Happy Earth Day

--

The Light of Day Shines on the Corrupt Liberal Swamp In America

From Family Security Matters.

A Whole Lotta Liberal Corruption Going On


Has Nancy Pelosi seen a newspaper lately? (Pro tip, hon: As with the Obamacare monstrosity, you have to read it to find out what's in it.) I'd love to see her face in the wake of the veritable epidemic of Democratic corruption now sweeping the country. Pelosi's blink count must be off the charts.

I'm going to make it easy on Pelosi and put all of the latest cases in one handy rogues'-gallery reference list. But let's not be naïve. It's clear to me that the Barack Obama/Eric Holder DOJ is clearing the decks before the midterms. Prediction: The FBI's GOP corruption shoe will drop right before the elections for maximum distraction and damage. For now, let's take stock of the jackassery:

The Dirty Democratic Mayors' Club: Charlotte, N.C., mayor Patrick Cannon, who bragged about partying with the Obamas to help grease the wheels for city projects, was arrested this week on federal corruption and influence-peddling charges. He's accused of accepting gobs of cash payoffs and Las Vegas trips.

The bust follows former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin's conviction in January on corruption charges; former Trenton mayor Tony Mack's February conviction on charges of accepting cash bribes for a downtown parking garage; former San Diego mayor and serial groper Bob Filner's disgraceful resignation after conviction on sexual-harassment-related charges; former Detroit mayor Kwame Kilpatrick's conviction on extortion, bribery, and conspiracy charges; and former Birmingham mayor Larry Langford's corruption and bribery conviction.

California state senator Leland Yee, gun grabber by day, alleged arms-trafficking gangsta by night: Yee made a decades-long career out of sanctimoniously demonizing gun owners and railing against the Second Amendment. He was arrested this week on corruption charges after an FBI sting found probable cause to believe Yee had conducted wire fraud and engaged in a conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and illegally import firearms. The pol from San Francisco's Chinatown went so far as to discuss "details of the specific types of weapons" with a prospective donor. Until he dropped out yesterday afternoon, Yee was a candidate for California secretary of state.
Pennsylvania state senator LeAnna Washington, party animal: This week, a judge ruled that the Keystone State could proceed with a trial against Washington, who reportedly forced her legislative staff for eight years to use taxpayer time and money for an annual birthday party whose proceeds were diverted to her campaign account. She is charged with felony theft of services and felony conflict of interest. More than a half-dozen former employees blew the whistle. "I am the f-ing senator," she screamed at one staffer who objected. "I do what the f- I want, and ain't nobody going to change me."
Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox, multiple-raid target: The powerful Democrat, beloved by the Left for his gay-marriage activism, announced last weekend that he is stepping down from office after FBI raids on his home and work offices. Fox is the target of several criminal investigations by the U.S. attorney's office, the FBI, the IRS, and state police. Mum's the word so far on the nature of the alleged criminal activity involved.
California state senator Ronald Calderon, all in the corrupted family: Calderon is on a paid leave of absence after being hit with a 24-count federal indictment for bribery and corruption. His brother also was charged with multiple counts of money laundering and influence peddling. Prosecutors allege the legislator accepted nearly $100,000 in bribes, plane trips, gourmet meals, and golf games in exchange for political favors. He also is accused of paying his daughter $39,000 for a phony office job and paying $40,000 in "consulting" fees for a campaign website that didn't exist.
California state senator Roderick Wright, lying liar: Also on paid leave, the entrenched Los Angeles-area politician is now fighting his January conviction on felony perjury, false declaration of candidacy, and fraudulent-voting charges. Wright claimed to live in a rented room in an Inglewood home within his district, but the jury found his true residence was outside the district, in upscale Baldwin Hills. The jury found he lied on candidacy declarations and voter-registration documents and fraudulently voted in five elections.
New York state assemblyman Bill Scarborough, shady jet-setter: The FBI and state authorities raided his home and offices as part of a probe into his travel-voucher practices. He blamed a "tabloid hit job" by theNew York Postover questionable per-diem claims totaling $60,000.
Illinois state representative Keith Farnham, child-porn suspect: After sponsoring two bills to increase penalties for child-porn possession, Farnham was the subject of state and federal raids last week on his home - for possession of child porn. Over the weekend, he resigned his seat, citing "serious health issues." Nowthere'sa euphemism.

Remember: Nancy Pelosi famously promised to "drain the moral swamp" and end the "culture of corruption." She cast herself and her minions as America's political clean-up crew. But once again, the culture-of-corruption boomerang has swung back around to smack Democrats in their smug mugs. The cynical Swamp Drainers just hope you forget it all by election time. Don't.

Progressives Without Progress

From Family Security Matters.

Progressives Without Progress
by DANIEL GREENFIELD
January 31, 2014


There isn't very much progress in the progressive movement. Progress is the expansion of possibilities. Progressives however have a Malthusian obsession with the scarcity of all things. They believe that we are about to run out of everything from energy to water to wealth and education and that like starving survivors on a lifeboat we have to redistribute everything.

The progressive outlook predates the notion of progress. Its ideal is a static society, sustainable in its material practices and so utterly moral in its social attributes that it becomes immune to change. It is founded on the intertwining of the material and the moral through the insistence that the scarcity of material things makes their redistribution mandatory by an activist moral elite.

There is nothing as reactionary as utopia and no group as reactionary as utopians. A perfect society is a place that is immune to change. The search for such a society is the quest for an absolute way of living. Both the quest and the way of living become as unchallengeable as any theological utopia founded not on bad economics and political parochialism, but on a deeply spiritual faith.

The progress of progressives is not a rocket to the stars, but a slow elevator climbing up a constricted shaft to their ideal society. It's only progressive in the same sense that a television channel that moves from one show to the next within the confines of its programming is. It's programmed progress, not the progress of exploring infinitely expanding possibilities.

The left is actually deeply conservative. It is difficult for people in countries being contested by the left to see this because they observe the left as revolutionary and destructive. But every attempted conquest is accompanied by violent disruptions. The domestic left destroys everything it does not control as part of a cultural war; not because it seeks an open society of perpetual creative ferment.

Once the left achieves its dream of absolute power in a nation, that nation becomes socially backward, technologically backward and culturally backward. There is a reason that the USSR, Cuba and North Korea were not producing compelling new cultural products for export the way that their sympathizers in Hollywood did and do. It's the same reason that they don't keep having revolutions.

The creative energies harnessed by the left are a revolutionary tool for achieving an ideal society. Once that miserably ideal society is achieved, everything is regimented and unplanned change is locked out of the equation because reactionary progressive utopias have to be relentlessly planned. Science and culture are forcibly slowed down. Individuality is discouraged. Conformity produces mediocrity in all fields. Time slows down and utopia sinks into its own progressive muck.


Americans had trouble believing that the left of the counterculture had much in common with the conformist cultural factory of the USSR until the flower children became professional activists and politicians and ran a system of stale conformity interspersed with tedious displays of traditionally transgressive arts. The very slogan, Keep Berkeley Weird, is not revolutionary. It's traditionalist.

Nothing is more conservative than keeping things the way that they used to be.

On the opposite coast, the old radical artists and poets complain that the East Village isn't what it used to be and landmark everything in sight. Men and women who once did mountains of cocaine fight every bar liquor license with the outraged spleen of suburbanites threatened with a landfill.

The paradox of keeping weird things weird is that weird then just becomes another tradition and another proprietarian cultural impulse to avert a changing world by clinging to the way things used to be when you were young and everything made sense. It's not really keeping things weird, it's keeping the weird things that come from a changing outside world, out.

Utopians always carry that narrow-minded fragility with them. Their perfect society is always doomed by the rising tide of morality in the affairs of men. The more they try to hold on to it, the more it breaks apart right in front of their eyes. The left only believes in change when it moves in their direction. But once change has been achieved, then their ideal is a static changeless society.

Progress is confidence in human capabilities. The progressive movement however is tragic. It depends on the egocentric tantrums of individuals for its philosophy, its art and its activism; but it firmly believes that only the collective can make society work. And only the collective can lock it in.

Progressive utopians project their sense of fragility onto all material things. Fuel, water and even the atmosphere are all on the verge of running out. Everything must be safeguarded, counted and put in a locked box where qualified personnel will only distribute it at need. And that includes any and all human activities which might cause the warming of the planet.

Socially they are just as bad. Not only is wealth finite (except when they're spending it) but so is everything from education to employment.

The left doesn't think in terms of making more, but of redistributing what is available. Its goal is a static society in which everything is "fair", rather than a rapidly progressing society society that is unfairly distributed, but that focuses on creating, rather than sharing, and produces more for all.

Progressives equate progress to redistribution. They view the planet and every microcosmic society within it as a lifeboat with a finite amount of supplies to pass around for survival's sake. Their idea of progress is achieved when the redistribution achieves their ideal of fairness and no further bouts of redistribution are needed. Since that day will never come, utopia becomes an economic police state.

The progressive idea of progress is a sack race with a hundred feet in one sack. Progress must be communal. It must meet the needs of all stakeholders. It must comply with every detail of the plan. And so it is no wonder that we hardly build big things anymore or dream great dreams. Vision is individual and it's deeply disruptive. It changes the way that everyone lives.

Visions lead to utopias, but once utopia is achieved, there is no more room for vision. Visions, like viruses, are competitive creatures. When a Vision achieves a static order by killing all other visions, then vision dies, but that Vision remains with its dead hand on the wheel of history.

The vision of the left is a dead utopia, a tradition of weirdness and a hoarder's obsession with storing everything from the economy to the atmosphere in one lockbox before the sky falls. The utopian is really a cynic, certain that individualism will unleash everyone's worst impulses, and offering instead the iron order of his vision.


Utopia believes the worst of everyone and everything. It fears its own mortality and scents the taste of death on everything. It is convinced that the sky will fall, that everyone will starve and that the utter undoing of humanity is only a land use resolution or unrecycled plastic bottle away.

Progressives lock everyone into their narrow regimented and regulated idea of progress because they distrust people and they even distrust the universe. They are children certain that everything they love is about to be taken away from them and closet fascists obsessed with their moment of heroism when they rush out of the phone booth, biodegradable cape blowing in the wind, and save humanity from itself through a benevolent police state that extends into absolutely every area of human activity.

There is no progress in progressivism. There is instead a deep fear of progress. Utopians fear the unregulated and unplanned and they replace the true expansive progress of the human spirit with the false progress of social controls. Human genius is sold on the block in exchange for bureaucracy.

Progressives view every element of the world, from the grand vistas of oceans and skies to the minute intersections of human society as too fragile and limited for unregulated progress. Under their rule, progress in this country, once its secular faith, has slowed to a crawl outside of a few select industries that are able to move faster than the speed of progressive regulations.

The only way to resume progress is to fight the progressive movement.

Why You Can't Kill Liberalism

It's like a cat from Hell with not nine lives but 666 lives....

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Liberalism Not Going Away Any Time Soon


Obamacare continues to manifest itself as a complete fiasco, with the number of people losing their medical coverage vastly outpacing those who have acquired Obamacare insurance. And for those few who have actually signed on, drastically increased costs and severely reduced coverage are the most common rewards for their efforts. It is extremely telling that so many people are genuinely surprised that this is their fate. Have they no grasp of history, and the inescapable failure of the collectivist state? Or is it more likely that they never considered any possibility other than the rosy promises, now proven so fraudulent and hollow, made by Barack Obama and his fellow champions of socialized medicine.

The immediate effects of Obamacare's "Phase One" are so dire that most have been too caught up in the moment to consider just how much worse things can become if this disastrous venture is not immediately halted, and a deliberate course back to sane, working medical treatment instated in its place. Those tragic stories of self-employed individuals whose insurance policies were suddenly cancelled represent only the initial signals of far larger and more grievous problems eventually affecting Americans. With the medical insurance business now in a shambles, and many more regulations and mandates yet to be handed down from ham-fisted Washington bureaucrats, not only insurance, but all facets of medicine in America risk being negatively impacted.

Doctors are opting for early retirement, and taking with them years of experience in dealing with sick people. It is dangerously naive to expect that they will simply be replaced by a new generation of Obamacare physicians. With such chaos inflicted on medical practice, university costs skyrocketing, and the guarantee of more choking federal regulations overtaking the profession, the notion of young talented people lining up to fill the vacancies of aged practitioners is simply not reality. Nor can the many advances of medical equipment and therapies be expected to continue unabated. While a free-market medical industry once resulted in this nation's healthcare being the envy of the world, the monstrous dispassionate bureaucracy that has supplanted it only portends stagnation and atrophy for the field of medicine.

Considering the magnitude of the catastrophe, it is indeed telling evidence of liberal medical "expertise" within the Administration that Obama and his cronies are still desperately attempting to undo their errors by putting a band-aid on this cadaver. It also further highlights their mindless devotion to the mirage of collectivist utopia, despite a miserable historical track record of failure. The verdict is in. America can only expect more of the same from this political cabal.

It is noteworthy that a previously unanticipated optimism is effervescing on the right, even as Americans are forced to confront the grim reality that always lurked behind those glowing assurances of liberalism's promised land. In the past few weeks, several prominent conservative voices have speculated that Obamacare may actually represent a death blow to the entire liberal agenda. But although this scenario may be tempting to contemplate, especially as it contrasts so starkly against the ugly realities of the day, it is risky for Americans to entertain such a possibility. The window of opportunity for a resurgence of conservatism may indeed be open, but many pieces must be put in place in order for our circumstances to result in something good.

America will not merely revert to its former glory in a vacuum, and despite public abhorrence with the current situation, those forces who worked so tirelessly to bring it to this point will not merely dissipate into the mists after having been thoroughly discredited. Rather, they see their predicament as an obstacle to be overcome. Though the former veil of deceit has been removed, they will merely redouble their efforts to concoct a new in its place so as to continue their transformation of America.

In the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1990s, international "experts" made similar assertions on the prospects for a glorious and unalterable future for the world. The threat of worldwide communism had suddenly vanished, essentially leaving the United States as the world's lone superpower. Former jockeying for position on the world stage had ostensibly been replaced by conditions of such profound constancy that some high level academics were actually declaring "The End of History."

It should have been obvious to those deep-thinkers that, the human condition being what it is, any fleeting appearances of stability have always been a mirage. Far too few anticipated, back in the last years of the Twentieth Century, the enormous looming groundswell of militant Islam, and how it would eventually proliferate not only within its middle-eastern cauldron, but in every land where it could project itself. Post-Soviet Europe quickly became preoccupied with its own idealistic pursuit of a "European Union." Now, those once glowing forecasts of harmony and prosperity in Europe have been choked out by the realities of socialism, and lacking its own identity or vision for a worthy future, the cradle of Western Culture faces the prospect of eventual extinction.

Similarly, forecasts of liberalism going into permanent remission in this country are dangerously short sighted. While the debacle of Obamacare has indeed been an enormous setback for the left, its devotees have no intention of giving up the fight. Obama's non-apology of last week should serve as ample proof. Forced to engage in damage control, once his many promises that "If you like your present policy you can keep it" proved to be so many lies, he stalled and obfuscated, and eventually offered a faux "apology" for what the American people had experienced, as if he had only been a spectator the entire time.

This is indeed a momentous opportunity for conservatives to seize the moral and philosophical high ground, offer real measures by which the foul tide of liberalism can be driven back, and tirelessly confront those liberal Democrats who would stand in the way of doing so. It is most certainly not the occasion to "rise above the rancor" or "seek common ground with the left. Such efforts would only amount to throwing liberals a lifeline by which they can rebuild their facade of beneficence and salvage their prospects in next year's mid-terms.

Passivity or a half-hearted symbolic effort will rightly be perceived by the American people as typical GOP posturing. Election Day 2014 is barely eleven months in the future. Americans need to be clearly shown who is endeavoring to preserve Obamacare in all its ugliness, and who possesses sufficient character and spine to face the leftist political machine and its media minions, and prevail over them for the sake of the nation.

Lying Liberal Liars

From Family Security Matters.

Lying Liberal Liars
by DANIEL GREENFIELD


Every morning the media paws through a dictionary looking for the most innocuous ways to describe Obama's big health care lie.

According to the New York Times, Obama "misspoke" when he said over and over again that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. But unlike the times that the smartest man to ever put up his feet on the table in the Oval Office thought that Austrian was a language or that the United States had 57 states, he wasn't misspeaking.

44, as Politico likes to call him, was doing what 1 wouldn't do after he chopped down a cherry tree. And to call a lie, misspeaking, is itself a lie.

Rob Ford didn't misspeak when he claimed not to be on crack, despite being on crack. Barack Obama didn't misspeak when he promised to let you keep your health plan, when he had no intention of letting you do any such thing. And the New York Times didn't misspeak when it tried to pass that lie off as a mere slip of the tongue.

The New York Times, which never hesitated to call George W. Bush a liar, switched up its euphemisms and began calling Obama's lie an "incorrect promise". NBC News called it a "promise they couldn't keep." The Associated Press called it an "inflated promise."

A few of their more honestly dishonest colleagues in the media argued that Obama did the right thing because he could never have pried the health plans of Americans out of their grubby little hands if he hadn't promised them that his government takeover of healthcare would affect everyone else but them. Some of the pundits making that argument included those on Obama's regular reading list.

The excuse that Obama lied blatantly about the impact of a law he wanted to pass in order to pass it will no doubt be a great comfort to those gun owners who were willing to trust that his crusade against gun rights would stop where he told them it would and those Republican supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens who believed that he really would secure the borders once he got his millions of newly minted Democratic Party voters

If Obama lied to pass one law, what sensible argument can any of his supporters make for believing him the next time he promises, "If you like your guns, you can keep your guns" or "If you like your borders, you can keep your borders"?

Obama wasn't the first politician to lie. He won't be the last. But most politicians who lie don't have an army of reporters swarming around them to explain that they didn't lie, but just inflated their misspeaking. One man did not get up in front of the microphones and cameras and lie over and over again. The entire liberal establishment lied. And it's still lying.

The media's lies and excuses, even more than the original Obama lie, reveal why liberals can never be trusted.

If Obama had only lied about being on crack or with an intern, that might be an impeachable act, but an understandable human failing. But he wasn't lying to cover up something shameful that he did. He lied because he didn't think Americans deserved to keep their health plans... or the truth.

Obama lied because he is a liberal.

That Obama would lie was an inevitable as the sun rising in the morning and the taxman coming in the spring. The lie was baked into the nature of the progressive movement that he identified with and its social experiments with human lives for the greater good that he participated in.

Lying isn't incidental to a liberal. Liberal is another word for liar. Someone who believes, as Obama and his media cronies do, that Americans are too stupid and ignorant to be trusted to choose their own health care, isn't about to trust them with the truth.

Telling someone the truth shows that we respect them as people. We give them the information and then trust that they will make the right decision. Trust and respect are the key words here.

Liars don't trust and respect people. Neither do liberals.

Liberals don't believe that the people they lie to are their equals. If they did, not only wouldn't they lie to them, but they wouldn't subscribe to a skewed leftist take on liberalism that compels them to take away choices from people for their own good.

You don't take away someone's right to choose unless you think that they are inferior to you. The policies of liberalism can only be justified by assuming that the people whose lives they run into the ground are their ethical and intellectual inferiors.

If you think that the next person over can run his life just as well as you run yours, then there's no reason to take over his life and to lie to him about it. But if you think that he's probably a racist moron who worships the flag and clings to his gun and bible and can't be trusted to buy a car, raise his kids, drink a large soda and see a doctor; then you're probably a liberal.

And a liar.

That's the difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives respect people's choices. Liberals don't. And if you don't respect someone's choices, you don't respect them.

If you think that the average person is a moron, then the only answer is to set up to some ideal republic of liberal philosopher kings who will nudge the marching morons into the death panels for their own greater good while lying to them that the death panelists are really the judges for the next hot talent competition.

If ordinary people don't deserve the basic decency of being allowed to make decisions about their own health care, then they also don't deserve the basic decency of not being lied to their faces about those decisions being taken away from them.


If Obama had trusted and respected Americans, he wouldn't have lied to them about ObamaCare. But if he had really trusted and respected them, then he wouldn't have engaged in a massive government hijacking of their health care options, mandated their participation in health plans at virtual gunpoint and then rewritten the regulations to destroy as many of their grandfathered health plans as possible.

And so if Obama had really trusted and respected Americans, he wouldn't have inflicted ObamaCare on them.

The existence of ObamaCare made it inevitable that Obama would lie about it in the same way that a burglar smashing the window of a jewelery store won't hesitate to lie to the owner about what he's doing. A man who is willing to rob a store or a nation will easily and casually lie about his crime.

Obama's crime isn't the lie. The lie is the cover-up of the crime. The crime is that Obama packaged a tax, a welfare program and a government takeover of health care together and called it reform. That was the bigger lie and there was no misspeaking involved.

The media has shown that Obama's lie was no isolated incident by lying about the lie for the same reason that he told the lie. The health plan lie wasn't the lie of one politician protecting his reputation; it was the big lie of a liberal establishment protecting its agenda.


The liberal media manipulates its readers, listeners and viewers the same way that liberal governments manipulate their citizens. And they both do it because they don't believe that the ordinary person has the right to the truth or the right to his life.

The liberal media manipulates its readers, listeners and viewers the same way that liberal governments manipulate their citizens. Unlike Clinton's lie, Obama's lie was not one man's mistake, but a movement's arrogance. And not only hasn't Obama stopped lying about his lie, but the media and the rest of his movement haven't stopped lying about his lie.

Obama's big health care lie shows why liberals can't be trusted. Any movement that believes its members are superior to ordinary people cannot be trusted to represent them or to tell them the truth.

Liberalism’s War on Women

From Daniel Greenfield over at Family Security Matters.

Liberalism’s War on Women
by DANIEL GREENFIELD


As Bob Filner, San Diego's former progressive mayor, pleads guilty to charges stemming from his attacks on women, his essay, "Why I am Pro-Choice" still decorates the website of Planned Parenthood.

A year ago, Filner had appeared at a Planned Parenthood rally while running for mayor of
California's second largest city to accuse his opponent of being part of the war on women.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund had sent out a letter saying that "for twenty years, Bob Filner has defended women". At the rally, attendees were told that he had spent "the last twenty years protecting our rights and the rights of women everywhere."

But while Filner was protecting women, no one was protecting women from Filner. Filner's behavior was well known, but not commented on. The California Democratic Party maintained its red wall of silence around the son of a Communist, a Freedom Rider and member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus because he was one of their own.

Even Filner's disgrace hasn't changed that. Filner pleaded guilty to three counts and will not serve any time in prison. Instead he'll spend three months at home, receive some counseling and three years on probation.

He won't go into California's 100,000 strong sex offender database; even though if there's anyone in the entire state who belongs there, it's him. Filner probably deserves to join the 1 in 375 adults in California on that list more than Donald Honan who was only convicted of indecent exposure.

Meanwhile in Lakeland, California, a 75-year-old man was sentenced to six months in jail for groping a court reporter. If Anthony Duruh had been the progressive mayor of San Diego, he might have also gotten the Filner Justice Special and be spending his time at home with his feet up on the couch.

In the Democratic Party, as with American Express, membership has its privileges. The same liberal political establishment that protected Filner throughout his career is still covering for him.

At the Planned Parenthood rally, Filner had said, "The war on women can be done at any level. My opponent won't even fill out the Planned Parenthood questionnaire." The crowd booed and then cheered when Filner told them about winning twenty-five elections with the backing of Planned Parenthood.

Filner's opponent, a gay Republican who was for abortion, gay marriage and legalizing pot, had enrolled in the war on women by failing to fill out a questionnaire while Filner, who had molested everyone from grandmothers to sexual abuse victims, was an official protector of women because he had checked the right box on an abortion organization's questionnaire.

The war on women can be done on any level, but it so often seems to happen on the level of those most vocal about using "War on Women" rhetoric and painting themselves as the protectors of their victims.

House Democrats voted against the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act which would have cracked down on sex selection abortions that mostly target baby girls. Filner, then still a Congressman, had cast one of the 168 votes against the bill. Those voting to allow the continuing murder of baby girls to go unsanctioned were, like Filner, mostly Democrats.

Filner had a 100 score from NARAL, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, for, among other things, voting the right way on that bill. NARAL had come out against the bill because it would limit "some women's access" and "isolate and stigmatize" African American and Asian women from "exercising their fundamental human right to make and implement decisions about their reproductive lives."

The fundamental right of women had become the murder of other women. And Bob Filner had been supported and protected in his abuse of women in defense of the fundamental right to murder women.

The contraction of women's rights into the sphere of abortion produced a wealth of moral absurdities and obscenities; "Destroy the village to save the village" scenarios where the only way to protect women is to kill women and where the protector of women role could fall to a grotesque smirking Cesar Romero wannabe who made Bill Clinton look like a monk who had taken a vow of chastity.

The liberal protectors of women, like Filner, Clinton and Ted Kennedy, often seem like the exact opposite. But as long as they support abortion-all is forgiven, forgotten and drowned in the deepest waters off Martha's Vineyard.

Despite the occasional mumbled mentions of economic equality, the liberal idea of social improvement for women now consists of little more than the right to kill. That the right to kill is championed by opponents of war and the death penalty makes it all the more perverse. The only real right of women under liberalism is the right to kill their own children.

There was a net loss of 354,000 female jobs during Obama's term and the income of single mothers fell 7 percent. Obama, who opposed the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act, has not done anything meaningful for women economically. Like Bob Filner, his credentials as a general on the right side in the War on Women is his enthusiastic support for the same organization whose questionnaire Bob Filner filled out and his opponent didn't; an organization that works for the cause of death, not life.

What does the War on Women really look like?

Abortion in Sweden is legal until the eighteenth week of pregnancy. There are 20 abortions for every 1000 women and 25 abortions for every 100 pregnancies. Sweden also has the second highest rate of sexual assaults after South Africa.

From 2003 to 2008, Sweden's sexual assault rate doubled to 53 rapes per 100,000 people. The numbers are now so bad that some forecasts indicate that 1 in 4 Swedish women will be raped in their lifetimes.

Police statistics show that as much of 77% of rapes were carried out by foreign born rapists. As much as 5 percent of Sweden is now Muslim. Around the same time that Sweden's rape statistics were doubling, so was its Muslim population.

In Stockholm, six Muslim teenagers who raped a 15-year-old Swedish girl were given 100 hours of community service. One of the rapists described himself as a "proud Muslim" and was no doubt aware of the rather forgiving attitude of his religion toward the rape of non-Muslim women and girls.

But this real war on women can't be discussed because of its leftist perpetrators who fill a country with rapists and then offer their victims easy access to abortion.

Around the same time that Filner was making his preparations to run for mayor, Imperial County, the area bordering Mexico with a heavily Mexican population that had been added to his district, saw an increase in rapes. But most rapes there went unreported. In 2008, rapes in San Diego had increased 34 percent. Between 2000 and 2010, the number of Latinos in San Diego had increased by 21%. Filner had been the chief beneficiary of that demographic shift which allowed him to become the first Democratic mayor of San Diego in a generation.

Since 2000, Filner had run in a majority Latino district scoring decisive victories. During the mayoral race, Filner supporters had dubbed him "Roberto Filner" and chanted "Bob, si puedas"; a version of Obama's "Yes we can". And Filner had boasted that the Latino vote would be his margin of victory in the election. While Filner's lead was not that tremendous among Latinos, it was more than double among foreign-born voters.

Filner had co-sponsored an amnesty bill back in 2007. He had opposed building a border fence and at an interfaith ceremony, had called amnesty a "holy cause". And illegal alien activists returned the favor. Enrique Morones of Border Angels took the lead in defending Filner even long after the facts were in.

"Environmentalists, educators, women's rights, gays, civil rights, labor, human rights, unions, neighborhoods, immigration and many more -- we stand united," Morones had said at a pro-Filner rally.

The entire pyramid of liberal identity politics was trotted out in defense of a serial predator.

Meanwhile rape cases in California had increased by 7 percent

"I've been in the forefront of the great social issues of our time--civil rights, anti-war, labor, the environment, women's rights," Filner had said while running for office "I've been there with you and for you, and will continue to be there."

And that is exactly the problem.

Bob Filner wasn't just guilty of a one man war on women. Like so many liberal politicians, he had championed policies that led to sexual assaults on a much larger scale than any individual could be capable of. And he did it all while winning the female voters and posturing as a protector of women.

The left won the war on women in Sweden. It is winning the war on women in California.

Why Don't Conservatives In America Take On the Liberals?

The story comes from Family Security Matters.

Stop Being Afraid and Intimidated By Liberals & Islamic Terrorist Supporters

Conservatives are afraid of liberals and this hurts our country.

In Afghanistan and Iraq our country has lost over 3000 troops. While serving in Iraq at the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003) I had the opportunity to serve with young men and women who were willing to give their lives for America. Never once did I witness American troops run from the enemy, nor did they hide who they are and what they stood for. They supported one another.

Why then do I witness on a continuous basis an overwhelming number of Conservative Patriots who appear fearful of confronting the enemy inside America? Regardless of what the main stream media (MSM) may say, there is an internal war going on in America. Liberals and Conservatives are in an invisible fight against one another. I predict there will come a time in the near future when there are more physical confrontations between the two groups. While growing up and only until a few short years ago I could not imagine how American brothers, fathers, and friends could ever fight against one another during the ‘Civil War'. Weren't they all just Americans? Yet they did. I can now see how this came about and will likely come about again.

In 2003, after I left Iraq I predicted (based on my experiences with the Sunni and Shia people) there would be a civil war inside Iraq. It happened and thousands of peaceful (sarcasm) Muslims are killing each other in a civil war. Ramadan is supposed to be a peaceful time for Muslims worldwide; the only thing is Muslims themselves don't even believe this fallacy. Do you want to know how many Muslims have killed one another during the last period of Ramadan? Hundreds and hundreds, but we will never know because what is happening in Iraq, Egypt, Palestine is not a media issue right now. The top news is a Princess in England having a baby.

Essentially it comes down to this. Liberals believe Conservatives are overbearing people who care only for their God, Guns, and an overrated American way of life. Conservatives believe Liberals are ant-American, Socialist lovers, and supporters of the Islamic terror groups who desire the total destruction of America.

I believe readers have no doubt which group I fall into. I am a Conservative Patriotic American who loves our country and truly feel Liberals are a group of hypocritical, whining snobs, who support the very ideology (Islam) that is not only killing our young men and women, but killing thousands worldwide in the name of Islam. When I say Liberals are hypocrites I will use this analogy. The Supreme leader of the liberals is Dictator Obama. He and his liberal supporters across America pretend to love our American troops, and in no way blame them for a war against Islamic based countries. In reality the liberals hate U.S. military men and women just as they did during the Vietnam war. The only difference is they know if they were to openly call our troops baby killers and haters as they did during the Vietnam war and afterwards, the wrath of conservative Patriotic Americans would make their spineless lives hell. Don't for a minute think liberals care about troops. If they did how can they in turn support Islam and Sharia law? The very ideology that has killed and will continue to kill them.

What surprises me most of all in America is that Conservatives are actually more fearful of Liberals than the other way around. Why do many Conservative bloggers, writers, and organizational leaders use false names in their writings, or even when giving public speeches. They are so afraid of liberals that they change their God given names so liberals will not know who they are. I have even had some conservative patriots who call me, but are afraid to stay on the line too long in case anyone is listening! Listening to what I ask! There is nothing that I write or say that I would not swear to in any court. Stop being afraid to speak your mind about various issues!

Our troops overseas do not run from the enemy and we can't do so inside America. You should be proud of who you are. Conservatives are the last line of defense in saving this country. Do not hide behind false identities and be fearful of speaking out. You should not feel ashamed of caring for this beautiful country. Never, never should you run from the enemy. Be proud of who you are and use the names your parents gave you at birth.

Do not be afraid to stand up and support your fellow conservatives. The liberals came out from all corners of America to protest the verdict of George Zimmerman. How many conservatives came out to protest against the socialist liberals? Very few. Why is this?

I give credit to liberals in one way. They do support one another. They have no problem coming out in the hundreds of thousands to protest an alleged misdeed by their conservative enemies. The liberal journalist uses their power of the media to get their concerns out. Conservatives do not do this, or if they do, they do it poorly.

I will use my fight with Islamic terrorists and their supporters (CAIR National/Muslim Brotherhood) as an example. For four years my son and I have been in a battle with the terror supporting heads of CAIR. I had put together a great team of researchers who risked their lives to go inside CAIR National. They obtained great evidence which should have put CAIR out of business. I directed my team to conduct the research in a legal, ethical, and unbiased manner. Did Fox News (our supposed saviors and fighters for conservative Americans) come out in full support? No...they didn't come out at all. Instead Bill O'Reilly brought Dougie Ibrahim Hooper (PR Spokesperson for CAIR National/Muslim Brotherhood HQ) into his office for an interview. O'Reilly sucked up to Hooper and CAIR. Not one document from our book was ever presented to Hooper, by O'Reilly. CAIR had already sworn in federal court all documents we had obtained were original and true (even documents which proved criminal activity and support of Islamic terror groups as Al Qaeda and Hamas). This would have been a great time for O'Reilly to help shutdown a terrorist organization in America. He failed to do so, instead he called Hooper a great Patriotic American. Sad. Fox News has not supported my team and I because Saudi Arabia gives them millions, and I can't.

Then we have conservative politicians who initially came out in a group of four or so to support the work we did inside CAIR National. This lasted only as long as it took CAIR and their liberal supporters to demonize my team and I just as liberals did with Zimmerman. Then conservative politicians began hiding in their safe offices away from the scary liberals. Did they really expect CAIR and their liberal goons not to come out in full force against me? The truth means little to groups such as CAIR, yet most conservative politicians run and hide from them when they start throwing their ring of lies.

The main lesson I have personally learned from exposing the illegal, immoral, and unethical activities of liberals and Islamic terror supporting groups is that few conservative Americans will come out to support you when the heat is on. It is safer for them to stay in the background than to incur the wrath of liberals. There have been a few patriots who have openly came out to support the work involved in ‘Muslim Mafia', and I thank them. George Zimmerman had said it best. He was trying to protect his community and its people, and unfortunately he ended up having to kill another human in order to save his own life. He expected the media, law enforcement, politicians, and citizens to stand up for him. They failed him. The very people who could have came out initially and stand up for him went into hiding when the wrath of whining liberals began. They have only began to come out of their hiding places once it was fairly safe when they had the side of a ‘not guilty verdict' on their side.

If you want to save our country from the oncoming onslaught of liberals, Islamic terror groups, and their supporters, you must not be ashamed of who you are and what you are fighting for. We are Patriotic Americans and we are in the fight for the life of our beautiful country. She is gasping for air because she is being strangled by liberal thinking and anti-American values. She can't hold out much longer. Save her while you can and be proud to do so.

The Low-Information Voter’s Guide to Politics

By Findalis

by Oleg Atbashian

Are you typically lost when co-workers discuss current events around the water cooler? Do you have trouble figuring out the national debt or who that Ben Ghazi dude is, but you know what’s on Kim Kardashian’s grocery list?

If you think you only deserve fun answers to all life’s questions … you’re right! This primer will help you look smart and morally superior in any political discussion. Just memorize these big words, explained in easy terms you already know from TMZ and The Daily Show:

BIASED: If you have a weird friend who goes to church and her parents are still married, that’s what they are.

ELECTIONS: These are like the Teen Choice Awards: the coolest and most popular wins. Democrats always win because they are cool and popular. Republicans are more like your weird friend’s parents.

DEBT CEILING: This is like Lindsay Lohan’s probation: by law, she should go to jail if she gets arrested, but we all know she won’t.

PUBLIC EDUCATION. Think Memento. Remember how the guy in the movie learned to go through life and fight enemies by relying on snapshots, notes, and tattoos? Public education does that on a national level as a free service.

IM-MI-GRA-TION: Whew, that’s a long word — just like that velvet rope outside nightclubs. When really fun people arrive, you just open it right up.

QUAN-TI-TA-TIVE EASING: Remember Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can, and how he printed his own checks? Well, that’s what the Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, does. It’s really cool.

TRILLION DOLLARS: This is a silly number. If someone says: “The U.S. national debt has topped 16 trillion,” take it easy. Remember how Jeffrey Dahmer was sentenced to fifteen life terms while having only one life?

Once you owe more than you can pay, numbers stop making sense. Anything above that is free money; spend it fast so you can get more.

ECONOMIC STIMULUS: It’s like Whitney Houston upping her dosage to get the same high, always needing to use more and more to “chase the dragon.”

SE-QUE-STRA-TION: This is just a made-up word that Republicans say to make you feel stupid.

FAIR SHARE: Someone you know has three Louis Vuitton handbags and you only have one. As many as you can get somebody else to steal from them and give to you — that is your fair share.

ENTITLEMENTS: This is like celebrities getting a $30,000 bag of goodies for showing up to the Oscars, so that the givers get more street cred and respect. And votes.

FOREIGN POLICY: Think Lady Gaga’s world tour: it’s totally awesome but can also get weird — like, she’s hot in places like Europe and Japan, but gets booed and canceled in places like Indonesia.

IRAN: Think Robert Downey Jr. — he may be calm at the moment, but if he gets his hands on the wrong stuff, he could trash his neighbor’s house and pass out naked on the lawn.

MUSLIMS: These are like the blue people from the movie Avatar — they live in a magic tree and don’t need human technology or any of our laws like gravitation, because they have a miraculous energy source inside their planet. Humans must respect that, and send them humanitarian aid. But instead, an evil corporation from Earth brings drilling equipment; that’s why all humans get killed.

ISRAEL: This is like the evil corporation from Avatar that landed on the blue people’s planet.

OIL: Think magic energy source on planet Pandora that humans want to steal. Get over it, humans!

OCCUPY WALL STREET: People in this movement are fighting greed by forcing Michael Douglas’ character in Wall Street to give more money to the 99% of people like us. We need to support their stand against corporations by friending them on Facebook™ and re-Tweeting them on Twitter™.

MEDIA: The good media are like paparazzi and E! Entertainment who keep it real by telling us all the truth about interesting people. The bad media are like bullies who make good people look bad. Nobody listens to them except for your friend’s weird parents.

HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES: These do not contain expensive perfume samples that you can rip out while waiting at your hair salon. See GUN CONTROL.

GUN CONTROL: If Naomi Campbell had a gun, she would be shooting at her maids all the time. Without a gun she just beats them with a cell phone and then gives them compensation. Everyone is alive and happy. As long as the government keeps guns away from the citizens, Rihanna and Chris Brown will always be together.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Think Brad Pitt, dashing A-lister who can’t do anything wrong.

FIRST LADY: She is like Kim Kardashian, only with other people’s money.

VICE PRESIDENT: Think Steve Carell, a lovable nincompoop who likes to make others laugh.

WHITE HOUSE: This is like Cribs, a really fancy pad where celebrities hang out and party instead of working.

MIDDLE CLASS: These are like the extras in movies — kind of important but nobody cares who they really are.

CON-STI-TU-TION: It sounds almost like Cosmopolitan, except it’s really old and has no make-up ads or sexy pictures, but some people are really into it, like Antiques Roadshow.

Liberals vs. Conservatives: When Can We Kill Our Neighbor?

An outstanding article from over at American Thinker that poses the stark reality of differences between Liberals and Conservatives in America.

Libs won't like this one.  Tough shit.

When can we Kill our Neighbor?


The current fight for the soul of America is so very intense because for the first time since the Civil War some of the issues dividing Americans are truly about life and death.

The deepest point in the chasm that separates liberals and conservatives today is defined by each group's beliefs on when it's okay to kill your neighbor.

Your neighbor is, as Jesus said, everyone. America has always hewed to the Christian belief that we can only kill our neighbor in self-defense. Liberals believe that they can kill those who burden them.

Liberals believe that it's okay to cause their mom to die of thirst if she's confused and a burden to them. Conservatives believe that we have a debt to our mother and that executing her to avoid our responsibilities is wrong.

Liberals believe that killing their daughter is okay so long as she's young enough. Conservatives believe that killing our children is always wrong.

Liberals believe it's wrong to kill terrorists without a trial while conservatives don't believe that everyone who is trying to commit mass murder should be allowed to continue until their public defender loses in court.

Liberals believe it's wrong to even try to kill terrorists if they surround themselves with human shields while conservatives believe that you can't let evil run amok at any cost.

The liberal philosophy would seem to be straightforward:; it's okay to kill your neighbor if they are a burden to you. But the reality is much more complex, and more sinister.

Americans believe in the rule of law not the rule of men; all men are subject to the same law irrespective of their wealth or power. The reality is that those with power have always been given more leeway than the average Joe or Jane but that reality did not change the ideal that most Americans endorsed.

Liberals however have clearly taken a stand in defense of the rule of men; different laws for different people.

Mild versions of that were seen when liberals declared that perjury wasn't that big a deal so long as the perpetrator was one of their own -- Bill Clinton -- and in the concept of hate crimes where a black killing a white is not as serious as a white killing a black. Conservatives believe that murder is murder irrespective of who the killer or victim happens to be.

Liberals love for the rule of men can be seen in cases involving self-defense. Compare how liberals treated George Zimmerman and Carl Rowan. Most people are unfamiliar with the Rowan case because of the liberal rule of men.

Rowan was a very liberal columnist for the Washington Post. He fervently advocated gun control and went so far as to advocate"a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail-period.".

Yet on the night of June 14, 1988 Rowan used an unlicensed handgun to shoot an unarmed teenager who was trespassing in Rowan's backyard.

Liberals attacked Zimmerman because they thought he was white based on his name -- hence the frantic discovery of the new White-Hispanic race when liberals learned that Zimmerman was Hispanic -- even though the evidence indicated that Zimmerman was, in fear for his life. Liberals initiated no crusade against Rowan because Rowan was a liberal. Liberals believe a liberal with an illegal gun shooting an assailant is okay but a conservative with a legal gun shooting an assailant is not; according to liberals right and wrong depend on who you are.

Compare how liberals treat the use of drone strikes by Obama to drone strikes by Bush; silence vs. frantic protests. It is apparently okay for liberals to kill terrorists but illegal and immoral for conservatives to do so.Once again the rule of men rather than the rule of law on a matter of life and death.

Liberals often condemn conservatives as being "uncaring" because conservatives don't believe that the government should pay everyone's medical bills.

But it's liberals who believe that killing people to save money is a perfectly reasonable philosophy. Liberals advocate aborting the differently abled in order to avoid the expense of caring for them. Liberals tell the elderly to die rather than cost America money for their health care. Liberals encourage the sick, or even just the depressed, to kill themselves to avoid burdening others.

The lliberal utilitarian approach to deciding who lives and who dies is extremely frightening in light of liberal views on how health care should be run in America.

Liberals believe in the government being in charge of all medical care, and ObamaCare is a major step in that direction. Liberals also believe that the government, which in their mind is run by liberals, is empowered to decide who should live or die based on economic considerations -- the death panels. To see how deeply the liberal double standard is compare how liberals treat people with lung cancer due to the lifestyle choice of smoking compared to how liberals treat people with AIDS due to the lifestyle choice of homosexual promiscuity. While disproportionate amounts of money are constantly directed towards AIDS little is done to help smokers survive.

Liberals adhere to a dual track system of morality to define when killing one's neighbor is acceptable in foreign affairs. Let Hamas fire a missile at a school bus full of Israeli children and nothing is said except to bemoan the occupation of Palestine by Jews. But when Israel retaliates and accidentally kills civilians, civilians amid whom the terrorists purposely hide, liberals cry to the high heavens.

To summarize; conservatives believe that we can kill our neighbors only when our neighbors are trying to kill us, while liberals believe that they, and in some cases like self defense only they, can kill their neighbors whenever those neighbors become a burden to them.

The fight for America's future then is between "compassionate" liberals who believe they have the right to kill people who "burden" them and "hard hearted" conservatives who believe that all human life is sacred and can only be taken to protect one's own life.

Because all aspects of a society reflect how society treats the least among us, the two possible future Americas are drastically different. In the liberal future the value of a person's life is measured by her utility or political power while in the conservative future everyone has, as the Declaration of Independence says, a right to life.

Without an inalienable right to life no one has any rights. If we can be killed because we are "burdens" then what rights do we have that cannot be cast aside for the "right" reason?

While in the past the stakes were what sort of life we would live as Americans, our current fight is about who will live and who will die. Conservatives can either defend the most defenseless or we can sit back and watch liberals remold America into a centrally controlled state where everyone is judged based on their utility to the liberal establishment and their political power.

Minnesota State Government Shutdown Last Summer Saved Minnesota Taxpayers $5 Million!

Okay, I am going to give you all a lesson in media bias here...not that you need ANOTHER one but this one is pretty funny. The crux of this concerns the government shutdown that occurred in the state of Minnesota last summer when the Republican controlled state legislature refused to raise taxes on the people to address state budget deficits and the liberal state Governor vetoed any legislation that did NOT raise taxes. The Democrats in Minnesota positioned the state government shutdown as the apocolypse...that the state would never recover from the huge losses of shutting down the nanny state.

Well, from the article at TwinCities.com, look at what actually the net result was of the government shutdown:

Minnesota budget officials said today that a 20-day government shutdown in July cost the state nearly $60 million but saved it about $65 million in salaries that weren't paid to state employees.

In a report released today, the Minnesota Management and Budget department said the state lost almost $50 million in revenue and spent about $7 million preparing for the shutdown and $3 million in recovery costs. Those cost estimates could rise, it said.

But that was more than offset by savings in payroll costs for about 19,000 state employees laid off during the shutdown.

So there you have it. Cold hard facts that the state government shutdown actually SAVED the Minnesota taxpayers $5 million dollars!

So, how did the media present the potential cost of the government shutdown back in July? Let's take a look at some of the headlines from various Leftist media back in July scaring the people of Minnesota, threatening a huge cost to everyone because the damn Republicans were holding their ground:

Minneapolis Star and Tribune: " Shutdown cost will bring sticker shock"

MyFox9: "Minnesota Government Shutdown Costs Taxpayers Millions"

Kare11: "Analyst warns about 'great costs' of gov't shutdown"

Hell, look at the headline from the article above from TwinCities.com that actually proves that the shutdown saved the taxpayers money:

"Officials: Minnesota government shutdown cost nearly $60 million"

So, let's just say that I'm a lazy voter in the state of Minnesota and I'm an even lazier news reader....I run across the headline above and don't read the article....I'm going to have a negative view of the shutdown right? Once again, the media carries the water for the liberals - once again the American people (in this case, the people of Minnesota) get lies and distortion in their news.

Here's the end run of the government shutdown in Minnesota last summer. The liberal Governor, Mark Dayton, bet his entire political capital that the government shutdown would cause a catastrophe for the people and cost the state huge dollars - and next year, he could use that fodder to catapult Democrats back into control of the state legislature. His bet was a bad one. The shutdown had little effect unless you were one of the unionized state workers and in the end, the shutdown SAVED the taxpayers money.

So, when the 2012 elections come around, how do you think the media will portray the Governor's tactics of using the state shutdown as a political ploy?

Officials: Minnesota government shutdown cost nearly $60 million


Minnesota budget officials said today that a 20-day government shutdown in July cost the state nearly $60 million but saved it about $65 million in salaries that weren't paid to state employees.

In a report released today, the Minnesota Management and Budget department said the state lost almost $50 million in revenue and spent about $7 million preparing for the shutdown and $3 million in recovery costs. Those cost estimates could rise, it said.

But that was more than offset by savings in payroll costs for about 19,000 state employees laid off during the shutdown.

The report did not include lost productivity and other, unspecified "indirect impacts." The shutdown angered and inconvenienced many Minnesotans, delaying road construction projects, shutting down state parks and the lottery and cutting off the flow of alcohol to some bars.

Budget Commissioner Jim Schowalter said that except for those state employees, the shutdown was essentially a wash because a court-appointed master ordered that many programs were essential and had to be funded during the shutdown. State spending continued at an 80 percent clip.

"The broad economic impact didn't really occur," Schowalter said. "The biggest story was the human impact, and the impact on the state's reputation."

The shutdown came after Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton and GOP legislative majorities couldn't agree on how to close a $5 billion budget shortfall.

THIS Is What Is Wrong With America

Here's what is wrong with America....


Every single dumbass Liberal in this country that is disappointed by someone in their life, brings a lawsuit against the person who disappointed them. And when that same Liberal gets their wittle feelings willy hurt, then they run to their city council member or their county commissioner or their state legislator or their Congressman to have a new law drafted so no one will ever get hurt like they did.


And THAT is what is wrong with this country.

In a nutshell.


P.S. Grow the Hell up.

What Happens When Progressives Don't Get Their Way?

If there is one thing that the drama in Madison, Wisconsin has shown the entire country and actually, the whole world, is this - that American Progressives, when they do not get their way turn to the most natural reaction there is to them...tantrums. Look at the actions of the Wisconsin state senators who fled the state and tell me that is not the reaction you would expect from seven year old children.

This article at Family Security Matters details all of the bad behavior by the country's Left - from threats of government shutdown to threats of killing members of the GOP. Let's put it this way, when a Democrat Congresswoman gets shot, the Left implores all of us on the Right to curtail our rhetoric and vitriol, but when a bill passes in Wisconsin that the Left doesn't agree with, it's okay for them to threaten the lives of the GOP politicians in that state.

Look at this from the article:

WEAU-TV, NBC’s affiliate in Eau Claire, WI, has published an email attained by Wisconsin radio station Newsradio 620 WTMJ-AM. I am leaving the spelling and grammatical errors in the email as they presented:

“Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

“WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records.

“We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!”

It would seem that whoever wrote this letter – along with “the group of people” that are working with the individual – didn’t hear or didn’t understand Pres. Obama’s Arizona speech, you know, the one where he said we needed civility in our political discourse.

I ask you, where is the speech from President Obama calling for calm in the wake of the Wisconsin vote? Where is the unity of Democrat leadership hitting the airwaves for the people of the Left to rein in their harsh words and threats? Why hasn't anyone on the Left lamblasted Michael Moore for calling all of this a war?

I think we have all seen parents who are at the end of their rope in dealing with unruly children - I'm not talking about the scenario where the kids act up all night at dinner...no, I'm talking about parents who deal with it every day and have tried everything from time outs to banishment to a room to counseling and yet the kids still are out of control. Well, that is what it is like to live in America as a conservative right now. We live next door to, we work in the next cubicle to and we share the freeways with spoiled bratty children of the Left who unfortunately wear suits, own businesses and worse than anything, vote.

The outlook in America is not good because the Left is in store for many, many letdowns in the next several years. Wisconsin has been just the first appetizer. And I make this prediction - there will be significant violence before this is all done and said. Did you actually think America wasn't infested with the same Progressives that Greece is?

Government Shutdowns and Death Threats...Bring It On


Maybe you’ve heard this one. What do you get when fourteen Democrat Senators go AWOL from their jobs in Wisconsin? You get fiscal responsibility, the tools to balance an out-of-control budget and a boatload of evidence that the Progressive Left is prone to violence and thuggery over process. Thank you very much and goodnight. Be sure to tip your waiters, waitresses and bartenders on the way out. You’ve been great.

Seriously, does anyone else find it abhorrently hypocritical for Progressives and Democrats to proclaim an abdication of process in the Republican’s out-maneuvering of them on the issue of limiting – not eliminating – collective bargaining rights for public-sector union employees, especially when their own national leadership just jammed Obamacare down our throats? Wasn’t “deem-and-pass” an abdication of “the process?” Weren’t behind closed door meetings used to craft Obamacare; meetings where Republicans were excluded in total, an abdication of “the process?” Wasn’t the democratic “process” abandoned when lawmakers were given a 2,700 page piece of legislation and less than 72 hours to absorb its content?

Spare me the tears about “abandoning the process”...and if you’re a Wisconsin Democrat and a State Senator, dry your eyes in Illinois. Elections, as the Obama Democrats have espoused, have consequences. Remember Mr. Obama’s “I won” and “You can ride with us if you want, but you’ve got to sit in the backseat” comments?

One thing that is abundantly clear through the recent Progressive onslaught in government is this: If Progressives don’t get their way, if they aren’t allowed special privilege in the process, if their cronies and benefactors aren’t positioned to get rich off of the taxpayers so they can fill their political coffers, they cry about “the process”; the “evil that has befallen the democratic process.” They can disenfranchise their minority constituents, usurp and waive established rules in governmental chambers and falsely demonize anyone who doesn’t tow their line of thinking and that’s just politics; their version of the “democratic process.” But confront them with the US Constitution – or a state constitution, for that matter – and hold them to the rules as they are established; demand that they take their elected seats and honestly debate the issues, and we get the waa-waa-waa that is Harry Reid bemoaning a threat to a Nevada cowboy poetry jamboree, Nancy Pelosi tearfully recalling “the violence” in 1970s San Francisco and now, death threats for Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin for their audacity to hold true to their campaign promises of executing fiscal responsibility in a bankrupt state.

WEAU-TV, NBC’s affiliate in Eau Claire, WI, has published an email attained by Wisconsin radio station Newsradio 620 WTMJ-AM. I am leaving the spelling and grammatical errors in the email as they presented:

“Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die.

“WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records.

“We have all planned to assult you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked everything to go aganist what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with God as soon as possible and say goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!”

It would seem that whoever wrote this letter – along with “the group of people” that are working with the individual – didn’t hear or didn’t understand Pres. Obama’s Arizona speech, you know, the one where he said we needed civility in our political discourse.

And as Progressive and union activists, unwashed and belligerent as they are, continue to trash the Wisconsin State Capitol Building, even as Wisconsin State Troopers remove them from the grounds so that the people elected to office by the whole of the Wisconsin electorate can do their jobs, Progressive Democrats in Washington DC are threatening to “shut the government down.” Oh, they are doing everything in their power to blame it on the Republicans in Congress, but, once again, all the congressional Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians are doing is being faithful to the voters in the last election – the whole of the voters in the last election – who demanded fiscal responsibility so that we, as a nation, don’t leave the next generation destitute...broke...bankrupt.

It has been reported that the “government shutdown” being threatened by congressional Democrats isn’t really a complete shutdown. The Associated Press reported that:

Social Security checks would still go out. Troops would remain at their posts. Furloughed federal workers probably would get paid, though not until later. And virtually every essential government agency, like the FBI, the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard, would remain open.

The key word here is “essential.” As envisioned by our Framers, the federal government was only supposed to be about “essential services.” It wasn’t supposed to be about an out-of-control, all-encompassing bureaucracy encroaching into every avenue of our lives. For that matter, state government wasn’t meant to exist at a level that caused any undo financial hardship on the populace but for the “essential services.” The dream of America – or the American Dream (and no, not Van Jones’ Progressive “American Dream”) – was about opportunity and equal justice – not social justice – for all. When government hinders those constitutionally guaranteed rights, government has crossed the line; become too big, too powerful.

I for one welcome a “shutdown” of the federal government. I know this sounds anarchic, but hear me out.

First, if the government is “shutdown,” as it were, spending would be dramatically decreased; at least excessive spending would be decreased.

But more importantly – and understanding that the “essential services” would continue to function – it would seem to me that, should one of the GAO bean-counters chronicle which services were mandated as non-essential, we would have a workable blueprint from which to make budget cuts and downsize federal government. Yes, it would have to be tweaked but if all of the “essential services” were still to be running, and American government by definition was designed to be limited to “essential services,” well...

There is one more thing to note about the inanity of the Progressive Left, their bullying tactics and their propaganda. Do you recall all of the fear-mongering that the Progressive Left stoked-up about the Tea Party, you know, the “gun-toting,” “militia,” “domestic terrorist,” “prone to violence” rhetoric? If they truly believed that, if it were really true, would they be levying death threats to a group they believed to be so violent and so well armed? Doubtful.

Truth be told – and history bears this out as fact, Marxists, the parent ideology of the Progressive Movement, have always advanced their cause through violence in the end. Germany. Russia. Wisconsin. Look it up.

Liberals Ridicule the Constitution "Fetish" of Conservatives

This really is an excellent article written by Andrew McCarthy - a satirical look at how Liberal heads are exploding regarding the Right's adherence to the U.S. Constitution - the article comes to us from Family Security Matters.

I don't mean to try and interpret the article for McCarthy so I have excerpted it in its entirety below but I do want to add this. To figure out the Left in America you must see them through their eyes. The Left in America simply wants a revolution in this country that installs a system which, quite literally, goes way beyond the bounds of the Constitution. Thus, we have seen time and time again where the Left uses the Constitution if it supports their movement and they readily discard it as "old and outdated" when it stands in the way of their movement. McCarthy goes into just how the Left has tried to move the validity of the Constitution to the "interpretive" powers of the Supreme Court - in other words, in the minds of self-serving Progressives, a Supreme Court's ruling trumps the Constitution.

I have equated the Left in America to children before and it fits here again. A child has a set bedtime which they will grudgingly abide by until there's something really good on television ....when that happens, it's katie bar the door time as the child will whine, beg and throw a tantrum in order to break the bedtime rule "just this once." This is what the grownups in America have to deal with from the Left.

Let me give you one more example. In a speech by Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. at a town hall style meeting in Chicago, Jackson stated that, and I am paraphrasing here, the conservatives feel they have the right to bear arms, constitutionally, and so the Left should have the right to healthcare. What Jackson doesn't seem to get or wants to omit from his speech here is that the right to bear arms IS a constitutional right and the right to healthcare IS NOT. It's that simple Congressman Jackson. Deal with it. But as a good Leftist, Jackson is trying to fit the Constitution to his needs.

Here's the clip of Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s talk:




Anyway, I have strayed from McCarthy's excellent piece so go ahead and read it below - he makes some wonderful observations that show just exactly the intent of the Left in America and if we let these Leftists continue to forge ahead with their goals, the U.S. Constitution won't be worth the parchment it is written on.

The 'Constitution Fetish'


Progressives are hot for Wickard v. Filburn, not the Constitution.

Is there anything richer than a gaggle of smarmy progressives snickering at the conservative “Constitution fetish”? “Fetish” is the fashionable Left’s latest suggestive imagery turned talking point, a dig at the new Republican majority in the House, which began its session this week by reading the Constitution aloud. It’s as if Dracula were complaining about a crucifix fetish.

“Fetish,” like “tea-bagger,” slides easily off the tongues of the Big Thinkers who get their dithering law from Dalia Lithwick and their sophomoric style from Bill Maher. If there is no Obama to send a thrill up their legs, it takes an organic Constitution throbbing with active liberty to ring their chimes. The lifeless one read from the podium Thursday — which must have been, like, a hundred years old or something — leaves them limp.

If you really want to see what irrational arousal is like, though, get thee to the nearest faculty lounge or MSNBC set and hum a few bars of the Warren Court’s greatest hits. Like a hand reaching through the epistemological fog, you’d think Harry Blackmun’s impenetrable prose had been touched by Aphrodite herself. Sure, your average fetish-fixated tea-bagger may be satisfied by such humdrum fare as laying taxes, disciplining the Militia, and punishments cruel and unusual. But it took Blackmun’s exotic penumbras, the “Hippocratic Oath’s apparent rigidity,” and a touch of in utero “quickening” before the siren trio of Kennedy, O’Connor, and Souter were up to seducing New York Times editors and one-note feminists with their hypnotic “Sweet Mystery of Life.”

Explaining (sort of) why Blackmun’s iconic Roe v. Wade decision simply had to be preserved despite its void of support in law and logic, they wrote: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” You’re telling me you think James Madison could compete with that?

“Existence” and “the universe” — we have czars for those now, right? There are no czars in that stale old Constitution Republicans were reading. There’s also no health care, no TARP, no General Motors, no AIG; no Departments of Justice, Labor, Health, Human Services, Energy, Education, Agriculture, Urban Development, or Transportation; no FCC, FTC, SEC, ICC, FDIC, FAA, FHA, or FEMA; no Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Adjustment Office, Economic Development Administration, Economic Research Service, or Economics and Statistics Administration; no Community Oriented Policing Services; no Bureaus of Public Debt, Reclamation, Transportation Statistics, International Labor, or Immigration Services; no Administrations for Children and Families, Native Americans, International Development, Battle Monuments, Toxic Substances and Disease — not even an Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Coordinating Committee or a Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (I kid you not).

Now we’re talking limited government, Obama-style. No wonder the government has to keep borrowing — how could we conceivably cut when existence needs regulating throughout the universe? Let Republicans have their precious Constitution, a relic written in ancient times by a white oppressor class. The Left’s got a real fetish: the rewritten Constitution, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

And would that it were just a fetish. In 2005, the justices sparked public outrage by ruling that government kleptocrats could seize private property in order to increase the tax haul — er, I mean, for sustainable community development. Was this really an appropriate invocation of eminent domain? Shouldn’t the people’s representatives rein in this blatant judicial overreach? Once and future minority leader Nancy Pelosi was astonished at such impertinent questions. “It is a decision of the Supreme Court,” she harrumphed. “It is almost as if God has spoken.”

For the progressive, everything evolves except their cherished, lawless Supreme Court precedents. The GOP fetishists will just have to deal with the reality that what the Constitution meant yesterday and still says today will be gnarled into something very different tomorrow. That’s how it goes with the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” When progress is marked by the art of Chris Ofili, gangsta rap, and the statesmanship of Al Franken, should we really be surprised when, say, “nor shall any state . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” somehow becomes a license for preferences based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or whatever bloc the divide-and-conquer Left decides needs cuddling?

The Constitution can be twisted to mean whatever progressives want it to mean. But once the twisting is done, progress grinds to a halt. At that point, the result is set in stone, forever — as if God had spoken (the only reference to God you’re apt to hear). If the rickety foundation of Roe collapses under its own illogic, the sweet mystery of life will save it until enough new justices pass a “litmus test” that makes it unreviewable. If Congress tries to reverse Miranda, a Democratic administration will refuse to defend the statute in court — even if it means a confessed bank robber gets to keep robbing banks. And don’t even think about touching a comma of Wickard v. Filburn. That’s the 1942 ruling that turned the Commerce Clause into a green light for government to control everything from noxious and exotic weeds to your relationship with your doctor (unless you want an abortion — Roe’s still got you covered on that one).

“Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt.” So pronounced the Casey court when it was clear that nothing short of sheer willfulness could save Roe’s invented right to abortion. Maybe if Democrats turn the tables in 2012, we’ll hear Debbie Wasserman Schultz read Casey to start the next Congress. What does the passage mean? Whatever the Left needs it to mean.

Now that’s a fetish.