said they were pointless anyway because what mattered was living “life as theater”? Today, if there were a T.S. Eliot, Time Magazine would no more put him on the cover than it would sing the praises of George W. Bush.  Time’s literary critic writes children’s fantasy novels and chose a science-fiction book about elves as one of the crowning cultural achievements of 2011. Since the highbrow have been given permission to view the “frivolous as the serious,” why shouldn’t everybody else?

Dwight Macdonald, who spat on the ambitions of the midcult man, took an interesting journey himself in the 1960s. He became a movie critic and later a contributor to the Today show. When student radicals took over buildings on the campus of Columbia University, Macdonald celebrated them and responded mildly when members of the Students for a Democratic Society (which gave birth to the terrorist Weathermen) literally set fire to the manuscript of a professor. The man who had denounced the barbarism of the American middle saw true barbarism in practice and found it wonderfully stimulating.

“You know how sympathetic in general I am to the Young, they’re the best generation I’ve known in this country, the cleverest and the most serious and decent,” he said. And then, speaking words that would mark the disgraceful epitaph of the successful assault on the remarkable American cultural moment of the 1950s, he said, wistfully, “I wish they’d read a little.”

About the Author

Fred Siegel is a visiting professor at St. Francis College in Brooklyn and a contributing editor to City Journal. His recent pieces for Commentary have included “The Anti-American Fallacy” (April 2010) and, with Sol Stern, “The Bloomberg Bubble Bursts” (March 2011). This essay is adapted from the Bradley Lecture he delivered recently at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.  

Re-printed from Atlas Shrugs: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

Bloomberg is a Communist Criminal…But Then What Else is New?

November 24, 2012   

Bloomberg and his thugs want my guns?

And yours too, and in fact these liberty hating Statists would love to see us all disarmed. But, if we examine the past of the mayors supporting  Comrade Bloomberg’s war on gun rights, we see that they are more than just wannabe Communist dictators, they are, in fact criminals!

Mike Bloomberg is on a mission to take away everyone’s guns. New York City’s billionaire mayor has bankrolled a coalition of municipal chiefs from coast to coast who tirelessly lobby for new laws restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. The irony is that many in his coalition of pedophiles, embezzlers, wife beaters, cheaters and violent thugs are no longer eligible to legally own a gun……

……

Among them are Gary Becker of Racine, Wisc., who was sentenced to three years in jail for felony child enticement and attempted sexual assault of a child. Detroit’s former mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, assaulted a police officer and perjured himself. Sheila Dixon, who hosted Mr. Bloomberg and his MAIG conference in her city of Baltimore, Md., was convicted while in office of perjury and embezzling funds.

Larry Langford of Birmingham, Ala., got 15 years in the big house for a staggering 60 counts of bribery, fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. The hypocrisy award goes to the late Frank Melton from Jackson, Miss., who violated his own city’s gun possession ordinances. SAF plans to publicize any time another mayor in the group goes bad. D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray, a member of MAIG who denies residents all rights to bear arms, has also been under federal investigation for campaign finance fraud.

Not really surprising at all. Statists often assume they are above the law, especially laws they would enforce on others! Nothing but thugs!  

From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/

5 Second Rule…

November 23, 2012   

funny pictures

So True…

November 23, 2012   

funny pictures

This is Just Weird…

November 23, 2012   

funny pictures